LePage’s veto of LD 1809 was correct

By Mike Lange
Staff Writer

    During Gov. Paul LePage’s unprecedented veto spree, one bill that didn’t pass muster last week was LD 1809. While I haven’t been too thrilled with some of the governor’s actions recently, I applaud him for this move.
    Here’s why. In recent years, it’s been common practice for many municipal and quasi-municipal boards to conduct meetings with one or more members participating via phone, Skype or video conference.

    For a while, Rep. Pete Johnson was serving in the Maine Legislature and on the Greenville School Committee. When he couldn’t make it back to Greenville for a school board meeting, he participated via conferencing.
    Piscataquis County Commissioner Eric Ward is a marine engineer who works on oil rigs around the world. Many times this year he’s participated in the twice-monthly meetings by phone from the Gulf of Mexico.
    In both cases, it’s been a win-win situation. The boards have their quorum and all members can participate.
    Unfortunately, some lawmakers have questioned whether there was a “grey area” in the statutes about remote attendance.
    Since the law didn’t specifically say it was allowed, a bill was introduced and passed to permit ‘quasi-municipal entities’ to use audio and video technology to conduct meetings.
    What it didn’t say is that public entities should also be allowed the same flexibility. In other words, the bill would allow the Moosehead Sanitary District to use remote teleconferencing but not the Dexter Town Council.
     “Unfortunately, this legislation is unnecessary and may actually have the impact of reducing the use of technology by governmental entities,” LePage wrote.
    The governor pointed out that on Maine’s island communities, where attendance is at the mercy of a ferry schedule, “The use of video and teleconferencing to conduct business is not just a convenience, but an absolute necessity.”
    LePage’s veto message went to say that Maine law spells out all the requirements for public sessions. “A meeting is legal based on whether or not these requirements are met, not on the use of technology,” he added.
    Rep. Charlie Priest, the house chair of the Judiciary Committee, disagrees.
    “Absent a specific statutory authorization under the Right to Know law, officials cannot participate remotely at meetings because it interferes with the right of the public, according to the Attorney General. The public has a right to interact with these officials in person and to testify before them in person,” Priest stated last week.
    Yes, the public does have the right to interact with public officials. However, common sense has to prevail.
    What’s the lesser of two evils: to allow a member to participate via Skype or postpone the session due to lack of a quorum? I’ll take technology over a postponement anytime.
    The Maine Municipal Association described LD 1809 as an “unnecessarily discriminatory solution in search of a problem.”
    In other words, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Mike Lange is a staff writer with the Piscataquis Observer. His opinions are his own and don’t necessarily reflect those of this newspaper.