
Maine lawmaker wants to open intraparty meetings to public
Feb. 6—A bill before the Maine Legislature would make private intraparty meetings of lawmakers open to the public, which its sponsor says will increase transparency and provide more insight into how lawmakers arrive at decisions.
The proposal would give the public access to gatherings of three or more lawmakers of the same party by adding legislative caucuses to the list of meetings subject to Maine's Freedom of Access Act.
The act already protects public access to meetings of the full Legislature and its bipartisan committees, as well as to local school board and city council meetings. The same law also mandates that records belonging to public agencies and officials are public.
"LD 12 will add a new level of transparency to the legislative process," Sen. Rick Bennett, R-Oxford, the bill's sponsor, said during a public hearing Wednesday. "It will ensure the public can see how decisions are made, who is influencing those decisions and the reasoning behind our policies or laws."
It's common for lawmakers to meet in closed-door caucuses to discuss strategy or hold negotiations, but such meetings also have been criticized as a tool for subverting public access laws to conduct legislative business.
In one instance last year, Democrats came under fire for a private caucus in which committee members were briefed by an official from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives while considering several firearms measures. Republicans criticized the move, saying the meeting shouldn't have been held in private.
The Maine Press Association submitted written testimony in support of Bennett's bill, and no one testified against it. But changing the law could be complicated, and it's unclear how much support the proposal will have among lawmakers. The bill does not list any co-sponsors.
Lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee asked Bennett how the bill could affect legislative working papers that are now confidential under state law, and whether discussions around a party's political strategy would be open to the public.
Bennett said his intent is not to disturb the ability of lawmakers to solicit input under the working papers exemption as they develop a bill, but he said that legislative decisions should not be made in private.
"People making real decisions behind closed doors, that ought not to be done and there doesn't seem to be a means of addressing that through social or cultural change," he said.
Bennett said he understands that political strategy is "not, strictly speaking, the public's business."
"(But) if we're doing policy work and making decisions, sharing information like three selectmen sitting around a diner table having a conversation about a public matter, which is against the law, I'd like to see those kinds of conversations not rendered unless there is public access," he said.
The Maine Press Association, which includes 44 newspapers and digital news sites across the state, said negotiations and conversations that take place behind closed doors violate the principles of transparency.
"Private caucus meetings prevent freedom of access, and constituents are left out of the process," the association said in its written testimony. "That subverts the very nature of our participatory democracy."
Bennett, who has served on and off in either the Senate or House of Representatives since 1990, said he sees more and more work and decision-making being done in caucuses. "I know there are reasons for that and we all can surmise what they are with growing levels of partisanship and toxicity," he said. "I believe we need an antidote to this."
The committee on Wednesday also heard a proposal from Rep. Laurel Libby, R-Auburn, that would require agencies and officials to fulfill Freedom of Access Act requests for public records within 30 days. The bill, LD 152, would update current law, which requires agencies to fulfill requests "within a reasonable time."
Libby has two Democratic co-sponsors on the bill, but it has also been met with opposition from numerous municipalities, schools and state agencies that say they don't have the resources to work within a 30-day time constraint when fulfilling records requests, many of which can be broad and complicated.
Libby, meanwhile, said she has heard from constituents who are frustrated by the amount of time it can take to fulfill a request. In one example, the Maine Prisoner Advocacy Coalition said in written testimony that it is still waiting for data requested from the state medical examiner's office in 2023 to better understand a rise in deaths among people on probation.
"This bill is essential," said Jan Collins, the coalition's assistant director. "Lifesaving public policy decisions are wholly dependent on information government offices collect. We should be able to access it in a timely manner."
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
21 minutes ago
- New York Post
Congress to grill Kathy Hochul on NY sanctuary laws — and local GOP offers spicy advice over what questions they should ask
ALBANY – State Republican lawmakers offered advice to their congressional counterparts ahead of Gov. Kathy Hochul testimony on Thursday over sanctuary policies – outlining a list of questions to fling at the Democrat. The GOP legislators sent a letter to House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer ahead of Hochul's trip to Washington, DC where she'll be grilled by a congressional panel on the Empire State's sanctuary laws. 'Governor Hochul's sanctuary state policies have played a direct role in the ongoing migrant crisis throughout our state, despite bipartisan concern including repeated warnings from New York City Mayor Eric Adams,' Assemblyman Michael Tannousis (R-Staten Island) wrote in the letter, cosigned by various other New York GOP lawmakers. Advertisement 'We believe that Governor Hochul must be held accountable for her failure to reverse the state's sanctuary policies and recklessness with taxpayer dollars,' Tannousis continued. Gov. Kathy Hochul is set to testify on capitol hill Thursday on New York's sanctuary city laws and its handling of the influx of migrants. Hochul is voluntarily appearing before the House committee on Capitol Hill and will testify alongside Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Advertisement In their letter, the Republican state lawmakers ask the House Republicans to ask Hochul to outline: Why New York continued to accept migrants during the height of the crisis The vetting process for migrants and concerns about public safety A shady $432 million no-bid contract awarded to DocGo to help mitigate the crisis Her justification for roughly $4 billion the state has spent dealing with migrants Why some municipalities weren't reimbursed with costs associated with the migrants Tannousis said he wants the House Oversight committee to follow through after Hochul's testimony to deliver 'accountability.' The governor has tried to navigate a vague middle ground when it comes to the state's sanctuary policy, which is still based on a 2017 executive order issued by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo who is now running for mayor of New York City. Advertisement Assemblyman Michael Tannousis and other Albany Republicans wrote a letter to the House panel suggesting areas where they should hammer Hochul. Michael McWeeney Hochul had promised specifics and clarity over her guidance on how New York would work with federal immigration authorities. Instead, her office only provided a list of four broad categories of situations that would trigger state law enforcement to work with the feds, such as if ICE has a judicial warrant or when relevant to investigating another crime committed in New York. Hochul had previously said she was 'happy to go down' to DC for the hearing. 'I'll tell them our policy in the state of New York is not to use state resources, our state police, to enforce the civil infractions,' Hochul said earlier this year.


Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
DNC votes to redo vice chair elections, dealing a blow to David Hogg
The Democratic National Committee has voted to hold new elections for two leadership positions, dealing a blow to DNC Vice Chair David Hogg that could lead to his removal after months of internal turmoil. In a 294-99 vote that concluded Wednesday, DNC members agreed to move forward with redoing the contest earlier this year that elected Hogg and another Democrat, Malcolm Kenyatta, as vice chairs. The DNC will now vote from Thursday through Saturday — and then Sunday through Tuesday — to fill the two slots, which both men can seek again.


New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats are in the polling dumps — fighting America on this key demand
The Democratic Party has never been more unpopular — yet no Democrat seems to understand why. Some say they're not fighting President Donald Trump hard enough. Others say they aren't messaging their agenda well enough. In reality, they're fighting too hard for an agenda that Americans reject, with a central demand of welfare for all. Thirty-two years after President Bill Clinton promised to 'end welfare as we know it,' no idea unifies the Democratic Party more than the belief that welfare should be never-ending. This vision of government dependency spurred their most notable policies of recent years, and explains their intransigent opposition to Republican reforms. While some Democrats show an increasing willingness to compromise on other leftist priorities, such as biological men in women's sports, the party brooks no dissent on welfare — even though Americans want to fix the system's many failures. Consider the ongoing federal budget battle. House Republicans have put together a reconciliation bill that would slow the rate of Medicaid growth — from a projected 59.6% increase to 40% — over the next decade. Democrats oppose even that, including GOP attempts to end waste, fraud and abuse. Yet the latest federal data show that 22% of Medicaid payments and 12% of food-stamp payments went to ineligible recipients. More than 70% of likely voters want to protect taxpayers from fraud and abuse, polls show, yet Democrats essentially deny there's a problem that needs to be solved. In fact, when the Trump administration proposed a rule in March to end $11 billion in improper ObamaCare subsidies — aiming solely to curtail fraud — Democrats immediately opposed it. Democrats are just as adamant when it comes to work requirements for welfare recipients. My organization, the Foundation for Government Accountability, recently found that six in 10 able-bodied adults on Medicaid don't work at all, hoovering up resources that would benefit the truly vulnerable. When voters in purple Wisconsin were asked two years ago if welfare recipients should work as a condition of receiving benefits, nearly 80% said yes — but national Democrats now say no. They also reject Republican attempts to block Medicaid payments for illegal immigrants, which would save billions of dollars over the next decade. More than 70% of voters don't want illegal immigrants to receive government benefits, yet Democrats bizarrely disagree. But it's not just Congress; Democrats are striking the same strange tune in state capitols. Over the past 10 years, virtually all Republican-led states have taken steps to purge waste, fraud and abuse from welfare programs. By contrast, Democrat-run states have expanded illegal immigrants' access to Medicaid and pushed able-bodied adults onto welfare programs. In recent months, Democratic governors in Kansas and Arizona have vetoed Republican bills that would ban food-stamp purchases of soda and junk food — a reform that could lower state and federal Medicaid spending and encourage healthier choices. Democrats have a long history of supporting restrictions on consumers' options, but as soon as welfare enters the picture, they oppose it. Apparently limiting freedom is fine by them, but limiting federal welfare is unthinkable. The left's unwillingness to support even modest welfare reforms reflects the reality that government dependency is the biggest thing Democrats now offer Americans — even beyond limitless immigration and the Green New Deal. The Affordable Care Act, the central achievement of Barack Obama's presidency, dramatically expanded Medicaid while creating a new welfare system for the individual health-insurance market. Joe Biden enacted a work-destroying child tax credit and sought perpetual expansions of Medicaid and food stamps under the guise of pandemic relief. A slew of Biden regulations made it easier for people to abuse the taxpayer's generosity, from Medicaid to food stamps to free school lunches for rich kids. Democrats' end goal is clear: Get every American on the dole. Yet insisting that government dependency is always the answer means Democrats can't publicly admit that seemingly infinite welfare has any shortcomings. In fact, the left's agenda of welfare-for-all is profoundly harmful, and voters know it. Democrats have built a welfare system that taxpayers can't afford while pushing millions of people out of the workforce — a dual assault on the economic growth. They've left fewer resources for disabled children and the elderly by prioritizing able-bodied adults and illegal immigrants. And they're corrupting the foundational American belief that welfare is temporary assistance whose recipients should work to get back on their feet. No wonder Democrats are so unpopular: They're fleecing taxpayers, crippling the economy, hurting the truly needy and giving handouts to those who don't deserve them — none of which has Americans' support. The first Democrat who wakes up on welfare will be the hero their party desperately needs. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability.