Snow Day Legislative Update

While Mainers were digging out from yet another snowstorm, podcast hosts Rebecca Lambert and Amanda Campbell provided updates on several legislative initiatives.  Their discussion covered  proposals seeking to establish a recall process for school board members (LD 849); protecting the safety of certain judiciary and state and federal officials (LD 2121); amending the process for revoking a code enforcement officer’s state certification (LD 2097); and repealing the requirement that the state provide GA administrators access to a database necessary to determine applicant eligibility (LD 1996).  Listen now. 

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

 Welcome everyone to Potholes & Politics, Local Maine Issues from A to Z. I'm your co-host Rebecca Lambert, and with me as always is my amazing colleague, Amanda Campbell. 

Good morning, Rebecca. Thanks everybody for listening. We got a decent amount of snow in Bath. I hope everybody listening is safe at home today. And, listening to us chat about the legislature is a great way to spend some time with a warm cup of cocoa after shoveling the driveway. 

Yes, it is. Thanks everyone for listening to our podcast. Our last episode highlighted the first week in the legislature and for the foreseeable future, allof these episodes will cover the topics of municipal interest that have come to light in the second regular session of the 132nd legislature.

If you missed our previous episode, please consider checking it out and while you're there, also consider liking and subscribing to our podcast. Doing this will notify you when a new episode drops so you won't miss any of the information that we have for you. 

That's right. And don't forget, our legislative bulletin is also a great place to get information on what's happening at the State House.

It's also worth mentioning again that all carryover bills from the first session have been set to be reported out of committee by the end of January. That means those committees have been working hard to meet that deadline by scheduling work sessions and public hearings at a dizzying pace. 

Dizzying for sure.

Speaking of carryover bills one such bill had a work session in the State and Local Government committee on January 14th. LD 849, An Act to Establish a Recall Process for Public School Board Members, sponsored by Representative Sayre of Kennebunk. As the bill title suggests, this bill would establish a recall process in statute for school board members. 

From the view of MMAs LPC, this bill would step on local decision-making authority since the control of who fills school board seats is up to the local voters in any given community. During the work session committee members, and I actually, learned that there are some towns and cities in Maine who already have addressed school board recall provisions in their charters or ordinances.

As many of our listeners know, there's a process to undertake when changing a charter or updating an ordinance, and if this bill passed, it would mean that those communities who have already attempted to address this issue would potentially have to update their charter or ordinance if it was out of alignment with a new state law.

The committee stepped away from the horseshoe for a brief corner caucus, and when they came back, an amendment was offered that would carve out an exemption for those communities who have addressed school board recalls in their charters. This received support from committee members but ultimately was reported out with a divided report.

The minority report also included the amendment but expanded that exemption to include communities who have addressed school board recall provisions in their charter or in their ordinances. 

That sounds like a decent minority report, especially since so many people already have this sort of provision, adopted by their local voters. So, we'll see how that goes. 

Yeah. I found that interesting that some have already addressed it and if they've already addressed it, they've already put that work in, so it would make sense to carve out those communities who have already put in that local work. 

I would agree. So, the Health and Human Services Committee had a work session, uh, last Thursday for LD 1416, An Act to Require the Department of Health and Human Services to Immediately Take Custody of Persons Sentenced to a Mental Health Facility that May Not Include County or Regional Jails.

This bill, sponsored by Senator Talbot Ross, aims to prevent incarcerated pretrial inmates who may be suffering from mental illness, from languishing in a jail rather than a facility suited to best meet their needs. From what we can tell this is aimed primarily at detainees who have been removed from a county placement for psychiatric observation by the state forensic service but are then returned to jail while awaiting trial.

Sheriff Morton from Penobscot County explained that county jails simply are not the appropriate facility for these individuals, who need and deserve appropriate medical treatment that cannot be adequately or appropriately provided in a jail setting. During the interim, a working group convened to address this issue and potentially bring back an amendment, which they did.

The amendment removed the references to the exclusion of county jails but would direct an official commission to study the placement of certain individuals sentenced to mental health facilities, essentially providing a legislative directive to continue the work of the interim group. The amendment also made changes to DHHS communications and the timeline for the transfer of a defendant who presents a likelihood of serious harm.

This bill was tabled, with committee members needing more information than the scheduled time would allow. And just a quick note, MMA cares about this policy because, well, humans should be treated with respect no matter their circumstances, but also because of the significant property tax implications of county jails operating like hospitals.

There's no schedule yet for the next work session, which without permission from leadership for it to occur after January 30th, will have to happen soon. 

