Statement from Representative Sean Flaherty (D-Scarborough) regarding completion of Utilities and Energy Committee work:

This session, the Legislature’s Utilities and Energy Committee was tasked with many of the hardest and most complicated bills.  However, we managed to work through all of them, in a bipartisan fashion, and produce unanimous reports on each piece of legislation.  I’m not sure if it’s the first time a committee has been 100% bipartisan over the course of a session, but but it’s certainly one of the few.

Some of the landmark legislation that we tackled, was inevitably made better because of the bipartisan cooperation.  Most importantly, it shows how politics can be put aside and strong policy can be written.

STATE OF MAINE

ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE

COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND ENERGY

April 6, 2010

Honorable Elizabeth H. Mitchell, President of the Senate

Honorable Hannah M. Pingree, Speaker of the House

124th Maine Legislature

Augusta, Maine 04333

Dear President Mitchell and Speaker Pingree:

We are pleased to report that all business which was placed before the Joint Standing Committee on Utilities and Energy during the Second Regular Session of the 124th Legislature has been completed.  The breakdown of bills and papers before our committee follows:

Total Number of Bills and Papers                                    39

Unanimous Reports                                                      38

Ought to Pass                                                     2

Ought to Pass as Amended                              28

Ought Not to Pass                                              8

Divided Reports                                                             0

Committee Bills & Papers                                            1

Pursuant to Public Law                                     1

Respectfully submitted,

S/Barry J. Hobbins

Senate Chair

S/Jon Hinck

House Chair

Bond Package will spur economy with more than 3,000 jobs

EDITOR:

This week, the Legislature will take our final votes.  One important vote will be for the passage of the Bond Package.

I strongly believe that the bond package is critical to stimulating jobs and investing in our future.  But most importantly, it is up to the voters of Maine to have a say.  I think all voters in the State should be able to decide if we’d like to invest in these projects or not.

There were two very important projects that I am confident will directly benefit Scarborough.  First, the deep water berth in Portland Harbor is going to do incredible things for tourism in our area because it will allow larger and more cruise ships into the Greater Portland area – a boom for many local businesses as well as a huge asset to industry as the berth will host more than just cruise ships.

Additionally, the Bond Package features an important investment in dental care around the state and will help to build a new Dental School at the University of New England’s Biddeford Campus.
Still, two important questions needed to be answered before I decided to support the Bonds; Will the bond package actually stimulate jobs in Maine and can we afford to bond?

The economic analysis tells us that it will result in the protection or creation of nearly 3,000 jobs statewide. Additionally, we will likely see a multiplier effect of jobs and growth around key provisions such as the Portland ship berth, the dental school at UNE, and the wind energy fund.

Moreover, the Department of Transportation estimates that failure to maintain the MMA railroad could result in $60 million in road maintenance from wear and tear caused by truck traffic from the re-routing of goods previously shipped by the rail. That is three times the cost of purchasing the railroad, in other words, the purchasing of the Rail line will save taxpayers in road maintenance for years to come.

Second, the Bond Package is, in fact, financially responsible. Maine has a conservative bonding record, strong credit, and track record of quickly repaying debt.  In reality, Maine has a low debt burden and pays its debts quickly.  More information on Maine’s Bond and Credit ratings can be found on my website at www.seanflaherty.org/Bonds

Whether of not you support these types of investments, don’t you, as a voter, want the opportunity to accept or reject them at the ballot box?  Voting in favor in the bonds gives Mainers that opportunity, and I think it’s a good one.

Sean Flaherty
State Representative
District 127 - Scarborough

Bond Impact on Jobs and Economy
We cannot afford to pass up this opportunity. The bond package is critical to stimulating jobs and investing in our future.

In total, it will result in the protection and creation of nearly 3,000 jobs (see chart below for specifics). Additionally, we will likely see a multiplier effect of jobs and growth around key provisions such as the Portland ship berth, the dental school and the wind energy fund. These are investments that will help secure our economy for the future.

Failing to pass this bond package is “penny wise and pound foolish.” The Department of Transportation estimates that failure to rescue the MMA railroad could result in $60 million in road maintenance for repairs from wear and tear caused by truck traffic from the re-routing of goods previously shipped by the rail. That is three times the cost of purchasing the railroad.

Several opponents argue that the bond package should be smaller or that we should pull out individual projects. However, that argument pits the economic vitality of individual parts of the state against one another. The current package gives careful analysis to how the entire state can succeed and what ideas will appeal to the majority of voters who will ultimately decide its fate in June.

