Last Wednesday the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) of the SAD 63 School Board met at Holbrook Middle School. It will meet again this Wednesday at 5:30pm.
Last week's meeting resulted in the largest turnout of any School Board meeting or S/B committee meeting, other than the annual Public Hearing for the upcoming proposed annual school district budget, we've seen in several years. There were over 14 citizens/parents in addition to district employees and FAC members in attendance.
FAC members in attendance included: S/B Chair Therese Anderson from Eddington who is automatically an Ad Hoc member; Jackie Smallwood, citizen rep from Holden; Holden Selectman Harvey; S/B member Mario Teisl from Holden who is the Budget & Finance Committee Chair; Interim Superintendent Hart; Ralph Russell, citizen rep from Eddington who is also the B Basketball coach in the district and working for the district's technical operations; Sylvia Ellis, S/B member from Holden; Yvonne Mitchell, SAD 63 Business Manager; Fred Rosenberg, citizen rep from Clifton; Penny Peasly, Selectwoman from Clifton; and Don Varnum, S/B member from Holden.
Mario Teisl asked those citizens who were in attendance to hold their comments and suggestions until AFTER the FAC had completed its agenda. NOTE: Those comments and suggestions were finally allowed after 7pm. Teisl also stated that the purpose of the FAC was to put all possibilities for reducing the district's budget "on the table for consideration" and that no decisions would be made until taken to the full Board. The next School Board meeting is Monday, March 22.
The first order of business appeared to be the issue of who/how to fill the Interim Superintendent's position that will become vacant effective July 1, 2010 with the termination of Mr. Hart's contract on June 30, 2010. In the course of discussion, Hart explained he would like to have his successor named ASAP so that person could "shadow" Hart during the remaining months for meetings, decisions, etc.
Teisl broached the possibility of Dave Anderson accepting the position of Interim Superintendent, since Anderson had held the position prior to Hart being hired. The FAC asked Anderson, who was present, if he was willing to accept the Interim Superintendent position. Anderson said he was "under certain conditions" which he was asked to out forward. Anderson stated that he like his position as Principal of the Holden School and believed that the Principal should be a presence in his school. As Superintendent there were responsibilities that would require him to be in the District's Central Office - currently located at Holbrook Middle School.
The FAC stated they were prepared to spend $49K (thousand) to relocate the Central Services to the Holden School. ISSUE: At a time when we are trying to reduce current costs by $800,000, why would we agree to SPEND $49,000.00 to temporarily relocate the Central Office to Holden School? The Interim Superintendent is a temporary position, isn't it? Or is the relocation of the Central Office intended to be a permanent relocation? If so, WHY?
The argument that Teisl (and Hart) were making for Anderson (and it was practically a "done deal" to hear the discussion) was that it was to save money in the budget. (Otherwise, district policy clearly states that recruitment and hiring of even an interim position is the responsibility of the district's Personnel Committee - a fact that was brought to the attention of the FAC once the "audience" was allowed to speak.)
The former superintendent made a full-time salary that began at $77,000/year and ended at $87,447/year plus very generous benefits. The Interim Superintendent has been paid $600.00/week - at a rate of $200.00 per full day which includes an extensive list of meetings requiring the Superintendent's attendance. Mileage to/from Holbrook School to attend meetings was included as well as fees for required workshops and/or meetings as the S/B deemed mandatory. A weekly presence in all three schools has been required by the S/B even though it has been flexible depending on the needs of the district of S/B. At the rate of $600. per week times 4 weeks per month times 12 months per year, the rate is $28,800 for a year. This allows for a month's vacation. Add $49,000 (to move Central Office to Holbrook School) to $28,800 (the Interim Superintendent salary) and you get $77,808. which is very close to what the former superintendent received her first year as full-time superintendent and only $10,000. less than her compensation her last year. We should be seriously questioning the wisdom of the $49,000 expenditure.
HOWEVER - if we are going to look at positions in order to see where money can be saved, let us look at the position of the Business Manager. That contract, originally signed 7/25/08, is a three-year contract commencing July 1, 2008 and scheduled to end June 30, 2010. While the position provides certain services to CSD 8 for a separate compensation, the compensation package provided by SAD 63 includes the following:
A salary of no less than $72,800.00 (documented compensation as of 2007-08, an increase of $2,400 from the previous year);
NOTE: This is equal to the salary of two of the Principals
Thirteen days of paid sick leave per year accumulative to a total of 130 days;
The position has the option of participating in the District's 304B Plan. The position may set aside a maximum of $15,500 and no less than 3% for her salary each year and have it matched by the District. And every year after her after her second year of employment in the position, the District will continue the 3% match;
The position is entitled to Personal Leave at any time at the discretion of the Superintendent;
The position receives health and accident insurance coverage as follows: 100% toward Full Family Medical, $335 toward Dental and 100% towards a Death and Disability Insurance Policy; NOTE: This is higher that that provided to the Principals.
The position shall be entitled to at least the same level of all benefits that are provided to the teachers;
The position is entitled to six (6) weeks of paid vacation to be taken at her discretion other than the time immediately before and during the passage of the School Budget. Unused accrued vacation may be drawn down annually with the permission of the Superintendent, unpaid unused vacation is payable to the position upon termination of the contract;
A bonus of $5,000 will be granted to the position for completion of the mutually agreed upon goal of: One percent (1%) of the 2008-2009/2009-2010) Budget is saved) and a Successful completion of the (required) audit.
In light of the fact that the position received a $7,000.00 compensation increase from 2007-2008 to 2008-2009, it is reasonable to believe the 2009-2010 compensation is higher than $75,000.
SO - this writer's question is: Why aren't we looking for an Interim Business Manager for the same reason we are looking for an Interim Superintendent? Better Yet - why aren't we looking to advertise/recruit a new Business Manager in the $50K annual compensation range. There are PLENTY of highly qualified people, many currently employed, who would jump at that salary and benefits who would be willing to produce the Financial statement formats people have been asking for the past two years, who would produce accurate, detailed MONTHLY statements (you needed to hear the explanation for the projected increase in Maintenance salaries to understand THIS). And we could save upwards of $25K or more.
Now the one promising idea that WAS presented last week...
Hart stated he had met someone who offered an idea worth $200,000. The district could contract with one high school for a flat tuition - to set a benchmark for high school tuition to be paid by the district (it could be Brewer High School or Bangor.) District students could still exercise the "option choice" and go to any high school. BUT, if the tuition was higher than that benchmark, the family would have to pick up any costs above the benchmark. Anderson directed Hart to do two things before this week's meeting: (1) check out the details of that proposal, (2) check out the legality as it would apply to "school choice" districts. It is possible that this issue would have to be brought before the voters of the district to be confirmed.
There was was quite a bit of discussion about the future economic picture. Hart stated it will be very hard this year but even harder next year - and beyond horrid next year if we don't take several difficult steps this year. His projections are that it will be 3-4 years before "things" will get better. He stated that looking at closing one of the schools may have to be addressed - and the Eddington School was the ONLY school mentioned.
Hart said that the district may find that closing the Eddington School may save the district $520K+/-. Therese pointed out that the issue would probably have to be brought before the voters in Eddington. Hart stated that, if that were the case, part of the issue would have to include (for Eddington voters) that Eddington would have to pick up the $520K on top of their regular school budget allocation if the voters turned down the school closure. NOTE THIS: According to Hart, ONLY Eddington property owners would have to pick up that $520K on top of the Eddington share of the school budget. Granted, the meeting didn't suggest the school closure THIS year, but the gist of the discussion was that the decision might be needed in one to two years out (and there was quite a bit of discussion about consolidating grades). BTW - Nowhere was there any hint of closing the Holden School.
Based on the foretelling of closing the Eddington School (and that Charles Baker, Selectman from Eddington was a "no show), I called Russell Smith last Thursday. One of my questions to Russell was, "What would be the impact on property values if the Eddington School was closed?" I'm still waiting for an answer.
IN THE MEANTIME: Commissioner Gendron had not answered the Letters of Intent filed by Orrington and Dedham in December (even though state law required a response in 12days.) Commissioner Gendron had not responded as of March 3 to Chairwoman Anderson's letter from SAD 63 filed in January requesting direction because of the Orrington/Dedham situation. The Legislature had not responded to Commissioner Gendron's petition filed last year to allow districts with fewer than 1200 students to become RSUs. BUT the Legislature was not willing to defer tax penalties to those districts were having problems forming an RSU. EVEN OUR SENATOR RICHARD ROSEN WAS VOTING AGAINST DEFERRAL!
