Still shaking my head about the #menews panel. Here's why.

Published at thePhoenix.com

I'm still shaking my head in dismay and disbelief after Monday's panel convened, allegedly, to discuss the future of Maine's newspapers. (Here's the video.) I've spent many years in the alternative and community press, and am well used to seeing frequent examples of the outright cluelessness and lack of vision at mainstream daily newspapers. It's helped form part of my theory about what's wrong with today's newspaper industry. (In brief, it's that they don't realize what strengths they have, they value what they shouldn't, and are too full of themselves to look around at the wreckage they inhabit and decide to clean out the pigsty.)

But after Monday, I'm actually reconsidering my view that the larger players in the media industry - even the larger players in Maine's media industry, who are tiny specks in the global media universe - are out of touch with reality. Now, I have begun to think they're operating in a fully alternate universe than the one in which I've been reporting and editing - and living - for my entire career.

Here are a few of the moments that continue to really shake me, and, in italics, why.

Tom Bell, Press Herald reporter and president of the paper's union, said the paper's plan for self-improvement now that it has been purchased by hedge-fund mogul Donald Sussman is to double its news staff from 8 to 16 reporters. In my professional life, I've never worked for an organization with that many reporters - and I've always worked at papers that scoop dailies on an extremely frequent basis. It's unclear to me that the solution to failing business models is to put out more of the same stenography mainstream dailies are famous for. That said, the PPH has hired two crackerjack reporters: Steve Mistler and Colin Woodard (the latter a now-former member of the Phoenix's freelance crew). If they're the mold for what's coming next, then that does bode well. But their advantage is their actual skill, not how many of them there are.

Bell also said, as he has in the past, that the reason Sussman bought the company is for "philanthropic reasons." So a daily paper that is still allegedly profitable (though less so than in years past) is now a charity? It's certainly unclear that charities are big innovators in the news space. Even "new" models like ProPublica and the anemic Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting (MCPIR here) aren't doing anything that has never before been done in the news business. They're operating investigative bureaus at a loss, seeking subsidy from other, profit-making endeavors. (In past cases, it was the classifieds department of the same company; here it's whatever their donors actually do to earn money.)

Tony Ronzio, director of new media at the Lewiston Sun Journal's parent company, Sun Media, said news organizations will survive because they're unbiased sources of information. I'd love to think that's true, but it's not a business model - and especially not in our present society, where people debate seemingly obvious facts like whether the Earth is getting warmer, or whether trickle-down economics ever actually help the people they're supposed to trickle down to. It's almost impossible to find unbiased information - and mainstream daily papers are one of the least likely places to find it, since their reporters' workloads are too high to allow genuine inquiry, and editors' stomachs are too weak to allow more than he-said-she-said-he-said exchanges on even the most basic of recounting of events.

Todd Benoit, director of news and new media at the Bangor Daily News, said that the BDN is offering blogs to important thinkers in Maine, such as political-science professor Amy Fried at UMaine. Those are people who would previously be sources for reported stories, he observed, who now can weigh in directly to the newspaper's audience. That is indeed an interesting model, and one many other papers have attempted. The problem is the potential for a newspaper's website to turn into an environment like a TV talk show, where allegedly important people pontificate without regard for the facts. Perhaps it was lack of time causing Benoit not to talk about an editing process, or the means by which the BDN picks its bloggers, but he seemed to be saying that the value of the newspaper reporter as an intermediary is diminishing, not remaining valuable.

Ronzio talked briefly about the economic impact of newspapers and their employees, observing in passing that printing and production jobs in newspapers are "nothing to do with the newsroom or news gathering. Those are blue-collar jobs." It was barely a decade ago that most reporters considered themselves blue-collar workers too. He's right that reporters now are more inclined to think of themselves as distinct from the working classes, and see more in common between themselves and the corporate-government elite that's been running amok since the 1980s. Those efforts have gathered speed in the last 10 years, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the lack of scrutiny has come at the same time as the detachment of daily journalists from their audiences.

Bell, responding to an inquiry about getting more young people reading the paper, suggested having a beat focusing on young people, rather than a geographic beat structure, like the Press Herald has. Perhaps he's choosing to forget the days Justin Ellis's "Generation NXT" column regularly made the rest of the Press Herald appear even more out-of-touch than expected by "the young people" (as Ellis's blog called those he intended to cover). Ellis is a nice guy, who had good ideas that were often hamstrung and neutered by myopic leadership. Maybe new ownership and management at the PPH would help. But that still ignores the fact that young people want to know about health care, the economy, education, politics, the environment, culture, and government. Which seems a lot like what non-young people want to know about. (And, for that matter, what people care about no matter where they live in a geographic beat structure.)

Bell also admitted that the Press Herald staff look at the Bangor Daily News and the Lewiston Sun Journal regularly, and said that's a change from the past. This is something that should give me hope, and should help me feel better about the state of Maine's newspapers. But the idea that the state's largest paper didn't even bother to regularly look at the second- and third-place papers is distressing. And the fact that it's new enough to be notable suggests it's not happening nearly enough yet. Bell also didn't mention that PPH reporters are well known for reading the community weekly newspapers in their coverage areas, and pretending they didn't get scooped by days or weeks when writing their own stories on subjects long since covered locally.

Benoit provided one of the only moments with a sense of urgency, when he said, "if newsrooms are evolving then advertising and marketing should be in full-scale revolution." Nobody talked about that at all, and from what's evident on the market and on the surface, Maine's mainstream newspapers are not even close. In fact, their newsrooms are farther ahead than their advertising and marketing. Which isn't actually saying much.

