I do not fit easily into an ideological box. Having been raised with good Yankee values, I honor hard work and thrift. I'm a fiscal conservative who believes that those who can help themselves should. But I also believe strongly in investing adequately in education and community, and in providing support for those with real need. With my wife and two children, I lead a very traditional home-life, centered around school, church, and community. But I don't try to impose my lifestyle on others. I believe strongly in equal rights and civil liberties.

I'm a real believer in people, and in the power of getting people to work together to improve their world. Much of the work I've done, both professionally and locally, has involved helping people to realize a vision. I'm a strong believer that communities should work to shape their own futures, rather than letting the future dictate its own course. And through my local activities, I've worked to help our community do exactly that.

Though a Democrat, I've worked exceedingly hard in Augusta to remain non-partisan, and for the most part, I think I've succeeded. I don't approach politics as "us versus them," and I'm always willing to work with others. On the committees on which I serve (Taxation and Agriculture, Conservation, & Forestry), I was the one frequently looking for compromise. I'm very proud of the fact that our committees succeeded in reporting out most bills unanimously.

I've also been an active player in non-partisan efforts to support dairy farmers and to reform taxes (one effort succeeded; one failed). And I've not been afraid to challenge my party, as I have done both on many small issues and on the biggest issue of the day (tax reform).

In all the decisions I make, my allegiance and first priority is always the people that I represent in House District 45.

Tax Reform

       New Information Coming Soon

Education Funding
Every Maine child deserves access to a good education, regardless of whether that child lives in a rich town or a poor town.

I went to Augusta ready to fight for fair and equal funding for rural areas. This fight has now been fought and has been won. Though it is not widely known, the Legislature in 2004 adopted the "Essential Program and Services" methodology for school funding. School districts will now receive state funding based not on how much they spend, but on how much they should be spending to educate students. Poorer, rural districts will no longer be at a disadvantage over rich school districts like Yarmouth or Camden-Rockport. This is a major victory for our part of Maine!

The next battleground is implementation of the ballot referendum passed in June 2004, which calls on the State to pay 55% of the cost of local education. There remain many questions about how this will be implemented. Will it be phased in over time? Will it cover more than 55% of Special Education? Will towns be required to use this new State funding to lower property taxes? These are questions the Legislature needs to tackle next session. I'll be fighting hard to make sure whatever decisions are made work well for our district.

Economic Development
Maine talks about itself as a "small business state," but does little to support small, locally-oriented business. Maine's economic development strategy (and funding) should be targeted to help existing small businesses prosper and grow, rather than to provide tax breaks to large corporations or try to attract new businesses from away.

I've worked in the field of economic development for over 15 years. I've been engaged in a wide range of successful projects. I've worked with and helped a wide range of businesses (from small farms to 1,000 person mills, from "Mom and Pop" stores to firms engaged in cutting edge research and development). From this experience I know that the most successful economic development strategies are those that target local people wanting to start a business or existing local businesses wishing to innovate or expand. Yet most of the economic development strategies target "business attraction" in efforts that are usually costly and seldom effective or sustainable.

Maine needs to recast its economic development programs. We need to end corporate welfare, and focus instead on sensible investment in local people and small businesses.

The Legislature took the first steps in this direction last year. A few legislators with interest or experience in economic development formed the Small Business Working Group. We worked through last spring to develop a Small Business Bill of Rights and a set of ideas (ranging from tax incentives to reductions in burdensome regulation). In the past two months, we've tested these ideas at a half-dozen meetings with business owners from around the state. The business community thinks we're on target. We'll use this input to craft Legislation that will be introduced in January, 2005.

This "new direction" for the Legislature excites me greatly. Without this kind of vision, business issues are dealt with in a piecemeal fashion. Bills that are often touted as "pro-business" often serve just one industry sector (or even a single company), and sometimes at the expense of other Maine companies.

