welcome everyone to potholes and politics, local main issues from a to z. I am your host, rebecca graham, and I'm here with rebecca lambert and amanda campbell.
Speaker 2:Eight to four laura ellis. It is.
Speaker 1:Laura Ellis. It is the end of session. Wrap up. Let's talk about what just happened. Break down the flurry of activity Now that we've had a little bit of space to breathe. Kate, let's talk about the last two days of session and what happened then.
Speaker 3:Well, the last two days of session were really hectic and slightly confusing. There was a sense of nobody knew what was going on. There were attempts to take over the budget, there were attempts to extend the session and once the legislature recessed and I'm not going to use the term adjourned in the proper sense, because they are not adjourned, they are actually coming back and until they come back and finally adjourn, there is no effective date for non-emergency legislation. So throughout the day on Wednesday and into the morning hours of Thursday, the legislature did a couple of things. One, when the sun was up on Wednesday perfect working hours the legislature adopted a joint order that allowed them to return to address any of the governor's vetoes Prior to recessing, adjourning temporarily on Thursday morning. They also adopted a second joint order which carried over every piece of legislation that hadn't been somewhat acted on. So every piece of legislation that wasn't making its way down to the governor's office for her signature or veto ended up being carried over. Normally, everything would have died that morning when they adjourned, but they will be returning on veto day and because they carried over everything, there's nothing that stops them from continuing their work. So it'll be interesting to see what they intend to do when they return, whether or not it's just simply vetoes and a couple of cleanup bills. But once in, the legislature is not limited with respect to what it can do. They can start right over again, provided they have forum and people around to make decisions. So we're not yet adjourned and there's still this potential for a lot more work to be done. So we're not yet adjourned and there's still this potential for a lot more work to be done With respect to the last minute games.
Speaker 3:After some back and forth between the House and Senate, the legislature was able to adopt a budget that includes some pretty important elements for municipal government, and I'm going to let Rebecca Graham talk to one of those elements with respect to our first responder initiative. But it also includes $60 million worth of coastal storm revenue to help communities that were impacted and businesses impacted by our I think they're December, january storms. Get some money in those communities so that they can start to prepare or repair broken infrastructure, help businesses get back on their feet. So that was a really important element of that bill. It has been signed by the governor and will become effective law, who knows? Because it wasn't adopted as an emergency initiative requiring two thirds majority vote, and so it will only become effective law 90 days after the legislature officially adjourned. So that's still up in the air. So they ended session, or a recess session, and kind of an interesting note. I think it took a couple of days for the dust to settle for most people to put those pieces together, but here we are.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So I've seen a few pieces of news around it, but nobody has talked about the fact that nothing without emergency preamble is, in effect, including the budget. So if the governor doesn't veto anything, how do they come back?
Speaker 3:Well, they have the authority to come back. So the presiding officers have, in that first order I talked about the presiding officers secured the authority to bring them back. The question is, will they come back? They will need a quorum to respond. I suspect that anybody who's been duly elected to office will return because they have to finish up their work. They absolutely have to return. They have to make sure that those bills that are hanging out waiting for final adjournment actually are implemented, and I think there's plenty out there that we can avoid a partisan kind of stalemate or a game of chicken, where there's enough out there that everybody needs to come back so the policies and the bills of importance to them actually get action in a somewhat timely fashion.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the partisan chicken thing. That's what left me feeling as though there would be zero cooperation with return. And now you know if you were not a fan of the original budget. That is a mechanism for which you could hold up the process, and that's an unpalatable place to be, especially when a lot of the news seems to be kind of celebrating victories that really aren't until they adjourn.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I still think I'm going to say this. I think people run for office because they want to do something for the state they intend to do, to be good people. I mean they are good people. Nobody volunteer volunteers to subject themselves to hours and hours of public hearings and work sessions and schedules and you know hours of wait and see the whole legislative time is real. The bells that are supposed to ring at 10 start ringing at 1130 and ring for a half hour. I mean. So your average Maine resident doesn't sign up because they think that's exciting. They sign up because they really want to do some good, and so I would be stunned if the majority wouldn't return for that last day of session because it is their elected duty to do so. They've been elected to do the people's business. It's messy, you don't always win, but at the end of the day you got to show up because you may promise us, the people who elect you, that you're going to do the right thing, and showing up is the right thing.
