Gubernatorial Wishlist: Good tidings from LePage

Published in the Portland Phoenix


In place of our usual monthly Gubernatorial Scorecard, we're looking at what Governor Paul LePage has been up to through the lens of the holiday season. Augusta gets back to business in mid-January, making the current state of relations between the gov and various groups even more important than usual. Here's what we imagine they're giving each other, and how much it's really worth.

JOB CREATORS | The governor has talked to vast numbers of business leaders around the state, has sought to put business lobbyists' language directly into law and state policy, and has even authorized the assumption of untold millions in liability for a landfill cleanup in the hopes of keeping Maine's mills working even just a little bit longer. What more could he give them? Depends what they give him.
GIFT FOR HIM • 1000 sheets of custom stationery featuring pre-written legislative language, plus a pre-printed signature at the bottom | $250 (companies will cover the lobbyists' drafting fees)
GIFT FROM HIM • More subsidies, tax cuts, and liability reductions | $10 million (that's a conservative estimate)

JOB SEEKERS | Faced with a protest outside his door, LePage this weekend glad-handed with a selected trio from a group who were objecting to his derogatory remarks about people who can't find work in the worst economy in a century. His office put out a nice press release with friendly photo. Then he called the meeting "bullshit" to a reporter.
GIFT FOR HIM • A chess clock, to monitor how much time he spends talking to the rich versus the poor | $20 (if everybody pitches in pennies found on the street)
GIFT FROM HIM • A year of his time really engaging in the issues that affect disadvantaged and out-of-work Mainers | $70,000 (his annual salary)

STATE EMPLOYEES | Simultaneously portraying the rank-and-file of public servants as impossibly overworked and unconscionably lazy, LePage continues to fight to reduce staff numbers and privatize retiree benefits. Some state offices have seen so many departures that even the front-desk staff struggle to know who's in charge.
GIFT FOR HIM • A list of all the stuff he'll have to do for himself if everybody gets either laid off or fired, or becomes too demoralized to stay | free (it's on the state's website)
GIFT FROM HIM • A holiday email message (some acknowledgment that they're working hard might be nice) | free (but he'll have to learn to use email)

THE MEDIA | Before his rude dismissal of concerns about economic justice, LePage hadn't blundered as often lately as he used to. We knew he was missing the limelight; it's clear what pass for Maine's mainstream-media pundits missed him too.
GIFT FOR HIM • Wi-fi-enabled webcam (to webcast real-time audio and video of his every moment) | $110 (the dailies and the TV stations can pool their available cash)
GIFT FROM HIM • A weekly public question-and-answer session (though that "bullshit" line is pretty good) | free (the best part of transparency is its simplicity!)

THE OPPOSITION | LePage continues to act as if he has no opposition in the State House; he's clearly oblivious to how much of the pushback comes from members of his own party. But the Dems are finding their voices too, albeit slowly. It definitely seems that the Occupy movement has given the DINOs some things to talk about.
GIFT FOR HIM • A magnifying glass (they can say it'll help him find a clue; also useful for finding his regular-person supporters) | $10
GIFT FROM HIM • A ruler (he can say they can measure their progress in his state; also useful for determining how low they bow to him) | $5

This month's total | Gifts for LePage $390 | Gifts from LePage $10,070,005

Will the Portland City Council work with #OccupyMaine, or refuse all dialogue?

Published at thePhoenix.com/AboutTown

There is one question that must be answered at tomorrow night's Portland City Council meeting: Will the councilors treat the Occupiers the same way the councilors treat for-profit corporations?

We'd hope so, of course - we'd hope that the council would behave equably toward all petitioners, from all quarters. We'll have to see whether Portland's councilors are up to that challenge, which is made sharper by the anti-corporate nature of the Occupy movement's message. Attend the meeting at City Hall at 7 pm - public comments are welcome - and see for yourself what happens.

