Last week the official Roll Call Voting Percentages for the 124th Maine Legislature were released. For the Second Regular Session of the term I had a 100% attendance record. My overall attendance record for the First and Second Regular Sessions combined was 96%. Unfortunately, during the First Regular Session I was absent during a day and a half in the six-month schedule and missed a few votes. The days I missed were during a trip to California to lobby a prominent promotions company to bring their business to our state as a part of the legislative initiative I sponsored to sanction mixed martial arts in Maine. It was worth missing those votes since during the trip I received a commitment directly from the company’s President that they would work hand-in-hand with us to bring their brand to Maine generating a potential for millions of dollars in new business revenues.
Two people rarely—if ever—align perfectly on every issue in life. Ideas and opinions are as varied as the constellation of bills that are brought forward by the thousands in almost every legislative session. I would never pretend that every single person in District 92 will agree with every vote I cast in the 124th Legislature. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be an independent and passionate part of the world. I intend to continue to show up for every vote -- because the River Valley deserves a strong voice for all the issues we face as a state.
One thing that almost all of us in the River Valley can agree on is working hard and remaining committed to a goal. When you sent me to Augusta, my goal was to show up every day and fight for the jobs and systems change we need in order to have a successful Western Maine way of life. I believe my attendance record reflects the consistency that I see all around me every day in the hard working men and women of our community, and I hope you feel the same way. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to represent our area in Augusta.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Josh Thornton, state wrestling champion, honored at the State House
AUGUSTA - Rep. Matt Peterson, D-Rumford, recently presented Josh
Thornton, of Rumford, with a special legislative sentiment honoring his
first place finish at the 2010 Class B Wrestling State Championship in
the 140-pound weight division.
"Josh's path to a state championship was not without its challenges this season. He sustained losses along the way, but he learned from those lessons and applied all of that knowledge to go all the way when it counted," said Peterson. "And he's not done yet, Josh is only a junior this year and we just recently learned that he was invited to participate in the prestigious Maine-Nebraska wrestling exchange, so you can bet that this experience out west will help to prepare him to repeat the performance next year."
Thornton began his wrestling career in the first grade and was a New England Champion in the second grade. In the eighth grade, he went undefeated all the way to a state title. As a sophomore, he won the Western Class B Regional competition, placed fourth at the state championships and the Eastern National Tournament. He had a 34-4 record during the season he earned his state title, placing first at the prestigious Redskin Invitational Tournament, the Mid-State Championship and the Western Class B Regional Tournament.
Peterson noted that wrestling is a family affair in the Thornton household when he pointed out that Josh's younger brother, Jake, competes for the Mountain Valley Middle School wrestling team. Josh and Jake's father, Joe, was one of Peterson's middle school wrestling coaches. A patient teacher as well as a fierce competitor, Joe has passed his will-to-win along to his sons who have been making good on a family commitment to excellence.
"I wish Josh and Jake continued success, and congratulate a proud mother and father that will be cheering them along all the way," said Peterson.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Some Reflections on Legislative Service
Commuting from Rumford to Augusta for my Legislative duties gives me a chance to reflect on the nature of this public service -- especially because there are a number of spots where there is no cell coverage, so I can’t talk on the phone. First, I am overwhelmed by a sense of gratitude to my fellow River Valley residents for having the opportunity to serve you in Augusta for the last two years. The work has been challenging, filled with both disappointments and rewards, but the best part of this service has been the opportunity to deepen my relationship with so many of my neighbors.
My favorite part of the process is about to start, as the session winds down and I get the chance to get out in the community, talk with voters and discuss issues. Two years ago, I travelled throughout District 92 in order to introduce myself, listen to concerns and begin shaping the approach I have used in serving in the House of Representatives on your behalf. I have already started that process again and I hope to catch you home so we can talk as I travel throughout the District over the next few months.
