Facing the Difficult Budget Choices

Last week, I spent four days in Augusta learning about Governor LePage’s proposed plan to close an estimated $120 million shortfall in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) budget. During that time, I listened to Commissioner Mary Mayhew, several of her DHHS staff, and hundreds of Maine citizens testify on the impact that these proposed cuts would have on their lives. I drove back home to Rumford from Augusta each night humbled by what I had heard during those intense days of testimony and presentation.

There is no doubt that we face serious budget challenges. During an era of unprecedented economic prosperity, we started down a path to expand health care coverage and services to thousands of our Maine neighbors. Unfortunately, with the massive economic dislocation caused by a global economic recession, that expansion seems unsustainable as revenues continue to decline even as demand for services, and their costs, continue to rise. Something must be done; this is not a situation that can be ignored, nor will it just go away of its own accord. Difficult decisions, based on all the facts and realistic priorities, must be made in the coming days and weeks.

The testimony by Maine citizens last week was very sobering. We heard stories from our neighbors and members of the community concerning the circumstances they face and the impacts that these significant cuts will have on their health and ultimately their lives. The impact of these cuts will not be theoretical -- they will impact thousands of individuals and families -- not just those who receive the services, but those who provide the services as well. It means all of us and our communities will feel the effect of these cuts to some extent or another.

With that in mind, we must make these difficult decisions armed with facts. Therefore, here are the central concerns that I have and which must be answered before I will be able to support any budget initiative -- regardless of who proposes it.

1. What is the actual size of the budget shortfall?
2. Will any of these program eliminations violate federal statutes or rules thus requiring that we reinstitute them?
3. Will elimination of certain services create greater demand for the remaining ongoing services, erasing projected budget savings while creating dislocation for consumers and their families, workers, and providers?
4. What is the direct economic impact of these proposed program eliminations? How many workers will be laid off as a result of these cuts? How many providers will be put out of business? What are the stranded costs from unused facilities caused by these actions?
5. What is the indirect economic impact on our communities? Given the widespread and sizable nature of these reductions, what will be the secondary economic impacts on Maine communities? How many more people may lose their jobs or their livelihood?
6. How will these changes impact the availability, quality and cost of medical and social services for all Maine citizens?
7. What is the plan for and the timeframe of the transition of MaineCare recipients, workers, and providers as services are eliminated or reduced?

Without answers to these questions, the Legislature cannot make reasonable, albeit difficult, budget decisions.

Since I was elected three years ago, I have been working to make our human services and particularly MaineCare more sustainable and more affordable. There are changes that can be made that will reduce costs. There may be many unnecessary costs and programs that can be identified and eliminated. We may need to look closely at our priorities and eligibility standards, but we must do that work mindful of the impacts these changes will make in the lives of our neighbors.

One of my legislative colleagues is fond of reminding us all that we have a constitutional responsibility to have a balanced budget. I have read Maine’s Constitution and he is correct. There is one place where the Legislature is required to produce a balanced budget. However, there are many more places where we are directed to guard the health, safety and welfare of all Maine citizens. Both of these are constitutional mandates, and I will work to ensure we meet them both.

I have appreciated the many e-mails and calls I have gotten on this very important subject. I encourage you to pay attention to the issues as they emerge over the next days and weeks, and let me know your thinking. I will continue to work to find a way through to a budget that represents our core values as Maine citizens.

Environmental group gives local reps. top scores

AUGUSTA – The non-partisan Maine Conservation Voters gave Rep. Sheryl Briggs, D-Mexico, and Rep. Matt Peterson, D-Rumford, “4 out of 4” for their votes to protect the environment during the first session of the 125^th Legislature. Both representatives have 100 percent lifetime scores from MCV.

“As an outdoor enthusiast and as a grandmother, I believe that it is important that we make sure that Maine is a place where we can continue to enjoy the outdoors now and in the future,” said Briggs.

“Maine's quality of place is a big part of what brings people to our state,” said Peterson. “In the River Valley in particular, where our industry is dependent on natural resources, a healthy environment equates to a healthy economy.”

Legislators were graded on their votes regarding energy efficiency, clean water, children’s health, wildlife and the North Woods. The Maine Conservation Voters 2011 scorecard measured votes on some of the most significant environmental issues passed this year:

· Children’s Health: LD 412 voting to ban the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in food and beverage containers, like baby bottles and sippy cups;

· Children’s Health: LD 228 voting against the repeal of Maine’s pesticide spraying notification law;

· Energy Efficiency: LD 1416 voting against weakening the statewide uniform building and energy efficiency code;

· North Woods: LD 1534 voting against establishing a biased study committee to eliminate the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC), the state agency charged with conserving Maine’s vast North Woods.

In past years, MCV scorecards have been used to showcase votes that furthered protections for Maine’s environment, which is central to the state’s economic brand.

NewPage Declares Bankruptcy

Today we learned that NewPage Corp. has filed for Chapter 11 under the United States bankruptcy code.

The announcement confirms many discussions that have been going on for months in Rumford.  We don't have much information to go on, but I am sure we will learn more in the coming days and weeks.  What we do know is that the issues are structural financial issues for the whole company -- not any issues specifically about the facility in Rumford.  I've had many family and friends who have worked for the mill for years -- and it has been a well managed facility with a strong and committed workforce.  Unfortunately, in this economic environment hard work is not always rewarded.  This is an instance where a company has borrowed a great deal of money, and was significantly over leveraged just before the global economy collapsed as a result of decisions made a long way from the River Valley.  It isn't the quality of the workforce; it isn't local regulation or the local tax climate or anything like that which threatens these jobs -- but we still need to concentrate on what we can do to keep the facility in Rumford operating and strong.  We don't want to lose these jobs because someone on Wall Street at an equity capital firm made a series of bad decisions.

Governor LePage and his people won the election with the claim that they understand business -- what business needs and how business operates to create and maintain jobs.  I hope they are right.  I am looking forward to working with the Governor and his staff to maintain this vital industry and these jobs that anchor the entire economy of northern Oxford County.  I hope they can apply the lessons they've learned in dealing with the situation of the mills in the Katadhin region to help mainatin these quality jobs for citizens in the River Valley.  I'm ready to roll up my sleeves and work with the administration and do whatever we need to keep the NewPage mill open, operating and maintaining the quality jobs that are essential to this region.  What we can't afford in Maine is to have working people in Rumford pay for the mistakes made by Wall Street MBAs who will not suffer the economic consequences of their actions.

Steven Gamache takes on the Big Apple - and Sanchez

By Tony Blasi, Staff Editor
Jul 15, 2011 12:00 am

Prizefighter Steven Gamache is seriously entertaining the idea of going a few rounds in Maine since pro boxing is no longer banned in the state, but he has bigger things on his mind for the moment — such as fighting in front of thousands of fans in New York City tonight.

Gamache (1-0) is elated that professional boxing is legal in his native state again, but his first priority is stepping into the ring at the Roseland Ballroom with contender Rogelio Sanchez (0-3) from Fort Wayne, Ind., in a four-round, junior middlweight bout on the undercard. Television coverage of Friday Night Fights begins at 9 p.m. on ESPN2. Junior middleweights Delvin Rodriquez and Pawel Wolak are the featured event.

This will be Gamache's second pro fight of his career. Gamache dropped Patrick Bozeman with a second-round knockout punch in Somersworth, N.H., in his pro debut last August.

"There's a lot of pressure," said Gamache in a telephone interview from New York City. "I am nervous and very excited. I sold $10,000 in tickets. It's crazy like that. They (promoters) want to see if you can sell tickets."

But you don't have to tell Gamache he's a long way from Lewiston even though he fought in the Big Apple as an amateur.

"I love the excitement of the city, but there's no place like home," said Gamache. "The good thing about New York City is I am getting a lot of top-level sparring."

"Steve has been sparring against quite a few champions," said Joe Gamache Sr., who is obviously proud of his grandson. "Steve has always been a hard worker."

It certainly helps to have a father who is a former world champion boxer as your trainer in the big city. Joey Gamache said his son's speed and knowledge of the sport should give him the edge against Sanchez.

"I know that he (Sanchez) is tough," said Joey Gamache. "He switches from lefty, righty. He throws body punches."

Besides training his son and working with other top-notch fighters, Joey Gamache is hoping to open his own boxing gym in New York City. "I have the investors in place," he said. "It is just a matter of finding a location."

