April 2008
April 15, 2008
FROM: Glenn McRae
NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF CFED
CFED - Vermont
Skylight Conference Room
State Office Complex
9:00- 9:30 Opening Business
Introductions as needed
Minutes from March 18, 2008 Meeting
Report from the Chair
Report from the Snelling Center
Financial Report - Finance Committee
Goals of the Meeting
9:30 Update on Legislature and Budget
-new budget?
10:00 Next steps
-Benchmarking (H.885)
-future outreach (summer - 6 more sessions)
-report
11:30 Public Outreach effort
-review of April 23 Brattleboro
-next five sessions
12:30 Adjourn (Lunch discussion for those who can stay)
From: Doug Hoffer [mailto:drhoffer@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 3:57 PM
To: Botzow, Representative Bill; Kenlan, Jay
Cc: CVEDCEVP; Glenn McRae;Charlie Smith ; Kurzman, Dan; Barbara Grimes; Davis, Staige; Dorn, Kevin; Kenney, Fred; Lintermann, Mary; Miller, Senator Hinda; Mount, David; Niebling, Mary; Patten, Will; Vince Illuzzi; Warren Kitzmiller; Peter Shumlin ; Paul Cillo ; Hope Crifo
Subject: CFED comments
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 3:57 PM
To: Botzow, Representative Bill; Kenlan, Jay
Cc: CVEDCEVP; Glenn McRae;
Subject: CFED comments
Jay & Bill
I just saw Glenn's April 11 e-mail on the CFED web site. A few comments.
1. My e-mails are not "exclusionary" and I'm disappointed that he characterized them that way. It was my understanding that anything I send to any of you will be posted (although some have not been). Thus, I fully expected them to be available to all and only copied some of the members because I wanted to be certain they would see them. I have no way of knowing have often members read the postings on the web site so this is my way of sharing these messages with a particular group in a timely manner. Therefore, it is not "another conversation" or "exclusionary"; only the first step in what is supposed to be a general post. And BTW, Glenn did not copy me on his April 11 message even though it is in response to my message.
2. He stated that "the list of other 'relevant' studies and information sources is enormous and we will not be doing any service by displaying an endless list or using our judgment as to what is included or excluded." First, I do not believe a list of instate resources is "enormous" or "endless". Indeed, I sent a draft bibliography that is organized by subject area and is quite modest. It could and should be expanded but we're not talking about a whole library.
Second, using your judgment seems unavoidable at the outset. But if the CFED is open to additions when suggestions are made, why be concerned about exclusions? And as for what is included, shouldn't you start with the assumption that everything submitted is worthy unless completely off subject or without any obvious merit? I see this as a red herring. To be honest, it seems like an effort to avoid sharing information / perspectives that may make some people uncomfortable.
He also said "It is my hope that through the connections with regional stakeholders we will continue to add information, studies and links that will be of interest and direct relevance to the public and to stakeholders." I certainly hope so but at this point - 18 months into the process - there is nothing in the "reports and information" section of the web site except the CFED's report to the legislature.
So why wait? I have offered "information, studies and links" that should be of "interest and direct relevance to the public and to stakeholders." Why is my input (and others like me) somehow less valuable than "regional stakeholders"? And who exactly are these regional stakeholders? I am a Vermonter; aren't we all "stakeholders"?
I am puzzled as to why providing information could possibly be a disservice. Indeed, by choosing not to provide information, you are effectively denying interested non-members access to relevant information (or forcing them to dig it out on their own). It really comes down to how you define "broad based public engagement" and "participation". Both are enhanced if the public is well informed. And furthermore, by not collecting and posting various source materials, you are also depriving CFED members who may benefit from such readings.
From the very beginning of this process, the CFED has resisted most efforts to enlarge the circle of people, ideas, and materials: recording meetings for broadcast was opposed; inviting testimony from non-governmental experts in the 13 subject areas was opposed (until recently); placing written testimony on the web site was opposed; an e-mail distribution list was opposed; posting source materials is opposed; publicizing the public meetings was delayed; and so on. The pattern is pretty clear. In my view, this is not what the legislature intended.
