The outcome was never in doubt and the vote was unanimous. Still, after it was cast, the committee members gave themselves a quiet round of applause. They thought they’d done something important.

Maybe they had, even though it isn’t clear whether the bill they reported out last week will become law, and even if it does, its direct, material, impact will be quite limited.

It’s the indirect, not-so-material impact that might be historic.

The bill was S-222, “An act relating to recognition of Abenaki bands and groups as tribes.” Considering that a four-year-old statute (S.117, signed into law May 3, 2006) already recognized the Abenaki  and other Native Americans living in the state as a “minority population” it’s reasonable to ask why the new bill is necessary at all, much less why it arouses enthusiasm.

But in the view of the Abenaki and their supporters, notably Sens. Vincent Illuzzi, a Derby Republican, and Hinda Miller, a Burlington Democrat, there were two flaws in the earlier law. One is very practical: the language didn’t meet the federal requirements to qualify the works of Abenaki artists and craftspeople as “Native American.” The designation can bring higher prices.

Besides, being recognized as a minority group isn’t the same as being recognized as a tribe. This year’s bill grants formal recognition as tribes to the state’s four Abenaki bands – the St. Francis Sokoki Band in the Swanton area ;the Koasek Traditional Band around Newbury; the Nulhegan Band of the Northeast Kingdom; the ELNU Abenaki Tribe in southern Vermont.

If the law passes, each of these bands will be empowered to “refer to itself as a recognized tribe,” according to the bill.

Actual recognition as a tribe is one of the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs requirements for the “Native American” arts and crafts designations. But to the Abenaki, the new bill may be less  important for what it would officially do for them than for what it would effectively say to them: You are here. And you are here not just as individual members of “a minority population,” but as distinct communities.

The long-term social and political consequences of that statement are uncertain, and their benefits open to debate. There are, after all, several other “minority populations” in Vermont, none of which get a similar official designation.

On the other hand, the Abenaki were here first, perhaps since as early as 1100. Unlike the other minorities (or the majority, for that matter) some of whom came here because they were systematically mistreated elsewhere, the Abenaki were systematically mistreated right here in Vermont, so mistreated that at one point they were all but obliterated.

Or, in the view of some scholars, actually were obliterated,  at least ceasing to exist as tribe within Vermont’s borders. Such was the conclusion of a report issued by the Vermont Attorney General’s office in 2002, when one of the Abenaki bands petitioned for tribal recognition from the federal government.

In a summary of the report it filed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Attorney General’s office noted that “around the time of the American Revolution, ((Abenaki) retreated to (their) home base in Quebec.  Then, over the next two hundred years, there were very few observations of Indians in Vermont, and these were mostly sightings of visiting Indians.” In the 19^th Century, the report said, the ancestors of the  petitioners “were  indistinguishable from the general population in Vermont,” and that while some “appear in the census records…they are not listed as Indian.”

Assistant Attorney General Michael McShane said these comments were made solely in the context of the specific guidelines for federal recognition, and did not mean that state officials were denying the existence of the Abenaki now or in the past.

“The question is what do you use for the definition of a tribe,” McShane said. “The Federal Government says it has to have been an autonomous and existing entity from colonial times to the present in an organizational sense. That they failed to prove. But nobody’s saying there aren’t people who live in Vermont who have claimed, probably legitimately, Native American ancestry.”

The distinction seems to make sense in law, especially to officials who worry that federal designation could lead to gambling casinos and land claims as has been true in other states. But some Abenaki were simply insulted.

“They said the Abenakis were genetic, political, and cultural fakes,” said Fred Wiseman, a Johnson State College professor and Abenaki activist. Though not the message state officials intended, it seems to have been the one many Abenaki heard, and their resentment was intensified by turmoil in the state’s Commission on Native American Affairs, which went through three directors in four years.

Whether there has been a continuing Abenaki community in Vermont could be one of those questions that can never be conclusively answered. That 2002 Attorney General’s report was based on standard historical research, which failed to find documentation that such a community existed. So perhaps it didn’t. Or maybe, even before the discredited “eugenics” movement of the 1920s victimized so many Indians, the Abenaki were hiding signs of their identity, to the point ofnot telling Census Bureau agents that they were Indians.

It’s happened before. In 15th Century Spain, Jews converted to avoid getting burned at the stake, lived outwardly Christian lives, but secretly observed  Jewish rituals at home.

Whatever happened in the past,  no one doubts that there are now several thousand Vermonters who have some Abenaki ancestry and who consider themselves Abenaki. That could explain why there was no opposition when the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs approved the bill last week.

But there are still complications, based on the continuing worry that something in the bill might provide a pathway for federal recognition of a Vermont tribe. McShane said he asked the committee to remove two sentences that he feared might “open up the whole question of federal recognition.”

The committee did not comply.

“It’s his (McShane’s) job to worry,” said Hinda Miller, the bill’s chief sponsor. “We appreciate him being the watchdog. We did our own research. We don’t think this will be a real problem.”

Miller and Mark Mitchell of Barnet, an Abenaki and a former head of the Native American Commission, both said it would be all but impossible for any Abenaki band to meet the criteria for federal recognition., and that, at any rate the state could block Indian gambling casinos or land claims.

McShane was not so sure.

“You get into this whole very complicated issue,” he said. “States may be able to regulate some of it. This defies easy answers.”

Miller said the bill would probably be on the Senate calendar today (Friday). There is a companion measure in the House (H. 124, sponsored by Rep. Michel Consejo of Sheldon Springs.