While his dad is looking to step out on his own as a trainer, Steven Gamache said he is also in training at the dinner table and is hoping a new diet will give him an added edge in the ring.

"The biggest thing is my eating habits," said Steven. "I have been eating a lot better."

Steven knows a good punch accompanied with a healthy diet should go a long way to defeating Sanchez.

"From what I have heard, he switches from right to left. I have seen the tapes on him," Steven Gamache said. "I am looking forward to having a good night."

Boxing is back

When Gov. Paul LePage signed LD 889 into law on June 13 making professional boxing legal in Maine again, it was a victory for fight fans, the Gamache family and Rep. Matthew Peterson, D-Rumford, who introduced the bill in the spring. Mixed Martial Arts and pro boxing will now be governed by the newly renamed Combat Sports Authority of Maine, which will be headed by Bill Bouffard.

Pro boxing was banned in Maine when the law was changed in 2007 after the Athletic Commissioned was abolished due to budget cuts and lack of interest in the sport. That change prevented Steven Gamache from making his pro debut in Maine last year. He was forced to fight in New Hampshire.

According to Peterson, pro boxing will be legal in another 80 days, but it will take at least another six months before the Authority irons out new pro boxing rules.

Fight promoter Joe Gamache Sr. is considering holding a fight card in the spring as he keeps a close eye on the anemic economy.

"I am petrified of the economy," said Gamache Sr. "Let's hope it picks up in the spring. The last MMA show they had in Portland, they were charging $45 a ticket, and guess what, it sold out. Where are people getting all this money? To put on an all-pro show would be very costly."

Gamache Sr. said he would probably add several amateur bouts to go along with the pro matches to make the card cost effective. Of course, he wants to steer Steven Gamache back into the ring in Maine as soon as possible.

"I can't wait to watch Steven Gamache on Maine soil," said Peterson. "I am excited about that."

Peterson is not the only fight fan heralding boxing's return to the Pine Tree State.

"I think its great not only for myself, but for all the amateurs in Maine," said Steven Gamache. "I am looking to bring that back."

"He deserves to be in Maine," said Joey Gamache of his son. "It's where I got my start."

http://www.sunjournal.com/local-sports/story/1059837

Legislative Session Wrap-Up

After more than six months, I will not be turning instinctively to drive to Augusta when I head out of my driveway, for the First Session of the 125th Maine State Legislature adjourned last Wednesday, June 29th. The new Governor and new Republican majority in both the House and Senate came to Augusta promising to change the direction of Maine state government and began the session with many bold initiatives to make good on that promise. By the time the session ended, there were clearly some new priorities and some new directions, but in the tradition of Maine’s government most of the changes were incremental and there was significant bi-partisan support for many initiatives.

Here are some of the highlights from the session, as well as an update on the legislation that I sponsored and shepherded through the process.

First, the Legislature passed a number of bills that will be a “down payment” on far-reaching regulatory reform the Governor and his party promised during the campaign. L.D. 1, which was designed as a comprehensive regulatory reform bill passed in a modified form that included many common sense elements and was supported almost unanimously by members. The more far-reaching elements in that bill were eliminated during the debate as a bi-partisan compromise was shaped.

Similarly, initiatives to eliminate the Land Use Regulation Commission which oversees development in Maine’s unorganized territories was defeated, as were efforts to eliminate Maine’s ban on billboards and recently enacted protections for vernal pools. These issues will likely be revisited in the next session.

Second, major changes in the rules governing the health insurance market were enacted over strenuous objections. This initiative will also likely be revisited as the effects of federal health care changes are more fully understood, as well as the impact of these changes in the state insurance regulatory environment. This is another area where the debate will likely be ongoing.

Third, there were a number of initiatives that would change the rules governing abortion, reproductive rights and the status of unborn children. All of these initiatives were defeated after lengthy and often emotional debates on the floor in both Chambers. These were votes of conscience for many lawmakers and did not tend to follow party affiliations.

Another area of concern was changes in laws governing voting in Maine. Most of these initiatives, described by supporters as measures to protect against voter fraud and characterized by opponents as efforts to limit voter participation, were defeated with one important exception. The forty year tradition of same day registration was overturned on a close, party-line vote after passionate debate. We have not heard the end of this issue and supporters of Maine’s tradition of same day registration have already started organizing a petition drive to put a people’s veto of this matter on the November ballot.

A group of other bills aimed at limiting the rights of workers to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining and participate in union activities were also defeated, although this discussion will re-emerge in the next session.

I sponsored a diverse set of legislative initiatives in this session and had a good deal of success working across the aisle to get these initiatives passed. Several of these bills were as a direct result of concerns expressed by constituents in District 92, and it is a special privilege for me to work for the passage of these initiatives. Here is a brief rundown of the bills I introduced in the 125th Legislature.

"Resolve, To Establish the Commission To Study the Promotion and Expansion of the Maine Maple Sugar Industry" was designed to enhance the branding of Maine maple sugar products, the use of the maple resource, increasing value added jobs and promoting export markets. This bill passed with strong support and has been signed into law by the Governor.

“An Act To Prevent the Disclosure of Student Social Security Numbers" protects the security of our children and students’ confidential information by repealing the provisions authorizing the Commissioner of Education to require local school units to request and report student social security numbers to the Department of Education. This bill passed with unanimous support and has been signed into law by the Governor.

“Resolve, To Leverage Federal Opportunities for Job Creation in Maine” which directs the Department of Economic and Community Development to monitor and evaluate federal development incentives and analyze how state programs and resources, including tax policies and training programs, coordinate with these federal initiatives to make sure that Maine is maximizing and taking advantage of all available resources to create quality jobs for Maine citizens. This bill passed with unanimous support and has been signed into law by the Governor.

"An Act To Enhance Long-term Care Services for Maine Citizens" builds upon a previous legislative proposal that I sponsored and passed in the 124th Legislature, and reorganizes the provision of long-term care services for Maine citizens. It streamlines long-term care services with the goal of making them more accessible for seniors and people with a disability and provides a framework for consolidated in-home and community support services and nursing facility services with combined funding and integrated service delivery. This bill passed with unanimous support and will become law at the end of September.

"An Act To Regulate Boxing and Prizefighting in Maine" amends the law that creates the Mixed Martial Arts Authority of Maine to include boxing and renames the authority the Combat Sports Authority of Maine. By doing this, professional boxing events may commence in Maine once again. This bill passed with unanimous support and has been signed into law by the Governor.

"Resolve, To Establish Baseline Information on Health Impacts from Grid-scale Wind Energy Development" would direct the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Utilities Commission and Executive Department, and the State Planning Office to establish an interagency task force to develop a database of scientific studies that document possible health impacts from grid scale wind energy developments. This bill, one of a large group of bills dealing with wind energy was voted Ought Not to Pass unanimously by the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology. However, a significant amount of the language of the bill was added to the more comprehensive bill on wind power developed by the Committee that drew the best elements from all the bills presented on this subject. That measure passed both chambers of the Legislature and was signed into law by the Governor.

Overall, this session was both challenging and rewarding. I am pleased with the success of bills that will improve the economic and job prospects for the citizens of District 92, protect the privacy of Maine students, and improve outcomes for vulnerable citizens who need services in order to secure their health and safety. Those bills where I worked with local citizens in District 92 to pass important legislation are a matter of particular satisfaction.

Serving as your legislator and representing you in Augusta is a very great honor and one that I take very seriously. Again this year, I am happy to report to you that I have 100% voting record -- having never missed a recorded vote in the House Chamber. In the three years I have served, I have only missed a few recorded votes, and those came in my first year as a legislator because I had to travel out of state on legislative business for a day and a half during the session. I was elected to serve, and I will continue to try to do that to the best of my abilities. The best way for you to help me reach that goal is to keep in touch with me -- share your concerns, your ideas and you opinions. As always, you can call me at (207) 776-8051 or reach me by e-mail at petersonhouse08@gmail.com. Thank you again for your support and the privilege of serving you. I look forward to seeing you this summer as we enjoy our beautiful part of the world.

Maine's New Two Year Budget

Always the centerpiece of any legislative session, the Maine legislature passed and the Governor has signed a new two-year budget which will govern state spending and impact many of the aspects of our lives -- including education, transportation, public safety, health and taxes.

There was no doubt that we started the budget discussions in a hole -- with an estimated budget shortfall of over $800 million dollars if we held all spending levels according to the Revenue Forecasting Committee. That did not even take into account the new needs and priorities that were emerging. To put that shortfall in context -- the final budget that was passed was $6.1 billion, so the estimated shortfall as we began the process was very significant.

