LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Take control of your future

/0 Comments/in , , /by

To the editor:

It is a stark reality that on average, working households in Maine have just $2,500 in retirement account savings. As the current AARP Volunteer State President, a Portland Maine resident, and a former small business owner, I am very interested in changing this situation.

Our great State of Maine has over 175,000 small businesses who could help provide a mechanism for its employees to begin to save for their own retirement. In our 2020 legislative session, a simple solution to address this growing and critical savings program will be considered. AARP strongly supports LD 594, the Maine Retirement Savings Program, sponsored by Senator Eloise Vitelli (D-Arrowsic).

Under this new law, employers would be able to offer their employees a way to save for retirement through payroll deduction. Employees would be automatically enrolled in this program unless they opted out of it. However, a survey we just released showed that 98 percent of voters in Maine who are working believe it’s important to save for retirement at work. And 84 percent of workers without access to a workplace savings program would take advantage of one if it were available. Over time, even a small contribution can make a big difference.

If you are one of the thousands of Mainers concerned about saving for retirement, please urge your legislators to support LD 594. It’s time for Maine lawmakers to give employees the opportunity to increase their savings and take control of their future.

Pat Pinto
AARP Maine Volunteer State President

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Times have changed

/0 Comments/in , , /by

To the editor:

Former Maine Governor Paul LePage gave a speech at Colby College last month. Their Diamond Auditorium was filled from the entrance to the speakers platform with students lined up holding signs expressing opinions on how to improve human conditions. Perhaps I was the only senior citizen there.

Mr. LePage traced his French-Canadian origins in Maine. He came from a large family and was on his own at age 11 when a business family, in Lewiston, took him in. He later took courses at Husson College, in Bangor. Upon graduation he was excused the balance of his tuition for the many ways he benefited the school through clubs and extracurricular activities.

During my lifetime, there have been many changes. Millionaires have become billionaires. An Indian chief once said, “White man is good at making things, but poor at distributing them.”

In the workforce women holding jobs now outnumber men. Competition has replaced cooperation, and children suffer most from the discord and neglect.

Regarding sexual orientation, men differ from women. Diversity advances a species. Darwin called this natural selection. Same sex stems from the dysfunctional family with delinquent fathers, single mothers, and both parents at jobs. Just consider the vices that can infiltrate a home at electronic speeds.

Drugs are more readily available, both legal and illegal. The network of interstate highways has made criminal activity profitable. Also, there is the violence due to the availability of hand guns and assault rifles. A lack of human values is a factor.

A house divided and vacant will not endure. As there are rules for driving, so there are rules of a higher order. These make for a successful lifestyle regardless of rank.

Abraham Lincoln was born into poverty. He learned to read and write from a Bible with help from his stepmother. As a young man, he studied law from borrowed law books to pass the bar exam in Illinois. He served twice in the legislature there. Twice he was elected president of the United States. From reporters, much of his home spun humor and wit has been recorded. “No one is poor who had a godly mother.” He stood six foot four inches tall. When asked he was known to say, “A man stands tallest on his knees.”

Russell Vesecky
Waterville

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Protect previous natural resource

/0 Comments/in , , /by

To the editor:

In light of a Letter to the Editor dated October 31, 2019, I would like to add to the comments about run-off at the Town Landing Road and other concerns.

As a resident of South China who has cleaned litter along this road for 20 years, I would agree we have a problem with this road as a public access point to the lake. During the season, large boats and vehicles can be seen trying to manage entry from this road. The only way to turn around is on someone’s private property, and the only place to park is along the buffer on the side of the road. The regular wear and tear to the road is evident, and because of the isolated aspect of this entry point, there is no surveilling boats for milfoil or other invasive species. The shallow waters also make large boat access problematic and create disturbance to the bottom of the lake.

It is certainly worth further discussion in order to protect this precious natural resource, China Lake.

Katy McCormac
South China

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: It’s not hunting; it’s just killing

/1 Comment/in , /by

To the editor:

Thank you to Roland Hallee for his recent article “The unfair resources of today’s ‘great game hunter.’” In it he points out tools available to today’s deer hunters such as deer urine scent, GPS devices, artificial callers, computers, and high-powered rifle scopes. Deer hunting is perhaps the most traditional hunting engaged in, in Maine. It still largely requires hunting skills.