Speaker 1:Well, especially the budget piece like the, the budget wins and the budget things that are major platform conversations that could be had on the door if you're trying to go into a campaign can't be real until they adjourn I think.
Speaker 3:I think laura is looking to get in on the conversation jump in that was what I was going to ask.
Speaker 4:They cannot, uh, you know, receive campaign contributions while they have not adjourned sine die correct. Or is it only from certain lobbyists?
Speaker 3:I think that is correct. They cannot, but it doesn't mean their PACs are under the same restrictions, so I think there's a workaround on that one as well.
Speaker 1:So one of the key questions perhaps our listeners should be asking their candidates as this rolls out, and whether or not this gets updated if they're making some sort of conversation or promise at the door is is the budget enacted yet? Did you really do that? Have you left yet?
Speaker 3:Those are really good questions.
Speaker 1:So, lambo, I know you've got some mom studies coming up, so I want you to jump in and give me what were your two biggest wins and your two biggest or your single biggest win and your maybe single biggest frustration out of this past session.
Speaker 5:Well, we'll start with the bad news first. So my biggest frustration are we talking bill related here? Yeah, my biggest frustration is that the cannabis revenue can't be distributed amongst the municipalities that have opted in. I just feel that's really unfair and I was really hoping that that might get some traction, but it didn't, so that was a little bit frustrating. Of course, there's always next year we can try again, but it seems like a lot of fingers are going into that fund so there may not be any money left. However, it's a good revenue maker, so I don't see it drying up anytime soon. The biggest win of course I've talked about it many times is the municipal franchise agreement bill. I saw an ad in the paper what was it? Not long ago? But it was a public notice that Winthrop is renegotiating their franchise agreement and now they actually have some kind of teeth to you know and backing from the PUC to to get these franchise agreements finalized and negotiated. So that was a big win and I'm super happy about that one.
Speaker 1:What was your sense at the end of session? This is kind of. This is kind of your first end of session, isn't it?
Speaker 5:Yeah, end of legislation. Yeah, at the end of legislative session. I, you know, I came in at the end of session so I just kind of was getting my feet wet, and then this is the end of my first full legislative session and I was, I felt like I kind of knew what was going on, but then I had no idea where anything was going. There were floor amendments and there were people arguing and it was just, it was crazy and I didn't. I had no idea what was going on, but that I, I think I was in good company, because the legislatures really didn't know what. The legislators really didn't know what was going on either, as evidenced by all the confusion with the motions. And what are we voting on?
Speaker 1:Yeah, there was a stark contrast confusion with the motions and what are we voting on. Yeah, there was a stark contrast, which I kind of feel is ironic, from the COVID legislature, where everything was posted online and available online and nothing was available online even months after amendments had been processed and you had to ask people who are already overwhelmed analysts for the last amended language unless you were in that space.
Speaker 5:So it seemed to me a bit odd and it really came to, really drove home to me that things can change at the last minute. And I'm not sure and this is probably a topic for another day, but I really am not sure how you would combat that at that time. You know when there's floor amendments. If you don't have no idea what's in this floor amendment, how do you know if you need to be talking to someone or lobbying and is this? Is there even any time left at that point to lobby?
Speaker 1:Yeah, the floor amendments are usually special interests that are pushing them very. Yeah, they're rarely just language changes. I guess, Kate, would that be a fair adjustment?
Speaker 3:Yeah, it is. I mean that's last minute stuff, that's. You know, it's like the 11th hour. You tried you can get a particular initiative in and so you try to amend it from the floor. I mean it's a. You know, once you get to the floor, it's a, it's a free game. I mean anything goes. There's no limitations on the number of amendments that can be submitted. So it's, it's a, it's a.