There are a few outside groups that label Legislators "anti-business" because they don't vote for the bills that help one segment of Maine business, even if those same votes hurt other Maine businesses. A chief example is the Maine Economic Research Institute (MERI), which has a big-business mindset, often at the expense of small business. MERI's rating system has been roundly criticized as being subjective and partisan (by many newspaper editors and business experts), but many people still believe what MERI says. (NOTE: I've written about MERI, showing how many of the bills it supports are actually bad for SMALL business. Let me know if you want more information.)

I think the best group tracking these issues is the Maine Small Business Alliance (MSBA), because they focus on small business (which is my bias for where Maine's attentions should be focused). Of the bills MSBA tracked (that made it to the House floor for a vote), I voted their way 91% of the time.

But to be honest, I'm weary of all these ratings, whether they make me look good or not. The reason is that these ratings lead people to simple conclusions, and assign labels that are not always accurate. As a result, these ratings create an atmosphere that encourages confrontation and bickering, and divert attention away from what we need to do.

Personally, I'm eager to see the Legislature move beyond the squabbles that pit different business sectors against each other, or pit business owners versus workers, or pit the economy against the environment. These are all false conflicts that prevent us from developing the comprehensive vision for economic development that we need. I hope I can begin to change that.

Environment
NOTE: I have been endorsed for re-election by the Sierra Club (Maine Chapter) and the Maine League of Conservation Voters.

Maine's environment is special. It's a big part of the "quality of life" that residents here cherish. It's also a big part of our economy. Traditionally, our natural environment has been the engine for many Maine businesses (ex: LL Bean) and it attracts new entrepreneurs all the time. Maine tourism is highly dependent on the environment, and increasingly so. And the futures of Maine's natural resource-based industries (farming, fishing, and forestry) are completely dependent on it. Maine's environment is one of the state's greatest assets, so much so, that I think we sometimes take it for granted. Unfortunately, it doesn't take too long for a place to lose what once made it special. (Think of California 75 years ago!)

Maine was once a national leader in environmental legislation, with efforts to clean rivers, ban billboards, promote recycling, and more. Now we seem content to coast along. I feel this is a mistake. The Maine League of Conservation Voters (MLCV) tracked 14 bills that were important to the environment. I was happy to be on MLCV's side on all 14 of them. But overall, I've been disappointed with the lack of environmental activism within the Legislature.

Half of the time we are fighting against bills that threaten to weaken environmental safeguards. Although this is important work, it hurts to think that so much of our energy is devoted simply to retaining the status quo. And when we do deal with legislation that could enhance our environment, it is nearly always in a slow, incrementally manner. I'm experienced enough to know that change takes time, but on some environmental issues, time is not on our side.

I think we need to do far more. Maine needs to take pro-active, forward-looking steps to protect and enhance our natural environment. I favor efforts to further improve water and air quality, reduce the use of toxic materials, protect critical wildlife habitat, preserve prime farmland, and encourage "smart growth" (that simultaneously serves environmental and community interests). In the next legislative session, I will push for at least $100 million in new bond funding for the Land for Maine's Future Program, having Maine State government set the example by purchasing Green Power, earmarking Maine's community development funds in ways that promote more sustainable communities, and creating new programs to promote local agriculture.

Because of I have 25 years experience in environmental policy, sustainable development, and sustainable agriculture, I am earning the respect of my legislative colleagues as a leader on environmental issues. I hope I can help move Maine to the position where it needs to be.

Some people feel that environmental advances are luxuries we can't afford. But with the right strategies, we can enhance our environment in ways that actually enhance our economy as well. (See Economy & Environment).

Economy & Environment
I feel particularly passionate about how the economy and environment interrelate. (Perhaps that's why I've worked in the fields of sustainable development and environmental policy for 20 years). I'm troubled by arguments that pit economic growth against environmental protection. I feel strongly that we cannot have long-term economic prosperity without being wise stewards of the earth. Long-term, the best economic strategies and the best environmental strategies are the same.

