About Town

LePage: Big company didn't ask about Maine taxes #mepolitics

Jeff Inglis — Thu, 09 May 2013 13:59:00 GMT

When Governor Paul LePage was trying to woo Airbus to build a plant in Maine (it went to Alabama), he talked to Airbus Americas chairman Allan McArtor.

In that conversation, LePage told the Portland Community Chamber "Eggs and Issues" breakfast yesterday, there were three topics of conversation, according to the governor:

-LePage offered Airbus land in or near Brunswick for $1.

-McArtor asked about electricty costs, and LePage said he had to think quickly - rather than saying Maine's is the 10th highest in the nation, the governor said "the lowest in New England."

-And then McArtor asked if Maine was a "right-to-work" state, and the governor replied, "No, but we're working on it!"

Of course, politicians often take anecdotes from their experiences and use them to make political points on issues of interest.

But LePage's conversation is notable for two reasons.

First, despite LePage's often troubled relationship with the truth, Airbus Americas is not disputing his account of the conversation. Corporate spokeswoman Mary Anne Greczyn wrote in an email that the company doesn't "speak publicly about private discussions with our potential and existing business partners."

And second, LePage left out one thing he would have included had it occurred: the tax conversation. If we assume LePage was recounting the conversation accurately, and with the goal of making maximum political points, then McArtor did not inquire about Maine's tax rates - corporate or personal.

That must come as a huge relief - and definitely a reducer of LePage's workload - because he has previously believed that companies were very concerned about the state's tax burden when deciding whether or not to come here.

No word from Airbus on the final piece of the governor's anecdote - whether McArtor will in fact come to Maine in July and let LePage "buy him a lobster."

LePage uses Obamacare to achieve his own political goal #mepolitics

Jeff Inglis — Wed, 08 May 2013 14:12:00 GMT

Governor Paul LePage is a really fucking savvy political operator. And he's about to pull his biggest switcheroo ever, if the Dems let him get away with it.

It might look like he's about to tear himself in half, given how fast he's running away from Obamacare on the one hand, and racing to embrace it on the other.

But LePage's real goal is this: he wants to hand hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Maine hospitals (to pay off old debt) without spending a dime on present or future costs of providing poor Mainers with quality affordable health care.

LePage has regularly distanced himself from Obamacare, famously saying he wouldn't "lift a finger" to create a state health-insurance exchange, and going so far as to refuse $5.8 million in federal funds to pay for its setup. (The exchanges, you may recall, are meant to be a service collecting various health-insurance plans into one easy-to-compare list from which people can choose benefits and prices more transparently.)

"One size does not fit all," LePage told a scrum of reporters outside the Holiday Inn by the Bay, after appearing at the Portland Chamber's "Eggs and Issues" breakfast this morning.

And then he went on to say that's exactly what he wants Mainers to get - an exchange set up by the feds, because it wouldn't cost the state anything. So he has apparently forgotten about that $5.8 million from the feds, and wrongly thinks Maine taxpayers would have to pay to set up the exchange.

He even wants the feds to run Maine's exchange in spite of the fact that, like most Republican governors, he thinks locals can do almost anything better than the feds. (He went so far as to cite a Wall Street Journal article favorably comparing Maine's insurance-market deregulation to Obamacare.)

In the past, LePage has also slashed eligibility for Medicaid coverage for poor Mainers (cutting 44,000 people effective in March) - and been rebuffed when seeking permission from the US Department of Health and Human Services to cut even more. (Of course, he claimed this morning that he had never tried to cut Medicaid eligibility.)

And right now, LePage is opposing an effort by legislative Democrats to restore coverage to about 10,000 of those 44,000.

That's the proposal the Dems have made, which would hand LePage a massive political win: The okay to pay Maine hospitals $480-million-plus in back debt, which he has made his primary objective in this legislative season. (If the state pays $186 million, the feds would kick in about $298 million, for a total of $484 million owed for past care of Maine's Medicaid patients.)

But now LePage is pretending he is willing to tie his major goal to the success of Obamacare. How it looks on its face is that the Dems' proposal has sent him racing back into the Obamacare fold.

See, LePage is refusing to cover those 10,000 Mainers for a very good reason - they'll all be covered by Obamacare come January, he says.

Unless, of course, the feds fail. Or, as he put it this morning, "assuming the exchanges are put up" - which of course he refuses to help with.

