Politicians, policy-makers, and pundits be warned! There’s a new player in town, a hot-off-the-presses pressure group with plans to make its views known, forge alliances with like-minded factions, and endorse candidates.

It’s Vermont’s archeologists.

Both of them.

Okay, maybe all 40 of them, splitting down the middle the “about 30-to-50” estimate of Jeremy Ripin, one of two co-chairs of the newly-formed Vermont Professional Archaeologists’ Association.

But don’t dismiss them too easily. They have potential allies among historic preservationists, environmentalists, and the Abenaki. They are likely to have a goodly chunk of the general public on their side, possibly even a majority. There is, after all, something close to a consensus that historical preservation, including archeological protection, is good for business.

Then, too, these archeologists are really motivated.

There’s nothing all that new in the events motivating them. In fact, they have been dealt with here, most recently on July 31, and not much has changed since then, at least not in public.

Let’s try to explain what’s going on here, at the risk of some inevitable over-simplification, inevitable because we have to deal with intertwining laws and regulations, not to mention the powers and responsibilities of several obscure state agencies (the Natural Resources Board, not to be confused with the Agency thereof; the Department of Historic Preservation [part of another agency altogether]; the State Archeologist; the Historic Preservation Officer; the District Environmental Commissions, and more).

Gov. Jim Douglas’s administration wants to change the administrative rules under Act 250 that determine whether a chunk of Vermont which somebody wants to develop first has to get checked out to see if some ancient artifacts might lie beneath it.

According to the archeologists and their supporters, the changes would make it less likely that historic and pre-historic sites would be discovered and protected. As a result, they say, Vermont would be the poorer. So would they.

In fact, the leaders of the new association are refreshingly candid about having some self-interest in this controversy, not that there’s anything unusual about a pressure group looking after its own, or any necessary contradiction between looking after one’s own and promoting policies in the public interest.

“We’re the professional archeologists,” Ripin said, “We do the excavating and looking for sites. This ‘no new sites’ policy could mean the loss of 30 to 40 jobs.”

By ‘no new sites’ policy, Ripin was referring to the changes being proposed in the Act 250 administrative rules that, in his view, would limit the search for archeological material to areas where such objects have already been found.

“If they change this rule, other sites will never be found,” he said. “They’ll be bulldozed.”

As even some other archeologists see it, the “never” there might be something of an overstatement. The proposed changes would allow investigation in new areas under certain circumstances.

But the archeologists do seem to be over-stating their case less than is the Agency of Commerce and Economic Development (under which is the Division of Historic Preservation, whose director – an acting director these days – is the state Historic Preservation officer). In an email message, David Mace, the spokesman for the Agency, said the changes are “designed to make the rule comport with the statutory language and clarify the roles of the parties.”

For several reasons, this seems debatable at best. First, the plain meaning of the text indicates that the proposed changes are substantive. At least twice, the proposals would change the criteria for considering whether archeological investigation may be needed from land having “historically significant resources” or “potentially significant…resources,” which would include archeological materials, to “a historic site,” which might not. At another point, it changes the wording of a sentence that reads “A number of steps are necessary to identify archeological sites.,” to “a number of steps may be necessary…” Twice it removes the words “potentially significant property resources” as a reason state officials should examine “the effect of the (proposed) project” on possible archeological material.

All of which seems to support the contentions of archeologists that under the proposed rules, the state would require developers to look for archeological objects only where such objects had already been found nearby. Anywhere else, “only in exceptional circumstances” would even the most superficial check of the terrain be required.

The Agency’s proposed changes might also threaten the funding stream that finances archeological exploration. Now, the developer who wants to bulldoze the land files an application that sets in motion the process of determining whether the land has possible archeological value. (The answer is usually ‘no,’ and in more than 90 percent of the cases, there is no cost to the developer, though when there is, it can be several thousand dollars.)

The new proposals would finance the process through a small fee charged to all developers. Some archeologists, including Professor John Crock, head of the University of Vermont’s consulting anthropology program, think this might be a good idea.

Right now, said Crock (who is not in the new archeologists political organization), the burden falls “unevenly on developers that just happen to be working in areas where there are significant archeological sites.”