At the same time, it was not only the state that was feeling the budget pinch -- all of Maine’s municipalities were being pressed too -- with rising costs, particularly for health care and energy. The result was that reductions on the state level would have a ripple effect for local government and for local taxpayers, too.

Against this backdrop, Governor LePage presented a budget that would make deep cuts in many programs -- particularly in health and human services and in sharing expenses with municipalities through general assistance, revenue sharing and school funding. At the same time, the Governor was proposing a significant tax cut for Maine’s wealthiest individuals and some Maine businesses.

The Appropriations Committee went to work against a backdrop of shifting proposals as additional shortfalls and expenses were identified and the Governor introduced a change package that included even deeper cuts and more changes to programs. Given the timing of the budget negotiations, it was necessary to pass the budget by a 2/3rds majority so it would take effect at the beginning of the fiscal year -- July 1st.

Since January, I have received dozens of phone calls and hundreds of emails from residents of District 92. The overwhelming majority of these contacts were from individuals asking me to oppose the budget. I continued to participate in the budget compromise process and engage with our neighbors to learn more about the potential impacts of this budget here at home in the River Valley and the rest of the district.

At the end of the process, many compromises were reached and some of the more drastic cuts in services were restored, but other important areas remained unfunded or underfunded. I had pledged to support a budget that did not shift more burdens to our local governments and local taxpayers -- while setting priorities in key areas including education, transportation and services for Maine’s most vulnerable citizens -- seniors, children and people with a disability.

Ultimately, I was not convinced that the budget proposed by the Committee would meet those goals. While the final product was a great improvement over the Governor’s original proposals, I did not think it provided enough protections for local governments and would result in hardships -- either cutbacks in local services or local property tax increases. As a result, I went against the leadership of my caucus and voted against the budget, because I believed we could have found a better balance.

I hope that this new budget does not end up shifting a greater responsibility to local governments for services, or place our most vulnerable citizens at greater risk. As the budget is implemented and programs are reconfigured, we will see the results of these new approaches. I am sure that the conversation will continue, as the Governor has already committed to coming back in the next session with new proposals that will further change Maine’s budget priorities.

I always enjoy hearing from you about issues, concerns, or ways that I can be of assistance. I am here to represent you -- and I do that best if I know what you are thinking. You can reach me by e-mail at petersonhouse08@gmail.com, or call me at (207) 776-8051.

Thank you, Dick Austin

Thank you to Richard "Dick" Austin--a local legend and a national treasure for his world-record-breaking accomplishments in power lifting--for this wonderful Letter to the Editor that appeared in the Rumford Falls Times last week:

To the Editor:

If you have not read as yet the article in our local newspaper, written by our legislator, Matt Peterson, you are missing out on up front, in your face information that will positively impress you.

His stance is so rigid and sensible as to defy any negative criticism from any party member.

Presently taking on the state to recertify boxing once again is exciting and worthwhile, he has managed to gather details to an acceptable form for the state to consider that their rejection will certainly be questionable at best.

I just want to voice my appreciation to a man who is truly doing the job he was elected to do and as voters wee will be very mistaken if we don't keep him in office for the full term allowed by law.

My hat is off to you Matt. Keep up the good and useful work that benefits us all.

Richard G. Austin,

Rumford

http://www.rumfordfallstimes.com/opinion/story/05austinlte20

My Remarks on LD 83, "An Act To Legalize the Sale, Possession and Use of Fireworks"

We are currently debating LD 83, "An Act To Legalize The Sale, Possession and Use of Fireworks." I supported the passage of this bill and spoke in favor of the bill from the floor of the House of Representatives. The bill passed the House by a vote of 79-63. My remarks are reprinted below:
>
Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I want to add my voice in support of the current motion.

While this may not be the most important matter that we've considered this session -- especially now that we have the great Whoopee Pie / Blueberry Pie debate behind us -- I think our vote here sends a message....

Do we really need to continue to maintain laws that criminalize the use of fireworks? Our efforts at criminalization have not stopped fireworks from coming in to the state and being used. All we have done is make this illegal and force the use of fireworks into more furtive settings...

In my corner of the state, western Maine, fireworks have a rich tradition. Our community display in Rumford was known statewide at one time before budget constraints forced its discontinuation. When the town stopped formally putting on a display, folks individually began a holiday tradition--like in many other parts of the state--of driving into New Hampshire to pick up fireworks for private celebrations with family and friends. A few weeks from now, these informal fireworks displays will light the skies in the River Valley and elsewhere in the state. Why do we make this illegal?

By passing this bill we accomplish two things. First we send a message to our citizens that we think they can be responsible in acquiring and using fireworks -- and we can be very specific about the kinds of fireworks that we deem safer for use. We allow people to acquire and use things that are much more dangerous than fireworks – things like snowmobiling and ATV’ing -- so why can’t we trust our citizens to use fireworks responsibly?

In fact, data from other states indicates that legalizing and regulating fireworks actually ends up being safer for citizens. According to the Indiana Department of Health, over the four years since fireworks were legalized there in 2006, fireworks-related injuries have actually decreased every year. And nationally, according to the American Pyrotechnics Association, while consumption of consumer fireworks has gone up, injuries are down. This data shows that with legalization comes education, awareness and more responsible use.

Second -- we create opportunities for new businesses, or new profitable lines of trade at existing businesses, when fireworks can be legally sold by licensed vendors. We spend a lot of time in this body talking about New Hampshire’s competitive advantages on certain taxes. We are at an even greater disadvantage when it comes to fireworks – Mainers cross the border everyday to New Hampshire to buy fireworks, and tourists heading to Maine stop off and buy fireworks in New Hampshire when they should be buying them here.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this common sense legislation -- and I’ll be HAPPY to invite all of you to Roxbury Pond to see the fireworks after we have made it a legal activity here in Maine... Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Concluding the Budget Debate

While every legislative session deals with countless policy issues among the hundreds of bills it considers (almost 1600 and counting), there is no place that sets state policy more clearly than the two-year budget. Today the Legislature will begin considering the biennial budget that has received unanimous approval by the Joint Committee on Appropriations and Financial Affairs and was printed over the weekend.

This budget compromise was developed after hundreds of hours of public testimony and even more hours of negotiations involving administration officials, advocates, lobbyists and members of the legislature. The new budget must take effect on July 1st and therefore must receive support from 2/3rds of the members of the Maine Legislature. Maine’s constitution directs that laws become effective 90 days after adjournment, unless they are passed as emergency measures with a 2/3rds vote. That requirement virtually insures that all state budgets are bi-partisan in nature because they must either meet the 2/3rds test or be completed by March 31st -- a deadline that is very difficult to meet given the complexity of the budget process.

The Governor uses his budget proposal to reflect his priorities and occasionally to send a message to people he views as hostile to his interests (like proposing to cut state subsidies to Maine Public Broadcasting). The legislature works through these budget proposals -- which are constantly evolving as the Governor introduces “Change Packages.” The budget process reminds me of my recent experience having some renovations done to my house to make it more accessible. The state budget -- like that building project -- contained a number of surprises once we got into it, took longer to complete and cost more than anticipated. But just like my renovation project -- I couldn’t spend more on it than I had -- so I had to make some choices and make do in some areas. Sound familiar?

Every budget debate that I have observed, both as a legislator and as an advocate, concludes with all sides claiming victory. Expect the same to happen this year. The Governor likely will claim that he has fundamentally changed the direction of state spending and set us on a new path of sustainable government, including a reduction of the tax rate for Maine’s highest tax bracket. Others will claim that they have fought to retain the “safety net” even though it is a bit more frayed than it was in previous years.

Others will claim that the budget went too far in cutting this or that, while some will argue that the reductions or tax cuts did not go far enough. This is as predictable as the plots on many prime time television shows.

There are important questions that must be answered by this budget, and these are the areas where I will focus my attention during the debates.

First, have we just shifted the tax burden from the state income tax and sales tax to the local property tax? Known among advocates for municipal issues in Augusta as “shift and shaft” have we just reduced funding for state initiatives or mandates and left them for municipalities to fund? The property tax burden in the River Valley is already an issue for many of our residents living on a fixed income or struggling with the economic fallout from the recession. Our local leaders have worked hard to balance local budgets and keep the property tax burden as low as possible. Reductions in state subsidies -- for education, general assistance, or revenue sharing -- can create additional burdens for our municipalities.
If this budget merely shifts the burden for paying for services from the state to the municipalities -- I will not support it.

