Conflicts Upon Conflicts at the Maine Legislature
Darryl Brown wasn't the only public official with a potential conflict of interest at last week's hearing on his nomination as the new commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. A member of the committee, who voted in favor of Brown's appointment, had a similar quandary.
Democrats who opposed Brown's nomination did so mostly out of concern that he would face a conflict of interest as commissioner since the land use planning company he owns, Main-Land Development Consultants, Inc., frequently seeks permits on behalf of clients from the DEP. Brown said he plans to sell his interest in the company - or most of it - to avoid any possible conflict, but the sale may take some time.
But a member of the Environment and Natural Resources committee that considered Brown's appointment, Rep. James Parker, a Republican who represents Veazie and parts of Bangor and Orono, has connections to a similar company. Parker is the founder of CES, Inc., an environmental engineering consulting firm with five locations in Maine that also frequently has matters before the DEP. Although Parker retired from his position as CEO 13 months ago, he still retains 5% ownership of CES stock, and while Parker says he's no longer an employee or board member of the company, he's listed on the company's website as a senior advisor and part of the management team.
There have even been suggestions that CES might offer to buy Brown's consulting firm, but Parker is reportedly not involved in those discussions. Nevertheless, Parker was concerned enough about the potential conflict that he asked the state's Ethics Commission hours before Brown's hearing if it was OK for him to participate. Based on the limited information he provided, Ethics said that under current law - which is exceedingly narrow - there would be no "direct substantial financial interest" to Parker if Brown becomes DEP commissioner, and therefore he was free to participate in the hearing.
Such potential conflicts (as opposed to actual conflicts) are common in a citizen's legislature, and most of them can be avoided through simple disclosure, but it's up to individual legislators to do so. While Parker may not have broken any laws by voting to confirm Brown, the fact that even he questioned his situation in the matter should have led him to simply disclose it at the hearing - or recuse himself - to relieve any doubt (and quell the inevitable rumors that arose after he voted).
An advisory group formed by the Legislature several years ago recommended expanding the conflict of interest rules for members of the House and Senate, but so far the full Legislature has resisted doing so. Perhaps they need to take another look.
CORRECTIONS CONNECTIONS: Gov. LePage's nomination to head the Department of Corrections also raised concerns in Augusta last week. His name is Joseph Ponte, who currently serves as warden of a prison in Nevada that is owned by Corrections Corporation of America, the largest prisons-for-profit company in the US. LePage was already facing questions that he's willing to turn the state's prison system over to the private sector since his campaign was the beneficiary of a $25,000 donation from CCA to the Republican Governor's Association Maine PAC, and because he's apparently discussed the possibility of CCA building one of its prisons in the town of Milo to house federal inmates.
Most of the objections raised in news articles about the appointment fell along the usual party lines - public prisons=good, private=bad. But there are other, more substantive reasons, to resist CCA in Maine. A groundbreaking story last October by National Public Radio revealed that CCA was a considerable force behind the scenes to draft and pass Arizona's controversial immigration law. They donated to key legislators and lobbied for its passage in the Legislature. Why? Because the law, if upheld, requires police to lock anyone up who can't produce proper documentation that they entered the country legally. More illegal immigrants means more prisoners and a fatter bottom line for CCA. And where will they put all these prisoners? Milo, among other places.
This raises a couple of issues. Does CCA's involvement in Arizona's immigration matters and its stated desire to come to Maine in any way connect to LePage's first official act as governor to rescind rules preventing state agencies from questioning people about their immigration status? And since CCA already employs a few well connected lobbyists in Maine, would they do the same thing here, urge lawmakers to increase sentences just to keep their prisons full? Say that Maine decided as a policy to decrease jail time for certain petty crimes and drug offenses to relieve prison overcrowding. Should CCA be allowed to work against those polices in the Legislature? Every private business has a right to lobby for its own interests. But something doesn't feel right when your financial interest is warehousing as many human beings as possible.
One way around it might be to say to CCA that as a condition of building a prison here, you can't lobby the Legislature on criminal justice matters, the same way state agencies can't lobby the Legislature. Doubtful CCA - and especially their lobbyists - would take the deal.
SNOWE'S MYSTERY OPPONENT: There have been several recent reports that Senator Olympia Snowe might face a credible challenger from the right, a wealthy southern Maine businessman who will run against her in the GOP Primary. Until now, those reports haven't named him. He's Eric Cianchette, a Falmouth businessman, developer of Portland's Old Port, owner of the Regency Hotel, cousin to former Republican gubernatorial candidate Peter Cianchette and frequent contributor to conservative causes. The word now is that he's having second thoughts and may not take on Snowe, but instead may be looking at a different high-profile position closer to home.
WHAT IF STATE WORKERS REALLY DID WORK FOR THE GOVERNOR? I hate to seem like I'm always coming to the defense of our new governor but the latest dust-up over the Dan Demeritt memo is more ado about very little.