Clifton's Board of Selectmen have sent letters to Senator Rosen and House Represenative Ben Pratt (Eddington) requesting they attend one of the FAC meetings to see the difficulties the district and voters are facing. You readers might also want to participate in sending such an "invitation." It is expected that Eddington Selectmen will do the same. Remaining meetings in March are scheduled for:
Wednesday, March 10
Thursday, March 18
Wednesday, March 24
All are scheduled for 5:30pm at the Holbrook School.
BTW - Hart didn't think much of my idea that the teachers contribute 3-5-10% of their pay (maybe the Principals, too, since they're making over $70,000/year plus benefits). He felt since "this country bailed out GM, Wall Street Banks, etc. maybe those on Social Security should contribute 5-10% of their income." (No mention that many of the folks around here are retired and living on less than $20,000/year, lost over 40% of their retirement savings, some are disabled and can't work and many are in their 70s/80s. Of course he doesn't live around here and doesn't know who really is paying the district's bills. Guess none of that was relevant.)
Monday, March 8, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
SAD 63 TEACHERS & SCHOOL BOARD WANT THEIR CAKE & ALL THE FIXIN'S
Anyone looked at the latest school newsletters in SAD 63? Seems the School Board and teachers want to take their "budget" to the taxpayers to vote take on increased taxes so that the teachers can have pay increases and to avoid any teachers layoffs.
"Say What?" you ask. As though the taxpayers in Eddington, Clifton and Holden are flush with loose cash these days - what with the $167,000 tax penalty hanging over our heads from Augusta because the School Board has done absolutely NOTHING all year to get any kind of an RSU or AOS started, much less close to a taxpayer-approved vote in time for the mandated July 1, 2010 deadline. Or the $125,000 taxpayer-share of the lawsuit settlement the Board entered into in order to settle the lawsuit with the former superintendent.
How about the teachers take a 5-10% paycut to help retain whatever teachers might be facing a layoff? The taxpayers have been taking it between the eyes for year after year while the SAD 63 budget has been going up and up in spite of taxpayer cautions of what was coming - what has arrived...that the State was going belly-up as far as paying its share of public education costs in this state. Did SAD 63 heed the caution? No.
How about the teachers' union taking a cut in union dues to help out their members? Don't think this writer will hold her breath on that idea. The union's primary goal is to collect more money - either through more individual dues (through pay increases) or more members (as in more hires regardless of student/teacher ratios that are no longer justified).
So some teacher positions may be eliminated. Look at the data. Student population in this state has significantly reduced but class size per teacher stays small. Used to be 35-40 students per teacher with higher testing results. Now there are smaller classes and the test results are lower, too. And this state spends over $11,000 per student per year. SAD 63 teachers are paid at a higher rate than teachers in the Orrington School District according to Ray Hart, SAD 63 Interim Superintendent.
SAD 63 teachers should be happy just to have a job. If their pay scale were lowered by 5% they'd still be better off than if they were unemployed - like many of the taxpayers in our three towns, or the ones trying to live (and pay taxes) on their social security income alone.
If YOU have an opinion you'd like to share with the School Board, GO to one of the Budget & Finance Committee meetings at the Holbrook Middle School on Hwy 46 - 5:30PM (scheduled to be SURE it would be convenient for those taxpayers who work until 5PM, of course):
Wednesday - March 3, 10, 13, & 24
OR - attend the School Board meeting - Monday night, March 22 and SPEAK UP during the Public Access at the Beginning and End of the meeting. Maybe YOU'LL be able to get something done. For sure the Board has a problem doing anything - especially for any of the taxpayers who elected them.
"Say What?" you ask. As though the taxpayers in Eddington, Clifton and Holden are flush with loose cash these days - what with the $167,000 tax penalty hanging over our heads from Augusta because the School Board has done absolutely NOTHING all year to get any kind of an RSU or AOS started, much less close to a taxpayer-approved vote in time for the mandated July 1, 2010 deadline. Or the $125,000 taxpayer-share of the lawsuit settlement the Board entered into in order to settle the lawsuit with the former superintendent.
How about the teachers take a 5-10% paycut to help retain whatever teachers might be facing a layoff? The taxpayers have been taking it between the eyes for year after year while the SAD 63 budget has been going up and up in spite of taxpayer cautions of what was coming - what has arrived...that the State was going belly-up as far as paying its share of public education costs in this state. Did SAD 63 heed the caution? No.
How about the teachers' union taking a cut in union dues to help out their members? Don't think this writer will hold her breath on that idea. The union's primary goal is to collect more money - either through more individual dues (through pay increases) or more members (as in more hires regardless of student/teacher ratios that are no longer justified).
So some teacher positions may be eliminated. Look at the data. Student population in this state has significantly reduced but class size per teacher stays small. Used to be 35-40 students per teacher with higher testing results. Now there are smaller classes and the test results are lower, too. And this state spends over $11,000 per student per year. SAD 63 teachers are paid at a higher rate than teachers in the Orrington School District according to Ray Hart, SAD 63 Interim Superintendent.
SAD 63 teachers should be happy just to have a job. If their pay scale were lowered by 5% they'd still be better off than if they were unemployed - like many of the taxpayers in our three towns, or the ones trying to live (and pay taxes) on their social security income alone.
If YOU have an opinion you'd like to share with the School Board, GO to one of the Budget & Finance Committee meetings at the Holbrook Middle School on Hwy 46 - 5:30PM (scheduled to be SURE it would be convenient for those taxpayers who work until 5PM, of course):
Wednesday - March 3, 10, 13, & 24
OR - attend the School Board meeting - Monday night, March 22 and SPEAK UP during the Public Access at the Beginning and End of the meeting. Maybe YOU'LL be able to get something done. For sure the Board has a problem doing anything - especially for any of the taxpayers who elected them.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
LD 1690 (REPORTEDLY) DEFEATED IN COMMITTEE
The following information is according to an email I received from the Maine Heritage Policy Center.
*****
Last Wednesday, the Maine Public Broadcasting Network announced that the bill sponsored by Assistant House Democratic Leader Seth Berry to undermine Maine's constitutionally protected citizen initiative process failed to win committee support to move through the legislative process.
Earlier this month, MHPC learned of Rep. Berry's bill, which allows names to be removed from a petition without any safeguards against fraud or abuse. Chief executive officer Tarren Bragdon testified in opposition to this bill, as well as two other anti-citizen initiative bills, at a public hearing in Augusta.
MHPC also issued a call to action to its grassroots network to contact Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee members with the message that we oppose ANY bills that restrict our right to engage government through the citizen initiative or people's veto process.
While the defeat of this bill is a victory for Maine people, the Democrat-controlled Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee may still move forward with changes to Maine's citizen-initiative process using a bill that may include provisions in Rep. Berry's original poposal.
The Maine Heritage Policy Center will remain engaged in this process and fight to protect our constitutional rights.
*****
This writer will continue to post ongoing information regarding these issues. Until LD 1692 and LD 1730 are defeated as well, citizen rights in Maine are at risk.
*****
Last Wednesday, the Maine Public Broadcasting Network announced that the bill sponsored by Assistant House Democratic Leader Seth Berry to undermine Maine's constitutionally protected citizen initiative process failed to win committee support to move through the legislative process.
Earlier this month, MHPC learned of Rep. Berry's bill, which allows names to be removed from a petition without any safeguards against fraud or abuse. Chief executive officer Tarren Bragdon testified in opposition to this bill, as well as two other anti-citizen initiative bills, at a public hearing in Augusta.
MHPC also issued a call to action to its grassroots network to contact Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee members with the message that we oppose ANY bills that restrict our right to engage government through the citizen initiative or people's veto process.
While the defeat of this bill is a victory for Maine people, the Democrat-controlled Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee may still move forward with changes to Maine's citizen-initiative process using a bill that may include provisions in Rep. Berry's original poposal.
The Maine Heritage Policy Center will remain engaged in this process and fight to protect our constitutional rights.