Second, does the budget provide adequate funding for infrastructure investments -- maintaining our roads and bridges as a key example? Such investments are important on many levels. The quality of our roads means additional safety in all our travels -- especially when the weather creates challenging conditions. Just as important, infrastructure projects create quality construction jobs that cannot be “exported.” I have met many people in the River Valley who made a transition from work at the mill to work in heavy construction -- like roads, bridges or public utilities. These are quality jobs that allow people to maintain their standard of living, even as employment in the mill has become more limited.

An infrastructure investment in transportation resources insures that we can maintain a diverse economy that includes tourist visits. Those visits contribute to our area as well. It is not just the direct jobs, either. Ask anyone who owns a convenience store near a road construction project and you’ll likely hear about some very good months of business. We all benefit from investments in infrastructure and if this state budget does not make room for such investments, I won’t support it.

Finally, the state has a responsibility to provide for folks who cannot adequately provide for themselves. Our seniors, children, people with a severe disability, or those with debilitating medical conditions, deserve our support so they can maintain themselves with dignity and remain a part of our community. Health care providers, facilities such as hospitals and nursing homes, as well as community based service providers should receive the resources they need to continue to serve all our citizens. If the safety net has been undermined, I will not support the budget.

This week will tell the tale. I will be listening carefully to the debate on the floor and all the information I can get from my colleagues and other experts. The three big areas of concern I have described above will inform my decisions as the budget is discussed. As always, I welcome you input and feedback as well. Contact me by e-mail at petersonhouse08@gmail.com, or call me at (207) 776-8051.

In next week’s column I will give more details about the final shape of the budget.

Update From Augusta

One of the most interesting discussions of the week was a floor debate on amending the Maine Constitution to reduce the size of the Maine House of Representatives. As you may imagine, the debate was heated and extensive as views were freely exchanged. It’s never easy for a room full of politicians to agree, but especially if they are talking about possible changes to their own status. Reducing the number of representatives looks like a big game of musical chairs to some of my colleagues.

After listening to the debate, I decided to support this initiative. Unfortunately, the measure failed and voters will not get the opportunity to consider such a constitutional amendment. However, that was the argument that convinced me. One speaker in favor of the measure pointed out that it had been over 100 years since the people of Maine had the opportunity to vote on the size of the House of Representatives.

A lot has changed in the last 100 years, and it certainly seemed reasonable to me to get the voters of Maine directly involved in the discussion about the institutions -- like the Maine House of Representatives -- that make or execute our laws. I could be convinced either way -- to shrink the House, or leave it the same size. The most important consideration is the people’s voice. Hearing from voters every 100 years does not seem excessive to me, so I would have welcomed the opportunity to have this public debate and involve more citizens. Perhaps some time in the future.

During that floor debate, one of my colleagues from southern Maine made a very thoughtful observation about the increasingly larger role that lobbyists are playing in shaping our laws. As a freshman legislator, she expressed strong and legitimate concerns about the influence these paid lobbyists have on the shape of legislation.

Her concerns are important and go to the heart of the quality of our government. Since we instituted term limits the dynamics at the State House have changed. Every electoral system has advantages and disadvantages. The trade-off with term limits is complex. The positive benefits of fresh ideas and more even distribution of power outside of a system based on seniority are tremendous. On the other side however, there is diminished “institutional knowledge” as members tenure is reduced -- and that makes the knowledge of lobbyists more influential in the decision-making process.

Every legislator wants to make informed choices in representing the people that they serve. We hold extensive public hearings, receive numerous telephone calls, countless e-mails, and an endless stream of face-to-face conversations and discussions. Lobbyists are a resource in those discussions and deliberations. The best situation is when opposing views are both ably represented by advocates. This is a short-cut to understanding the arguments, having access to third-party information, and finally -- deciding on a vote. On highly technical issues this information can be very important to a quality outcome.

Unfortunately, there is also a darker side to the lobbying industry in Augusta -- and it is an industry. This week, I had an unpleasant encounter with a lobbyist who, instead of having direct communications, was spreading a good bit of misinformation. Our exchange was civil and courteous, and ultimately the facts won out over the disinformation, but the situation highlighted the impacts that lobbyists have on the process.

That brings me back around to hearing the voice of the citizens. It is essential to our democracy. When appropriate, I think people should be able to weigh in at the polls -- expressing their opinions directly. Just as important, I value the contacts I get from constituents. Just as an example, a contact from this time last year by a maple syrup producer in the far end of District 92 resulted in legislation signed by Governor LePage last week that will strengthen the Maine maple industry.

Your ideas, your opinions and your concerns shape my work in Augusta. I am always happy to hear from you about issues, concerns, or ways that I can be of assistance. You can reach me by e-mail at petersonhouse08@gmail.com, or call me at (207) 776-8051.

Bill to increase Maine maple sugar industry signed into law

AUGUSTA – Gov. Paul LePage signed legislation Wednesday to establish a task force to study the potential for expanding the Maine maple sugar industry. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Matt Peterson, D-Rumford, strengthens the brand of Maine Maple products, creates new job opportunities and expands export markets.

“This is an important step in expanding the production and marketing of Maine maple products,” said Peterson. “Finding ways to extend the sustainable use of our natural resources, like the Maine woods, is a key to our long term economic health as a state. This initiative is a particularly sweet business development effort.”

Peterson added “This bill is also a real validation of the citizen legislative process.”

In the spring of 2010 Rep. Peterson was contacted by Chris Botka, a constituent who is a small scale maple producer. Through an arrangement with the Maine Department of Conservation, Botka, who resides in Rangeley Plantation, sustainably harvests maple sap from Maine lands, which he brands and markets for the Rangeley Lakes area.

Botka met with Peterson to find out why the State of Maine wasn’t doing more to promote Maine maple products on a regional, national and international level. As a result of that meeting, Peterson introduced the legislation signed into law yesterday.

“Maine's Maple Syrup Industry is about to shock the world as we begin the process to capitalize on Maine's potential,” said Botka. “The task force will open doors of opportunity which will have a positive economic impact for Maine people and businesses. It would have never come about without the determination of Representative Matt Peterson and bi-partisan support from all legislators. I believe and they have proved it is time to move Maine forward!"

The task force will submit their findings and recommendations in a report to the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry by Dec. 7, 2011.

After doing some research, Peterson discovered that although Vermont is the recognized leader among United States maple producers with annual production that is more than double what Maine markets, Maine forests contain 50 percent more hard maple trees than Vermont forests based on US Forest Service inventories.

After their meeting, Peterson and Botka worked with Rep. Jeff McCabe, D-Skowhegan who attended meetings with industry groups, other producers, and legislators to craft and refine the bill.

“The Maple industry has been promoting themselves worldwide and we need to find out how to support them as they grow,” said McCabe.

“I hope these efforts will replicate the strides we have made in managing and marketing other signature products, like Maine potatoes, Maine wild blueberries, and Maine lobsters,” said Peterson. “Can our delicious Maine maple syrup be far behind as another icon?”

Location:Capitol St,Augusta,United States

Encouraging Accountability

I had already written another column dealing with more mundane matter in the State Legislature when, with a strange sense of disbelief last weekend, I started following with interest and concern the unfolding story of Representative Frederick Wintle. Representative Wintle, a freshman legislator from Garland, spent the weekend in the Kennebec County Jail after having been arrested and charged with violation of firearms laws -- including criminal threatening. Our system of justice presumes the innocence of anyone accused of a crime, so I will withhold any judgment on his behavior, his motivations or the legal consequences until the justice system has had an opportunity to do its work.

That being said, the Speaker of the House has suspended many of Representatives privileges as a legislator based on what a spokesman for the Speaker described as “increasingly erratic behavior.” This unfortunate incident throws two very different issues into sharp relief.

First, there is pending legislation that would make it legal for individuals other than the Capitol Security force to carry firearms inside the Capitol building. This recent event will certainly impact the debate on that proposal and people are already starting to line up for the debate. Those with the strongest interests in this agenda are already claiming that this series of events involving Representative Wintle underscores the need to (a) Allow firearms in the Capitol, or (b) Prohibit firearms in the Capitol. I am sure the debate will be lively, and I will follow the arguments closely and listen to the citizens of District 92 while I decide how to vote on this matter.