That's right. This is the last week of January, so time is definitely running short.

In the Judiciary committee on Tuesday, January 20th, they held a public hearing for a newly printed bill, LD 2121, An Act to Enhance the Safety of Judicial and Elected Officials, Constitutional Officers, and the State Auditor by Allowing Certain Personal Information to be Removed from Designated Public Records. And that's sponsored by Representative Faircloth of Bangor. This bill proposes to make confidential certain information that includes residential addresses for the following officials: any active, formerly active or retired judicial officer, member of Congress, state legislator, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer of the State, or the State Auditor. The provisions of the bill would be administered by the Secretary of State's office, and a new office would be created called the Office of Information Privacy. The director of the new office would be responsible for approving the request through an electronic portal that would also be created as part of this bill.

The LPC was opposed to this bill and mainly concerned with the administrative burden that this would place on Maine towns and cities since they would be responsible for reviewing and redacting the information, responding to the opt-in or opt-out requests from the new office, updating databases, training staff, and ensuring continued compliance.

The bill does not account for additional funding to cover these costs, so it could be viewed as an unfunded mandate as well. 

Proponents of the bill included the judicial branch and the Secretary of State's office. The judicial branch noted in their testimony that they're working with stakeholders and the analyst on an amendment that they're hoping to have ready for the work session but did request some time to work on it.

It was also mentioned that some other states have used a third-party platform to help with the redaction process and help alleviate the administrative burden that this bill would place on communities. When MMA provided our testimony in opposition, we were asked to gather feedback on how our LPC members feel about having a third party perform the redaction process, and if it would change their opinion on the bill.

We're working on gathering that feedback for them. And as a reminder to any LPC members listening, you have until this Wednesday, January 28th to respond to that feedback request. 

Other opposition on this bill came from the Penobscot County Register of Deeds, who shares MMAs concern about the administrative burden this would create, a work session has not yet been scheduled for this bill, so keep an eye on the schedule for that one.

On Thursday of last week, also, the Housing and Economic Development Committee held a public hearing on LD 2097, which is An Act to Modify the Law Governing Revocation of a Code Enforcement Officer’s Certification. Sponsored by Representative Gere from Kennebunkport, on behalf of the Maine Office of Community Affairs or MOCA.

The bill proposes to amend the process for revoking a code enforcement officer's state certification by shifting the authority from the district court to the MOCA director or to a five-member complaint review committee whose members are appointed by that director. MMA not only opposed this bill but reminded the committee that CEOs are in desperate need of continuing education and support.

It feels sort of wrong to discipline folks who aren't being provided with the training and education they need to effectively do their jobs. Luckily, MMA has a cooperative relationship with MOCA and with the Maine Building Officials and Inspectors Association, all of whom will be meeting prior to the work session to draft potential amendments and provide responses to training related questions that came from the committee.

Also in the housing realm, there was a work session held for LD 1926, An Act to Require Increased Housing Density or Lower Minimum Lot Sizes for Workforce Housing sponsored by Representative Stover of Boothbay. This is a carryover bill and one that has raised concern because it's an attempt to bring one size fits all solutions as a way to increase housing production. According to our colleague Tanya, who's the lead on these issues, the work session was quite technical and pretty intense. Representative Gere has been a champion for LD 1926, so it was shocking when she made a motion of ought not to pass. Between sessions, MMA's LPC formed a housing subcommittee and met with Representative Gere several times to discuss concerns from both sides of the debate.

In her motion, she acknowledged that the issue is complicated and that with all the other things being handed down by the state, this bill would be hard for communities to digest. One committee member advanced an ought to pass as amended report that would incorporate the bill sponsor’s changes and changes made by the Maine Real Estate Development Association.

This is a key initiative of the Maine Real Estate Development Association, so it's expected that supporters of the bill will be working hard to garner the votes that they need, so it's for that reason that it would be helpful for members to contact your legislators and discuss why an ought not to pass majority report should be moved forward. 

Definitely a good time to use your local voice. And, later this week, another opportunity to use your local voice. The HHS committee will be hearing LD 1996, An Act to Clarify Responsibilities of the State in the Laws Governing General Assistance. This is a department bill, which as drafted, would repeal all statutory language that references the statewide database that MMA has been advocating for.

There will be several GA stakeholders at the hearing, testifying in opposition to this bill, MMA included. We'll also be offering an amendment to amend the implementation date of the database rather than repealing the language altogether. 

It'd be really unfortunate to have that go away completely, especially when so many stakeholders have said what a good idea this is.