It is normal practice for companies seeking permission from the council to do whatever they want - a new building, rezoning, stage an event in a public space - to be met with a collaborative spirit from councilors and council committees. Applications are treated as suggestions, with councilors often suggesting revisions and engaging in back-and-forth about what the goals are for the request, and finding ways to assuage any councilors' concerns while still allowing the the project to go forward.

Most of the time, when dealing with developers and other businesses, the Portland council - like most I've seen in action around the state - takes a "how can we make this happen" approach, often negotiating around the details but rarely rejecting an idea out of hand.

Enter OccupyMaine. Its reception before the council's Public Safety Committee was frosty, at best (see my post from last week), and certainly didn't signal that those three councilors were willing to really work with the Occupiers.

Even Dave Marshall, who might have led the discussion into collaborative territory, declined to truly engage with the Occupiers, instead imagining himself voting the Occupy petition "up or down" - despite the fact that almost nothing that comes before the council gets a simple yes/no vote with no discussion or negotiation. Sure enough, his less tolerant committee cohorts, Ed Suslovic and John Coyne, jumped on that bandwagon and charged to a unanimous recommendation that the council reject the petition outright.

Disappointed by undaunted, the Occupy group took what feedback the committee members gave into consideration and revised their petition to specifically address several areas of public-safety concern that came up repeatedly during the meeting.

Despite the lack of willingness for dialogue on the committee's part, the Occupiers assumed that at least some councilors are operating in good faith, and moved to continue the conversation.

In the revised petition, the Occupiers made this move extremely clear: "OccupyMaine is willing to consider additional substantive changes as necessary to address any other concerns that may be voiced by the City Council or City Officials."

Swallowing their pride, the Occupiers are accepting that they have been spurned once, and are still extending their hands to the city, hoping to engage in a dance.

It is important to take a moment to remember that this is a process intended from its outset to begin solving the public-safety problems that have arisen at and alongside the Occupation. If the City Council does not engage in a discussion, it will be clear that the councilors don't actually care about the public-safety problems, but simply want the Occupiers gone.

Removing them might not be so simple. Along with a federal judge's expected ruling tomorrow in Bangor, and with judges around the country taking up Occupy-related cases, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine has now entered the fray, saying it supports the Occupy group's right to stay in the park around the clock in protest, and expressly talking about potential court action.

But the ACLU of Maine also touches a point that OccupyMaine attorney John Branson hit in the committee meeting: the city should not allow this protest to continue because it is protected by the First Amendment, or because a court ruling requires the city to grin and bear it.

Rather, the city should welcome with open arms this new groundswell of public engagement in civic processes, and allow it to continue because it is a good idea. Just the way the city handles requests from private businesses.

Invited to dance by city staff, #OccupyMaine is spurned by councilors

Published at thePhoenix.com/AboutTown

Portland's Public Safety Committee, a subcommittee of the City Council, has refused to enter into ongoing negotiations with OccupyMaine over conditions in Lincoln Park, with two of the committee's three members suggesting there are no provisions under which they would support First Amendment protests to last overnight in public spaces.

With that decision made, it is more likely that the full City Council will do the same in a meeting slated for Wednesday, December 7, at 7 pm at City Hall. Last night, councilors on the committee expressed serious concerns about public safety and health relating to the Occupation.

This latest development in the two-month saga of OccupyMaine is an ironic twist, because it was a city staff idea spawned in a meeting with Occupiers, and was specifically designed to address the public-safety concerns arising for both parties.

Following a November 17 inspection of the encampment by city fire, building, and public-services staff, the Occupiers were summoned to a meeting at City Hall, where the groups decided that it was necessary to create a legal framework for the camp, to allow the city and the Occupiers to address the various issues that have arisen, including several arrests and disturbances, as well as violations of the city's fire code.

With Occupy members split on whether they should even engage with the city by asking for a permit or petitioning to stay, the faction urging that the city's offer should be taken "in good faith" won out. OccupyMaine petitioned the City Council to create a permanent 'round-the-clock free-speech zone in just over half of Lincoln Park, and asked permission to be the first group to occupy it.

