The statutory adjournment day of the 131st was April 18th, but the Legislature only recessed carrying many pieces of legislature over that was indefinitely postposed in a chaotic and partisan late night. As the Legislature did not adjourn "Sine Die" the start of the enactment clock on all but emergency legislation has not yet begn, including the much discussed Supplemental Budget.
Nothing is real, and campaigning for the next session should not be starting until they return to finish the work and adjourn Sine Die (aka no intention of returning)
In this episode Rebecca Squared are joined by Kate Dufour, Laura Ellis and Amanda Campbell breaking down the ins and outs of this chaotic and partisan session.
What happened...what ain't happening...and where are there glimmers of hope to emerge from this norm breaking session.
More importantly, stick around and learn how you can join the the next MMA Legislative Policy Committee and play a role in educating the next Legislature of the level of government they took for granted this session.
Nothing is real, and campaigning for the next session should not be starting until they return to finish the work and adjourn Sine Die (aka no intention of returning)
In this episode Rebecca Squared are joined by Kate Dufour, Laura Ellis and Amanda Campbell breaking down the ins and outs of this chaotic and partisan session.
What happened...what ain't happening...and where are there glimmers of hope to emerge from this norm breaking session.
More importantly, stick around and learn how you can join the the next MMA Legislative Policy Committee and play a role in educating the next Legislature of the level of government they took for granted this session.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
welcome everyone to potholes and politics, local
main issues from a to z.
I am your host, rebecca graham,and I'm here with rebecca
lambert and amanda campbell.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Eight to four laura ellis.
It is.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Laura Ellis.
It is the end of session.
Wrap up.
Let's talk about what justhappened.
Break down the flurry ofactivity Now that we've had a
little bit of space to breathe.
Kate, let's talk about the lasttwo days of session and what
happened then.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Well, the last two days of session were really
hectic and slightly confusing.
There was a sense of nobodyknew what was going on.
There were attempts to takeover the budget, there were
attempts to extend the sessionand once the legislature
recessed and I'm not going touse the term adjourned in the
(01:02):
proper sense, because they arenot adjourned, they are actually
coming back and until they comeback and finally adjourn, there
is no effective date fornon-emergency legislation.
So throughout the day onWednesday and into the morning
hours of Thursday, thelegislature did a couple of
(01:25):
things.
One, when the sun was up onWednesday perfect working hours
the legislature adopted a jointorder that allowed them to
return to address any of thegovernor's vetoes Prior to
recessing, adjourningtemporarily on Thursday morning.
(01:48):
They also adopted a secondjoint order which carried over
every piece of legislation thathadn't been somewhat acted on.
So every piece of legislationthat wasn't making its way down
to the governor's office for hersignature or veto ended up
(02:12):
being carried over.
Normally, everything would havedied that morning when they
adjourned, but they will bereturning on veto day and
because they carried overeverything, there's nothing that
stops them from continuingtheir work.
So it'll be interesting to seewhat they intend to do when they
return, whether or not it'sjust simply vetoes and a couple
of cleanup bills.
But once in, the legislature isnot limited with respect to
(02:35):
what it can do.
They can start right over again, provided they have forum and
people around to make decisions.
So we're not yet adjourned andthere's still this potential for
a lot more work to be done.
So we're not yet adjourned andthere's still this potential for
a lot more work to be done Withrespect to the last minute
games.
After some back and forthbetween the House and Senate,
the legislature was able toadopt a budget that includes
(02:57):
some pretty important elementsfor municipal government, and
I'm going to let Rebecca Grahamtalk to one of those elements
with respect to our firstresponder initiative.
But it also includes $60million worth of coastal storm
revenue to help communities thatwere impacted and businesses
(03:20):
impacted by our I think they'reDecember, january storms.
Get some money in thosecommunities so that they can
start to prepare or repairbroken infrastructure, help
businesses get back on theirfeet.
So that was a really importantelement of that bill.
It has been signed by thegovernor and will become
effective law, who knows?
Because it wasn't adopted as anemergency initiative requiring
(03:46):
two thirds majority vote, and soit will only become effective
law 90 days after thelegislature officially adjourned
.
So that's still up in the air.
So they ended session, or arecess session, and kind of an
interesting note.
I think it took a couple ofdays for the dust to settle for
(04:07):
most people to put those piecestogether, but here we are.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Yeah.
So I've seen a few pieces ofnews around it, but nobody has
talked about the fact thatnothing without emergency
preamble is, in effect,including the budget.
So if the governor doesn't vetoanything, how do they come back
?
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Well, they have the authority to come back.
So the presiding officers have,in that first order I talked
about the presiding officerssecured the authority to bring
them back.
The question is, will they comeback?
They will need a quorum torespond.
I suspect that anybody who'sbeen duly elected to office will
(04:53):
return because they have tofinish up their work.
They absolutely have to return.
They have to make sure thatthose bills that are hanging out
waiting for final adjournmentactually are implemented, and I
think there's plenty out therethat we can avoid a partisan
kind of stalemate or a game ofchicken, where there's enough
(05:14):
out there that everybody needsto come back so the policies and
the bills of importance to themactually get action in a
somewhat timely fashion.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Yeah, the partisan chicken thing.
That's what left me feeling asthough there would be zero
cooperation with return.
And now you know if you werenot a fan of the original budget
.
That is a mechanism for whichyou could hold up the process,
and that's an unpalatable placeto be, especially when a lot of
(05:48):
the news seems to be kind ofcelebrating victories that
really aren't until they adjourn.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
Yeah, I still think I'm going to say this.
I think people run for officebecause they want to do
something for the state theyintend to do, to be good people.
I mean they are good people.
Nobody volunteer volunteers tosubject themselves to hours and
hours of public hearings andwork sessions and schedules and
(06:19):
you know hours of wait and seethe whole legislative time is
real.
The bells that are supposed toring at 10 start ringing at 1130
and ring for a half hour.
I mean.
So your average Maine residentdoesn't sign up because they
think that's exciting.
They sign up because theyreally want to do some good, and
so I would be stunned if themajority wouldn't return for
(06:41):
that last day of session becauseit is their elected duty to do
so.
They've been elected to do thepeople's business.
It's messy, you don't alwayswin, but at the end of the day
you got to show up because youmay promise us, the people who
elect you, that you're going todo the right thing, and showing
up is the right thing.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Well, especially the budget piece like the, the
budget wins and the budgetthings that are major platform
conversations that could be hadon the door if you're trying to
go into a campaign can't be realuntil they adjourn I think.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
I think laura is looking to get in on the
conversation jump in that waswhat I was going to ask.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
They cannot, uh, you know, receive campaign
contributions while they havenot adjourned sine die correct.
Or is it only from certainlobbyists?
Speaker 3 (07:33):
I think that is correct.
They cannot, but it doesn'tmean their PACs are under the
same restrictions, so I thinkthere's a workaround on that one
as well.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
So one of the key questions perhaps our listeners
should be asking theircandidates as this rolls out,
and whether or not this getsupdated if they're making some
sort of conversation or promiseat the door is is the budget
enacted yet?
Did you really do that?
Have you left yet?
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Those are really good questions.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
So, lambo, I know you've got some mom studies
coming up, so I want you to jumpin and give me what were your
two biggest wins and your twobiggest or your single biggest
win and your maybe singlebiggest frustration out of this
past session.
Speaker 5 (08:27):
Well, we'll start with the bad news first.
So my biggest frustration arewe talking bill related here?
Yeah, my biggest frustration isthat the cannabis revenue can't
be distributed amongst themunicipalities that have opted
in.
I just feel that's reallyunfair and I was really hoping
that that might get sometraction, but it didn't, so that
(08:50):
was a little bit frustrating.
Of course, there's always nextyear we can try again, but it
seems like a lot of fingers aregoing into that fund so there
may not be any money left.
However, it's a good revenuemaker, so I don't see it drying
up anytime soon.
The biggest win of course I'vetalked about it many times is
(09:10):
the municipal franchiseagreement bill.
I saw an ad in the paper whatwas it?
Not long ago?
But it was a public notice thatWinthrop is renegotiating their
franchise agreement and nowthey actually have some kind of
teeth to you know and backingfrom the PUC to to get these
(09:31):
franchise agreements finalizedand negotiated.
So that was a big win and I'msuper happy about that one.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
What was your sense at the end of session?
This is kind of.
This is kind of your first endof session, isn't it?
Speaker 5 (09:44):
Yeah, end of legislation.
Yeah, at the end of legislativesession.
I, you know, I came in at theend of session so I just kind of
was getting my feet wet, andthen this is the end of my first
full legislative session and Iwas, I felt like I kind of knew
what was going on, but then Ihad no idea where anything was
going.
(10:04):
There were floor amendments andthere were people arguing and
it was just, it was crazy and Ididn't.
I had no idea what was going on, but that I, I think I was in
good company, because thelegislatures really didn't know
what.
