QUESTION 4 - TAXPAYERS BILL OF RIGHTS - KNOWN AS TABOR II

It has taken me some time to gather sufficient data to present (what I believe to be) an informed basis for my position, which will be to vote YES on

Question 4, which reads on the ballot as follows: "Do you want to change the existing formulas that limit state and local government spending and require voter approval by referendum for spending over those limits and for increases in state taxes?"

I will state up front that recent ads in opposition of the issue (which are running over and over and over) more than irritate me. They are intended to play on the fears of people rather than addressing the facts of what the proposed legislation requires - which this posting provides below. But the opposition plays right in to that old adage "We fear the devil we don't know more than the devil we do." So I need to say right up front:

This legislation does NOT cut current funding levels for Education, Home Health Care or other health care services, or any other essential services. Those ads in opposition to Question 4 lie.

Perhaps it would help to known that the opponents of TABOR have raised (and outspent) the proponents 12:1 in their attempts to defeat this initiative by the voters of Maine. That money has come almost entirely (over 99 percent) from the following sources:

• SEIU - a major union which requires employees in numerous professions, including the health care fields, to pay a percentage of their wages in dues to the union. (The more employees hired and the higher the union-negotiated salaries and fees those employees make, the more money the union gets.);
• The National Education Association - another employee union, comprised of teachers and college and university professors. Same means of dues assessment and thereby union financial power.
• S.Donald Sussman, a Connecticut resident and Wall Street Hedge fund founder gave $370,000 to the opponents of TABOR. Mr. Sussman's hedge fund received a $200 million taxpayer funded bailout.
• Maine Municipal Association (MMA), the group representing community government, gave $170,219 to Citizens United (the organization behind the opposition to TABOR). That $170,219 came from Maine property taxes - taxpayers like you and me. (Did you vote for that at your town meeting? I didn't.)
• Less than 1 percent of the funding donated to the opposition against TABOR has come from individual Maine citizens.

This information was provided in a Press Conference in Portland yesterday conducted by the Maine Heritage Policy Center, the proponents of TABOR.

According to a Poll released at that same Press Conference, more Mainers support Q. 4 to limit government spending and to require voter approval of spending and tax hikes. Those statistics were: 47 percent in favor of TABOR, 8 percent undecided, and 45 percent opposed.

TABOR has been soundly endorsed by Maine's Business Community. In particular:

Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce
Androscoggin Chamber of Commerce
Maine Motor transport Association
Association of Builders & Contractors of Maine
Maine Merchants Association
and many small businesses across Maine

It was also been endorsed by Paul LePage, the Mayor of Waterville and general manager of Marden's Surplus & Salvage stores across Maine. He states "The progress we can point to in Waterville is possible for every city and town in the state of Maine. Reducing taxes encourages businesses to expand and provide new opportunities for employment. Allowing residents to keep more of their hard-earned wages gives those residents new buying power to invest in the local economy and better save for the future.

"These are the same results TABOR will achieve throughout the entire state.

"In Waterville, we put reasonable parameters on ourselves so we could control spending and lower taxes. As a result, we became innovative and efficient so we could improve our community.

"This is what TABOR will do for all Maine towns, counties and our state. Change is possible, and TABOR will make the changes that Mainers deserve.

"I'm voting for TABOR this November because it will achieve real progress for families and communities across Maine. Mainers are ready for results. TABOR is a guarantee."

It should be noted that Waterville is the 13th largest municipality in the state. He became mayor in 2003. You can email Mr. LePage at: mayor1@waterville-me.gov

I have read the proposed legislation. You can, too. Go to http://www.Maine.gov . This is the home page of Maine state government. In the upper left hand corner you will see a listing for Legislation. Click on that. It will take you to a listing for Question 4.

HOWEVER, BELOW YOU WILL FIND THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION. I HAVE DONE ALL THE WORK FOR YOU - highlighting the individual sections, how the law will work if approved, showing you that all those scare ads are totally unrelated to the truth of how this law will work and impact our lives. If you don't believe me, read what is below or go to the Maine.gov page listed above. Bottom line, voting YES for TABOR - voting YES on Question 4, is the way to take out government back - to control government spending and to reduce the rampant taxation of Mainers by an irresponsible attitude in Augusta and special interests.

NOTE: After reading the proposed legislation, I want to correct some mis-information I heard at an Eddington Selectmen's meeting re: this legislation. If you read the proposed legislation you will see that the state will have to reimburse the local government for any required voting by the taxpayers should the Legislature feel the need to raise taxes under the conditions listed under the new law.

NOW, a few key pieces in the proposed legislation:

CHAPTER 167
State Tax and Spending Limitation

§ 2041. Expenditure and revenue requirements; construction of chapter
The following provisions of this section apply, notwithstanding any other provision of law.

1. Expenditure limitations. Annual authorized state appropriations and allocations may not exceed the limits provided in this chapter unless authorized by the procedures specified in this chapter.

2. Revenue increases. An increase in revenue of the State may be adopted only as provided in section 2043.

3. Construction. It is the intent that this chapter be interpreted liberally to restrain excess growth of state and local government.

§ 2042. Definitions
As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.

1. Emergency. “Emergency” means extraordinary circumstances outside the control of the Legislature, including:
A. Catastrophic events such as natural disaster, terrorism, fire, war and riot;
B. Citizens' initiatives or other referenda; or
C. Court orders or decrees.
2. Increase in revenue. ”Increase in revenue” means any legislation or tax levy that is estimated to result in a net gain in state revenue of at least 0.01% of General Fund revenue in at least one fiscal year and:
A. Enacts a new tax;
B. Increases the rate or expands the base of an existing tax;
C. Repeals or reduces any tax exemption, credit or refund; or
D. Extends an expiring tax increase.
3. Inflation adjustment factor. ”Inflation adjustment factor” means the increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently available calendar year as calculated by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The inflation adjustment factor may not be less than zero.
4. State Spending. ”State spending” means any authorized state appropriations and allocations.
5. Population adjustment factor. ”Population adjustment factor” means the average annual percentage increase in population for the 3 most recent years for which data is available as determined annually by the Executive Department, State Planning Office statewide based on federal census estimates. The population adjustment factor may not be less than zero.
6. Revenue. ”Revenue” means taxes collected by the State.
7. Tax. “Tax” means any amount raised for the general support of government functions. It does not include charges to cover the cost of specific goods or services provided or fees or other charges that are assessed for the purposes of covering the cost of administration of a government activity related to the purposes for which the fee is charged.

§ 2043. Approval of revenue increases

1. Approval of increases. The following form of approval is required to adopt an increase in state revenue:
A. For an increase in revenue of the State:
(1) The measure must be approved by a majority vote of all the members of each House of the Legislature; and
(2) Except as provided in subsection 2, the measure must be approved by a majority of the voters as described in subsection 3.

2. Exceptions. Voter approval under subsection 1, paragraph A, subparagraph (2) is not required if:

A. Annual state revenue is less than annual payments on general obligation bonds, required payments related to pensions and final court judgments; or
B. The measure is an emergency tax and the provisions of section 2048 are followed.

3. Approval by voters; emergency approval. The question of whether to adopt legislation to impose an increase in revenue of the State must be submitted to the voters for approval at the next general election as defined in Title 21-A, section 1. If the Legislature determines by a majority vote that legislation to increase taxes should take effect sooner than the next general election, the Legislature may provide for submission of the question to the voters at any regular or special election as defined in Title 21-A, section 1.

4. Revenue estimates. A measure submitted to the voters under subsection 3 must include an estimate of the amount to be raised by the measure for the first 4 fiscal years of its implementation if the measure is submitted to the voters in the first year of a fiscal biennial budget and 3 years if submitted in the second year of a fiscal biennial budget. (GOOD)

5. Notice. At least 30 days before an election required under subsection 3, the Secretary of State shall mail at the least cost a titled notice or set of notices addressed to “All Registered Voters” at each address of every active registered voter. Notices must include the following information and may not include any additional information: (which means taxpayers will have to do some "homework")

A. The election date, hours, ballot title and text and local election office address and telephone number;

B. For each proposed revenue increase, the estimated or actual total of fiscal year spending for the current year and each of the past 4 years and the overall percentage and dollar change; (GOOD) and

C. For the first full fiscal year of each proposed revenue increase, estimates of the maximum dollar amount of each increase and of fiscal year spending without the increase. (GOOD)
Except by later voter approval, if an increase in revenue exceeds any estimate prepared under paragraph C for the same fiscal year, the tax increase is thereafter reduced in proportion to the amount of the excess, and the excess revenue that was collected must be transferred to the Tax Relief Reserve Fund under section 2045 in the next fiscal year. (GOOD) Ballot questions for revenue increases must begin: “Shall (description of the tax increase) to increase state revenues by (amount of first or, if phased in, full fiscal year dollar increase) annually for the purpose of...?” The ballot question must also contain the information of paragraphs B and C. (GOOD -provides accountability)

6. Costs. The State shall reimburse municipalities for the costs of a special election as defined in Title 21-A, section 1, called under this section. (VERY GOOD!)