By embracing Obamacare in this limited way, while also weakening its chances of success through malicious neglect, LePage may be able to put the Dems on the back foot, and achieve his overall goal: the hospitals paid - without expanding Medicaid enrollment, or any other government subsidy for needy Mainers without health care.

Portland, Maine tar sands resolution heads to full city council

Deirdre Fulton — Thu, 02 May 2013 20:15:00 GMT

Last night, the city's Transportation, Sustainability, and Energy Committee unanimously approved a resolution calling upon the state legislature, US State Department, US Congress, US Environmental Protection Agency, and President Barack Obama to "require a thorough analysis of the potential impacts of any tar sands oil pipeline proposal through Maine including evaluation of the health, safety, and environmental risks and spill response techniques and impacts."

In other words, not quite the bill proposed by Councilor Dave Marshall in January (which would have precluded the city from buying any petroleum products from refineries that process tar sands), but still a clear statement from Maine's biggest city on the controversial topic of tar sands.

"This resolution highlights the need to fully vet and understand potential impacts of transporting tar sands oil through Maine by reversing the flow of the Portland Pipeline. Sebago Lake and Casco Bay are in close proximity to the pipeline, which raises concern for our natural resources and water supply," Marshall -- who is chair of the committee -- said in a statement. "Recent pipeline ruptures and their consequences shine a light on what can happen to a community and its environment. The spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan three years ago has been not cleaned up because the tar sands oil has sunk to the bottom of the river, requiring dredging of around 100 acres with a price tag of approximately $1 Billion. The costs far outweigh any benefits."

How Maine ranks on solar

Deirdre Fulton — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:02:00 GMT

There are 44 solar companies in Maine, employing 270 workers, according to a new report by the non-profit Solar Foundation.

"These are the first credible solar jobs numbers for all 50 states," the Foundation boasts on its blog. "Solar employs 119,000 people in every state in the nation, and employment grew 13.2% last year alone."

California supports the most solar jobs (more than 10,000); the rest of the top 10 list is filled out by Arizona, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New York, Texas, Michigan, and Ohio. Maine ranks 38th in terms of jobs, but 21st in terms of jobs per capita.

An interesting takeaway from the report that applies to Maine:

"[A]n abundant solar resource is not necessarily a prerequisite for a strong solar market. Only four states ranked in the top ten in terms of maximum solar resource are also top ten solar employment states. The remaining states (New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, and Ohio) all rank in the bottom 30% in the nation in terms of available solar resource. What all of the top ten solar jobs states do have in common, however, is a collection of policy tools designed to support renewable energy in general and solar in particular."

Now is the time to talk about liberty

Deirdre Fulton — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:04:00 GMT

The tragic Boston Marathon bombings have generated powerful conversations about homegrown terrorism versus attacks by foreigners. About how easy it is to jump to conclusions in the wake of disaster, and about how difficult it is these days to feel truly safe.

I wonder, then, if this isn't the perfect weekend to attend one of a series of forums related to the controversial National Defense Authorization Act, the military spending bill that includes a provision allowing the executive branch to detain US citizens indefintely and without due process.

Last year, this provision drew the ire of high-profile journalists like Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, and Chris Hedges, as well as several state governments. Just last week, for example, the California Assembly's Public Safety Committee unanimously approved a bill that would nullify any federal law (such as the NDAA) that authorizes infinite detention in violation of habeus corpus.

From Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, the Republican who sponsored the bill:

“The NDAA gives the executive branch—under not only President Obama, but also every future president—unprecedented power to detain US citizens without due process. This runs counter to the very principles that make America great, and violates our nation’s commitment to the rule of law,” said Assemblyman Donnelly.

He continued, “We have a moral duty to protect Californians from the disastrous consequences made possible by NDAA. When Constitutional protections are ignored, racist hysteria allows vulnerable groups to be targeted. It was not long ago we memorialized the tragedy of Japanese American internment camps on the floor of the California State Assembly. I am grateful for today’s committee vote, which shows Californians that their representatives are serious about ensuring similar violations of freedom and human rights abuses never happen again within our State.”

The NDAA is currently in court -- the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Manhattan, to be precise -- and a decision is expected in June.

But now -- when tempers are hot and fear is in the air -- is when scary laws that violate our civil liberties get pushed through without thorough examination. Now is the time to educate yourself about how the US government actually deals with terror suspects. Now is the time to consider how much you're willing to accept or ignore in the name of public safety.