Terry Carlisle, general manager of the Ellsworth American, was perhaps the most obviously out-of-touch person on the panel. She outright scoffed at the idea of citizen journalism: "We're professionals . . . we don't need the help of people who are not trained to do it." It's never been clear to me that treating your customers as if they're helpless is a good business model. (Even hospitals know better than that.) And to outright refuse help? That's just stupidly arrogant. Admittedly, she works at a community weekly, rather than a mainstream daily. But none of the people sitting next to her even blinked when she said this, nor at her even more startling remarks.

Carlisle also claimed that young people aren't interested in newspapers; they only get interested later in life. National surveys show otherwise - and strongly otherwise. And that's in addition to the decades of success of alternative newspapers around the country, like the Portland Phoenix, whose core audience is in the group of people Carlisle suggests don't care about newspapers.

Carlisle also, separately, said that 18- to 24-year-olds "don't buy anything." Any of us who have ever been 18- to 24-year-olds know that's silly. If you're looking for expert advice, though, try the example of credit-card companies. They're extremely good at targeting people from whom they can make money, and they have for years been absolutely insane about getting college students to sign up for credit cards.

And Carlisle said she was dismayed by all the attention to lost circulation, saying that even after the drops, the Ellsworth American still has more readers in Hancock County than anyone else. She may be right about that - though the daily circ figures for the "mainstream" BDN and PPH are only barely above the circulation of the "alternative" Phoenix - but the problem is in how the circ drop combines with advertising rates. I'd bet none of the Maine papers has lowered ad rates, even while selling fewer eyeballs. Rather, they're in the position of trying to sell fewer eyeballs at higher rates. Sure, an ad in the Ellsworth American will reach more people in Hancock County than in any other publication, but why should it cost more than it did in the past, when it was an even better deliverer of advertising?

Carlisle had a very lucid moment at the very end, in which she said, "Nobody covers what we cover." This should give me hope - that perhaps people leading Maine's media outlets understand what they have that is valuable. But even Carlisle didn't seem to notice the importance of what she said. And certainly nobody else did. Of course, that statement isn't true for the PPH, BDN, and Sun Journal - not only are they all heavily reliant on wire copy (and on stories from the other papers under a shared-coverage agreement), but even the stuff they do cover is commonly covered by the local weeklies, often well before the dailies bother.

Bill Kuykendall, a senior lecturer in new media at UMaine (and a professor of mine when I was in grad school at the University of Missouri), observed that high-speed Internet access is expanding rapidly across Maine, thanks to the Three-Ring Binder project and UMaine's involvement in Gig-U. This is also something that should give me hope, except that none of the panelists even responded to this observation. That shows they don't understand the significance of the change that will come as their audiences move online even more quickly, and as mobile access to high-speed Internet gets even more widespread.

Kuykendall also asked the panel about moving to mobile apps, and what was possible for them to afford. Carlisle was the only one who answered the question -the Ellsworth American does have some mobile presence, she said. The folks from the dailies changed the subject. It's impossible to talk about the future of news without talking mobile, but that's what Maine's three largest daily papers are doing. Maybe they have something up their sleeves, but there was no sense along the lines of "we'll have something, but we can't tell you yet what it will be." Rather, the sense was, "Mobile? Who cares?"

There were a couple of bright points, though.

First was Bell's observation that Maine's papers are privately owned, carry little debt, and have owners who are involved locally. All of these are good starting points for organizations seeking to make changes. They're less likely to get bogged down in choosing a direction, more flexible at adapting, and largely unconstrained by outside economic forces. But being at a good starting point right now is WAY behind the rest of the industry's pack, and risks leaving Maine's media market - like its industrial market - as a backwater of little note.

And second was Ronzio's observation that the local community is what's going to support the newspapers, rather than any sort of national or regional advertising base or readership. He's right, and if even some of Maine's newspaper leaders are realizing this, they are approaching the starting gate on real positive change. But being at the starting line is still very far behind.

While I'm reluctant to end on a low note, the fact is I have a worse view of the mainstream press in Maine than I did before Monday. Not least is because I asked a question of the panel that I've been asking since 2009: Given what they're talking about as future changes (connecting with young readers, using social media, providing context and depth rather than just stenography), how will they compete with those news organizations, including the Portland Phoenix, that are already doing all of those things, and have been for years? There were jokes and criticisms, but no real ideas. As one person said afterward, it produced a lot of squirming, but no substantive responses.

Corporate Welfare Watch: King-BIW deal resurfaces during tax-incentive scrutiny

Published on thePhoenix.com

Bath Iron Works staff subsidize their own jobs as a result of a 15-year-old deal now coming under criticism from a national watchdog group. In 1997, Bath Iron Works threatened to leave Maine in search of greener pastures. In exchange for staying — and agreeing to invest $200 million in its shipyard here — lawmakers and then-governor Angus King agreed to pay BIW as much as $60 million over the years between then and 2018.

The payment comes even more directly from state coffers than if Augusta sent BIW a check. The company deducts state income tax from workers' paychecks, but from July 1 to the end of each year, BIW pockets the money, rather than the usual practice of turning it over to the state treasury.

Six years before that deal ends, it has been pinpointed as one of the biggest such handouts by Good Jobs First, a national watchdog group studying economic-development incentives. A recent report says the BIW tax break is the 14th-largest nationwide case of workers subsidizing their own corporations.

BIW is the only recipient of the state's custom-made Shipbuilding Facility Tax Credit, which is capped at $3.5 million per company per year. Nearly 100 other Maine companies take advantage of similar deals, under Employment Tax Increment Financing arrangements, which this year are slated to let companies keep $7.1 million of their workers' tax withholdings.