§ 2044. Expenditure limitation

1. State expenditure limitation. Beginning with the first fiscal year that begins after this section takes effect, the maximum annual percentage change in state fiscal year spending in the categories specified in this subsection equals the inflation adjustment factor plus the population adjustment factor and any increases attributable to measures approved under section 2043.

This limitation must be calculated separately for the following categories:
A. General Fund;
B. Highway Fund; and
C. Other Special Revenue Funds, for which separate individual limitations must be applied by program, including internal service accounts but not bond fund accounts.

2. Exceptions. The following may not be counted in calculating expenditure limitations under subsection 1:
A. Amounts returned to taxpayers as refunds of amounts exceeding the expenditure limitation in a prior year;
B. Amounts received from the Federal Government;
C. Amounts collected on behalf of another level of government;
D. Pension contributions by employees and pension fund earnings;
E. Pension and disability payments made to former government employees;
F. Amounts received as grants, gifts or donations that must be spent for purposes specified by the donor;
G. Amounts paid pursuant to a court award; or
H. Reserve transfers.

3. Approval of increases. The following form of approval is required to adopt an increase in state spending beyond the limitation:

A. For an increase in state spending:
(1) The measure must be approved by a majority vote of all the members of each House of the Legislature; and
(2) Except as provided in subsection 2, the measure must be approved by a majority of the voters as described in subsection 4.

4. Exceptions. Voter approval under subsection 3, paragraph A, subparagraph (2) is not required if the spending is as a result of an increase in state revenue approved under section 2043.

5. Approval by voters; emergency approval. The question of whether to adopt legislation to impose an increase in State spending beyond the limitation must be submitted to the voters for approval at the next general election as defined in Title 21-A, section 1. If the Legislature determines by a majority vote that legislation to increase spending beyond the limitation should take effect sooner than the next general election, the Legislature may provide for submission of the question to the voters at any regular or special election as defined in Title 21-A, section 1.

6. Spending estimates. A measure submitted to the voters under subsection 3 must include an estimate of the spending increase by the measure for the first 4 fiscal years of its implementation if the measure is submitted to the voters in the first year of a fiscal biennial budget and 3 years if submitted in the second year of a fiscal biennial budget.

§ 2045. Transfers and refund of unappropriated General Fund surplus

1. Fund created. The Tax Relief Reserve Fund, referred to in this section as “the fund,” is created for the purposes set forth in this chapter. The fund may not lapse, but remains in a continuing carrying account to carry out the purposes of this section.

2. Transfer. At the close of each fiscal year, the State Controller shall identify the amount of General Fund unappropriated surplus and make the following transfers:
A. Eighty percent of the unappropriated surplus must be transferred to the fund; and
B. Twenty percent of the unappropriated surplus must be transferred to the Maine Budget Stabilization Fund established in section 1522.

3. Notification. By September 1st annually, the State Controller shall notify the Legislature and the State Tax Assessor of the amount in the fund as a result of the transfers required by subsection 2.

4. Refund. If the amount in the fund exceeds 1% of General Fund expenditures, the Legislature shall, by September 15th, enact legislation to provide for the refund to taxpayers of amounts in the fund. Refunds may take the form only of temporary or permanent broad-based tax rate reductions.

5. Refund in case of legislative inaction. If the Legislature does not enact legislation by September 15th to provide refunds pursuant to subsection 4, then the State Controller shall, by September 30th, notify the State Tax Assessor of the amount in the fund. The State Tax Assessor shall calculate a one-time bonus personal exemption refund. The amount of the personal exemption refund must be calculated by dividing the amount in the fund identified by the State Controller under subsection 3 by the number of personal exemptions claimed on income tax returns filed for tax years beginning in the previous calendar year and rounded down to the nearest $5 increment. The State Tax Assessor shall issue a refund by October 15th to a taxpayer who filed an income tax return by April 15th of the same calendar year based on the number of personal exemptions claimed on the taxpayer’s return without regard to the taxpayer’s tax liability for the year.

§ 2046. Transfers and refund of unallocated Highway Fund surplus

1. Fund created. The Highway Fund Reserve Fund, referred to in this section as “the fund,” is created for the purposes set forth in this chapter. (GOOD. Means maybe we might get highways & bridges fixed without perpetual Bonds needed.)

2. Transfer. At the close of each fiscal year, the State Controller shall identify the amount of Highway Fund unallocated surplus and make the following transfers:

A. Eighty percent of the unallocated surplus must be transferred to the fund; and
B. Twenty percent of the unallocated surplus must be transferred to the Maine Highway Budget Stabilization Fund established in section 1523.

3. Notification. By September 1st annually, the State Controller shall notify the Legislature of the amount in the fund as a result of the transfers required by subsection 2.

4. Refund through legislative action. If the amount in the fund exceeds 1% of Highway Fund expenditures for the previous fiscal year, the State Tax Assessor shall calculate, based on the amount in the fund, a proportional reduction in the taxes on motor fuels under Title 36, Part 5 to become effective the following January 1st and remain in effect for one calendar year. (GOOD. Means the price of gasoline and diesel might be lowered in Maine.)

§ 2047. Revenues of Other Special Revenue Funds accounts
By September 1st annually, each state agency that manages an Other Special Revenue Funds account shall submit an annual report to the Legislature identifying revenues received in the preceding fiscal year that exceed the expenditure limitation established in section 2044 and any other uncommitted revenues received during the previous fiscal year and proposing a plan for refunding the amount identified that exceeds 10% of the previous fiscal year’s expenditure.

§ 2048. Emergency taxes

1. Emergency taxes permitted; conditions. The State may impose emergency taxes only in accordance with this section:

A. The tax must be approved for a specified time period by a majority of the members of each House of the Legislature;
B. Emergency tax revenue may be spent only after other available reserves are depleted and must be refunded 180 days after the emergency ends if not spent on the emergency; and
C. The tax must be submitted for approval by the voters at the next regular election, as defined in Title 21-A, section1.

2. Absence of approval. If not approved by the voters as provided in this section, an emergency tax expires 30 days following the election.

Sec. 9. 5 MRSA §13063-C, sub-§4, ¶B, as amended by PL 2005, c. 2, Pt. A, §9 and affected by §14, is further amended to read:
B. Notwithstanding section 1585, any balance remaining in the program after July 31, 2007 must be transferred to the Maine Budget Stabilization Fund as established in section 15321522.
Sec. 10. 5 MRSA §17253, sub-§3, as amended by PL 2005, c. 2, Pt. A, §10 and affected by §14, is further amended to read:

3. Components of unfunded liability contribution. The annual valuation report prepared by the actuary in accordance with section 17107 must include identification of the impact on the employer contribution rate of any excess General Fund revenues transferred to the Retirement Allowance Fund pursuant to section 1532. (This is important because of the huge, currently unfunded, retirement liability the state has for state employees.)
Sec. 11. 25 MRSA §1612, sub-§7, as amended by PL 2005, c. 2, Pt. A, §12 and affected by §14, is repealed.
Sec. 12. 30-A MRSA §706-A, sub-§3 is amended to read:

3. Growth limitation factor. The growth limitation factor is calculated as follows.

A. For fiscal years when the State Tax Assessor has determined that the state and local tax burden ranks in the highest 1/3 of all states, the growth limitation factor is average real personal income growth but no more than 2.75%, plus the property growth factor. (Maine is already there!)

B. For fiscal years when the state and local tax burden ranks in the middle 1/3 of all states, as determined by the State Tax Assessor, the growth limitation factor is the average real personal income growth plus forecasted inflation plus the property growth factor.