The legislators really didn'tknow what was going on either,
as evidenced by all theconfusion with the motions.
And what are we voting on?
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Yeah, there was a stark contrast confusion with
the motions and what are wevoting on.
Yeah, there was a starkcontrast, which I kind of feel
is ironic, from the COVIDlegislature, where everything
was posted online and availableonline and nothing was available
online even months afteramendments had been processed
and you had to ask people whoare already overwhelmed analysts
(10:44):
for the last amended languageunless you were in that space.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
So it seemed to me a bit odd and it really came to,
really drove home to me thatthings can change at the last
minute.
And I'm not sure and this isprobably a topic for another day
, but I really am not sure howyou would combat that at that
time.
You know when there's flooramendments.
If you don't have no ideawhat's in this floor amendment,
(11:10):
how do you know if you need tobe talking to someone or
lobbying and is this?
Is there even any time left atthat point to lobby?
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Yeah, the floor amendments are usually special
interests that are pushing themvery.
Yeah, they're rarely justlanguage changes.
I guess, Kate, would that be afair adjustment?
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Yeah, it is.
I mean that's last minute stuff, that's.
You know, it's like the 11thhour.
You tried you can get aparticular initiative in and so
you try to amend it from thefloor.
I mean it's a.
You know, once you get to thefloor, it's a, it's a free game.
I mean anything goes.
There's no limitations on thenumber of amendments that can be
(11:49):
submitted.
So it's, it's a, it's a.
It's an uncomfortable time ofsession.
And to Rebecca Lambert's point,she's absolutely right.
I mean, at that point lobbyingis done.
I mean the legislature isexhausted.
They've retreated.
You know, behind closed doors,partisan caucuses, that's where
(12:09):
the conversations are takingplace.
And you know, short of someweird emergency or missing
something, excluding somethingfrom a bill, there really isn't
an opportunity there for muchlobbying.
It's kind of just watching theshow and being available if
people have questions.
I mean I think it's Amanda thatasked me the questions.
Why were a group of lobbyistsjust hanging around midnight and
(12:32):
one in the morning and three inthe morning?
In some cases?
They're there in case somethingcomes up and somebody has a
question that could help movesomething.
You know, an issue along thebudget why did we need this
provision in GA law.
Well, we needed it for thisparticular reason.
So I think it's the kind of thethe the roles flip.
It's no longer a lobbying game,it's more of a resource game.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Yeah, so, cambo, let's, let's go to you.
This is your first session,indeed, I'll be at the short one
.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Yeah, I think I'm glad we started with the short
one, yeah, so my, I'm also goingto start with the bad news,
just because it's better to getit over with, and I don't think
anybody will be surprised thatmy biggest disappointment was GA
.
You know, we went into thefirst session.
The LPC drafted some reallygood bills to make some really
good and meaningful changes andthe HHS committee completely
(13:26):
stripped that bill intosomething completely useless.
So, and then it passed, soyippee, and the funding bill.
You know their GA trifecta theyhad this great idea and the tri
of the fact that didn't make itoff the table so far.
I mean, you know, there's thatglimmer of hope that they'll
come back and do something, butthere's no money left.
(13:48):
So we've been tasked withadditional things and we're not
getting any extra money and it'ssort of depressing.
So, yeah, I would encouragefolks to ask their candidates
what they plan to do aboutgeneral assistance, because
people have needs and it'sgetting harder and harder for
our municipal officials toprovide for them.
So what are the final changesto them?
(14:09):
So 1730, ld 1732, which was oneof our platform bills, took out
every financial request.
So there is no additionalreimbursement to our basic
services.
There are no additionalreimbursements for additional
sort of bonus services thatpeople do provide.
(14:30):
No training for the staff.
Dhhs staff department staff wasexcluded.
We did get a tiny win out of it,I will say the HHS is going to
implement a statewide generalassistance database for GA
administrators to access so thatthey can tell when someone has
(14:54):
applied in a differentmunicipality, so that they can
sort of gauge how much aidpeople are requiring and when
it's been provided.
But that's still years away.
At this point they haven't evenissued the RFP.
There's one provision that Ithink will assist our
municipalities who are ourservice centers, which is a big
(15:18):
is is a big issue for for thebigger cities, who are providing
the most aid to the most people, but there's really not much
happening for the bigger cities,who are providing the most aid
to the most people.
There's really not muchhappening for the small town
communities who don'tnecessarily see very many cases,
who need the most help becausethey don't have a full-time
administrator and, you know, arejust sort of left out there
(15:41):
hanging.
So in addition to that, therewas additional language in the
supplemental budget as well.
That is going to make it alittle bit harder for folks to
assist with certain housingaspects of general assistance.
So the budget did appropriate$10 million to assist in the
reimbursement, which, yes, ismore money than was initially
(16:02):
put in there, but it's just tomake up for the fact that they
didn't budget enough in thefirst place.
So it's good to get it and goodto have it there so that we
will get it, but it's definitelynot an increase in the baseline
budget, which is really whatneeds to be happening for GA.
So we'll see, maybe next time.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Well, that training seems key as well, because I
remember under COVID I meanCOVID was like the perfect
incubator for talking about allof the problems within GA there
were a lot of hotels that hadresidents placed in them by like
a regional housing co-op, withno notice to the municipality,
who then receives folks applyingfor GA and they've never
(16:42):
historically dealt with that.
So you have a select boardmember who's the overseer of the
poor, who now is like oh mygosh, I don't even know how to
do this and very littleresources.
So there were a lot of calls, Ithink, coming into legal as
well, about that.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
That seems to me and I think it was fair for the
administration to want to endthe use of hotels for housing,
but I don't think they executedthe desire in a very, very
positive manner, so we'll seewhat happens with that well, did
I say they created that such athing?
Speaker 1 (17:18):
yeah right, I won't get catty, all right, patty, all
right.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
And then I would say for my win, bill, would be that
we were able to testify andsupport to help their voters and
town meeting attendeesunderstand what that levy limit
(17:50):
question was.
Now they won't necessarily haveto fight with those folks and
say, no, we're not in factraising your taxes with this
question.
You've already approved all ofthis.
You're just saying you'rechecking the second yes box.
All of that confusion will goaway now, since LD1 was
successfully repealed, so that'sa win.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Yeah, that's something that I don't think got
reported about very accuratelyeither, because I think they
were confusing, which is why itneeded to go away.
So you know, essentially youcould say yep, municipality, we
know this is what you guys wantto spend.
All these initiatives, we'reapproving every single one.
We know this is what our millrate is going to be, and now you
want more money is kind of whatthat question is like.
(18:32):
No, we're just actuallyreconfirming that.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
You just said that you understand all those things
I just I just want to clarifybecause we've been receiving a
lot of inquiries on this ld1 isnot yet repealed.
It's not effective law.
Until they come in, theyadjourn, uh, and we start the
the 90 day countdown.
(18:57):
So, municipal officials, rightnow, uh, dealing with april, may
, june town meetings, you mustabide by that, um, that law.
Ld1 is an effective law andwill probably be so until
mid-June, july, august, I don'tknow.
(19:18):
So it's really important that.
Hang on, you're going to getyour reprieve next budget cycle,
but you have to abide by theLD1 tax limit rules this year.
What?
Speaker 1 (19:30):
a buzzkill, kate.
Tax limit rules this year.
What a buzzkill, Kate, butthat's an interesting point.
So, maybe, laura, maybe Laura,you know this one.
What is the worst case scenario?
So, yeah, what if they chose tonever come back until after the
election?
Speaker 4 (19:41):
Kate, laura, I don't see that happening.
I mean, they have to come inand finally adjourn this session
in order for any of this to gothrough, including the budget.
And there's articles in the BDNtoday saying that the storm
damage money is going to be notavailable until July because it
(20:01):
wasn't emergency legislation.
Well, they can't say thatbecause you don't know that the
legislature is coming back inand you've got to go 90 days out
from that.
And you've got to go 90 daysout from that for them to not
raise campaign money personallyuntil you know after the
election doesn't work for them.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
But can they campaign ?
So can they go out and knock ondoors and start asking for
votes?
I'm not sure on that one.
But unless it's the money onlyyou know, I don't know how much
of our local politicians aregoing out and raising,
fundraising and raising moneyUsually the PACs and the party
(20:38):
does that.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
But it's an interesting twist on the whole
procedure that before, eventoday, like I'm today years old
when I realized that we're alltoday years old, when I realized
that, all today years old, theadjournment of this legislature
impacted what a candidate coulddo with their campaign, I had no
(21:00):
idea of that.
Um, so that's really reallyinteresting information.
Well, I'm gonna be the.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Pollyanna of the group, just because I'm gonna
stick with inherently.
Inherently, people are good andthey understand their roles and
there is nothing to gain by notcoming back and doing your work
.
I mean, it's not a goodcampaign kind of talking point
that, oh, I decided that Iwasn't going to finish the work
(21:29):
that you elected me to do, socan you please reelect me now?