*****
This writer will continue to post ongoing information regarding these issues. Until LD 1692 and LD 1730 are defeated as well, citizen rights in Maine are at risk.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
EDDINGTON PUBLIC HEARINGS SET FOR 2010-2011 TOWN BUDGET
Tuesday March 2 and March 16 (at 6pm) have been set for Public Hearings at the Town Office where the proposed Town Budget will be reviewed - and the Town Warrant signed - for the 2010-2011 Town Budget which will be voted on at the Annual Town Meeting at the end of March at the Eddington Elementary School.
If things go as usual, there will be less than a full room in attendance at either of the Public Hearings, even though this year it is possible (according to rumor) that Homestead Exemptions will be eliminated by the state government and that there will be a reduction of $40,000. (or more) in shared revenue from the state to the town - both of which will add to the possibility of increased property taxes. And this is BEFORE we even deal with the proposed School Budget and state penalty of $167,000 to be divided between Eddington, Clifton and Holden because SAD 63 has done absolutely nothing about consolidating with any other school district since consolidation was not repealed last November. If the School Board goes the way it has in recent years, in spite of the state cutting back on its share of district expenses, we should expect that expense to go up as well - all of which will produce a hefty increase in the 2010 property taxes for everyone in the three town area.
And yet, there continues to be a failure of voters/taxpayers and property owner involvement in any of these elected government structures. Perhaps everyone has just given up and set about making plans to sell and get out while they have any money left.
Maybe we should take a lesson from that town in Rhode Island (that plans to fire all its teachers because of continuing poor school performance) and fire the entire School Board and Central Office. With only 944 students in the entire district, the SAD 63 budget continues to consume over 51 percent of the property tax bills of Eddington town property owners. According to http://www.Cliftonnews.blogspot.com , they have 150 students in the district and are paying over $500,000 per year - and that's BEFORE they will get hit with their share of the tax penalty for a School Board that has done NOTHING regarding consolidation since last November.
In an email exchange I had last week with the new Chairperson of the School Board, she is concerned with the quality of education the students receive. Me, too. But for over two years she was the Chair of the Curriculum Committee (of the School Board) and another member, a teacher, - both of whom are Eddington School Board reps) and there was not a single Curriculum Committee meeting. Seems to this writer that at least one meeting would have been in order, if only with the principals from Bangor, Brewer and John Bapst High Schools where our students go to ascertain how well our students are prepared in the areas of math and science for high school (since those areas were raised in the previous RSU discussions). And maybe a second - or more - meeting would have been in order with the principals from the SAD 63 schools along with the high school principals coordinated by the School board members of the Curriculum Committee. Better that than the excuse that SAD 63 didn't want to initiate anything that would be in conflict with any potential RSU partners. What partners? At the moment there are none - more because of inaction by the SAD 63 board than anything else.
In fact, the Downeast Newspapers are reporting that the Commissioner of Education has proposed to the Legislature that a waiver be approved which would allow an AOS be formed by just two school districts (no minimum number of students would be required) with a consolidated Central Office. That proposal will be voted on this Spring and if passed, the penalty tax will not be levied against the towns involved. When I brought that to the attention to the SAD 63 Chair last week in an email, the response I received was one of disinterest because of her interest in the "quality" of education. As if one could not maintain the same quality of education already in SAD 63 schools if they formed an AOS with CSD 8 or Otis. And BTW, avoid the $167,000 tax penalty looming over our heads in the process...
But unless there are people who will get off their duffs and out of their houses and attend these meetings - or write/call their School Board members and make some noise, nothing will change - except the dollar size of the property tax bills, of course. Those will only continue to go up.
If things go as usual, there will be less than a full room in attendance at either of the Public Hearings, even though this year it is possible (according to rumor) that Homestead Exemptions will be eliminated by the state government and that there will be a reduction of $40,000. (or more) in shared revenue from the state to the town - both of which will add to the possibility of increased property taxes. And this is BEFORE we even deal with the proposed School Budget and state penalty of $167,000 to be divided between Eddington, Clifton and Holden because SAD 63 has done absolutely nothing about consolidating with any other school district since consolidation was not repealed last November. If the School Board goes the way it has in recent years, in spite of the state cutting back on its share of district expenses, we should expect that expense to go up as well - all of which will produce a hefty increase in the 2010 property taxes for everyone in the three town area.
And yet, there continues to be a failure of voters/taxpayers and property owner involvement in any of these elected government structures. Perhaps everyone has just given up and set about making plans to sell and get out while they have any money left.
Maybe we should take a lesson from that town in Rhode Island (that plans to fire all its teachers because of continuing poor school performance) and fire the entire School Board and Central Office. With only 944 students in the entire district, the SAD 63 budget continues to consume over 51 percent of the property tax bills of Eddington town property owners. According to http://www.Cliftonnews.blogspot.com , they have 150 students in the district and are paying over $500,000 per year - and that's BEFORE they will get hit with their share of the tax penalty for a School Board that has done NOTHING regarding consolidation since last November.
In an email exchange I had last week with the new Chairperson of the School Board, she is concerned with the quality of education the students receive. Me, too. But for over two years she was the Chair of the Curriculum Committee (of the School Board) and another member, a teacher, - both of whom are Eddington School Board reps) and there was not a single Curriculum Committee meeting. Seems to this writer that at least one meeting would have been in order, if only with the principals from Bangor, Brewer and John Bapst High Schools where our students go to ascertain how well our students are prepared in the areas of math and science for high school (since those areas were raised in the previous RSU discussions). And maybe a second - or more - meeting would have been in order with the principals from the SAD 63 schools along with the high school principals coordinated by the School board members of the Curriculum Committee. Better that than the excuse that SAD 63 didn't want to initiate anything that would be in conflict with any potential RSU partners. What partners? At the moment there are none - more because of inaction by the SAD 63 board than anything else.
In fact, the Downeast Newspapers are reporting that the Commissioner of Education has proposed to the Legislature that a waiver be approved which would allow an AOS be formed by just two school districts (no minimum number of students would be required) with a consolidated Central Office. That proposal will be voted on this Spring and if passed, the penalty tax will not be levied against the towns involved. When I brought that to the attention to the SAD 63 Chair last week in an email, the response I received was one of disinterest because of her interest in the "quality" of education. As if one could not maintain the same quality of education already in SAD 63 schools if they formed an AOS with CSD 8 or Otis. And BTW, avoid the $167,000 tax penalty looming over our heads in the process...
But unless there are people who will get off their duffs and out of their houses and attend these meetings - or write/call their School Board members and make some noise, nothing will change - except the dollar size of the property tax bills, of course. Those will only continue to go up.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
LD 1692 - and a note regarding Monday
The following is the proposed Bill numbered LD 1692. It would become an amendment to the STATE CONSTITUTION. Following the written bill is a summary and a thought or two - plus a local note.
RESOLUTION, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine To Amend the Requirements Governing Direct Initiatives
Constitutional amendment. Resolved: Two thirds of each branch of the Legislature concurring, that the following amendment to the Constitution of Maine be proposed:
Constitution, Art. IV, Pt. Third, §18, sub-§1, as amended by CR 2005, c. 2, is further amended to read:
Section 1. Petition procedure. The electors may propose to the Legislature for its consideration any bill, resolve or resolution, including bills to amend or repeal emergency legislation but not an amendment of the State Constitution, by written petition addressed to the Legislature or to either branch thereof and filed in the office of the Secretary of State by the hour of 5:00 p.m., on or before the 50th day after the date of convening of the Legislature in first regular session or on or before the 25th day after the date of convening of the Legislature in second regular session, except that the written petition may not be filed in the office of the Secretary of State later than 18 months after the date the petition form was furnished or approved by the Secretary of State. The text of the proposed bill, resolve or resolution that is included in the application for a direct initiative of legislation must identify the fiscal impact of, and the amount and source of revenue required to implement, the proposed bill, resolve or resolution. If the proposed bill, resolve or resolution requires a reduction in any source of government revenue, or a reallocation of funding from currently funded programs, the text of the proposed bill, resolve or resolution must identify the program or programs whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement the proposed bill, resolve or resolution. The Legislature's office of fiscal review shall provide reasonable assistance to the proponent of the proposed bill, resolve or resolution in fulfilling the requirements of this section. If the applicable deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period runs until the hour of 5:00 p.m., of the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
; and be it further
Constitutional referendum procedure; form of question; effective date. Resolved: That the municipal officers of this State shall notify the inhabitants of their respective cities, towns and plantations to meet, in the manner prescribed by law for holding a statewide election, at a statewide election held in the month of November following the passage of this resolution, to vote upon the ratification of the amendment proposed in this resolution by voting upon the following question:
"Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to require that the text of a direct initiative of legislation must identify the amount and source of revenue required to implement the initiative and, if applicable, identify the program or programs whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement the initiative?"