The biggest lesson that I have learned in these last two years of service is that staying in touch and listening is the most important things I can do. There are plenty of jokes about politicians -- and spending as much time as I do in Augusta, I sometimes can understand why. By and large, I spend my time with many men and women who are truly committed to serving their communities -- and they are the best members of the Legislature. Regardless of party affiliation or ideology, the appetite to serve and the willingness to listen and work on behalf of constituents is what separates the best legislators from the people putting in their time or pushing an ideological agenda.
My job over the last two years has been challenging, but it has been made easier by your support, encouragement and -- most importantly -- your ideas and opinions. Hearing from you, keeping in touch allows me to stay grounded in the real concerns of people in the River Valley. That is the key to my being able to represent this area to the best of my abilities. The next session promises to be even more challenging and if I am fortunate enough to continue to represent the River Valley, I will need even more dialogue with my constituents. Over the next few months, I hope we can step up the dialogue. I am only able to be effective if I can hear your voice.
Transparency and access are keys to this process. Maine provides good access to the work of the legislature -- audio of every committee hearing and work session is streamed live on the internet and available. The discussions and activities in the House and Senate Chambers provide both live streamed audio and video when we are in session. A number of folks in the River Valley have commented positively to me about these features.
Finally, your voice is the heart of our democracy, and I want to do all I can to get your ideas and opinions. Over the last two years, I have used every means I can to reach out -- but I intend to keep getting better. So let me hear from you. You can find me on Facebook, contact me on Twitter, e-mail me at petersonhouse08@gmail.com, or call me at (207) 776-8051.
Our conversation and your input is vital as I continue to represent the interests of the River Valley in Augusta. I’ll look forward to continuing the dialogue.
My favorite part of the process is about to start, as the session winds down and I get the chance to get out in the community, talk with voters and discuss issues. Two years ago, I travelled throughout District 92 in order to introduce myself, listen to concerns and begin shaping the approach I have used in serving in the House of Representatives on your behalf. I have already started that process again and I hope to catch you home so we can talk as I travel throughout the District over the next few months.
The biggest lesson that I have learned in these last two years of service is that staying in touch and listening is the most important things I can do. There are plenty of jokes about politicians -- and spending as much time as I do in Augusta, I sometimes can understand why. By and large, I spend my time with many men and women who are truly committed to serving their communities -- and they are the best members of the Legislature. Regardless of party affiliation or ideology, the appetite to serve and the willingness to listen and work on behalf of constituents is what separates the best legislators from the people putting in their time or pushing an ideological agenda.
My job over the last two years has been challenging, but it has been made easier by your support, encouragement and -- most importantly -- your ideas and opinions. Hearing from you, keeping in touch allows me to stay grounded in the real concerns of people in the River Valley. That is the key to my being able to represent this area to the best of my abilities. The next session promises to be even more challenging and if I am fortunate enough to continue to represent the River Valley, I will need even more dialogue with my constituents. Over the next few months, I hope we can step up the dialogue. I am only able to be effective if I can hear your voice.
Transparency and access are keys to this process. Maine provides good access to the work of the legislature -- audio of every committee hearing and work session is streamed live on the internet and available. The discussions and activities in the House and Senate Chambers provide both live streamed audio and video when we are in session. A number of folks in the River Valley have commented positively to me about these features.
Finally, your voice is the heart of our democracy, and I want to do all I can to get your ideas and opinions. Over the last two years, I have used every means I can to reach out -- but I intend to keep getting better. So let me hear from you. You can find me on Facebook, contact me on Twitter, e-mail me at petersonhouse08@gmail.com, or call me at (207) 776-8051.
Our conversation and your input is vital as I continue to represent the interests of the River Valley in Augusta. I’ll look forward to continuing the dialogue.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Floor Remarks: LD 1360
On April 7th, 2010, LD 1360 "An Act To Allow Law Enforcement and Family Members To Petition the District Court To Initiate Assisted Outpatient Treatment", came to the floor of the House of Representatives. Reprinted below are the comments I made on the record from the floor:
Madame Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House...
I speak today in opposition to the pending motion, with great respect for my colleagues on the Health and Human Services Committee that are on the current report in front of us.