Maine is one of 16 states that has such a program (and one of six that has two), projected to cost Mainers $10.2 million in tax revenue this year alone — cash that would ordinarily be sent to the treasury but instead is kept by companies.

Good Jobs First research director Philip Mattera admits that it's "kind of an abstract issue" his group is worried about in this study. In other studies, he observes, "We're critical of a lot of these subsidy programs in general. They often go to companies that don't need them." He calls the tax-withholding rebates "even worse" than other kinds of corporate welfare because it opens up the opportunity for even more, and larger subsidies; states get much more money from income-tax withholding than from corporate taxes, and so have more cash to hand out if they can tap that source before it ever arrives in the state treasury.

He says the structure of the tax break — requiring specific investment over a specific timetable, and expanding or contracting the annual amount of the rebate depending on actual employment levels — means it's better than it might be, but is still too closely linked to workers' earnings for his group to be comfortable.

Jay Wadleigh, vice-president of Local S6, the biggest union operating at BIW, says workers are well aware of the arrangement. "We lobbied with (the company) to get it," he recalls. "What (lawmakers) did helped the shipyard," promoting investment and saving jobs. He notes that BIW's chief competitor, Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi, also gets state subsidies.

He observed that while Good Jobs Now criticizes the form of the tax break, Maine could have given BIW the same amount by collecting all the workers' taxes and then sending a check from Augusta, and workers wouldn't object then, either.

Todd Gabe, an economics professor at the University of Maine who studies economic development, says business leaders care less about taxes than politicians often think, and says studies of government-subsidy programs are "mixed" as far as effectiveness.

The BIW and ETIF credits are the only corporate handouts in Maine that are actually tied to employment numbers and salaries. State officials have for years given loan guarantees, tax rebates, and other financial incentives to companies without promises of new jobs or decent wages.

The biggest such program, the Business Equipment Tax Reimbursement plan, is designed to reward investment by refunding from state coffers money companies pay in local property taxes for their equipment and machinery. In 2011, BETR gave companies a total of $55,263,656. Eleven companies got more than $1 million each in refunds from the state; of those, only LL Bean ($1 million) is headquartered in Maine. Six are out-of-state, including the biggest winner, Verso Paper ($4.3 million), BIW ($3.2 million), and Walmart ($1 million). The remaining four are owned by companies in other countries, like Nestle Waters North America (owner of Poland Spring; $1.9 million).

And these are hardly the only handouts the state offers. There are dozens of tax breaks on the books in Maine, all detailed in Maine Revenue Services reports (issued every other year, most recently in 2011). Lance Tapley analyzed the first such report on these so-called "tax expenditures" for the Portland Phoenix in 2008 (see "Tax Break Heaven") and found that of the state's $3.4 billion in tax breaks that year (an amount almost exactly the size of the state's actual spending), companies got $682 million, and wealthy Mainers got $808 million. Poor people got $157 million in tax breaks, and the middle class saw about half the total tax-break benefit, or $1.7 billion.

Press Releases: More questions, some answers

Published in the Portland Phoenix; additional info published at thePhoenix.com

We know a lot more now about the deal that handed Donald Sussman, the hedge-fund mogul, progressive philanthropist, and husband of Chellie Pingree, 75 percent of thePortland Press Herald and its siblings.

First, we know HOW THE DEAL CHANGED, in less than two months, from a $3.3-million loan worth five percent of the company into a $3.3-million cash purchase of three-quarters of the equity. Greg Kesich, a columnist for the Press Herald who is the vice-president of the Portland Newspaper Guild and holds one of two union seats on the company's board of directors, says Sussman's proposal for a loan "didn't work for the private-equity investors," who wanted "a lot of guarantees about how they were going to get out." So the company diluted existing shares — including the employees who own part of the company. "We're part of the 25 percent that just shrunk, that used to be 100 percent," Kesich says. How come? Easy: "Everybody's betting that a smaller share of something is better than a big share of nothing."

Second, we know THE BUSINESS PLAN HAS NOT CHANGED. While union president Tom Bell was dismissive of a proposed takeover plan by Chris Harte, a former PPHpresident and heir to the Harte-Hanks media fortune, because it was "too reliant on print" and didn't include enough investment in new technology. (Also, it would have required crushing concessions from the union.) It's clear the existing model isn't working: circulation and ad revenue have declined for years. Kesich says the company will invest the new cash in a major technology upgrade that union president Tom Bell has described as integrating online and in-print publishing, as well as modern software for advertising sales and accounting. Bell suggests the move will take the company from running way behind in the media industry to being in front of the pack.

Third, UNION-SOUGHT EMPLOYEE RAISES HAVE NOT YET BEEN NEGOTIATED. Wage increases were tabled until this year in the contract approved last year. Kesich says they'll come up in the middle of this year. The rest of the contract is still in force as well, Kesich says, until its original expiration date in June 2013.

Fourth, we can be reasonably sure SUSSMAN ISN'T DOING THIS TO CONTROL A MESSAGE or push a political agenda. (Seriously, as has been noted by others, if he wanted to push a political message, would he buy a newspaper or ads on television?) "He says that he's investing in a community asset and he considers journalism to be a public good, as well as a business," Kesich says. "It benefits everybody whether they read it or not." (So declining circulation shouldn't bother Sussman.) In fact, Kesich suggests, "this is more a philanthropic move" than a business one, though he says Sussman wants the paper to be "self-sustaining."