The legal voters of each city, town and plantation shall vote by ballot on this question and designate their choice by a cross or check mark placed within the corresponding square below the word "Yes" or "No." The ballots must be received, sorted, counted and declared in open ward, town and plantation meetings and returns made to the Secretary of State in the same manner as votes for members of the Legislature. The Governor shall review the returns. If it appears that a majority of the legal votes are cast in favor of the amendment, the Governor shall proclaim that fact without delay and the amendment becomes part of the Constitution of Maine on the date of the proclamation; and be it further
Secretary of State shall prepare ballots. Resolved: That the Secretary of State shall prepare and furnish to each city, town and plantation all ballots, returns and copies of this resolution necessary to carry out the purposes of this referendum.
SUMMARY
This resolution proposes to amend the Constitution of Maine to require that the text of a direct initiative of legislation identify the amount and source of revenue required to implement the initiative and, if applicable, identify the program or programs whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement the initiative. This resolution also directs the Office of Fiscal and Program Review to provide reasonable assistance to the proponent of the direct initiative.
WHAT THIS BILL PROPOSES:
If this Bill is passed, any Citizen Initiative would be REQUIRED to include how the action proposed would be paid for - where the funds would be cut from another program or what taxes would be added (and from what source) to pay for the proposed program.
While this sounds good on its face, the only applies to citizen initiatives. It does not apply to any program or action which the Legislature enacts on its own. Even though the Legislature has all the resources of the State Government necessary to do this kind of analysis - which a citizen-based group in all likelihood would not have. That makes this a double-standard for citizens. Think of how many programs the State government has created and enacted or the courts have mandated with no thought at all of where the funding was to come from to pay for said program or services. But this proposed bill would make it constitutionally required for any citizen group to calculate that information (and probably before it could even begin to collect the 55,000+) signatures necessary.
This is neither right, fair, just or equitable when the legislature doesn't have to do it.
NOTE FOR MONDAY: It's School Board Meeting night. 6:30pm. Probably at Holbrook Middle School. Check with your Town Office to verify location. It would be nice to see local people in attendance just to see IF...(1) What answer did Orrington & Dedham receive from the Commissioner, (2) Did SAD 63 actually send a letter to the Commission requesting direction in light of Orrington & Dedham's actions, and (3) Were any Invitations sent out to Airline & Otis and ??? re: RPC meetings.
RESOLUTION, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine To Amend the Requirements Governing Direct Initiatives
Constitutional amendment. Resolved: Two thirds of each branch of the Legislature concurring, that the following amendment to the Constitution of Maine be proposed:
Constitution, Art. IV, Pt. Third, §18, sub-§1, as amended by CR 2005, c. 2, is further amended to read:
Section 1. Petition procedure. The electors may propose to the Legislature for its consideration any bill, resolve or resolution, including bills to amend or repeal emergency legislation but not an amendment of the State Constitution, by written petition addressed to the Legislature or to either branch thereof and filed in the office of the Secretary of State by the hour of 5:00 p.m., on or before the 50th day after the date of convening of the Legislature in first regular session or on or before the 25th day after the date of convening of the Legislature in second regular session, except that the written petition may not be filed in the office of the Secretary of State later than 18 months after the date the petition form was furnished or approved by the Secretary of State. The text of the proposed bill, resolve or resolution that is included in the application for a direct initiative of legislation must identify the fiscal impact of, and the amount and source of revenue required to implement, the proposed bill, resolve or resolution. If the proposed bill, resolve or resolution requires a reduction in any source of government revenue, or a reallocation of funding from currently funded programs, the text of the proposed bill, resolve or resolution must identify the program or programs whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement the proposed bill, resolve or resolution. The Legislature's office of fiscal review shall provide reasonable assistance to the proponent of the proposed bill, resolve or resolution in fulfilling the requirements of this section. If the applicable deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period runs until the hour of 5:00 p.m., of the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
; and be it further
Constitutional referendum procedure; form of question; effective date. Resolved: That the municipal officers of this State shall notify the inhabitants of their respective cities, towns and plantations to meet, in the manner prescribed by law for holding a statewide election, at a statewide election held in the month of November following the passage of this resolution, to vote upon the ratification of the amendment proposed in this resolution by voting upon the following question:
"Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to require that the text of a direct initiative of legislation must identify the amount and source of revenue required to implement the initiative and, if applicable, identify the program or programs whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement the initiative?"
The legal voters of each city, town and plantation shall vote by ballot on this question and designate their choice by a cross or check mark placed within the corresponding square below the word "Yes" or "No." The ballots must be received, sorted, counted and declared in open ward, town and plantation meetings and returns made to the Secretary of State in the same manner as votes for members of the Legislature. The Governor shall review the returns. If it appears that a majority of the legal votes are cast in favor of the amendment, the Governor shall proclaim that fact without delay and the amendment becomes part of the Constitution of Maine on the date of the proclamation; and be it further
Secretary of State shall prepare ballots. Resolved: That the Secretary of State shall prepare and furnish to each city, town and plantation all ballots, returns and copies of this resolution necessary to carry out the purposes of this referendum.
SUMMARY
This resolution proposes to amend the Constitution of Maine to require that the text of a direct initiative of legislation identify the amount and source of revenue required to implement the initiative and, if applicable, identify the program or programs whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement the initiative. This resolution also directs the Office of Fiscal and Program Review to provide reasonable assistance to the proponent of the direct initiative.
WHAT THIS BILL PROPOSES:
If this Bill is passed, any Citizen Initiative would be REQUIRED to include how the action proposed would be paid for - where the funds would be cut from another program or what taxes would be added (and from what source) to pay for the proposed program.
While this sounds good on its face, the only applies to citizen initiatives. It does not apply to any program or action which the Legislature enacts on its own. Even though the Legislature has all the resources of the State Government necessary to do this kind of analysis - which a citizen-based group in all likelihood would not have. That makes this a double-standard for citizens. Think of how many programs the State government has created and enacted or the courts have mandated with no thought at all of where the funding was to come from to pay for said program or services. But this proposed bill would make it constitutionally required for any citizen group to calculate that information (and probably before it could even begin to collect the 55,000+) signatures necessary.
This is neither right, fair, just or equitable when the legislature doesn't have to do it.
NOTE FOR MONDAY: It's School Board Meeting night. 6:30pm. Probably at Holbrook Middle School. Check with your Town Office to verify location. It would be nice to see local people in attendance just to see IF...(1) What answer did Orrington & Dedham receive from the Commissioner, (2) Did SAD 63 actually send a letter to the Commission requesting direction in light of Orrington & Dedham's actions, and (3) Were any Invitations sent out to Airline & Otis and ??? re: RPC meetings.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
LD1690 - THE PROPOSED BILL. WHAT IT SAYS & WHAT IT MEANS
The following is a direct "copy/paste" of the proposed LD 1690 as it appears on the Maine State government website. The bill's sponsor is Representative Seth Berry who has been entering "Comments" on the both Monday's and Wednesday's postings regarding this Bill. You can read Rep. Berry's remarks by going to those postings and clicking on "Comments."
I encourage you all to carefully read the proposed Bill which follows. At the conclusion, you will find some comments and observations by this writer. Enjoy. RG
*****
LD1690 Second Regular Session - 124th Maine Legislature
Text:
An Act To Prevent Predatory Signature Gathering and Ensure a Clean Citizen Initiative and People's Veto Process
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 21-A MRSA §197 is enacted to read:
§ 197. List of certified signatures provided
Beginning December 1, 2010, in addition to the records to be made available in accordance with section 196, the Secretary of State shall also make available an electronic list of the names of those voters, along with their voter identification numbers, whose signatures were certified on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum. This list is subject to the fees set forth in section 196, subsection 4 and may not be used for commercial purposes.