With that in mind, here are the dates and times for this weekend's NDAA forums, which will include talks from Debra Sweet, national spokesperson for the NY-based The World Can't Wait and Michael Figura of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee:

Bangor

Belfast

Brunswick

Portland

BREAKING NEWS: Founder Chris Korzen 'quits' Maine's Majority #mepolitics

Jeff Inglis — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:04:00 GMT

See the following email exchange (read up from the bottom). Not sure who's empowered to accept his resignation, but it's as clear as day: Chris Korzen is leaving the Maine's Majority group he founded. Further, he admits that does not understand the difference between requesting public records from the government to use in a publicity campaign to promote a political perspective and, well, requesting public records from the government to use in a publicity campaign to promote a political perspective. He's just sure that when he does it, it's good, and when Bruce Poliquin does it, it's bad.

Here's my last message to Chris:

You have made my exact point. Poliquin would likely say he is exposing abuse of the system, and that you're advertising. All I'm saying is that I don't want the government determining whether either, both, or neither of you is telling the truth. Open government and free speech can get messy, but the mess is better than the alternatives.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:

Please. Print this, so the world can see how ridiculous my life has become. If you don't, I will. If exposing abuse of the system is now synonymous with advertising, then seriously, I quit.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Inglis, Jeff <JInglis@phx.com> wrote:
In your 12:21 pm message you finally boiled down your argument against Poliquin to this:

"He used public information to advertise himself for business/political/personal purposes."

You did too.

You used public information (the results of your FOAA request that included Poliquin's request for the email list) to advertise yourself (your point of view, your organization, your political cause) for business/political/personal purposes (to promote your perspective on both a potential candidate and an existing state law).

(Okay, I'll let you off the hook on "personal," but with the observation that I hear more about Poliquin from MM than I do from the man himself - which is damn hard to do.)

And you do this all the time - you make FOAA requests, receive the results, and do with them what you want to.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here. How is what Poliquin did something that we do all the time?

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Inglis, Jeff <JInglis@phx.com> wrote:
Let me summarize:

-You put out a press release accusing Poliquin of doing something you do all the time, including the exact same thing you did in order to discover and publicize his action.
-You claim that what he did is "abuse" of FOAA.
-You claim what you did is not.
-You say that releasing the 10,000 email list would be "wrong" - though not illegal (and it's clearly legal).
-You admit that Poliquin did not release the email list.

So what message was I supposed to get from the press release?

Right now I'm at:
Maine's Majority hates Poliquin so much it'll attack him for doing something MM does all the time, and is so out-of-its-head bothered by Poliquin's behavior that MM will attempt to take down Maine's open-government act in the process.

Somehow I think that's not the message you meant to send.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:
That's right - he has not.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Inglis, Jeff <JInglis@phx.com> wrote:
That's a fair point, and worth having a decent argument over. It's just not even close to what you said in the press release, or in any of our correspondence up until this very message. You also haven't claimed that Poliquin released the 10,000 email records to the public.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:
I do understand your point. I just think you're wrong. We released a public document consisting of an email from one public official to another. We did not release the 10,000 email records - which I do have in my possession. Releasing those records would have been wrong.

-------- Original message --------
From: "Inglis, Jeff" <JInglis@phx.com>
Date: 03/26/2013 12:32 (GMT-05:00)
To: Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org>
Subject: Re: PRESS RELEASE: Former Treasurer Poliquin abused Freedom of Access Act to obtain public list for personal use

My point is that you're trying to object to his actions on a principle so broad it indicts your own actions. (And if the legislature agreed with you, we'd have no more open government at all - because the government would always retain control what's done with its information.)

It's extremely simple: You "used public information to advertise (yourself/your organization/your point of view/your cause) for business/political/personal purposes."

You object to what he did, but depend on doing the exact same thing to make your objection. I simply fail to see the difference, and you haven't made it any clearer.

I think it would be equally interesting to see if a broad segment of the public thinks we should shut down government transparency in an attempt to remedy spam.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:
I don't know where you're going with this, Jeff, but I've already answered this question.

It's a good question, though, and I hope you're planning to write about it. It would be interesting to hear what a broad segment of the public thinks constitutes abuse of the FOAA.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Inglis, Jeff <JInglis@phx.com> wrote:
I'm not sure you did either of those things - given that responding to FOAA is hardly collusion.

But what you're suggesting is that people shouldn't be allowed to use public information for business/political/personal purposes. That's pretty broad. So what should they be allowed to use public information for?

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:
Really? We exposed the government's abuse of the public trust and collusion with big-monied outside interests. That's exactly what FOAA is for.

