LD 204 Regulating Mid-coast Regional Development Authority Lacks Constitutional Authority

This is the entire Text of LD 204 . Vote to take place on March 8. If any one wants to send the letter presented below permission is granted.

An Act Regarding the Membership of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority Board of Trustees

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

Sec. 1. 5 MRSA §13083-I, sub-§2, ¶E,  as enacted by PL 2005, c. 599, §1, is amended to read:

E.  A member appointed to the board of trustees may not hold an elected office in municipal, county or state government or be an employee who serves at the pleasure of a person who holds elected office in municipal, county or state government.

summary

This bill provides that a member appointed to the board of trustees of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority may not be an employee who serves at the pleasure of a person who holds elected office in municipal, county or state government.

---

Dear Honorable Kevin L. Raye,
Majority Floor Leader: Senator Jon Courtney,
Assistant Majority Floor Leader: Senator Debra D. Plowman,
Honorable Robert W. Nutting ,Speaker of the House

Majority Floor Leader: Philip A. Curtis

Assistant Majority Floor Leader: Andre E. Cushing III

I am writing to you to ask you to vote no to LD 204 which prohibits those employed by those elected by the inhabitants of the municipality from being on the board of the municipal corporation known as The Mid Coast Regional Redevelopment Authority.

 LD 204 lacks constitutional authority and arguably violates the intentions of the  authors of Maine Sate constitution- which, I submit is to make municipal corporations sovereign powers.

Article IV, Part Third, Section 14 of the Maine State Constitution
Corporations shall be formed under general laws, and shall not be created by special Acts of the Legislature, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects of the corporation cannot otherwise be attained, and, however formed , they shall forever be subject of the general laws of the state ( emphasis mine)

Article VIII. -- Part Second.
Municipal Home Rule.

     Section 1. Power of municipalities to amend their charters. The inhabitants of any municipality shall have the power to alter and amend their charters on all matters, not prohibited by Constitution or general law, which are local and municipal in character. The Legislature shall prescribe the procedure by which the municipality may so act.

The constitution is clear- The legislature has authority to charter a municipal corporation. It does not have the power to amend the charter. It is inconsistent with of the Maine State constitution to make a legislative decree within a charter for a municipal corporation that makes said corporation "an instrumentality of the state". 

The state must have the authority to charter a municipal corporation (a town) because a town does not exist until it is chartered and requires an external entity with the authority to charter the municipal corporation- but once chartered ,the constitution grants the authority to amend the charter to the inhabitants of the municipality. That authority does not belong to the legislature. 

LD 204 is inconsistent with the Maine State constitution in its entirety

Email addresses for the above recipients found HERE




Responses

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 3:11 PM

Subject: RE: LD 204 lacks constitutional authority

 I would have to respectfully disagree.  The premise of your argument is incorrect.  The Redevelopment Authority is not a Municipal Authority as it was created by the Legislature.  When the board was created it was the intention that elected officials and those who report to them not be on the Authority.  This was designed to keep politics out of the process.  LD 204 simply clarifies the intent of that provision.

 This provision was put in to ensure a statewide interest rather than a local municipal one.  The state has made significant investments already and I can assure you that if the board is compromised there will be little interest from many other parts of the state for future investment.

 Best Regards,

 Jon Courtney

 Republican Majority Leader

Maine Senate Dist. #3

Alfred, Limington, Lyman, Sanford/Springvale & Waterboro

joncourtney@metrocast.net

www.joncourtney.com

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** 

Ms. Anderson,

Thank you for writing to express your concerns about LD 204.  Input like yours is an essential part of the legislative process on all of the issues we address in Augusta, and I hope you will continue to share your thoughts and concerns at any time. 

At this point the bill is working its way through the committee process and has not yet come to the House floor.  When it does, I will keep your concerns in mind. 

In addition, I would suggest that you contact the Representative and Senator from your area.  In case you do not know the names of your legislators, I included a link so you could get their contact information:  http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/townlist.htm

Thank you again for writing. 