Sec. 2. 21-A MRSA §903-B is enacted to read:
§ 903-B. Removal of signature from petition
The Secretary of State may reject certification of a signature on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum in accordance with this section.
1. Written request. A person may make a request to have that person's signature discounted from a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum by submitting a written request to the applicant for the direct initiative or people's veto. The written request must clearly state the requestor's full name and municipality of residence. A copy of the written request must be submitted to the Secretary of State. The written request, including the copy to the Secretary of State, must be submitted no later than 15 days prior to the date the petition is due to the municipal registrar or election clerk as required by section 902.
2. Information provided. The Secretary of State shall post on the Secretary of State's publicly accessible website the name and the contact information of the applicant for each direct initiative of legislation and people's veto referendum to facilitate the provisions described in subsection 1.
Sec. 3. 21-A MRSA §903-C is enacted to read:
§ 903-C. Direct initiative and peoples's(sic)veto petition organization required to be registered
A petition organization shall register with the Secretary of State in accordance with this section. The Secretary of State shall reject the certification of petitions for the direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum for which the collection of signatures was supported, encouraged or organized by a petition organization that failed to register in accordance with subsection 1 or had its registration denied or revoked in accordance with subsection 2. For the purposes of this section, "petition organization" means a person, corporation or organization that receives or enters into a contract to receive compensation for supporting, encouraging or organizing the collection of petition signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum.
1. Registration. Prior to conducting any activities related to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum for which compensation will be received, a petition organization, in addition to meeting any other registration requirement to transact business in this State, shall register with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall prescribe the form and content of the registration and may charge a fee to administer this registration. The registration must include but is not limited to the following:
A. The ballot question or title of each direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum for which the petition organization will receive compensation;
B. Contact information for the petition organization, including the name of the organization, street address or post office box, telephone number and e-mail address;
C. The name and signature of a designated agent for the petition organization; and
D. The name of each person who will receive compensation for activities related to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum.
The information contained in this registration must be made available for public inspection and must be posted on the publicly accessible website of the Secretary of State.
2. Denial or revocation of registration. The Secretary of State may deny the registration of a petition organization if that petition organization or any of its principals has been found via judicial or administrative proceeding to have violated any laws relating to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum in this State or any other state within the previous 10 years. The Secretary of State may revoke the registration of a petition organization if the petition organization authorized or knowingly permitted any of the following:
A. Allowing a signature on the petition of a person other than the person signing;
B. Allowing someone other than the person who signs the oath on the petition to collect signatures for that petition;
C. Falsifying the name or address of the circulator on the petition;
D. Inducing people to sign a petition or withdraw their names from a petition by offering money or other things of value; and
E. Violating the laws and rules governing notaries public.
Sec. 4. 21-A MRSA §905, sub-§2, as amended by PL 1987, c. 119, §1, is further amended to read:
2. Superior Court. Any voter named in the application under section 901, or any person who has validly signed the petitions, if these petitions are determined to be invalid, or any other voter, if these petitions are determined to be valid, may appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by commencing an action in the Superior Court. This action shall must be conducted in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80C, except as modified by this section. In reviewing the decision of the Secretary of State, the court shall determine whether the description of the subject matter is understandable to a reasonable voter reading the question for the first time and will not mislead a reasonable voter who understands the proposed legislation into voting contrary to his that voter's wishes. This action must be commenced within 5 10 days of the date of the decision of the Secretary of State and shall must be tried, without a jury, within 15 days of the date of that decision.
Upon timely application, anyone may intervene in this action when the applicant claims an interest relating to the subject matter of the petitions, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. The court shall issue its written decision containing its findings of fact and stating the reasons for its decision within 30 days of the commencement of the trial or within 45 days of the date of the decision of the Secretary of State, if there is no trial.
Sec. 5. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, first ¶, as amended by PL 2009, c. 190, Pt. A, §20 and c. 366, §7 and affected by §12, is repealed and the following enacted in its place:
Any person not defined as a political action committee who receives contributions or makes expenditures, other than by contribution to a political action committee, aggregating in excess of $5,000 for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum must file ballot question reports with the commission in accordance with this section. Within 7 days of receiving contributions or making expenditures that exceed $5,000, the person shall register with the commission as a ballot question committee. For the purposes of this section, expenditures include paid staff time spent for the purpose of influencing in any way a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum. The commission must prescribe forms for the registration, and the forms must include specification of a treasurer for the committee, any other principal officers and all individuals who are the primary fund-raisers and decision makers for the committee. In the case of a municipal election, the registration and reports must be filed with the clerk of that municipality.
Sec. 6. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2, as amended by PL 2009, c. 190, Pt. A, §20, is further amended to read:
2. Content. A report must contain an itemized account of each expenditure made to and contribution received from a single source aggregating in excess of $100 in any election; the date of each contribution; the date and purpose of each expenditure; the name and address of each contributor, payee or creditor; and the occupation and principal place of business, if any, for any person who has made contributions exceeding $100 in the aggregate. The filer is required to report only those contributions made to the filer for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum and only those expenditures made for those purposes.
The definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure" in section 1052, subsections 3 and 4, respectively, apply to persons required to file ballot question reports.
Sec. 7. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2-A, ¶B, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:
B.Funds provided in response to a solicitation that would lead the contributor to believe that the funds would be used specifically for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum;
Sec. 8. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2-A, ¶C, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:
C.Funds that can reasonably be determined to have been provided by the contributor for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum when viewed in the context of the contribution and the recipient's activities regarding a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum; and
Sec. 9. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§4, ¶A, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:
A.The filer shall keep a detailed account of all contributions made to the filer for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum and all expenditures made for those purposes.
summary
This bill requires the Secretary of State to make electronic lists of certified signatures from petitions for direct initiatives of legislation and people's veto referenda beginning December 2010. The bill also extends the time period that a person has to examine petitions when challenging the decision of the Secretary of State from 5 to 10 days. The bill authorizes the Secretary of State to reject certification of signatures on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto if the person who signed the petition submits a written request to the direct initiative or people's veto applicant 15 days prior to the date when the petitions are due to the municipal clerk for verification. This bill also requires registration of organizations that receive compensation to collect or support the collection of signatures on petitions for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum. Finally, this bill makes a technical clarification to the campaign finance and disclosure laws regarding ballot question committees.
(No information was provided to define this "clarification. RG)
*******
COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS:
This writer grew up here in the Bangor area during a time when civic responsibility was taught alongside the meaning of what the American Revolution was all about - the sacrifices by the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) so that we, each of us, would have the freedom and liberty to direct and define our government. And if those we elected failed to "get the message we sent", we retained various ways to get our government back on the track. We can vote them out of office (not a bad idea these days) and we can initiate legislative actions that our state legislators have failed to do on their own despite our communications to do so, and we can initiate initiatives to repeal the actions of our legislatures that we do not support - actions which may have been taken without our support in the first place.
Back in the 50's when I was growing up here and attending public school in Bangor, I can remember some very spirited discussions at Garland Street Junior High (now called William H. Cohan, one of my high school classmates) and then at the "original" Bangor High School next to the Bangor Public Library. Maine was well populated with strong-minded, public spirited people in those days - every bit as adamant in their thinking as many are today. What I don't recall is hearing my parents talk about too many initiatives happening then. But then I married and we began our move Westward Ho. And during those travels I lived in many states where the people's initiatives are not uncommon. Because, in a country that is supposed to be governed by people elected to represent the people, the elected ones are often out of touch with what the PEOPLE really think, want and believe is right. And it is the people's responsibility to speak up and act. It can be via a people's initiative or it can be via a people's Tea Party (in Boston in those early days or a newer version these days). But, this country - AND THIS STATE- belong to the people. Maybe it's time this state's legislature hear that message instead of trying to smother it, hog-tie it, or tax it to death.
Personally, I think that as long as the PEOPLE have the right to petition via initiatives to "set their government straight", we will always be closer to the freedoms the Founding Fathers and Mothers intended for this country - particularly when state governments have the tendency as of late to pass taxation bills at the last minute, with no public hearings, in the dead of the night before shutting down their last session of the season! However, when the people's government attempt to choke off the free access of the people by the establishment of "lists" of names of those who sign petitions to repeal legislation or to force government to do the people's will, it becomes too much like Richard Nixon for his own personal vendetta or too much like Adolph Hitler to my way of thinking.