He used public information to advertise himself for business/political/personal purposes.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Inglis, Jeff <JInglis@phx.com> wrote:
Perhaps more succinctly: What do you see as the difference between what he did and what you did?

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Inglis, Jeff <JInglis@phx.com> wrote:
And so the legislature has. FOAA stands as it does, making both your actions and Poliquins perfectly legal and procedurally and morally defensible. (Private contracts with private companies aside.)

Your complaining about it fails my logic, as follows:

1. It has been for years - and is likely never to change - legal to get voter registration information from the government, and send to those addresses mailings for political purposes - whether from a campaign or a political-action committee, or even an elected official doing constituent mailings. (I'm pretty sure Maine's Majority has used this process, too.)

2. It is a long-standing principle of open government that requests must be granted without regard to the requester's purpose. Example 1: If you ask for your neighbor's property-tax record from town hall, you must get it, whether you intend to take out a newspaper ad claiming your neighbor is a freeloading crony of local politicos who gets a break on his taxes, or whether you are going to contest your own property-tax assessment based on information relating to your neighbor's property, or if you want to frame it and put it on your living-room wall. Example 2: If you ask for correspondence with a state agency or official, you must get it, regardless of whether you are going to publish it in print, post it online, issue a press release, or keep it in a safe-deposit box.

3. Poliquin asked for an email list, which is public record under FOAA. The government had to give it to him, and can place no restrictions on what he does now.

4. You asked for correspondence, which is public record under FOAA. The government had to give it to you, and could place no restrictions on what you do with it now.

5. You imply that the government should be unable to prevent you from doing what you did, but definitely claim that the government ought to stop him from doing what he did.

6. You fail to make a distinction between these two acts, which are, again, utterly identical in procedural, legal, and moral terms.

7. When offered a suggestion of a more nuanced problem you might use to refine your argument, you not only reject that argument - which is an issue of public debate - but reiterate your insistence that the government should somehow control information that is in the hands of the public (or perhaps condition release of public information on the intent of the requester).

8. When asked for a means by which that could happen, you defer to the body that created the provisions you object to.

What am I missing?

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:
I'll let the Legislature write the laws.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Inglis, Jeff <JInglis@phx.com> wrote:
Okay, so what do you think should or shouldn't be allowed? And how would that be enforced?

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:
I don't have a problem with the public having access to personal information. I have a problem with the notion that it's OK for the public to do whatever they want with that information.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Inglis, Jeff <JInglis@phx.com> wrote:
What you seem to be saying suggests that my guess was right - your concern is not about abuse of FOAA, but rather about public access to personally identifying information, some of which has for many years been available through FOAA, with no problems.

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, you want to be able to continue to do what you did - ask a government agency for correspondence (including with private citizens), get that information unredacted, and announce to the public that a specific person, whose name you use, has done something or other.

That's exactly what you did. But the way you constructed your release suggested that you want to outlaw doing that exact thing - because you claimed that taking a government response to an FOAA request and using it for whatever you wanted should be prosecuted. Contrary to the language of your release, I think you and I agree that it's simply not an abuse of FOAA to use public information for your own gains.

If your concern is that Poliquin can get people's email addresses in bulk from the state, that's something very different than saying the government should have control over what the public does with public records that have been released.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:
Maybe we just live in different worlds, or maybe we just disagree. A lot of people I talk with are furious that the BDN tried to publish the names of concealed weapons permit holders. It doesn't matter that the BDN expressly said it wouldn't do this; the fact is that they could have, and that was enough for people. So, in that respect, at least part of FOAA now has a bad name. We're now likely going to lose the ability to verify that there aren't any felons running around out there with concealed handguns, because the public is afraid that information will be misused.

It seems that your point is that it's a necessary consequence of open government that your name can wind up in the paper or on an ex-treasurer's email list. It's a fair point. I simply disagree. I think we can make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate use of FOAA data, and that they way to strengthen the legitimate uses is to denounce the illegitimate uses.

It's the same thing with SPAM. The law allows you to buy lists, harvest email addresses from web sites, etc. You can send these folks an individual email or compare them with your own list. But as soon as you send them a bulk email asking them to buy something you're on the hook for big penalties. That's a legal distinction between a legitimate and in illegitimate use of information. We can do the same with the FOAA.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Inglis, Jeff <JInglis@phx.com> wrote:
Since when does open government have a bad name? People give themselves bad names. Open government is an admirable concept. And almost never are open-government rules given criminal penalties - they're civil violations at best.