• That's a lot of good info, but questions remain:

The Bangor Daily News has reported that CRG Partners Group, a Boston-based firm "specializing in restructuring troubled companies," was brought in to reorganize in the wake of Connor's departure, and was looking for $10 million in investments to pay off debt, and an additional $5 million for operating cash. SUSSMAN'S CONTRIBUTION IS TINY compared with those goals. (Not to mention a pending lawsuit over $125,000 in allegedly unpaid bills for paper.) Will $3.3 million be enough to turn a struggling company into a successful one?

While we take Sussman at his word that he'll stay out of editorial decisions, Kesich says "he's going to have a hand in making business decisions." WHAT HAPPENS WHEN BUSINESS CHOICES IMPACT EDITORIAL coverage? That's unclear — while Sussman has said in a written statement that he'll trust the editors and managers hired by the previous owners, at some point they'll leave and he'll hire their replacements. Kesich asks skeptics to "look at what we do and evaluate what we do."

Read this story online to learn more questions — some with answers.

Jeff Inglis can be reached at  jinglis@phx.com.

Addendum

My column this week has some questions — and some answers — about the new incarnation of MaineToday Media, the owner of the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, the Kennebec Journal, and the Central Maine Morning Sentinel.

I ran out of room in the paper to give you all the info I had, so here’s an addendum. (Also, I’m attempting to get an interview with Donald Sussman; fingers crossed on that!)

There’s been a lot of talk about EDITORIAL INTEGRITY as a result of this deal, in which Donald Sussman has bought 75 percent of the company for $3.3 million. We take Sussman at his word that he won’t get involved in the editorial board and daily news operations; if he proves us wrong, we’ll let you know. Also, Greg Kesich, the union veep and PPH columnist I spoke to this week promises, as union prez Tom Bell has in other interviews, that the union will advocate for journalistic principles if issues arise.

On that note, we already know that SUSSMAN WILL BE IN THE NEWS A LOT MORE than he is used to, as a result of this deal. He’s normally just a good-guy character, donating millions to progressive and community causes around the state. Now he’s opening himself to criticism, ridicule, and general widespread attention. The paper is looking at how best to handle DISCLOSURES ABOUT HIS OWNERSHIP when dealing with stories that might relate to him or his interests — or his wife and her political career. While under Richard Connor, that sort of owner-disclosure was rare (“we were told not to do it,” Kesich says), but since Sussman has gotten involved, that information has been regularly inserted in stories about Pingree.

What does the purchase price mean for THE COMPANY’S TOTAL VALUATION? Probably very little. It’s definitely not as simple as saying if $3.3 million equals three-fourths of the company, then the whole thing is worth $4.4 million. For one thing, the company owns land and a building in South Portland, valued by that city at $12.1 million (despite that number, it sold in 2009 for $7 million as part of the Blethens’ exit). The building is home to a printing press and other equipment valued at $6.8 million. And there are subscriber and advertiser databases, which are worth money to marketers, as well as the archival records, which are worth something to collectors and libraries. In the end, though, any company — like a home — is actually worth what it can be sold for, at the future date when it actually sells. So any calculation is unclear at best.

SUSSMAN HASN’T BEEN TO THE PRESS HERALD OFFICES yet. “He hasn’t set foot in the office yet,” Kesich said Friday. “I’m hoping that he will,” because employees whose jobs he saved want to meet him.
Say what you will about Richard Connor (we’ve sure said a lot here) and no-longer-prospective owner Chris Harte: both are extremely experienced at running profitable news operations. Their plans (Connor’s as implemented; Harte’s as proposed) included major changes that reduced the power, scope, and financial commitment to the union and its members. Which means they either saw NO WAY TO PROFITABILITY WITHOUT CUTTING union-related costs, or saw other ways but chose extended combat with the union as the easiest. Sussman has no experience managing a media company; will he find a way to preserve the union that the other guys, with decades more experience, couldn’t?

And lastly, WILL RICHARD CONNOR GET AWAY WITH HIS PLUNDER? He purchased the company for cheap, sold off almost all its real-estate, cut costs, allegedly rearranged the books to his own advantage, and then left town. Does he have personal — or criminal — liability for changes at the paper that slashed jobs, the salaries of those remaining, the paper’s reputation, and ultimately the community’s well-being?

Driving forward: Behrens's solid second effort

Published at thePhoenix.com


If there is a male equivalent to "chick lit," Peter Behrens's latest novel, The O'Briens, is probably it, a detail-rich, character-driven historical novel that lightly touches issues of family loyalty and individual aspirations. Less weighty, and less gripping, than his 2006 debut novel, The Law of Dreams, the present tale follows Joe O'Brien, the patriarch of the title family, from childhood in the late 19th century into his dotage in 1960.

Industrial and military history appear almost as characters — as does New York City, regularly and sometimes jarringly — guiding the human players along their courses, which are more beautifully embellished straight lines than twisting paths of plot.

Sadly, the deep echoes of Joe's failure to make his peace with a merciful action taken in his youth require Behrens to shallow out other aspects of his story. An early metaphor serves as an example: Joe gets engaged and then, moments later, he and his fiancée literally watch two people die in a plane crash. The moment is beautifully drawn, though, with precision and grace amid the tragedy.

THE O'BRIENS | by Peter Behrens | Pantheon Books | 384 pages | $25.95

Rating the #Snowe coverage - print and online

Published at thePhoenix.com

In the hours and days following last Tuesday’s shocker announcement that US Senator Olympia Snowe will not seek a fourth term in the Senate, the breaking-news ability of Maine’s mainstream press has been stretched in ways it hasn’t been in recent memory. This was no disaster/fire/accident story, where flames are visible and the players all gather in one place.