The "good faith" faction also expressed hope that the council would engage in real discussions and dialogue to find a way to allow the Occupation to continue, subject to - as Occupiers expected - significant changes in the encampment to address fire-protection, health, and food-service issues.

Those changes, according to OccupyMaine's petition, included meeting city requirements for temporary-building permits for major structures in the park, completely rearranging the tents' locations to provide as much as 10 feet between sets of tent stakes, and replacing all tarps and other weatherization materials with fire-retardant materials.

It was very clear going into last night's Public Safety Committee meeting that the Occupy group was expecting to receive more direction from the committee on exactly what would be required if they were to be allowed to stay. And it was also very clear to the committee members that if the existing proposals from OccupyMaine did not fully address their concerns, that they could make additions and modifications to suit their comfort levels.

But that's not at all what happened.

Instead, after five hours of discussion - with input from city staff and 35 members of the public - councilors Ed Suslovic and John Coyne refused to brook even the slightest idea that the Occupation should be allowed to stay under any circumstances, and the committee's third member, councilor Dave Marshall, expressed significant reluctance to let it remain.

Suslovic called the situation "a public-safety disaster, or at the very least a near disaster about to turn into a disaster," and said "we cannot allow this to continue." He asked the protesters to "reset the clock, vacate the park" - but that's extremely unlikely, given that OccupyMaine attorney John Branson says the group's legal position is stronger while the Occupation continues.

"Free speech is covered, yes, but this is an Occupation," Coyne said during committee discussion on the matter. "We've got staff tied up on a daily basis . . . it's gotten too much."

Only councilor Dave Marshall offered any light of hope, and that was but a dim glimmer, given his comment that "the number of tents should be really limited if not all removed." The lack of shelter would make it nearly impossible for the Occupation to continue through the winter. Logistics aside, Marshall had another concern: "The question for me is whether sleeping is still free speech."

The full council will take up the issue next week, but if they follow the lead of the Public Safety Committee, as is likely, the legal wrangling will only continue.

A federal judge in Bangor is slated to rule Monday on efforts by the Capitol Police to evict an Occupation on the State House grounds in Augusta; courts around the country are taking up issues related to Occupations. Branson says the Occupy group would consider court action as one of its options, depending on what happens at the council meeting.

If Portland denies permission for the Occupation to stay, some protesters have said they will leave voluntarily. But others have said publicly that they will stay and practice nonviolent civil disobedience.

The degree of violence Portland police might use to forcibly evict them remains to be seen, but the three councilors on the Public Safety Committee seemed uninterested in seeing scenes like those that have happened at evictions around the country, including police in riot gear and wielding chemical weapons against unarmed peaceful protesters in New York and Oakland, California.

"The way I'm seeing it handled in other parts of the country is pretty disturbing," said councilor Marshall Monday night.

"I hope that if this doesn't pass the Occupation ends peacefully," said councilor Coyne, decrying the violent tactics used elsewhere.

Suslovic, too, praised the professionalism of the police department so far.

Occupy Watch: Portland group asks city to create free-speech zone

Published in the Portland Phoenix

As officials continue to pressure Maine's Occupy campsites in Portland, Augusta, and Bangor, the Portland Occupation is pushing back, asking the city to create "a permanent 24/7 speech, assembly and community building zone" in about half of Lincoln Park, and proposing that the OccupyMaine group be allowed to remain in that area — which would be a smaller area than the present Occupation — for at least the next six months, with possible extensions in the future.

The decision to ask the city for formal approval was hotly debated on Sunday, with many speakers saying the First Amendment is the only permission they need to camp; others, whose position held sway, wanted to keep a good relationship with city officials, add a legal framework that could help the Occupiers to keep order on public land (at present they have no grounds to ask anyone to leave), and address the city's safety concerns about the encampment, which a court might find override the protesters' free-speech rights.

