House censures Auburn representative Lawmakers debate possibility of political motivation in action against Michael

loading...

AUGUSTA – As Rep. John Michael stood alone in front of the House speaker’s rostrum Thursday to be penalized with an unprecedented censure, the two female legislators he verbally abused watched from the balcony.

Sens. Peggy Pendleton, D-Scarborough, and Neira Douglass, D-Auburn, said they would accept the independent Auburn state representative’s apology. But neither pretended to be comfortable with the man who has become synonymous with resorting to the wrong choice of words in legislative discourse.

“I will request security if he appears before my committee,” said Douglass, who serves as chairwoman of the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee.

“I’m weighing the same option,” said Pendleton, who is chairwoman of the State and Local Government Committee. “There are women on my committee who are afraid of him.”

After an hour of debate, members of the House voted 137-8 to impose the House Ethics Committee’s unanimous censure recommendation. The penalties required Michael to stand before House Speaker Michael V. Saxl, D-Portland, who pronounced the censure as “a publicly recorded act” to be entered into the House journal. As an additional penalty for the profane epithets he screamed at Douglass and Pendleton, Michael apologized Thursday to both women, the residents of his House District and “the people of the state of Maine.”

Michael has apologized several times since the Jan. 25 incident, but has often followed the apologies with explanations or qualifications, including one occasion last week when he apologized from the floor of the House.

Only two weeks before Thursday’s history-making event, witnesses watched as Michael followed Pendleton from the House to the Senate Democratic offices, screaming “the f word” and declaring that she had “no balls.” When Douglass attempted to intervene on Pendleton’s behalf, witnesses said Michael turned his rage toward her.

The incident began over a dispute on the referencing of several bills sponsored by Michael. The representative wanted his bill routed to the State and Local Government Committee on which he serves. Instead, the bills were referenced to the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee where Michael was certain they would be dead on arrival.

Michael said Pendleton came to the House and accused him of not taking appropriate action to keep the bills within the State and Local Government Committee. Michael denied responsibility for losing the bills and accused Pendleton of allowing the legislation to be routed to Legal and Veterans Affairs in the Senate without fighting for them. The 52-year-old registered nurse said she was frightened by her encounter with Michael whom she described as “enraged” and “intimidating.”

Politically motivated?

A former Democrat, Michael became a pariah within his party when he led the fight to remove former House Speaker John L. Martin, D-Eagle Lake, in 1993. He dropped his party status, dropped out of the Legislature and became an advocate for term limits through a citizen’s initiative. He defeated a Democratic incumbent by more than 800 votes last fall to regain his House seat and later remarked that he might try a run for the Senate in two years.

Michael said he had heard his remark didn’t sit well with Douglass, who would be his opponent if he chose to run for the Senate. When he learned his bills were referenced to the committee that Douglass chairs, Michael said he knew his legislation would never be given serious consideration because majority Democrats in the House wanted him out.

That belief, coupled with his knowledge of a physical altercation between two Democratic state representatives in 1997, led Michael to charge at one point that the censure proceedings against him Thursday were politically motivated. Four years ago, House leadership did not convene an Ethics Committee probe to deal with an incident that involved one female legislator who grabbed another by the back of the neck in anger. At that time, a simple apology from the floor of the House by the offending lawmaker sufficed.

Rep. Susan Kasprzak, R-Newport, was one of the eight lawmakers to oppose the censure finding – largely on political grounds.

“I think they went overboard today,” she said. “He had already apologized before. I think there should be justice for all or justice for none. Nothing was done in 1997 and there have been other incidents that people aren’t aware of. This was all politics and the Democrats used John Michael to retaliate for his acts in the past – both inside and outside the House.”

But Ethics Committee Chairwoman Elizabeth Watson, D-Farmingdale, vigorously defended her panel’s findings and rejected statements from those who said similar incidents had taken place in the past. Watson said efforts to diminish Michael’s conduct on such grounds brought “dishonor on all of us.” She also vehemently denied that partisan politics played any role in the findings of the committee, comprised of four Republicans and four Democrats.

“Our committee acted unanimously in each of the several votes we took,” she said. “We together have made this judgment. To suggest otherwise is reprehensible.”

Mob vengeance

Some lawmakers said they felt sorry for Michael, who was depicted as the victim of mob vengeance. Rep. Joanne T. Twomey, D-Biddeford, said she didn’t condone Michael’s actions but wanted to help him just the same. In a convoluted soliloquy, she likened the representative’s plight to Christ on the cross and Jews who were gassed during the Holocaust while mobs demanded retribution. Twomey said she would have stood up to those trying to crucify Jesus Christ and opposed efforts to annihilate the Jews. Then she voted to censure Michael.

“Rep. Michael, I’m sorry for whatever’s happened to you in your life and I’m sorry that you have to go through this,” she said. “I’m sorry you did it, but I’m here to help and offer a helping hand.”

But another Democratic lawmaker from Biddeford didn’t agree with Twomey. Rep. Nancy B. Sullivan said she believed the punishment meted out to Michael didn’t go far enough. Sullivan linked Michael’s actions with domestic abuse by saying that physical violence “begins with words.”

“We must realize that [our vote] carries more implications,” she said.

Rep. Lois Snowe-Mello, R-Poland Spring, said her seatmates were using Michael as “a scapegoat” and suggested Pendleton should have used better judgment in dealing with the Auburn independent. But Ethics Committee member Rep. Patricia Jacobs, D-Turner, countered that Michael was responsible for his behavior and had in fact “shamed every one of us.”

“Don’t ever forget that whatever you do is like a stone being dropped in a pool of water and it spreads and it spreads,” she said. “It must be stopped at the source. We do not feel the representative should be ostracized, but should be helped and that is what we did.”

No counseling mandate

Yet the committee’s recommendation did not mandate help for Michael. The House voted to encourage, but not require, Michael to seek professional counseling in anger management for what the Ethics Committee described as “a pattern” of angry behavior. Michael said he already is involved in counseling sessions and has promised that he will lead the House in civil discourse from now on.

As the House wrapped up its disciplinary action, the first since 1881 when a lawmaker was expelled for swindling, Michael pondered his punishment. Ironically, the most damaging impact to his legislative influence came not from the House, but from the Senate. On Jan. 25, Senate President Michael Michaud, D-East Millinocket, immediately banned Michael from stepping foot onto Maine Senate areas in the State House for the next two years, the duration of the 120th Legislature.

In doing so, he has almost surely nullified what little influence Michael might have retained in that body. Even if the lone independent among 151 Democrats and Republicans is able to rally enough support to pass one of his bills in the House, he still has to get it passed in the Senate in order for the legislation to become law. With no natural allies in the Senate and a no-trespassing order enforced by Michaud, Michael will be unable to lobby senators at key moments when his bills come up for a vote. Asked if he would reconsider the ban Thursday, Michaud replied: “I don’t think so.”

Additionally, sources within the House speaker’s office said Thursday that “no real decision” has yet been reached as to “when or if” Michael will be allowed to resume his seat on the State and Local Government Committee. He stepped down from that panel voluntarily last month to avoid further conflicts with Pendleton at Saxl’s request. Lacking the ability to influence the Senate and the legislative process through committee work, Michael’s credibility as a legislator has been seriously damaged and some lawmakers said the experience would leave him vulnerable to defeat in any re-election bid.

Meanwhile, the normally chatty Michael remained stoically subdued when pressed by reporters about his future as he walked from the House.

“I guess enough has already been said about this,” he remarked.