Moose, bear and coyote hunting, on the other hand cannot be called hunting. Moose are killed during Maine’s moose hunt while they simply stand there in clearcuts looking at the “hunters.” The only skill moose “hunters” need to possess is the ability to drive a vehicle on woods roads and look for the moose that stand along the roadsides.

Bears are fed and trained to come into feeding stations where they are ambushed by “hunters.” They are also chased by packs of radio-collared dogs until they climb a tree or can run no more. The “hunters” track them via radio signals while driving their trucks and then shoot them while they are either treed or are surrounded by the dogs.

Coyotes are also run down by dogs and are also fed at feeding stations and are shot both day and night when they come in to eat.

There is virtually no such thing as “fair chase” when it comes to killing wildlife. This is neither sport nor hunting. It is just killing.

John Glowa
China

OPINIONS: China firefighters yet to receive citizen-approved stipend check

/0 Comments/in , , /by
by Sheldon Goodine
Retired Chief of SCVFD, Inc.

To the editor:

At the town meeting on April 6, 2019, the town approved article 9 with the addition of $7,000 to the $33,0000, for a total of $40,000, for stipends for fire and rescue services. As of this date, October 28, 2019, the fire departments have not received checks. This is almost seven months since the town vote. When the subject of stipends for firefighters came up, it was done by the select board without input from the fire departments. A lot of meetings and letters on the subject have done little to solve a perceived problem. Most of the firefighters who are volunteers did not favor the stipend but thought that it would be a nice way for the town to thank us for our service.

“The way I see it,” if the town has a problem with paying stipends, they can shove it where the sun don’t shine. It was written in The Town Line (Oct. 24, 2019) that select board member Ronald Breton said that the fire department representatives (fire chiefs) have not signed the memorandum and the $40,000 should not be handed over until they do. The voters of the town did not require this memorandum when they voted to approve the #9 article. This was done by the select board so they could have control over how the money was spent and who gets how much. When in reality the chiefs of the departments know best how to disperse the funds as they know who puts in the most time and effort into the workings of the department. How can an appointed town official have more authority over an expenditure than the voters of the town? The select board serves the town by a vote of the people and the town manager serves the board of selectmen. We can solve some of the issue in the upcoming election on November 5, 2019, by electing new people to serve on the select board. Look well at the ballot and choose candidates that will take charge and hold the town manager to only operate as the select board dictates.

I talk to a lot of people from all around the state of Maine and when they find out that I am from the town of China, they ask me, “what is wrong with the town of China?” I respond to them that there is nothing wrong with the town of China, it’s just the select board and the town manager that is the problem.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Close Town Landing Road

/0 Comments/in , /by

To the editor:

Amidst the drama at the recent Selectmen meeting, I noted Tom Michaud is busily repairing fire roads throughout the town. In addition, he is taking suggestions for repairs to other fire roads “to reduce run-off.”

I would like to nominate Town Landing Road to this list. While technically not a “fire road,” it is in serious disrepair. Ditches that were dug a few years ago are not serving their purpose, and continued run-off is clearly evident. Further, the Town should give serious consideration to closing the road permanently for boat access to the lake. Most boats are getting launched at other locations that have been built for this specific purpose, and the road has become a popular nighttime location for illegitimate activities. Closing this road would not affect any local businesses, as there are none in South China Village.

Closing Town Landing Road would serve to protect the Town’s most precious resource, China Lake. I hope town officials will consider this seriously. If that cannot be done, please add it to the repair list.

Geoff Hargadon
South China

COMMUNITY COMMENTARY: Question 2 makes people with disabilities part of the election process

/0 Comments/in , /by
by State Representative Bruce White

Election Day is right around the corner. At the polls, you’ll see two ballot questions that come from our work in the Legislature. The first asks if you’d like to authorize a $105 million bond for transportation infrastructure projects, things like road and bridge repairs. The second question comes from a bill I submitted last session and aims to make the political process more inclusive and accessible. This bill had bi-partisan support in the legislature.

Question two will read, “Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to allow persons with disabilities to sign petitions in an alternative manner as authorized by the Legislature?” This would allow persons with physical disabilities who cannot sign their own name to use an alternative method to sign citizen’s initiative petitions and people’s veto initiatives.

Alternative signatures for people with physical disabilities are already approved for the purposes of voter registration, change of party enrollment, candidate nomination petitions and Maine Clean Election Act forms. This question simply expands the existing provision and helps ensure all Maine residents are given the opportunity to participate in our political system.

The original idea for this bill came to me from the Secretary of State’s Office, and I was immediately excited and honored to sponsor the legislation. By allowing people with disabilities to use a signature stamp or authorize another resident to sign on their behalf, we’re getting more Maine voices involved in solving the issues our state faces. I look forward to you all having the opportunity to weigh in on this matter on Nov. 5.

OPINIONS – Understanding the Johnson Amendment: A tax law that prevents nonprofits becoming PACs

/1 Comment/in /by
by Tom Waddell

There is a growing but minority movement within the religious community to repeal the Johnson Amendment. If the amendment is repealed, our churches would no longer be houses of worship; instead they would become Political Action Committees (PACs). It is for these reasons repealing the amendment is widely opposed by both religious and non-religious groups.

The purpose of the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law that modifies the IRS tax code for all 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt corporations, is to prevent these corporations from becoming Political Action Committees. It does this by prohibiting all 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt corporations, including churches, from campaigning for or against political candidates.

The current administration in Washington and a small minority of evangelical Protestant churches want to repeal the amendment because they believe it limits their religious freedom. Their goal is to allow all churches to support political candidates while maintaining their tax-free status. That would make political contributions to 501 (c) (3) charitable organizations tax deductible.

The Johnson Amendment preserves a charitable organization’s right to support, or oppose, any government policy, law, bill, statute or social issue that they believe is not in their or the community’s best interest. The amendment also protects charitable organizations, including churches, from pressure by political candidates to endorse them in an ever-increasing divisive and partisan political atmosphere.

Repealing the Johnson Amendment and allowing 501 (c) (3) tax-deductible corporations to maintain their tax-free status would result in donors making political contributions to candidates primarily through their local church. Unlike Political Action Committees, which churches would fast become, churches don’t have to deduct operating costs from those donations. In addition, the donor would be able to deduct political contributions, something not allowed now, when they make political contributions through a charitable organization. It is a win/win situation for the donor class, but a lose/lose situation for churches, state and federal governments.

Churches will lose because repealing the amendment would bring political divisiveness into the church. Clergy and parishioners want their churches to remain a place of worship where members sit in the sanctuary or gather at coffee hour in groups of friends and neighbors. They want their church to be a place where parishioners gather as a united community in worship, not divided by political ideology. Local, state, and federal governments would lose, too. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, repealing the amendment would cost America $7.7 billion over ten years through lost tax revenue.

An overwhelming majority of charitable organizations and churches support the Johnson Amendment. Lifeway Research, an evangelical Christian polling group that regards the Johnson Amendment as policing sermons, reported in their 2016 survey that nearly 80 percent of Americans oppose repealing the amendment. It is no surprise then that more than 8,500 faith and secular leaders signed a document asking Congress to preserve the amendment. Americans do not want charitable organizations and churches to be divided by partisan politics.

Some of the well-known churches and charitable organizations that support keeping the Johnson Amendment are: American Baptists, American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, Catholics for Choice, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Goodwill Industries, Habitat for Humanity, League of Women Voters, Meals on Wheels, National Council of Churches, National Council of Nonprofits, Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, Volunteers of America, and the YWCA.

If the Johnson Amendment is repealed, churches will, in effect, become political action committees, not houses of worship. They will also experience the same division and lack of trust within the congregation that is so common in today’s volatile political atmosphere.

Whether churches become money-laundering establishments for politicians is up to you. If you are part of the 80 percent of Americans who want to preserve the sanctity of your local church, I urge you to vote for candidates who support the Johnson Amendment in the 2020 elections. Doing so will determine the future of your place of worship, your community and your country.

Tom Waddell is a resident of Litchfield and is the president of the Maine chapter of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. He can be reached at president@ffrfmaine.org.

OPINIONS: Embden selectmen refuse to schedule special town meeting on citizens’ petition

/0 Comments/in , , /by
by Sandi Howard

At the Embden Select Board on September 4, 2019, town residents submitted a Citizen’s petition for a town vote on the CMP corridor and a vote to enact an electrical transmission moratorium ordinance.