C. The growth limitation factor may not exceed average real personal income growth plus forecasted inflation.
Sec. 13. 30-A MRSA §706-A, sub-§7 is amended to read:

7. Process for exceeding county assessment limit. A county may exceed or increase the county assessment limit only if approved by a vote of a majority of all the members of both the county budget committee or county budget advisory committee and the county commissioners and if approved by the voters at a referendum held at a regular or special election, as defined in Title 21-A, section 1.
Unless a county charter otherwise provides or prohibits a petition and referendum process, if a written petition, signed by at least 10% of the number of voters voting in the last gubernatorial election in the county, requesting a vote on the question of exceeding the county assessment limit is submitted to the county commissioners within 30 days of the commissioners' vote pursuant to this subsection, the article voted on by the commissioners must be submitted to the legal voters in the next regular election or a special election called for that purpose. The election must be held within 45 days of the submission of the petition. The election must be called, advertised and conducted according to the law relating to municipal elections, except that the registrar of voters is not required to prepare or the clerk to post a new list of voters, the filing requirement contained in section 2528 does not apply and absentee ballots must be prepared and made available at least 14 days prior to the date of the referendum. For the purpose of registration of voters, the registrar of voters must be in session the secular day preceding the election. The voters shall indicate by a cross or check mark placed against the word "Yes" or "No" their opinion on the article. The results must be declared by the county commissioners and entered upon the county records.
Sec. 14. 30-A MRSA §706-B is enacted to read:

§706-B. Cost center budget summary format
Each county shall use the cost center budget summary format developed by the Department of Audit under Resolve 2005, chapter 136 in adopting budgets beginning with the first fiscal year that begins after 6 months from the effective date of this section.
Sec. 15. 30-A MRSA §5721-A, sub-§3, is amended to read:

3. Growth limitation factor. The growth limitation factor is calculated as follows. (Here is finally a formula the state must use in calculating tax assessment. GOOD!!!)

A. For fiscal years when the State Tax Assessor has determined that the state and local tax burden ranks in the highest 1/3 of all states, the growth limitation factor is average real personal income growth but no more than 2.75%, plus the property growth factor.
B. For fiscal years when the state and local tax burden ranks in the middle 1/3 of all states, as determined by the State Tax Assessor, the growth limitation factor is the average real personal income growth plus forecasted inflation plus the property growth factor.
C. The growth limitation factor may not exceed average real personal income growth plus forecasted inflation.
Sec. 16. 30-A MRSA §5721-A, sub-§7, is amended to read:

7. Process for exceeding property tax levy limit. A municipality may exceed or increase the property tax levy limit only by the following means. (EDDINGTON / CLIFTON RELATED)

A. If the municipal budget is adopted by town meeting or by referendum, the property tax levy limit may be exceeded by the same process that applies to adoption of the municipal budget except that the vote must be by written ballot on a separate article that specifically identifies the intent to exceed the property tax levy, and the action must be approved by the voters at a referendum held at a regular or special election, as defined in Title 21-A, section 1.
B. If the municipal budget is adopted by a town council or city council, the property tax levy limit may be exceeded only if approved by a majority vote of all the elected members of the town council or city council on a separate article that specifically identifies the intent to exceed the property tax levy limit and approved by the voters at a referendum held at a regular or special election, as defined in Title 21-A, section 1. Unless a municipal charter otherwise provides or prohibits a petition and referendum process, if a written petition, signed by at least 10% of the number of voters voting in the last gubernatorial election in the municipality, requesting a vote on the question of exceeding the property tax levy limit is submitted to the municipal officers within 30 days of the council’s vote pursuant to this paragraph, the article voted on by the council must be submitted to the legal voters in the next regular election or a special election called for that purpose. The election must be held within 45 days of the submission of the petition. The election must be called, advertised and conducted according to the law relating to municipal elections, except that the registrar of voters is not required to prepare or the clerk to post a new list of voters and absentee ballots must be prepared and made available at least 14 days prior to the date of the referendum. For the purpose of registration of voters, the registrar of voters must be in session the secular day preceding the election. The voters shall indicate by a cross or check mark placed against the word “Yes” or “No” their opinion on the article. The results must be declared by the municipal officers and entered upon the municipal records.
Sec. 17. 30-A MRSA §5721-B is enacted to read:

§5721-B. Cost center budget summary format
Each municipality shall use the cost center budget summary format developed by the Department of Audit under Resolve 2005, chapter 136 in adopting budgets beginning with the first fiscal year that begins after 6 months from the effective date of this section.
Sec. 18. 36 MRSA §3321 is enacted to read:

36 § 3321. Annual adjustment of tax rates

1. Generally. Beginning in 2003, and each calendar year thereafter, the excise tax imposed upon internal combustion engine fuel pursuant to section 2903, subsection 1 and the excise tax imposed upon distillates pursuant to section 3203, subsection 1 are subject to an annual rate of adjustment pursuant to this section. On or about February September 15th of each year, the State Tax Assessor shall calculate the adjusted rates by multiplying the rates in effect on the calculation date by an inflation index as computed in subsection 2. The adjusted rates must then be rounded to the nearest 1/10 of a cent and become effective on the first day of July immediately following the calculation if approved by the voters pursuant to subsection 5. The assessor shall publish the annually adjusted fuel tax rates and shall provide all necessary forms and reports to suppliers, distributors and retail dealers.

QUESTION 3 - REPEAL OF SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION

A couple of Caveats I need to state up front.

First: There are few things in life where one size fits all. Initially I thought of the phrase, “The only things certain are death and taxes”. But taxes are not applied equally and not at all to some. So I’ve decided Death is probably thing where the rule applies. Everybody dies – eventually.

Second: I don’t like bullies, threats, lies and misrepresentations, and people in government who have forgotten Abraham Lincoln’s standard. (…Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.) You know, that one.

NOTE: It’s only fair to say there are other things I have accumulated through my journeys in life that I don’t particularly care for, but I’m laying the foundation here for the discussion about to follow regarding:

Question 3 – An Act to Repeal the School District Consolidation laws.

A bit of background is needed (and only a bit).

During the First Regular Session of the 123rd Legislature, our state government (the Legislature and the Governor) enacted laws mandating the reduction of the number of school administrative units (districts) in the state overall. Generally speaking, to qualify for one of the “new” Regional School Unions (RSUs) there needed to be 2,500 students per school superintendent. Some existing school districts were not affected at all because they already had 2,500 students - that standard under the new law (from pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade/high school).

Some school districts like SAD 63 (School Administrative District 63) -that includes Eddington,Clifton, and Holden - had approximately 750 students with approximately 150 of them of high school age. The high school students attend Brewer High, Bangor High or John Bapst High under contract (because SAD 63 does not have a high school).

However, SAD 63 does have its own superintendent and central office staff. Question: Under whose responsibility do those high school students come under - the SAD 63 superintendent of the superintendent of Bangor/Brewer/ or John Bapst? If not the SAD 63 superintendent, the scope of SAD 63 superintendent would have been 600. A lot of money was being paid for not that big a scope which was probably part of the state's issue.

Looking at the bigger picture: Throughout Maine there are several medium to large cities which have school districts which met the criteria of 2,500 students per superintendent. They were pretty much exempted from the new laws from the "get-go". However, in rural and coastal Maine there are many, many more small communities like SAD 63. And these communities had their own school districts, each with a school superintendent and administrative staff.

The State’s position was that by requiring more districts like SAD 63 to consolidate with other SADs under one administration (one superintendent and one central office) – to become new RSUs - school budgets would be reduced because school administrative costs would be reduced. Therefore, state costs for public education would be reduced.

And then the state (meaning the Legislature, the Governor, and the Commissioner of Education) said – as in “promised”, that the taxpayers within those new RSUs would not have their property taxes increased.

Now this next point may be “elemental” (translation: common knowledge), but it’s good to be clear about this so nothing is taken for granted.

When the projected year’s school budget is put forth each May during the Public Hearing (for instance here at the Holbrook Middle School) and then voted on in June at our Town Offices, that budget is based on the “expectation” of a certain number of dollars coming from the state government. The balance for SAD 63 comes from the taxpayers in our three towns. Each town is allocated its share based on the number of students in the school district from that town and some cock-eyed assessed property value the state has determined for that town. (Don’t ask me how the state determines the assessed value because I haven’t gotten an answer yet that I can understand. It all sounds like voodoo times the three witches of Macbeth brew to me, even on a good day.)