LD 1360 is a bill which was extensively discussed in the Health and Human Services Committee and resulted in a divided report with two very different amendments which reflect two different approaches to a complex issue -- the best way to treat Maine citizens with a psychiatric disability in a community setting.
The subject at hand is the use of the Progressive Treatment Program or PTP which has been court-ordered outpatient treatment, typically under very close supervision, as a means of providing treatment and support for a person with a significant psychiatric disorder. This Progressive Treatment Program approach was originally enacted as a pilot several years ago with a sunset provision for July of this year.
Should we fail to act on this matter, the Progressive Treatment Program will be curtailed and a tool that has proved valuable to some individuals will no longer be available. Acting to maintain this out-patient treatment tool seems to be reasonable -- for it provides additional alternatives for individuals who are dealing with the impacts of a psychiatric disability.
Where the committee disagreed, and we split on a 9 to 5 vote, was regarding what approach to take. Committee Amendment B, which was the minority report that I supported, essentially leaves the existing program intact, extends the sunset provision until July 1, 2014, and calls for additional review and analysis of the effectiveness of the Progressive Treatment Program -- with a report due to the Committee in January of 2012.
Committee Amendment A describes a number of new elements in the Progressive Treatment Program, and expands both the mandatory nature of this out-patient treatment regime, the people who can order participation in the program, as well as the nature of that participation. In our debate today you have heard people speak about what they perceive as the advantages of these expansions of both mandatory participation and the people who can direct such participation. I will not comment extensively on the details of the approach because I did not support it. Frankly, I was not convinced in Committee or by the debate on the floor that the additional mandated elements would improve outcomes for the individuals or the community. While I think that a Progressive Treatment Program is another valuable tool in helping Maine citizens manage a psychiatric disability, I was concerned that the new elements have expanded the program in ways that could have unintended negative consequences. If you read the language and see the number of caveats, protections and limitations -- it becomes clear very quickly that we are on a slippery slope. I prefer to go slow on any mandated interventions that can deprive people of their freedom to choose.
All of us have encountered the impacts of psychiatric disability in our communities, perhaps in our own families. I am glad it no longer carries the stigma it once had, and that folks with a psychiatric disability are now able to be integrated into our communities and live productive and fulfilling lives. In my career as someone who encourages independent living for people with all types of disabilities -- physical, sensory, cognitive, or psychiatric -- I have worked closely with people who have made great strides in living as independently as possible. Providing the tools for that independence is the key to me. Community based service alternatives are essential -- but so is the freedom to choose the appropriate alternative. I am concerned that the majority report tips the delicate balance in the wrong direction on this matter of personal autonomy. Providing resources is essential, mandating the use of those resources … I am just not sure.
This discussion is a variation on a theme we often discuss in this Chamber and have for many, many years. How do we strike the balance between protecting the community and the individual, and giving individuals control, and the right to decide and even “the right to make the wrong decision?” There are some debates that come around over and over -- making helmets mandatory for all motorcycle riders -- there are always passionate voices and good arguments on both sides. Some of my colleagues would, no doubt, be happy to regulate a number of the behaviors that we know are “bad for us” like tobacco use. We always balance that in allowing for personal decision-making and autonomy. We must think long and hard when we tip that balance and take away people’s autonomy.
This body always struggles to find the balance -- and so we must here. This is another instance where we must find the “sweet spot” -- the point at which we encourage behaviors that are healthy and appropriate, without eliminating an individual’s autonomy. The sweet spot is hard to find on this issue -- because it is complex. How wide are our community norms? Where does behavior cross the line into being inappropriate? Who will be the keepers of those norms? Who decides? What is the basis for the decision? Should an ACT Team (Assertive Community Treatment Team) made up of a psychiatrist, a mental health nurse, licensed Master’s level clinicians, and counselors/case managers be the decision makers? Maybe the head of a psychiatric hospital? Or the Commissioner of Health and Human Services? Should it be a law enforcement officer who has information from a concerned family member? This proposal, even in its latest amended form introduces many more players and many more complexities into the mandating of treatments -- even in a community setting. It is not a responsibility I would personally welcome -- I know that. Do we really want to create this unwieldy system that can ultimately deprive an individual of his or her autonomy and decision-making?