LePage's communications director wrote a rah-rah memo to supporters before the governor took office urging everyone to get on board the governor's agenda and how everyone should work to build the Republican majority. No big whoop there. But he ended the memo with this line: "Once we take office, Paul will put 11,000 bureaucrats to work getting Republicans elected."
OK, it was dumb to put that in writing, and Democrats and the state employees union were quick to jump all over it, turning the memo into this week's LePage scandal. Using state employees as a partisan wing of your administration is illegal under current law (and of course would never happen under a Democratic regime, right?). It's doubtful that Demeritt literally meant that 11,000 bureaucrats would be out putting up signs in support of Republican candidates. It would be impossible to get 11,000 state bureaucrats to agree on what time it is, let alone agree to support the same candidate. Read in the most forgiving light, Demeritt could have just been saying that over time, LePage will convince the 11,000 bureaucrats that his policies and agenda are right for the state and for them. Maybe.
But the dust up does raise an important issue: what if most of the state workforce really was on the side of the newly elected governor, and really did help him move his agenda forward? I know, if you're not a LePage fan, that thought is frightening. But seriously, I've always felt that electing a governor is a bit of a sham. People vote for someone like LePage - or Angus King or Jim Longley - to bring real change to Augusta. But change rarely happens because of those 11,000 bureaucrats, the governor gets to appoint about 100 of them. The rest of the workforce, the vast majority, has no buy-in, no reason to support the new Administration or work for its success. In fact many of them will be doing just the opposite, hoping to see the governor fail or snoozing away for the next four years until a new governor comes to town more to their liking.
I say bring back the spoils system, as in "to the victor go the spoils." Give the governor authority to appoint about half the state's workforce, people who would fill top-level jobs to set and administer policy, and who can be fired by the next governor. The rest of the workforce would be lower-level career bureaucrats whose jobs would be protected and who could provide institutional memory. Then you'd see real change. If the governor falls on his face, fine. He or she will get voted out in four years, taking half the workforce with him, only to be replaced by new eager beavers who will work hard to implement the new governor's policies and make them a success.
Under this system, you'd also see more people get involved in political campaigns and party races because they'd know they have a job waiting for them for all their hard work and support if their candidate wins. As it is, many of the best campaign workers find out at the end of the campaign that there's simply no room for them in the administration they helped elect, which is why it has become harder and harder to find campaign workers and volunteers. A new spoils system would help revive and strengthen the two-party system - or create a lasting independent movement.
Because of all the scandals that plagued the spoils system in the old days and led to the creation of the modern civil service, we'd have to find a good balance between the number of appointed positions and protected jobs. But if people want the power to really change their government, civil service reform is where to start. Too bad there isn't a politician in Maine with the guts to take this one on.
By the way, the blog Dirigo Blue broke the story of the Demeritt memo, more evidence that if you want to know what's happening in Maine politics, don't bother with the traditional media. At least most of the news accounts gave Dirigo Blue credit for unearthing the memo.
WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF OMBUDSMAN? Another political blog, As Maine Goes, broke a little story recently regarding former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Pat McGowan. Seems McGowan is now working at the Maine Public Utilities Commission, thanks to his buddy Commission Chair Jack Cashman. McGowan will be serving as the state's ombudsman for Central Maine Power Company's $1.2 billion upgrade of the state's power grid, the so-called Maine Power Reliability Program. In his new job, which was mandated by the PUC as part of the project, McGowan will work on issues like landowner relations. The MPRP upgrade project is going to take a lot of real estate and may even involve eminent domain of resident's homes to make way for the new big power lines. (Disclosure: I worked for Grid Solar, an intervenor in the MPRP case, which argued that there are cheaper and less environmentally destructive alternatives, like distributed solar power, than huge new power lines criss-crossing the state. See how that works, Rep. Parker?).
OK, fine, but doesn't the title "ombudsman" imply that McGowan will be an objective, independent intermediary between the landowners and CMP? Shouldn't he be someone the public can trust to adopt a balanced view of the situation when questions arise from people who don't want to have a huge electrical tower off their back deck? Someone who might view the benefits of MPRP with a skeptical, if not unbiased, eye?
Trouble is, during his run for governor, McGowan was a rabid cheerleader for the MPRP, hailing its virtues every chance he got at candidate forums and proclaiming that it would bring jobs and help Maine's economy. He even issued a press release supporting the passage of the MPRP, which oddly enough is still online here. In it, McGowan said he "was pleased the proposal attracted a wide group of supporters, including business and environmental groups in addition to the utilities." Didn't mention the opponents, and there were plenty of them, including nearby landowners.
Perhaps that's why the PUC kept McGowan's hiring so quiet. If you live along the proposed transmission corridor, you might want to sell now.
