 I've tried not to think too much about where I'm at, what my title is, or anything to distract me from the work at hand to stay grounded. When someone says Rep. Chenette, I always correct them and say ‘just Justin’.
But as I clear out my desk and locker, reminiscent of the final days of high school, after adjourning session at 1am, it’s easy to sit back and reflect what this place truly represents. What this institution stands for. It's bigger than me, you, and any one individual or party. No doubt there are major issues that need solving. No doubt the system as a whole needs some reform, but for all the long nights, intense debate, little pay, hotel living, and rising blood pressure, I do enjoy trying to make a difference on behalf of the people back home in Saco and the state of Maine as a whole. Not just sit on the sidelines, but to turn that complaint I or others have into a possible solution. So no matter what issue we may differ on, what side of the aisle we may sit on, the collective goal of making our state better and the people we strive to serve remain constants in this political landscape. I hope to be given the opportunity to come back and continue to fight for the values we hold true. This has truly been an incredible journey of service.
0 Comments
My bill, LD 488, a resolve directing the health and human services to develop a process to provide additional home-based and community-based services in the MaineCare program, is currently on the table awaiting resources. This is after it passed the House and was in the process of passage in the Senate.
Below is the text of the amended version of the bill, attached fiscal notes, and possible ways to pay for it.  Senator Millett, Rep. MacDonald, and honorable members of the Education and Cultural Affairs Committee, I’m Rep. Justin Chenette of Saco and here to support LD 1505 An Act Regarding Insured Value Factor Payments for Public Tuition Students Attending a Private School.
Public schools in Maine have a ‘tuition rate' that sending towns must pay when their students are tuitioned at public schools. For private schools, sending towns provide a voucher good for up to Maine's average per-pupil cost for secondary education in the previous year, plus what is known as the Insured Value Factor, an additional payment intended to cover depreciation of private schools' buildings. State law limits what private schools like town academies across the state, including my alma mater Thornton Academy in Saco, can charge municipalities when they accept students whose tuition is paid with public funds. The cap is equivalent to the average cost of educating a student in the state's public schools. On top of this Insured Value Factor had allowed private schools to charge an additional 10 percent, $800 per student (2010), to help cover the costs of building maintenance and construction. The state reimbursed municipalities for the additional fee. That number has been reduced by half to a mere 5%. Sending towns have the option of increasing the voucher to as high as 115 percent of the maximum rate, but may not reduce the voucher below that rate. The 50% reduction in IVF resulted in a loss of $550,000 annually for Thornton Academy. Since 2009, that's $2.5 million in lost revenue. At the same time, the local student population has increased and the capital needs continue to climb with an aging infrastructure. This bill represents a phased in system by increasing the amount a private school can charge for IVF one percent in 2013-2014, 2% in 2014-2015, and a final 2% in 2015-2016 to arrive at a total of 10% IVF funding. This number reflects the original agreed upon number prior to it being cut in a previous session. But for me this isn’t about private versus public schools. Thornton Academy is Saco’s high school school while taking in kids from around the RSU 23 and even around the globe. Saco doesn’t have a public high school, so Thornton Academy acts through a public-private partnership. While the curriculum, clubs, sports, and multiple pathways for students is second to none, the only downside is the lack of funding for school construction. While full IVF funding isn’t a magic wand over the high costs of maintaining the aging infrastructure, it goes a long way to help town academies keep the roof over the heads of students of publicly-funded, privately supported education. Thank you for your time and your consideration to this vital piece of legislation. View testimony in favor of Bill: Casasa, Kathleen Portland Education Association Chenette, Justin Maine State Legislature Colbry, Brent Superintendent of Schools RSU 54/ MSAD 54 Durost, Dick Maine Principals Association Gould, Dick Greenville Kilby-Chesley, Lois Maine Education Association MacArthur, Sandra Maine School Management Association LD 488 An Act To Improve Access to Home-based and Community-based Care