Sincerely,

Robert W. Nutting

Speaker of the House ~ 2 State House Station ~ Augusta, ME 04333-0002 ~ (207) 287-1300 ~ Fax: (207) 287-1308 ~ RepRobert.Nutting@legislature.maine.gov

From: mackenzie@andersenstudio.com [mailto:mackenzie@andersenstudio.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 3:53 PM
To: Jon Courtney
Subject: Re: LD 204 lacks constitutional authority

Dear Mr Courtney,

I applaud you for having the where with all to respond to this issue as you are the first politician that has. I formerly had a dialogue with my Representative Bruce McDonald and my Senator David Trahan, but once I questioned the constitutionality of the massive and entrenched structure of state capitalism that exists in this state, neither of my own representatives would engage in the conversation.

 However. I do not think you have made a convincing argument.

 The legislation that chartered MRRA defines it as a municipal corporation.-

5 §13083-I. MIDCOAST REGIONAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; POWERS;
MEMBERSHIP; OBLIGATIONS
1. Powers. The authority is a public municipal corporation and may:

The reason seems clear- because municipal corporations are an exception to the constitutional prohibition to the legislature chartering corporations through special acts of legislation. If you can offer me any other reason for the above quoted statement being in the charter for the MRRA, please do tell. I can think of no other reason since it does not function in accordance with every legal definition or court ruling that I have read in which there is always an emphasis placed on the municipal corporation as a self governing local government. The term "instrumentality of the state" is often contrasted with the municipal corporation, which is a sovereign entity in the same way that states are sovereign entities in relation to the federal government. If the legislature did not intend for the MRRA to be self governed by the inhabitants of the municipality- then why does the charter state in no uncertain terms that the MRRA is a municipal corporation?- other than the reason I have suggested?

 The interpretation of the law is in the letter of the law- not in explanations external to the law.

 The elected officials are elected by the inhabitants of the municipality. The Maine State constitution grants the inhabitants of the municipality the authority to amend the charter - The constitution does not grant this authority to the legislature, and so for the legislature to exclude those elected by the inhabitants of the municipality seems in direct defiance of our state constitution.

 MRRA is a mini-corporate state ,which is diametrically opposed to the  political philosophy in both the Maine and United States constitutions.

If the legislature keeps on creating these mini corporate states - each with the power of eminent domain to take adjacent property, then in about a decade our state and our constitution will have been fundamentally transformed into a corporate state, benefiting the favored sector and expecting everyone else to pay for it.

 The members of the legislature took an oath to uphold the Maine state constitution. That is what you are supposed to do. How can you tell me that the MRRA is not a municipal corporation when those very words are in the special act of legislation which chartered said corporation? Have you not read the legislation?

 Mackenzie Andersen

************************************************************************************************************

I am sorry you are not convinced.  Like any law it can be overturned if deemed unconstitutional, but I am sure this one will not.  Thank you for sharing your position.

I would suggest the bigger picture is the future commitment from the state with regards to the redevelopment of the base.  These little squabbles do not help foster future statewide interest and goodwill.  For instance there are some in my community that would be happy to turn everything over to Brunswick and have the Authority return the $8 million bond issue and the additional state investment to the state.   

 I am hopeful we can get past this and create more opportunity for the people of Maine.  

 Best Regards,

 Jon Courtney

 Republican Majority Leader

Maine Senate Dist. #3

Alfred, Limington, Lyman, Sanford/Springvale & Waterboro

joncourtney@metrocast.net

www.joncourtney.com

Sent on March 10 around 9:25 AM By Mackenzie Andersen

Dear Majority Floor Leader: Senator Jon Courtney, 

Your premise is flawed. The authority has no money to return. Bonds are public debt. The return of the property to the town of Brunswick, would reduce the deficit. 

The Authority is a special interest group. Special Acts of legislation are special because they serve special interests as opposed to the common good. If the Authority returns the land and its associated bond to municipal control, the deficit owed by the general tax payer is reduced.

The money you say "the state" invested is also derived from funds contributed by the general tax payer but used to benefit a special interest faction. Other funds may be redistributed wealth from grants, bonds, gifts- not earned or created wealth and much of it also in the form of a tax payer deficit and/or risk. You are right about one thing no business in the private sector can wheel and deal with taxpayer dollars to offer investors a deal they can't refuse, which with the extension of the Pine Tree Zone includes 100% exception from income tax, 100% exception from corporate tax and an 80% "tax credit" on payroll tax.

