The record a legislator compiles in roll-call votes is one of the most useful decision-making tools the thoughtful voter has at re-election time. There’s simply no fudging on the ayes or nays.

Advocacy groups use this record to good effect as well. Whether the particular area of interest is the environment, health care, business or other causes likely to fall within the scope of lawmaking, these organizations identify the pertinent legislation and inform the public on how its local representative or senator voted, often in the form of a report card.

Done properly, fairly and understandably, this procedure can inform and enlighten. That does not seem to be the case with legislative report cards being issued by the Maine Economic Research Institute. The process MERI used in developing its rating of Maine Legislature incumbents can only be described as questionable, unfair, confused and, most regrettably, highly partisan.

MERI is a new affiliate of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce. This is its first venture in legislative report cards. The focus is, naturally, business issues.

It is no surprise that Republicans tend to score better, given the three major issues identified by MERI for evaluation – Workers’ Compensation, taxation and business incentives. Democrats no doubt expect somewhat lower rankings, but the shockingly low scores MERI has given to Democrats with strong pro-business records – many in the 30-percent range – raise legitimate questions about the way MERI conducted its evaluations.

Most advocacy groups base their scores on roll-call votes for final enactment of a piece of legislation; that is, after all, what counts. MERI has used an incomprehensible mish-mash of preliminary votes – the acceptance of committee reports, procedural matters, postponements and amendments – in a way that can be construed as taking advantage of the partisan positioning that often leads up to a final vote on important legislation. Different votes were used for the House and Senate, injecting inconsistency that only adds to the muddle.

Then there are the subjective analyses that make up half of the MERI score. These supposedly are done by a panel of 10 business lobbyists MERI selected, yet some of the analyses used were sent in anonymously. In one case, a Democratic senator contacted the lobbyists who did his evaluation – nine of 10 denied doing it.

The distribution method for these report cards also is suspect. The scores have been dribbled out over the last few months at so-called briefings MERI has held throughout the state for local chambers of commerce and other business-oriented groups. They also have been provided by the handful to Republican candidates and party activists. Many Democratic legislators complain they’ve had to pester MERI repeatedly to get their scores, often after getting a hint of the bad news from gleeful Republicans in their districts. The question here is whether MERI’s goal is to inform voters or to provide the GOP with ammunition.

Then there’s just plain error. Sen. John Nutting, Democrat of Leeds, has strong pro-business credentials; as a dairy farmer, his advocacy for getting Maine products into supermarkets in well known. He got a 37 from MERI. On close inspection, he found his absence due to an emergency on a vote to raise the state minimum wage – something he has consistently opposed – was charged as a vote in favor.

Former Agriculture Commission Ed McLaughlin, director of MERI, defends the evaluatio procedure, saying it reflects the complexities of the legislative process. He insists nothing will be changed, except for the distribution method – a press conference to release all the scores at once may be held next month.

Sen. Nutting is understandably upset, as are a lot of Democrats with strong records of supporting Maine businesses. He also makes two excellent observations. First, whenever possible, grades should be based on final votes and in every case they criteria should be uniform. Sen. Nutting cites the National Federation of Business, Maine chapter, as an organization that follows these simple rules and that produces report cards that are thorough, fair and comprehensible.

Second, the senator suggests that if subjective analyses must be used – and that is arguable in something that could serve its stated purpose quite well if purely objective – why use business lobbyists, especially anonymous ones, when Maine colleges and universities are chock full of able economists and political scientists trained in assessing the impact legislation has open society.

This first batch of MERI evaluations are utter failures. They should be buried and never heard from again. The concerns about them go beyond politics. MERI and the Maine State Chamber of Commerce are both non-profit organizations. They enjoy tax-exempt status and thus have an obligation under the law not to engage in partisan advocacy. The point is not how close these two organizations can skate to the legal line, but how far away they can stay from it. This is particularly important for the Chamber – it is a long-established group with a good reputation at stake and credibility to protect. MERI, on the other hand, is a new organization with a reputation to establish, credibility to build and some learning to do.