The entire legislative process needs a dramatic overhaul from top to bottom in this state, but there are a few areas that desperately demand a complete rewrite of the process – or at least greater transparency and accountability. One of these is the special appropriations table, where bills that require additional funding are addressed by the budget-writing committee at the end of session. The decisions made by the Appropriations Committee on how or whether to fund these bills are ultimately decided in public votes by the Maine House and the Senate, but the path there is slightly more obtuse.  

The special appropriations table essentially acts as the party host cleaning up the next morning, after most (if not quite all) guests have left and the fun part is completely over.

It also acts as a quasi fourth branch of government, a check on the runaway freight train of legislating done during the legislative session. While its decisions can theoretically be overturned, the final votes are usually a mere formality: The recommendations of the Appropriations Committee, often discussed behind closed doors, are usually accepted as they are. 

It’s long past time to change this process. Fortunately, there are several ways to do it. One would be to simply change the rules so that any bills that have a fiscal note above a certain amount aren’t placed on the table and instead are tabled until another budget is being written. This would have the effect of delaying expensive new programs for at least a year, giving legislators and the governor plenty of time to figure out how to work them into the budget. It would also allow that work to take place in a more open, transparent way, during regular legislative debate.  

This would be particularly effective if we put a stop to – or at least dramatically curtailed – the practice of allowing discussions regarding legislation behind closed doors. Maine generally has strong transparency laws, but the Legislature likes to exempt itself from them all too often. While that may be politically useful, it doesn’t serve the general public – especially when one considers that we, the voters, are the supervisors of legislators, not the other way around. That means that legislators are often asking us to simply trust us that they’re doing their job and keeping the public interest at heart. Let’s throw those large, wood-paneled doors open so we can all see what’s going on behind them. 

With that being said, legislators operating in secret is far better than legislators skipping out on their jobs entirely, a practice that increased exponentially toward the end of this legislative session. Unlike in some states, this wasn’t part of a coordinated walk-out in order to stall legislation. Instead, it came down to simple absences on the part of legislators; they weren’t showing up to do their job. 

At a certain level, that’s understandable. Being a state legislator is, after all, a part-time job (in theory, at least) with part-time pay. It’s especially understandable given that, thanks to inept management, this session dragged on much longer than it should have. Legislators are people, too, after all, and they have plans: family vacations, weddings, reunions and graduations, not to mention other jobs. So we can’t expect everyone to be there every single day – and as long as they’re not getting paid if they’re not there, that’s just fine. 

What’s less excusable is legislators being in the building and skipping votes simply because they’re politically perilous. That’s the exact opposite of leadership: It’s nothing but pure cowardice, and not a strategy that either side ought to condone. It would be nice to think that a simple rule change could fix this problem, but it’s hard to imagine what that might be. Instead, Maine media ought to do a better job of reporting on the practice, pointing out not just when legislators are absent but also when they are choosing to be absent for certain votes. 

Another questionable tactic is legislators’ practice of voting against the veto override of a bill that they originally supported. It’s not necessarily illegitimate, since they could have had a change of heart, but if that’s the case, they owe their constituents an explanation. It’s fine to reconsider if you receive more information; it’s not fine to simply flip-flop.

While there are plenty of ways the Legislature could reform its rules to be more transparent and democratic, it’s also up to the media and all of us as voters to hold legislators accountable for their actions – or inaction and disappearing acts, as the case may be. 

Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be contacted at:
jwfossel@gmail.com
Twitter: @jimfossel