Let us examine just two small sections of this proposed Bill -
Section 903-B The Removal of Signature From Petition. Nowhere in this section do I find any procedure where the Office of the Secretary of State is required to contact ME to verify that I am the person who wrote a letter requesting to have my name removed from a petition I may (or may not) have signed. The letter writer is only required to provide my name and municipality - not my actual address and mailing address or any other verifier. And what if it is not my actual signature? What if it does not match the signature on the petition? Is anyone required to crosscheck that to verify that I am both the signer on the petition AND the signer of the letter requesting to have my name removed from the petition. This would be easier to do that voter fraud. It seems to me that most petitions have to have the signatures verified by the clerk in the local municipality before the petitions are forwarded to the Secretary of State. That is the place where the signer's signature is most likely to be verifiable.
Also, in the summary, it states the time period would be extended from 5 days to 10 for a party to challenge the Secretary of State's decision to verify the validity of petitions (and the necessary number of certified signatures) to qualify an initiative or repeal action for the ballot.
QUESTION: Where is the fairness in this when the Legislature passes taxation bills in the dark of night with no public hearings at the last moment before shutting down the legislative session? Does this sound like "justice for all" or only for members of the government? If all of the signatures have to be certified BEFORE being submitted to the Secretary of State in the first place (and they are at the local municipalities within 5 days which we all voted on this past election, remember), this little "quirk" seems to be a sneaky attempt to thwart the people's will. And by whom? Must be the Bill's sponsor. One must question his motives, readers. One must.
However, I can see where this proposed Bill would come in very handy to members of the Legislature if they wanted to prevent Mainers from being able to object via the repeal process to actions taken by the Legislature, such as the current activities regarding the so-called Tax Reform Bill or the School Consolidation mandate. Have you ever read how goose pate is made. That's what this proposed Bill makes me think of (forced feeding) with no legal objection process.
Just look at the title of the Bill: An Act To Prevent PREDATORY Signature Gathering ....The title alone is a bit inflammatory - biased, maybe. But perhaps there is a back story to this effort.
With all due respect to Representative Berry, the Legislature's Democratic majority whip, one has to question his motives in sponsoring this bill. Could it be it has something to do with the repeal initiative regarding the Tax Reform Bill that was soooo successful. In a column by Prof. John Frary that appeared in the Machias Valley News Observer on September 16, 2009, the Professor wrote: (now read carefully, people - all the way through)
"The biggest surprise among a number of surprises is that total of over 60,000 signatures is (sic) a short period of time. The experts, the pundits, Those Who Know declared the effort doomed to failure. There wouldn't be enough time. There was no media budget-not a cent. Sen. David Traham (Rep.Wiscasset,etc.) himself, although he knew the tax "reform" bill was a stinker, doubted success until he set about the job of circulating petitions himself. Then he discovered that about 80% of Maine citizens were ready, even eager to sign. He now vows that he will never again question Charlie Webster's political judgement (Charles Webster, Republican State Committee Chairman).
"This has been the fastest and cheapest petition drive in Maine history.
"Another surprise was a unique bi-partisan effort uniting the Republican and the Green Parties. The two parties agree on two things, that the petition process itself is vital to effective democracy and that LD1495 was primarily designed to gouge the working class. In fact. the Greens' contribution turned out to be indespensable to success.
READERS - PAY ATTENTION TO THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH FROM PROF. FRARY'S ARTICLE.
"The Democrats awoke to the danger to their tax scheme and sprung into action too late to avert the peril. This was not for lack of zeal. Representatives Seth Berry (Bowdoinham, etc.), James Martin (Bangor, Orono, Veazie) and Jon Hink (Portland) made every effort to interfer with people trying to sign. Rep. Berry, Democratic majority whip, made himself especially obnoxious at Windsor Fair; to the extent he put himself in danger of being smacked upside the ear hole by Vickie Webster, normally a peaceable woman who takes a dispassionate view of politics. There's been talk of an ethics charge against this pest.
"One petition worker in Portland had his car windows smashed and 1200 certified petitions stolen. Another, working the Windsor Fair, had 600 uncertified petitions stolen. Rep. Cebra (Naples, Casco, part of Portland) had his car keyed. Someone let the air out of the tires of the GOP state party executive director's SUV...."
Sounds like a bunch of thugs to this writer and not the kind of people to whom any good citizen should be entrusting our democracy, personal rights or liberties.
In conclusion, you readers will have to make up your own minds. But, if you think this Bill - LD1690 - is an affront to your civil liberties and rights as a taxpayer and voter, I strongly suggest you screen down to the posting from this past Monday (February 15) and find the names and email addresses of the various committee members and start sending them a piece of your mind. Your taxes have paid for a long email and I'm sure you will have a word or ten to say on the subject.
As for me, I think this LD 1690 is intended to keep us corraled, silent and in "Sheep Mentality" (while being taxed to death or to the point of leaving this state). As a citizen and voter, I am insulted. I read every petition I sign. I know what I believe and what I disagree with. Don't know too Mainers who differ in that regard.
Now when it comes to PREDATORY Legislators, they're more prevalent around here than cockroaches in Los Angeles.
I encourage you all to carefully read the proposed Bill which follows. At the conclusion, you will find some comments and observations by this writer. Enjoy. RG
*****
LD1690 Second Regular Session - 124th Maine Legislature
Text:
An Act To Prevent Predatory Signature Gathering and Ensure a Clean Citizen Initiative and People's Veto Process
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 21-A MRSA §197 is enacted to read:
§ 197. List of certified signatures provided
Beginning December 1, 2010, in addition to the records to be made available in accordance with section 196, the Secretary of State shall also make available an electronic list of the names of those voters, along with their voter identification numbers, whose signatures were certified on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum. This list is subject to the fees set forth in section 196, subsection 4 and may not be used for commercial purposes.
Sec. 2. 21-A MRSA §903-B is enacted to read:
§ 903-B. Removal of signature from petition
The Secretary of State may reject certification of a signature on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum in accordance with this section.
1. Written request. A person may make a request to have that person's signature discounted from a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum by submitting a written request to the applicant for the direct initiative or people's veto. The written request must clearly state the requestor's full name and municipality of residence. A copy of the written request must be submitted to the Secretary of State. The written request, including the copy to the Secretary of State, must be submitted no later than 15 days prior to the date the petition is due to the municipal registrar or election clerk as required by section 902.
2. Information provided. The Secretary of State shall post on the Secretary of State's publicly accessible website the name and the contact information of the applicant for each direct initiative of legislation and people's veto referendum to facilitate the provisions described in subsection 1.
Sec. 3. 21-A MRSA §903-C is enacted to read:
§ 903-C. Direct initiative and peoples's(sic)veto petition organization required to be registered
A petition organization shall register with the Secretary of State in accordance with this section. The Secretary of State shall reject the certification of petitions for the direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum for which the collection of signatures was supported, encouraged or organized by a petition organization that failed to register in accordance with subsection 1 or had its registration denied or revoked in accordance with subsection 2. For the purposes of this section, "petition organization" means a person, corporation or organization that receives or enters into a contract to receive compensation for supporting, encouraging or organizing the collection of petition signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum.
1. Registration. Prior to conducting any activities related to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto referendum for which compensation will be received, a petition organization, in addition to meeting any other registration requirement to transact business in this State, shall register with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall prescribe the form and content of the registration and may charge a fee to administer this registration. The registration must include but is not limited to the following:
A. The ballot question or title of each direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum for which the petition organization will receive compensation;
B. Contact information for the petition organization, including the name of the organization, street address or post office box, telephone number and e-mail address;
C. The name and signature of a designated agent for the petition organization; and
D. The name of each person who will receive compensation for activities related to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum.
The information contained in this registration must be made available for public inspection and must be posted on the publicly accessible website of the Secretary of State.