Speaker 5 (21:34):
That soundbite, I think is going to fall a little
flat, I don't think anything'ssurprising.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Well, I so yeah, to second Lambeau's point on that.
Kate, I am really glad that youare Pollyanna on this.
We desperately need a Pollyanna,because I I'm just shocked at
our continual basis at what Ithought were rational decisions
that never panned out that wayand I'm just like what is this
new norm?
And I think we saw a lot ofthat at the end of session too.
(22:01):
There was a significant lack ofnorms that I saw play out
traditional and they're not badnorms Like there weren't norms
that needed to be disrupted,like norms of communication,
norms of transparency.
Those are things that arevaluable to any democratic
society and democracy in general.
(22:24):
Those aren't norms that I everwant to see go away, but you
could make a lot of argumentsthat they were completely
stripped and gone.
Speaker 3 (22:33):
So I just to be clear , I absolutely agree.
This was not a normal session.
All the rules went out thewindow.
We developed new rules to getwhat we wanted, and I think it
just gets back to the point thatwe've all been talking about
for the last two years.
We got to get back to themiddle.
The moderates have got to startrunning for the main state
(22:54):
legislature.
We need individuals whounderstand that compromise is a
good thing, it's not a bad thing.
It doesn't mean you're weak.
It means you're actually aleader, that you see the value
in all voices and that you'reworking towards ensuring that
the collective or the greatestnumber of people are positively
impacted by something.
(23:14):
I mean.
It's just that we're missingthat level of leadership.
It needs to come back.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Yeah, I 100% agree with that and you know Laura
brought up a really great pointabout the news reporting it.
You know Laura brought up areally great point about the
news reporting it and that, Iguess, is also what concerns me
is that there's not going to beactual knowledge out there that
this is an actual big issue,that nothing is accomplished
until they adjourn.
Laura, how was your drinkingfrom a fire hydrant this session
(23:44):
?
Speaker 4 (23:45):
It was pretty much the norm.
I mean, they do this everysession save the biggest bills
until the end that they're goingto fight over the most.
It was business as usual frommy perspective 60 page bills,
usually concept drafts.
Oh well, yeah, these conceptdrafts that you know come out
(24:06):
last minute.
That was more than usual.
They were a ton of conceptdrafts put in this year, one
thing that really needs tochange.
Speaker 5 (24:17):
And the ease with which people seem to bend the
truth, like when it was saidthat the public health folks
were in on the conversations forthe amendments to the act to
change the cannabis laws, butthey weren't involved until the
very end.
It was industry stakeholdersthat were building that.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Yeah, there was more than one stretch.
That stretch, the who wasengaged and when, right, but
that that's.
That's what you expect out ofpolitics.
I think that's that's a norm Idon't want to be.
It shouldn't be Honesty shouldbe the norm.
Yes, I totally agree.
But when you have people whoare saying I can't say that on
(24:58):
mic, so let's go caucus as agroup and then make a decision
and come back and vote, so thatthere is no transparency, the
norm, the running norm out ofthat is not being also
transparent in who is involvedin that.
Speaker 5 (25:16):
Yeah, I don't understand why they can't just
ask their other party colleagueswhat they think about something
right there on right.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
I mean elected office hates courage.
You got to be able to sayunpopular things, uncomfortable
things, not in a negative way,but you have to be able to talk
about what you think aboutpolicy without feeling that
you're going to be chastised ormarginalised.
I mean they've got to create amore friendly environment for
(25:44):
having differences of opinion.
I mean, for me, the role of, orthe goal of, any elected
official at any level is not tobe popular but to be respected.
That's what everyone shouldstrive for.
But that takes a lot of courageand a lot of leadership and
(26:04):
it's just.
You know, if people wererunning these programs about you
know how to get elected.
I mean they really should focuson that, you know.
That's, that's the art we'remissing the ability to sit down
and have really difficultconversations without the name
calling.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Well, I think the difficult conversations thing is
is absolutely key.
That's a wicked challenge, Ithink, for humans in general.
They shy away from thechallenging conversations.
Some of us are freaks andthrive on them because they want
to know all of the aspectsaround things, but the not
teaching like it's great thatyou're effective in getting
(26:40):
folks elected, but not teachingthem how to understand or vet
policy, and that part of thatpolicy means that you need to
understand where.
What is the actual problem, whoare the people?
Who are the people that aredelivering that they have the
most to inform about how thatcould be improved, how that
(27:02):
should be improved and maybe howto integrate your idea in a
better way, in a way that younever thought of effectively
before.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
In some cases, whether or not it needs to be
improved at all.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
Right.
Yeah, I'm not sure we ever have, ever or will ever have a
legislature that recognizes youdon't need to pass 2000 or write
2200 bills, but sometimes youdon't need to pass law.
But they didn't shy away fromnot.
And I and I saw this kind ofendeavor of trying to pass every
single law, even though it, youknow, regardless of how poorly
(27:39):
it was written.
That's kind of a problem.
I didn't get the sense when Istarted that that was the case.
I never had that experience.
It was always we.
You understood where someone wascoming from and you would try
to get the language to a betterplace so that they could be
taken along.
But the debate was never aroundthe language.
Like saying that the languageis incorrect didn't mean that
(28:00):
you were in opposition of thebill or that it was invalid
because it wasn't using yourwords, because your words don't
have the same legal effect.
That was an odd, odd place tobe.
I think that was.
One of my key takeaways wasthat language was somehow seen
as partisan as opposed tofunctional.
(28:21):
It's kind of like, you know,the color of the house is
somehow part of the architectureand will make it stand.
Actually, it has nothing to dowith whether or not the
foundation is solid and we'retalking about the foundation
being solid.
You could paint it whatever thehell you want, but we still need
actual foundation, or maybeeven cladboards in that case.
(28:46):
So I guess my surprise at theend of session you know, I guess
you could argue came out ofthat non-transparent process
because it didn't necessarilyfeel like it was going to happen
, because it felt like we werekind of howling in the wind.
But I think there was one keymeeting with a whole bunch of
(29:06):
stakeholders and the chairs andleads on appropriation that
probably made that happen.
And that is something I thinkwe can morph into as we talk
about what's happening next forus, which is LPC elections
coming up.
Our executive committee member,phil Kral, is a city manager in
(29:28):
Auburn and also sits on MMA'sexecutive committee.
He's also a former chief ofpolice and he took some
significant initiatives to getsome programs in place and to
convince his counsel that theywere necessary and was key to us
getting a meeting with thechairs and leads of
appropriations so that theycould hear from all of the other
(29:50):
smaller agencies that aren'tgoing to have that ability why
they really needed theappropriations to significantly
consider LD 1857, which was thePublic Safety, health and
Wellness Pilot Program.
That bill will allow an agency,regardless of its volunteer
status, its full-time status,its part-time employees, its
(30:14):
full-time employees or itsvolunteers for public safety,
whether they are correctionsofficers, dispatchers,
firefighters, ems workers orpolice officers to be able to
have specialized screenings forthe risks that are associated
with their health their higherlevel of risk of cardiac because
of inflammatory response fromthe cortisol and adrenaline that
(30:39):
folks experiencing theseincidents go through, but also
cancer screenings from you knownasty burning stuff that
firefighters are exposed to,including the clothes necessary
to protect them from that inmany instances, and the nature
of their jobs in general.
Those programs have been kindof the middle filler between the
(31:02):
health insurance your job isn'ta risk factor for your health
and, more importantly, that youmight need to have someone who's
talking to you about the thingsthat you've experienced, that
at least has some sort ofunderstanding around how
delicate that is, especially ifyou're looking like law
(31:23):
enforcement, the delicacybetween you know being tagged as
having PTSD or you knowcompassion, fatigue and whether
or not that means that you canstill do your job or return to
work or, you know, even haveyour family around understand
kind of what you're goingthrough those programs can now
(31:44):
be applied for and fundedthrough this program.
That's $2 million from theDepartment of Public Safety.
Who will manage that grant andthat now will be again at the
mercy of them adjourning andalso at the mercy of the
rulemaking process to when theyadjourn.
So that early fall probably wasthe optimistic point in time
(32:07):
when that would be establishedas to what programs would
qualify under that point in time.
When that would be establishedas to what programs would
qualify under that.
That's probably pushed out andmaybe a bit beyond that now, or
we don't necessarily know ifthat fall timeline is going to
be accurate because of thestatus of that.
They did put it in the budget.
That's the big.
The high level piece is thatthey put it into the budget.
Hooray, that was amazing.
That was a really positivething that came out of something
(32:30):
that was completely chaotic.
They did leave another bill thatI think is just the most
municipal, because what happenedwas they stripped the fiscal
note off of DECD, off of 1493,which would allow municipalities
to to use their economicTIF-retained value to create and
(32:53):
protect housing in a smallscale.
So rather than focusing on thoselarge-scale developments, they
could actually go into a placewhere there were triple-deckers
that needed being brought up tocode.
That would automaticallydisplace the people that are
living in that naturallyaffordable housing because those
improvements cost money.
So they're going to be nowmarket rate and those folks may
(33:15):
or may not be able to continueto afford there, but they're
usually near the economicdistrict, like if you look at
Augusta, mount Vernon Ave andSand Hill.
Those are all areas with a lotof naturally affordable housing
that if it were improved or evenexpanded upon, would move or
maybe displace those folks outof there, because now it becomes
(33:37):
, you know, the bougie, coolMunjoy Hill type apartment and
that and we've seen that inPortland.
So that would allow a communityto actually have a say in.
Nope, ok, we're going to keepthis neighborhood naturally
affordable.
But we're going to keep thisneighborhood naturally
affordable but we're going toimprove the conditions of those
houses and support the people.
Or even like, take a largerhouse that Meme lives in and
(34:00):
split it into four, into duplex,without her losing kind of that
equity, but by giving her theability to have a, you know, a
much more weathertight apartmentand then maybe four other
weathertight apartments in herlarge house that also has four
other little memes or pepes.
Speaker 6 (34:20):
And not the room share.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
Not, yeah, not the room share, or maybe even put an
ADU on their property so thatthey could either move into the
ADU, which was more accessible,and then have their house rented
out to a larger family.
But either way, it would be aneighborhood level, neighborhood
level decision, neighborhoodlevel projects with some real
power that the state doesn'thave to pay anything for,
(34:44):
everybody at the local communitycan decide how to spend the
funds that are theirs to improvehousing.
Really simple.
But that doesn't exist becauseit was on the table and needs to
be amended to strip the fiscalnote.
And they postponed indefinitelypostponed all of those bills
that needed any sort ofamendments from the table.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
It's interesting when you think of the ripple effect
on that particular bill.
There are so many missedopportunities that are not
necessarily directly related tothe housing.
I mean you mentioned having anADU with a MMA in the backyard.
I mean that brings back adifferent type of relationship.
Right, if you have, you know, aMMA, it doesn't have to be your
(35:25):
own MMA, but somebody who's inthe backyard to teach you how to
bake an apple pie or hang outwith.
I mean it brings back thatintergenerational relationships
that I think we're losing.
So I mean there's so manysocietal benefits associated
with that type of developmentthat we miss out on when we're
just so black and white about.
It has to be my way or thehighway.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
Yeah, and we're really focused on market.
We're letting the market decidewhat it is that we build.
We're letting the market andthe capital stack decide what
projects happen.
And we heard pretty loudly thatnobody's building market rate
housing unless they have$500,000 in capital, because
banks won't lend for thoseprojects and you're not going to
(36:08):
sell your home at an inflatedvalue in order to move into a
smaller home that costs you 100%of what you just sold your
larger home for.
That is the problem.
That is why nobody is leavingtheir houses unless they have a
spare house and that's also whynobody can afford to fix their
adjacent house when an ADU is$350,000 on average to build.
(36:32):
I mean, if you had $350,000,why would you want?
Speaker 6 (36:35):
to live in a tiny home, right.
Speaker 1 (36:38):
So what's next, ladies?
Any rumors?
Anyone hearing an intent tocome back?
Is everyone still so pissed andexhausted from last week that
no one's even speaking withanyone at the state house?
That's how I feel, but I'm justwondering.
Speaker 6 (36:54):
Yeah I've pretty much retreated into a hole.
I don't think I left my bed onthe weekend.
I watched tv and, just likechilled, I was exhausted and
yeah, I've retreated into a hole.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
I've retreated into a Balkan border.
Speaker 6 (37:16):
But I'm going to emerge a butterfly, damn it.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
Yeah, you are.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Kate, what's your spirit animal?
Speaker 6 (37:28):
It's not a unicorn, that's for sure it's a unicorn.
Speaker 3 (37:31):
You've thrown me this type A into a bit of a loop.
I have no idea what my spiritanimal is.
Probably a rabid fox, for all Iknow.
Speaker 6 (37:48):
You're going to have to analyze that and get back to
us.
Speaker 1 (37:51):
Yeah, but this is the Super Bowl man, this is the end
of the Super Bowl, so you'regoing to Disney, right, I am?
Speaker 3 (38:00):
So I identify as a Disney princess.
Speaker 1 (38:12):
That's awesome, laura .
Speaker 4 (38:17):
One I don't have to care for a duck-billed platypus.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
Oh, there we go.
You remember those sea monkeysthat you could get.
I still don't know what theyever were.
I know that there's somethingwicked common, but I can't
remember.
I'm gonna have to google that.
Speaker 3 (38:39):
But uh, sea monkeys are a sort of brine shrimp okay,
but I also expect it to lastthat long?
Speaker 1 (38:49):
ladies, with 10 minutes to spare, I'm gonna cut
you loose and say thank you fordoing real thank you fun.
This has been real fun.
Speaker 4 (39:03):
I got nothing can I please plug the lpc elections?
Yes, please.
Lpc nominations are going outin tomorrow's mail and
electronically either thursdayor friday.
Municipalities will have untiljune 12th to get those back to
me.
Seven weeks, we go a littlelonger just to give them extra
(39:25):
time because not every boardmeets, you know, even monthly.
Sometimes it's a little bitmore than every month that they
meet.
So that they can, the boardshave to sign those and then on
those are back June 12th and onJune 13th I'll send ballots out
to all 35 Senate districtsasking them to vote on who's
(39:45):
going to represent them for thenext two years on the
Legislative Policy Committee.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
Wow.
So if you're a municipal thatwants to join the LPC, which is,
you know, working with thecoolest ladies on the face of
the earth, how might one do that?
Speaker 4 (39:57):
Well, the mailing and email go to the key elected
official, whether it's themanager or the chair of the
board.
So they should let either ofthose two know that they're
interested and ask for thenomination and take it from
there.
Speaker 2 (40:12):
And, as a former member of the LPC, now turned to
the flip side, I encourageeverybody to to run.
It's a great way to bring anadditional viewpoint to your
municipality and then bringingthe viewpoints of your
municipality to all of us.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
Yeah, and one of the key pieces that this legislature
has driven home, I think, forall of us, is how important
municipal officials and theiradvocacy with their delegations,
both locally and while they'resitting in the statehouse, is to
getting really positive workdone.
Many voices and many hands arereally the only way that I think
(40:53):
we're going to be able to getthe municipal voice into a
legislature that doesn'tnecessarily have a lot of
experience, municipal experience, municipal experience in their
ranks, like they used to.
So it's going to become moreimportant for them to be
educated by their municipalofficials, I think in the future
.
Speaker 6 (41:08):
And sharing stories.
I think sharing stories goes along way.
So when municipalities orpeople in the LPC share those
you know, stories that we canput into our testimony, it makes
a big impact.
And also, you know, I thinkbeing memorable makes a
difference.
So from now on, I'm going tostart singing my testimony when
I present it for right mind inlimerick form and are you going
(41:38):
to go with a haiku?
Speaker 2 (41:39):
no, no, I was thinking I might do it all
backwards, so I'd have to readit in a mirror.
Speaker 3 (41:47):
Somebody has to do an interpretive dance, come on.
Speaker 6 (41:50):
That's you, kate.
Oh no, I love dance.
I will totally do that.
Because singing isn't really myforte.
Speaker 3 (41:58):
As the editor of the bulletin.
The three of you, rebecca,rebecca and Amanda, deserve
unbelievable kudos for thequality of the articles that
were published throughout thesession informative and snarky.
Calling folks out on badbehavior was not only incredibly
(42:22):
well done, very creative, butgreatly appreciated by our
members.
I've received easily a halfdozen emails and phone calls
saying people are reallyjonesing for the bulletin.
They miss it like nobody'sbusiness.
So kudos to the three of you.
It was excellent, excellentwork, like I said, very
(42:42):
entertaining, very informativeand we really got our messages
across because we didn't getmany complaints about it.
Speaker 4 (42:50):
Well done, ladies.
I always look forward toopening those files to proof
them on Friday mornings and geta good giggle with my coffee
Friday mornings and get a goodgiggle with my coffee.
Speaker 6 (43:01):
There may have been a few complaints at the state
house, but that just meant itwas being read and evidently
heard, so I guess there is awinner.
Speaker 1 (43:12):
Well, I think that there there does need to be some
kudos.
That goes to the legislaturefor frustrating us enough to
make us creatively inspiredthrough writing in ways that I
think you call that job security.
I'm okay with not being jobsecure, just saying I know
(43:35):
You're coming back, I don't know.
You know beer's two bucks,wine's two bucks, wine's two
bucks it's.
I could live a long time.
We'll relocate.
Yes, I mean, if we don't haveto be there, we'll come to you.
Speaker 6 (43:55):
There we are, then there we are, then there we are
then there we are, then there weare then, there we are then.
