In February, Associated Press reporter Ross Sneyd wrote an important story about Vermont government that deserves more than a one-day lifespan. The story concerned the endless appetite of the Douglas administration for hiring public relations spokespeople, at high salaries, in agency after agency.

Public relations officers, who are sometimes given other names by disgruntled editors, have positive roles to play. Getting out accurate news of what happens in government is an important function, and so is reliable communication within the government.

But we can't help thinking that the main reason for all these positions—which collectively cost state government a whopping $800,000 a year—is to make each agency look good, and thus to make the Douglas administration look good.

It is notable that in their investigation of Walter Reed hospital this month, the two Washington Post reporters emphatically did not bring their results to the Army's public relations officials. To a layperson, that could come as a surprise. It might have seemed logical for the press to call up the people hired specifically to talk to the press. But the two Post reporters "never considered going through Army public relations," according to one story.

Why? "For fear their access would be cut off." For fear, that is, that public relations people would serve to cut off the flow of real information rather than encourage it.

Instead, the reporters went right to the top Army officials, asking their extremely embarrassing questions.

According to Sneyd's story, Vermont state government now has some 14 people whose main job is public relations or information. The danger to the press and public in all these public relations positions is that reporters will get used to calling the PR people instead of the people in charge, or instead of the ground-floor operatives that have first-hand knowledge. In doing so, the reporters will receive second-hand information. Information on a bridge, for instance, is best acquired from an engineer on the scene; information on state highway policy is best acquired from the top policy-maker. Going to agency public relations people who will "find the information for you" is at best the lazy way out.

The danger to the agencies in all this is that the policy makers can become insulated from direct policy questions and opinion from the public.

Sneyd points out that some Vermont agencies have had information specialists for a long time—the excellent work of John Hall in the Fish & Wildlife Department springs to mind. And certainly the governor's office needs its own spokesperson so that the governor can have time to do his work. (The Speaker of the House has followed suit.) But the Douglas administration is hiring more and more PR people at salaries that make it seem likely they are intended to be part of the agencies' management teams. There, their job will be, not to ensure a free and candid flow of information, but to manage the news, making sure it paints a positive picture of their agencies and their bosses.

The salaries are attracting some excellent talent; some of Vermont's best reporters have begun working for state government in the last few years. That's good for the Douglas administration and the formerly low-paid reporters, but maybe not so good for the people of Vermont.