But he said the proposals as written are so vague that effectively there is “no plan,” and the proposals “don’t explain how archeology is going to get funded.”

In addition, according to a source familiar with the process but preferring to remain anonymous, some state officials are already trying to weaken the protection for potential archeological sites. This source said that the Historical Preservation Division is understaffed and is still being led by an acting director, months after her predecessor retired (or was forced out, as some say).

Besides, nobody makes changes in rules, especially over the objections of legitimate constituencies (in this case, the Abenaki and environmentalists in addition to the archeologists) just to “clarify” a process. Rules are changed to make a difference in the outcome. Somewhere in the Agency of Commerce and Economic Development, somebody wants weaker protection for potential archeological sites.

Who and why is not clear. Crock said he hoped it was not some “hot button right-wing issue,” but that could be as good a guess as any. The obvious beneficiaries of weaker regulations would be the building contractors, land developers, and realtors. But considering that only a smattering of projects incur any costs at all, ideology could be a bigger factor than economics.

The archeologists say that Vermonters care about their history. No doubt many do. But in some circles these days there is an active – even an aggressive – hostility not just to history, but to scholarship and intellect in general. It’s essentially a tribal impulse, a desire to strike back at “them” on behalf of “us.” In this case “them” are scientists, environmentalists, intellectuals in general, who seem to be condescending to “us” (developers and other businessmen).

Seem to be because sometimes they are.

The same phenomenon explains, at least to some extent, global warming denial as well as the intensity of some conservative ideologues for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The ideologues are more devoted than the oil companies, who know that there might not be all that much oil in ANWAR. The ideologues care less about oil than about annoying environmentalists.

Whatever the motivation behind these proposed changes, one knowledgeable source calling their ultimate adoption “a done deal.” The Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules, probably more sympathetic to the archeologists, can delay but not veto the final decision of the Administration. (But if LCAR votes against the changes they would be more vulnerable in a court case).

Of course, it may not be a “done deal.” The process is not over. In fact, the new rules have not even been formally proposed, though David Mace’s memo said that would probably take place within the month. On October 27, Mace said, the “Vermont Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ( citizens group appointed by the governor) and the Natural Resources Board will meet to discuss the archeology rule.”

All assuming that the process can survive the political juggernaut of the newly energized archeologists.

Lots of political developments since we last dealt with them here. So let’s deal with them here.

Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie is running for governor, so Republicans will not have a primary, which they hate.

Democrats, on the other hand, must love primaries because they have so many of them. To their great joy, they will have one for governor.

Great joy (for them) might not be the consequence.

(Republicans might have a primary for lieutenant governor, but that doesn’t count because, as has been noted here before, nobody cares who is lieutenant governor because nobody knows what the lieutenant governor does because the lieutenant governor doesn’t do anything).

Though assured of nomination, Dubie has to be considered an underdog for election because he is: (a) a Republican; and (b) a social issue conservative in a socially liberal state, and specifically an opponent of abortion rights in a state where most voters favor them.

That last factor might not be as big a problem as some liberals hope. The swing voters here, pro-choice Republican and independent women (and some men) are not likely to vote against Dubie over the abortion issue, being aware that he can do nothing to change the status quo. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a woman’s right to an abortion is Constitutionally protected. The odds of the Court reversing itself in the next few years are roughly zero, making any governor’s views on the subject roughly moot.

Some pro-choice activists, to be sure, disagree, arguing that having an anti-choice gov alters the vibes. These activists are, however: (a) Democrats who won’t vote for Dubie anyway; and (b) wrong.

All the Democratic candidates agree on being pro-choice. In fact, all the Democratic candidates seem agree on just about everything, making it difficult to tell them apart without a scorecard.

At some point, the News Guy will provide that scorecard. For now, a general overview of the field is all that is needed.

This exercise will proceed on the assumption that there will be five Democratic candidates even though: (a) Right now there are three; and (b) it’s a good bet that there will end up only being three (though perhaps not the same three) or four.

The (sort of) declared three are State Senators Doug Racine of Richmond and Susan Bartlett of Hyde Park and Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz. The all-but-declared is Senate President Peter Shumlin of Putney. The fifth possibility is former State Senator Matt Dunne of Hartland.