Democrats who opposed Brown's nomination did so mostly out of concern that he would face a conflict of interest as commissioner since the land use planning company he owns, Main-Land Development Consultants, Inc., frequently seeks permits on behalf of clients from the DEP. Brown said he plans to sell his interest in the company - or most of it - to avoid any possible conflict, but the sale may take some time.
But a member of the Environment and Natural Resources committee that considered Brown's appointment, Rep. James Parker, a Republican who represents Veazie and parts of Bangor and Orono, has connections to a similar company. Parker is the founder of CES, Inc., an environmental engineering consulting firm with five locations in Maine that also frequently has matters before the DEP. Although Parker retired from his position as CEO 13 months ago, he still retains 5% ownership of CES stock, and while Parker says he's no longer an employee or board member of the company, he's listed on the company's website as a senior advisor and part of the management team.
There have even been suggestions that CES might offer to buy Brown's consulting firm, but Parker is reportedly not involved in those discussions. Nevertheless, Parker was concerned enough about the potential conflict that he asked the state's Ethics Commission hours before Brown's hearing if it was OK for him to participate. Based on the limited information he provided, Ethics said that under current law - which is exceedingly narrow - there would be no "direct substantial financial interest" to Parker if Brown becomes DEP commissioner, and therefore he was free to participate in the hearing.
Such potential conflicts (as opposed to actual conflicts) are common in a citizen's legislature, and most of them can be avoided through simple disclosure, but it's up to individual legislators to do so. While Parker may not have broken any laws by voting to confirm Brown, the fact that even he questioned his situation in the matter should have led him to simply disclose it at the hearing - or recuse himself - to relieve any doubt (and quell the inevitable rumors that arose after he voted).
An advisory group formed by the Legislature several years ago recommended expanding the conflict of interest rules for members of the House and Senate, but so far the full Legislature has resisted doing so. Perhaps they need to take another look.
CORRECTIONS CONNECTIONS: Gov. LePage's nomination to head the Department of Corrections also raised concerns in Augusta last week. His name is Joseph Ponte, who currently serves as warden of a prison in Nevada that is owned by Corrections Corporation of America, the largest prisons-for-profit company in the US. LePage was already facing questions that he's willing to turn the state's prison system over to the private sector since his campaign was the beneficiary of a $25,000 donation from CCA to the Republican Governor's Association Maine PAC, and because he's apparently discussed the possibility of CCA building one of its prisons in the town of Milo to house federal inmates.
Most of the objections raised in news articles about the appointment fell along the usual party lines - public prisons=good, private=bad. But there are other, more substantive reasons, to resist CCA in Maine. A groundbreaking story last October by National Public Radio revealed that CCA was a considerable force behind the scenes to draft and pass Arizona's controversial immigration law. They donated to key legislators and lobbied for its passage in the Legislature. Why? Because the law, if upheld, requires police to lock anyone up who can't produce proper documentation that they entered the country legally. More illegal immigrants means more prisoners and a fatter bottom line for CCA. And where will they put all these prisoners? Milo, among other places.
This raises a couple of issues. Does CCA's involvement in Arizona's immigration matters and its stated desire to come to Maine in any way connect to LePage's first official act as governor to rescind rules preventing state agencies from questioning people about their immigration status? And since CCA already employs a few well connected lobbyists in Maine, would they do the same thing here, urge lawmakers to increase sentences just to keep their prisons full? Say that Maine decided as a policy to decrease jail time for certain petty crimes and drug offenses to relieve prison overcrowding. Should CCA be allowed to work against those polices in the Legislature? Every private business has a right to lobby for its own interests. But something doesn't feel right when your financial interest is warehousing as many human beings as possible.
One way around it might be to say to CCA that as a condition of building a prison here, you can't lobby the Legislature on criminal justice matters, the same way state agencies can't lobby the Legislature. Doubtful CCA - and especially their lobbyists - would take the deal.
SNOWE'S MYSTERY OPPONENT: There have been several recent reports that Senator Olympia Snowe might face a credible challenger from the right, a wealthy southern Maine businessman who will run against her in the GOP Primary. Until now, those reports haven't named him. He's Eric Cianchette, a Falmouth businessman, developer of Portland's Old Port, owner of the Regency Hotel, cousin to former Republican gubernatorial candidate Peter Cianchette and frequent contributor to conservative causes. The word now is that he's having second thoughts and may not take on Snowe, but instead may be looking at a different high-profile position closer to home.
WHAT IF STATE WORKERS REALLY DID WORK FOR THE GOVERNOR? I hate to seem like I'm always coming to the defense of our new governor but the latest dust-up over the Dan Demeritt memo is more ado about very little.