The petition, filed just before city offices closed at 4:30 pm Tuesday, asks for the Occupation to be allowed to stay in the to-be-designated free-speech zone for 179 days, which is one day less than the 180-day limit the city imposes on temporary structures; protesters expect that duration to aid their application, though it is unclear how many renewals "temporary structures" might be allowed.

The proposal also asks the city to install holiday lights in Lincoln Park, which is one of the only city parks without them — in part because the park presently lacks an electricity supply. The Occupy group may ask to use city power (which they would have to pay for) to assist with heating and light during the winter. Group members also suggested the lights would improve security and make the space more welcoming for the public.

City officials had asked for a specific number of tents and overnight campers; the group's proposal says the group will erect as many tents as possible within that area, subject to fire regulations about distances between tents. As far as numbers of people, the application says the group will accommodate as many people as can be safely lodged in the tents that are erected.

The group also says it is willing, if the city requires it, to seek separate permits for several major structures on the site: the kitchen, library, donations tent, medical tent, the spiritual dome, and a communal warming tent that will be erected if approved. Other weatherization to camp — including tarps and hay bales protecting tents — will be certified as complying with fire codes, or will be removed, according to the proposal.

The petition will first be considered in a December 1 special meeting of the council's Public Safety Committee, which is chaired by councilor Ed Suslovic, who has been quoted in local media reports as wanting the encampment dismantled.

Also on the committee is councilor and Occupy supporter David Marshall, who attended Sunday's GA and mentioned that the group could make requests of the city, such as moving its money from TD Bank to a locally owned financial institution. (That provision was not included in the Occupy group's petition, but may come up in the future.) The committee's third member is councilor John Coyne, who did not return calls seeking comment, but has expressed concern about Occupy to other media outlets.

Those three councilors will make a recommendation — which could be fully approving, completely rejecting, or requesting changes to the permit application — to the full City Council for a decision in a special meeting to be held on Wednesday, December 7. No matter the outcome, negotiations with the Occupy group are likely to continue: As a message relayed from Occupy attorney John Branson to the Sunday GA said, the permitting process has a lot of opportunity for amendments and appeals in an attempt to forestall an outright denial.

Another time-buying tactic is in use in Augusta, where protesters have received temporary protection from a federal judge, preventing the Capitol Police from evicting the Occupation's campground on the grounds of the State House until a court hearing next week. (See Lance Tapley's report for more details on this and other Augusta developments.)

In Bangor, according to that city's Daily News, the protesters' overnight use of the city-owned portion of Peirce Park remains the subject of discussions; their camping and tents on adjoining land owned by the Bangor Public Library has been specifically allowed by the library's board of trustees.

Occupy Watch: Maine encampments face decision time

Published in the Portland Phoenix


With OccupyBangor under near-constant threat of eviction, and Portland city officials pressing the Lincoln Park campers to scale back their encampment to a degree that will make winter survival difficult if not impossible, the Maine branch of the Occupy movement — like those elsewhere in the country — is at a crossroads.

Will the Occupiers get bogged down in real-estate disputes, digging deep into the legal quagmires associated with building codes, park hours, and small-time municipal regulations that only affect the actual encampments? Will they keep their focus on the issues that truly affect the 99 percent of Americans the Occupy movement was created to empower? Or will they do both, finding a way to "walk and chew gum at the same time," as OccupyMainer Alan Porter put it at Portland's Monday night general assembly?

"We're not fighting for the right to occupy a park here or there. We are fighting for justice. Justice, not just for the people of the US, but for everybody," bestselling author Arundhati Roy said in New York on November 16, in a speech to the People's University (the educational arm of Occupy Wall Street). Occupiers here and elsewhere are struggling with how to do that, while also deciding whether — and how — to best protect their encampments, which are leading symbols of the movement.