Finally, I have asked Glenn several times for information about the upcoming daytime meetings. I assume these are public meetings. Please tell us where they will be held, when, and who has been invited.
I just saw Glenn's April 11 e-mail on the CFED web site. A few comments.
1. My e-mails are not "exclusionary" and I'm disappointed that he characterized them that way. It was my understanding that anything I send to any of you will be posted (although some have not been). Thus, I fully expected them to be available to all and only copied some of the members because I wanted to be certain they would see them. I have no way of knowing have often members read the postings on the web site so this is my way of sharing these messages with a particular group in a timely manner. Therefore, it is not "another conversation" or "exclusionary"; only the first step in what is supposed to be a general post. And BTW, Glenn did not copy me on his April 11 message even though it is in response to my message.
2. He stated that "the list of other 'relevant' studies and information sources is enormous and we will not be doing any service by displaying an endless list or using our judgment as to what is included or excluded." First, I do not believe a list of instate resources is "enormous" or "endless". Indeed, I sent a draft bibliography that is organized by subject area and is quite modest. It could and should be expanded but we're not talking about a whole library.
Second, using your judgment seems unavoidable at the outset. But if the CFED is open to additions when suggestions are made, why be concerned about exclusions? And as for what is included, shouldn't you start with the assumption that everything submitted is worthy unless completely off subject or without any obvious merit? I see this as a red herring. To be honest, it seems like an effort to avoid sharing information / perspectives that may make some people uncomfortable.
He also said "It is my hope that through the connections with regional stakeholders we will continue to add information, studies and links that will be of interest and direct relevance to the public and to stakeholders." I certainly hope so but at this point - 18 months into the process - there is nothing in the "reports and information" section of the web site except the CFED's report to the legislature.
So why wait? I have offered "information, studies and links" that should be of "interest and direct relevance to the public and to stakeholders." Why is my input (and others like me) somehow less valuable than "regional stakeholders"? And who exactly are these regional stakeholders? I am a Vermonter; aren't we all "stakeholders"?
I am puzzled as to why providing information could possibly be a disservice. Indeed, by choosing not to provide information, you are effectively denying interested non-members access to relevant information (or forcing them to dig it out on their own). It really comes down to how you define "broad based public engagement" and "participation". Both are enhanced if the public is well informed. And furthermore, by not collecting and posting various source materials, you are also depriving CFED members who may benefit from such readings.
From the very beginning of this process, the CFED has resisted most efforts to enlarge the circle of people, ideas, and materials: recording meetings for broadcast was opposed; inviting testimony from non-governmental experts in the 13 subject areas was opposed (until recently); placing written testimony on the web site was opposed; an e-mail distribution list was opposed; posting source materials is opposed; publicizing the public meetings was delayed; and so on. The pattern is pretty clear. In my view, this is not what the legislature intended.
Finally, I have asked Glenn several times for information about the upcoming daytime meetings. I assume these are public meetings. Please tell us where they will be held, when, and who has been invited.
Date: 4-12-08
FROM: Doug Hoffer <drhoffer@comcast.net
The Commission appreciates Mr. Hoffer's efforts in putting together a wide array of resources and reports to be considered as work continues. We invite others to add to the list.
April 12, 2008
From: Doug Hoffer [mailto:drhoffer@comcast.net] To: Jay Kenlan
Subject: Re: CFED comment
Jay & Bill
A bibliography need not be an overwhelming undertaking, especially if it is limited to instate resources. [If in the unlikely event readers want even more, the organizations listed and the report footnotes will take them almost anywhere they want to go.] I have just put together a draft for some of the relevant subject areas that should help get you started
In my view, the concerns expressed about balance and censorship (D. Mount) are not that important. The real question is whether doing nothing is preferable to making a good faith effort. As for whether the resources listed are the "best" available, isn't that always a subjective judgment? In many cases, there is more than one perspective and more than one report on the same subject. List them all and let the reader decide.