More importantly is the matter of representation in the Chamber. If Representative Wintle’s privileges have been suspended, it may be very difficult for him to represent the people of District 24 who voted to send him to Augusta. Should he resign as a result of these incidents, a special election will be held in the District to identify a replacement. However, should Representative Wintle decide to remain in his seat, even with his privileges suspended, the people of his District will effectively have no representation in the Maine House.

In March, the Maine House briefly entertained the idea of introducing a bill to enable citizens to recall elected officials. The Joint Order was tabled by Republican leadership. I hope this Joint Order comes off the Table before the end of the session for a vote so that I can cast my support for this important initiative.

The Joint Order was presented by Representative Cynthia Dill (D-Cape Elizabeth ) -- now Senator Dill having just won a special election. That Joint Order would direct the Joint Standing Committee on Legal and Veterans Affairs to report out legislation that would create a citizens' recall process for state legislators, constitutional officers and the governor.

Currently there are 18 states that have a recall process. Maine's constitution allows for the impeachment of state civil officers --a legal process whereby the House votes on an indictment, and the Senate acts as jury and votes to convict or not.

The recall process that the Joint Order would seek to create would be in statute and be a political process that citizens would engage in similar to the citizens' veto and petition.

I supported that initiative and now I believe even more strongly that it is a simple matter. Maine people expect accountability for the actions of the people they elect to represent them. I am accountable to the voters of District 92, and I am happy to have that accountability increase -- because I think it encourages me to continue to constantly do a better job. This initiative is nothing more than a matter of consistency with existing policies.

• Here in Maine we have one of the easiest to access citizen initiative processes in the country, and as a result we have ballot measures in almost every election cycle -- accountability;

• We have a provision for a people’s veto and that has been exercised with increasing frequency -- accountability;

• We are required by the Maine Constitution to seek voter approval of certain types of long term debt obligations -- accountability;

• Our new State Treasurer wants to expand the involvement of voters in approving even more of the state’s financial transactions that have long term implications -- in the name of accountability;

• Some legislators are proposing that any initiative that would raise taxes and even certain fees must be approved by voters before they can become effective -- again, in the name of accountability.

We affirm constantly that accountability is a good thing and in order to be consistent, we need to facilitate the ultimate accountability tool -- the power of Maine voters to recall their state elected officials. I am happy to submit to that continuous accountability, and I have been encouraging all of my colleagues to support the initiative.

The unfortunate incident with Representative Wintle highlights the issue. The people in his District deserve to be represented, and if he will not step aside, or if the Legislature fails to undertake an impeachment process, the voters in his District have no alternative.

It is time to change that and introduce a provision in Maine statute that will allow voters to recall elected state officials -- including legislators and members of the executive branch.

Finding New Economic Opportunity

The last two weekends, there have been big crowds at the Stephens Avenue Armory in Portland and the Portland Expo, as Maine promotion companies hosted the first ever full sanctioned mixed martial arts events in Maine. Thousands of spectators from all over the Northeast traveled to Maine to watch these shows. By all accounts, the events were a resounding success, offering an opportunity to both amateur and professional fighters from Maine and throughout New England to compete in the fastest growing professional sport -- mixed martial arts or MMA.

In the last legislative session, I worked to pass a bill that enabled these MMA events to be held in Maine. We had to rebuild our state’s ability to oversee and regulate gladiatorial sports after the Maine Athletic Commission, that had formerly regulated prizefighting and boxing, was disbanded. The Athletic Commission was disbanded because interest in prizefighting had waned in Maine and there were no requests for scheduling bouts over several years. At the same time, interest in mixed martial arts was growing -- not only nationally but within the state, so I sponsored a bill to create a new regulatory mechanism for this sport.

As a result of the growth of MMA, interest in more traditional gladiatorial sports, such as boxing, has been revived. One well known promoter in central Maine attempted to put on a fight only to learn that it was not possible. Given this interest, I got involved with a number of parties to develop a modification to the existing statute in order to restore the regulatory framework to enable sanctioned prizefighting to resume in Maine.

Combat sports have a large fan base and following in Maine, and provide an opportunity to attract new investments in Maine by expanding these sports. Maine has a long history with boxing -- including hosting one of Muhammad Ali’s most famous prize fights. This legislation is designed to provide opportunities for Maine fans of combat sports, as well as the people who compete in these contests to have events in our state.

Two weeks ago the legislature held a public hearing on L.D. 889, An Act To Regulate Boxing and Prizefighting in Maine. Rather than create a duplicative authority to regulate boxing, LD 889 proposes to expand the scope of the MMA Authority to regulate boxing as well as MMA. Since the state is facing serious financial constraints and consolidation and efficiency are guiding principles in shaping new initiatives, this seems preferable to creating a new standalone entity to regulate prizefighting. Given the similarities of regulating gladiatorial sports like MMA or boxing, it seems logical to expand the scope of the present authority to oversee these contests as well.

To that end, LD 889 will:

*Change the name of the Mixed Martial Arts Authority of Maine to the Combat Sports Authority of Maine;
*Expand the membership of the Authority by adding 2 new members, with expertise in boxing, and;
*Direct the new Authority to adopt new rules to govern boxing, using the rules that had previously been established by the Maine Athletic Commission during its operations, if appropriate.

Combat Sports -- both MMA and Boxing -- have many fans in Maine, and those who work and train as fighters, as well as those who see these contests of skill as good entertainment, should be able to practice their sport in their home state. Finally, MMA athletes have that opportunity, but now boxers who have a long and storied history in Maine are denied that privilege. LD 889 will correct that situation.

In addition to pleasing fans, these contests have the potential to generate new revenues for the state, its communities, and the many small businesses that make up the combat sports industry. If the last two weekend’s contests are any examples, we can look forward to generating tourism revenues from these sporting contests just as the Portland Seadogs or the newly founded Redclaws stimulate the economy -- selling hotel rooms and meals as well as revenues for venues, vendors and participants in the contests.

I am very proud to report that last week the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee voted 11-2 Ought To Pass on LD 889. One Democrat and one Republican opposed the bill. With such a strong report coming out of committee, LD 889 should hopefully pass both chambers of the Legislature and land on the Governor’s desk to be signed sometime within the next month.

I’ll be working on getting this legislation enacted -- not only because I am a fan of these combat sports, but because the growth of these sports can be a lift to our economy and mean more jobs. In this economy, every little bit helps!

I’m also thrilled to report that a week ago my colleagues on the Health and Human Services Committee unanimously voted to support the passage of my bill LD 683, “An Act To Enhance Long-Term Care Services for Maine Citizens.” The bill now moves to the full legislature for votes by the House and Senate.

Coming up with new solutions

Last week I was honored to present L.D. 683, a bill which will at long last begin really addressing the issue of long term care in Maine. We know Medicaid is a huge driver of our state budget. It is one of the biggest, if not the biggest driver -- and its influence has been growing and will continue to grow as long as this state/federal partnership remains in place. Nationally, one quarter of Medicaid expenditures are for long term care and it may be more in Maine given our demographics and aging population.

Unless we transform the long term care system in Maine -- by setting better priorities in our spending, insuring that dollars are spent on vital quality direct services that people really need rather than excessive and complicated administrative overhead, we will continue to fall further and further behind. In the last legislative session, I proposed very similar legislation. It met with a lukewarm reception from the Department of Health and Human Services management as well as the providers and their advocates who were basically satisfied with their contracts and their role in the system. They did not want to see systems change because they were comfortable. I’ve learned my lesson. This session, I will be looking for a vigorous debate, but will be asking for an up or down vote.

I have literally spent years engaged in this issue and traveling around the country looking at best practices from other states. Some of the best of those ideas are contained in this proposal. These ideas have been successfully implemented in a variety of states -- Minnesota, California, Oregon, Massachusetts -- and I have tried to find the approaches that improved overall quality and also promoted the cost-effective use of taxpayer resources.

Here is the core intent of the bill:

*Break down the silos in service delivery of long term care. We should provide the services Maine people need, when they need it, in the most cost-effective manner and not worry about running programs based on demographics or diagnosis. We should be approaching services from a functional perspective -- making sure people get the services they need to be as independent as possible delivered as cost-efficiently as possible.

*Services should be delivered on a priority basis -- the people with the greatest needs (both medically and financially) should be given the highest priority, so that the limited resources we have to allocate to long term care serve those with the greatest needs. This means better integrating skilled services and support for activities of daily living to enable people to remain at home for as long as possible if that is what they desire.