Maine State Credit/Bonding Capacity
The bond package is financially responsible. Maine has a conservative bonding record, strong credit, and track record of quickly repaying debt.

Opponents say this bond package is mortgaging our children’s future and that we keep piling debt on top of debt. In reality, Maine has a low debt burden and pays its debts quickly:

• According to Standard & Poor’s, Maine has a …“Favorable debt position with a low debt burden and rapid amortization of debt outstanding.”
• The state has a “AA” bond rating from Standard & Poor’s, which is defined as “very strong capacity to meet financial commitments.”
• According to Standard & Poor’s, Maine has the lowest debt levels in all of New England, with 1 percent personal income accounting for our tax supported debt.
• According to Moody’s, Maine ranks 33rd in terms of debt per capita.
• Maine is also 28th among states when you consider debt as a percentage of personal income.
• In this biennium Maine will payoff $168.1M in debt.
• Even considering that $78M in already authorized debt will be issued, this $85M package allows us to retire $5.1M more debt than we issue.
• Under even the most aggressive draw schedule (when we borrow and spend bonds) debt service is less than 5 percent of total General Fund, Highway Fund and Revenue Sharing revenues
• Maine’s total debt for General Obligation Bonds is $507.7M. Debt service for this package is $2.1M

Maine solitary confinement bill stalls
House legislators prefer a policy review over a plan to change the treatment of mentally ill prisoners.

From the April 6th Edition of the Portland Press Herald

AUGUSTA - A bill to ban solitary confinement of mentally ill inmates was all but stopped Monday in the House, although a resolve asking the state Department of Corrections to review its policies was passed.

The House voted 74-68 in favor of the resolve, effectively ending an emotional campaign to change the treatment of mentally ill prisoners in Maine.

“We can always look at what we are doing,” said Rep. Anne Haskell, D-Portland, a member of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, who spoke in support of the resolve. “We can always strive to do things a little better.”

But another committee member, Rep. Richard Sykes, R-Harrison, said the prison system already has adequate oversight.

He praised progress made by the corrections commissioner, a new Maine State Prison warden and the Board of Visitors, which meets with the staff and prisoners to discuss grievances.

“We don’t need to tell them to do it more,” Sykes said. “They are constantly in the mode of policy review and correction.”

Rep. Benjamin Pratt, D-Eddington, said there is a perception in society that when somebody does wrong and goes to prison, we can “wash our hands” of them. “Like it or not, these people are our citizens, and 95 percent of them will someday be released to the general population,” Pratt said.

Corrections officials have said that many prisoners are mentally ill, and that special management units addressed by the bill, L.D. 1611, are essential for punishing inmates who commit crimes in prison, and for protecting some inmates from themselves or others.

Department of Corrections Sgt. Chris Coffin cited what he said was an incident last week at the Maine Correctional Center in Windham, where an inmate had trouble coping with his mental illness. The inmate told an officer that he was losing self-control and asked to be removed from the general population, Coffin said.

“He truly felt he was going to hurt somebody,” Coffin said during an interview Monday outside the House chamber.

Coffin said that he and a caseworker praised the man for recognizing what he was capable of doing and taking steps to prevent himself from acting out. The man was moved to seclusion on Wednesday, Coffin said. On Friday, he was returned to the general prison population.

In Maine, some inmates stay in secluded cells — with lights always on and no stimulation other than three books a week — for months or even years.

Earlier in the legislative session, psychiatrists testified before the committee that solitary confinement can exacerbate or even create mental illnesses.

“In this great society, have we not evolved in our treatment of human beings well beyond the use of solitary confinement?” said Rep. Sean Flaherty, D-Scarborough. “Don’t we have more appropriate ways of enforcing our laws and rehabilitating our inmates?”

The Senate passed the House resolve 18-15 Monday night and sent it back to the House.

MaineToday Media State House Reporter Ethan Wilensky-Lanford can be contacted at 620-7016 or at: ewlanford@mainetoday.com

Is Solitary Confinement Torture? The Legislature Takes Up the Question
Reported By: Susan Sharon
From MPBN, audio available

A bill that would have limited solitary confinement in the Maine State Prison and set off a vigorous public debate about the ethical and practical effects of the corrections practice has been scaled back in the Maine Legislature. But after a 10-hour public hearing, a long work session and much lobbying by prison guards and staff, an alternative measure to simply provide more oversight of the use of solitary confinement squeaked by in the House by a vote of 74 to 68.