Speaker 3:It's an uncomfortable time of session. And to Rebecca Lambert's point, she's absolutely right. I mean, at that point lobbying is done. I mean the legislature is exhausted. They've retreated. You know, behind closed doors, partisan caucuses, that's where the conversations are taking place. And you know, short of some weird emergency or missing something, excluding something from a bill, there really isn't an opportunity there for much lobbying. It's kind of just watching the show and being available if people have questions. I mean I think it's Amanda that asked me the questions. Why were a group of lobbyists just hanging around midnight and one in the morning and three in the morning? In some cases? They're there in case something comes up and somebody has a question that could help move something. You know, an issue along the budget why did we need this provision in GA law. Well, we needed it for this particular reason. So I think it's the kind of the the the roles flip. It's no longer a lobbying game, it's more of a resource game.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so, cambo, let's, let's go to you. This is your first session, indeed, I'll be at the short one.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think I'm glad we started with the short one, yeah, so my, I'm also going to start with the bad news, just because it's better to get it over with, and I don't think anybody will be surprised that my biggest disappointment was GA. You know, we went into the first session. The LPC drafted some really good bills to make some really good and meaningful changes and the HHS committee completely stripped that bill into something completely useless. So, and then it passed, so yippee, and the funding bill. You know their GA trifecta they had this great idea and the tri of the fact that didn't make it off the table so far. I mean, you know, there's that glimmer of hope that they'll come back and do something, but there's no money left. So we've been tasked with additional things and we're not getting any extra money and it's sort of depressing.
Speaker 2:So, yeah, I would encourage folks to ask their candidates what they plan to do about general assistance, because people have needs and it's getting harder and harder for our municipal officials to provide for them. So what are the final changes to them? So 1730, ld 1732, which was one of our platform bills, took out every financial request. So there is no additional reimbursement to our basic services. There are no additional reimbursements for additional sort of bonus services that people do provide. No training for the staff. Dhhs staff department staff was excluded.
Speaker 2:We did get a tiny win out of it, I will say the HHS is going to implement a statewide general assistance database for GA administrators to access so that they can tell when someone has applied in a different municipality, so that they can sort of gauge how much aid people are requiring and when it's been provided. But that's still years away. At this point they haven't even issued the RFP. There's one provision that I think will assist our municipalities who are our service centers, which is a big is is a big issue for for the bigger cities, who are providing the most aid to the most people, but there's really not much happening for the bigger cities, who are providing the most aid to the most people. There's really not much happening for the small town communities who don't necessarily see very many cases, who need the most help because they don't have a full-time administrator and, you know, are just sort of left out there hanging.
Speaker 2:So in addition to that, there was additional language in the supplemental budget as well. That is going to make it a little bit harder for folks to assist with certain housing aspects of general assistance. So the budget did appropriate $10 million to assist in the reimbursement, which, yes, is more money than was initially put in there, but it's just to make up for the fact that they didn't budget enough in the first place. So it's good to get it and good to have it there so that we will get it, but it's definitely not an increase in the baseline budget, which is really what needs to be happening for GA. So we'll see, maybe next time.
Speaker 1:Well, that training seems key as well, because I remember under COVID I mean COVID was like the perfect incubator for talking about all of the problems within GA there were a lot of hotels that had residents placed in them by like a regional housing co-op, with no notice to the municipality, who then receives folks applying for GA and they've never historically dealt with that. So you have a select board member who's the overseer of the poor, who now is like oh my gosh, I don't even know how to do this and very little resources. So there were a lot of calls, I think, coming into legal as well, about that.
Speaker 2:That seems to me and I think it was fair for the administration to want to end the use of hotels for housing, but I don't think they executed the desire in a very, very positive manner, so we'll see what happens with that well, did I say they created that such a thing?
Speaker 1:yeah right, I won't get catty, all right, patty, all right.
Speaker 2:And then I would say for my win, bill, would be that we were able to testify and support to help their voters and town meeting attendees understand what that levy limit question was. Now they won't necessarily have to fight with those folks and say, no, we're not in fact raising your taxes with this question. You've already approved all of this. You're just saying you're checking the second yes box. All of that confusion will go away now, since LD1 was successfully repealed, so that's a win.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's something that I don't think got reported about very accurately either, because I think they were confusing, which is why it needed to go away. So you know, essentially you could say yep, municipality, we know this is what you guys want to spend. All these initiatives, we're approving every single one. We know this is what our mill rate is going to be, and now you want more money is kind of what that question is like. No, we're just actually reconfirming that.
Speaker 3:You just said that you understand all those things I just I just want to clarify because we've been receiving a lot of inquiries on this ld1 is not yet repealed. It's not effective law. Until they come in, they adjourn, uh, and we start the the 90 day countdown. So, municipal officials, right now, uh, dealing with april, may, june town meetings, you must abide by that, um, that law. Ld1 is an effective law and will probably be so until mid-June, july, august, I don't know. So it's really important that. Hang on, you're going to get your reprieve next budget cycle, but you have to abide by the LD1 tax limit rules this year.
Speaker 3:What?
