MORE OBSERVATIONS FROM AUGUSTA.

Legislative Blog # 4

For people new to these Observations:

You might want to scroll down to Legislative Blog # 1, and read up.

Committee On Marijuana Legalization Implementation

Preoccupied in writing testimony for a mental-health bill (copied below), I missed the Public Hearing on LD 1757 that attracted the most legislative news coverage Wednesday. This bill is called “An Act To Protect Maine's Economy by Slowing the Rate at Which the State's Minimum Wage Will Increase and Establishing a Training and Youth Wage.” It is the Governor’s effort to cut the minimum wage law passed by referendum last fall by 55 percent of the voters. It would reduce the minimum wage from $12 an hour to $11 by 2021, eliminate the cost-of-living adjustment, and allow a reduced wage for workers in the first 90 days of employment.

You can read an argument opposed to this bill at Maine Beacon: Small business owners testified against the bill, saying the extra money for employees helps their business; it means workers can better afford to buy their Maine-made products and keep the money in Maine: “By raising the minimum wage to $12, we reward the Maine-based small businesses that do right by their employees and communities while making the multinational chains that ship money out of our state compete on a level playing field . . . . The people have spoken. . . If our government is going to do its job, and serve the people, then you have been given your instructions.”

Most arguments in favor of a reduced minimum wage claim that it is better for business and thus for the economy. These arguments as I hear them do not take into account how important spending is in boosting the economy. These workers have to spend all they earn on living expenses, and in this way they contribute to the success of all businesses responding to their needs.  

I have been looking for bills that directly address my # 1 priority, money in politics, and haven’t found any. But in practically every issue I hear about the issue of money is a primary concern.

One scheduled public hearing on a bill to “To Support Maine Families through Universal Family Care” did not get much of a hearing.   The sponsor of the bill had advised that it ought not to pass because it hadn’t gained enough momentum in the legislature to pass. The term “universal” is misleading since there are eligibility requirements, and the bill is confusingly written without a clear definition that I could find of what those requirements are. However, it did seem to be creating a program that could meet care needs for families currently falling through the health-insurance cracks. Only three people testified on this bill and they were all opposed. Two from the Department of Health and Human Services argued that the bill creates a program that duplicates programs already provided by the Department. One testified for the Chamber of Commerce (COC) that the program was too expensive and created a new tax to fund it that Mainers can’t afford. The Chamber of Commerce is one of the largest contributers to political campaigns.  

Some committee members got a little testy in this hearing. Representative Hymanson asked the woman from the COC what the business community thinks about what should be done about the kinds of problems the bill tried to address. The woman said she was there to testify only to the effects on businesses of increased taxes and expensive programs, and she had no solution to any such problem. 

When Representative Hymanson pressed her a bit, suggesting that adequate health care for employees must be a problem for businesses, she got defensive and repeated that she wasn’t there to testify on the merits or demerits of a bill to solve problems. Representative Sanderson interrupted this exchange to say the Committee was there to hear testimony, not to make a political point. Representative Denno agreed, and the exchange stopped.

I find Representative Sanderson’s comment about our elected Representatives not being where they are to make political points ironic. Really? In saying it was not about making a political point, I thought Representative Sanderson  must be attempting to score a political point.  

I wish our legislature was all about solving problems, which is the point I thought Representative Hymanson was trying to make in her questions to the COC representative. It seems to me the whole process is heavily laden with making political points, by both parties. The utter failure of that bill may not be due solely to political point-making, but I suspect it is at least in part about that, and probably it is more about the influence of big money in politics such as the COC represents. 

Friday, I attended the first part of a Work Session on implementing and regulating the new marijuana law. I wanted to hear the review of the testimony at the Public Hearing which I missed, but they didn’t do that this morning. This issue is complicated enough that it has its own committee. I wrote the following to members of the committee about my concerns: “ I voted for the law to legalize the use of  marijuana  in November because I think the war on drugs has completely failed to solve the problems, and it seems to be actually intensifying the drug addiction problems. Even more important, I thought legalizing marijuana use for adults would provide a good opportunity to study its effects on human health with a large pool of legal users. I don’t know if there is anything proposed yet in the bill that would provide for such study, but I am writing to ask the committee if there is any way to include a provision for this type of study in your final bill, would you please do so?"

Wednesday, I testified about the bill LD 1665, “An Act To Maintain Mental Health Staffing at the Dorothea Dix Psychiatric Center and Support Statewide Forensic Services.” This bill appears to be well on its way to passage. No one testified against it. It adds no money to the budget, though it does use money that might have been used for other purposes. 

Executive Director at NAMI-ME (National Alliance for the Mentally Ill) Jenna Mehnert, gave an impassioned plea for the legislature to consider the whole system of mental-health care in Maine and how it desperately needs to improve. This testimony inspired a number of suggestions about how the legislature might get an overview of the system from the Department of Health and Human Services. I hope they get it before the work session on this bill. Here is a copy of my testimony: 

Senator Brakey, Representative Hymanson, members of the Committee on Health and Human Services, Thank you for providing this opportunity for public questions and comment

My name is Alice Bolstridge from Presque Isle, Maine, and I am testifying in favor of LD 1665.

In 1976, my son was first hospitalized at BMHI diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.  In the early 1990s he became a forensic patient. He suffered from severe and persistent mental illness until his death in 2015.  So I have had nearly 40 years of experience with the mental health system of Maine, with the state hospital in Bangor, and with community agencies in Northern Maine.  On the basis of that experience and continuous research hoping to find answers to the problems of mental illness, I am here to say that for patients and families, grief about the appalling record of the mental-health industrial complex to make any progress in diagnosing and treating mental illness is very hard to bear.

But I have always been grateful for those social workers who spent the most time with my son of any care providers and who could take the time to cultivate a caring relationship with him. As I read this bill, the mental-health worker position is this type of social worker.

The last times my son was treated at Dorothea Dix, the quality of his mental health workers exemplified an outstanding staff that gives excellent care. When he was in crisis, my son was not an easy patient.  During his last visit there in late winter, 2010, I witnessed unfailing patience, sympathy, and kindness from his mental health workers. They are the most important workers for improving the quality of patients’ lives which, I believe, is more important for hope of recovery than any medication that is always, at best, experimental.

I don’t know the particulars of how lack of funding or spending priorities is responsible for indefensible lapses in quality of care that I have observed many, many times, but observation tells me it has a great deal to do with it.  Last time I checked, the providers of direct patient care at the top of the pay scale earn by my conservative estimate roughly 7.5 times as much as those at the bottom of the pay scale.  The result of that system is that psychiatric providers who are the most highly trained and competent cost the most and spend the least amount of time with patients.  

In a critique of psychiatric care, Psychiatrist Sami Timimi says, "People need connection and meaning as well as basics such as safety, housing, and work. In services, the evidence tells us that relationship is Queen.”  Relationships that meet basic needs require time, and time costs money.  Only the mental health workers were ever able to take that time with my son, and they had to fight for it. 

As a family member trying to understand, navigate, and use the system to get the best care possible for my son, I urge you to support mental health workers wherever possible. You should be increasing this staff, instead of just maintaining current levels as this bill provides.