Some people call it solitary confinement. Some in the corrections field refer to it as segregation. And in the world of mental health it’s called seclusion. Whatever it’s called, there are very different views among policymakers about whether it’s a necessary tool in the Maine State Prison, whether it constitutes torture, is used too often or whether corrections administrators should have to justify its use. In debate on the House floor, Representative Richard Sykes, a Republican from Harrison, said yes, it is a tool; no, it isn’t torture; and no, corrections officials should not be subjected to more review for their use of solitary confinement. He said passing such a resolution would be sending a message to corrections workers that they’re doing something wrong.

State Representative Richard Sykes (R-Harrison) says, “it’s a slap in the face to those employees in the Department of Corrections and in particular to the men and women, corrections officers, who quite frankly put their lives on the line every shift. Is the Department of Corrections perfect? Absolutely not. Do they constantly strive to improve? Absolutely. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I will not put my name on such an insult. I hope you will not as well. Thank you.”

Supporters of the measure to provide more review of solitary confinement say their position is not intended as condemnation of the Department of Corrections or staff. But they say research shows that inmates subjected to long periods of isolation with limited access to books and exercise, no television and radio and meals passed through slots in a door creates and exacerbates mental illness.

State Representative Sean Flaherty (D-Scarborough) says, “nearly 24 hours a day of solitary confinement without radio or television, without any human interaction for days, weeks, months and for years on end does not reflect the values of this society.”

Representative Sean Flaherty, a Democrat from Scarborough says he fears such conditions could be considered cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the 8th amendment.

Flaherty says “in this great country, in this great society have we not evolved in our treatment of human beings well beyond the use of solitary confinement? Have we not found better ways to control people? Don’t we have more appropriate ways of enforcing our laws and rehabilitating our inmates?”

Consumers get new safeguards

By Susan M. Cover
Appeared in the April 5th Edition of the Kennebec Journal

AUGUSTA — Lawmakers passed several bills in recent weeks to help consumers, including protections against charges on free trial offers, a ban on health-benefit caps and a significant reduction in copying fees for birth and death certificates.

Attorney General Janet Mills praised lawmakers for the passage of L.D. 1541, a first-in-the nation law in response to hundreds of complaints from consumers who accepted a free trial offer and then were committed to monthly or annual credit-card charges.

The law requires sellers to confirm billing information directly with the consumers at the time the consumer accepts the free offer, according to Mills’ office.

“Consumers have a right to know who is charging them and for how much,” Mills said in a statement. “This bill will provide more transparency in free trial offers and will prevent consumers from being charged for services they do not need or want.”

The measure was sponsored by Rep. Rob Hunt, D-Buxton.

In the area of health care, the Legislature passed another first-in-the-nation bill that prevents insurance companies from placing lifetime health benefit limits.

The measure, sponsored by House Majority Whip Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, will go into effect in Maine earlier than a similar limit contained in national health-care reform.

Senate Minority Leader Kevin Raye, R-Perry, sponsored a bill to reduce the copying fees for birth and death certificates. Last year, the fees increased from $15 to $60 per copy.

“It was a 400 percent increase,” Raye said. “We put in General Fund money so we can strip those (higher) fees out.”

Technically, Raye’s bill was killed, but he worked with members of the Appropriations Committee to get the funding through the budget. That made it part of the budget that passed March 30.

Rep. Sharon Treat, D-Hallowell, sponsored a bill that prohibits merchants from placing surcharges on debit-card purchases. Maine law already prohibited extra charges on credit cards, but the statute had not been updated to reflect debit cards, according to the House Majority Office.

Groups such as AARP Maine, Maine Equal Justice Partners and the Bureau of Banking supported the measure.

Steve Griffin, a lobbyist for AARP Maine, said the group was concerned about the possibility that different stores would tack on different fees.

“We like fees to be easy to see, easy to understand. And in this economy, we’re not sure it’s the time to be putting fees on things,” he said.

The measure was opposed by the Maine Merchants Association, which argues that the law is unnecessary because those types of fees are already prohibited.

They felt a federal solution, which is pending in Washington, would be better for businesses.

“Maine did not need to weigh in,” said Curtis Picard, executive director of the merchants association. “It needs to be resolved at the federal level.”

Another bill sponsored by Rep. Sean Flaherty, D-Scarborough, will give consumers more information when they need to go to arbitration to resolve a dispute.

He thinks binding arbitration, which is meant to prevents lawsuits, is often unfair to consumers. Many common contracts, such as cell phones and vehicle purchases, include a provision requiring binding arbitration.