I wonder why the legislature added the words "including precision manufacturing: to the language of Pine Tree Zone.? "Precision manufacturing is a special manufacturing sector already included in the category "manufacturing". This is useless legal language. Why does our legislature add useless legal language to a bill? Your job is supposed to be the construction of clear non-ambiguous legislation for the "common good" -  borrow a phrase from the preamble of Maine State Constitution. Your job is not managing the economy for the benefit of a favored faction. You are constructing legislation very poorly, even borrowing bad language from the other's states poorly written legislation as in last years inclusion of the L3C into the statute of the LLC- The language of that law actually states that a qualifying business must not intend to make an income. Even non-profit corporations make incomes! And need I mention that in the special act of legislation that chartered the MRRA, there is mention of a transfer of property which does not identify to whom the property is transferred - and then goes on to identify said property not with the clarity of latitude and longitude but with vague language that can be interpreted as "it is whatever we deem it to be at any unspecified moment in time".

The whole economy would benefit more from a fair and equitable playing field than from the manipulation of wealth by a government overlord society which has decided it is their job to pick and choose who will get a choice deal and who will be taxed to fund the favored sector.

The MRRA sounds like a modern day kings court to benefit the favored economic sector. It is like a walled community- eventually leading to a feudalistic society. Manufactures will not  locate there because they are so eager to have the government as their landlord- in fact some may think twice about that- but the overlord elite is probably offering the businesses that they favor, a deal they can't refuse with the tax payer's money. Return the money to the general economy- create an honest business environment and that will make Maine different from so many other states using the template to success designed by Pied Piper Richard Florida- Every state following said template has to continually make the deal they offer to businesses more attractive than the other states following an identical template. Create an honest business environment and then Maine offers something unique that can't be found as commonly as a Richard Florida man-made Garden of Eden. -which can never compete with the real thing. 

But clearly our legislative overlord society has no appetite for a vision of success through creating an honest fair and just business environment for all
.

Mackenzie Andersen

CC:Honorable Kevin L. Raye,
Assistant Majority Floor Leader: Senator Debra D. Plowman,
Honorable Robert W. Nutting ,Speaker of the House

Majority Floor Leader: Philip A. Curtis

Assistant Majority Floor Leader: Andre E. Cushing III

Senator David Trahan

Representative Bruce McDonald

LD 204, a bill that seems specifically targeted at keeping Town Manager Gary Brown off the MRRA Board.

I received this in my email urging people to contact the people listed below to defeat what seems to be an attempt to exclude the Brunswick Town Manager from the Board of the Mid_coast Regional Development Association.

Brunswick Republican Town Committee

Minutes of the MAR 2011 Meeting

Mar. 3, 2011

Brunswick Business Center

18 Pleasant St. Brunswick

MINUTES:

1. Meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM.

2. Chair’s Report:

            A. - Discussed LD 204, a bill that seems specifically targeted at keeping Town Manager Gary Brown off the MRRA Board.  This is strange, as a review of the makeup of redevelopment boards in other towns, most particularly the Loring and Pease base redevelopment boards, shows that the town councils where the bases were sited invariably had a permanent elected representative sitting on their respective boards.

            This bill is being held up temporarily, by Rep. Kerri Prescott, but will come up for a vote soon, possible Tuesday, the 8th of March. We urge all hands to immediately contact the following persons and urge them to defeat this bill:

            Senate Leadership

            Honorable Kevin L. Raye

            President of the Senate

            Phone: (207) 287-1500

            senator@kevinraye.com

           

            Majority Floor Leader: Senator Jon Courtney, joncourtney@metrocast.net , testified in favor of this bill and the question to his boss, Kevin Raye, is why was he allowed to do this?