Speaker 1 (44:00):
Don't forget to like us and subscribe and rate us on
your favorite podcatcher andrecommend us to others that need
to understand municipalgovernment hiatus until the
legislature returns.
There's still plenty of workleft to be done, including
(44:20):
holding those who are seekingthis office accountable for what
happened this last session, butalso for making sure that they
engage with municipal officials.
So we look forward to talkingwith you all during this fall
and sharing some perspectiveswith you.
We hope we're going to get somemore municipally engaged voices
(44:44):
in our work and we value andappreciate each one of you.
Thank you so much for yourefforts.
We know you're busy humans andwe cherish the work that you're
doing.
So keep up the good work andplease share it with us.
Thank you.
Talk to you soon.
welcome everyone to potholes and politics, local
main issues from a to z.
I am your host, rebecca graham,and I'm here with rebecca
lambert and amanda campbell.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Eight to four laura ellis.
It is.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Laura Ellis.
It is the end of session.
Wrap up.
Let's talk about what justhappened.
Break down the flurry ofactivity Now that we've had a
little bit of space to breathe.
Kate, let's talk about the lasttwo days of session and what
happened then.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Well, the last two days of session were really
hectic and slightly confusing.
There was a sense of nobodyknew what was going on.
There were attempts to takeover the budget, there were
attempts to extend the sessionand once the legislature
recessed and I'm not going touse the term adjourned in the
(01:02):
proper sense, because they arenot adjourned, they are actually
coming back and until they comeback and finally adjourn, there
is no effective date fornon-emergency legislation.
So throughout the day onWednesday and into the morning
hours of Thursday, thelegislature did a couple of
(01:25):
things.
One, when the sun was up onWednesday perfect working hours
the legislature adopted a jointorder that allowed them to
return to address any of thegovernor's vetoes Prior to
recessing, adjourningtemporarily on Thursday morning.
(01:48):
They also adopted a secondjoint order which carried over
every piece of legislation thathadn't been somewhat acted on.
So every piece of legislationthat wasn't making its way down
to the governor's office for hersignature or veto ended up
(02:12):
being carried over.
Normally, everything would havedied that morning when they
adjourned, but they will bereturning on veto day and
because they carried overeverything, there's nothing that
stops them from continuingtheir work.
So it'll be interesting to seewhat they intend to do when they
return, whether or not it'sjust simply vetoes and a couple
of cleanup bills.
But once in, the legislature isnot limited with respect to
(02:35):
what it can do.
They can start right over again, provided they have forum and
people around to make decisions.
So we're not yet adjourned andthere's still this potential for
a lot more work to be done.
So we're not yet adjourned andthere's still this potential for
a lot more work to be done Withrespect to the last minute
games.
After some back and forthbetween the House and Senate,
the legislature was able toadopt a budget that includes
(02:57):
some pretty important elementsfor municipal government, and
I'm going to let Rebecca Grahamtalk to one of those elements
with respect to our firstresponder initiative.
But it also includes $60million worth of coastal storm
revenue to help communities thatwere impacted and businesses
(03:20):
impacted by our I think they'reDecember, january storms.
Get some money in thosecommunities so that they can
start to prepare or repairbroken infrastructure, help
businesses get back on theirfeet.
So that was a really importantelement of that bill.
It has been signed by thegovernor and will become
effective law, who knows?
Because it wasn't adopted as anemergency initiative requiring
(03:46):
two thirds majority vote, and soit will only become effective
law 90 days after thelegislature officially adjourned
.
So that's still up in the air.
So they ended session, or arecess session, and kind of an
interesting note.
I think it took a couple ofdays for the dust to settle for
(04:07):
most people to put those piecestogether, but here we are.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Yeah.
So I've seen a few pieces ofnews around it, but nobody has
talked about the fact thatnothing without emergency
preamble is, in effect,including the budget.
So if the governor doesn't vetoanything, how do they come back
?
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Well, they have the authority to come back.
So the presiding officers have,in that first order I talked
about the presiding officerssecured the authority to bring
them back.
The question is, will they comeback?
They will need a quorum torespond.
I suspect that anybody who'sbeen duly elected to office will
(04:53):
return because they have tofinish up their work.
They absolutely have to return.
They have to make sure thatthose bills that are hanging out
waiting for final adjournmentactually are implemented, and I
think there's plenty out therethat we can avoid a partisan
kind of stalemate or a game ofchicken, where there's enough
(05:14):
out there that everybody needsto come back so the policies and
the bills of importance to themactually get action in a
somewhat timely fashion.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Yeah, the partisan chicken thing.
That's what left me feeling asthough there would be zero
cooperation with return.
And now you know if you werenot a fan of the original budget
.
That is a mechanism for whichyou could hold up the process,
and that's an unpalatable placeto be, especially when a lot of
(05:48):
the news seems to be kind ofcelebrating victories that
really aren't until they adjourn.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
Yeah, I still think I'm going to say this.
I think people run for officebecause they want to do
something for the state theyintend to do, to be good people.
I mean they are good people.
Nobody volunteer volunteers tosubject themselves to hours and
hours of public hearings andwork sessions and schedules and
(06:19):
you know hours of wait and seethe whole legislative time is
real.
The bells that are supposed toring at 10 start ringing at 1130
and ring for a half hour.
I mean.
So your average Maine residentdoesn't sign up because they
think that's exciting.
They sign up because theyreally want to do some good, and
so I would be stunned if themajority wouldn't return for
(06:41):
that last day of session becauseit is their elected duty to do
so.
They've been elected to do thepeople's business.
It's messy, you don't alwayswin, but at the end of the day
you got to show up because youmay promise us, the people who
elect you, that you're going todo the right thing, and showing
up is the right thing.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Well, especially the budget piece like the, the
budget wins and the budgetthings that are major platform
conversations that could be hadon the door if you're trying to
go into a campaign can't be realuntil they adjourn I think.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
I think laura is looking to get in on the
conversation jump in that waswhat I was going to ask.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
They cannot, uh, you know, receive campaign
contributions while they havenot adjourned sine die correct.
Or is it only from certainlobbyists?
Speaker 3 (07:33):
I think that is correct.
They cannot, but it doesn'tmean their PACs are under the
same restrictions, so I thinkthere's a workaround on that one
as well.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
So one of the key questions perhaps our listeners
should be asking theircandidates as this rolls out,
and whether or not this getsupdated if they're making some
sort of conversation or promiseat the door is is the budget
enacted yet?
Did you really do that?
Have you left yet?
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Those are really good questions.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
So, lambo, I know you've got some mom studies
coming up, so I want you to jumpin and give me what were your
two biggest wins and your twobiggest or your single biggest
win and your maybe singlebiggest frustration out of this
past session.
Speaker 5 (08:27):
Well, we'll start with the bad news first.
So my biggest frustration arewe talking bill related here?
Yeah, my biggest frustration isthat the cannabis revenue can't
be distributed amongst themunicipalities that have opted
in.
I just feel that's reallyunfair and I was really hoping
that that might get sometraction, but it didn't, so that
(08:50):
was a little bit frustrating.
Of course, there's always nextyear we can try again, but it
seems like a lot of fingers aregoing into that fund so there
may not be any money left.
However, it's a good revenuemaker, so I don't see it drying
up anytime soon.
The biggest win of course I'vetalked about it many times is
(09:10):
the municipal franchiseagreement bill.
I saw an ad in the paper whatwas it?
Not long ago?
But it was a public notice thatWinthrop is renegotiating their
franchise agreement and nowthey actually have some kind of
teeth to you know and backingfrom the PUC to to get these
(09:31):
franchise agreements finalizedand negotiated.
So that was a big win and I'msuper happy about that one.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
What was your sense at the end of session?
This is kind of.
This is kind of your first endof session, isn't it?
Speaker 5 (09:44):
Yeah, end of legislation.
Yeah, at the end of legislativesession.
I, you know, I came in at theend of session so I just kind of
was getting my feet wet, andthen this is the end of my first
full legislative session and Iwas, I felt like I kind of knew
what was going on, but then Ihad no idea where anything was
going.
(10:04):
There were floor amendments andthere were people arguing and
it was just, it was crazy and Ididn't.
I had no idea what was going on, but that I, I think I was in
good company, because thelegislatures really didn't know
what.
The legislators really didn'tknow what was going on either,
as evidenced by all theconfusion with the motions.
And what are we voting on?
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Yeah, there was a stark contrast confusion with
the motions and what are wevoting on.
Yeah, there was a starkcontrast, which I kind of feel
is ironic, from the COVIDlegislature, where everything
was posted online and availableonline and nothing was available
online even months afteramendments had been processed
and you had to ask people whoare already overwhelmed analysts
(10:44):
for the last amended languageunless you were in that space.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
So it seemed to me a bit odd and it really came to,
really drove home to me thatthings can change at the last
minute.
And I'm not sure and this isprobably a topic for another day
, but I really am not sure howyou would combat that at that
time.
You know when there's flooramendments.