But where I'm really running into confusion is with your apparent idea that the government should (or even can) control what members of the public do with information they have in their possession.

The whole point of open government is so people can get information about their government. What they do with it, and why they ask for it, is not in the purview of open-government principles. In fact, it's counter to the ideal. If the government is going to prevent someone from disseminating, analyzing, or otherwise using the results of open-government requests, then how exactly is government open? ("We'll tell you how many people we're abusing in prison, but you can't tell anyone else?" That's the opposite of the point.)

I can't believe you're intentionally advocating that the government exercise prior restraint on use of public information. It strikes me as against your goals, and your group's goals, as well as being mutually exclusive.

What if, for example, a person or group were allowed to ask for FOAA requests made by others, and the government says "We have to give it to you, but you are forbidden from telling others. They all have to ask individually for exactly the same thing." Your press release would vaporize, as a violation of the law. What you're claiming to want to outlaw is something you did in getting this information, something you do all the time, something news organizations and members of the public do constantly, and is in fact the reality of open government: Once information it out of government's hands, its dissemination and use is no longer under government control.

If I try to imagine what you might actually mean, I wonder if you are somehow trying to argue for protecting some types of personal information when it's in the government's hands - but that's a very different thing than suggesting someone who asks for information from the government should be restricted in how they use it.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:
They exist so the public can ensure that government is doing its job, not so aspiring piblic officials can build their email lists. I would love to see the law changed so we can prosecute people who do what Poliquin did. He gives open government a bad name.

-------- Original message --------
From: "Inglis, Jeff" <JInglis@phx.com>
Date: 03/26/2013 09:35 (GMT-05:00)
To: Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org>
Subject: Re: PRESS RELEASE: Former Treasurer Poliquin abused Freedom of Access Act to obtain public list for personal use

He may well have violated terms of a private agreement with a private company. That's not my beef - and it doesn't seem to be yours, either, from the release.

You're claiming it's an "abuse" of open-government laws for a requester to get information from the government and use it for whatever the requester wants.

Problem is, there's no other purpose of open-government laws - they exist so that people can ask questions of their government and get answers, and then publicize those answers, for whatever purpose the requester has.

Go ahead and shout about him breaking the rules of Constant Contact. Nobody cares, and you know that - which is why you made the release sound like he had misused open-government laws, when he used them exactly properly. And so did you, in announcing to people that he did this. The issue comes when you call both of those things - which are procedurally, legally, and morally identical - "abuse."

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:
He's going to lose his Constant Contact account over this. I'll take my chances with the court of public opinion.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Inglis, Jeff <JInglis@phx.com> wrote:
If it's "abuse" to make FOAA requests and use the resulting information for whatever your private purposes are, you're as guilty as Poliquin. Which, by the way, is not guilty of anything at all.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:
And your job? Pretending that abuse doesn't happen because you're afraid of the consequences? The only reason why we know he did this is that we were obtained his request through another FOAA request. The system works. Go write that story.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Inglis, Jeff <JInglis@phx.com> wrote:
Sucks that your job is weakening open government.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff... I really don't care. This is my job.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Inglis, Jeff <JInglis@phx.com> wrote:
Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris -

It's a VERY slippery and dangerous slope to try to start dictating what can and can't be done with public records after they're released to the public. Please don't weaken Maine's existing open-government laws further by pursuing this.

Jeff

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Chris Korzen <chris@mainesmajority.org> wrote:

For Immediate Release
March 26, 2013

Contact:
Chris Korzen
207-358-9731
chris@mainesmajority.org

Former Treasurer Bruce Poliquin abused Freedom of Access Act to obtain public list for personal use

Portland – In February 2013, mass emails from a personal account of former state treasurer and U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Poliquin began inexplicably turning up in some Mainers' inboxes. A Maine's Majority investigation has determined that Poliquin obtained the emails through a Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) request, and subsequently used this public information for his own personal gain.

In the early hours of December 9, 2012, Poliquin submitted an FOAA request to the Treasurer's office for “a copy of all email and other addresses used in the Office of the State Treasurer's Outreach Program.” In response, he received 10,742 email addresses. Five days earlier, the legislature had confirmed Neria Douglass to succeed Poliquin, effectively ending his tenure as treasurer.

Some two months later, Mr. Poliquin began sending bulk emails to the owners of those addresses through a Constant Contact email marketing system. The emails are political in nature (titled, for example, "How to Fix Maine's Ongoing Budget Crisis”) and point recipients toward a brucepoliquin.net web site.