We need to change the debate away from one of "economy" versus "environment." We need a comprehensive approach that builds upon the interconnections between the economy and environment to truly serve society's future interests. Such an approach would combine environmental strategies that respect and respond to economic realities, with economic development strategies that fully respect the environment.

I've spent years helping people and organizations find strategies that serve both environmental and economic goals. It can be done! (Contact me if you want specific examples.)

Farms
I've worked closely with farmers in my job since 1995. I've help farmers write business plans, get loans, find new markets, and preserve their land. I also serve on the legislative committee that oversees agriculture. So I'm on top of what's happening in Maine's diverse agricultural sector.

Some parts of Maine's farm economy are struggling, but other farmers are doing well. Maine farming is in a state of transition, as farmers respond to new economic realities. For a growing number of farms, the change involves moving away from large-scale commodity production. Some of these farms are changing how they market. Others are changing what they produce. They are all focusing on filling a market niche. Economic trends suggest that by following this strategy, Maine farms could become a major supplier of food products to both local and East Coast markets. It makes good economic sense for the State to help preserve farmland and to assist farms to be profitable. (I've written articles about this. Contact me it you'd like more information). Farms are one of those small locally-oriented businesses that bring so many benefits to local communities. With the right support, farms could be a major part of Maine's economic future.

One example of how the state can help occurred during the last two years. When I entered the Legislature in late 2002, Maine's dairy farms were in crisis. Prices were at 20-year lows, and many farms were going out of business. Industry experts predicted that if corrective action was not taken, Maine would loose at least one-third of its dairy farms within a year, and the vast majority of farms within 3-5 years.

The Legislature's response to the dairy crisis is a real success story, one that I'm proud to have played an active part in.

In spring 2003, the Legislature enacted a bill (that I sponsored) that provided emergency relief for farms. That gave farmers enough of a breather, so that the Governor could convene a special Dairy Task Force. That Task Force was comprised of farmers, industry experts, and four Legislators (including me). Chaired by Fred Hutchinson (former UM President), the Task Force developed seventeen unanimous recommendations to help sustain Maine's $525 million/year dairy industry.

Though all of the Task Force's recommendations have value, two of them were particularly critical. Together they created a safety net during periods when federal prices dropped below the real cost of production. These two recommendations were enacted into law through another bill that I sponsored. It passed unanimously, thanks to the hard work of many legislators and dozens of dairy farmers (who spent many days at the State House lobbying for their livelihoods).

In all, approximately $3.5 million in state funds were used to keep alive a $525 million/year industry that pays over $25 million a year in taxes. I call that a good investment!

But don't get the idea that these bills are the end of the story. Maine dairy farmers could have a very bright future. Contrary to popular opinion, our dairy farms are efficient and competitive. (The problem isn't with our farms, but with a faulty federal pricing system.) And many of our farms are well poised to take steps to become even more competitive, either through diversification strategies, alternative production methods, or on-farm processing of value-added products. With the right state policies, our dairy industry could be growing!

Health Care & Dirigo Health

    New Information Coming Soon

Community Planning
Community Planning sometimes takes a bum rap. Some people think planning is all about being told what they can do, but when done right, community planning is really about helping a community create the future it wants. When done right, planning doesn't restrict local options, but actually creates more options.

I've been an active part of community planning in Unity for over 15 years. We've planned some things well and some things not so well. But without a doubt, we're much better off for having done the planning. It's contributed a lot to our community. I don't like to think where Unity would be without it.

The State should play an active role supporting community planning, particularly in small rural towns (like those in our district) where resources are modest. But the State needs to be ever mindful that each community is unique. (What works in Troy may not be good for Montville or Palermo.) The primary reason to do such planning is to put community people in charge of their own future. Thus, good planning must be "home grown"-it cannot be imposed "top down" or forced into a "one size fits all" mold.