Legislature Hitting a Busy Home Stretch
By State Rep. Sean Flaherty, D-Scarborough

From the April 2nd Edition of the Scarborough Leader

The Maine legislature is entering its final weeks of the second session.  Much of the work of the past several months goes on without much fanfare, but rarely a day goes by where there aren’t important decisions being made in the halls of Augusta.  Without a doubt, the tough economic times weigh heavy on the minds of all legislators as we work to balance the state’s budget.

But everyday work continues on range of important issues.   My committee, the Utilities and Energy Committee, has been engaged in some of the most important debates – planning for our state’s energy future and preparing us to emerge stronger from the recession. We are working to expand broadband infrastructure to previously un-served areas of our state – which is crucial to statewide economic development.

We’ve also been working to make energy efficiency dollars available to thousands of Maine’s business, residents, and schools. Last week, the town of Scarborough received $33,000 to upgrade our firehouses through an Efficiency Maine Trust grant. The trust is the body that the legislature established as a “one-stop shop” for all efficiency programs. These programs have reduced energy costs for Maine businesses while reducing our state’s carbon footprint.

Efficiency Maine programs helped home and business owners save hundreds of thousands of megawatt hours of energy, accounting for millions of dollars in savings since its creation several years ago.

Most legislative committees are finishing their work, but there are several, including my committee, which will work to finalize legislation, even as the full House and Senate debate and cast votes.  The result is lots of running around the State House as we are often needed in two places at once, but this legislature has insisted on completing all of our work early in an effort to save money.

As we head into the final weeks, the Appropriations Committee will finalize their amendments to the governor’s proposal and move towards a full vote of the legislature.  But many other important votes will be taken.  Most bills have been worked on, by respective committees, for months.  I presented four bills this session.  Each bill was worked by different committees, amended and adjusted, before now moving to the full House for enactment.

I was successful in garnering bipartisan unanimous support among committee members for all of the four bills I proposed. They face a vote before the full legislature and will likely pass as a result of the strong consensus reached in their respective committees.  These included LD 1693, “An Act to Protect the Natural Resources of Maine;” LD 1646, “An Act to Establish a Broadband Policy for Maine;” LD 1578, “An Act to Require Equitable Cost Sharing Among Communications Providers;” and a bill that took a full year of work and attention, LD 1256 “An Act To Provide Protections for Consumers Subject to Mandatory Arbitration Clauses.”

These bills, among a couple hundred others, are working their way towards final passage.  As a result, the legislature will take several different votes each day over the final weeks.  It’s important to reach out to us, if you have issues or concerns, especially about any specific bills, because constituent interest is always a factor before we cast our vote.

Bill seeking accountability in arbitration to become law

By David Harry
From the April 2nd Edition of the Scarborough Leader

Mandatory arbitration settlements appear in the fine print of many credit, employer or consumer contracts.

A new law initially sponsored by Maine Rep. Sean Flaherty (D-Scarborough) and signed by Gov. John Baldacci on Wednesday will enlarge the fine print by requiring companies and individuals providing arbitration services in Maine to post results of their decisions on a Web site. Basic consumer information, including potential expenses and whether an attorney may be present at a hearing, also must be posted.

Flaherty said arbitration agreements, which are useful in averting court cases, are found in real estate and car purchasing contracts, employment contracts, cell phone agreements and the licensing agreements needed to download software.

A 2009 report by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection showed eight individual arbitration providers from Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont and three national firms helped decide 2,500 cases in Maine during 2008.

William Lund, superintendent of the bureau, said all the cases involved credit card debt and settlements totaling about $5 million were awarded while creditors had sought a total of $20 million in judgments.

Lund said the vast majority of cases are settled in favor of the creditor, often because the consumer ignores the notice to show up for a hearing. The arbitration agreements usually call for the creditor to pay expenses of the arbitration hearing, Lund said. Details of hearings are kept confidential, and only the results will be posted on a Web site when the law is enacted.

Lund said results of civil court cases to collect debts mirror the number of arbitration cases decided in favor of creditors. The process of providing arbitration was called into question last July when Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson filed suit on behalf of consumers against Minneapolis-based National Arbitration Forum.

The firm, listed by Lund in his report as doing business in Maine, falsely claimed it was impartial after it worked with credit card companies to include arbitration clauses in credit agreements and then arbitrate disputed cases, Swanson said in a press release.

National Arbitration Forum agreed to stop consumer arbitration cases days after the suit was filed, according to Swanson. She said she would like to see Congress ban the mandatory arbitration agreements.

While it may prevent litigation overall, the arbitration process has been costly for Tim Cason, a Bowdoinham contractor who expects to have his suit against Chase Bank heard Tuesday in Sagadahoc County Superior Court.