The reason all five might not stay in the race can be summed up in one word: Money. Even in Vermont, candidates for governor need a goodly amount of it, there are only so many Democratic contributors in and out of state, and what with the recession and all, they have less to give.

Making it somewhere between uncertain and unlikely that all five will raise enough to be viable.

Markowitz and Racine have already raised enough to compete, and considering his leadership position, Shumlin might well be able to match them.

The other two? Bartlett reported no fund-raising when Markowitz and Racine did in July, but she does have a spiffy web site which, among other things, offers supporters a click to contribute. No sign of any Dunne fund-raising, and he seems not to have a campaign web site.

Besides, who is he? Well, he’s reportedly a charming and impressive fellow. But he’s a two-term state senator who has run one statewide campaign, in 2006.

He lost.

To Dubie.

Which might prompt a typical Democratic primary voter to wonder why he could beat him this time.

To be fair to Dunne, Shumlin once lost to Dubie, too. That was when Dubie first got elected, in 2002. But Shumlin had an excuse of sorts. That was a three-way race, with Progressive candidate Anthony Pollina taking enough votes away from Shumlin to elect Dubie.

Could that happen again? It could, but so far Pollina shows no signs of being interested in another statewide race (he has not actually run every two years since the Pleistocene Era; it just seems that way). No other Progressive is likely to get more than a few percent of the vote. To be sure, in a very close race, a few percent could be decisive, but without Pollina, the Progs are less of a threat.

Who’s the Dem front-runner now? Well, Markowitz has raised the most money. But Racine has a better web site and has been more aggressive. His statement after Dubie revealed that he was running, calling him “part of the Administration that has failed for seven years to deliver on the promise of new jobs,” was by far the most vigorous and politically astute coming from the Democratic contenders.

For now, call him the front-runner.

There’s one other problem facing “the other” Democrats, the ones who have not entered the race and/or raised much money, whichever two (or three?) they turn out to be. Since there’s not much disagreement on issues, there’s not much incentive for a Democratic voter to take a flyer on an underdog. It isn’t as though there’s some issue or crisis that a Matt Dunne, say, is uniquely or even unusually qualified to meet.

That’s because there is no crisis. It’s important to remember this because candidates and ideologues always have a vested interest in proclaiming one.

Not that everything is peachy keen. It is not, but the only problems that might reasonably be considered crises—the economy, climate change – are thoroughly national in character. There is nothing peculiar to Vermont about either of them. Sure, the state has a fiscal mess. But so do about 45 others, most of them worse than Vermont’s.

There is one other point to make and one more question to ask. The point is that it’s early, time for a Dunne or Bartlett to figure out how to squeeze up the middle to victory in a multi-candidate race. Time, also, for a couple of those Democrats to get together and create a de facto Gov-Lite Gov ticket.

It stops being early (herewith the pseudo-official proclamation) January 2. It starts being late March 1.

The question is: Why does anyone want to be governor? By all indications, the next governor will have to spend his/her first term raising taxes and/or cutting programs. That’s no fun. Worse, it’s a prescription for being a one-termer.

At last month’s meeting of the Current Use Advisory Board, William Johnson of the Tax Department noted that “there will be a lot of bickering” about the Current Use policy in the Legislature next year.

The reason, he said, is that the policy costs a lot of money. It reduces property tax revenue by some $35 million. If that money all went into the Education Fund, Johnson said, the statewide school property tax rate might be some four cents lower. With legislators eager to keep residential tax rates down, Johnson said, “the debate will be on.”

Actually, the debate will be on before the Legislature reconvenes in January. The Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Committee meets next month, and Current Use is likely to be on its agenda.

As Johnson indicated, the debate could get heated, and his remarks illustrated why. On the one hand, almost everyone (certainly including Johnson) favors the policy, under which farmers and woodlot owners pay property tax based on the revenue potential of their land, not its full market value. The policy is credited for keeping Vermont’s working farms and forests economically viable, with financial and environmental benefits for everybody.

On the other hand, there’s that cost to the other taxpayers that Johnson mentioned. Keeping farm and forest property taxes lower makes residential property taxes higher.