Back to the point. When we vote on this budget, the state has not committed to how much money it is really going to be contributing to that school budget. In fact, I can not find once in recent years when the state has actually followed through on their end of the budget. Not even when the voters of this state voted that the state will pay for 55 percent of the cost of education.

So – what is the value of this state government’s word when it says if the people make local changes, the state will do ??? at the state’s end that will guarantee local property taxes won’t increase. I think this is important when considering the value of consolidating any school districts.

The consolidation of state corrections with local corrections (county jails) carried the same promise. Didn’t work. State corrections have taken their fiscal problems out on local budgets that were fiscally sound. Now county jail operations are having to charge more to our communities for patrol services just to offset the deficits caused by the state corrections consolidation. And our property taxes have had to accommodate that increase (even though the Governor said consolidation of state corrections with county corrections would prevent property tax increases!). Just one example of the lack of state fiscal planning being laid on the back of the taxpayers and property owners.

Does one size fit all?

One of the requirements of RSU consolidation is giving up local control of our schools and school policies. When various existing districts have to try to find “partners” to consolidate with, new School Boards have to be formed with different formulae for town representation. The larger towns get more representation on the new Boards; the smaller towns get less. Some really small towns may get none (think Clifton). But ALL get to pay for the school budget. Even though there may be no input from the local towns regarding how the schools are run or where school budget monies may be spent. The loss of local input or control is a big issue for many of the rural, coastal and towns that have children traveling long distances to new schools, because the new Boards will have the complete authority to decide what schools to close – or sell off.

Maybe consolidation has or will or would work for some districts. Some districts have consolidated. Whether or not they would have if they had not felt threatened by the state's fiscal penalties for not consolidating by a certain date, I don't know.

• Karen Clark reported at Monday's School Board meeting that she heard some new RSU representatives at the MSMA Annual Conference last week state in a workshop they wish they had never formed an RSU.

• Obviously enough people are opposed to obtain the necessary signature to get this Question on the ballot. That should say something.

• Seems to me that if any existing SADs wants to pursue the issue, they will, even if not mandated to do so. But why should they be forced to do something they do not believe is in the best interest of their children or their community? Do we want our pre-K through 6th graders being bussed to a distant school on icy roads or during the winter months or pre-dawn hours just because it's a fiscal matter to the state when the state can't manage it's fiscal responsibilities in the first place?

• If consolidating was going to be so easy, why have so many districts not been able to find workable partners or plans? Why has there been such resistance? No longer are districts required to have 2,500 students. Now (apparently) 1,000 may suffice. Different strokes for different folks - or change the rules to force something that doesn't work to "fit" the state's needs even if it doesn't fit the needs of educating and protecting our children?

And that's all this law was about in the first place. Not about education. About the state's budget - which the state still can not manage.

Why did the voters in SAD 63 vote down consolidation with Brewer and Orrington last year?

After a lot of work by many people on the RSU committee spanning several months, there seemed to be four primary reasons why that particular consolidation plan failed.

• The proposed RSU Board was heavily weighted with Brewer positions. There was a sense of distrust of the Orrington influence within the communities of Eddington and Clifton (although I didn’t hear too much regarding that issue from individuals from Holden). Eddington and Clifton people felt they would be non-entities when it came to decisions affecting their own children and their taxes.
  
• The option of having Local Advisory groups, which would be able to at least communicate to the RSU Board regarding issues of local concern, was not going to be allowed. This only added to problem #1.
  
• The projected cost increase for the new RSU was $1.5 million higher than the current district. This was not a cost savings. Even the threat of the state’s “penalty” (withholding of state funds, projected at the time to be $157,000 divided between the three towns) was significantly less than the projected increased cost of the proposed consolidation.
  
• The voters felt pushed and threatened by the state to accept the consolidation. And they became angry.

Which takes me to my second Caveat, as listed above - things I don't like.

I have watched the brief television ads opposing the repeal of school consolidation. I expect they are all funded by the state. Who else would be funding them? State government that claims to be $92 million more in debt than it already was before it started cutting money for the 2010-2011 budget. (And is planning to cut even that budgeted allocation for this current school year's budget - see yesterday's report from the School Board meeting.) I haven't seen any ads FOR Q3 -Repeal of Consolidation. Probably because that campaign is a Grass Roots Campaign and doesn't have much money. It's being run by taxpayers like you and me, headed by Skip Greenlaw, a former legislator from Stonnington.

BUT, I have found the television ads most interesting - and misleading.

Communities were told a year ago that once they formed an RSU, they were in it forever. Couldn't get out. These past months, even SAD 63's Interim Superintendent said voters would continue consolidation because to do otherwise would penalize those new RSUs. WRONG.

The law firm of Drummond, Woodson & McMann, specialists in school law, spoke at the MSMA Annual Conference. They stated that repeal of consolidation will restore the laws that existed prior to the law requiring consolidation and that those RSU would be able to get out of those unions if they so chose. In fact, the recent newsletter from Senator Richard Rosen from District 31 affirms this fact. So now, the state says the only people to benefit from the repeal will be the attorneys working for those RSUs who want to dissolve the RSUs. Think about it. If the RSU is working, would the people want to disolve it? No. Those who will be initiating dissolution will be those who want to go back to the way they were before they were bullied by the state to lose what they had in the first place.

Some of the television ads infer that repeal of consolidation would cost more than $30 million dollars. They don't say to whom it would cost this money. (See above. Can't be state government. They don't pay their bills as it is.)

Several things are clear.

SAD 63 can not be the only school district that has experienced significant defaults in state funding in the last half of the school year, year after year through no fault of its own.

Local school districts can not depend on anything the state promises when it comes to funding.

When the state mandates anything regarding education that has everything to do with financial support it cannot fulfill and nothing to do with the quality of education it is not prepared to ensure, local control must be in maintained.

If we're going to be stuck with the bill anyway, let's make sure we not only like what we're paying for - let's make sure we have control over what the bill is for.

There are always bullies in the room. Unless we stand up to them and take back control of our lives, we lose. Inch by inch until we have lost our homes, our schools, our towns and states and country.

I don't believe what I hear in the television ads. A ten second blip is just a carrot in front of the jackass to make it jump. There is no information and no thinking involved. Jackasses have no right in the voting booth but that's all the information the ballot and the television ads provide. The voter needs to search for the background of information and then THINK.

I don't trust the promises of Maine state government when it says IF we do something (see the carrot?) it will protect any increases in our property taxes. Sorry.

I recently heard a report that said Maine's property taxes have increased something like 20 percent in the last ten? years. (I am looking for that report/source. It was a quick "blip" I overheard during an interview on MaineBiz, a Sunday news program on WLBZ last Sunday morning, I think.)

I do believe we, the voters/taxpayers and parents in our local towns HAVE to be more involved in the governance of our schools and local government. While I believe there are needed changes in what we currently have, and places where we can reduce current administrative costs, WE should be the ones to decide if and with whom any kind of consolidation would be good - and under what terms.

And we need to work out the terms we think will meet the best interests of our children as well as our communities. On our clock - not the state's clock.

For these reasons I will be voting YES ON QUESTION 3 - TO REPEAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSOLIDATION

These are my views. Make up your own mind. But most of all. Be informed. And VOTE November 3 and your Town Office if you have not already voted via an Absentee Ballot.

SAD 63 BOAD MEETING LAST NIGHT - NEWS!

Maybe the headline should be "When you least expect it" - but some things I have learned (from experience) to expect. I'll just say that some things were better than usual and some things were, well, usual.

First, the attendees: Seated from left to right: Mario Teisl (rep from Holden), Karen Clark (rep from Eddington), Ray Hart (Interim Superintendent), Don Varnum, Chair (rep from Holden), Therese Anderson (rep from Eddington), Pam Dorr (rep from Eddington), and Kevin Mills (rep from Holden). Both Sylvia Mills (rep from Holden) and Chris Fickett (rep from Clifton) were absent which is why the Operations sub-committee meeting, usually scheduled before the regular School Board meeting, was cancelled. Ms. Ellis is the Chair of that sub-committee.