Rather, it was a political story, touched off by an email blast, with players around the state (and around the nation, if you count the major parties’ senate-campaign power brokers). And much of the early reporting was gut reaction (the governor swore; Dems rejoiced) followed by speculation about what it meant for not only the US Senate race in Maine, but nationally for the balance of power in the Senate, as well as statewide, regarding Congressional seats, and legislative ones too, as every political climber in the state saw real daylight above them for the first time in many years.

As such, it was a prime opportunity for the daily newspapers to step up and embrace what mainstream media outlets still quaintly call “new media.” Which is to say, the power of the Internet to reach and engage their audiences.

Unsurprisingly, it was the Sun Journal, led by energetic “new media director” Tony Ronzio, that led the pack, posting an early collection of reaction and preliminary analysis on Storify. (It included the pair of tweets breaking the news, from former SJ political reporter Rebekah Metzler, now at US News and World Report.)

The day after Snowe’s announcement, he hosted a CoverItLive chat with various political-watchers and several readers. The conversation was kept moving by interjections of facts, often provided by Sun Journal political reporter Steve Mistler (who also blogged up a storm) and regional editor Scott Thistle, but also supplemented by UMaine Campus editor Michael Shepherd. It was also supplemented by a series of ongoing polls on thought-provoking questions — about who can win (Michaud and Cutler tied, then Pingree, Summers, and King; Raye’s got no shot ), who in DC will miss Snowe most (Collins over Obama, with Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid tied for third), and who Snowe’s announcement hurts most (GOP over Dems, independents not at all)

The Bangor Daily News came in second, with strong contributions from the political blogs PineTreePolitics and PollWays (though neither is written by a staffer, and PollWays writer Amy Fried, a UMaine political scientist, was in the Sun Journal’s online chat), and a rudimentary — and uninteresting — online poll asking if readers were “sad to see Olympia Snowe leave her Senate seat.”

The Press Herald had a weak online showing, with several reported stories and columns, but for online-extras, there was just a slideshow of file photos of Snowe through the years and MaineToday Digital executive editor Angie Muhs’s Storify collection, which started about five hours after the news actually broke, leaving her posting just a bunch of reactive and speculative tweets, though admittedly grouped by theme (“caught many off guard,” “political speculation,” “reaction from those already in the race,” “Snowe was quickly praised,” and the like).

In related news, the TV stations’ general managers just saw their finances perk up considerably. Whatever happens, there’s going to be a massive amount of money spent on TV ads. How much? Snowe herself had about $3 million in the bank — to defend a secure seat. Now that it’s open, the numbers will be astronomical.

Snowe dumps on Maine

Published on thePhoenix.com; with research help from Deirdre Fulton

And you thought tomorrow's big news would be the threatening blizzard? Nope - Olympia Snowe is going to be the big headline. She's leaving the US Senate, in a move that apparently surprised even her own staff. It changes the political landscape in Maine and around the country.

She is a key Republican moderate whose vote was often coveted on both sides of the aisle (an influence she may have overhyped for electoral benefit).

Republicans were counting on her to hold her seat as part of their efforts to take the Senate. As an example of how this changes the political calculations around the nation, what was already going to be a hard-fought race for Ted Kennedy's old seat in Massachusetts (between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown) will now take on epic proportions.

Make no mistake: Maine is still essentially a Democratic state. (And to the extent that Governor Paul LePage's approval ratings are a barometer, more than half of Mainers aren't on board his train.) Snowe has won over and over partly based on her (apparent) moderation, and partly based on her ability to overwhelm opponents.

Democrats were ousted from control of Augusta in 2010 not because the Pine Tree State is dominated by Republicans, but because Maine's leading Democrats don't lead, and act like Republicans rather than providing alternatives. (Our Lance Tapley has written about this over and over and over, but still the Dems don't step up.)

Snowe's statement announcing her retirement says she does not expect the partisan gridlock to end in Washington anytime soon. And sure enough, a National Journal piece over the weekend suggested that now is, if not the most partisan time in congressional history, then perhaps the second-most partisan time.

Speculation has already begun about who might step up to replace her. Four Democrats ( state senator representative Jon Hinck, state senator Cynthia Dill, former Maine secretary of state Matt Dunlap, and political newcomer Ben Pollard) are already in.

Republican businessman Scott D'Amboise was planning to challenge Snowe in the primary; Tea Partier Andrew Ian Dodge left the GOP to run as an independent (he may rethink that decision now).

First District Congresswoman Chellie Pingree is clearly thinking about it - her statement on Snowe's announcement specifically said, "in the coming days I will carefully consider how I can best serve the people of Maine." Her counterpart in the 2nd District Mike Michaud has to be thinking about it too.

Former independent gubernatorial candidate (and Carter administration alumnus) Eliot Cutler is one of the few who could raise the needed money in the remaining time. And will former Congressman Tom Allen reappear? Other possibilities are being bruited about in the political echo-chamber, with new names being added to the chamber of bouncing balls almost by the minute.

It's also worth noting that two years ago there was big speculation about whether Snowe would leave the Republican Party. She didn't, but today's move essentially makes the same statement - that she does not believe participating in the Republican Party is useful for her.

Many questions are already being asked - and many more will arise over the next few days. Here, for those who like retrospectives, is our piece from the very first issue of the Portland Phoenix, looking at Snowe and Collins and their two-sided-ness.

On the burning of an American flag at #OccupyMaine this morning

Published at thePhoenix.com

Calling it "a symbol that no longer serves its purpose," OccupyMaine protester Harry Brown burned the encampment's American flag at the stroke of 8 am Monday morning, as the city's clock tower rang out the deadline for Occupiers to remove their "structures and belongings" from Lincoln Park.

