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. 

MORE OBSERVATIONS FROM AUGUSTA

Legislative Blog # 3

Health and Human Services Committee

Supposed to be high of 43 degrees here today! Which means I will likely join the Women’s March beginning at 11:00 for at least an hour or so.

It is still overwhelming to see pass by me the number of important bills I am interested in that I can’t pay proper attention to and to witness the complexity of the legislative process. In grossly abbreviated and simplified form, here is the process by which every bill becomes law —or not: 

1.      The bill is introduced by its sponsor and any number of cosponsors
2.      The bill is referred by the originating body (House or Senate) to one of the Joint Standing or Joint Select committees (18 in #) in the originating branch and then sent to the other body for concurrence. In a few unusual circumstances such as an emergency, a bill may go directly to the floor of the appropriate body for discussion and action.
3.      The committee conducts a public hearing where it accepts testimony supporting and opposing the proposed legislation from any interested party.
4.      The committee conducts one or more Work Sessions to discuss the bill, draft amendments or review amendments proposed by others and vote on a recommendation.
5.      The committee issues a report to the full legislature that includes one of the following recommendations: Ought to Pass, Ought to Pass as Amended, Ought to Pass in New Draft, Ought Not to Pass, Refer to Another Committee.
6.      The bill is debated on the floor of the originating body where further amendments may be debated and voted upon.
7.      The bill goes through a similar process in the other chamber.
8.      The bill may go through a Committee of Conference when the House and the Senate pass different versions of the bill.
9.      Finally the bill dies or becomes law 90 days after its passage.

It is my understanding that any bill may die in committee or in any step thereafter. Thousands of bills are introduced in every regular legislative session which leaves hundreds unfinished to be taken up in the special session, where we are now. I listened to part of the House in Session where one representative spoke about the need to set priorities and restrictions on the number of bills each legislator may be allowed to introduce. I approve.

Tuesday, I attended a public hearing of the Health and Human Services Committee beginning at 1:30 and attempting to hear testimony for 4 different bills, starting with LD 1742, a “Resolve, ToSupport Vulnerable Seniors by Funding Assisted Living Programs.” I stayed until about 4:00, and they had not heard all the testimony in favor of this bill and still had to hear from those opposed. I do not see how they could adequately hear the testimony for the 3 other bills at this session.

“This resolve provides increased funding for the provision of assisted living services at facilities currently operating at a loss, including, but not limited to, facilities in Bangor, Millinocket, Camden and Sanford. It directs the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a review of possible ways to stabilize funding for affordable assisted living facilities that contract with the office of aging and disability services within the Department of Health and Human Services, including permanent increases to existing funding levels, paying the medical costs of certain residents until they are eligible for MaineCare coverage, a practice known as Rate Code 53 spending, and designating facilities as private nonmedical institutions. It directs the department to report back with its recommendations to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over health and human services matters by January 11, 2019.” I learned that there are seven such contract facilities operating in Maine for seniors no longer able to provide for all their needs and too poor to pay for all the services they need. None of these facilities are in Aroostook.

I support whatever these seniors need, but I have unanswered questions that concern me. If these seniors can no longer meet all their needs by themselves and must move a supported facility wouldn’t it be better for them and more cost effective to provide the assistance where they are for as long as that is possible before moving to this facility. As one legislator pointed out, these seniors are not going to become more capable and will eventually have to move to another facility such as a nursing home to get their needs met. Wouldn’t it be better to reduce the number of moves these seniors must make? I hope to learn more about the issue by attending the work session on this bill.

I also attended a Public Hearing on LD 1711 “Resolve, ToSave Lives by Establishing a Homeless Opioid Users Service Engagement PilotProject:” “ This resolve establishes within the Department of Health and Human Services a pilot project to provide rapid access to low-barrier treatment for substance use disorders and stable housing to support recovery and create stability for 50 opioid users who are among the most vulnerable and unstable in the State. It directs the department to implement the pilot project no later than September 1, 2018 and to report to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over health and human services matters by March 15, 2019. The joint standing committee is authorized to submit legislation regarding the pilot project, including legislation to continue the pilot project, to the First Regular Session of the 129th Legislature.” 