State Revenue Shortfall
The State of Maine will face a revenue shortfall in its next budget that could be as high as $400 million. Wrestling with this issue will be one of the great challenges of the next legislative session. In the past session, the Legislature had to contend with a $1.5 billion revenue shortfall. We managed to fill the gap without raising the State sales tax or income tax. Some services were cut, but I'd like to think that the Legislature did as good a job as it could have under the circumstances. Now we need to find another $400 million (or more). This new shortfall will need to be corrected by cutting spending, raising taxes, or some combination of the two.

I am thrifty by nature, and will be looking for cuts wherever possible. Personally, I remain hopeful that the $400 million shortfall can be addressed without raising taxes or cutting essential services. I have worked in state government, and have witnessed first hand some of the inefficiencies of the bureaucracy. There is room for improvement and modernization that could save lots of money. But I also know that there is a limit to how much can be cut without it directly and significantly affecting that state's ability to retain needed services.

Moreover, there are some forms of cuts that are simply foolhardy. One example is cuts in state aid to education. Reductions here will need to be offset either by firing teachers or by raising more school funding locally. Neither option is palatable. I prefer to see state aid retained, even if it means that the state must find more dollars on their end.

So although I'm a fiscal conservative, I'm also a realist. With so large a shortfall (and with it coming on the heels of significant cuts during the past two years), it's possible that some new taxes may be needed after all acceptable spending cuts are made. But I remain hopeful that that is not the case, and I will work hard to ensure that it is not.

Of course, there are really two issues here. The first is how to fill the current shortfall. The second is how to make fundamental changes in the way state government operates so that this problem doesn't reoccur. Both issues are critically important, but in some ways the second issue is more worthy of attention, simply because fewer people will pay attention to it.

How did we get to so large a shortfall, both in the last budget cycle and this one? A major part of the answer is that we spend all (or practically all) of the revenue that comes in good times, far beyond what we can afford in lean years. The state needs a more effective and systematic way of leveling out these highs and lows. The current "rainy day fund" is far too small to accomplish this, especially since the current tax code relies heavily on some revenues that are highly volatile. The next Legislature should examine fundamental changes in how it does its budgeting. The goal would be to prevent run-up spending in flush times and to soften impacts in lean years. Focusing on a long-term fix is critical. Thinking only about the current problem would be a mistake.

Human Rights
I strongly oppose discrimination of any sort, whether based on race, age, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

A Woman's Right to Choose
I don't believe it is government's role to legislate this very private matter.

Hunting & Gun Control
NOTE: I've been endorsed for re-election by the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, who rated me "A".

I grew up hunting, and hope that my grandchildren will someday have as much opportunity to hunt as Mainers enjoy today. I worry about the ever increasingly amount of Maine land that is closed to public access.

I strongly support the right to bear arms. I think current hunting and gun control laws are adequate. I have no tolerance for people who violate those laws. They are an insult to law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen. I have incredible respect for the law enforcement community that works hard to find and stop these law-breakers, and by so doing, helps keep alive hunting traditions for the rest of us.

Public Campaign Financing
I am a Clean Elections candidate. As such, I am not accepting any campaign contributions. My campaign is being paid entirely with public funds. My opponent is also a Clean Election candidate.

I'm supportive, in concept, of the Clean Elections law. I applaud how it "levels the playing field" and how it limits the influence of special interests groups. But I feel the law needs some modification.

First, I feel that it is too easy to qualify as a Clean Elections candidate. As a candidate for a House seat, I needed to get only 50 voters to each contribute $5 to the Clean Elections Fund. That is not a difficult task. I think there should be a higher benchmark. That would help ensure that only truly serious candidates receive public financing. It would also bring more contributions into the Fund.

This relates to my second point. I think the State should work toward generating far more Funds from non-tax sources. Beyond an increase in $5 contributions collected by candidates, I think that many public-minded individuals would be willing to provide larger donations directly to the Fund.

Other Issues
I can't cover everything in this website. If I've missed an issue that you feel strongly about, please contact me to ask my opinion or to offer yours.