The Maine State Chamber of Commerce has been about as clear as mud when it comes to its stance on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
The state Chamber board has voted to oppose the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which will appear on the November ballot. That announcement came this week after Dana Connors, the Chamber president, said in September that if the vote were taken then they would probably support the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and after the Portland Regional Chamber came out in support of the referendum earlier this month.
Certainly, taking a stance on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights has been difficult for many who feel the state hasn’t done enough to reduce the tax burden, but TABOR is an imperfect solution. However, businesses and taxpayers deserve clearer guidance from the largest business advocacy group in the state.
Instead of backing TABOR, the Chamber board voted to support an alternative proposal put together by the Maine Municipal Association and the Maine Education Association. That proposal would effectively give some teeth to the state’s effort to reduce and reform taxes – a law known as LD1.
In that respect, the Chamber and Connors have been consistent. Connors has argued in the past that the spending caps under LD1 should be stronger – harder to override.
However, the details of this new plan are certainly going to be difficult for voters to grasp with a little more than two weeks to go before the Nov. 7 elections. Many voters barely understand the full implications of TABOR. If the Chamber, the Maine Municipal Association and the Maine Education Association wanted to propose an alternative for voters, they should have done it a long time ago.
Schools’ message getting muddier
Speaking of clarity, as the Westbrook School Committee members consider a new code of conduct for students in regard to drugs and alcohol, committee members should make sure they’re not muddying the message they are sending to students.
Westbrook schools have had a clear stance, albeit strict, on drugs and alcohol – students who are caught even in the presence of other students who are using drugs and alcohol will face severe consequences. If students are caught once, they face a two-week suspension from athletics. The second time they face suspension from participating in sports for a year.
Now the School Committee is considering giving students an extra chance before suspending them for a full year. On a first violation, violation students would be suspended from two weeks of practices and four weeks of games. They would also be required to meet with a substance abuse counselor. On a second, students would be suspended for 10 weeks or the remainder of the season, whichever comes first. On a third, students would be suspended for a year.
The new policy would also take into account how the school should respond to students involved in different types of extra-curricular activities. Students in service organizations, like the Key Club, might not be suspended because they are doing community services.
While all of these changes are thoughtful, it’s important that as the policy becomes more nuanced it does not get watered down. The messages teenagers are getting from society about drugs and alcohol are already muddy enough. And, up until now, the message students have been getting from Westbrook schools has been quite clear – the schools don’t condone using, or being around students who are, using drugs and alcohol.
Substance Abuse Counselor Bruce Dyer is right – what happens to students after they’re caught should be a learning experience, not just punishment. That’s why requiring students to see substance abuse counselors or requiring them to participate in some community service project, in order to participate in sports, are good ideas.
However, it’s important to remember that participating in school sports is a privilege, and there’s nothing wrong with removing that privilege if students don’t behave in the way that the schools or the community expects them to.
Brendan Moran, editor
Send questions/comments to the editors.
