Jon Reisman

I spent most of a mid-April afternoon waiting to testify on LD 1494, a “Resolve, Directing the Office of Procurement Services to Study Adapting the Procurement Process to the State Climate Action Plan.” The resolve didn’t get a lot of attention from the Soros-bought-and-paid-for (SBAPF) Maine legacy media, and I’m pretty sure that the majority of the committee is happy about that. 

Here is the LD 1494 summary:

This resolve directs the Department of Administrative and Financial Services, Office of Procurement Services to coordinate with various state agencies to study adapting the State's procurement program to the state climate action plan and to report out a bill related to the report to the Second Regular Session of the 132nd Legislature.” 

The Office of Procurement Services was recently flagged by Maine State Auditor Matthew Dunlap (a Democrat) for serious “material weaknesses” in their procurement procedures. “Material Weaknesses” is an auditing/accounting red flag for potential fraud, waste, and corruption.

The Climate Plan also has some material weaknesses, including a failure to define equity, which is a major concern/goal of the plan, or a willingness to tell Mainers how much adverse climate change their tax dollars are averting, and at what cost to energy prices. The SBAPF Maine legacy media share the legislative majority’s view that these weaknesses are immaterial and not worth any attention.

Here is a portion of my testimony:

“...I am testifying in fervent opposition to LD 1494, which is advertised as an effort for better and more effective governance, but is in fact a prescription for more corrupt, politicized, wasteful and ultimately ineffective climate policy.

“This committee should absolutely NOT respond to recent state audit revelations of numerous serious material weaknesses in Maine’s procurement processes by giving even more money and authority to an agency and administration that is either incompetent, corrupt or both.

“The Climate Action Plan LD 1494 seeks to procure for also has serious material weaknesses. It makes a major commitment to equity, but fails to define equity, as admitted by the Governor’s legal counsel. Promoting an undefined policy goal is pure policy malpractice. Worse, the Climate Plan somehow developed metrics for the undefined policy goal. Combining the material weaknesses of the climate plan with the State’s impaired procurement processes are a prescription for green grift, graft and climate policy ineffectiveness and failure.

“In 2017 in the 128th legislature I had LD 771, An Act To Protect Political Speech and Prevent Climate Change Policy Profiling, introduced in response to then Attorney General Mills threatening my political speech with her climate litigation and subpoenas against several think tanks I was associated with. Because I feared that a Gov. Mills would likely favor climate alarmists she agreed with over uppity climate holocaust deniers, LD 771 also prohibited the State from favoring or disfavoring any person based on the person's climate change policy preferences with regard to grants, contracts, or employment. LD 1494 seeks to ensure certain climate policy preferences are handsomely rewarded. Please vote “ought not to pass.”

The Committee had no questions. Further, there is a bill in, LD 1593, “An Act to Require Certain Public Entities to Define Their Use of the Term ‘Equity,’” which addresses some of the aforementioned weaknesses in the Climate Plan (and actually throughout Maine State Government and the University of Maine System) which has been assigned to the same committee. The Chairs — both Democrats — have chosen to delay a public hearing for as long as possible, or keep their plans close to the vest. I’m sure the SBAPF Maine legacy media will cooperate.

Jon Reisman is an economist and policy analyst who retired from the University of Maine at Machias after 38 years. He resides on Cathance Lake in Cooper, where he is a Selectman and a Statler and Waldorf intern. Mr. Reisman’s views are his own, and he welcomes comments as letters to the editor here or to him directly via email at [email protected].