             

            Assistant Majority Floor Leader: Senator Debra D. Plowman, SenDebra.Plowman@legislature.maine.gov

            House Leadership

            Honorable Robert W. Nutting

            Speaker of the House

            tel: (207) 287-1300

            e-mail: RepRobert.Nutting@legislature.maine.gov

            Majority Floor Leader: Philip A. Curtis <http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/curtpa.htm>  (R-Madison), tel: (207) 287-1440

            RepPhilip.Curtis@legislature.maine.gov

             

            Assistant Majority Floor Leader: Andre E. Cushing III <http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hsebios/cushae.htm>  (R-Hampden), tel: (207) 287-1440

            RepAndre.Cushing@legislature.maine.gov

Governor’s Office

            Tel. 207-287-3531

            John McGough: Chief of Staff è he is from Brunswick

            Kathleen Newman: Deputy Chief of Staff

TALKING POINTS

            --The Brunswick Town Council is unanimous in desiring to have Town Manager Gary Brown represent their interests on the MRRA board (the authority overseeing the re-development of the base.

            --A survey of re-development authorities across America, including Pease and Loring after which the MRRA board was based, shows EVERY host communities has permanent representation on such a board selected by them, not the Governor

            --Currently the host community of Topsham has NO representation on this board.  Brunswick has two, a private citizen and a resident who happens to be the Freeport Economic Development Officer. We would like stronger local representation. Let us control our own destiny.

  

A Letter Of Evasion

To date this is the only response that I have received from my letter addressed to Governor LePage with a copy sent to Attorney General Schneider.

The only instances in which the response shows evidence that my letter was actually read is in the mention of the name of the Brunswick Landing Maine's Center for Innovation. in the first paragraph - and- in acknowledging that I am addressing a constitutional matter.

However the grammatical structure of the first sentence  gives credence to the speculation that the letter is a form letter used as a response to multiple letters.

 The letter says "Thank You for your letter requesting the "constitutionality of the Brunswick Landing  Maine's center for Innovation '" as though "constitutionality of the Brunswick Landing Maine's center for Innovation"  is imported content  in a mail merge process. More correctly I wrote a letter requesting that the Attorney General challenge the constitutionality of The Brunswick Landing Maine's Center for Innovation. It seems telling that the action requested of the Attorney General is left out of the structural syntax of the sentence. This is the first evidence of evasion, which is carried through in the remainder of the response.

The next sentence suggests that I wrote to the Attorney General requesting private legal advice, when in fact it was Governor LePage to whom my letter is addressed and only a copy sent to the Attorney General. Nor did I ask for private legal advice. I do not need to consult an attorney to know that as a private citizen I do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of The Brunswick Landing Maine's Center For Innovation unless I can show direct personal harm. Since I do not own property abutting the Center and since I am not an inhabitant of the municipality, I cannot show direct personal harm and thus I wrote a letter to Governor LePage suggesting that the Attorney General challenge the constitutionality of the Center. I thought the Attorney General has the power to represent the people of the state of Maine. Silly me.

In fact my letter does not ask for legal advice, it requests legal action. In fact I audaciously offered my own legal opinion.

The next sentence says that Maine Statute requires the Attorney General to represent the state and the state agencies. I can see where this becomes a conflict of interest if the Attorney General were to represent the people of Maine, which is one interpretation of "the state" against an action taken by a branch of the state government, which can be interpreted as a "state agency". Statutes are written by the legislature so we can blame them for this "conflation of " as opposed to "separation of"  the powers of the branches of government.

The Attorney General himself was once a member of the legislature during years that some of the legislation that I, as a member of the public, have requested that our current administration constitutionally challenge. So is it a surprise that - given the conflict of interest written into the statute by the legislature, the Attorney General decides it is his role to represent the state agency and not the people of the state, who happen to be the ones footing the bills mandated by the legislature.

The letter pretends that I am not writing as a member of the public but as a private citizen with private interests, that makes it easy for the Attorney General to dismiss the role of representing the people of the state, that is , if the Attorney General actually had a hand in writing the letter..

There is a very large question raised by the letter.When the word "state" is used, what is intended? The people and the land of the state- or just the state government ?- which is a faction of the state.

The letter actually says that the Attorney General provides opinions on the matter of law to the Governor, but this letter fails to recognize that this is the function of the Attorney General that my letter intended to engage on the behalf of the people. The Governor has asked the business community to engage and I have engaged, but not in the pre-determined box, it seems- and so the form letter that (speculatively) was assigned to merge with my imported information was not a very good fit. Was it?