Cason estimated a dispute over a $22,000 credit card balance has cost him an additional $30,000 in legal fees. He said the bank did not respond to his claim before taking the case to arbitration, which he said was not stipulated in his consumer agreement.

Although he received a notice to appear at a hearing, he did not go because he had not agreed to the process when he got the credit card, he said.

Flaherty said he heard similar tales of conflicts caused by fine print agreements when he worked at the Washington, D.C.-based American Association of Justice. He said he made reforming the process a priority when he was elected to his first term in House District 127.

A disputed credit case that goes to court may be dismissed if the consumer has signed a contract that mandates arbitration. Federal law prohibits banning the arbitration clauses altogether, Flaherty said.

Flaherty said the intent of his bill, which Lund helped develop and revise, is to provide basic information that may help a consumer decide who will hear the arbitration case. Each side is generally allowed to pick arbitrators for the panel that hears a case.

“We found middle ground on a good and fair law,” Flaherty said. His intent, he said, is to ensure consumers are aware what the process entails and how arbitrators may be inclined to decide, without affecting rights of businesses to use arbitration.

“I did not expect it to go anywhere,” he said. “But the deck should not be stacked against either party.”

Staff writer David Harry can be reached at 282-4337, ext. 219

Federal funds provoke House battle over teacher evaluation

By Mal Leary
From the April 2nd Edition of the Bangor Daily News

AUGUSTA, Maine — To be eligible for up to $75 million in new federal funds under the Race to the Top initiative of the Obama administration, Maine must change its law that bars school districts from using student achievement data in assessing teacher performance.

In a 72-71 vote, the House gave all but final approval Wednesday evening to make that change in state law.

“Even if the teachers and principals and school board and superintendent all think this is a great idea, they can’t do it,” said Rep. Patricia Sutherland, D-Chapman, co-chairwoman of the Legislature’s Education Committee. “This simply allows them to do it. I hope you will consider the long-term implications.”

She said the bill is one of three proposed by Gov. John Baldacci to allow state schools to apply for the new funds. She said it is also likely the federal law that governs the $100 million a year that flows into the state for education programs will require using achievement data as part of the evaluation of a teacher’s performance in the future.

“This bill is about developing models that schools can use if they choose to use it,” said Rep. Ann Perry, D-Calais. “This is not about one standardized test.”

A nurse practitioner, Perry said she is subject to performance standards all the time. She said teachers also should be subject to assessment testing to make sure students are getting the education they need to compete in an increasingly complex society.

Rep. Thomas Saviello, R-Wilton, said in his employment over the years he constantly has been subject to evaluations by employers. But, he said, teachers are different than many professions.

“So here we are [in a] rush to get money that we probably aren’t going to get. We are going to cobble something together,” he said. “I promise all of you, those of you that come back, you will be fixing it, as I have said many times, just like the school consolidation law.”

Rep. Brian Bolduc, D-Auburn, a social studies teacher, said the type of assessments used in the business sector are not applicable to the teaching profession.

“Merit-based pay has some merit,” he said. “But unlike business performance, teaching performance is much more subjective. Judging good teaching is like judging good art or good music.”

Bolduc said basing teacher performance solely on test scores of their students would cause another set of problems. He said student performance is based on many factors, not just the quality of the teacher. For example, he said, what is going on in a student’s life at home can have a significant impact on that student’s performance on a test.

For many House members, the bottom line is that additional funding for schools is at risk at a time when the state has reduced its subsidies to local schools

“A couple of years ago I probably would have been opposed to this bill,” said Rep. Sean Flaherty, D-Scarborough. “And then something happened: The recession. Scarborough this year is cutting 45 teaching positions, and we are still raising property taxes. We are hurting, and we are not alone.”

He said there are teachers in his family, and he does not want to see further reductions in teachers anywhere in the future, and additional federal funds might help prevent that.

But Rep. Edward Mazurek, D-Rockland, a retired teacher, warned local schools may not be able to use any additional federal funds as they would like.

“This money is not free,” he said. “They are going to give as all this money. Are we going to be able to do what we want with it, or are they going to tell us what to do with it.”

He said the “strings” on the federal money might prevent local schools from using funds where they are most needed.

Rep. Peter Johnson, R-Greenville, said he doubts the state will get any additional funds under the Race to the Top program. He said the state has done a poor job positioning itself to compete with other states for the increased federal aid.

“The Commissioner [of Education] put forth three bills, and those three bills, in my estimation, were unsatisfactory in their detail of how Maine will compete,” he said. “However, they are important for us to be able to compete.”

The measure now goes to the Senate, which has yet to consider the legislation.