Maine Policy Matters

Today, we’ll be interviewing Linda Silka, Sarah Kirn, and Jane Disney on citizen and community science in Maine.  Dr. Linda Silka is a social and community psychologist by training, with much of her work focusing on building community-university research partnerships. She has several decades of experience in leading community-university research partnerships on environmental, economic development, and environmental health issues.  Sarah Kirn is the Participatory Science Strategist at NASA at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute. Kirn leads the planning and production of a professional development series for people leading participatory research efforts, with particular focus on meeting the needs of scientists funded by NASA to conduct research using citizen science methods.  Jane Disney is currently an Associate Professor of Environmental Health at MDI Biological Laboratory. She is also the Director of the Community Environmental Health Laboratory. She is a co-developer of the citizen science online data portal, Anecdata.org.  Donate to Maine Policy Review: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/donate-to-maine-policy-review/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/2026/02/12/s9e1-the-nuclear-frontier-when-maine-was-the-frontline-of-the-cold-war/

In this episode, we interview Rebecca Gibbons, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Southern Maine, who discusses why Maine would be a strategically and politically amenable place for nuclear weapons placement, as well as the current state of affairs regarding nuclear weapons. Donate to Maine Policy Review: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/donate-to-maine-policy-review/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: Coming Soon

In this episode, we interview Chris O'Brien on Maine’s strategic role as a nuclear frontier during the Cold War, highlighting how bases like Loring became central to national defense. We examine the legacy of Senator Margaret Chase Smith, balancing her famous stand against McCarthyism with her firm support for nuclear military readiness. Donate to Maine Policy Review: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/donate-to-maine-policy-review/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/2026/02/12/s9e1-the-nuclear-frontier-when-maine-was-the-frontline-of-the-cold-war/

In this episode, we discuss the high-stakes expiration of the Enhanced Premium Tax Credits (ePTCs)—a pandemic-era policy that is set to sunset at the end of 2025. While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) laid the groundwork for subsidized health insurance in 2010, the 2021 American Rescue Plan significantly boosted these savings, making coverage affordable for thousands who previously sat just outside the eligibility line. Donate to Maine Policy Review: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/donate-to-maine-policy-review/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: Coming Soon

In this episode, we explore the critical role whales play in the marine ecosystem and how advances in research technology have transformed our ability to study and protect them. Our guest, Toby Stephenson, shares inspiring moments from the field, insights from recent population studies, and the challenges posed by a changing climate. We also discuss the importance of collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and local communities in shaping the future of whale conservation. Looking ahead, we ask what gives reason for hope and how Maine can continue leading efforts to protect these ocean giants for generations to come. Donate to Maine Policy Review: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/donate-to-maine-policy-review/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: Coming Soon

In this episode, library leaders from across Maine share how their roles reflect the modern mission of public libraries and why these institutions remain vital to their communities. Listeners will learn how Maine libraries are adapting to meet today’s needs, the impact of federal funding cuts, and the strategies librarians employ to defend intellectual freedom amid growing pressures for censorship. The conversation also explores libraries’ role in climate action, the challenges of ensuring equitable digital access, and inspiring stories of how libraries especially in rural areas are fostering education, resilience, and stronger community connections. Donate to Maine Policy Review: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/donate-to-maine-policy-review/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: Coming Soon

In this episode, we interview Shannon Coffin, Lynne Holland, Lisa Morin, and Amanda Levesque on food insecurity in Maine’s higher and lower education systems. This episode is part 2 of our series on food insecurity in Maine. If you haven’t listened yet, please check out part 1, where we discuss the statewide prevalence of food insecurity in Maine. Part 1: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Donate to Maine Policy Review: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/donate-to-maine-policy-review/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: Coming Soon  