I heard very moving testimony from providers and some recovering addicts about the need for such services including one plea to the committee to please include in this project at least 15 addicted pregnant women in order to intervene on the number of babies being born addicted to opioids who must go through treatment at birth. I support this resolve without reservation.

If there were “world enough and time,” I could report on more of  these bills and others I heard at public hearings or work sessions this week, but I must get ready now to join the Women’s March here today, or I will miss that.  

MORE OBSERVATIONS FROM AUGUSTA

Legislative Blog # 2
For people new to these Observations: You might want to scroll down to Legislative Blog # 1, and read up. 

First week here my biggest challenge was finding my way around Augusta streets. This week a bigger challenge is finding my way around the legislative process in order to decide which sessions I want to attend in keeping with my major areas of interest: $ in Politics, Environment, Health Care, and Education.

Wednesday morning I wanted to attend Public Hearings on the Biomass Bond bills. It took more time than I planned to find parking as I passed by the parking garage before I knew it was there. I had to navigate my way around other parking areas and back to the garage. Then my printout didn’t tell me which committee was holding the hearing, and I assumed it was Energy and Natural Resources. So, going into the State House where my print-out told me I needed to be, I asked the attendant at the Check In if I was in the right place for the ENR hearings on the biomass issues in room 228 of the State House. He sent me to the scheduling office where I repeated my request. She said the ENR committee was meeting in the Cross Building right across the way. I went there and repeated my request at their information desk. She said ENR was meeting in Room 216. There I found myself listening to the tail end of a public hearing on Diversion of RGGI Funding. I had no idea what RGGI was. 

By then, I figured out I must be in the wrong committee, it was nearing 11:00, and I was frustrated and hungry, so I came back to my temporary home, ate lunch, and spent the rest of my computer time on Wednesday researching the Biomass Bond bills and trying to put together a schedule for Thursday.  So Wednesday was a loss in terms of observing the legislature at work. But, I keep telling myself, I get all these brain-health benefits from responding to such challenges.   

The two Biomass Bond bills propose funding for biomass infrastructure and low interest loans for capital investments.  An article in the Portland Press Herald by Scott Thistle  reports that sponsors agreed Wednesday to merge the two bills. Senator Troy Jackson, sponsor of the bill to provide low interest loans said, “By capitalizing on biomass energy, we have the ability to be a world leader in this industry . . . . The potential for developing new markets, innovating the industry, growing the economy and creating jobs is too great to pass up.” Governor LePage opposes the effort, calling it “corporate welfare at the worst, it can’t get any worse than that because they are coming in and they are telling you up front the only way they can survive is by you giving them a subsidy.”

In keeping with my core interests, I need to do much more research on environmental impacts from biomass, but from what I understand now, “Use of wood as a replacement for fossil fuels has thepotential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to climate change mitigation.” 

However, the criticism about corporate welfare is troubling. According to a Portland Press article referring to an earlier proposal, taxpayer funded subsidies are proposed “to support biomass plants that are owned by a multinational private investment firm worth an estimated $33 billion and another publicly traded market capital company that reported $1.6 billion in revenue last year."   So this issue, too, raises the specter of the power and influence of big corporate money to affect our politics-- like the one I reviewed briefly in my Legislative Blog # 1 below about a proposal to give another multi-million dollar corporate subsidy to General Dynamics, owner of Bath Iron Works.  

And so it goes—always many complications in the legislative business of solving problems. I am a long way from being ready to testify on these issues.

As complicated as my effort is in scheduling my own time here and researching to prepare, I am gaining a new appreciation for the complex process the legislature faces in getting its work done on several hundred bills between now and April: hold public hearings and work sessions in committee to debate each bill; make committee decisions—ought to pass or ought not to pass; debate again when the bill comes before the full House and the full Senate; reconcile any differences between House and Senate. I suspect I have hardly scratched the surface of that process in this brief description.

Thursday was much better for me: parking and finding the right room in the right building in less than 15 minutes, hearing the issues I wanted to hear debated in the Health and Human Services Committee, and realizing I need to do more research to fully prepare for observations and writing about the issues. 