If you don't have no ideawhat's in this floor amendment,
(11:10):
how do you know if you need tobe talking to someone or
lobbying and is this?
Is there even any time left atthat point to lobby?
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Yeah, the floor amendments are usually special
interests that are pushing themvery.
Yeah, they're rarely justlanguage changes.
I guess, Kate, would that be afair adjustment?
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Yeah, it is.
I mean that's last minute stuff, that's.
You know, it's like the 11thhour.
You tried you can get aparticular initiative in and so
you try to amend it from thefloor.
I mean it's a.
You know, once you get to thefloor, it's a, it's a free game.
I mean anything goes.
There's no limitations on thenumber of amendments that can be
(11:49):
submitted.
So it's, it's a, it's a.
It's an uncomfortable time ofsession.
And to Rebecca Lambert's point,she's absolutely right.
I mean, at that point lobbyingis done.
I mean the legislature isexhausted.
They've retreated.
You know, behind closed doors,partisan caucuses, that's where
(12:09):
the conversations are takingplace.
And you know, short of someweird emergency or missing
something, excluding somethingfrom a bill, there really isn't
an opportunity there for muchlobbying.
It's kind of just watching theshow and being available if
people have questions.
I mean I think it's Amanda thatasked me the questions.
Why were a group of lobbyistsjust hanging around midnight and
(12:32):
one in the morning and three inthe morning?
In some cases?
They're there in case somethingcomes up and somebody has a
question that could help movesomething.
You know, an issue along thebudget why did we need this
provision in GA law.
Well, we needed it for thisparticular reason.
So I think it's the kind of thethe the roles flip.
It's no longer a lobbying game,it's more of a resource game.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Yeah, so, cambo, let's, let's go to you.
This is your first session,indeed, I'll be at the short one
.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Yeah, I think I'm glad we started with the short
one, yeah, so my, I'm also goingto start with the bad news,
just because it's better to getit over with, and I don't think
anybody will be surprised thatmy biggest disappointment was GA
.
You know, we went into thefirst session.
The LPC drafted some reallygood bills to make some really
good and meaningful changes andthe HHS committee completely
(13:26):
stripped that bill intosomething completely useless.
So, and then it passed, soyippee, and the funding bill.
You know their GA trifecta theyhad this great idea and the tri
of the fact that didn't make itoff the table so far.
I mean, you know, there's thatglimmer of hope that they'll
come back and do something, butthere's no money left.
(13:48):
So we've been tasked withadditional things and we're not
getting any extra money and it'ssort of depressing.
So, yeah, I would encouragefolks to ask their candidates
what they plan to do aboutgeneral assistance, because
people have needs and it'sgetting harder and harder for
our municipal officials toprovide for them.
So what are the final changesto them?
(14:09):
So 1730, ld 1732, which was oneof our platform bills, took out
every financial request.
So there is no additionalreimbursement to our basic
services.
There are no additionalreimbursements for additional
sort of bonus services thatpeople do provide.
(14:30):
No training for the staff.
Dhhs staff department staff wasexcluded.
We did get a tiny win out of it,I will say the HHS is going to
implement a statewide generalassistance database for GA
administrators to access so thatthey can tell when someone has
(14:54):
applied in a differentmunicipality, so that they can
sort of gauge how much aidpeople are requiring and when
it's been provided.
But that's still years away.
At this point they haven't evenissued the RFP.
There's one provision that Ithink will assist our
municipalities who are ourservice centers, which is a big
(15:18):
is is a big issue for for thebigger cities, who are providing
the most aid to the most people, but there's really not much
happening for the bigger cities,who are providing the most aid
to the most people.
There's really not muchhappening for the small town
communities who don'tnecessarily see very many cases,
who need the most help becausethey don't have a full-time
administrator and, you know, arejust sort of left out there
(15:41):
hanging.
So in addition to that, therewas additional language in the
supplemental budget as well.
That is going to make it alittle bit harder for folks to
assist with certain housingaspects of general assistance.
So the budget did appropriate$10 million to assist in the
reimbursement, which, yes, ismore money than was initially
(16:02):
put in there, but it's just tomake up for the fact that they
didn't budget enough in thefirst place.
So it's good to get it and goodto have it there so that we
will get it, but it's definitelynot an increase in the baseline
budget, which is really whatneeds to be happening for GA.
So we'll see, maybe next time.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Well, that training seems key as well, because I
remember under COVID I meanCOVID was like the perfect
incubator for talking about allof the problems within GA there
were a lot of hotels that hadresidents placed in them by like
a regional housing co-op, withno notice to the municipality,
who then receives folks applyingfor GA and they've never
(16:42):
historically dealt with that.
So you have a select boardmember who's the overseer of the
poor, who now is like oh mygosh, I don't even know how to
do this and very littleresources.
So there were a lot of calls, Ithink, coming into legal as
well, about that.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
That seems to me and I think it was fair for the
administration to want to endthe use of hotels for housing,
but I don't think they executedthe desire in a very, very
positive manner, so we'll seewhat happens with that well, did
I say they created that such athing?
Speaker 1 (17:18):
yeah right, I won't get catty, all right, patty, all
right.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
And then I would say for my win, bill, would be that
we were able to testify andsupport to help their voters and
town meeting attendeesunderstand what that levy limit
(17:50):
question was.
Now they won't necessarily haveto fight with those folks and
say, no, we're not in factraising your taxes with this
question.
You've already approved all ofthis.
You're just saying you'rechecking the second yes box.
All of that confusion will goaway now, since LD1 was
successfully repealed, so that'sa win.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Yeah, that's something that I don't think got
reported about very accuratelyeither, because I think they
were confusing, which is why itneeded to go away.
So you know, essentially youcould say yep, municipality, we
know this is what you guys wantto spend.
All these initiatives, we'reapproving every single one.
We know this is what our millrate is going to be, and now you
want more money is kind of whatthat question is like.
(18:32):
No, we're just actuallyreconfirming that.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
You just said that you understand all those things
I just I just want to clarifybecause we've been receiving a
lot of inquiries on this ld1 isnot yet repealed.
It's not effective law.
Until they come in, theyadjourn, uh, and we start the
the 90 day countdown.
(18:57):
So, municipal officials, rightnow, uh, dealing with april, may
, june town meetings, you mustabide by that, um, that law.
Ld1 is an effective law andwill probably be so until
mid-June, july, august, I don'tknow.
(19:18):
So it's really important that.
Hang on, you're going to getyour reprieve next budget cycle,
but you have to abide by theLD1 tax limit rules this year.
What?
Speaker 1 (19:30):
a buzzkill, kate.
Tax limit rules this year.
What a buzzkill, Kate, butthat's an interesting point.
So, maybe, laura, maybe Laura,you know this one.
What is the worst case scenario?
So, yeah, what if they chose tonever come back until after the
election?
Speaker 4 (19:41):
Kate, laura, I don't see that happening.
I mean, they have to come inand finally adjourn this session
in order for any of this to gothrough, including the budget.
And there's articles in the BDNtoday saying that the storm
damage money is going to be notavailable until July because it
(20:01):
wasn't emergency legislation.
Well, they can't say thatbecause you don't know that the
legislature is coming back inand you've got to go 90 days out
from that.
And you've got to go 90 daysout from that for them to not
raise campaign money personallyuntil you know after the
election doesn't work for them.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
But can they campaign ?
So can they go out and knock ondoors and start asking for
votes?
I'm not sure on that one.
But unless it's the money onlyyou know, I don't know how much
of our local politicians aregoing out and raising,
fundraising and raising moneyUsually the PACs and the party
(20:38):
does that.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
But it's an interesting twist on the whole
procedure that before, eventoday, like I'm today years old
when I realized that we're alltoday years old, when I realized
that, all today years old, theadjournment of this legislature
impacted what a candidate coulddo with their campaign, I had no
(21:00):
idea of that.
Um, so that's really reallyinteresting information.
Well, I'm gonna be the.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Pollyanna of the group, just because I'm gonna
stick with inherently.
Inherently, people are good andthey understand their roles and
there is nothing to gain by notcoming back and doing your work
.
I mean, it's not a goodcampaign kind of talking point
that, oh, I decided that Iwasn't going to finish the work
(21:29):
that you elected me to do, socan you please reelect me now?
Speaker 5 (21:34):
That soundbite, I think is going to fall a little
flat, I don't think anything'ssurprising.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Well, I so yeah, to second Lambeau's point on that.
Kate, I am really glad that youare Pollyanna on this.
We desperately need a Pollyanna,because I I'm just shocked at
our continual basis at what Ithought were rational decisions
that never panned out that wayand I'm just like what is this
new norm?
And I think we saw a lot ofthat at the end of session too.
(22:01):
There was a significant lack ofnorms that I saw play out
traditional and they're not badnorms Like there weren't norms
that needed to be disrupted,like norms of communication,
norms of transparency.