Whatever happens, the Abenaki will once again be defined by others.  “Indians don’t have the right to self-identify,” Fred Wiseman noted. “We have to be recognized by white people.”

OK, for the last time for a year if not forever, let’s get this fund-raising stuff out of the way.

The response to last month’s plea for donations has been encouraging. The News Guy will live for another year.

The clever ploy, of course, would be to state the opposite, that only you, by your contribution, can stave off the death of this site. But while effective marketing may call for…well, shall we say a touch of artfulness, good journalism – the goal here — requires transparency.

Which you have. Whether or not you contribute, the News Guy will live.

But he still needs a little more revenue. Hence this admittedly annoying reminder. The experience of the last few weeks is that reminders work; each new appeal for funds inspires more donations. Perhaps this explains why public radio station fund drives are so obnoxious. It works. Alas, the News Guy finds it impossible to be nearly as obnoxious as a public radio station. But he’s trying.

So once more: If you think this site brings Vermonters news and analysis they otherwise would not get, and contributes to the state’s public discussion, click on “donate” (Under “pages” in the upper right quarter of the page) and send as little (or, even better, as much) as you choose.

All right. Enough of that.

Now let’s peek into two items of the week’s news, starting with State Sen. Hinda Miller’s proposal to reverse this year’s repeal of the state’s capital gains tax preference.

In this case, a peek is all that’s required because, with the eternal caveat that one can never conclusively predict where proposed legislation will go, one can with some confidence predict that this one ain’t goin’ nowhere.

Still, there was something interesting about the evidence Sen. Miller, a Burlington Democrat, provided as she announced her proposal: there wasn’t much, if any.

Do not misunderstand. This is an observation, not a condemnation. There is nothing unusual in proposing legislation without providing much evidence for it. Better (or worse?) yet, one need not have evidence to be correct.

Miller said that doing away with the preference may have been “fair” because it mostly effected the wealthy, but it was not “smart” because it would discourage investments, which the state needs.

“If we don’t repeal these capital-gains tax increases then we are going to dissipate any consideration people might have to risk their own money in the future of Vermont businesses,” Miller told the Burlington Free Press.

Could be. Then again, the news has been full of late of people who have decided to risk somebody’s money, probably including their own, in Vermont businesses (a new Yogurt plant in Brattleboro; a new company planning to produce hydro power from old flood control dams; three stores moving to Shelburne Road Plaza). Obviously, the tax structure isn’t discouraging everybody.

Not to mention that Gov. Jim Douglas, that advocate of low taxes and investment incentives, once proposed ending that capital gains preference himself. True, Douglas would have, sort of, given the money back to the same people who “lost” it by reducing income tax rates on the wealthiest taxpayers. But the impact on investment would presumably have been identical to the impact from this year’s repeal.

In fairness to Sen. Miller, she might have some facts to back up her contention, but she was out of town yesterday and did not respond to phone and email messages.

But now comes word of an actual economic study arguing that under the present circumstances (high unemployment; effective zero short-term interest rates), cutting capital gains taxes would be exactly the wrong thing to do.

In a paper written for the New York Federal Reserve Bank, economist Gauti Eggertsson concluded that reducing capital gains taxes “deepens a recession” because it “gives people the incentive to save instead of spend, when precisely the opposite is needed.”

The other item worth a peek is yesterday’s unanimous decision by the Legislative Committee on Administrative Review (LCAR) to reject a proposed rule allowing all-terrain vehicles on state land.

Again, only a peek is needed because there’s no reason to think many Vermonters care much. This is a niche issue. Oh, there’s measurable public opinion on it; a rather substantial majority of the public seems to oppose allowing the ATVs on state land. But only the hardcore environmentalists are passionate opponents, just as only the ATV riders are passionate advocates.

This political perspective is appropriate because the Agency of Natural Resource’s case for changing the rule was entirely political. The scientific evidence – every iota of it – supports keeping the ATVs off public land (and perhaps imposing more restrictions elsewhere). That’s why the actual scientists in the agency opposed changing the rule.

Again, this is observation, not condemnation. In a democracy, political decisions are entirely proper. Top ANR officials might have reasonably concluded that the degradation of the natural resource caused by ATVs, while certain, would be minor, outweighed by the enhanced convenience bestowed on the ATV riders.

(And perhaps enhanced economic activity, though whether allowing ATVs on state land would attract more out-of-state riders to Vermont is conjecture, and would have to be considered against the possibility that the policy would deter some out-of-state visitors who prefer quiet hikes on state land).

Then there’s the management consideration. ANR Secretary Jonathan Wood, neither an ATV rider nor, by reliable report, a great fan of the ATV lobby, has pointed out that some ATVers are riding on state land anyway, legal or no, and that providing some legal access might reduce the trespassing.

Besides, the ATV riders are one of the constituencies to which Gov. Jim Douglas…well, after some reflection, let’s say, one which he likes to please.

Before the reflection, the impulse was to say a constituency to which Douglas panders. But that has an unnecessarily derogatory connotation. Pandering is unavoidable in a democracy, and all office-holders engage in it (See under: Vermont Yankee, Democratic candidates for governor, and). The favored constituency does not think of itself as being pandered to, only as having its needs recognized and its sensibilities honored.

That’s why the Douglas Administration might try to push ahead with the rule change anyway. Honoring the sensibilities of a loyal constituency, even a small one, can be politically appealing.