He may have been referring specifically to the camp's tattered flag itself, to the American flag as a guidon for democracy, or even the beacon of hope that has been "the republic for which it stands" (as the Pledge of Allegiance has it), is unclear - and likely intentionally so. It could equally be all three.

As the flames licked at Old Glory, TV and newspaper reporters and photographers watched and recorded, for what will surely be oft-repeated descriptions of what happened. The coverage is less likely to discuss what it meant for Brown, though he spoke his mind clearly and repeatedly.

And certain to go uncovered is any suggestion that the mainstream media should have offered the same sort of breathless reporting as the American republic itself and the ideals for which it has stood for centuries were torn to shreds, and then burned to the ground by those in the halls of power.

#OccupyMaine wins, begins packing up

Published at thePhoenix.com

OccupyMaine can claim victory, even as it prepares to remove its encampment from Lincoln Park. On Wednesday, Maine Superior Court Justice Thomas Warren ruled that the encampment is expressive and therefore is protected by the Maine and US constitutions. However, he also ruled that safety concerns expressed by city officials, as well as worries about damage to the park and access to the space by others wishing to use it, are reasonable limitations on the expressive protest, and so the encampment must end.

That in itself is a major victory (especially since the city not only claimed in court that the encampment was not expressive, but also defied reality and a City Council vote in support of an Occupy petition to oppose corporate personhood and claimed that protesters were not doing anything other than camping), but Warren went further.

He left open several doors for either the Occupiers or other future protesters to use to defend their expressive encampments.

First, he ruled that one reason he upheld the city's safety concerns is that the Occupiers did not voluntarily undertake to follow the city's rules, but rather asked for permission to stay and promised to come into compliance if that permission were received.

Second, he ruled that if the Occupiers wanted to seek a city permit to conduct a non-camping protest either in the overnight hours or on a 24-hour basis, and if that permit were denied in a way that infringed on free-speech rights, the group could come back to court.

And third, he suggested that the Occupy proposal for a "free speech zone" could be successful if it were "‘a Hyde Park Corner' open to all viewpoints" as opposed to a place that one or another group would have permission to occupy for a period of time.

While the decision explored whether the Maine Constitution offers additional protections for free speech and assembly, beyond those in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, Warren found it did not. However, none of the parties in court - not the Occupiers nor a supporting brief from the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, nor the city - addressed one aspect of the Occupation that is explicitly protected in the Maine Constitution in a way that is not included in the federal one: that they people "have an unalienable and indefeasible right to institute government, and to alter, reform, or totally change the same, when their safety and happiness require it."

It is surprising that the direct-democracy self-sovereign General Assembly did not claim protection under this clause, as they were instituting government (and/or altering, reforming, or totally changing it) specifically because of concerns about their safety and happiness.

Warren's decision can be appealed, but likely only after OccupyMaine's full case against the city is heard and decided, and the protesters cannot stay in the park any longer. (They also have to decide whether or not to continue the lawsuit, which could cost thousands of dollars, even if attorney John Branson continues to donate his services.)

Clearing out the park

As it stands now, by Monday, February 6, at 8 am the Occupiers must have removed everything from the park that they don't want considered trash. The Occupiers themselves can stay until 10 pm, when the park closes, according to a notice from City Manager Mark Rees.

What happens at those times remains to be seen, and was the subject of a very long and well-facilitated GA Wednesday night.

The city originally planned to give the Occupiers two days, but the Occupiers asked for more time and got two additional days, plus a conditional offer of a longer extension if the progress in the existing time is significant.

How much the group is able to clear out is unclear, since the Occupy coffers are empty. "I have more receipts than I have money," finance workgroup member Rachel Rumson told the GA last night. "I haven't received a cash donation in over two months."

The group has promised to raise money to help restore Lincoln Park, and may need to spend some funds to rent vehicles and storage locations for anything they may remove from the park for later use.

The city is providing a large Dumpster to the encampment for disposal of trash, and will take care of emptying the Dumpster when the park is cleaned up.

Staying or going?

Also in question is how many of the protesters will leave voluntarily. It seemed that many attendees at the GA were prepared to practice nonviolent civil disobedience and stay, with one member specifically saying he plans to get arrested; others expressed desire to help support the image of the movement by requiring the police to come in and remove them, for the sake of publicity.

Group members agreed that each person's decision was an individual, autonomous one, but also agreed that protecting the common resources - particularly the OM Dome (whose owner has said he wants it back if the camp is ever dismantled), the contents of the library, and the food in the kitchen area - required removing those community structures from the park.

The food will be donated to a local food pantry, and Occupy members will store the library materials safely until a permanent home is found.

Continuing activism

The group will continue its activities bringing attention to injustices in Maine and around the country.

On Friday, February 3, at noon at Senator Snowe's office at 3 Canal Plaza, ther will be a protest against NDAA, which allows indefinite detention of US citizens without access to the courts, and the Enemy Expatriation Act, which could allow the government to strip people of their US citizenship.

Also Friday, there will be a full-page advertisement in the Portland Press Herald discussing the campaign contributions of Maine's congressional delegation, and a movie night at the Meg Perry Center.

And on Tuesday, February 7, at noon in the State of Maine room in City Hall, there will be a People's Press Conference to object to cuts to heating assistance for poor and elderly Mainers.

Other events are being planned. 

Portland City Council to #OccupyMaine: No dialogue here

Published at thePhoenix.com/AboutTown

It appears time to consider the possibility that the pro-business, anti-public ethos that plagues American politics has also started to infect Portland's city council.

To wit: Most Portland city councilors love to make deals with corporations, but have no interest in finding a way for people to protest overnight in city parks, despite repeated attempts on the part of OccupyMaine members, the city manager, the city attorney, and even a fellow councilor to persuade them to try it.

