On Maine Web News, Candidates Discuss The Maine Public Empoyees Retirement System but avoid the Constitutional Mandate.

Maine Web News- The Candidates Discuss MPERS


Lepage promises to honor promises to state employees pension funds and suggests changing the system for future employees. Lepage says he will have to talk to the legislature, but does not explain why- which is because contractual terms of agreement have been embedded into the Maine State constitution since 1997. For a candidate who is running on a platform that includes respecting the constitution, I find this failure to mention the constitutional mandate which clearly impacts the unfunded liability problem disappointing.


Both Kevin Scott and Moody articulate the solution better than LePage, who suggest the same ideas, but not as forcefully. All agree that the problem must be "isolated" to quote Kevin Scott, meaning that future employees must be hired on a different set of terms. Moody addresses the issue of risky investment choices made by the managers of the MPERS fund more forcefully than the others and he brings up a crucial point that others failed to mention - The contractual agreement with the Maine Public Employees System, which is embedded into the Maine State constitution makes all business investments in Maine very risky. There is an element of uncertainty, affecting potential business investments, as to how the constitutional mandate may be enforced in the future- and so it is arguable that both the creation of the MPERS investment fund, through special act of legislation, and the constitutionalizing of that fund's contractual  agreement have created the need for further government chartered investment corporations- all of which use tax payer dollars to give government chartered investment companies the edge over the private sector.


Like MPERS, the Small Enterprise Growth Fund was chartered by a special act of legislation with these words; "this is an essential government function" Is it? This is the question that LeBlanc should have asked but instead the problem of the unfunded liabilities created by the MPERS investment fund was discussed as though there were no relationship to The Maine State constitution (Article IX General Provisions, Sectio 18-18-B). How can we return to the premise of our constitution when we ignore the Maine State constitution in our collective dialogue? As new media, LeBlanc can lead the way in recognizing the big gorilla in the works.


Early in 2010, the legislature added another government chartered investment corporation to it's portfolio with yet another the special act of legislation chartering yet another capital investment company. LD1, bears the title "An Act To Stimulate Capital Investment for Innovative Businesses in Maine" although the legislation prohibits investing in individual businesses and mandates investing in mutual funds. LD1 requires that the mutual funds give "strong consideration" to investing in  this state.....and  "Will maintain at least a periodic presence in the State".




LD1 or "The Fund of Funds" cites The MPERS investment fund as it's preferred "lender" (meaning investor). I has been sold as a benevolent act by the Maine legislature to relieve the Maine people of their unfunded liability to MPERS. However MPERS does not mention LD1 in it's recent news letter. Perhaps because, with the taxpayers signed up as the risk bail out fund for "The Fund of Funds", the investment strategy of that fund is too risky, even for MPERS, which also relies on the Maine state taxpayer as a bail out fund. neither government chartered investment company provides the Maine state taxpayer a profit share. The justification for using the Maine taxpayer as a bail out fund appears to be simply that our government is "creating jobs",- in the chosen sectors that serve the government's design to transform Maine into a better place- at least according to our government's approved network 
 
The favored economic sectors are mandated in the newly chartered mutual funds investment corporation.
 
They are:
 

49-J. Targeted technologies. "Targeted technologies" means biotechnology, aquaculture and marine technology, composite materials technology, environmental technology, advanced technologies for forestry and agriculture, information technology and precision manufacturing technology.

Once again the legislature clearly identifies the special interests which will be the beneficiaries of the special act of legislation chartering "The Fund of Funds".


Article IV Part Third , Section 14 is quoted at the top of this blog.

According to The Maine State Constitution- A Reference Guide by Marshall J. Tinkle “Special or private laws relate to particular persons or things or operate on a selected class rather than on the public generally”

MPERS is a special class of persons - NOT the public generally.The targeted technologies which are being advanced by Maine's network of government managed economy is a special class of things.


