Skip to main content

A Request To Representative McDonald for a Timeline of Changes in LD1 An Act to Stimulate Capital for Innovative Maine Businesses

Much to my surprise, when I recently clicked on my long standing link to LD1, it pointed to completly different content. The content which this link formerly opened is now called "original paper record. I have adjusted my list of links to incorporate the Original Paper Text, The Ammendment , and what is now called Public Law.You can locate them in the right side bar .

Without further ado, I am posting the letter I just sent to Representative McDonald in an attempt to establish a time line for the changes in the bill.

Dear Representative McDonald,


I recently received an email from you saying that you will keep in touch.

I was told by Representative McKane that you were on the committee for LD1- which goes by the title- An Act to Stimulate Capital for Innovative Businesses in Maine.

You may or not know that I write about the legislation that is passed by our legislature and so I have a list of links on my blog that I reference on a regular basis. The link for LD1 has been there since last spring when I first learned about the legislation around the time it was passed.

I was recently surprised to discover that the long standing link to LD1 link now points to completely different content.

The legislative website reports that the bill was passed on April 7 and signed on April 12. It was around that time that I contacted the web master to find out why there was no record of how each representative or senator voted. I was told that it was a gavel vote in which there was a call for objections and if there are none all are considered to have voted yes. I was also told that there were no objections.

At that time the content of the bill was the same as what is now listed as "original paper text. The fact of subsequent amendments indicates that there was a different version passed than what is now the content of the link- not just different but the original bill is erased and replaced.

And yet there are no further dates listed on the legislative website, which might lead some to conclude that it is the amended version that was passed on April 7 and approved by the governor on April 12.

I respectfully request that you provide a time line that includes the date of the amendment and when the amendment became public law.

Any further information about what has caused the bill to be completely replaced will be appreciated. I do not have the time during this busy moment to read the new version- but one can get the impression at a glance that the two versions were written by different parties. The first starts with a list of definitions, while the second just jumps in and starts talking about The Maine Public Employees Retirement Fund.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How The MPERS Contract Came To Be Embedded in the Maine Constitution

Is The Maine Public Retirement System Unconstitutional? According to the Maine Public Employees ComprehensiveFinancial Report of 2010 , the Maine Public Employees Retirement System was established in 1942 to provide services for retiring public employees. No information is given about how the Public Employees Retirement System was legally structured in 1942. In the report MPERS is described as “an independent public agency of the State of Maine that traces its history to 1942”. Wikipedia  uses the same term but when the link is clicked it reveals that Wikipedia has no idea what " independent public agency " means.  An online search for history of MPERS between 1942 and 1985 comes up empty.  In 1985 during the administration of Governor Joseph E Brennan, the Maine Legislature passed a statute announcing its intentions of using general taxpayer monies to provide for retirement funds and death benefits for public employees, a faction which, incidentally, includes th...
1 comment
Read more

High Brow Art VS the Marketplace and the Maine Juice Conference

TWEET THIS http://goo.gl/xdwZDk Continuing with my story from HERE ...(and incorporating a few paragraphs from this earlier but incomplete telling ) Finally, after a year of receiving stimulus fund notices for non-profits only, in the fall of 2009, I received an email from the Maine Arts Commission about a competition for small businesses for what I took to be, a modest grant for the sum of 30000.00 from an "anonymous source". In a moment of hopeful delusions, I imagined that the Maine Arts Commission had come to its senses and realized that they needed to support the private sector. The competition was called an "elevator pitch competition" which means a pitch delivered in five minutes. Even the written answers to questions on the application were required to be answered in a minimal number of words, brevity being stressed as being so important that if your couldn't explain a business idea in five minutes, then one's business idea is simply not ...
2 comments
Read more

Statutory Bond Question Requirements Amplify -NOT Negate Maine Constituion

TWEET THIS http://goo.gl/VcBj8O UPDATE NOV 11 2014:  Since I wrote This post- I cam across the statute governing Bond Ratification- as amended by the 2013 legislature It looks to be that the sentence "To meet the requirement that the signed statement of the Treasurer of State accompany any ballot question for ratification of a bond issue, the statement may be printed on the ballot" was amended by adding this "or it may be printed as a separate document that is made available to voters as provided in Title 21-A, sections 605-A and 651" Section 605-A no longer exists and I am tracking it down. Section 651 says it can be posted outside the guardrail which separates voters from the rest of the world. I am writing a new post to cover this new information Update Nov 12, 2014!   The link I originally referenced is here ,  THIS IS HOW THE LAW WAS WRITTEN IN  2011 - showing the process of incrementalism at play In this link  part of the sentence below is s...
1 comment
Read more