*We should organize ourselves to best accomplish this goal -- so consolidation of effort is in order. The Department should be organized to manage without creating silos; the provider network should be consolidated to reduce duplication of services or redundant administrative expenses.

*We should reallocate existing dollars away from non-essential administrative overhead and into direct services. That’s not to say that the services are not worthwhile -- they may be. The issue is really this -- Can we afford to spend money on administrative activities when we are facing the budget situation at hand? As good as the extra support services may be -- we need to find the way to direct as much resource as possible into the hands on services that maintain our citizens. Given that, LD 683 would completely redesign our intake system -- expect more work on the front end from AAAs, ADRCs and other intake conduits with the resources allocated from federal sources; eliminate the cumbersome multiple steps in receiving services -- intake, independent medical assessment by Goold, separate service brokerage services by EIM, finally delivery of services from a proliferation of small providers. The process should be much simpler. We need to find out what people need to be independent and then help them make an informed choice about their options -- encouraging use of the most appropriate cost-effective approaches.

*By consolidating program offerings, consolidating the provider network and eliminating expenditures that are not for direct, hands on services we should strengthen the delivery system being able to serve more people, provide higher quality services, pay higher wages to direct care workers, provide more realistic reimbursement to providers, and better utilize tax-payer dollars on the things that really matter.

I want this bill to set a broad direction for the new leadership at the Department to turn its attention proactively to this important part of the health care and support system. Investing state dollars, especially as they leverage federal Medicaid resources can help build an architecture of support for seniors and people with disabilities in all Maine communities. As we build the system and approaches, we should be thinking about all citizens, not just those eligible for direct state supported services. Our MaineCare spending should be a catalyst for systems that work for Maine seniors, people with disabilities and their families.

Unfortunately, this approach makes people uncomfortable because it embraces such significant change. Some of the organizations that have multi-million contracts for services with the state -- many of which have been in place for a decade or more -- may be put at risk in this system realignment. These are the difficult choices that I believe voters asked me to make when you sent me to Augusta to represent you. I look forward to working to fulfill that challenge.

The curtain goes up on an extreme new world

PORTLAND - The cheers from the crowd drowned out the sound of his name. Trevor Kell didn't care. He was a winner in his very first amateur fight, on the first night Mixed Martial Arts fighting came to Maine.

Some 18 months after Maine's legislature gave promoters the green light to bring the sport to the state, Linda Shield's Cage Fighting Xtreme staged the Maine Event at the Stevens Avenue Armory on Saturday night. Shield and her co-promoter, Marcus Davis, believed their sport would find an audience. They got one.

Fans were waiting at the armory's main door more than an hour before it opened. By the time Pat Walsh of Stoughton, Mass., and Boston's Wai Kru club won the first of 11 amateur and professional bouts, it was standing room only on the arena floor.

"I never had a crowd cheer that loud for me," said Kell, a wrestler at Kennebunk High seven years ago. "Never. I had dreams about it."

He wasn't the only one. The sport, with its elements of boxing, wrestling and forms of martial arts with a bit of street brawling thrown in, has worked to change an early image and earn acceptance. Its critics call it barbaric. Its fans call it an extreme form of competition that challenges all the definitions of toughness.

"Being the first means everything to me," said Davis, a 38-year-old Bangor native who tried a career in boxing before switching to a successful professional career in cage fighting. He worked with state legislators to draft rules for a commission that would regulate the sport in Maine. He pushed. He may have twisted a few arms, figuratively speaking, of course. And he won.

"These are the people who will be remembered for being part of the beginning," he said, nodding at Shield's staff, the fighters from his Team Irish MMA Fitness Academy in Brewer. "Two of my goals in life were to fight in Ireland -- and I did that twice -- and to be part of this."

Five of his fighters were on the card. Kell, now a house painter living in South Portland, was one. Steve Desjardins of Brewer was another. Two hours before the first bout, Desjardins walked around the empty arena dominated by the eight-sided cage in the center. A Brewer High graduate, one-time wrestler and just 20 years old, he was making his debut as well. Davis has taken some members of his team out of state to compete, but Desjardins was not one. Was he nervous? No, he said. He had spent three years preparing for this.

Don't try to paint cage fighters with the same brush. They can be college graduates, like Mike Brown, the professional lightweight champ and Bonny Eagle High and Norwich University graduate. They can be working men. They share the desire to challenge themselves by walking alone into the cage to test their survival instincts.

"You can teach fighting," said Gary Foreman, who has spent 30 years in this world. "You can't teach toughness. You find out how tough you are very quickly. The good ones find out they can be better and commit themselves to this."

Foreman is Shield's husband and her partner in this business, based in Massachusetts. They spend a lot of time on the road, taking this level of cage fighting from city to city. At Friday's weigh-in, they worked quickly and efficiently. Unlike some weigh-ins in professional boxing, there was little in-your-face testosterone.

Muscles were flexed and chests expanded for the cameras, not each other. When photographers gave a thumbs up, opponents faced each other and embraced. Such a violent sport, such a show of respect when the cameras turn away.

"It takes two to fight," said Desjardins. "We respect that. It's all good blood outside the cage."

Inside, it's very bad blood. Call it mayhem, call it barbaric.

For Kell, Desjardins and all the others, it was a simple test. That hundreds of fans Saturday night watched to see if they passed or failed did matter.

"I've never felt like this before," said Kell, as he waited for his beating heart to slow down. He had won, paid his respects to his opponents and walked out of the cage and into the embrace of friends and family. He'll do it again.



Staff Writer Steve Solloway can be contacted at 791-6412 or at:

ssolloway@pressherald.com

http://www.pressherald.com/sports/solloway/the-curtain-goes-up-on-an-extreme-new-world_2011-05-01.html

Testimony Presenting LD 1196

Today I testified in support of a piece of legislation I co-sponsored, L.D. 1196 An Act To Clarify Assistance for Persons with Acquired Brain Injury. Below is my testimony:

Good afternoon, Senator McCormick, Representative Strang-Burgess and distinguished colleagues of the Joint Standing Committee on Health and Human Services, I am Matt Peterson and I represent District 92 which includes the Oxford County towns of Andover, Byron, Roxbury, and Rumford, as well as the Franklin County communities of Weld and plantations of Rangeley and Sandy River plus the unorganized territories of West Central Franklin and Madrid Township. I am here today as a co-sponsor to support L.D. 1196 An Act To Clarify Assistance for Persons with Acquired Brain Injury.
I want to commend my colleague and friend, Representative Goode for submitting this important piece of legislation and thank him for asking me to join him as a co-sponsor of this significant initiative.

As you have already heard, this proposal amends existing statutory language to more fully recognize both the issues and the appropriate responses to acquired brain injury, something which, unfortunately impacts many Maine citizens and their families. I know you will hear more in a few minutes from the advocates and those with greater expertise on this significant health issue, but let me just point out that it is very appropriate for us to make these changes as a means to recognize not only the severity of acquired brain injury and its impacts on our citizens and Maine families, but also suggest that the state has an ongoing role to play in identifying and providing resources to mitigate the impacts of this condition on our people.

One of the tragic consequences of our recent involvement in the asymmetrical conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq has been a sharp increase in the number of returning service personnel who are coming home with an acquired brain injury as a result of their service to our country. The growth in frequency of acquired brain injury among our service members has led to a greater recognition of the impact of this condition on many other citizens who must deal with the consequences of the condition in their everyday lives.

This expanded recognition is another important step in coming to grips with the impacts that acquired brain injury has on the lives of Maine citizens and families. Representative Good’s proposal moves us a step along the path of assisting our citizens in facing and dealing creatively with this condition by acknowledging both new approaches to assisting individuals impacted by acquired brain injury, as well as preserving their rights, especially in instances where those rights may have been suspended as a result of the appointment of a guardian by the courts.

I am sure we all want the best for these citizens, and LD 1196 is another important step toward meeting that goal. I will not take up more of the Committee’s time unless you have questions for me. I look forward to working with you during our work session on this LD.

Update From Augusta -- Getting Our Facts Straight

The River Valley leads the way in many different areas -- not just in football and wrestling. We are somewhat an epicenter for land based wind energy development in Maine. There is something about the area that has made it attractive to grid scale wind developers with projects having been proposed in a number of communities within the River Valley including Byron, Roxbury and Rumford. The proposed projects are in various stages of planning, permitting and development -- and the road thus far has not been a particularly straight path.

