Bond debate: legislative process in rule, practice

One of the lessons I have learned in my eight years in Augusta is that legislative process as it appears in rule and as it is in practice are two different animals. My comments regarding Sen. Michael Michaud’s role in the recently passed bond package elicited a letter to the editor recently that again brought that lesson home.

All through election night the second, too-close-to-call bond was scrutinized as to the reasons why it was winning fewer votes than the first bond. Virtually every comment I heard from the media and analysts as well as media coverage before the election connected this to the large number and wide variety of items in the bond. Some of these projects were smaller and more localized than items normally recommended by the Legislature for bonding. This does not mean that they are unimportant projects. Other items seemed to me quite appropriate in size and scope for an economic development bond.

Now to process. Since three of the bond items were most closely related to the potential failure of the bond, it surprised me that no one had tracked these items to their source: Sen. Michaud.

While the letter writer is quite correct in saying that no individual passes anything single-handedly, one of the functions of the caucuses is to support their members’ priorities, and the priorities of leadership carry a lot of weight. This is not necessarily negative. It is one of the primary roles of our two party system and is the strength behind the parties. Caucus members argue long and hard, albeit not publicly, for their own area’s interests and must withstand the rigors of competing interests within their own party. However, once the party adopts a position or a project, it benefits from the combined weight of the caucus members.

As for Sen. Michaud himself, three of his greatest assets as a legislator are determination, persistence and political savvy. These traits were well demonstrated in his ability to convince his caucus to back three of the projects included in this bond. In the past, projects for which I have a great deal of passion were certainly the beneficiary of Mike’s effective support and I am grateful to him many times over for that. He also was one of the most honest, straightforward and effective Appropriations chairs this state has ever seen. It was a humbling experience to follow in his footsteps and my service was enhanced by having had the opportunity to watch Mike in action in the Committee Room, on the floor of the Senate, and in his caucus.

As for the relative merits of the bond items themselves, several of them seemed to me to have more to recommend them. Yes, research and development is a significant industry in my district. Two internationally known research laboratories are located in Bar Harbor, but three other beneficiaries of this bond money are in Portland, Scarborough and Biddeford.

In addition to the scientific and humanitarian advances that flow from these facilities, a critical reason to promote investment in R&D is the industry’s function as an economic driver. Since we have undertaken investment, the least return we have ever gotten on state dollars is 5:1. The largest is 17:1. In every case, this return was realized in less than a year. Likewise, the two economic development funds in the bond have a demonstrated track record, a return of 8:1 on our investment.

For these reasons, there is no way I was going to vote against that bond coming out of the Legislature, any more than I would vote against an entire state budget because of my feelings, even intense ones, about some parts of it. The fight happens as the product takes shape. A legislator who doesn’t know when to fold ’em when it comes down to the whole package is a legislator forever on the fringe.

As the November elections loom, political fuses grow shorter. It is unfortunate that a disagreement over this particular decision about what goes into a bond is seen by some as a cause for personal attack rather than an opportunity for all sides to explain their rationale and defend their decisions.

At any rate, the bond has passed and all of the projects in it are likely to bring benefits. While we’re on the subject, the June bonds plus those going out in November, even if they all pass, will leave Maine with less bonded indebtedness than we have now due to the number of bonds being retired this year.

Jill Goldthwait is an independent state senator from Hancock County.