Speaker 1:a buzzkill, kate. Tax limit rules this year. What a buzzkill, Kate, but that's an interesting point. So, maybe, laura, maybe Laura, you know this one. What is the worst case scenario? So, yeah, what if they chose to never come back until after the election?
Speaker 4:Kate, laura, I don't see that happening. I mean, they have to come in and finally adjourn this session in order for any of this to go through, including the budget. And there's articles in the BDN today saying that the storm damage money is going to be not available until July because it wasn't emergency legislation. Well, they can't say that because you don't know that the legislature is coming back in and you've got to go 90 days out from that. And you've got to go 90 days out from that for them to not raise campaign money personally until you know after the election doesn't work for them.
Speaker 1:But can they campaign? So can they go out and knock on doors and start asking for votes? I'm not sure on that one. But unless it's the money only you know, I don't know how much of our local politicians are going out and raising, fundraising and raising money Usually the PACs and the party does that.
Speaker 2:But it's an interesting twist on the whole procedure that before, even today, like I'm today years old when I realized that we're all today years old, when I realized that, all today years old, the adjournment of this legislature impacted what a candidate could do with their campaign, I had no idea of that. Um, so that's really really interesting information. Well, I'm gonna be the.
Speaker 3:Pollyanna of the group, just because I'm gonna stick with inherently. Inherently, people are good and they understand their roles and there is nothing to gain by not coming back and doing your work. I mean, it's not a good campaign kind of talking point that, oh, I decided that I wasn't going to finish the work that you elected me to do, so can you please reelect me now?
Speaker 5:That soundbite, I think is going to fall a little flat, I don't think anything's surprising.
Speaker 1:Well, I so yeah, to second Lambeau's point on that. Kate, I am really glad that you are Pollyanna on this.
Speaker 1:We desperately need a Pollyanna, because I I'm just shocked at our continual basis at what I thought were rational decisions that never panned out that way and I'm just like what is this new norm? And I think we saw a lot of that at the end of session too. There was a significant lack of norms that I saw play out traditional and they're not bad norms Like there weren't norms that needed to be disrupted, like norms of communication, norms of transparency. Those are things that are valuable to any democratic society and democracy in general. Those aren't norms that I ever want to see go away, but you could make a lot of arguments that they were completely stripped and gone.
Speaker 3:So I just to be clear, I absolutely agree. This was not a normal session. All the rules went out the window. We developed new rules to get what we wanted, and I think it just gets back to the point that we've all been talking about for the last two years. We got to get back to the middle. The moderates have got to start running for the main state legislature. We need individuals who understand that compromise is a good thing, it's not a bad thing. It doesn't mean you're weak. It means you're actually a leader, that you see the value in all voices and that you're working towards ensuring that the collective or the greatest number of people are positively impacted by something. I mean. It's just that we're missing that level of leadership. It needs to come back.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I 100% agree with that and you know Laura brought up a really great point about the news reporting it. You know Laura brought up a really great point about the news reporting it and that, I guess, is also what concerns me is that there's not going to be actual knowledge out there that this is an actual big issue, that nothing is accomplished until they adjourn. Laura, how was your drinking from a fire hydrant this session?
Speaker 4:It was pretty much the norm. I mean, they do this every session save the biggest bills until the end that they're going to fight over the most. It was business as usual from my perspective 60 page bills, usually concept drafts. Oh well, yeah, these concept drafts that you know come out last minute. That was more than usual. They were a ton of concept drafts put in this year, one thing that really needs to change.
Speaker 5:And the ease with which people seem to bend the truth, like when it was said that the public health folks were in on the conversations for the amendments to the act to change the cannabis laws, but they weren't involved until the very end. It was industry stakeholders that were building that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, there was more than one stretch. That stretch, the who was engaged and when, right, but that that's. That's what you expect out of politics. I think that's that's a norm I don't want to be. It shouldn't be Honesty should be the norm.
Speaker 1:Yes, I totally agree. But when you have people who are saying I can't say that on mic, so let's go caucus as a group and then make a decision and come back and vote, so that there is no transparency, the norm, the running norm out of that is not being also transparent in who is involved in that.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I don't understand why they can't just ask their other party colleagues what they think about something right there on right.