“Although Mr. Poliquin legally obtained his former office's email records, his personal use of this public information constitutes a blatant abuse of the Freedom of Access Act,” said Maine's Majority executive director Chris Korzen. “Poliquin is clearly trying to set himself up for a future election bid, and he's now using state resources to build his communications infrastructure. He should stop using this publicly-owned email list immediately.”

Ironically, at least one influential Maine Republican appears to agree. Earlier this month, Sportsman's Alliance of Maine director and former state representative David Trahan told the Maine Heritage Policy Center's Maine Wire blog, “FOAA was designed for citizens to keep government in line, not for political targeting.”

While Poliquin does not appear to have broken any laws, he has likely violated Constant Contact's Anti-Spam policy, which requires users to obtain informed consent from recipients before sending bulk email.

###

Do your part to protect old homes' history

Jeff Inglis — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:59:00 GMT

Got an old house? Or just like digging through history? Check out the Old House Trade Show this weekend at the Holiday Inn by the Bay on Spring Street in Portland.

Put together by Greater Portland Landmarks, the show gets historic restorers, tradespeople, and craftsmen and -women together with owners of older homes to talk about how to keep things working to modern standards while following the historic aesthetics that are so well-loved.

There will be demonstrations, opportunities to ask experts about the weirdo problems that only your house probably has, and all kinds of opportunities to talk with other owners and workers who love old houses as much as you do.

It's a cool way to help preserve history, and GPL are a pretty good group, working to protect Portland's architectural history. It's just $12, and you can buy tickets online at portlandlandmarks.org.

The show runs from 10 am to 5 pm Saturday, and 10 am to 4 pm Sunday. (A $12 ticket, which you can buy online at portlandlandmarks.org, is good for both days. And there's a $2 discount if you buy by tomorrow - Wednesday!)

Transgender kids' rights in court

Deirdre Fulton — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:27:00 GMT

Even as a similar case unfolds in Colorado, the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders filed an appeal brief last week in the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of a "a transgender teen girl whose Orono, Maine elementary and middle schools removed her from the girls’ restroom because of her transgender status and forced her to use a staff-only, non-communal restroom in isolation from her peers."

In November 2012, a judge found in favor of the Orono schools, stating that the school "did not itself harass" the student [referred to in court documents as Susan Doe], nor did it show "deliberate indifference" toward the girl's harassment by other students.

GLAD claims that "Susan's exclusion from the shared girls’ restroom made her feel isolated and abnormal...It called into question the legitimacy and acceptability of her female gender identity by the very people—school personnel—upon whom she had relied to affirm it in the educational environment. The exclusion from the girls’ restroom increased Susan’s anxiety, which interferes with learning."

According to the appeal, "Susan Doe is exactly the person the legislature intended to integrate seamlessly into the mainstream life of a school when it
amended the [Maine Human Rights Act] in 2005 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of a person's sexual orientation, which includes a person's gender identity. Everyone in the school-peers, teachers, administrators-knew her to be a girl. The plain language of the MHRA's gender identity provisions
prohibits a school from treating a transgender girl differently from all other girls. It reflects the legislature's determination that a transgender
girl, such as Susan Doe, cannot receive equal access to an education unless she is treated the same as every other girl in all aspects of school
life."

Phoenix reporting lauded in Columbia Journalism Review

Jeff Inglis — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:15:00 GMT

The Portland Phoenix's seven-years-and-counting series by Lance Tapley on torture in Maine's prison, most especially including conditions in solitary confinement, has gotten national recognition in an article that's part of the Columbia Journalism Review's most recent cover package on "race, class, and the media."

The whole package is well worth a read, including pieces on improving coverage in an America that has changed well beyond what the mainstream media represents, and using data to find crime - and prosecution - trends. The specific article talking about the Phoenix's series is by James Ridgeway, a longtime reporter who has spent most of the past three years covering prisons. He is also co-founder of SolitaryWatch, which specifically covers solitary confinement around the US. (Its tagline is "news from a nation in lockdown.")

The piece holds up the Phoenix as one of a handful of publications that have persevered at prison reporting, even in the face of official resistance - which is common, and often strong.

We are, as you might expect, very proud of our work and of Lance Tapley's dedication to, and persistence at, shining lights into these terribly dark places - oft-hidden wings of buildings that are themselves frequently placed out of the way and off-limits to the public.