Atienza, Tony, citizen Chenette, Justin M. Maine State Legislature Comart, Jack, Maine Equal Justice Partners Delicata, Leo J., Legal Services for the Elderly Fernald, Raima, parent Gallant, Brenda, Maine Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Hamilton, Ricker, DHHS Office of Aging and Disability Services Hennessy, John, AARP Lamb, Susan, National Association of Social Workers Rice, Peter M., Disability Rights Center Weise, Wendy, Hospice of Southern Maine Update: Bill Failed in House 83 to 56Floor Speech Tuesday May 14thThank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. I rise in opposition to impending motion of ought not to pass. Money and politics seem to be two words that are not mutually exclusive. With the Citizen’s United decision by the Supreme Court, money has been limitlessly amplified by way of political action committees better known as PACs. While many of the campaign finance reforms that are needed must come from the federal level, there are things we can do in this state, in this chamber that can help take money out of the equation or at the very least make our officials more accountable to the people rather than to their donors. My bill LD 410 addresses both the hypocrisy in the Clean Election’s system as well as a cap for overall contributions to PACs. This represents a compromise between Democrats and Republicans and unlikely allies. As I’m pushing for this reform as someone who was a traditionally financed candidate and Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, a strong ally for preserving and protecting our Clean Elections system that was voted on by Mainers in 1996, has changed their position on this bill with this compromised language. I am not suggesting eliminating PAC fundraising altogether. I am merely suggesting during the entire duration of the campaign period from the time the Clean Elections candidates turn in their qualifying checks all the way through the day of the election, there should not be any PAC involvement. Clean Election’s candidates profess to be ‘clean’ from special interest money and can then turn around and raise funds for their PACs on the side. This is disingenuous to the voters and a misuse of taxpayer money if allowed to continue. In too many instances PAC funds are raised from exactly the same special interest groups that our public funding system was designed to avoid. This program has blatant back-door loopholes that allow individuals to create an entire network of completely legal fraud; much of which is publicly searchable, if you know what it is you are searching for. Many PACs don’t have the name of the principal officer in their title thus adding an extra layer of secrecy. The PAC money collected during campaign periods is used as a security blanket for Clean Elections candidates who fear being outspent if they just stay with the public dollars they are given. The PAC money can be their knight in shining armor as independent expenditures when their taxpayer funded supplies grow thin. I am seeking to strengthen Clean Elections by ensuring that it’s core mission of keeping special interest money out of politics is abided by. And yet it appears that fundraising was a major priority for at least 34 candidates in the 2010 election cycle who took public tax dollars to run their respective campaigns and at the same time were also principal officers or decision makers for their own political action committees many of which were leadership PACs. Between 2010 and 2011, there were 13 Republicans and 21 Democrats who were Clean Candidates in their own right, while raising a combined $978,501 in PAC money. Some key leadership PACs raised about $77,000 in two years, $105,000 in three years, and $118,000 over a four year span. Imagine if all this money was used to shore up our budget shortfall instead of hoisting political aspirations. According to the Commission of Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, there is no limitation on the amount of money a contributor may give to a PAC hence why I’m seeking to cap this amount at $350 per a single source. This current unlimited nature of PACs combined with our Clean Elections system loophole is a bad combo. It creates a vicious cycle where candidates raise private money for their PACs, funnel that money to party caucus or committee PACs, which then in turn spends that money throughout multiple races by way of independent expenditures. All the while the lobbying groups donating to these individual PACs get brownie points with that particular legislator to influence policy opinions, votes, or to gain access later in the session. These legislators, on both sides of the aisle, also get their gold star by raising a substantial amount of money, somehow showcasing this fiscal feat to their respective caucuses in an attempt to secure leadership positions. And we wonder why the public has a apprehensive view of our political system. Last time I checked leadership is defined by ability not money. Putting this bill into law would ensure that special interest money does not influence leadership races or make it more difficult to do so. It will send a message that the Senate President, Speaker of the House, and the like, cannot and will not be bought. When candidates double dip by accepting money from two hands at the same time, we are creating generations of dirty politicians and a very negative public perception of the campaign finance process. While the Veterans and Legal Affairs committee voted 12-1 against my bill, I urge this body to vote against the impending motion and support the ought to pass as amended report. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do what is right over what is politically easy. Thank you Mr. Speaker and I most definitely request a roll call. Below is the roll call: |
RSS Feed