Absolutely. There are technological advances happening across policy areas, and this is one that has been asked for over and over and over again to benefit this program and, for it to go away would just be really, really sad. 

Tragic. 

Two public hearings were scheduled for newly printed bills on January 21st in the State and Local Government committee.

The first was LD 2009, An Act to Allow a Political Subdivision to Enter into Federal Bankruptcy, sponsored by Senator Moore of Washington County. This bill would allow a municipality or county to file for bankruptcy when certain conditions have been met. MMAs LPC is opposed to this bill on the basis that it undermines the long-term stability of local government.

As written about in our legislative bulletin this week, no one was in the room to support the bill, but looking at the testimony online, it appears to have gained support from the Maine Policy Institute who view this bill a tool for counties and municipalities. 

Those in opposition included MMA, the Maine County Commissioners Association, Maine Bankers Association, and Maine Public Employees Retirement System.

The other bill heard in this committee last Wednesday was LD 2042, An Act to Eliminate the Requirement for Municipalities to Provide Notice in a Newspaper, sponsored by Senator Black of Franklin County. This proposal has come up before and would remove the requirement from municipalities to publish a public notice in a newspaper, allowing them to use other means of communication.

The notices would need to contain the same information that was previously required to be published in the newspaper, and the LPC does support this bill. Opposition came from the press and newspaper outlets as expected, and also the Maine Broadband Coalition whose concern is that not all Mainers have access to the internet or even use it at times. So, they suggested waiting until every Mainer has access before making this change. 

A work session has not been scheduled for this either, so keep an eye on the schedule.  

This morning, a snowy Monday, the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee was scheduled to hear a presentation from the County Corrections Professional Standards Council, discussing several county jail policies, including reporting to the department, unfunded mandates and funding.

The report comes from LD 719, which was a resolve from the first session, directing the council to review those policies and the work that the council has done, both in response to the resolve and as part of their statutory duties. In the end, it all comes down to money and the jails need more. And it's likely that that presentation will be rescheduled for next week.

While MMA was soliciting members to serve on the council, I had the pleasure of sitting in. And so I've learned a lot about jails in a short amount of time, and members may be asking why the advocacy staff cares about county jails, and I can tell you why in two words, property taxes.  It is through this lens that we have started analyzing county operations and how their costs impact ours.

It's been quite an education, which will continue later this week when I attend the Maine County Commissioner's Association meeting, being held at the Somerset County Jail. We're getting a tour and everything.  

That's exciting. In college, I had a tour of the women's prison in Windham, so I can't wait to hear about your experience with the jail tour. 

Yeah, I'm very, I'm very excited for this. 

On Wednesday, January 21st, the judiciary committee held a work session on the carryover bill LD 1788, An Act to Strengthen the Freedom of Access Act by Categorizing Commercial Requesters, sponsored by Representative Henderson of Rumford. The bill sponsor presented the bill at a public hearing on May 2nd, 2025, and aims to categorize FOAA requests in a manner similar to the federal government whose process allows for flexibility to prioritize and manage requests.

The LPC supported this bill, but at the work session, after the analyst provided her summary, Representative Henderson asked the committee to vote ought not to pass on this bill since she doesn't feel it's ready to move forward. She did say she is still passionate about the subject and gave the example that not only are commercial requests a burden, but counties are receiving FOAA requests for information typically found during discovery of court cases, and that winds up being a duplication of work for the counties. The cost of which falls to, you guessed it, the property taxpayer. 

And, last but not least, the HHS committee is holding an additional public hearing this week for LD 2105, An Act to Update Maine's Mandated Reporting Laws, sponsored by Representative Meyer from Elliot. While the change in statute is likely intended to improve outcomes for Maine's children, the prescribed list of people who are currently considered mandated reporters has been eliminated and replaced with a broad allowance of people who interact with children as part of their daily professional lives.

For the purposes of municipal officials, this could essentially be everyone. And since there would be new mandatory trainings involved, our testimony will ask for the list to be amended with a bit more detail. 

Details definitely matter. 

The devil is in the details. 

Sure is. Phew!  And that was just a sample of what we'd been up to.

Thankfully on this lovely snowy day, the legislature took a snow day too, which gives our team a little bit of time to catch up with ourselves. Take breath. Been a busy couple of, uh, beginning weeks to this legislative session, so we're thankful for a snow day. 

Yes, snow days are wonderful.

Well, that's gonna do it for this episode of Potholes and Politics. I hope you found this information helpful, and we appreciate your support. Thanks for listening. 

Yeah, thanks everybody. Enjoy this great snow day and stay safe out there.