I have not been convinced that a case has been made to expand the ways that a Progressive Treatment Program can be mandated -- without significant consequences for an individual living independently in the community. We need to maintain this tool, but we need to proceed with greater caution before we do anything that may take away the liberty or the autonomy of a person with a disability -- including a psychiatric disability -- no matter how good our motives may be. In this case, I am convinced that the motives behind the bill are well-intentioned. It is what is not intended, and the impact those unintended consequences may have on the lives of our fellow citizens -- that concerns me.
This vote will be a matter of conscience and one where we each weigh our values and our beliefs. I will continue to be voting against the majority report, Committee Amendment A as amended by the other body, and urge the more restrained approach taken by the minority of the HHS Committee in Committee Amendment B. I hope you will join me in rejecting the current motion, so we can have the opportunity to consider and pass Committee Amendment B and maintain this important tool for community based out-patient mental health services without unduly expanding its scope in a way that could undermine the autonomy of some of Maine’s vulnerable citizens.
Thank you, Madame Speaker.
Madame Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House...
I speak today in opposition to the pending motion, with great respect for my colleagues on the Health and Human Services Committee that are on the current report in front of us.
LD 1360 is a bill which was extensively discussed in the Health and Human Services Committee and resulted in a divided report with two very different amendments which reflect two different approaches to a complex issue -- the best way to treat Maine citizens with a psychiatric disability in a community setting.
The subject at hand is the use of the Progressive Treatment Program or PTP which has been court-ordered outpatient treatment, typically under very close supervision, as a means of providing treatment and support for a person with a significant psychiatric disorder. This Progressive Treatment Program approach was originally enacted as a pilot several years ago with a sunset provision for July of this year.
Should we fail to act on this matter, the Progressive Treatment Program will be curtailed and a tool that has proved valuable to some individuals will no longer be available. Acting to maintain this out-patient treatment tool seems to be reasonable -- for it provides additional alternatives for individuals who are dealing with the impacts of a psychiatric disability.
Where the committee disagreed, and we split on a 9 to 5 vote, was regarding what approach to take. Committee Amendment B, which was the minority report that I supported, essentially leaves the existing program intact, extends the sunset provision until July 1, 2014, and calls for additional review and analysis of the effectiveness of the Progressive Treatment Program -- with a report due to the Committee in January of 2012.
Committee Amendment A describes a number of new elements in the Progressive Treatment Program, and expands both the mandatory nature of this out-patient treatment regime, the people who can order participation in the program, as well as the nature of that participation. In our debate today you have heard people speak about what they perceive as the advantages of these expansions of both mandatory participation and the people who can direct such participation. I will not comment extensively on the details of the approach because I did not support it. Frankly, I was not convinced in Committee or by the debate on the floor that the additional mandated elements would improve outcomes for the individuals or the community. While I think that a Progressive Treatment Program is another valuable tool in helping Maine citizens manage a psychiatric disability, I was concerned that the new elements have expanded the program in ways that could have unintended negative consequences. If you read the language and see the number of caveats, protections and limitations -- it becomes clear very quickly that we are on a slippery slope. I prefer to go slow on any mandated interventions that can deprive people of their freedom to choose.
All of us have encountered the impacts of psychiatric disability in our communities, perhaps in our own families. I am glad it no longer carries the stigma it once had, and that folks with a psychiatric disability are now able to be integrated into our communities and live productive and fulfilling lives. In my career as someone who encourages independent living for people with all types of disabilities -- physical, sensory, cognitive, or psychiatric -- I have worked closely with people who have made great strides in living as independently as possible. Providing the tools for that independence is the key to me. Community based service alternatives are essential -- but so is the freedom to choose the appropriate alternative. I am concerned that the majority report tips the delicate balance in the wrong direction on this matter of personal autonomy. Providing resources is essential, mandating the use of those resources … I am just not sure.