OBSERVATIONS FROM AUGUSTA

Legislative Blog # 1

I moved to Augusta for this Maine legislative session to pay more attention to issues I care about, to be close enough to testify frequently, and blog about my observations at least once a week. Full disclosure: I am a registered Democrat, a fiscal conservative, a liberal for social justice, a capitalist on micro-economics, and a socialist on macro-economics. I am sure I hold various other values I can’t think of at the moment that might mean I ought to register as a political independent. But “habit is habit and not to be thrown out the window but coaxed down the stairs one step at a time” (Mark Twain, I think). Besides, this life is so full of complications and challenges that I must fly by the seat of my pants with all my ideals. Hopefully, you will discover along with me and along the way what I mean by this introduction to my current project(s).

I moved in here Monday, New Year’s Day 2018, an appropriate day to begin one more time to change my life. At least for the next several months. Here is a room in a house with 5 other tenants and common kitchen, dining room, and living room with a TV which I vowed not to watch while here, and already failed at that by watching PBS News Hour every night. So preoccupied since Monday with setting up computer equipment and settling in (which involved way too many hours of finding my way and shopping for things I forgot or that don’t work, like my GPS car charger)  I missed an important public hearing yesterday on a bill attempting to prevent the gathering of petition signatures  at the polls. 

So now, to the meat of observed political matters for this week: 2 issues related to the influence of money in politics.

On Wednesday, January 3^rd a public hearing was held on the effort to restrict the right of voters to petition the government. I did not hear about this hearing until after 1:00 PM, the time it was supposed to start. It seems many if not most of our state legislators, both Democrats and Republicans as well as our Secretary of State are bothered and frustrated by the referendum process that includes the gathering of signatures at the polls to get a referendum on the ballot. SOS Matt Dunlap has proposed a bill LD 1726  that includes a provision to ban signature gathering at the polls. He says the ban is not intended to restrict voter rights, but, he says “Sometimes signature gatherers are very, very aggressive [. . .] They take things right to the very edge and it causes issues [. . . .] this is a response to complaints we get from townclerks and voters themselves who complain to the heavens.” 

Anna Kelly from the League of Women Voters of Maine says eliminating the ability to gather signatures at the polls would “give an advantage to groups that have a lot of money [ . . . ] funded usually from big donors out of state,” 

A brief anecdote to further illustrate how this issue relates to money in politics: I have gathered signatures for referendum petitions at the polls, most recently for Ranked Choice Voting in the November election. I sat beside one other signature gatherer for a different cause who was being paid $180 for the day to gather 300 signatures. In a 12-hour day, he gathered something over 250 signatures by the time I left. I do not know what was to happen if he didn’t complete his goal. Perhaps he would have to gather the remaining signatures elsewhere to get paid. I hear about some gatherers being paid as much as $25.00 per signature for a well-financed campaign. At 300 signatures that gatherer would earn $750. In contrast, the gatherer paid $180 per day would have only earned a bit less than $1.66 per signature for the same number of signatures. At the polls both gatherers would have equal access to voters. Being denied that access, which gatherer do you think will have the best success in gathering signatures?

I do not and will not get paid for gathering signatures. I oppose getting paid for gathering signatures, for causes I support as well as for those I oppose. I do not fault paid signature gatherers. Knowing how onerous the job is, I believe it to be worth $25 per signature, but I do fault the gross wage inequality. I do fault the  elected officials who pay attention to donors more than voters when they legislate. I do fault the power of money.

I might have more sympathy with the complainers at the polls and with Dunlap’s bill if it were not for the consequences of allowing the power of money to control our Democracy. Restricting the will of the voters may not be intended, but restriction will be the conseqence. The increasing influence of money in politics is a major cause of the increasing disconnect between elected officials and the voters they represent.

Instead of restricting voters’ access to each other and to their government, we should look harder for a solution that eliminates the power of money in politics, the root cause of so many of our problems.

Next week, I hope to have more news of a proposal to give another multi-million dollar corporate subsidy to General Dynamics (owner of Bath Iron Works). According to Bruce Gagnon from Global Network, the bill sponsored by Rep. Jennifer DeChant (Dem-Bath) and Sen. Eloise Vitelli (Dem-Arrowsic) “to give GD $60 million over the next 20 years is still not written.  It appears DeChant continues to work with GD’s lawyers and lobbyists to complete the bill for Taxation Committee hearings that would be on January 22.”   

To be continued.