2. Denial or revocation of registration. The Secretary of State may deny the registration of a petition organization if that petition organization or any of its principals has been found via judicial or administrative proceeding to have violated any laws relating to the collection of signatures for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum in this State or any other state within the previous 10 years. The Secretary of State may revoke the registration of a petition organization if the petition organization authorized or knowingly permitted any of the following:
A. Allowing a signature on the petition of a person other than the person signing;
B. Allowing someone other than the person who signs the oath on the petition to collect signatures for that petition;
C. Falsifying the name or address of the circulator on the petition;
D. Inducing people to sign a petition or withdraw their names from a petition by offering money or other things of value; and
E. Violating the laws and rules governing notaries public.
Sec. 4. 21-A MRSA §905, sub-§2, as amended by PL 1987, c. 119, §1, is further amended to read:
2. Superior Court. Any voter named in the application under section 901, or any person who has validly signed the petitions, if these petitions are determined to be invalid, or any other voter, if these petitions are determined to be valid, may appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by commencing an action in the Superior Court. This action shall must be conducted in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80C, except as modified by this section. In reviewing the decision of the Secretary of State, the court shall determine whether the description of the subject matter is understandable to a reasonable voter reading the question for the first time and will not mislead a reasonable voter who understands the proposed legislation into voting contrary to his that voter's wishes. This action must be commenced within 5 10 days of the date of the decision of the Secretary of State and shall must be tried, without a jury, within 15 days of the date of that decision.
Upon timely application, anyone may intervene in this action when the applicant claims an interest relating to the subject matter of the petitions, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. The court shall issue its written decision containing its findings of fact and stating the reasons for its decision within 30 days of the commencement of the trial or within 45 days of the date of the decision of the Secretary of State, if there is no trial.
Sec. 5. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, first ¶, as amended by PL 2009, c. 190, Pt. A, §20 and c. 366, §7 and affected by §12, is repealed and the following enacted in its place:
Any person not defined as a political action committee who receives contributions or makes expenditures, other than by contribution to a political action committee, aggregating in excess of $5,000 for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum must file ballot question reports with the commission in accordance with this section. Within 7 days of receiving contributions or making expenditures that exceed $5,000, the person shall register with the commission as a ballot question committee. For the purposes of this section, expenditures include paid staff time spent for the purpose of influencing in any way a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum. The commission must prescribe forms for the registration, and the forms must include specification of a treasurer for the committee, any other principal officers and all individuals who are the primary fund-raisers and decision makers for the committee. In the case of a municipal election, the registration and reports must be filed with the clerk of that municipality.
Sec. 6. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2, as amended by PL 2009, c. 190, Pt. A, §20, is further amended to read:
2. Content. A report must contain an itemized account of each expenditure made to and contribution received from a single source aggregating in excess of $100 in any election; the date of each contribution; the date and purpose of each expenditure; the name and address of each contributor, payee or creditor; and the occupation and principal place of business, if any, for any person who has made contributions exceeding $100 in the aggregate. The filer is required to report only those contributions made to the filer for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum and only those expenditures made for those purposes.
The definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure" in section 1052, subsections 3 and 4, respectively, apply to persons required to file ballot question reports.
Sec. 7. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2-A, ¶B, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:
B.Funds provided in response to a solicitation that would lead the contributor to believe that the funds would be used specifically for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum;
Sec. 8. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§2-A, ¶C, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:
C.Funds that can reasonably be determined to have been provided by the contributor for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum when viewed in the context of the contribution and the recipient's activities regarding a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum; and
Sec. 9. 21-A MRSA §1056-B, sub-§4, ¶A, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 477, §4, is amended to read:
A.The filer shall keep a detailed account of all contributions made to the filer for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum and all expenditures made for those purposes.
summary
This bill requires the Secretary of State to make electronic lists of certified signatures from petitions for direct initiatives of legislation and people's veto referenda beginning December 2010. The bill also extends the time period that a person has to examine petitions when challenging the decision of the Secretary of State from 5 to 10 days. The bill authorizes the Secretary of State to reject certification of signatures on a petition for a direct initiative of legislation or a people's veto if the person who signed the petition submits a written request to the direct initiative or people's veto applicant 15 days prior to the date when the petitions are due to the municipal clerk for verification. This bill also requires registration of organizations that receive compensation to collect or support the collection of signatures on petitions for a direct initiative of legislation or people's veto referendum. Finally, this bill makes a technical clarification to the campaign finance and disclosure laws regarding ballot question committees.
(No information was provided to define this "clarification. RG)
*******
COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS:
This writer grew up here in the Bangor area during a time when civic responsibility was taught alongside the meaning of what the American Revolution was all about - the sacrifices by the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) so that we, each of us, would have the freedom and liberty to direct and define our government. And if those we elected failed to "get the message we sent", we retained various ways to get our government back on the track. We can vote them out of office (not a bad idea these days) and we can initiate legislative actions that our state legislators have failed to do on their own despite our communications to do so, and we can initiate initiatives to repeal the actions of our legislatures that we do not support - actions which may have been taken without our support in the first place.
Back in the 50's when I was growing up here and attending public school in Bangor, I can remember some very spirited discussions at Garland Street Junior High (now called William H. Cohan, one of my high school classmates) and then at the "original" Bangor High School next to the Bangor Public Library. Maine was well populated with strong-minded, public spirited people in those days - every bit as adamant in their thinking as many are today. What I don't recall is hearing my parents talk about too many initiatives happening then. But then I married and we began our move Westward Ho. And during those travels I lived in many states where the people's initiatives are not uncommon. Because, in a country that is supposed to be governed by people elected to represent the people, the elected ones are often out of touch with what the PEOPLE really think, want and believe is right. And it is the people's responsibility to speak up and act. It can be via a people's initiative or it can be via a people's Tea Party (in Boston in those early days or a newer version these days). But, this country - AND THIS STATE- belong to the people. Maybe it's time this state's legislature hear that message instead of trying to smother it, hog-tie it, or tax it to death.
Personally, I think that as long as the PEOPLE have the right to petition via initiatives to "set their government straight", we will always be closer to the freedoms the Founding Fathers and Mothers intended for this country - particularly when state governments have the tendency as of late to pass taxation bills at the last minute, with no public hearings, in the dead of the night before shutting down their last session of the season! However, when the people's government attempt to choke off the free access of the people by the establishment of "lists" of names of those who sign petitions to repeal legislation or to force government to do the people's will, it becomes too much like Richard Nixon for his own personal vendetta or too much like Adolph Hitler to my way of thinking.
Let us examine just two small sections of this proposed Bill -
Section 903-B The Removal of Signature From Petition. Nowhere in this section do I find any procedure where the Office of the Secretary of State is required to contact ME to verify that I am the person who wrote a letter requesting to have my name removed from a petition I may (or may not) have signed. The letter writer is only required to provide my name and municipality - not my actual address and mailing address or any other verifier. And what if it is not my actual signature? What if it does not match the signature on the petition? Is anyone required to crosscheck that to verify that I am both the signer on the petition AND the signer of the letter requesting to have my name removed from the petition. This would be easier to do that voter fraud. It seems to me that most petitions have to have the signatures verified by the clerk in the local municipality before the petitions are forwarded to the Secretary of State. That is the place where the signer's signature is most likely to be verifiable.
Also, in the summary, it states the time period would be extended from 5 days to 10 for a party to challenge the Secretary of State's decision to verify the validity of petitions (and the necessary number of certified signatures) to qualify an initiative or repeal action for the ballot.
QUESTION: Where is the fairness in this when the Legislature passes taxation bills in the dark of night with no public hearings at the last moment before shutting down the legislative session? Does this sound like "justice for all" or only for members of the government? If all of the signatures have to be certified BEFORE being submitted to the Secretary of State in the first place (and they are at the local municipalities within 5 days which we all voted on this past election, remember), this little "quirk" seems to be a sneaky attempt to thwart the people's will. And by whom? Must be the Bill's sponsor. One must question his motives, readers. One must.
However, I can see where this proposed Bill would come in very handy to members of the Legislature if they wanted to prevent Mainers from being able to object via the repeal process to actions taken by the Legislature, such as the current activities regarding the so-called Tax Reform Bill or the School Consolidation mandate. Have you ever read how goose pate is made. That's what this proposed Bill makes me think of (forced feeding) with no legal objection process.
Just look at the title of the Bill: An Act To Prevent PREDATORY Signature Gathering ....The title alone is a bit inflammatory - biased, maybe. But perhaps there is a back story to this effort.