And in most states, surely including this one, anything that tends to make residential property taxes higher is political dynamite. In fact, as some see it, there has been an intertwined relationship between Current Use and residential property taxes for more than a decade, and today’s Current Use controversy stems from an effort to alter that relationship.

Among those who see it that way is Sen. Mark MacDonald, a Williamstown Democrat, a member of the Finance Committee, and identified by defenders of Current Use as one of the lawmakers who wants to get more money out of the farm and forest owners.

Not that MacDonald opposes Current Use. That would be hypocritical because he owns farm and forest land and benefits from it, as, he said, do many other members of the Legislature. (And many members of the Current Use Advisory Board, including Chairman John McClain. In some circles, that would be considered a conflict of interest. In Vermont, it’s just the way things are).

But to MacDonald, Current Use in its present form was part of a political agreement reached in 1997 when the Legislature passed Act 60 and created three tax breaks: Eliminating the machinery and equipment tax paid by businesses into the Education Fund; expanding and guaranteeing Current Use (as opposed to subjecting it to the annual appropriations process); and “income sensitivity” (though Macdonald doesn’t like the term), allowing most homeowners “the right to pay school taxes based on income,” rather than the full market value of their properties.

The problem, according to MacDonald and his allies, most of them Democrats in the Legislature, is that in the last few years Gov. Jim Douglas’s Administration has upset the balance by fiddling with the tax break that goes to the home-owners.

“What the Administration has done in last several years is to say that some homeowners are not paying enough in property taxes based on their income,” MacDonald said, “Then when the Senate Finance Committee suggested the Current Use people kicking back in to share the burden, they suddenly showed up and said, ‘how come we’re being picked on?’”

To Ed Larson of the Vermont Forest Products Association, MacDonald is “listening to a populist constituency that has this vision of rich landowners from outside getting a tax break, coming up here, driving up our property values and posting the land.”

Indicating that to some extent this dispute, like so many Vermont political battles, is tribal, each side assuming the worst of the other based on its own stereotypes.

But it’s more than that, in part because Current Use is likely to grow as the full market value of rural property continues to rise, creating an incentive for landowners to enroll in the program.

Whether today’s Current Use enrollees feel picked on, they certainly oppose any change that might raise their taxes. In fact, Larson told the Advisory Board that, if anything, taxes on forest land owners should be lower because, with prices so low, their taxes eat up half the revenue they are getting from the timber.

In a later interview, Larson acknowledged that he’d be happy with the status quo.

He’s not likely to get it because even many of Current Use’s champions acknowledge that some landowners are abusing the policy and that it now is being exploited by some property owners who are not what the original designers of the program had in mind.

To be eligible for Current Use, land has to be actively farmed or logged. At the Advisory Board meeting, members talked about multi-acre chunks of farmland that had been taken out of production but was still being taxed at its “use” rate. Furthermore, nobody disputed Deb Kingbsbury of Vershire, the self-appointed gadfly of the Current Use issue, when she said that some property-owners were “just using the program as a tax break.”

Deb Brighton, the natural resource economic policy analyst from Salisbury, who was once director of the Current Use program, said it was initially intended to benefit “real farmers,” (and by extension, “real loggers”) meaning those whose livelihoods depend on their income from agriculture or stumpage.

Now she said, a good deal of the land is owned by people whose “income comes from somewhere else. “ They are still providing the valuable service of keeping the land from being developed. But, Brighton said, “that person would do the same thing if you only paid him $25 an acre,” rather than providing the full benefits of Current Use.

Easier said than done, she acknowledged. Deciding which land is being preserved as “an amenity value” as opposed to a “production value” is somewhere between difficult and impossible.

That doesn’t mean nothing can be done. In fact, it’s quite likely that something will be done to get more revenue out of Current Use land. Some means of accomplishing that have to do with the technicalities of implementing the policy, as tentatively recommended in a draft proposal worked out by some environmentalists who support Current Use, and who will discuss their draft at a meeting in Randolph next week.

The danger, in the view of many, is that, in Deb Brighton’s words, simply raising the “use value” on which the land is taxed, “wouldn’t work for people really using the land.”

In other words, it might put small and medium-sized farms and woodlots out of business, a result nobody wants.

Expect, as Bill Johnson said, “a lot of bickering.”