The selectboard refused to schedule a special town meeting for this vote despite residents following all of the legal requirements to submit this petition. Embden resident and lead petition gatherer questioned the board about this decision. Selectboard Chairman Chuck Taylor responded that their decision was based on advice of the town’s attorney, Ken Lexier.

The board’s decision seems inconsistent with an email communication sent by Chuck Taylor, selectboard chairman to Sandra Howard on August 1, 2019, which reads as follows:

“Dear Mrs. Howard,
We’re good. There will be no permitting in Embden. Thanks for your concern.
-Chuck”

“We are disappointed with the Emdben selectboard’s decision to refuse town residents the opportunity to have a voice on the CMP corridor. Like in the town of Jay, Embden’s town leaders are not representing the will of their constituents,” said Sandra Howard, Director of Say NO to NECEC.

It is very important to understand that the municipal officers may not refuse a petition merely because, from their political or personal perspective on what is appropriate for the municipality, they believe the petition is unreasonable. A select board’s denial of a citizen’s petition must be objectively reasonable as a matter of law, not merely subjectively reasonable in the view of the municipal officers.

Because Embden’s Select Board is refusing to allow residents to vote on the CMP corridor, town residents are now circulating a new petition addressed to a state notary, who has authority to call a special town meeting for a vote on the CMP corridor. In addition, the petition will ask town residents to vote to enact an electrical transmission moratorium ordinance.

An electrical transmission moratorium ordinance would serve as a pause in any electricity transmission corridor development in a town for 180 days. To date, CMP has not received approval for most of state and federal corridor permits it needs. CMP is starting to ask towns for provisional permits, which would take full effect only after the state and Federal permits are secured. It is important to note that the U.S. EPA has raised serious concerns about CMP’s permit applications. CMP is under multiple investigations by state energy regulators right now, so allowing any municipal permitting to go ahead puts the town at risk.

Sandi Howard is Director, Say NO to NECEC. She can be reached at 603-475-4566.

OPINION: China firemen do not endorse town’s plans for new emergency services building

/0 Comments/in , , /by
Respectfully submitted by,
Chief Dick Morse, South China Volunteer Fire Department,
Chief Tim Theriault, China Village Volunteer Fire Department,
Chief Bill Van Wickler, Weeks Mills Volunteer Fire Department.

To the people of the town of China:

First and foremost thank you all for your continued support. At the June 11, 2019, municipal and RSU #18 election, you will be asked on question 2 to vote on whether or not you want the town to spend $25,000 for an engineering and cost study for an emergency services building and a community building.

The way this proposed project has been presented to the town by the town manager and the select board, by presenting drawings at town meeting and by placing this item on the ballot, has given the impression that this project has been well thought through, and by implication, has the backing of the volunteer fire departments.

This could not be further from the truth. We feel it important to make the residents aware that during several discussions with the town manager and the select board and at two public hearings on the subject, China’s three fire departments have stated unequivocally that they neither need nor want such a building and feel that it would be a waste of the $25,000 to contract for the study since there is absolutely no demonstrated need for an emergency services building.

The China Village VFD has no current plans to move from their station, and if they did they would want to move into a building that they own, not a town-owned building. As we have stated many times, China’s Volunteer Fire Departments are all separate and individual, private nonprofit corporations organized under Maine law and we have no plans to make any changes. As demonstrated by their recent words and actions, the town manager and some members of the current select board appear to want to make changes to this system that has been working very well since at least 1947 and have suggested changes that we cannot agree with. The system we have works very well for the town and there is no need to fix something that is not broken.

By presenting this project in this manner, the town manager and the select board give the impression that we need to start down the road to consolidation or to becoming a municipal fire department. Having had discussions on this topic with the volunteers at each station, we assure you that is the last thing that we would recommend for the town at this time. Such a move would not be a positive change, it would negatively affect membership and would be enormously expensive. Please understand and rest assured that should we have a real need for any major change, the VFDs will not hesitate to come to the town and make it very clear what that change is. This is not that time.

Although supported by the town manager and select board, there was a unanimous vote of ought not to pass by the budget committee and recommendations from the three VFDs not to proceed with this at the budget hearing and budget committee meeting.

We urge you to vote no on this question, thereby telling the town manager and select board that they are not listening and have once again overstepped by putting this on the ballot regardless of the facts.