MEMO TO CFED COMMISSIONERS
74 Main Street Burlington , VT 05401
From: Glenn McRae
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008
To: bbotzow@leg.state.vt.us;bgrimes@burlingtonelectric.com ; botzow@sover.net; cvedcevp@sover.net; dkurzman@ethanalleninc.com; dmount@westaff.com; fred.kenney@state.vt.us ; hinda@deforestconcepts.com; hope.crifo@tdbanknorth.com; jkenlan@kenlanlaw.com; kevin.dorn@state.vt.us; mlintermann@dewcorp.com; MNiebling@CVCAC.org; pcrowley@burlingtonelectric.com; staige.davis@lmsre.com; willpatten@gmavt.net
Cc: Glenn McRae;Charlie Smith
Subject: FW: CFED comment
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008
To: bbotzow@leg.state.vt.us;
Cc: Glenn McRae;
Subject: FW: CFED comment
I have sent a further guide to the regional days.
The web resources will continue to evolve.
It is my hope that through the connections with regional stakeholders we will continue to add information, studies and links that will be of interest and direct relevance to the public and to stakeholders.
If any of you have specific questions about how the process will continue to unfold across the upcoming six meetings and then the six additional meetings in the summer please let me know.
-----Original Message-----
From: dmount@westaff.com [mailto:dmount@westaff.com]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 4:39 PM
To: drhoffer@comcast.net; jkenlan@kenlanlaw.com
Cc: botzow@sover.net; cpaulvt@aol.com; staige@together.net; Kevin.Dorn@state.vt.us ; bgrimes@burlingtonelectric.com ; villuzzi@leg.state.vt.us; Fred.Kenney@state.vt.us; MLintermann@DEWCORP.COM; Glenn McRae; hinda@deforestconcepts.com; MNiebling@CVCAC.org; willp@vbsr.org ; gsym@together.net; wkitzmiller@leg.state.vt.us; pete@goputney.com
Subject: RE: CFED comment
While listing sites on our web site may seem like a good idea, there must be hundreds that apply to the subject matter. If we do not list them all, we would have to be censors, which is not in our charter. At least, as a part of the state government in some fashion, listing the government sites that apply is not especially objectionable.
Affiliate Owner
Westaff
Phone 802-862-6500
Fax (802) 862-4555
dmount@westaff.com
From: Doug Hoffer [mailto:drhoffer@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 4:10 PM
To: jkenlan@kenlanlaw.com
Cc: Bill Botzow (h); Paul Cillo ; Staige Davis; Kevin Dorn; Barbara
Grimes; Vince Illuzzi; Fred Kenney; Mary Lintermann ; Glenn McCrea; Hinda
Miller; Dave Mount; Mary Niebling; Will Patten ; Gaye Symington; Warren
Kitzmiller; Peter Shumlin
Subject: CFED comment
Jay
1) No mention is made of the events scheduled for earlier in the day. I assume these are public meetings. I don't expect many residents would attend during work hours but there might be some who are interested. Can this information be posted as well?
2) The only substantive information about economic development provided on the site is from the Agency of Commerce and the DoL. As you know, there is a lot more material available from other sources. Wouldn't it be helpful to provide links to other materials?
For example, you could offer links to groups and materials from the 13 subject areas listed in the statute. I mention this because it's probably fair to assume that most people don't follow these issues that closely and would benefit from a broader range of materials. Moreover (as I understand it), the process is supposed to encourage all participants (CFED and otherwise) to be open to a range of ideas and information. By presenting only materials from the current administration, it will narrow the focus rather than expanding it. Therefore, I hope you will consider offering more information (including Phase 9 of the Job Gap Study).