With all due respect to Representative Berry, the Legislature's Democratic majority whip, one has to question his motives in sponsoring this bill. Could it be it has something to do with the repeal initiative regarding the Tax Reform Bill that was soooo successful. In a column by Prof. John Frary that appeared in the Machias Valley News Observer on September 16, 2009, the Professor wrote: (now read carefully, people - all the way through)
"The biggest surprise among a number of surprises is that total of over 60,000 signatures is (sic) a short period of time. The experts, the pundits, Those Who Know declared the effort doomed to failure. There wouldn't be enough time. There was no media budget-not a cent. Sen. David Traham (Rep.Wiscasset,etc.) himself, although he knew the tax "reform" bill was a stinker, doubted success until he set about the job of circulating petitions himself. Then he discovered that about 80% of Maine citizens were ready, even eager to sign. He now vows that he will never again question Charlie Webster's political judgement (Charles Webster, Republican State Committee Chairman).
"This has been the fastest and cheapest petition drive in Maine history.
"Another surprise was a unique bi-partisan effort uniting the Republican and the Green Parties. The two parties agree on two things, that the petition process itself is vital to effective democracy and that LD1495 was primarily designed to gouge the working class. In fact. the Greens' contribution turned out to be indespensable to success.
READERS - PAY ATTENTION TO THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH FROM PROF. FRARY'S ARTICLE.
"The Democrats awoke to the danger to their tax scheme and sprung into action too late to avert the peril. This was not for lack of zeal. Representatives Seth Berry (Bowdoinham, etc.), James Martin (Bangor, Orono, Veazie) and Jon Hink (Portland) made every effort to interfer with people trying to sign. Rep. Berry, Democratic majority whip, made himself especially obnoxious at Windsor Fair; to the extent he put himself in danger of being smacked upside the ear hole by Vickie Webster, normally a peaceable woman who takes a dispassionate view of politics. There's been talk of an ethics charge against this pest.
"One petition worker in Portland had his car windows smashed and 1200 certified petitions stolen. Another, working the Windsor Fair, had 600 uncertified petitions stolen. Rep. Cebra (Naples, Casco, part of Portland) had his car keyed. Someone let the air out of the tires of the GOP state party executive director's SUV...."
Sounds like a bunch of thugs to this writer and not the kind of people to whom any good citizen should be entrusting our democracy, personal rights or liberties.
In conclusion, you readers will have to make up your own minds. But, if you think this Bill - LD1690 - is an affront to your civil liberties and rights as a taxpayer and voter, I strongly suggest you screen down to the posting from this past Monday (February 15) and find the names and email addresses of the various committee members and start sending them a piece of your mind. Your taxes have paid for a long email and I'm sure you will have a word or ten to say on the subject.
As for me, I think this LD 1690 is intended to keep us corraled, silent and in "Sheep Mentality" (while being taxed to death or to the point of leaving this state). As a citizen and voter, I am insulted. I read every petition I sign. I know what I believe and what I disagree with. Don't know too Mainers who differ in that regard.
Now when it comes to PREDATORY Legislators, they're more prevalent around here than cockroaches in Los Angeles.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
NOTE: There was a "Comment" posted by Maine State Representative Seth Berry (Bowdoinham) on Monday's posting. You can read Rep. Berry's comments by clicking on the "Comments" for that posting. (Basically, his comments are identified as the statements within the " " which follow and the 3 specific statements which MHPC responded to in a following paragraph.)
I answered Rep. Berry's comment by writing that I would seek out information at the Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC) luncheon today in Bangor where I took a print-out of Rep. Berry's comment. The following is the written response I received from Trevor Bragdon from the MHPC.
***
Rusty,
Below I have outlined the responses to Rep. Berry’s comments
“The bill would do 3 things to empower Maine voters:
1) let you know who is being paid and who is paying for your signature”
[MHPC response] Under current Maine law, payments for signature collection already have to be reported to the Maine Ethics Commission through a PAC or 1056B report. This bill would add an additional layer of bureaucracy and a way for legislators and government officials to easily identify their opponents especially on People’s Veto efforts. We do not require people working for pay on campaigns to register with the state, why should we do it for people working to collect signatures?
2) “Let you be sure the Secretary of State’s count of valid names is in fact accurate”
[MHPC response] To date there has never been a citizen’s initiative or People’s Veto that was approved by the Secretary of State to later be found invalid. The Secretary of State provides one of the most exhaustive processes in the country to verify the petitions and make sure enough were collected. This is just a ploy to allow political opponents of the initiative to have more time to examine the petitions to try to get them thrown through the court system and thwart the people’s will.
3) “Let you retract your signature if lied to by a signature gatherer”
[MHPC response] The Maine petition process is highly regulated and every signature collected needs to be witnessed by a registered Maine voter. By creating a system where people can send in a letter to remove their name from a petition, you open the door for fraud since no one will be able to witness who actually sends in the letters asking for the signature to be removed.
Overall this is a very political bill that is aimed at hurting the citizen initiative and People’s Veto. Currently, under Maine law, to collect signatures to get a legislator on the ballot you do not have to be a Maine resident, a registered voter or even over the age of 18. If Rep. Berry was really interested in reform, he would make the same standards currently in place for signature collection on a citizens initiative for when he collects signatures to get on the ballot. Right now a 10 year old Florida resident could collect all his signatures.
Here is a great story that was written by AJ Higgins of Maine Public Broadcasting about this bill.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/mpbn-capitol-connection/politics-permeate-citizen-initiative-bills/344410934851
Thanks again for coming to the luncheon and let me know if you have any more questions.
Trevor
________________
Trevor Bragdon
*****
TOMORROW: I'll print the proposed bill for readers to read for themselves - and submit a few thoughts of my own. In the meantime, I'm appreciative of the interest and dialogue this topic and blogspot is generating among readers and voters. As always, I believe an informed citizen/voter population is the best protection of the rights and freedoms so many have fought and died to preserve for all Americans.
I answered Rep. Berry's comment by writing that I would seek out information at the Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC) luncheon today in Bangor where I took a print-out of Rep. Berry's comment. The following is the written response I received from Trevor Bragdon from the MHPC.
***
Rusty,
Below I have outlined the responses to Rep. Berry’s comments
“The bill would do 3 things to empower Maine voters:
1) let you know who is being paid and who is paying for your signature”
[MHPC response] Under current Maine law, payments for signature collection already have to be reported to the Maine Ethics Commission through a PAC or 1056B report. This bill would add an additional layer of bureaucracy and a way for legislators and government officials to easily identify their opponents especially on People’s Veto efforts. We do not require people working for pay on campaigns to register with the state, why should we do it for people working to collect signatures?
2) “Let you be sure the Secretary of State’s count of valid names is in fact accurate”
[MHPC response] To date there has never been a citizen’s initiative or People’s Veto that was approved by the Secretary of State to later be found invalid. The Secretary of State provides one of the most exhaustive processes in the country to verify the petitions and make sure enough were collected. This is just a ploy to allow political opponents of the initiative to have more time to examine the petitions to try to get them thrown through the court system and thwart the people’s will.
3) “Let you retract your signature if lied to by a signature gatherer”
[MHPC response] The Maine petition process is highly regulated and every signature collected needs to be witnessed by a registered Maine voter. By creating a system where people can send in a letter to remove their name from a petition, you open the door for fraud since no one will be able to witness who actually sends in the letters asking for the signature to be removed.
Overall this is a very political bill that is aimed at hurting the citizen initiative and People’s Veto. Currently, under Maine law, to collect signatures to get a legislator on the ballot you do not have to be a Maine resident, a registered voter or even over the age of 18. If Rep. Berry was really interested in reform, he would make the same standards currently in place for signature collection on a citizens initiative for when he collects signatures to get on the ballot. Right now a 10 year old Florida resident could collect all his signatures.
Here is a great story that was written by AJ Higgins of Maine Public Broadcasting about this bill.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/mpbn-capitol-connection/politics-permeate-citizen-initiative-bills/344410934851
Thanks again for coming to the luncheon and let me know if you have any more questions.
Trevor
________________
Trevor Bragdon
*****
TOMORROW: I'll print the proposed bill for readers to read for themselves - and submit a few thoughts of my own. In the meantime, I'm appreciative of the interest and dialogue this topic and blogspot is generating among readers and voters. As always, I believe an informed citizen/voter population is the best protection of the rights and freedoms so many have fought and died to preserve for all Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