Ridgeway's piece on covering solitary confinement - and an accompanying piece by Beth Schwartzapfel on prison coverage generally - offers a great deal of national context about the challenges faced by those who seek truth in those places where government power is exercised most directly, and most severely. We are honored to be among those recognized in this national forum.

Reclaim Colby honors the college's 200th anniversary by speaking out

Jeff Inglis — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:03:00 GMT

The link below is to a video produced by a student group called Reclaim Colby. It shows students interrupting the college's official February 27 ceremonial celebration of its 200th anniversary in the school's chapel. When college president William "Bro" Adams finishes his speech, student government vice president Kareem Kalil walks to the podium to introduce the (unplanned) student speakers, to the cheers of students sitting in a block of red t-shirts.

Sally Baker, Colby vice president, tries to block Kalil from the podium. Four students rush the podium and begin speaking. Baker continues to try to disrupt the disruption, at one point asking the chorus to sing.

The Colby officials walk out. The protesting students speak about such subjects as the burden of student debt and the lack of student diversity.

Lance Tapley

Here's the video (sorry - embedding seems to be disabled so you have to click through).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrS9O6VaXG4

A spot of good news for groundfishermen

Deirdre Fulton — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:37:00 GMT

Those who read my story last week about groundfishing (or perhaps you saw Jeff and I talking about it on WCSH's 207 program) know that the men and women who catch cod, haddock, flounder, and other bottom-feeding fish are facing hard times.

They've finally gotten a glimmer of good news. At the Maine Fishermen's Forum, taking place now in Rockport, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association announced they WILL (probably) pay for the cost of at-sea monitoring starting May 1. Such monitoring is in place to ensure that fishermen catch and report their harvests according to existing fishery regulations.

According to a release from Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, who signed a letter last month asking that NOAA shoulder at least some of these costs, the announcement is still contingent on other factors.

"It's not a firm commitment from NOAA but this is a good step in the right direction. I'm going to keep urging them to follow through and pay for these expenses," Pingree said. "With costs of things like fuel continuing to go up and the quotas fishermen are getting going down, it's just becoming harder and harder to make ends meet and the last thing they need is to have to pay the costs of federal monitoring," Pingree said.

NOAA officials told Pingree today that they think they will beable to cover at-sea monitoring costs during the upcoming fishing season, but did leave open the possibility of not paying for all the expenses because of uncertainties relating to the mandatory budget cuts associated with the sequester.

So you wanna buy a railroad?

Deirdre Fulton — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:17:00 GMT

A friend just brought my attention this incredible Craigslist posting: Basically, if you've got $225,000 (less than many houses), you could soon be the owner of the City Point Central Railroad Museum, which includes numerous antique railroad cars, several buildings, and a 4.6-acre lot close to the Belfast coast. "Amazing opportunity for the creative thinker," the ad reads.

According to information online, the museum is located in the building that was originally the Corinna Station House. "We moved it here from Corinna on a flat bed truck. We have many railroad cars, cabooses, a section house, Belfast Moosehead Lake Railroad engine #51 and a A-4 Gang Car on the premises. We also have one of the largest collection of photographs of the Belfast & Mooshead Lake Railroad that has been collected by four generations of the Page family."

A little research suggests that the property has been on the market before, and that $225,000 is a reduced price. Now's the time, folks!

What Maine stands to lose if sequestration occurs

Deirdre Fulton — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:53:00 GMT

According to the White House Press Office, "the sequester" -- the series of automatic domestic and military cuts set to go into effect on March 1 (four days from today, for those without calendars) -- will impact Maine in many ways, including:

Maine will lose about $2.7 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting about 40 teacher and aide jobs at risk.
Approximately 50 fewer low-income students will get financial aid for college and about 60 fewer students will get work-study jobs to help them pay for college.
The state stands to lose about $1.4 million in environmental funding for clean air and water; plus almost $500,000 in grants for fish and wildlife protection.
Up to 100 fewer domestic violence victims will be served if Maine loses up to $28,000 in funds for services to victims of assault and abuse.
Losses of about $400,000 in the public health arena could mean 800 fewer admissions to substance-abuse programs and 1500 fewer HIV tests.
A $200,000 reduction in nutrition assistance means fewer meals for senior citizens.

On top of these state-specific cuts, the White House warns of slashed budgets nationwide for health research projects, small business loans, transition assistance for veterans, preschool programs (like Head Start), and homeless and emergency shelters.