MEMO TO CFED Commissioners
FROM: Glenn McRae, Snelling Center
April 9, 2008
The text and status of that bill can be found at:
It has a particular charge for CFED
(h) The commission on the future of economic development with its staff, using as a resource the joint fiscal office and legislative council staff, shall:
(1) review the techniques and products of evaluations of economic development utilized by other states;
(2) develop goals for Vermont benchmarks that build on the unique strengths and challenges of conducting business in Vermont
(3) identify a cohort of relevant comparables, considering both domestic and international examples; and
(4) evaluate Vermont
April 08, 2008
From: Doug Hoffer [mailto:drhoffer@comcast.net]
Subject: comments on the CFED public meetings
Subject: comments on the CFED public meetings
The CFED public meetings are set to begin two weeks from tomorrow. I just checked the web sites for the six RDC's that are hosting / organizing the upcoming CFED events. None of them had any information about the events. How have the RDC's publicized these events? How has the CFED publicized these events?
As for the events, I notice that commissioners will participate in a "focused facilitated conversation with area employers" and that lunch will be served. The evening session for the general public is scheduled for the dinner hour. Has any thought been given to offering food to the public? You might get better turnout. And if you're offering a meal to employers, why not others?
In addition, while "stakeholders are invited to fishbowl [the luncheon session] and listen in" it does not appear the public has been invited to do the same. Why not? And BTW, can you tell me where these meetings will occur and who has been invited?
The meeting with "stakeholders" will include "RDC, Chambers, WIB,Tech Centers
Since local employers and "stakeholders" will each have two hours to talk with commissioners at their own events, will they also be given time at the evening meeting? If so, it could limit the time available to those who have not been so privileged.
One of the questions posed is "What does the future hold for current employers, businesses, institutions?" What about the future for workers and their families?
Unless I missed it, the CFED does not plan to distribute any materials in advance of the meetings. Thus, how are members of the public supposed to comment knowledgeably about "What state policies most notably help or hinder economic development in the region"? How can they answer the question if they don't know what the state is doing or whether the policies are working? [where is the performance data?] And if their primary source of information is the mainstream media, that hardly represents a comprehensive or balanced perspective. And unless they are especially interested in this issue, how are they to know what alternative policies are available?
For example, some may repeat statements they've heard aboutVermont
In my view, these meetings should be an opportunity to educate as well as listen. It's not clear to me that the CFED intends to make full use of the opportunity. I hope you will reconsider.
As for the events, I notice that commissioners will participate in a "focused facilitated conversation with area employers" and that lunch will be served. The evening session for the general public is scheduled for the dinner hour. Has any thought been given to offering food to the public? You might get better turnout. And if you're offering a meal to employers, why not others?
In addition, while "stakeholders are invited to fishbowl [the luncheon session] and listen in" it does not appear the public has been invited to do the same. Why not? And BTW, can you tell me where these meetings will occur and who has been invited?
The meeting with "stakeholders" will include "RDC, Chambers, WIB,
Since local employers and "stakeholders" will each have two hours to talk with commissioners at their own events, will they also be given time at the evening meeting? If so, it could limit the time available to those who have not been so privileged.
One of the questions posed is "What does the future hold for current employers, businesses, institutions?" What about the future for workers and their families?
Unless I missed it, the CFED does not plan to distribute any materials in advance of the meetings. Thus, how are members of the public supposed to comment knowledgeably about "What state policies most notably help or hinder economic development in the region"? How can they answer the question if they don't know what the state is doing or whether the policies are working? [where is the performance data?] And if their primary source of information is the mainstream media, that hardly represents a comprehensive or balanced perspective. And unless they are especially interested in this issue, how are they to know what alternative policies are available?
For example, some may repeat statements they've heard about
In my view, these meetings should be an opportunity to educate as well as listen. It's not clear to me that the CFED intends to make full use of the opportunity. I hope you will reconsider.
MEMO FROM JAY KENLAN, CHAIR
TO: CFED Commissioners
April 7, 2008
Last Friday Bill, Hinda, Glenn and I had a conference call to discuss the current budget proposal that has gone from the House to the Senate. CFED has been allocated $50,000 in the budget (as you may recall, we had requested $155,400). The budget also includes some changes to H 184 that Bill worked on that clarify and refine CFED's mission. While I appreciate the support that we received from the House, and while, in these extremely tight economic times, I know that CFED was not the only agency to have its funding request reduced, the reduction in our funding, if it stands, will require a substantial reworking of our approach to our mission. We have been given the opportunity to appear before the Senate Economic Development Committee on Wednesday, April 9 at 9:00 to make our case for additional funding. We will have about a half hour to present our case. I plan to testify, and I expect that Bill will as well. Any other Commission members who can be there to give support will be welcomed.