Having reviewed the Agenda in advance of the beginning of the meeting and seeing nothing reporting any discussion of an RSU committee or prep work being done on that subject, this writer raised the subject during the first "Questions and Comments from the Public" opportunity on the Agenda, making reference to the discussion re: the subject made at the Budget and Finance Sub-committee meeting earlier in the month. (See earlier blog posting for details). I prefaced my remarks with the remarks "if I heard correctly (at that meeting) neither Dedham and Orrington want to meet until after the November 3 vote." Hearing no disagreement with my understanding, I proceeded to state that IF Question 3 (to repeal forced school consolidation) is not passed, that would leave SAD 63 with only about 6 weeks to formulate a consolidation plan, present it to the voters, conduct a vote, and (if passed) submit the plan BY some date in JANUARY to the Commissioner of Education in Augusta.

At that point I asked if there was anything the SAD 63 Board was doing in way of preparing any kind of ground work, even without Dedham and Orrington, should that need come to pass since that was a lot of work for such a short amount of time? I also pointed out that Mr. Hart's previous comments that all that would be needed was to take the old RSU plan (to consolidate with Brewer) and just cross out Brewer's name would NOT be sufficient. At least I did not believe it would be sufficient for many of the voters in Eddington and Clifton.

I wish I could say that there was some meaningful response from Chairman Varnum. (No one else said a peep.) There wasn't. If it is possible for someone to be speaking and to say nothing, that was his response.

Then, when I pointed out that if Orrington was surveying their own voters as to what they would want should there be some kind of consolidation, why couldn't the SAD 63 Board do the same with SAD 63 voters? They certainly would have access to the voters/taxpayers in the three towns of Eddington/Clifton/Holden. At that point Chairman Varnum said there wasn't enough time before the November 3 vote. (But there has been plenty of time in the past several months since the new Board took office and Chairman Varnum has failed to name/activate an RSU committee.)

It was not until later in the meeting, when Mr. Hart gave the Superintendent's report, I first heard of the SAD 63's plan to form a "tri-city Supervisory Union" with a central office. As to whether or not this would be if Q. 3 passes or fails was unclear to this writer. It all sounded very much like a conversation that has been going on "behind closed doors" and I'm not sure who has been behind those doors.

Chairman Varnum did say that if Q.3 fails and consolidation is required, an RSU committee of some sort (and with whom is not known - Dedham, Orrington, and Otis was not mentioned again last night) would need to be formed. Varnum did say that Kevin Mills from Holden, Karen Clark from Eddington and Chris Fickett from Clifton (with Karen as the alternate for Clifton if Chris was not in attendance) would represent the Board on such a committee. There would also need to be a Selectperson on the committee from each town. AND there would need to be a citizen from each town on the committee.

It was either Varnum or Hart who said that they wanted to submit a Letter of Intent for whatever plan SAD 63 decides to go with (consolidating with some other town or the "Supervisory Union") to the Commissioner of Education first to be sure it would be accepted before the committee goes down the path to do the work. At that point, Chairman Varnum acknowledged, with a nod in my direction, that there would be a LOT of work to do and a bureaucratic process takes time. (Gee, for a moment I thought I was hearing an echo from the last several months.)

However, I heard remarks from Mr. Hart re: this "supervisory union" that there would need to be some kind of lawyer involved to make it a "legal union" between the three towns. Of course that costs money and I wondered why would we need to incur such costs to create something that is going to end up being pretty much what we already have? Just to appease the powers that be in Augusta that are trying to say we have to be something we already are only a different name so that the those powers can say they won some kind of political battle? Maybe we need to have a "sit down" with Representative Ben Pratt and Senator Richard Rosen while they're home here in Eddington and Bangor. Because spending money unnecessarily only sounds like Augusta. And just another reason to think about Q. 4 in my book.

Hart pointed out whatever group was meeting or is formed will have to (1) be doing a Superintendent search and (2) conducting teacher contract negotiations (since the current contract is due to expire this coming Fall). Presumably this would be done AFTER January 2010. I submit that group has a third task - the search for a new Business Manager since the current B.M.'s contract also expires June 30, 2010 and that search should begin by March of 2010.

I did obtain a copy of the Financial Statement of Operations from Mario Teisl, Chair of the Budget and Finance Sub-Committee. It is "For the Three Months Ending September 30, 2009".

According to Mr. Hart, the 2008-2009 audit is scheduled to go out the second week in November.

Mr. Hart pointed out that he is hearing (from Augusta) that the state budget's deficit situation looks to be an additional $94 million which should result in an additional curtailment to various programs this year (regardless of the signed 2010-2011 budget). Mr. Hart doesn't believe either the Legislature or the Governor will address this issue until the Legislature comes back into session in January 2010. He stated that IF the high school tuition for our students attending Brewer High School doesn't go up (higher than the SAD 63 planned budget) SAD 63 should OK. However, comments made at various points through the rest of the Board meeting indicated the Budget and Finance sub-committee will be looking closely at reducing any spending for the rest of this fiscal year in anticipation of state funding cuts later on in this fiscal year.

As to Q.3, Karen Clark remarked that during her attendance at the MSMA Annual Fall Conference in Augusta last week, she attended one session where there was a discussion with representatives from some newly organized RSU schools and their remarks indicated their schools were not happy with the consolidation. There had also been a speaker from a legal firm, named Drummond, who has stated that if consolidation was repealed, the newly formed RSU components WOULD be able to pull out. I thought this was important information even though we are certainly NOT hearing this from the state.

News re: the Lawsuit.

On Monday, November 9 - The Maine Supreme Court in Portland will be hearing Oral Arguments at 2:15pm as to why (or why not) the Commissioner of Education should (be required) to hear SAD 63's reasons for terminating the employment of former superintendent Louise Regan - or conversely, the case of Louise Regan v. SAD 63 et al. This is very good news and we hope to succeed.

What's going to happen: SAD 63's attorney will be arguing before the Maine Supreme Court that Regan should be required to take her case (and therefore most of her issues) to the Commissioner before she can take them to the courts since the basis of her entire case is her termination of employment and that she has not utilized her administrative remedies and has lost her arguments in U.S. District Court (that she was a victim of discrimination under various civil rights laws). As such she has placed an exhaustive burden on the taxpayers by not using her administrative remedies before going to the courts.

Interestingly, (if I understood this correctly), the opposing counsel to our attorney will be someone from the Maine Attorney General's office. If I am correct here, it means that the Commissioner's Office is arguing that she should not hear the case. (State Departments are traditionally represented by the state's Attorney General.)

Of course I will be going to Portland and will be in attendance. And you will be able to read my report on my blog later that night (or first thing the following morning depending on how late I write or how early you check your computer.) :-)

So then we got to the "Say What?" part of the Agenda.

I am going to preface this by letting you in on something I knew before I went to the meeting (because I had not seen an advance copy of the Agenda). Clifton's Vice Chair Penny Peasley had seen the agenda in advance because both Eddington and Clifton town offices receive the agendas in advance of the School Board meetings. The Agenda listed, under Old Business, the Holden Town Deed/Land Transfer. Vice Chair Peasley wanted to be sure the School Board was only going to be dealing with the transferring of that small portion of land containing the Veteran's Memorial and the gazebo, which had been agreed to at the September 23 School Board meeting. (Refer to those blog postings and all that brew-ha-ha if you are unfamiliar with the "situation.) In particular, Vice Chair Peasley was to be sure the School Board was to be sure the School Board was not going to vote on the second parcel of land relating to the Nature Trails and access points because no one from Clifton has been informed or involved with that discussion since the September School Board meeting.

Vice Chair Peasley called School Board Chair Don Varnum on Friday, October 23 and discussed this matter with him. Varnum assured Peasley the School Board would not be voting on the second parcel of land at the School Board meeting last night. He told her the School Board would only be finalizing the transference of the parcel containing the Veterans memorial.

So now, back to last night's Board meeting.

Mr. Hart directed the Board members to a new surveyor's map of the 12.14 acres in question, showing the corrected area being transferred to the Town of Holden which contains the Veterans Memorial and gazebo. It totals 1.13 acres. The Release Deed had been prepared and was ready for the Board's vote of approval for transfer. The vote was 6-0. Done deal.