While Occupy Augusta has been largely untroubled by local regulations — in part because they are encamped on state land, not in a municipal park — the other two major Occupations in Maine are wrestling with peaceful versions of the conflicts that have erupted elsewhere into violence, with armed police attempting to forcibly dislodge nonviolent protestors from public spaces, often claiming concerns over public health or safety. (See Chris Faraone's report from the West Coast for just some examples of these clashes, plus David S. Bernstein's reporting on the crossroads facing Occupy Boston, as well as Occupy updates from around the country.)

In Bangor, the group has engaged in a week-long squabble with city officials over whether their presence in Peirce Park is an "event" or an "assembly." Under city code, "events" can be limited to three days' duration, while there is no city rule governing "assemblies," which the Occupy group says leaves them governed solely by the First Amendment — so they can stay indefinitely, as they would like.

On Monday, the Portland group won what some called a major victory, an acknowledgment that the General Assembly is a legitimate decision-making body that can negotiate with the City Council. But that came as a result of several days' time and energy spent addressing city concerns about public safety. The effort was initially prompted by the city's inspection of the camp on November 17, and a letter from city attorney Gary Wood the following day saying that "the code violations . . . and the increasing demand on the services of the Portland Police Department are stretching the ability and willingness of the City to continue to accommodate and allow [the Occupation] in the park."

Code issues were not substantially addressed during Monday afternoon's meeting between OccupyMaine representatives and city officials. (A meeting later this week will address those problems, and the city's requested solutions, such as removal of larger structures, which may make camping in Lincoln Park very difficult over the winter.) Rather, safety concerns were the topic of the day, in the wake of four recent arrests, and the discovery that two teenage runaways had visited the Occupy camp during some of their four-day disappearance.

The arrests were of an Occupier allegedly assaulting a visitor who came to criticize the movement, of two people who allegedly assaulted camp organizer Porter (one person allegedly choked him with bare hands, while another is said by police and protestors alike to have hit Porter in the head with a hammer; Porter was treated and released from Maine Medical Center); and of a man allegedly carrying a concealed knife. The runaway girls were located over the weekend on the Eastern Prom; Occupy attorney and spokesman John Branson says they fled Lincoln Park when they learned that Occupiers were assisting the police search for them.

After the Porter incident, the Occupiers issued a statement reaffirming their commitment to nonviolence. It is a statement that might form part of what Branson calls a "social compact" that the group may develop for members to subscribe to if they wish to continue participating in the effort.

Such an agreement, Branson says, is likely key to a process by which the Occupation could apply for a permit from the city that, if granted, could create a legal structure under which Occupiers and city officials alike would be confident in orderly management of the encampment.

But what's in such a permit request, what's agreed to by the City Council over the next few weeks, and even whether the group is going to apply in the first place are unclear at the moment. Branson says that the First Amendment nature of the protest does not require a permit, but says such an agreement with the city could help address public-safety concerns that might trump the Occupiers' constitutional rights if the case ended up in court.

The very suggestion of a requirement that Occupiers agree to a certain set of rules — as well as what Branson characterizes as a city intention of "compressing the number of tents and people in Lincoln Park" — already conflict with the all-inclusive, all-welcoming principle that has helped define a movement that stands for "the 99 percent."

And all such discussions, which (like the Monday night General Assembly) can result in drawn-out meetings with often circular conversations, shift away from the wider issues concerning the 99 percent. (The Portland group has not been totally diverted; they organized a couple of small protests over the past few days.)

"We get distracted by what authorities throw at us," Jonah Fertig told the group Monday evening. Porter put it more plainly: "We're bogged down" by smaller issues, he said. "We have not addressed the issues that we are actually here for."

Porter suggested making a backup plan for what could happen if the city does not approve a permit, or if the Occupiers don't decide to ask for one. He proposed seeking a parcel of private property where the Occupation could continue without so much interference from local government, and return to its core messages of concern about financial inequality and corporate interference in politics.

It's only a short step from that idea to leaving the encampments behind entirely and making reality out of what has until now been just a popular slogan: Occupy Everywhere.