Those are things that arevaluable to any democratic
society and democracy in general.
(22:24):
Those aren't norms that I everwant to see go away, but you
could make a lot of argumentsthat they were completely
stripped and gone.
Speaker 3 (22:33):
So I just to be clear , I absolutely agree.
This was not a normal session.
All the rules went out thewindow.
We developed new rules to getwhat we wanted, and I think it
just gets back to the point thatwe've all been talking about
for the last two years.
We got to get back to themiddle.
The moderates have got to startrunning for the main state
(22:54):
legislature.
We need individuals whounderstand that compromise is a
good thing, it's not a bad thing.
It doesn't mean you're weak.
It means you're actually aleader, that you see the value
in all voices and that you'reworking towards ensuring that
the collective or the greatestnumber of people are positively
impacted by something.
(23:14):
I mean.
It's just that we're missingthat level of leadership.
It needs to come back.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Yeah, I 100% agree with that and you know Laura
brought up a really great pointabout the news reporting it.
You know Laura brought up areally great point about the
news reporting it and that, Iguess, is also what concerns me
is that there's not going to beactual knowledge out there that
this is an actual big issue,that nothing is accomplished
until they adjourn.
Laura, how was your drinkingfrom a fire hydrant this session
(23:44):
?
Speaker 4 (23:45):
It was pretty much the norm.
I mean, they do this everysession save the biggest bills
until the end that they're goingto fight over the most.
It was business as usual frommy perspective 60 page bills,
usually concept drafts.
Oh well, yeah, these conceptdrafts that you know come out
(24:06):
last minute.
That was more than usual.
They were a ton of conceptdrafts put in this year, one
thing that really needs tochange.
Speaker 5 (24:17):
And the ease with which people seem to bend the
truth, like when it was saidthat the public health folks
were in on the conversations forthe amendments to the act to
change the cannabis laws, butthey weren't involved until the
very end.
It was industry stakeholdersthat were building that.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Yeah, there was more than one stretch.
That stretch, the who wasengaged and when, right, but
that that's.
That's what you expect out ofpolitics.
I think that's that's a norm Idon't want to be.
It shouldn't be Honesty shouldbe the norm.
Yes, I totally agree.
But when you have people whoare saying I can't say that on
(24:58):
mic, so let's go caucus as agroup and then make a decision
and come back and vote, so thatthere is no transparency, the
norm, the running norm out ofthat is not being also
transparent in who is involvedin that.
Speaker 5 (25:16):
Yeah, I don't understand why they can't just
ask their other party colleagueswhat they think about something
right there on right.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
I mean elected office hates courage.
You got to be able to sayunpopular things, uncomfortable
things, not in a negative way,but you have to be able to talk
about what you think aboutpolicy without feeling that
you're going to be chastised ormarginalised.
I mean they've got to create amore friendly environment for
(25:44):
having differences of opinion.
I mean, for me, the role of, orthe goal of, any elected
official at any level is not tobe popular but to be respected.
That's what everyone shouldstrive for.
But that takes a lot of courageand a lot of leadership and
(26:04):
it's just.
You know, if people wererunning these programs about you
know how to get elected.
I mean they really should focuson that, you know.
That's, that's the art we'remissing the ability to sit down
and have really difficultconversations without the name
calling.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Well, I think the difficult conversations thing is
is absolutely key.
That's a wicked challenge, Ithink, for humans in general.
They shy away from thechallenging conversations.
Some of us are freaks andthrive on them because they want
to know all of the aspectsaround things, but the not
teaching like it's great thatyou're effective in getting
(26:40):
folks elected, but not teachingthem how to understand or vet
policy, and that part of thatpolicy means that you need to
understand where.
What is the actual problem, whoare the people?
Who are the people that aredelivering that they have the
most to inform about how thatcould be improved, how that
(27:02):
should be improved and maybe howto integrate your idea in a
better way, in a way that younever thought of effectively
before.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
In some cases, whether or not it needs to be
improved at all.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
Right.
Yeah, I'm not sure we ever have, ever or will ever have a
legislature that recognizes youdon't need to pass 2000 or write
2200 bills, but sometimes youdon't need to pass law.
But they didn't shy away fromnot.
And I and I saw this kind ofendeavor of trying to pass every
single law, even though it, youknow, regardless of how poorly
(27:39):
it was written.
That's kind of a problem.
I didn't get the sense when Istarted that that was the case.
I never had that experience.
It was always we.
You understood where someone wascoming from and you would try
to get the language to a betterplace so that they could be
taken along.
But the debate was never aroundthe language.
Like saying that the languageis incorrect didn't mean that
(28:00):
you were in opposition of thebill or that it was invalid
because it wasn't using yourwords, because your words don't
have the same legal effect.
That was an odd, odd place tobe.
I think that was.
One of my key takeaways wasthat language was somehow seen
as partisan as opposed tofunctional.
(28:21):
It's kind of like, you know,the color of the house is
somehow part of the architectureand will make it stand.
Actually, it has nothing to dowith whether or not the
foundation is solid and we'retalking about the foundation
being solid.
You could paint it whatever thehell you want, but we still need
actual foundation, or maybeeven cladboards in that case.
(28:46):
So I guess my surprise at theend of session you know, I guess
you could argue came out ofthat non-transparent process
because it didn't necessarilyfeel like it was going to happen
, because it felt like we werekind of howling in the wind.
But I think there was one keymeeting with a whole bunch of
(29:06):
stakeholders and the chairs andleads on appropriation that
probably made that happen.
And that is something I thinkwe can morph into as we talk
about what's happening next forus, which is LPC elections
coming up.
Our executive committee member,phil Kral, is a city manager in
(29:28):
Auburn and also sits on MMA'sexecutive committee.
He's also a former chief ofpolice and he took some
significant initiatives to getsome programs in place and to
convince his counsel that theywere necessary and was key to us
getting a meeting with thechairs and leads of
appropriations so that theycould hear from all of the other
(29:50):
smaller agencies that aren'tgoing to have that ability why
they really needed theappropriations to significantly
consider LD 1857, which was thePublic Safety, health and
Wellness Pilot Program.
That bill will allow an agency,regardless of its volunteer
status, its full-time status,its part-time employees, its
(30:14):
full-time employees or itsvolunteers for public safety,
whether they are correctionsofficers, dispatchers,
firefighters, ems workers orpolice officers to be able to
have specialized screenings forthe risks that are associated
with their health their higherlevel of risk of cardiac because
of inflammatory response fromthe cortisol and adrenaline that
(30:39):
folks experiencing theseincidents go through, but also
cancer screenings from you knownasty burning stuff that
firefighters are exposed to,including the clothes necessary
to protect them from that inmany instances, and the nature
of their jobs in general.
Those programs have been kindof the middle filler between the
(31:02):
health insurance your job isn'ta risk factor for your health
and, more importantly, that youmight need to have someone who's
talking to you about the thingsthat you've experienced, that
at least has some sort ofunderstanding around how
delicate that is, especially ifyou're looking like law
(31:23):
enforcement, the delicacybetween you know being tagged as
having PTSD or you knowcompassion, fatigue and whether
or not that means that you canstill do your job or return to
work or, you know, even haveyour family around understand
kind of what you're goingthrough those programs can now
(31:44):
be applied for and fundedthrough this program.
That's $2 million from theDepartment of Public Safety.
Who will manage that grant andthat now will be again at the
mercy of them adjourning andalso at the mercy of the
rulemaking process to when theyadjourn.
So that early fall probably wasthe optimistic point in time
(32:07):
when that would be establishedas to what programs would
qualify under that point in time.
When that would be establishedas to what programs would
qualify under that.
That's probably pushed out andmaybe a bit beyond that now, or
we don't necessarily know ifthat fall timeline is going to
be accurate because of thestatus of that.
They did put it in the budget.
That's the big.
The high level piece is thatthey put it into the budget.
Hooray, that was amazing.
That was a really positivething that came out of something
(32:30):
that was completely chaotic.
They did leave another bill thatI think is just the most
municipal, because what happenedwas they stripped the fiscal
note off of DECD, off of 1493,which would allow municipalities
to to use their economicTIF-retained value to create and
(32:53):
protect housing in a smallscale.
So rather than focusing on thoselarge-scale developments, they
could actually go into a placewhere there were triple-deckers
that needed being brought up tocode.
That would automaticallydisplace the people that are
living in that naturallyaffordable housing because those
improvements cost money.
So they're going to be nowmarket rate and those folks may
(33:15):
or may not be able to continueto afford there, but they're
usually near the economicdistrict, like if you look at
Augusta, mount Vernon Ave andSand Hill.
Those are all areas with a lotof naturally affordable housing
that if it were improved or evenexpanded upon, would move or
maybe displace those folks outof there, because now it becomes
(33:37):
, you know, the bougie, coolMunjoy Hill type apartment and
that and we've seen that inPortland.
So that would allow a communityto actually have a say in.