The new surveyor's map ALSO showed numerous access entrances to the Nature Trails, including the handicapped access which is located near the Holden Fire House. Many of these entrances had been previously unknown to some of the Board members. The SAD 63 Operations Manager, Jake, did point out that land had been held (for the school district) for any future needs as operations could anticipate/identify. However, when looking at the new parcel in question, it appears to this writer to be much larger than was originally intended.

Jake did point out that any individual wanting to access the Nature Trails would have to cross school property to use one of the entrances.

The area previously agreed not to be transferred to the Town of Holden, the ball field and its surrounding ground, appeared to this writer, to be much smaller under this new rendering.

Chairman Varnum proceeded to try to have the Board vote on the transfer of this second parcel of land to the Town of Holden.

It was only because Board member and Vice Chair Therese Anderson, rep from Eddington, spoke up that Varnum was stopped in this action. Anderson pointed out several problems. She asked Varnum if anyone from the towns of Eddington and Clifton had seen the new maps or had been involved in any drafting of the Release Deed that would be attached to the transfer of that particular parcel. She pointed out that the previous discussions in September had been that the lands should be kept in Public Trust and, no disrespect toward Holden, the people holding public office change and new people might not have the same intent as those currently in office. Only the legal document attached to the transfer would insure the requirements the towns agreed to.

Varnum started to say the land belonged to the school and the Board had the authority to transfer it. (Where have we heard that before as though the land doesn't belong to the taxpayers who have paid for it all these years?) Karen Clark spoke up and reminded Varnum of the conversations that had taken place and the agreements made between the Board and the citizens and Selectmen in attendance at the September Board meeting. Varnum tried to read from the September minutes but Anderson wouldn't let that dissuade her from keeping him on point as to the issues at hand. (The "motion" Varnum was trying to use was not relevant to the discussion that had been between the Board and the people in attendance at the September meeting when it had been agreed that representatives from all three towns would be party to the drawing up of any final agreement document re: the parcel of land involving the Nature Trails.)

Pam Dorr then asked for some background on the issue since she had not been in attendance at the September Board meeting. At this point Hart was seeing the handwriting on the wall and suggested the issue be tabled until the November 30th meeting. All three towns' Selectmen will have advance copies of the surveyor's map and the agenda. (It would be good if someone can draft up some wording as well, if all three towns are still in agreement that that much land should be transferred from the school district...) Anderson pointed out that it would not be fair to the Town of Holden to incur the legal expense of having a Release Deed written up prior to all three towns agreeing on what the Release Deed should say, i.e., land to be held in Public Trust and never to be sold or built on, to be returned to the school district by whatever name it may have (since consolidation or whatever may change its name) free of charge should it be needed in the future, etc.

Needless to say, this issue should be on the agenda of all three towns' Boards of Selectmen in November, as well as attendance by members of those Boards at the November 30th School Board meeting at Holden at 6:30pm.

As to what you can believe or trust in making you think you don't need to be at a School Board meeting.... I'll let Vice Chair Peasley's experience be a reminder to you.

Bottom Line: No matter what kind of a school district or RSU we may end up with in the future, one thing we all need to insist on... the Chair position rotates every year between all towns represented in the district/union/whatever. Since every member of the Board is allowed and encouraged to vote (per the Maine School Board Management Association handbook, unlike Robert's Rules of Order), it is both unreasonable and disproportionate to have one town or person control a School Board that is supposed to act in the best interests of the education and taxpayers of all who support it.

SAD 63 BOARD MEETING TONIGHT

School Board Meeting tonight at the Eddington School at 6:30pm.

Tomorrow's blog posting will be a recapture of the meeting.

Wednesday's blog posting will be Question 3: Should Voters Repeal Mandatory School District Consolidation.

Friday's blog posting will Be Question 4: Taxpayers Bill of Rights - Also known as TABOR II

This weekend I will be posting information on the remaining Questions on the November 3 ballot.

I know some of you have been waiting for these issues/information (you have been phoning me for either the information or the date for the blog postings) but I have been busy gathering information. I DO try to present objective information, you know. :-)

A BIG hug to my friend from Clifton who dropped of her copy of The Piglet Book today. I need to read it before I can decide what information in it I think is justifiable or needs to be looked at in relationship to Q.4.

So, tomorrow, friends and readers. Tonight there is the School Board. It would be great to see some of your there. HINT.

QUESTION 1 - CIVIL MARRIAGE OR CIVIL UNION?

Question 1 on the November 3 Ballot has been an emotional issue ever since the Legislature and Governor passed the original bill authorizing civil marriage in the state of Maine between same sex individuals. The law was intended to end discrimination in civil marriage while allowing religious organizations the freedom to refuse to perform such ceremonies.

Let's look at how the Ballot frames the issue being voted on by the people.

Question 1: "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.
The Question being asked is: "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"

Let us be clear on this. If you vote "YES", you are saying you do not agree with the law that has already been passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. You are saying you do not agree/approve of same-sex couples being allowed to have the right to CIVIL Marriages. This law does NOT provide or mandate that any religious group or organization or church is required to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple, or even to provide its buildings for such a ceremony.

If you vote "NO", you are saying, you are in agreement with the law that was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. You are saying you do not want that law over-turned. You are NOT saying - nor can your vote require - any religious group or organization to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple or provide its buildings for such a ceremony.

What are the issues here? Let's just deal with the facts.

What is the difference between civil Union and civil Marriage? In truth now - what is the difference other than a word? Especially if the "service" or act that joins two people together is not performed under the auspice of a religious organization (though it could be under this new law - there is nothing that prevents it, only the protection for those religious organizations that do not want to be required to do so).

It is true, the dictionary (currently) defines marriage as the relation between husband and wife. But it also states Marriage is "any close or intimate union." As to the "husband" and "wife" business, I think homosexuality has for the most part blurred the lines between the roles of who plays the part of the husband or wife in gay and lesbian relationships. Heck, the same can be said in a lot of heterosexual relationships whether the individuals are married, living together or just friends.

Except - when the partnership is one of an intended life-long commitment, there is a difference between a Civil union and a civil Marriage. And that difference is determined by the law, no matter what anyone says to the contrary.

And those legal differences impact health benefits, insurance, inheritance, medical decisions for one's partner in an emergency, retirement benefits and coverage, and any children the couple may have - either because of previous relationships or through In-vitro fertilization/surrogate mothers/donors/adoption/etc.

Whether the adults are heterosexual or homosexual, breakups happen. Children from those relationships are not only caught in the middle, they are emotional hurt. Civil marriage protects not only both adults who are, in all respects, mutual parents. Civil marriage also protects the child because both parents are equally protected with parental rights. That is not the case with civil unions. Civil marriage means both parents are financially responsible for the care of any child of that marriage(either through adoption or other means that makes both parties legal parents) and that gives some protection to the taxpayer since it minimizes the chances that welfare is going to have to step in for one parent who would not otherwise be financially required to pay child support.

There were a couple of ads put out by the "Yes on 1" campaign saying that a particular book used in the elementary schools in California was advocating homosexual families. The "No on 1" campaign made that book available on its website - www.protectmaineequality.com. So I went to the website and looked at the book. You can, too. It's a sweet book for children. And it does NOT promote homosexuality. And it is probably applicable in most states in this country. Maybe not Louisiana, but they've got their own problems and it's not homosexuality. You'll have to look at the book and read current news stories to figure out what I'm referring to.

But fair is fair. And right is right. And wrong is wrong.

I have dealt with plenty of kids, boys and girls, who have been screwed up enough by lousy families, none of which were homosexual. At the same time I have seen heterosexual parents so filled with intolerance of any people who were "different" (race, religion, from different regions of this country even, biased against women, biased against differing political views, hatred against even opposing sports teams, you name - they thumped it) that they produced children who were bullies, school yard terrorists, breeding grounds for the worse kinds of human beings....all because of intolerance and fear.

Some people have said that if this law stands, the schools will start teaching homosexuality - by law. And the "Yes on 1" campaign have attempted to support this fear allegation by using so-called documentation from Massachusetts and California. Again, this is trying to build a foundation on fear. The "book" from California does not teach what it is purported to teach. You can see it for yourself if you go to the website listed above.

I have even called a school district superintendent (in San Diego County where my granddaughters attend school) to verify what the book is being used for. What the "Yes" campaign is alleging is totally false. There is a great deal of diversity in California - Hispanic, African American, Asian, Native American, single parent families, gay/lesbian, older generations raising grandchildren. Not so different than right here in Maine. They're just bigger, more people, more miles, more languages.