LePage's communications director wrote a rah-rah memo to supporters before the governor took office urging everyone to get on board the governor's agenda and how everyone should work to build the Republican majority. No big whoop there. But he ended the memo with this line: "Once we take office, Paul will put 11,000 bureaucrats to work getting Republicans elected."
OK, it was dumb to put that in writing, and Democrats and the state employees union were quick to jump all over it, turning the memo into this week's LePage scandal. Using state employees as a partisan wing of your administration is illegal under current law (and of course would never happen under a Democratic regime, right?). It's doubtful that Demeritt literally meant that 11,000 bureaucrats would be out putting up signs in support of Republican candidates. It would be impossible to get 11,000 state bureaucrats to agree on what time it is, let alone agree to support the same candidate. Read in the most forgiving light, Demeritt could have just been saying that over time, LePage will convince the 11,000 bureaucrats that his policies and agenda are right for the state and for them. Maybe.
But the dust up does raise an important issue: what if most of the state workforce really was on the side of the newly elected governor, and really did help him move his agenda forward? I know, if you're not a LePage fan, that thought is frightening. But seriously, I've always felt that electing a governor is a bit of a sham. People vote for someone like LePage - or Angus King or Jim Longley - to bring real change to Augusta. But change rarely happens because of those 11,000 bureaucrats, the governor gets to appoint about 100 of them. The rest of the workforce, the vast majority, has no buy-in, no reason to support the new Administration or work for its success. In fact many of them will be doing just the opposite, hoping to see the governor fail or snoozing away for the next four years until a new governor comes to town more to their liking.
I say bring back the spoils system, as in "to the victor go the spoils." Give the governor authority to appoint about half the state's workforce, people who would fill top-level jobs to set and administer policy, and who can be fired by the next governor. The rest of the workforce would be lower-level career bureaucrats whose jobs would be protected and who could provide institutional memory. Then you'd see real change. If the governor falls on his face, fine. He or she will get voted out in four years, taking half the workforce with him, only to be replaced by new eager beavers who will work hard to implement the new governor's policies and make them a success.
Under this system, you'd also see more people get involved in political campaigns and party races because they'd know they have a job waiting for them for all their hard work and support if their candidate wins. As it is, many of the best campaign workers find out at the end of the campaign that there's simply no room for them in the administration they helped elect, which is why it has become harder and harder to find campaign workers and volunteers. A new spoils system would help revive and strengthen the two-party system - or create a lasting independent movement.
Because of all the scandals that plagued the spoils system in the old days and led to the creation of the modern civil service, we'd have to find a good balance between the number of appointed positions and protected jobs. But if people want the power to really change their government, civil service reform is where to start. Too bad there isn't a politician in Maine with the guts to take this one on.
By the way, the blog Dirigo Blue broke the story of the Demeritt memo, more evidence that if you want to know what's happening in Maine politics, don't bother with the traditional media. At least most of the news accounts gave Dirigo Blue credit for unearthing the memo.
WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF OMBUDSMAN? Another political blog, As Maine Goes, broke a little story recently regarding former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Pat McGowan. Seems McGowan is now working at the Maine Public Utilities Commission, thanks to his buddy Commission Chair Jack Cashman. McGowan will be serving as the state's ombudsman for Central Maine Power Company's $1.2 billion upgrade of the state's power grid, the so-called Maine Power Reliability Program. In his new job, which was mandated by the PUC as part of the project, McGowan will work on issues like landowner relations. The MPRP upgrade project is going to take a lot of real estate and may even involve eminent domain of resident's homes to make way for the new big power lines. (Disclosure: I worked for Grid Solar, an intervenor in the MPRP case, which argued that there are cheaper and less environmentally destructive alternatives, like distributed solar power, than huge new power lines criss-crossing the state. See how that works, Rep. Parker?).
OK, fine, but doesn't the title "ombudsman" imply that McGowan will be an objective, independent intermediary between the landowners and CMP? Shouldn't he be someone the public can trust to adopt a balanced view of the situation when questions arise from people who don't want to have a huge electrical tower off their back deck? Someone who might view the benefits of MPRP with a skeptical, if not unbiased, eye?
Trouble is, during his run for governor, McGowan was a rabid cheerleader for the MPRP, hailing its virtues every chance he got at candidate forums and proclaiming that it would bring jobs and help Maine's economy. He even issued a press release supporting the passage of the MPRP, which oddly enough is still online here. In it, McGowan said he "was pleased the proposal attracted a wide group of supporters, including business and environmental groups in addition to the utilities." Didn't mention the opponents, and there were plenty of them, including nearby landowners.
Perhaps that's why the PUC kept McGowan's hiring so quiet. If you live along the proposed transmission corridor, you might want to sell now.
Dennis after you finish Graftopia I suggest you read "The Secret of the Temple" story on how the Federal Reserve runs the Country, author is William Greider. You will love this book!!!!
Reply to this