Perhaps they were swayed by statistics from the police department showing increased activity right outside the police station's back door, at the Lincoln Park encampment. Perhaps they were unpersuaded by an Occupy supporter's mention that comparing police calls at Lincoln Park today to a year ago is like comparing police activity at a stadium on game day as opposed to a midweek afternoon, or from another's that the same activity has happened in Lincoln Park for years but nobody called the cops until Occupy started.

In any case, despite repeated and increasingly clear statements that the petition from OccupyMaine was a starting point for discussion and could be amended to the council's pleasure - the same way all proposals from businesses are - seven councilors and the newly elected mayor, Mike Brennan, voted to reject the application as written, with no dicussion of modifications that would have a better chance of being acceptable in the future.

Here are several interesting statements from the councilors, followed by particularly sharp points from the public comments section, at which 53 people spoke, with just five opposing the Occupation.

IMPORTANT: So far, city officials - including Brennan and Acting Police Chief Mike Sauschuck - have been very clear in their assurances to the Occupy group and to the media that no forcible eviction is planned, and that the group has time to react to the city's decision without fear of violence, as has happened in other cities.

The councilors

When councilors spoke, they typically followed a basic pattern, stating their First Amendment support and respect, and then shutting down the most innovative, disruptive form of free speech, expression, and assembly the country has yet seen in its history.

Ed Suslovic appeared stuck for quite a while on technicalities of paperwork, and several times said he wanted city staff's guidance on whether what OccupyMaine had submitted would be considered legally complete.

His major issue, though, was about limiting the numbers in the park, a key request from city staff on public-safety grounds. Suslovic was worried about who would control or enforce that limit. He did not propose a solution, but simply observed that it was a problem for him, calling it "giving one group exclusive license over public property."

He also claimed "we gave ample feedback" at the Public Safety Committee meeting, which he chaired - and which unanimously rejected an earlier version of OccupyMaine's petition, without proposing any specific amendments that might have passed muster.

He specifically said he doesn't want to open parks to the public 24/7.

Cheryl Leeman initially claimed that the council was to be voting on the petition as is, and said "there's no negotiating those terms," triggering yet another round of assurances that it, like any other request that comes before the council, could be entirely rewritten by the council if they chose.

She outright admitted she didn't get the message: "I disagree that a permanent encampment is required to support the mission of OccupyMaine."

She objected to the "contradictory" nature of limiting the size of the protest - though the city wanted that, not the occupiers - and called it "exclusionary."

She also admitted that never in her many years on the council has she dealt with anything like this.

And said "from a technical standpoint, it's all wrong" and specified that while she is interested in talking about the issues OccupyMaine is raising, she is not interested in talking about the encampment.

John Anton, in heartfelt comments, seemed earnestly to be seeking dialogue with the Occupiers, telling his fellow councilors that "there is a third path" they could take: "there is yes, no, or continue to talk."

He also summarized the disconnect well: "We have two very earnest cultures that are expressing themselves in very different ways" - the council and Occupy.

Inviting a new application with more specifics, he said it was his belief that the "First Amendment trumps municipal ordinances, and the boundaries of that are unclear."

Urging them to continue, he told Occupy: "I feel like we do our best work as a council when we're out of our comfort zone. That's what you're doing."

But then, having said a lot of nice things about dialogue, he didn't take the "third path" he had suggested. He voted no.

David Marshall took up the mantle he declined at the public safety committee meeting, and became a voice for continued conversation with Occupy. "I feel we should really continue dialogue," he said. "It would be a great gesture on the part of the city."

"We're in this position because of decisions the city has made" and requests the city has made that Occupy has honored. "I don't see that the Occupiers are doing anything illegal."

He said he had expected that the council would go through the petition closely and work on it, making changes and suggestions along the way. But instead, "We have a council that's not willing to negotiate" - even though the city makes exceptions to rules all the time.

He said the First Amendment is "more than just freedom of speech . . . it says that you cannot abridge the freedom of assembly" - and therefore, he supported the Occupiers' right to assemble 24/7 in Lincoln Park.

Jill Duson said she supports 24/7 protests "anywhere in the city" but said freedom of speech is not "freedom to convert a public park into a residential community."

"I think it's better for us to get to court as soon as possible," she said, adding: "We ought to just deny it and allow a court to decide whether freedom of speech includes occupation of a public park."

Nick Mavodones, like Leeman, admitted he didn't grok the concept of the Occupy movement: "I don't think it has to be a 24-hour protest."

He also said some other confusing things: "taking over and living in the park right across the street is problematic" - thereby admitting that Occupy's existence is a message, and suggesting he didn't want to see it.

Then he got really mixed up. "I have no issue with people protesting in that park whenever they feel it's appropriate," he said, going on to contradict himself by telling the Occupiers that even though they clearly did think it "appropriate" to protest overnight, he had an issue with that.

John Coyne, among the most militantly Occupy-opposed councilors from the early days of the protest, suggested that the sum total of "what goes on down there" is crime, and then went so far as to suggest that kicking them out of Lincoln Park would "reduce crime by 30 percent." He appeared to draw that figure from statements by Sauschuck that 30 percent of the arrests in the Old Port area between October 1 and December 5 were in Lincoln Park. He appeared not to assume that several of those arrests, including of a man wanted on a warrant from New York, would have happened elsewhere in the city.

He also drew smirks when he called the Occupy movement a "special-interest group."