Gulf of Maine groundfish, chorizo and white bean stew

Jeff Inglis — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:10:00 GMT

To go with our groundfish issue this week, closing out our February Feast, we offer this recipe, from Christine Burns Rudalevidge, a Brunswick-area chef and food writer. Enjoy!

Serves 4

In the wake of the cod fishery management changes handed down by regulators last month, lovers of the New England seafood staple will need to look to other ground fish in the Gulf of Maine to satisfy their craving for cod. Luckily for eaters living adjacent to the Gulf of Maine, using haddock, hake, pollock and even farmed cobia in a pinch as a substitute for cod in most beloved recipes is an easy stretch of the imagination. This recipe plays on the classic Spanish tradition of a hearty white fish, spicy chorizo and white beans. It's a complete meal, completed in one pan and leftovers heat up really well. -- Christine Burns Rudalevige

Ingredients

4, 6-ounce groundfish fillets (loin cuts if possible)

Salt and pepper

2 Tablespoons olive oil

½ cup chopped Spanish chorizo (take care to remove the casings before chopping the cured sausage)

1 cup chopped sweet onion

1 cup chopped celery or fennel

4 garlic cloves, sliced thinly

1 cup fish stock (maybe more)

½ cup dry white wine

1 Tablespoon fresh thyme leaves

1 pint cherry or grape tomatoes

2 cups cooked white beans

Directions

Dry the fillets with a paper towel and season them on both sides with salt and pepper. Take a good look at the fillets and figure out which side used to have the skin.

In a large skillet with a cover, get the olive oil pretty hot. Place the fish into the pan with the side that used to have the skin on it facing up. Cook the fillets on medium high heat until they pick up some caramelized color (2-4 minutes). Gingerly remove the fillets (they are only partially cooked at this point) from the pan and set them aside on a plate.

Add the chorizo to the pan and let it cook until it renders its fat and signature pimento orangey-red color. Add onions and celery (or fennel) to the pan and sauté until they start to soften (3-4 minutes). Add garlic slices and thyme leaves. Once you start to smell both, add broth and wine. Partially cover the pan and braise the mixture to further soften the vegetables. After about 4 minutes, add in the cherry tomatoes and let them cook with the stew until they start to split their skins (about 3-4 minutes).

Stir in the cooked beans and nestle the fish fillets into the stew, taking care to keep the caramelized tops above water. If the level of broth in the pan does not reach 2/3rds the way up the fillets, add more stock until it does. Let the stew simmer until the fish is cooked through.

Dish up the hot stew in wide bowls and serve it with crusty bread.

Variations on the groundfish stew theme

To bump up the seafood quotient, add 16 clams at the same time you add the fish to the stew.
To give the dish an Italian bent, use hot Italian sausage instead of chorizo, stir a tablespoon of tomato paste into the braised vegetables, double the stock and the wine and stir in ½ pound of al dente pasta 2-3 minutes before serving. Finish the dish with ¼ cup of chopped Italian parsley.
To make a fish curry, ditch the sausage altogether, swap out the tomatoes in favor of sliced red peppers, use a cup of light coconut milk and a tablespoons of red or green curry paste in place of the wine, use black beans instead of white ones, drop in 8 large shrimp when you add the fish to the stew, and garnish with chopped cilantro.

Food Law Conference this weekend at USM

Deirdre Fulton — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:37:00 GMT

Just slightly too late for the Phoenix's February Food Feast coverage (don't worry, we're sending someone anyway), this weekend's food law colloquium at Portland High School (Local Food || Global Food: Do We Have What It Takes to Reinvent the U.S. Food System?) will tackle topics as diverse as genetically modified organisms, "frankenfish," obesity prevention, and taking a "Moneyball" approach to meeting global food demand.

Download draft essays here; and check next week's Phoenix for full coverage. Or get yourself up to speed by reading relevant articles we've published on the local food sovereignty movement and the Maine farmer who's fighting GMOs in court.

And if you want to attend, here's the info from USM's website:

Join the Maine Law Review for a lively food law and policy discussion on Saturday, February 23, 2013, 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM in the Portland High School auditorium (284 Cumberland Avenue, Portland, Maine). This event will bring together more than a dozen legal scholars from around the country to debate the future of the U.S. food system, including:

(1) The problems with the federal approach to food regulation, and proposed fixes;

(2) The challenges facing food sovereignty and food choice movements; and

(3) Emerging food trends, and how governments should respond.

The day-long event is open to the public, and a locally-sourced lunch will be provided by Rosemont Market for $10.