MAINE JOBS GO SOUTH

This is in response to letters written in response to Mark Scarano’s letter (December 20, “The Top 10 things Roxanne Quimby can do for $8 million”): Are you people kidding me? You are completely missing the real point of the Roxanne Quimby story as it relates to saving this state: She took dozens of good jobs out of rural Maine and moved them to North Carolina so she could make more money. End of story.

Roxanne Quimby first stuck it to Maine, now she wants to give something back — money to fund a National Park? Please. Why don’t these letter writers who fly over the northern half of the state and gaze longingly down land their planes in Presque Isle, Lincoln, or Milbridge and talk with some locals about their children’s future job prospects in their hometowns. I have a pretty strong feeling that not many will list funding a National Park in northern Maine as a wise use of funds.

It is pretty easy for many, especially in Southern Maine to look at the northern part of the state, appreciate its beauty and long for it to be sealed up into a protected haven solely for their recreation. Mark Scarano has it one hell of a lot harder: He is in Piscataquis County doing the work, trying to get something started so the people who live there do not have to move to say, North Carolina, to scratch two nickels or two tubes of lip balm together to make a living.

I admire Roxanne Quimby’s work ethic, her business success, and her altruism when thinking of her old state. But Mark Scarano hits the nail right on the head: What she could do for Maine she should have done seven years ago: Create 120 jobs (the number she employs in North Carolina) that pay a salary and benefits. Do you think Tom’s of Maine or Hussey Seating could make more money with their businesses located in the South? I’ll make a guess that they could. However, these two companies, among others, have hung around: They’ve built successful businesses in spite of Maine’s location, its taxes, and its sometimes-challenging business environment. These companies’ owners have chosen not to flee the state, make millions, then come back years later with a (carpet?)bag full of money to shower on those of us who are apparently ignorant of our need for a national park.

Brad MacCachran

Portland

AL'S A PIG

As the chief advocate for the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability referred to in Al Diamon’s column, “Ode to the pigs” (Jan. 10), I must respond to his unfair and uninformed remarks.

Regular readers of Al Diamon know that he brings home his bacon, so to speak, by using sarcasm to poke fun at the ideas and intentions of those of us involved in politics. As an elected official, I expect some scrutiny and can even take an attempted joke or two at my expense. I just wish that Al could have gotten his facts straight.

The bipartisan group of lawmakers who got together to develop the concept for the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability were all motivated by the belief that the Legislature must do more to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. We quickly concluded that better oversight starts with better information.

Under our present system, Maine’s citizen legislators derive their information from sources that, for the most part, have an agenda. Be assured that I am not accusing anyone of dishonesty, but the fact remains that the agencies, lobbyists, and special interests that are our chief sources of information all bring their own perceptions and needs to the debate.

The Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability will consist of a small staff of professional investigators who are both impartial and nonpartisan. The investigations they conduct will produce unbiased information that we can use to make hard decisions about the effectiveness and efficiency of government programs.

We know the concept works because it is working elsewhere. Congress relies on the General Accounting Office to develop independent information about federal agencies. Senator Susan Collins has told me just how important GAO reports are to her and her colleagues.

Forty-four state legislatures have programs that are similar to the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability we have created in Maine. These offices are saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. In Idaho, for example, an audit determined that five more tax collectors were needed to go after unpaid taxes. The result is an extra $10 million a year in revenue. Idaho auditors also identified $3.5 million in savings in the state’s auto fleet and offered suggestions that led to $70 million a year in Medicaid savings.

Al Diamon correctly points out that it is estimated to cost about $1.1 million per year to fund the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability in Maine. I believe, however, the office can be run for less — the program in Idaho is of similar size and costs $500,000 a year less than the estimate we have been given. Regardless, given the savings found in other states, I would counter that not funding the program in fiscal times such as these would be penny wise but pound foolish.

Al Diamon is also correct when he suggests that past attempts to improve oversight of state government have been unsuccessful. The difference with this concept is that partisan lawmakers and special interests will not have a chance to influence the findings of investigations.

If Al had read the enacting legislation or even called to talk about the program he would know that we went to great lengths to ensure the independence of the office. The legislative committee in charge of OPEGA will be evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Another protection is that it will take a bipartisan vote of the Legislative Council to hire the Director of the office. In addition, we are giving this director the job security of a five-year contract so he or she can act without fear of political retribution. We also have included statutory safeguards that will protect the confidentiality of ongoing investigations so as to prevent improper influence that could bias the findings.

Despite the musings of Al Diamon, I look to the media as an ally in our efforts to improve the Legislature’s oversight of state government. I am grateful for the overwhelming support our program has received from Maine’s editorial writers. We are also going to need the media’s help to report the findings of the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability so ordinary taxpayers are made aware of the opportunities for savings. When the people learn that we can improve how we spend their money, it is going to be hard for their elected representatives to ignore a chance to reform.

The Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability is not a cure all. Yet if we are to believe our new Governor that reform and efficiencies must be a big part of the solution to our budget mess, the creation of OPEGA is certainly a step in the right direction.

Representative David Trahan

Third-term House Republican

Waldoboro