LD1 also identifies the government network as those that are favored by this legislation when it includes the following in "Investment goals and guidelines"

B. Will build linkages to, and accept referrals from, at least some of the organizations promoting the State's innovation economy, including the authority, the Maine Technology Institute under Title 5, section 15302, the Small Enterprise Growth Fund under section 383, the Department of Economic and Community Development, the Maine Patent Program under section 1921, the University of Maine System and other venture capital investors within the State;

The guidelines also include:

E. Demonstrates the ability to make successful venture capital investments.

So what happens if the investment fund instead demonstrates it's ability to successfully lose large sums of capital?


That is why they included the taxpayer as bail out fund in the special act of legislation chartering a mutual funds investment corporation to benefit special classes of people, and special industries and to work with a special network of agencies.

LD1- A Transference of the Power of Taxation?

Letter submittted to the Boothbay Register
May 2, 2010- I am glad to say that this letter is published in the issue coming out on May 05, 2010.

This article was also published on The Augusta Insider. When The Augusta Insider "merged" with Pine Tree Politics all articles examining state capitalism in Maine were no longer available.

A Call For a People's Veto.
Dear Editor,

I recently submitted a letter, which was also sent to Senator Trahan, who did not respond. This letter concerned the use of taxpayer funding by the Small Enterprise Growth Fund and the proposed LD1 and LD1666. LD 1666 was rejected by the appropriations committee but subsumed into LD1 and then passed unanimously by both the House and the Senate and signed into law by Governor Baldacci.

The Maine Chamber of Commerce describes LD1 as “An Act To Stimulate Capital Investment for Innovative Businesses in Maine”. LD1 is marketed by the Small Enterprise Growth Fund with the following words “This program creates incentives for 20 Million Dollars in the Public Employee Retirement System that have already been targeted for equity investments to be placed in funds that are seeking to invest in innovative Maine businesses.”

I am not a legal expert but such expertise is not required to have general knowledge that when it comes to the law, it is the letter of the law that counts and not external promises or descriptions. When one reads LD1, one will find that in Section 6. Investment goals & guidelines, begins with the words “The purpose of the fund is to invest in a series of high-quality venture capital funds managed to produce a favorable aggregate return among diversified investments, to secure repayment of the amounts borrowed and to minimize the risk of tax credit redemption. Consistent with these investment goals, the board shall give preference to fund managers whose strategies include:

A. Maintaining at least a periodic presence in the State;

B. Actively prospecting for investments in the State;

C. Creating or retaining jobs in the State; and

D. Bringing to fruition the ideas, technologies and intellectual property produced by citizens and institutions of the State. “

The language is vague and suggestive, avoiding specificity and allowing great latitude in interpretation and application. In the phrase “Maintaining at least a periodic presence in the state”, the terms “periodic” and “presence” are left undefined, while the use of the words “at least” permits the “presence” in Maine to be a mere token. The non-existent parameters for retaining jobs in the state can be satisfied by the bureaucratic jobs within the SEGF. As for “bringing to fruition the ideas produced by Maine citizens”, there are no specifics about where and how these ideas will be brought to fruition. Since the current government management of Maine’s economy is invested in technological development and since LD1 Is very arguably a charter for a mutual funds corporation, the language of this bill all too easily enables ideas to be developed in Maine and brought to fruition in countries with low labor costs and minimal environmental restrictions, which produce that “quality” investment in the context of the profit motivation of mutual funds

The bill defines “lender” in such terms as would be otherwise be signified by the term “investor”. The preferred “lender” is The Maine Public Employees Management Fund, which, at first glance, has stricter investing requirements than are written in LD1. If the Maine Public Employees Management Fund declines to invest, “the Fund of Funds” can seek other investors.

In section 9, Audits and Reports, LD1 is suddenly written in very specific terms. Section 9 deals with the relationship between the director of “The Fund of Funds” and the SEGF . Section 9 leaves nothing to interpretation when it specifically defines the length of time that constitutes a period, showing clearly that the writers of this law know how and when to be specific.