This discussion is a variation on a theme we often discuss in this Chamber and have for many, many years. How do we strike the balance between protecting the community and the individual, and giving individuals control, and the right to decide and even “the right to make the wrong decision?” There are some debates that come around over and over -- making helmets mandatory for all motorcycle riders -- there are always passionate voices and good arguments on both sides. Some of my colleagues would, no doubt, be happy to regulate a number of the behaviors that we know are “bad for us” like tobacco use. We always balance that in allowing for personal decision-making and autonomy. We must think long and hard when we tip that balance and take away people’s autonomy.
This body always struggles to find the balance -- and so we must here. This is another instance where we must find the “sweet spot” -- the point at which we encourage behaviors that are healthy and appropriate, without eliminating an individual’s autonomy. The sweet spot is hard to find on this issue -- because it is complex. How wide are our community norms? Where does behavior cross the line into being inappropriate? Who will be the keepers of those norms? Who decides? What is the basis for the decision? Should an ACT Team (Assertive Community Treatment Team) made up of a psychiatrist, a mental health nurse, licensed Master’s level clinicians, and counselors/case managers be the decision makers? Maybe the head of a psychiatric hospital? Or the Commissioner of Health and Human Services? Should it be a law enforcement officer who has information from a concerned family member? This proposal, even in its latest amended form introduces many more players and many more complexities into the mandating of treatments -- even in a community setting. It is not a responsibility I would personally welcome -- I know that. Do we really want to create this unwieldy system that can ultimately deprive an individual of his or her autonomy and decision-making?
I have not been convinced that a case has been made to expand the ways that a Progressive Treatment Program can be mandated -- without significant consequences for an individual living independently in the community. We need to maintain this tool, but we need to proceed with greater caution before we do anything that may take away the liberty or the autonomy of a person with a disability -- including a psychiatric disability -- no matter how good our motives may be. In this case, I am convinced that the motives behind the bill are well-intentioned. It is what is not intended, and the impact those unintended consequences may have on the lives of our fellow citizens -- that concerns me.
This vote will be a matter of conscience and one where we each weigh our values and our beliefs. I will continue to be voting against the majority report, Committee Amendment A as amended by the other body, and urge the more restrained approach taken by the minority of the HHS Committee in Committee Amendment B. I hope you will join me in rejecting the current motion, so we can have the opportunity to consider and pass Committee Amendment B and maintain this important tool for community based out-patient mental health services without unduly expanding its scope in a way that could undermine the autonomy of some of Maine’s vulnerable citizens.
Thank you, Madame Speaker.
Monday, April 5, 2010
124th Maine State Legislature Winds Down
No legislative activity is more demanding than the discussions surrounding the passing of the state’s budget. It is a particularly thankless task in a year such as this one, when adjustments must be made and programs must be reduced or eliminated to produce a balanced budget against the backdrop of declining revenues as a result of the national economic downturn.
The good news is -- this year the Legislature produced such an austerity budget by making the difficult choices of program reductions rather than resulting to tax increases or budget gimmicks. Legislators from both parties worked together, using the blueprint provided by Governor Baldacci to produce a final state budget that will be approximately $2.69 billion. To put that in context, the budget ten years earlier was $2.65 billion. The rate of inflation over those ten years exceeded 20% -- and many elements of the state budget -- such as energy costs or health insurance increased at an even faster rate.
This year’s budget contains some hard choices -- but they mirror the difficult choices and priorities that almost every Maine family has been making for the last few years. Having served on the Health and Human Services Committee, one of the areas that took the largest cuts to the budget, I understood in detail what the choices meant for some of Maine’s most vulnerable citizens. At that same time, the ongoing conversations with neighbors in the River Valley kept me focused on the need to manage this budget shortfall without raising taxes or fees.
In the end, the budget was an opportunity for the Legislature to come together. It was supported by strong bi-partisan majorities -- 110 to 35 in the House of Representatives and 31 to 2 in the State Senate. There were a few people who felt the proposals went too far, or not far enough, but overall the package was balanced and supported by the leadership of both chambers and both political parties.