Kevin Donoghue also seemed to be mixed up about the inclusive nature of the movement, and the reason Occupy proposed limiting protesters' numbers. "We are talking about exclusive use of space," he said, urging the Occupiers to seek redress in court "not as a confrontational venue but as a clarifying venue." In closing, he dismissed much of the evening's work by saying, "I do appreciate the exercise."

Mike Brennan acknowledged that both OccupyMaine and the city recognize the current situation isn't working, and said what's been submitted doesn't address the problems yet. He said he wants to work with Occupy on this (and followed that up after the meeting with a request to meet with Occupy attorney John Branson on Thursday afternoon).

"I do believe that the issues here are deep enough, are important enough" to warrant additional work by the city, he said, "to see if in fact there is a permit that can cross the Ts" that other councilors were concerned about.

In the event of no approval, he expressly promised no excessive force in removing the protesters: "We are not interested in being Oakland. We are not interested in being New York."

And even when it was clear that the council would vote no (with Brennan among them) that night, he said, "there's still an opportunity tomorrow to engage in dialogue."

The public

OccupyMaine attorney John Branson observed that the protest is against "the corporate takeover of our public spaces and our democratic government," and said the nature of the protest is "a form of speech, assembly, and demonstration that requires by definition the ability to maintain a continued presence in public space."

Former US Senate candidate Bill Slavick reminded the council that during the Great Depression, the government put millions to work in a matter of weeks - and observed that no such action is happening now. "Enough of greed rampant."

Rachel Lyn Rumson read OccupyMaine's statement for redress of grievances, as approved by the December 4 GA: "OccupyMaine seeks initial redress of grievances and hereby requests that the City of Portland take the following actions:

1. Withdraw all City funds from TD Bank and transfer those funds to a locally owned bank or credit union.

2. Develop methods for increased direct democracy and public engagement, including, as a starting point, making the State of Maine Room available for a weekly City of Portland General Assembly that would develop proposals and recommendations for consideration and action by the City Council.

3. Increase support for homeless people in Portland including those who have come to live at Lincoln Park. Begin by working with homeless people in Lincoln Park to get them into housing and address other needs that they have.

4. Create a 24-hour free speech and assembly space in Monument Square where people can assemble at any hour to engage in non-commercial First Amendment activity."

Local activist and business owner Jonah Fertig said "our democracy is getting bought out by corporations," and specifically said "I want to hear the city council talk about the corporations and the bankers."

Corporate lobbyist Chris O'Neil of the Portland Regional Chamber revealed much of the hypocrisy the Occupiers are decrying, both by saying he wasn't going to talk about constitutional questions and then spending most of his time doing exactly that, and by admitting he represents "the chamber who is often here decrying regulations" but said the ones preventing free speech in public spaces "are there for a reason"

Zachary Heiden, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, said negotiations were possible, and were indeed the right way forward. "There is a way to address these concerns" of safety and health, he said, urging the councilors to "try to find a way to say yes to this group rather than trying to find a way to say no."

Francis Martin, known in camp as "Seamus," said "I have lived in Portland in a tent for years . . . I live in a tent hidden in the woods" but only now that he is living in a tent in Lincoln Park does he feel like he belongs.

Robert Witham Jr. said the city right now provides no place to protest 24/7, but for people who take things very seriously, that's a limit - the law actually prevents people from taking things so seriously that they're willing to protest 24/7.

Martin Steingesser said the city supports corporations all the time, including the Pierce Atwood tax break. He also said that if the encampment must be removed, city councilors should be on site to observe and supervise

John Newcomb of the Maine AFL-CIO and the Southern Maine Labor Council suggested the city spend some money on free speech, pointedly observing, "look at the money some of you have spent just on this election, Mayor Brennan." (Brennan spent $41,075, according to campaign-finance filings.)

Brian Leonard said chief city building inspector Tammy Munson was thorough, but suggested she was overzealous and drew a parallel to the tough conditions earlier patriots endured: "I'm terribly sorry she wasn't there in General Washington's encampment at Valley Forge."

Alan Porter said peace in Lincoln Park is possible. "For five weeks we did enjoy peace . . . "It wasn't until the closing of Milestone that it all fell apart." That happened on November 1, when federal funding problems forced the 41-bed emergency shelter to shut down, which lasted about 10 days. Then, Porter added, "once-traditional camping areas for our city's homeless were broken up."

In a final observation that Lincoln Park has always been home to the homeless, he said, "No matter your decision, there will be people who stay in the park after you tell them to go."

Other speakers, whose names I didn't hear, and who I was unable to track down in the crowd, said several interesting things.

One man decried the encampment as a "magnet" for problems that previously occurred in less visible places in the city, and seemed to suggest those issues should go back into hiding.

Another noted that the city spends massive resources supporting corporations with TIFs and tax incentives, and lamented that it is apparently unwilling to spend even a little bit to support free speech.

Another supporter observed the alternatives to working with the Occupiers, describing the police violence in other cities that led to standoffs, even larger protests, and lawsuits. Suggesting the city could choose, she asked if they wanted a forcible eviction with cartoonishly disproportionate municipal violence, or "do you want to just call us up and say that's not allowed under the permit."

A woman observed that no permit was necessary for the "early patriots" who gathered and sometimes camped, nor for the lunch-counter sit-ins of the Civil Rights Movement.

A senior at UNE who is studying to be a teacher spent his three minutes of talk time lecturing Occupy on how to be effective, suggesting the group work "through the system that we have," apparently without irony, and definitely without observing that they seek to change that system, not perpetuate it by participating in it.

One person said the Occupiers were using toilets belonging to local businesses, but the claim rang hollow with no business owner (nor even any business-group lobbyist) saying there was a problem.

One warning may ring truest of all, from a Marine veteran quoting John F. Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."