Speaker 3:I mean elected office hates courage. You got to be able to say unpopular things, uncomfortable things, not in a negative way, but you have to be able to talk about what you think about policy without feeling that you're going to be chastised or marginalised. I mean they've got to create a more friendly environment for having differences of opinion. I mean, for me, the role of, or the goal of, any elected official at any level is not to be popular but to be respected. That's what everyone should strive for. But that takes a lot of courage and a lot of leadership and it's just. You know, if people were running these programs about you know how to get elected. I mean they really should focus on that, you know. That's, that's the art we're missing the ability to sit down and have really difficult conversations without the name calling.
Speaker 1:Well, I think the difficult conversations thing is is absolutely key. That's a wicked challenge, I think, for humans in general. They shy away from the challenging conversations. Some of us are freaks and thrive on them because they want to know all of the aspects around things, but the not teaching like it's great that you're effective in getting folks elected, but not teaching them how to understand or vet policy, and that part of that policy means that you need to understand where. What is the actual problem, who are the people? Who are the people that are delivering that they have the most to inform about how that could be improved, how that should be improved and maybe how to integrate your idea in a better way, in a way that you never thought of effectively before.
Speaker 2:In some cases, whether or not it needs to be improved at all.
Speaker 1:Right. Yeah, I'm not sure we ever have, ever or will ever have a legislature that recognizes you don't need to pass 2000 or write 2200 bills, but sometimes you don't need to pass law. But they didn't shy away from not. And I and I saw this kind of endeavor of trying to pass every single law, even though it, you know, regardless of how poorly it was written. That's kind of a problem. I didn't get the sense when I started that that was the case. I never had that experience. It was always we.
Speaker 1:You understood where someone was coming from and you would try to get the language to a better place so that they could be taken along. But the debate was never around the language. Like saying that the language is incorrect didn't mean that you were in opposition of the bill or that it was invalid because it wasn't using your words, because your words don't have the same legal effect. That was an odd, odd place to be. I think that was. One of my key takeaways was that language was somehow seen as partisan as opposed to functional. It's kind of like, you know, the color of the house is somehow part of the architecture and will make it stand. Actually, it has nothing to do with whether or not the foundation is solid and we're talking about the foundation being solid.
Speaker 1:You could paint it whatever the hell you want, but we still need actual foundation, or maybe even cladboards in that case. So I guess my surprise at the end of session you know, I guess you could argue came out of that non-transparent process because it didn't necessarily feel like it was going to happen, because it felt like we were kind of howling in the wind. But I think there was one key meeting with a whole bunch of stakeholders and the chairs and leads on appropriation that probably made that happen. And that is something I think we can morph into as we talk about what's happening next for us, which is LPC elections coming up. Our executive committee member, phil Kral, is a city manager in Auburn and also sits on MMA's executive committee.
Speaker 1:He's also a former chief of police and he took some significant initiatives to get some programs in place and to convince his counsel that they were necessary and was key to us getting a meeting with the chairs and leads of appropriations so that they could hear from all of the other smaller agencies that aren't going to have that ability why they really needed the appropriations to significantly consider LD 1857, which was the Public Safety, health and Wellness Pilot Program. That bill will allow an agency, regardless of its volunteer status, its full-time status, its part-time employees, its full-time employees or its volunteers for public safety, whether they are corrections officers, dispatchers, firefighters, ems workers or police officers to be able to have specialized screenings for the risks that are associated with their health their higher level of risk of cardiac because of inflammatory response from the cortisol and adrenaline that folks experiencing these incidents go through, but also cancer screenings from you know nasty burning stuff that firefighters are exposed to, including the clothes necessary to protect them from that in many instances, and the nature of their jobs in general. Those programs have been kind of the middle filler between the health insurance your job isn't a risk factor for your health and, more importantly, that you might need to have someone who's talking to you about the things that you've experienced, that at least has some sort of understanding around how delicate that is, especially if you're looking like law enforcement, the delicacy between you know being tagged as having PTSD or you know compassion, fatigue and whether or not that means that you can still do your job or return to work or, you know, even have your family around understand kind of what you're going through those programs can now be applied for and funded through this program. That's $2 million from the Department of Public Safety. Who will manage that grant and that now will be again at the mercy of them adjourning and also at the mercy of the rulemaking process to when they adjourn. So that early fall probably was the optimistic point in time when that would be established as to what programs would qualify under that point in time. When that would be established as to what programs would qualify under that. That's probably pushed out and maybe a bit beyond that now, or we don't necessarily know if that fall timeline is going to be accurate because of the status of that.