The finance committee has a conference call scheduled for tomorrow morning at 8:00 to discuss the current budget proposal and how our work plan might be adjusted.
I will keep you advised of further developments.
A. Jay Kenlan
Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C.
71 Allen Street P.O. Box 578
Rutland , Vermont 05702-0578
(802) 773 - 3300 Ext. 101
Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C.
(802) 773 - 3300 Ext. 101
MEMO: TO CFED Commissioners
FROM: Glenn McRae, Snelling Center
April 2, 2008
The final full report of the GBIC green economy strategy process that was released today is available at:
http://www.vermont.org/pdf/SCG%20-GBIC%20green%20economy.pdf
The Snelling Center ran the process that produced the information and ideas that GBIC turned into their recommendations. I am sending this as it should contribute to CFED deliberations, but also to ask you to review the appendices which provide documentation on the process that was used. Our plan is to take CFED through a similar information gathering process to generate themes, ideas and to help consolidate and prioritize areas for future investigation and to develop draft strategies.
We will have a further outline shortly of the structure of the questions and processes that we will ask regional participants to go through with us.
Sam Matthews, Hinda Miller, Bill Botzow, Mary Niebling, and Kevin Dorn were at the event if you want further information.
FROM: Glenn McRae, Snelling Center
April 2, 2008
The final full report of the GBIC green economy strategy process that was released today is available at:
http://www.vermont.org/pdf/SCG%20-GBIC%20green%20economy.pdf
The Snelling Center ran the process that produced the information and ideas that GBIC turned into their recommendations. I am sending this as it should contribute to CFED deliberations, but also to ask you to review the appendices which provide documentation on the process that was used. Our plan is to take CFED through a similar information gathering process to generate themes, ideas and to help consolidate and prioritize areas for future investigation and to develop draft strategies.
We will have a further outline shortly of the structure of the questions and processes that we will ask regional participants to go through with us.
Sam Matthews, Hinda Miller, Bill Botzow, Mary Niebling, and Kevin Dorn were at the event if you want further information.
Forwarded to CFED by Barbara Grimes - April 1, 2008
Posting from Will Patten
This is a nice follow up to Tom Stearn's presentation to CFED on March 17th about the future of local Agriculture in Vermont
In Trial Run, Chipotle Heads to the Farm
For Chains, Buying Locally Still Means a Long Journey
For Chains, Buying Locally Still Means a Long Journey
By Jane Black
Washington
Wednesday, March 26, 2008; F01
Wednesday, March 26, 2008; F01
CHARLOTTESVILLE -- When Chipotle Mexican Grill executives decided to begin serving local pork from one of the most famous farmers in America
There was no fanfare or official announcement. Even when the pork turned up in the first carnitas burrito last summer, no change was made to the menu or the $5.75 price. It wasn't until last fall, two months after Polyface Farm's pork made its debut, that a sign was posted on the days it was available. "We wanted to start slow, for us and for them," says Phil Petrilli, Chipotle's operations director for the northeast region. "This is a farm that's used to dropping off 12 chickens at the local restaurant." One of the fastest-growing chains in the nation, Chipotle serves about 350 pounds of pork per week in Charlottesville
This month, Chipotle hopes to serve 100 percent Polyface pork in Charlottesville Charlottesville
MEMO TO CFED Commissioners
From: Glenn McRae, The Snelling Center for Government
Attached are the meeting notes from March 17.
Our next meeting is April 28th! 9a - 3p.
We will be meeting in Waterbury
Because of the complexity and the content of the meetings it takes me a while to assemble the notes so that we have good documentation for the meetings. My apologies for taking so long. There are also a series of follow-up postings for the meeting that I will be compiling and sending on as well.
I will be updating the "postings" on the web site as well and will notify you as new items go up.