As regular readers may recall, every once in a while this site pauses to revisit some earlier items, make necessary clarifications and corrections, offer some random thoughts, and deal with items that may not warrant the full News Guy treatment.

This is one of those once in a whiles.

Monday’s post about public employee retirement funds identified Terry Macaig only as “the most liberal” member of the commission State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding created to study the matter. Macaig is also: (a) a Democratic House member from Burlington; (b) on the staff of the Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA); (c) a long-time employee of the State Health Department.

In other words, he has a personal financial interest in the public employees retirement system, a fact that does not render his views invalid, but that should have been included in Monday’s post. (And thanks to VT Digger for the heads-up on this).

Not that the background of everyone else on the commission proved them to be entirely objective. For instance, Gov. Jim Douglas’s appointee was Douglas J. Wacek, the retired President and Chief Executive Officer of Union Mutual of Vermont Companies, and general poobah of the Vermont corporate/financial establishment.

A vested interest of class and ideology rather than a personal financial concern, perhaps. But no less likely to guide one’s conclusion in a direction that might not be entirely in the public’s benefit.

_________________________________________________________________

Friday’s post noted that the American Automobile Association “does not favor” legislation that would ban hand-held cell phone use while driving.

That was correct, but Tom Williams, AAA’s Northern New England Regional Manager, wants it understood that his organization does not oppose the bill, either. It’s neutral.

AAA does favor “a total ban on portable electronic communication devises including cell phones for junior operators,” Williams emailed, along with “strong support” for “primary enforcement” of the seat belt law and the proposed ban on texting while driving.

_______________________________________________________________

In that same post (A Man’s Car is (Not) His Castle), the news guy declined “out of kindness” to name a businessman who had spoken at a public hearing held by the Senate Transportation Committee. Clearly implied, if not overtly stated, was that the anonymity was a kindness because the fellow had said something (“I don’t believe the statistics”) quite ignorant.

In the” no good deed goes unpunished category,” a commenter (scroll down to that post to read the whole comment) raises a valid point and asks a legitimate question: “It may be kind not to name the businessman, but is kindness part of your remit?”

Good as the question is, first we have to deal with this “remit” business.  In context it seems to mean “mission,” “mandate,” “task,” or something like that. Sounds impressive, a word that might be used by a professor of English literature back when C.S. Lewis or E.R. Dodds was at Oxford. Or were they at Cambridge?

Alas, it also seems to be wrong, though the News Guy remains open to further testimony before rendering a final verdict. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (the “compact” version, for which even younger readers need a magnifying glass), the noun “remit,” found on page 429 of Volume 2 (P-Z) is defined as a pardon (as in, remitting a punishment) or as a reference of (anything) from one part of a book to another, or from one authority to another (remitting a case from a lower to a higher court).

Nothing about it being a synonym for “duty” or “obligation” or anything like that.

Enough semantics. The basic question remains: Should kindness be part of the job here?

On one level, kindness should be part of everybody’s job every day.

Except maybe a reporter’s.

As the commenter said, this guy, private citizen though he may be, voluntarily stepped into the public domain. When you, whoever you are, step into that domain, we, the news chroniclers, are supposed to show you no mercy.

That’s actually the usual theory, practice, ethic, policy, and (who knows, maybe) remit here. It was not followed in this case because, so far as could be determined, it would be a one-shot appearance for the businessman. It wasn’t as though he had joined some organization and was going to be a regular advocate for or against anything, a la, the Tea Party folks.

So he got a pass. It probably won’t happen again, and the commenter was both alert and correct to object.

_____________________________________________________________

In a housekeeping note on February 1, the News Guy took note of “the demons who, it seems, occasionally usurp control at Word Press,” forcing it to disobey orders to publish a new post at a specific time.

“Plans for subjugating these demons are afoot,” that post proclaimed. “Meanwhile, be assured that every Monday Wednesday, and Friday, the News guy will either: (a) have a new post; or (b) make known that there will not be a new post, and also explain why.”

The demons have in fact (we think) been subjugated, which is an unscientific way of saying that the system has been updated.

So what happened?

Ten days later, on a Wednesday, early morning readers clicked in to find neither a new post nor a notice that there would not be one.

It would be tempting here to report that the demons staged a comeback, or that system failed again. In candor, it must be revealed that the guy operating the system failed again, having gotten confused. He is, in the cyber world, easily confused.

The News Guy is happy to report a substantial flow of new subscribers. It is gratifying.

It would be even more gratifying – and make possible more trips to Montpelier and elsewhere – if more of you who have recently joined the ranks of subscribers would also join the ranks of donators.

It’s easy to do. Just look up near the top right quarter of the screen, under “Pages,” and click on “donate.”

It will tell you all you need to know to…remit.