Earlier this week, there was a public hearing on legislation I introduced -- L.D. 1035 “Resolve, To Establish Baseline Information on Health Impacts from Grid-scale Wind Energy Development.” This proposed legislation embodies my intent to create a better framework and process that will help policy makers on the state and local levels access a set of commonly accepted facts about wind power health effects, based on a consideration of peer-reviewed studies rather than speculation and assertions which had not been rigorously reviewed.

We’ve all heard the old expression “You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.” In our Google culture, it seems there has been a real proliferation of pseudo-science. Self proclaimed experts appear on every corner of “Internet Avenue”, and it can be daunting sorting out the facts from the claims.

The foundation for most modern science and particularly the practice of medicine is intended to strike the balance between consumer safety and innovation. For example, without the acceptance of peer-reviewed studies as the basis for decision-making in medicine we would still be seeing patent medicines being sold with dubious results but out-sized claims. A factual foundation -- based on widely accepted, tested and peer-reviewed studies -- should also be the foundation for judging the health impacts of wind generation facilities.

It is precisely on this issue that the Rumford Board of Selectmen has been working for more than a year, with a contentious local debate and election that resulted in the rejection of a citizen committee drafted local ordinance. After that vote in November, Rumford went back to the process of drafting an ordinance -- and those discussions are continuing.

I believe all these deliberations could be better served by having access to a state-identified and recommended database of information and a set of conclusions based on peer-reviewed scientific studies. Our local officials do a great job sorting through the many challenges they face, particularly in these difficult economic times. However, like my colleagues in the citizen legislature -- they are not generally scientists, so need to be able to make decisions based on a factual foundation that has been examined and vetted by people who are qualified to make such a judgment.

That is my goal with this legislation. I think that people of Maine are better served if they can make decisions based on facts -- especially if those facts have been examined and vetted by experts that we support with our tax dollars and who are charged with the responsibility of serving our citizens. That is why an interagency task force, as envisioned in this proposed legislation, seems like the right approach.

Like all of my legislative colleagues, my goal remains to represent the District to the best of my ability. The only way I know to do that is to be sure that the elected officials and voters in our District have access to the best possible information so they can make informed decisions about the future of the River Valley. I have great confidence in the thoughtfulness of my neighbors and I believe they are very capable of making intelligent and informed choices if they have access to the facts. The goal of this initiative is to empower people to make thoughtful and informed choice.

As of this writing, I don’t know what the outcome of the Legislative initiative will be. Some folks thought the proposal went too far, others didn’t think it went far enough. That is the political and legislative process and it is not different from the discussion about wind power we have been having for the last several years here in the River Valley. At the end of the day -- making decisions based on some facts, particularly commonly held facts, seems better than flipping a coin, especially if we have to live with the impacts of a bad decision for many years.

In other news, I’m pleased to report that last week members of the Agriculture, Forestry and Conservation Committee gave their support to legislation I sponsored and wrote about in a previous column. LD 109, “Resolve To Establish the Commission to Study the Promotion and Expansion of the Maine Maple Sugar Industry” received a unanimous ought to pass committee report and now moves to the House and Senate chambers for a vote by the full bodies.

I’m always interested in hearing from you with feedback, thoughts, ideas or concerns. Please contact me by e-mail at petersonhouse08@gmail.com, or call me at (207) 776-8051.

Update From Augusta

One of the things that is most gratifying as a legislator is being able to work with constituents to identify and solve problems. I was pleased when an Andover resident and member of the SAD 44 school committee came to me with a concern about a bill that was passed in the last legislature that directed school districts to use student social security numbers to track performance through school and beyond in the workplace, creating what is called a “longitudinal study.” The bill passed without much debate and I voted for the initiative.

The statute contains provisions that seek consent from parents, and ultimately students who have attained maturity while in the system, to collect and use the information. It also gives the authority to the Commissioner of Education to sanction school systems that do not comply by withholding the state subsidy payment -- a pretty large stick to discourage non-compliance by local districts.

It was only after the initiative moved forward to implementation at the local level that issues and concerns began to be raised. While the parental notification / opt in provision seemed to be an adequate protection, this notification coming usually at the beginning of the school year, and often included with other parental notifications and permissions -- often combined to achieve administrative efficiencies -- may blunt the thoughtful consideration of the issue by parents. I live in a household with four public school students -- and I understand the welter of paperwork that faces even the most conscientious parents, so careful consideration of the implications of such requests can be daunting.

In researching this initiative I had the opportunity to have some discussion with people familiar with research methodologies, longitudinal studies and privacy issues before I made the determination to introduce this measure. Those discussions helped me shape a bill and informed my support for this initiative. Here are some of the things I learned from those conversations.

First, the value of this data is questionable, especially if the data sets are not comprehensive. One experienced researcher told me that collection of such longitudinal data sets is valuable only if it is truly comprehensive. In other words, only if we have 100% or close to it participation, could conclusions from the analysis of this data be truly useful. When students / parents choose not to “opt-in” in significant numbers, and especially when entire districts refuse to comply, the data sets become increasingly less comprehensive and therefore less reliable.

When data sets like this are unreliable, other methods -- like random sampling of participants -- become a more reliable means to measure real outcomes for policy formation because you can control variations in the sampling. Working from partial and self-selected data sets such as those produced by an opt in system has limited value. The researcher indicated that the value of the data is better than an internet poll or a call-in poll / vote -- but not that much better without a careful, ongoing and expensive analysis of the underlying data. Random sampling may produce more reliable outcomes and have no greater cost than validating the collected data.

If the value of the underlying data is questionable, what are the potential downsides to collecting this information? It turns out there are many downsides. The most obvious is the potential for compromising people’s personal information -- especially social security numbers. Correlating a social security number with a name and address (which is likely in this data collection scheme) is the foundation for identity theft. This is the information that criminals seeks when they want to steal an identity as part of a larger criminal enterprise.

Collecting this data and building the database means that the state is liable in perpetuity to maintain the integrity and protect the data. I am sure we will receive assurances about the safety of this data -- but we have already seen too much about data systems that are likely more secure than this one will ever be that have been compromised. Is it really worth the risk? Are the rewards great enough to offset that potential downside? My answer is no, and that is why I have proposed this legislation.

There may be clarity about the intent for collecting this data today -- but what about 20 years from now? We don’t have any idea who will be able to access the information or for what reasons. I won’t spell out some of the more chilling implications of that train of thought -- but let’s remember that databases, once built, are enduring structures. If they aren’t built to endure, then they are even more likely to be compromised. If they are built to endure, than the data integrity must be maintained in perpetuity, or at least for the life of the participants. For that 6 year old who goes into the database today, we will need to insure the privacy and safety for at least 90 years or more. Is it worth the expense? Are we getting value for the investment?

In the end -- this is a simple cost benefit analysis. There is no doubt this information may have some value. The value may be limited based on the comprehensiveness of the information. In addition, there are other ways to gather comparable information that may not pose the same risks. It is our duty to protect our citizen’s right to privacy and the safety that comes with having personal information secure. Gathering this information is a big responsibility that will not go away and will become increasingly more difficult and expensive to maintain as people who seek this information for the wrong reasons become more sophisticated and determined. If that is the case, and I believe it is -- is this initiative worth it? Will our research outcomes be worth the investment and the potential risks?

I think not. That was the carefully considered conclusion of the leaders at SAD 44 -- and I agree with them.

Why were we elected anyway?

Some of the recent events and controversies in Augusta have people on both sides of the aisles scratching their heads and asking the fundamental question: Why were we elected? It’s a good question to be reminded about, but my answer is always the same in these conversations. I was elected to represent the people of the River Valley to the best of my abilities and I will continue to do that as long as I have the privilege to serve.

The days are getting longer and the tempers seem to be getting shorter -- a clear sign that it must be April in Augusta. Those who are urging more respect and civility seem to be winning the day – and I applaud their efforts. We need to keep alive that spirit and the willingness to compromise over the next few weeks as we enter difficult budget negotiations against the backdrop of our state’s fiscal problems. Working together, we can find solutions. We did in the last session, and I believe we can in this session as well.

While there are certainly people in both parties who are “hyper-partisan,” I find that most members of the Legislature are there to serve the people back home and do the very best they can. I will continue to work as hard as I can to collaborate with my colleagues whenever possible. We have a long way to go on budget matters to find solutions that can win broad support. The present proposals are far off the mark -- and that seems to go for both sides of the aisle. My Republican colleagues are as concerned about some initiatives as the Democrats.