Nope, ok, we're going to keepthis neighborhood naturally
affordable.
But we're going to keep thisneighborhood naturally
affordable but we're going toimprove the conditions of those
houses and support the people.
Or even like, take a largerhouse that Meme lives in and
(34:00):
split it into four, into duplex,without her losing kind of that
equity, but by giving her theability to have a, you know, a
much more weathertight apartmentand then maybe four other
weathertight apartments in herlarge house that also has four
other little memes or pepes.
Speaker 6 (34:20):
And not the room share.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
Not, yeah, not the room share, or maybe even put an
ADU on their property so thatthey could either move into the
ADU, which was more accessible,and then have their house rented
out to a larger family.
But either way, it would be aneighborhood level, neighborhood
level decision, neighborhoodlevel projects with some real
power that the state doesn'thave to pay anything for,
(34:44):
everybody at the local communitycan decide how to spend the
funds that are theirs to improvehousing.
Really simple.
But that doesn't exist becauseit was on the table and needs to
be amended to strip the fiscalnote.
And they postponed indefinitelypostponed all of those bills
that needed any sort ofamendments from the table.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
It's interesting when you think of the ripple effect
on that particular bill.
There are so many missedopportunities that are not
necessarily directly related tothe housing.
I mean you mentioned having anADU with a MMA in the backyard.
I mean that brings back adifferent type of relationship.
Right, if you have, you know, aMMA, it doesn't have to be your
(35:25):
own MMA, but somebody who's inthe backyard to teach you how to
bake an apple pie or hang outwith.
I mean it brings back thatintergenerational relationships
that I think we're losing.
So I mean there's so manysocietal benefits associated
with that type of developmentthat we miss out on when we're
just so black and white about.
It has to be my way or thehighway.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
Yeah, and we're really focused on market.
We're letting the market decidewhat it is that we build.
We're letting the market andthe capital stack decide what
projects happen.
And we heard pretty loudly thatnobody's building market rate
housing unless they have$500,000 in capital, because
banks won't lend for thoseprojects and you're not going to
(36:08):
sell your home at an inflatedvalue in order to move into a
smaller home that costs you 100%of what you just sold your
larger home for.
That is the problem.
That is why nobody is leavingtheir houses unless they have a
spare house and that's also whynobody can afford to fix their
adjacent house when an ADU is$350,000 on average to build.
(36:32):
I mean, if you had $350,000,why would you want?
Speaker 6 (36:35):
to live in a tiny home, right.
Speaker 1 (36:38):
So what's next, ladies?
Any rumors?
Anyone hearing an intent tocome back?
Is everyone still so pissed andexhausted from last week that
no one's even speaking withanyone at the state house?
That's how I feel, but I'm justwondering.
Speaker 6 (36:54):
Yeah I've pretty much retreated into a hole.
I don't think I left my bed onthe weekend.
I watched tv and, just likechilled, I was exhausted and
yeah, I've retreated into a hole.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
I've retreated into a Balkan border.
Speaker 6 (37:16):
But I'm going to emerge a butterfly, damn it.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
Yeah, you are.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Kate, what's your spirit animal?
Speaker 6 (37:28):
It's not a unicorn, that's for sure it's a unicorn.
Speaker 3 (37:31):
You've thrown me this type A into a bit of a loop.
I have no idea what my spiritanimal is.
Probably a rabid fox, for all Iknow.
Speaker 6 (37:48):
You're going to have to analyze that and get back to
us.
Speaker 1 (37:51):
Yeah, but this is the Super Bowl man, this is the end
of the Super Bowl, so you'regoing to Disney, right, I am?
Speaker 3 (38:00):
So I identify as a Disney princess.
Speaker 1 (38:12):
That's awesome, laura .
Speaker 4 (38:17):
One I don't have to care for a duck-billed platypus.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
Oh, there we go.
You remember those sea monkeysthat you could get.
I still don't know what theyever were.
I know that there's somethingwicked common, but I can't
remember.
I'm gonna have to google that.
Speaker 3 (38:39):
But uh, sea monkeys are a sort of brine shrimp okay,
but I also expect it to lastthat long?
Speaker 1 (38:49):
ladies, with 10 minutes to spare, I'm gonna cut
you loose and say thank you fordoing real thank you fun.
This has been real fun.
Speaker 4 (39:03):
I got nothing can I please plug the lpc elections?
Yes, please.
Lpc nominations are going outin tomorrow's mail and
electronically either thursdayor friday.
Municipalities will have untiljune 12th to get those back to
me.
Seven weeks, we go a littlelonger just to give them extra
(39:25):
time because not every boardmeets, you know, even monthly.
Sometimes it's a little bitmore than every month that they
meet.
So that they can, the boardshave to sign those and then on
those are back June 12th and onJune 13th I'll send ballots out
to all 35 Senate districtsasking them to vote on who's
(39:45):
going to represent them for thenext two years on the
Legislative Policy Committee.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
Wow.
So if you're a municipal thatwants to join the LPC, which is,
you know, working with thecoolest ladies on the face of
the earth, how might one do that?
Speaker 4 (39:57):
Well, the mailing and email go to the key elected
official, whether it's themanager or the chair of the
board.
So they should let either ofthose two know that they're
interested and ask for thenomination and take it from
there.
Speaker 2 (40:12):
And, as a former member of the LPC, now turned to
the flip side, I encourageeverybody to to run.
It's a great way to bring anadditional viewpoint to your
municipality and then bringingthe viewpoints of your
municipality to all of us.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
Yeah, and one of the key pieces that this legislature
has driven home, I think, forall of us, is how important
municipal officials and theiradvocacy with their delegations,
both locally and while they'resitting in the statehouse, is to
getting really positive workdone.
Many voices and many hands arereally the only way that I think
(40:53):
we're going to be able to getthe municipal voice into a
legislature that doesn'tnecessarily have a lot of
experience, municipal experience, municipal experience in their
ranks, like they used to.
So it's going to become moreimportant for them to be
educated by their municipalofficials, I think in the future
.
Speaker 6 (41:08):
And sharing stories.
I think sharing stories goes along way.
So when municipalities orpeople in the LPC share those
you know, stories that we canput into our testimony, it makes
a big impact.
And also, you know, I thinkbeing memorable makes a
difference.
So from now on, I'm going tostart singing my testimony when
I present it for right mind inlimerick form and are you going
(41:38):
to go with a haiku?
Speaker 2 (41:39):
no, no, I was thinking I might do it all
backwards, so I'd have to readit in a mirror.
Speaker 3 (41:47):
Somebody has to do an interpretive dance, come on.
Speaker 6 (41:50):
That's you, kate.
Oh no, I love dance.
I will totally do that.
Because singing isn't really myforte.
Speaker 3 (41:58):
As the editor of the bulletin.
The three of you, rebecca,rebecca and Amanda, deserve
unbelievable kudos for thequality of the articles that
were published throughout thesession informative and snarky.
Calling folks out on badbehavior was not only incredibly
(42:22):
well done, very creative, butgreatly appreciated by our
members.
I've received easily a halfdozen emails and phone calls
saying people are reallyjonesing for the bulletin.
They miss it like nobody'sbusiness.
So kudos to the three of you.
It was excellent, excellentwork, like I said, very
(42:42):
entertaining, very informativeand we really got our messages
across because we didn't getmany complaints about it.
Speaker 4 (42:50):
Well done, ladies.
I always look forward toopening those files to proof
them on Friday mornings and geta good giggle with my coffee
Friday mornings and get a goodgiggle with my coffee.
Speaker 6 (43:01):
There may have been a few complaints at the state
house, but that just meant itwas being read and evidently
heard, so I guess there is awinner.
Speaker 1 (43:12):
Well, I think that there there does need to be some
kudos.
That goes to the legislaturefor frustrating us enough to
make us creatively inspiredthrough writing in ways that I
think you call that job security.
I'm okay with not being jobsecure, just saying I know
(43:35):
You're coming back, I don't know.
You know beer's two bucks,wine's two bucks, wine's two
bucks it's.
I could live a long time.
We'll relocate.
Yes, I mean, if we don't haveto be there, we'll come to you.
Speaker 6 (43:55):
There we are, then there we are, then there we are
then there we are, then there weare then, there we are then.
Speaker 1 (44:00):
Don't forget to like us and subscribe and rate us on
your favorite podcatcher andrecommend us to others that need
to understand municipalgovernment hiatus until the
legislature returns.
There's still plenty of workleft to be done, including
(44:20):
holding those who are seekingthis office accountable for what
happened this last session, butalso for making sure that they
engage with municipal officials.
So we look forward to talkingwith you all during this fall
and sharing some perspectiveswith you.
We hope we're going to get somemore municipally engaged voices
(44:44):
in our work and we value andappreciate each one of you.
Thank you so much for yourefforts.
We know you're busy humans andwe cherish the work that you're
doing.
So keep up the good work andplease share it with us.
Thank you.
Talk to you soon.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com