The Maine Attorney General and Commissioner of Schools have publicly stated that allowing civil marriages between same-sex couples would not require or set any legal basis for changing school curriculum. Read it yourself on the website listed above.

Do not let fear dictate your vote. If anything, those who use it should repel you. Yes, that Bishop and those "special collections" repulse me - for reasons I don't need to go in to. But I need to focus on the issue - the facts. You do, too.

Considering the divorce rate in this country, I only have hope for anyone making any kind of long-term commitment these days. Marriage IS only a word. But it's a good word for those who want it. And it carries the kind of protection and rights anyone should have who's willing to make that kind of a commitment. So, I'm voting "NO on Question 1." It's the right thing to do.

IT SNOWED (!) LAST NIGHT

Don't you know, good friend Jan just had to call me about 9pm last night to say "Look out your window."

And here I was in the office (second floor) and all I could see of the outside was DARK (we've lost 4 hours 31 minutes of daylight. And you know I AM counting those minutes!). So down the stairs to the main floor I go, phone in hand, asking "Where, front or back?" (having no idea what she wanted me to see - or where she was calling from). She does have a wicked sense of humor I'm discovering.

"Oh, look out the back door - out the back porch," she says.

So, I throw on the outside flood lights - thinking maybe it's that dang raccoon that's been digging up my tulip bulbs AGAIN. Found them UPSIDE on Saturday and had to plant them again (only the 4th time!). Lord knows what, if anything, will bloom come Spring. For all I know, Jan is in the driveway. But "NOOOooooo" It is snowing! That big, puffy, wet stuff - all over my car, the walkway, the lawn - everywhere.

I'd sort of thought that's what it was, just hearing the tone in her voice and said, "It's NOT snowing," just before I opened the door.

Then I heard her laugh. Evil laugh that woman can have. (Of course she is a snowmobiler and can hardly wait for that stuff.)

But REALLY?!!! It is OCTOBER - and only the 18th. Not even Halloween, for heavens sake. Forget Frost on the pumpkins - there was snow!

The good news is that with this morning's sunshine, it is gone. Gone. Out, out damned white spots.

Shiver me timbers. Must have been a bad dream. If only.....

FROM AN EMAIL - HOW TO SAVE BIG FEDERAL BUCKS

"The Proposal"

When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall Street and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision," and his board of directors gives him a big bonus. Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.

Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State).

Then, reduce their staff by 25%. Accomplish this over the next 8 years (two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of their staff. (Estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each 2 members of the Senate every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (Those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork ear-marks are at $15 Billion/yr).

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country! We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing. Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)

A Note: Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems.

Also, we had 3 senators who were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have accepted full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in Senators & Congress.

Summary of opportunity: $ 44,108,400 reduction of Congress members.$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced House member staff. $150,000,000 for elimination of reduced Senate member staff. $59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining House members. $37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining Senate members. $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of Congress members. $8,073,383,400 per year estimated total savings. (that's 8 BILLION just to start!)

Big business does these types of cuts all of the time.

If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, taxpayers could save a bundle. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.

If you are happy with how Congress spends our taxes, forget this message. Otherwise, I assume you know what to do. (Tell people about this blog's address!)

CLIFTON LIBRARY BENEFIT A HUGE SUCCESS

Sunday's benefit Gospel and religious songfest at Clewley Farm Restaurant was well attended and provided an even better than expected financial boost to the Clifton Free Library.

Dola and Company (Dola Hinckley, Nancy Hatch and Cindy Dunton) put on a good show that was well received by an estimated gathering of 30 people plus the crew from the restaurant.

Penny Peasley and Mary Bragg, two of the three women who do all of the work of the library, were in attendance and Penny talked about how the day's donations would go for new books for the library. Penny also pointed out that while the library has held craft shows and food sales in the past for that purpose, it hadn't been able to do that this year. Caroline Baker, the third member of the stalwart threesome was not in attendance but Penny spoke for her as well when she said the community was encouraged to come to visit and get to know how well the library is stocked with hard cover, paperbacks, large print books, magazines and video tapes.

The library is located in the Clifton Town Office and is open Wednesdays from 1:30pm to 7:00pm - except during the winter it may be closed if it's a bad weather day. The place is so social and comfortable, you may want to stay and chat a bit with whoever's there at the time you drop in.

The Donation Bucket was passed around and was well received and supported by all - to the tune of contributions totaling $263.54, all of which will go toward more books for the library.

Penny, Mary and Caroline particularly wanted everyone who attended and participated in the Benefit Concert to know how much they appreciated the support of the library. Now, come check out a book or two!

Five Seasons Gifts Shop was open and people had a chance to see the wide array of gifts, cards, bird houses, photos fit for framing, dishes and vases, wood sculpture, etc. on display. There are toys for children and decorative collars for pets. Candles, maple sugar candies, jewelry, beautiful one-of-a-kind Christmas tree decorations as well as Halloween decorations. You name someone you need a gift for - you'll find something at the shop at Clewley Farm Restaurant.

Gift Shop Hours will be: Tuesday & Sunday - 9am-2pm; Saturday - 9am - 8pm. The shop will close at the end of December and re-open around Easter.

QUESTION 2 - MUNICIPAL EXCISE TAX

Question 2 on the November 3 ballot reads as follows:

"Do you want to cut the rate of the municipal excise tax by an average of 55 percent on motor vehicles less than six years old and exempt hybrid and other alternative energy and highly fuel-efficient motor vehicles from sales tax and three years of excise tax?"

This initiative has been the product of the Maine Heritage Policy Center.

If the Question is approved, it will become Law. (That means if the majority of the voters vote "YES", it will become law. If the majority vote "NO", it will not.)

What is the law that has been written relevant to this Question?

LD 974 "An Act to Decrease the Automobile Excise Tax and Promote Energy Efficiency", (which) would cut Maine's excise tax rate in the first year of registration from 2.4 percent to 1.2 percent. In the second year, the rate would be cut from 1.75 to .08 percent. For the third and subsequent years, the rate would be cut from 1.35 to .04 percent.

The law also eliminates the sales tax and the first three years of excise taxes on hybrid, hydrogen, electric and other high-tech vehicles and high-mileage vehicles.

How does this apply to our local communities?

1. Municipalities like Eddington, Clifton and Holden keep the excise tax collected from the registration of cars belonging to residents of their towns. The towns' Boards of Selectmen use that money for each town's road reconstruction, labor, equipment, salt and sand and other costs related to their town's roads. [NOTE: This does not apply to Route 9, 46, 178 or 1A which are the responsibility of the State Department of Transportation.]

2. This law will not lower the excise tax - associated with a vehicle's registration cost - of any vehicles older than six years. And this law will not exempt any new vehicles from sales tax or give them a three-year exemption from the excise tax associated with registration unless the vehicle is a hybrid, hydrogen, electric or other high-tech or high mileage vehicle.

Looking around at the vehicles that drive around Eddington or are parked in the driveways of our town's residences, most appear to be close to or older that six years. Those owners will not see a benefit by the passage of this Question or law.

Vehicles less than six years of age will see a 55 percent reduction of cost in their annual excise tax until the vehicle is six years old.

The owners of the hybrid, hydrogen, electric or other high-tech or high mileage vehicles will see no benefit once those vehicles become older than six years.

3. Eddington does have one car and farm machinery dealership - Eddington Auto; but it is unlikely that business will see much benefit from this law. However, if Eddington Auto does sell hybrid, hydrogen, electric or other high-tech or high mileage vehicles, it may see an increase in sales if this law passes.

How will the State benefit if this Question/law is passed?

1. The Maine Heritage Policy Center states that the tax cut it proposes will stimulate auto sales and that auto sales are a chief component of the American economy.

2. The Center also reports that approximately 6,000 people are employed at 134 licensed new car dealers throughout the state.

3. The purchase of a new car carries a high excise (sales) tax, which the Center states is an obstacle to new car purchases. This is the reason that the Question/law proposes no sales tax for the specified cars and why it proposes an exemption of three years for any excise (registration) tax (when the value of the car is at the highest). [NOTE: The registration/excise tax charged each year is based on the vehicle's Blue Book posted value. However, Maine's rate becomes fixed when the car is six years old regardless of its Blue Book value.]