One instance in which LD1 is very specific is in Section 7, Investment Restrictions, where the exact words are “The fund may not invest directly in individual businesses but only in venture capital funds…” And yet in promoting this bill it is specifically described as a bill to create funds for “innovative” Maine businesses. Other than a requirement to invest 30,000.00 annually in the Maine Patent Fund, there is no specific wording in this bill that requires more than a token investment in businesses located in Maine.

The SEGF promotes this government chartered mutual fund as a means to take the burden off the Maine taxpayer, when in fact it takes the burden of failure off the SEGF and the individual or institutional investors in ” the Fund of Funds” and places it on the Maine Taxpayer in the form of a “tax credit”, which has no specific relationship to “tax payer”. The “tax credit” is guaranteed by a certificate, for which the letter of the law provides no specific requirements or caps, leaving it solely to the discretion of the SEGF. The tax credit will be used to cover any shortfalls that the Fund of Funds runs up against and is said to be legally binding according to Article One, Section 11 of the Maine State Constitution.

I have to question whether the certificates can be legally binding on the Maine state taxpayer because LD1 states “The board (The SEGF) may raise capital for the fund by offering as security certificates issued by the board.”

The SEGF does not have a government website, which suggest that it is a private corporation which has been enabled by our legislature to advance it’s causes using taxpayer dollars to it’s advantage. Section 9 of the Maine State Constitution- Power of taxation, states “ The Legislature shall never, in any manner, suspend or surrender the power of taxation.” A private corporation cannot make binding agreements for the Maine State taxpayer. By obligating the taxpayer to cover shortfalls within the SEGF with “tax credits”, it is implied that taxes will have to be raised as a means of financing the “tax credits”- as needed.

The language of LD1 is very murky about identifying the authority that is granted power to define the terms of the “certificates” backed up by “tax-credits”. It is the job of the legislature to establish the terms of contract, but in the case of LD1 these terms are left undefined- or worse deferred to the SEGF in the following:

1. Credit allowed. A lender to the Maine Fund of Funds as defined in Title 10, section 396, subsection 5 is allowed a refundable credit against the taxes imposed by this Part in an amount certified by the Small Enterprise Growth Board as established under Title 10, section 384 as equal to the shortfall in scheduled payments on debt incurred to provide capital to the Maine Fund of Funds.

If the authority to define the terms of agreement remains with the legislature, then the legislature has granted itself the authority to negotiate business contracts, which belongs to the executive branch of government. The Maine State Constitution, Article IV, Section 14 states “Corporations shall be formed under general laws, and shall not be created by special Acts of the Legislature…” Our legislature seems to believe that it can get around the Maine State Constitution through carefully parsed language and that a corporation by another name is not a corporation.

Based on the LD1 vote, all incumbents should be voted out of office. This Act was passed by “the Rule of the Gavel” where by there is a call for objections and if there are none, all are considered to have voted yes.

Article IV, Section 18 of the Maine State Constitution outlines the process by which the people of Maine can veto bills passed by the legislature. There is a 90-day window of opportunity after the close of the legislative session. In LD1. the taxpayer carries the risk but not does not share in the gain. I have created a Facebook page, “Maine Citizens Against Government Chartered Corporations” to find out if there is enough support among the Maine people to warrant initiating a People’s Veto.

An additional effect of mobilizing a People’s Veto is that it would force government-chartered corporations as an election campaign issue. We know that all incumbents are supporting government chartered investment corporations but thus far, to my knowledge, none of the other candidates for state positions have spoken out on this issue, offering no guarantee that electing a non-incumbent would have any effect on moving back toward a constitutional separation between the state and the capitalistic corporation.

I have written on this subject for the online magazine, The Augusta Insider, under the title, “Socializing the Risk and Privatizing the Gain” This article provides links to the bill and the statute used to authorize it. I hope to encourage an open dialogue about what the actual letter of the law legitimizes and to encourage the citizens of Maine to become more actively involved in reading the bills being passed by our legislature rather than accepting the promotional words about said bills at face value, without further examination or debate. The Maine State constitution needs to be included in that debate.





Sincerely



Susan Mackenzie Andersen

East Boothbay, Maine