Speaker 1:They did put it in the budget. That's the big. The high level piece is that they put it into the budget. Hooray, that was amazing. That was a really positive thing that came out of something that was completely chaotic.
Speaker 1:They did leave another bill that I think is just the most municipal, because what happened was they stripped the fiscal note off of DECD, off of 1493, which would allow municipalities to to use their economic TIF-retained value to create and protect housing in a small scale.
Speaker 1:So rather than focusing on those large-scale developments, they could actually go into a place where there were triple-deckers that needed being brought up to code.
Speaker 1:That would automatically displace the people that are living in that naturally affordable housing because those improvements cost money.
Speaker 1:So they're going to be now market rate and those folks may or may not be able to continue to afford there, but they're usually near the economic district, like if you look at Augusta, mount Vernon Ave and Sand Hill. Those are all areas with a lot of naturally affordable housing that if it were improved or even expanded upon, would move or maybe displace those folks out of there, because now it becomes, you know, the bougie, cool Munjoy Hill type apartment and that and we've seen that in Portland. So that would allow a community to actually have a say in. Nope, ok, we're going to keep this neighborhood naturally affordable. But we're going to keep this neighborhood naturally affordable but we're going to improve the conditions of those houses and support the people. Or even like, take a larger house that Meme lives in and split it into four, into duplex, without her losing kind of that equity, but by giving her the ability to have a, you know, a much more weathertight apartment and then maybe four other weathertight apartments in her large house that also has four other little memes or pepes.
Speaker 6:And not the room share.
Speaker 1:Not, yeah, not the room share, or maybe even put an ADU on their property so that they could either move into the ADU, which was more accessible, and then have their house rented out to a larger family. But either way, it would be a neighborhood level, neighborhood level decision, neighborhood level projects with some real power that the state doesn't have to pay anything for, everybody at the local community can decide how to spend the funds that are theirs to improve housing. Really simple. But that doesn't exist because it was on the table and needs to be amended to strip the fiscal note. And they postponed indefinitely postponed all of those bills that needed any sort of amendments from the table.
Speaker 3:It's interesting when you think of the ripple effect on that particular bill. There are so many missed opportunities that are not necessarily directly related to the housing. I mean you mentioned having an ADU with a MMA in the backyard. I mean that brings back a different type of relationship. Right, if you have, you know, a MMA, it doesn't have to be your own MMA, but somebody who's in the backyard to teach you how to bake an apple pie or hang out with. I mean it brings back that intergenerational relationships that I think we're losing. So I mean there's so many societal benefits associated with that type of development that we miss out on when we're just so black and white about. It has to be my way or the highway.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and we're really focused on market. We're letting the market decide what it is that we build. We're letting the market and the capital stack decide what projects happen. And we heard pretty loudly that nobody's building market rate housing unless they have $500,000 in capital, because banks won't lend for those projects and you're not going to sell your home at an inflated value in order to move into a smaller home that costs you 100% of what you just sold your larger home for. That is the problem. That is why nobody is leaving their houses unless they have a spare house and that's also why nobody can afford to fix their adjacent house when an ADU is $350,000 on average to build. I mean, if you had $350,000, why would you want?
Speaker 6:to live in a tiny home, right.
Speaker 1:So what's next, ladies? Any rumors? Anyone hearing an intent to come back? Is everyone still so pissed and exhausted from last week that no one's even speaking with anyone at the state house? That's how I feel, but I'm just wondering.
Speaker 6:Yeah I've pretty much retreated into a hole. I don't think I left my bed on the weekend. I watched tv and, just like chilled, I was exhausted and yeah, I've retreated into a hole.
Speaker 1:I've retreated into a Balkan border.
Speaker 6:But I'm going to emerge a butterfly, damn it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you are.
Speaker 3:Kate, what's your spirit animal?
Speaker 6:It's not a unicorn, that's for sure it's a unicorn.
Speaker 3:You've thrown me this type A into a bit of a loop. I have no idea what my spirit animal is. Probably a rabid fox, for all I know.
Speaker 6:You're going to have to analyze that and get back to us.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but this is the Super Bowl man, this is the end of the Super Bowl, so you're going to Disney, right, I am?
Speaker 3:So I identify as a Disney princess.
Speaker 1:That's awesome, laura.
Speaker 4:One I don't have to care for a duck-billed platypus.