This Writer's Thoughts:

1. I am totally turned off by the ads opposing this Question. Threats that the passage of this question will (automatically) increase my property taxes raise my blood to the boiling point. What doesn't threaten to raise the property taxes of everyone in this state? So enough on that issue. The ads have completely avoided addressing THE issue which is that excise taxes across the board are too high. Period.

2. I don't know how much Eddington or Clifton would really lose $$ wise if this Question/law passes. I've heard $137,000 for Eddington and something like $67,000 for Clifton. That is probably bases on the 55 percent reduction for those cars less than six years of age that were registered in Eddington and Clifton last year. The figure probably came from MMA (Maine Municipal Association)

3. BUT-I can't see why buyers of only certain select types of vehicles should benefit from the exemptions listed in this law. And a lot of cars that are six years and older are in good condition, well cared for and get good mileage.

3. Everyone uses the roads. This is not a one-size-fits-all state. We have a FEW large cities (not metropolitan areas, just large cities), and some of the newer hybrids, etc. vehicles may work there very well. However, for the vast majority of this state, we're dealing with rural roads - and potholes and shifting asphalt at that. We're looking at (and for) trucks and tough cars that last in those areas and under those conditions. The vehicles "protected" under this law aren't going to be the bread-and-butter trucks and tough cars most of us are going to be buying - or driving longer than six years, thank you very much.

3. I'm all for supporting the Maine Automobile Dealerships. My dad worked for one for years right in Bangor. But the way to do that is to write a law that brings the sales tax and the registration costs into a more reasonable bracket. Right now they aren't. Not in Maine.

I have a 2002 model car. Registration for that car in Florida is $39. Here in Eddington it's $107. (not including the special license plate). (BTW, I loved hearing Florida has it written into their state constitution there will be no state income tax in that state, either.)

Look at the number of "snowbirds" who leave Maine and take their cars with them, register their cars out of state because the costs are reasonable, and then come back to Maine for six months minus one day with those cars - just to avoid the excessive tax. Those registration costs could stay right here if the costs were more in line with reason than with highway robbery.

4. The Boards of Selectmen in Eddington and Clifton and Ellsworth (and probably Holden) have voted to oppose Question 2.

And I'm going to oppose it, too. Not because those governments have opposed it but because I think it's a bad bill. It singles out certain vehicles that are not going to be genetically workable across the state, particularly in rural areas, certainly not in the winter (and I don't know too many families that can afford a separate winter vehicle) and not with the cost of such vehicles when one takes in to consideration the average income of Maine families.

I think car registration costs and Excise Taxes across the board in Maine are too high and what this state needs is a bill that lowers all excises taxes, including cars older than six years. I understand towns need money for road repair and associated costs but the answer is to expand opportunities for businesses to come into the communities and succeed, thrive and become a productive part of the town's tax base.

*******
Have a good weekend. Woody Woodson's @ Clewley Farm Restaurant tomorrow night. And Dola's singing Gospel Music there Sunday afternoon from 1-2:30 as a Benefit for the Clifton Library. Five Seasons Gift Shop will be open Saturday. LOTS of beautiful gifts for everyone in the family on display. Reasonable pricing, too.

*******

Monday's blog: Question 1

THANK YOU CRAIG

Spotted Craig Russell from the Eddington Fire Department out along Route 9 this morning taking down the flags from the utility poles. Kind of sad to see the flags coming down but better than to see them whipped to shreds by the all-too-soon-to-be bad weather. I'll just look forward to when they go back up next Spring - although I hope the Annual Report will be updated as to the people who donated to the flags purchased. I noticed the absence of several names in last year's report. :-(

The weather reports of wet snow in Bangor Tuesday afternoon (for about 10-15 minutes) were valid. I drove down from Orono in some of it and heard some of the sales staff at the Target store say they'd watched it fall in their parking lot. At least it left almost as soon as it arrived but - Good grief! There are still tons of leaves on the trees that haven't fallen. (And then there was that multi-car mess on the black ice over on Wilson Street/1A in Brewer yesterday.) Should we be thinking this will be a bad or early winter? At least the loons are still here which should be some kind of a good sign. I'm listening to them as I write so I'm going to think it is.

And last but not least - what are you thinking about all these negative ads re: the Ballot Questions for November 3? With the exception of the campaign for "No on Question 1", it seems the rest are all basing their arguments/positions on fear and negativity. I look for the issue and what seems right versus wrong - fair versus unfair. What seems to be good government versus more government. And I read A LOT - from as many positions as possible in order to be as informed on the issue as possible. I've never found basing my vote on my emotions to be as wise as basing it on facts and right v. wrong etc.

But what about Question 3? I haven't heard or seen any media ads on that issue at all - and that Question has to do with whether or not be should repeal the mandate of school consolidation. From what we saw here last year, the one option that was offered was certainly not more cost effective than what we have right now. In fact, we could cut some of our existing central office costs without consolidating with any other district by at least $20,000. Just ask me how.

And many of the larger towns like Bangor or Brewer were not required to make any changes. Granted, the more rural areas don't have as many voters as the large towns and cities, but consolidating distant rural areas isn't necessarily better for the children if they have to be up at 4:30am in order to be on school buses for a couple of hours just to get to school. Children, up through their teen years, need 8 hours of sleep each night. That's not my opinion; it's been proven through scientific studies. So how can children learn or stay healthy when they're not sleeping like they should, riding on school buses for 3-4 hours a day to/from school? And what's the condition of their minds, their attitude toward school, and the impact on their parents - the bus drivers?

Maybe, like in so many things that have come out of Augusta in recent years, ideas need more thought and research before there are mandated changes and unreasonable promises and expectations. Maybe cultivating an environment that would bring more businesses to the rural areas would bring more jobs = more families = justify districts staying where they are. It ALL starts with business growth.

I think the news burps with our Governor the last two days are insulting. NOW that the income revenues are even worse than previously projected - to the tune of $200 million less income to the State - the Governor thinks that State government needs to "tighten its belt along with the homes and businesses that have been cutting back because of these difficult economic times." I want to say, "Give it a rest, Governor." How bad does it have to get in this state before state government gets the message that Maine State government is too darn expensive - too big - and spends too much of the taxpayers money? Maine state government already said it was cutting back $90million in education funding in 2011. Maybe this will increase the decrease. To justify the threats of Question 4 not matter how the vote goes - do you think???

State government supposedly cut back last Spring to bring in the constitutionally required "balanced budget." The "balancing" cut back even more on voter-mandated education funding even after it used the federal stimulus money to pay a portion of the state funding. The "balancing" took over county jails, which were running just fine, to help run the state prisons which weren't running so well - and the result of which is now the county jails are being undercut by the state and that need for additional county jail funding being passed down to local property tax increases.

So - remember how the Governor said consolidating state corrections with county corrections would PREVENT an increase in property taxes - AND consolidating school districts would prevent property tax increases? Is this not similar to the argument being used for Question 2 regarding the Excise Tax? Apparently Maine state government and the proponents of the new Excise tax and the opponents of TABOR II think all they need to do is to tell the voter to do - or not do - something in order to not increase their property taxes and Pavlov's dog (us, the taxpayers who own property in this state) will roll over automatically.

I said earlier, I don't respond well to threats and fear.

I just march to the voting booth and VOTE. Sure, people can vote Absentee Ballots but Why unless they're going to be out of town? (And that's something else I don't understand. Bangor has shut down all polling places except the Civic Auditorium. It used to be there were polling places every 10 blocks or so. That's the way it is in most places I've lived. And the places are staffed by volunteers. (Of course the voting booths usually have machines to take care of the ballots and do the counting, too, which cuts down on the time it takes to know voting tallies. Here in Eddington, at least, we have 12 hours to vote at the Town Office and there are only 1600 of us registered. I'll bet there will be fewer than 400 that will vote on Nov. 3 - absentee ballots included. A pathetic example for our children.)

So, have you done your research? Made up your mind? Gotten your absentee ballot from the Town Office or plan to be marching in there Nov. 3rd? If so, good for you. If not, better get going. It's one of those American responsibilities that comes with those flags that Craig's taking care of today.

Tomorrow: Is Question 2 - the repeal of the new Excise Tax Law - well written. Pros and Cons.