Moments such as the passage of the budget are hopeful ones -- because they suggest we are not bound to partisan bickering and political game-playing. If there is one thing I hear over and over from the people of District 92 it is this message -- get the job done and don’t play politics. It is easy to stand on the sidelines and complain or second-guess. It is easy to criticize “Augusta” without offering realistic alternatives. However, at the end of the day, the Maine Legislature is full of serious people -- committed men and women who want to serve their communities and do so with the best intentions and information that is available. This budget process was an example of the best of our system -- working.
No one decided to obstruct the process or say “No” just for the sake of saying “No.” Members worked thousands of hours, together, to find the best possible alternatives and approaches that would balance the needs of our state and its citizens against the realities of our economic conditions. I was honored to join with so many of my colleagues to support this budget. It was not perfect, it did not do everything that I wanted to see, but it is a practical and workable solution to our current situation.
One major challenge resolved -- and only a few more until we adjourn in a matter of days. However, the work for next year is already beginning because we will be facing a similar budget shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars, and we must maintain the balance of fiscal discipline and targeted services for Maine citizens.
Over the next few months, I will once again be calling on my neighbors in the River Valley, listening to your concerns and trying to learn how I can best serve you should I be fortunate enough to continue to earn your vote and your confidence. You can be sure that I will continue to work on initiatives that will keep our state’s finances strong, our taxes low, and our money producing real value in the areas of education, health and safety.
The good news is -- this year the Legislature produced such an austerity budget by making the difficult choices of program reductions rather than resulting to tax increases or budget gimmicks. Legislators from both parties worked together, using the blueprint provided by Governor Baldacci to produce a final state budget that will be approximately $2.69 billion. To put that in context, the budget ten years earlier was $2.65 billion. The rate of inflation over those ten years exceeded 20% -- and many elements of the state budget -- such as energy costs or health insurance increased at an even faster rate.
This year’s budget contains some hard choices -- but they mirror the difficult choices and priorities that almost every Maine family has been making for the last few years. Having served on the Health and Human Services Committee, one of the areas that took the largest cuts to the budget, I understood in detail what the choices meant for some of Maine’s most vulnerable citizens. At that same time, the ongoing conversations with neighbors in the River Valley kept me focused on the need to manage this budget shortfall without raising taxes or fees.
In the end, the budget was an opportunity for the Legislature to come together. It was supported by strong bi-partisan majorities -- 110 to 35 in the House of Representatives and 31 to 2 in the State Senate. There were a few people who felt the proposals went too far, or not far enough, but overall the package was balanced and supported by the leadership of both chambers and both political parties.
Moments such as the passage of the budget are hopeful ones -- because they suggest we are not bound to partisan bickering and political game-playing. If there is one thing I hear over and over from the people of District 92 it is this message -- get the job done and don’t play politics. It is easy to stand on the sidelines and complain or second-guess. It is easy to criticize “Augusta” without offering realistic alternatives. However, at the end of the day, the Maine Legislature is full of serious people -- committed men and women who want to serve their communities and do so with the best intentions and information that is available. This budget process was an example of the best of our system -- working.
No one decided to obstruct the process or say “No” just for the sake of saying “No.” Members worked thousands of hours, together, to find the best possible alternatives and approaches that would balance the needs of our state and its citizens against the realities of our economic conditions. I was honored to join with so many of my colleagues to support this budget. It was not perfect, it did not do everything that I wanted to see, but it is a practical and workable solution to our current situation.
One major challenge resolved -- and only a few more until we adjourn in a matter of days. However, the work for next year is already beginning because we will be facing a similar budget shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars, and we must maintain the balance of fiscal discipline and targeted services for Maine citizens.
Over the next few months, I will once again be calling on my neighbors in the River Valley, listening to your concerns and trying to learn how I can best serve you should I be fortunate enough to continue to earn your vote and your confidence. You can be sure that I will continue to work on initiatives that will keep our state’s finances strong, our taxes low, and our money producing real value in the areas of education, health and safety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)