Speaker 1:Oh, there we go. You remember those sea monkeys that you could get. I still don't know what they ever were. I know that there's something wicked common, but I can't remember. I'm gonna have to google that.
Speaker 3:But uh, sea monkeys are a sort of brine shrimp okay, but I also expect it to last that long?
Speaker 1:ladies, with 10 minutes to spare, I'm gonna cut you loose and say thank you for doing real thank you fun. This has been real fun.
Speaker 4:I got nothing can I please plug the lpc elections? Yes, please. Lpc nominations are going out in tomorrow's mail and electronically either thursday or friday. Municipalities will have until june 12th to get those back to me. Seven weeks, we go a little longer just to give them extra time because not every board meets, you know, even monthly. Sometimes it's a little bit more than every month that they meet. So that they can, the boards have to sign those and then on those are back June 12th and on June 13th I'll send ballots out to all 35 Senate districts asking them to vote on who's going to represent them for the next two years on the Legislative Policy Committee.
Speaker 1:Wow. So if you're a municipal that wants to join the LPC, which is, you know, working with the coolest ladies on the face of the earth, how might one do that?
Speaker 4:Well, the mailing and email go to the key elected official, whether it's the manager or the chair of the board. So they should let either of those two know that they're interested and ask for the nomination and take it from there.
Speaker 2:And, as a former member of the LPC, now turned to the flip side, I encourage everybody to to run. It's a great way to bring an additional viewpoint to your municipality and then bringing the viewpoints of your municipality to all of us.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and one of the key pieces that this legislature has driven home, I think, for all of us, is how important municipal officials and their advocacy with their delegations, both locally and while they're sitting in the statehouse, is to getting really positive work done. Many voices and many hands are really the only way that I think we're going to be able to get the municipal voice into a legislature that doesn't necessarily have a lot of experience, municipal experience, municipal experience in their ranks, like they used to. So it's going to become more important for them to be educated by their municipal officials, I think in the future.
Speaker 6:And sharing stories. I think sharing stories goes a long way. So when municipalities or people in the LPC share those you know, stories that we can put into our testimony, it makes a big impact. And also, you know, I think being memorable makes a difference. So from now on, I'm going to start singing my testimony when I present it for right mind in limerick form and are you going to go with a haiku?
Speaker 2:no, no, I was thinking I might do it all backwards, so I'd have to read it in a mirror.
Speaker 3:Somebody has to do an interpretive dance, come on.
Speaker 6:That's you, kate. Oh no, I love dance. I will totally do that. Because singing isn't really my forte.
Speaker 3:As the editor of the bulletin. The three of you, rebecca, rebecca and Amanda, deserve unbelievable kudos for the quality of the articles that were published throughout the session informative and snarky. Calling folks out on bad behavior was not only incredibly well done, very creative, but greatly appreciated by our members. I've received easily a half dozen emails and phone calls saying people are really jonesing for the bulletin. They miss it like nobody's business. So kudos to the three of you. It was excellent, excellent work, like I said, very entertaining, very informative and we really got our messages across because we didn't get many complaints about it.
Speaker 4:Well done, ladies. I always look forward to opening those files to proof them on Friday mornings and get a good giggle with my coffee Friday mornings and get a good giggle with my coffee.
Speaker 6:There may have been a few complaints at the state house, but that just meant it was being read and evidently heard, so I guess there is a winner.
Speaker 1:Well, I think that there there does need to be some kudos. That goes to the legislature for frustrating us enough to make us creatively inspired through writing in ways that I think you call that job security. I'm okay with not being job secure, just saying I know You're coming back, I don't know. You know beer's two bucks, wine's two bucks, wine's two bucks it's. I could live a long time. We'll relocate. Yes, I mean, if we don't have to be there, we'll come to you.
Speaker 6:There we are, then there we are, then there we are then there we are, then there we are then, there we are then.
Speaker 1:Don't forget to like us and subscribe and rate us on your favorite podcatcher and recommend us to others that need to understand municipal government hiatus until the legislature returns. There's still plenty of work left to be done, including holding those who are seeking this office accountable for what happened this last session, but also for making sure that they engage with municipal officials. So we look forward to talking with you all during this fall and sharing some perspectives with you. We hope we're going to get some more municipally engaged voices in our work and we value and appreciate each one of you. Thank you so much for your efforts. We know you're busy humans and we cherish the work that you're doing. So keep up the good work and please share it with us. Thank you. Talk to you soon.