In November, Maine voters sent a clear message -- they were ready for a change. Republican candidates sent a clear message, too -- we will bring change to Augusta. Republicans won the majorities because voters believed they could do a better job, it’s as simple as that. People believed that
Republicans who got elected would manage things more effectively. On the campaign trail, I often heard people say in talking about candidates, "Let a businessperson do it," as though business has the answers when it comes to good management.

Better management and new ideas is exactly what I want to see, too. I am convinced we can do a better job and manage our resources more carefully to provide high quality services with less waste and less duplication. It is one of the reasons I was such an enthusiastic supporter of Governor LePage’s nominee for Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services, Mary Mayhew. I believe that Commissioner Mayhew brings new management skills and insight to the position. She is focused and energized and is capable of excelling in the job. I want to help her do just that -- manage the giant state human services bureaucracy more thoughtfully and more cost-effectively on behalf of taxpayers. In a future column, I hope to talk about some specifics and work I am undertaking in my dialogue with Commissioner Mayhew.

Beyond that, I keep waiting for those “new ideas,” and unfortunately I haven’t seen too many yet. As I said above, I know we can do a better job with our expenditures in health and human services. To that end, I have proposed some direction in a systems change bill that will be debated later in the session -- but I am still waiting to see those better approaches from the administration. Unfortunately, this budget is balancing the state's finances on the backs of working families, poor people, old people, people with disabilities, and public service men and women; teachers, firefighters, and police. Those are not particularly new ideas; they have been around for a very long time. The other way this budget balances is on the backs of Maine’s municipalities and the local property taxpayers. There’s nothing new or innovative there either.

Where are the new management initiatives? Where is the reorganization or consolidation to create efficiency? Where are the new ideas? How will we create new jobs? How will we better educate our children? How will we care for our aging parents? That’s what I want to work on and vote to support.

The legislative session is a work in progress and the budget is at its core. It’s always hard to see the end of the process from this vantage point, but I am sure it will finally arrive.

In the meantime, the next few weeks we will be having more lively debates. Changes in state policy around promoting and regulating wind power projects have been proposed in a number of bills. In the River Valley, we know first-hand how passionate those discussions can become. I expect the same for the hearings in Augusta.

Other details and proposals for welfare reform, regulatory relief and a host of other issues will be hotly debated. In the end, I am confident we can chart a course that will serve the very best interests of Maine people. At least we have the Whoopee Pie / Blueberry Pie vote behind us -- so we’ve proven we can compromise. Let’s hope those lessons carry over to other key policy choices.

Former President of the American Medical Association Says Maine Should Be 'Ashamed' for Sanctioning MMA

In today's issue of the Portland Press Herald, the former President of the American Medical Association and Southern Maine resident, Dr. Robert McAfee, wrote that Maine should be "ashamed" for legalizing and regulating the sport of Mixed Martial Arts. With only a little over three weeks until Maine's first sanctioned MMA event and as the prime sponsor of the legislation that brought the sport to our state--I was a little disheartened to read the Dr.'s opinion this morning.

Ariel Helwani, one of the hardest working and most respected journalists in MMA, was good enough to interview me and blog about Dr. McAfee's position. Read what Ariel had to say about Dr. McAfee's editorial here.

Establishing a Process for Recall

On today's House calendar a Joint Order was presented by Representative Cynthia Dill (D-Cape Elizabeth). The Joint Order would direct the Joint Standing Committee on Legal and Veterans Affairs to report out legislation that would create a citizens' recall process for state legislators, constitutional officers and the governor.

Currently there are 18 states that have a recall process. Maine's constitution allows for the impeachment of state civil officers --a legal process whereby the House votes on an indictment, and the Senate acts as jury and votes to convict or not.

The recall process that Representative's Joint Order would seek to create would be in statute and be a political process that citizens would engage in similar to the citizens' veto and petition.

I support the initiative and believe it is a simple matter. Maine people expect accountability for the actions of the people they elect to represent them. I am accountable to the voters of District 92, and I am happy to have that accountability increase -- because I think it encourages me to continue to constantly do a better job. This initiative is nothing more than a matter of consistency with existing policies.

• Here in Maine we have one of the easiest to access citizen initiative processes in the country, and as a result we have ballot measures in almost every election cycle -- accountability;

• We have a provision for a people’s veto and that has been exercised with increasing frequency -- accountability;

• We are required by the Maine Constitution to seek voter approval of certain types of long term debt obligations -- accountability;

• Our new state treasurer wants to expand the involvement of voters in approving even more of the state’s financial transactions that have long term implications -- in the name of accountability;

• Some legislators are proposing that any initiative that would raise taxes and even certain fees must be approved by voters before they can become effective -- again, in the name of accountability.

We affirm constantly that accountability is a good thing -- and in order to be consistent, we need to facilitate the ultimate accountability tool -- the power of Maine voters to recall their state elected officials. I am happy to submit to that continuous accountability, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support the initiative.

The Joint Order was Tabled today by Republican leadership. I hope this Joint Order comes off the Table before the end of the session for a vote so that I can cast my support for this important initiative.

There's Gold in the Hills

Last weekend, we celebrated Maine Maple Sunday -- a sure sign that we are in the middle of sugaring season -- that annual Maine tradition that signals the coming of spring. Maple syrup is great on our pancakes, but it is also an important part of our overall economic picture as a state.

Last year, I met with a constituent in Rangeley Plantation who has a commercial maple sugaring operation. He had one question for me -- Why isn’t the State of Maine during more to promote Maine Maple products on a regional, national and international basis? I didn’t have a good answer, so I did a little research -- and as a result, I put in a bill, LD 109, to establish a study commission to investigate what appears to be a very promising development and job creation opportunity for Maine’s woods.
In doing the research that lead to the bill, here’s what jumped out at me --

• Maine is one of the nation’s top three producers of maple syrup, ranking well behind Vermont and just a little behind New York State.

• Although Vermont is the recognized leader among United State maple producers with a very strong brand identity and annual production that is more than double what Maine markets, Maine forests contain 50% more hard maple trees than Vermont forests based on US Forest Service inventories.

• Far and away the largest producer in North America is the Province of Quebec, Maine’s neighbor for much of our northern and western borders.

It looked like an opportunity, but left me with this question -- Given our forest resources, a growing export market for maple products, and our relatively low production in relationship to the total inventory of hard maple trees, what could we do to better utilize this resource to create jobs and revenues for Maine people?

Other Maine producers -- potato farmers, blueberry growers, lobstermen -- have enjoyed thoughtful assistance from the state in marketing and product development that has led to superior product branding. I wondered if maple products could offer another such opportunity for our state.

Since there were too many questions that I couldn’t answer, I decided to propose a short-term study commission that would look at the information and determine if there was some value in making a major effort in this area. Specifically, I am asking that a group of experts report back to the Legislature about:

• Potential for expanding both the harvesting and processing of maple sap for sugar;
• Obstacles to expanded production;
• Opportunities for enhancing a Maine Maple brand;
• Value Added Processing potential and its economic implications;
• Increased export marketing potential and its economic implications;
• Structures or network associations that could increase sustainable production;
• Potential competitive or collaborative opportunities with North America’s largest producer, Quebec, and;
• Investment or actions that could be taken by the state that would produce a tangible economic return.

We need jobs in Maine -- and in our part of Maine, the woods have provided an important livelihood for many families for generations. Anything we can do to help us grow a sustainable resource-based industry that could employ people in a variety of areas -- is something we should take a hard look at.

There have always been concerns expressed every time the state has invested resources in a particular area. However, the results speak for themselves. Few would argue that some of our most important agricultural products -- whether it is potatoes or blueberries -- or others, have suffered as a result of the state’s investment of time and resources in marketing and market supports. The purpose of this legislation is not to foster new regulations or new controls or to waste money -- it is just the opposite. I want this commission to look for ways to make it possible to make our forests even more productive through the renewable activity of tapping and harvesting the sap.

Maine’s maples may well be an “untapped resource” for sustainable growth in jobs, business revenues and tax revenues. In my opinion, the best way to find out is to get the right people around the table to talk about it -- and that is why the bill will create a study commission. At the end of the process, this study group will report back to the Legislature and if warranted -- I plan to work on a bill to support initiatives identified by the study commission.

So next time you pour the syrup on your pancakes -- think about the job potential for an industry that we can grow and that will create jobs and new investments in our economy. I hope the bill will pass, and we get some good insights from the work of the study commission it will create.