Editor’s note: This commentary is by Lou Magnani of Wells, who has lived in Vermont since 1972 and is now retired.
[I] attended the two-hour July 11 meeting of the Commission on Act 250 in Manchester. Naively, I expected to have an opportunity to express my thoughts on the current state of Act 250 and changes I would propose.
I went to express my complete dissatisfaction with the fact that Act 250 permits an entire industry, the slate quarrying business, to circumvent the Act 250 process. It is a legislative injustice to the people in the handful of towns affected by this exemption. It would be no less absurd to exempt marble, granite, gravel, or any other mining operation from the protection of Act 250. While some have prospered from this “exempt status,” others have paid a price for it.
I came to ask everyone on the commission to view the one-hour hearing on the quarry exemption held by Rep. David Deen (Vimeo.com/126458374) and the bill he introduced in 2016 to revoke the slate quarry exemption (H.662). Instead of having that opportunity I was instructed to “reach consensus” on other issues.
The format we were introduced to was, in my opinion, deeply flawed. Confused attendees were broken into groups of six or so at a table. We were instructed to reach a consensus on what was most the important issue from a selected set of issues. In a two-hour meeting, with short presentations before and after the group tasks, this format was not an efficient way to gather public input.
I left the meeting just before 8 because I was physically uncomfortable so I don’t even know what the results were. Nevertheless, I had negative impressions and, fearing the outcomes of this process, felt the need to express them.
If the commission wants to know the answers to how the public feels about aspects of Act 250, why not use a simple questionnaire? It could be put on their website, advertised on news, and freely distributed to any Vermonter who chose to give input. It could be designed by a statistician and the people who have run the districts and encountered most of the gripes and complaints already. A simple survey of 20 or 30 questions and a little space to write in a particular interest, complaint or idea would gather input from a broad spectrum of citizens — not just those able and willing to attend an evening meeting. The one that I attended in Manchester was way overrepresented by the legal profession and the elderly.
The format of trying to get a table of six to reach consensus on issues that they didn’t even bring to the table felt very contrived. One woman at our table, after hearing the facilitator talk about what he wanted us to do, said something like “This sounds all really good but I’m not buying it.” With that she expressed the distrust most of us felt in a process that seemed to have a design inconsistent with why each of us came to the meeting. The only thing we reached a consensus on was that the process was wanting and most of us expressed a distrust in how the information might be used.
If the commission really wants input from the community, I would implore them to revise their method before completing the public input phase of this process. Get responses from a much broader and representative segment of the population, not just those who are willing and able to go to evening meetings. Save the consensus-reaching for the legislators on the commission.