In this episode, we interview Heather Paquette, Kelly Sirimoglu, and Justin Strasburger on the prevalence of food insecurity in Maine. Resources https://www.gsfb.org/2025-2030-strategic-plan/ https://www.prfoodcenter.org/ https://www.fullplates.org/   Donate to Maine Policy Review: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/donate-to-maine-policy-review/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/2025/03/27/s7e2-feeding-maine-the-fight-against-hunger-in-urban-and-rural-communities/

In this episode, we feature a special host, Nicole Leblanc, who is a writer for our podcast. This episode focuses on climate resilience, Maine's efforts toward clean energy and transportation, and Maine's climate change infrastructure and will have two segments. The first will feature a one-on-one interview with Chief Engineer for the Maine Department of Transportation Joyce Taylor. The second segment will feature a panel with Sarah Curran, Judy East, and Samantha Horn. Resources MaineDOT's Climate Initiative Maine Climate Council Maine Climate Resilience Grant Maine Adaptation Toolkit   Donate to Maine Policy Review: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/donate-to-maine-policy-review/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy

In this episode, we interview Gordon Smith, Alex Rezk, Dr. Rachel Solotaroff, and Glenn Gordon on the opioid epidemic in Maine. Resources: https://knowyouroptions.me/ https://mainedrugdata.org/   Donate to Maine Policy Review: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/donate-to-maine-policy-review/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: Coming soon.  

In this episode, we interview Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows on election processes, election security, the importance of local municipal elections, and semi-open primaries. This episode explores the extensive systems Maine employs to protect the democratic process. Secretary Bellows provides an in-depth look at how the state ensures every vote is counted accurately, discussing the critical roles played by officials, volunteers, and election workers at both local and state levels. These dedicated teams work together to implement a secure, transparent election process that fosters trust in the system. Maine is notably #1 in the nation in voter turnout rate due to our state’s policy of same-day voter registration, underscoring the importance of removing obstacles for people to get to the polls. The conversation highlights how rigorous planning, careful oversight, and collaborative efforts are essential to maintaining voter confidence and protecting the integrity of each election in Maine. Absentee Voting in Maine Donate to Maine Policy Review: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/donate-to-maine-policy-review/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/2024/10/29/s6e2-behind-the-ballot-voting-integrity-in-maine-with-shenna-bellows/  

This episode is part 2 of a two-part series on the status of broadband in Maine, with today’s topic focusing on digital equity, attitudes, and access. As we discussed in part one, Maine is uniquely situated for addressing the challenge of getting broadband access to every person, from urban to rural towns, both having their own distinct set of obstacles and opportunities. We highlighted the importance of putting communities “in the driver’s seat” to make decisions about funding distribution, to choose and advocate for the entities they want to provide that Internet service, and other approaches to making reliable broadband available, depending on the needs of a town’s constituents. In this episode, we discuss broadband access in Maine with Jessica Perez, Marijke Visser, and Diane Small. Donate to Maine Policy Review: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/donate-to-maine-policy-review/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/2024/09/03/s6e1-maine-broadband-access-part-2-digital-equity-attitudes-and-access/  

In this episode, we discuss broadband's history and infrastructure in Maine with Heather Johnson, Nick Battista, Clara McCool, and Andrew Butcher. Heather Johnson is the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development, which works with statewide and local partners, private industry, and small businesses to enhance and sustain economic prosperity in Maine. GPCOG Broadband Resources, Projects, and Programs: https://www.gpcog.org/505/Broadband Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: Coming soon

In this episode, Bill Zoellick, Monique Coombs, and Jeremy Garielson join us for a panel discussion on Maine’s working waterfront. The panelists discuss the waterfront’s economic and cultural significance, on-foot access, preservation, community involvement, and much more. Scuttlebutt: Harpswell Brunswick  Gouldsboro Working Waterfront Inventory Template Maine Coast Heritage Trust Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/2024/07/30/s5e7-a-conversation-on-maines-working-waterfront-responding-to-changing-times/

In this episode, Samaa Abdurraqib and Mollie Cashwell join us for a panel discussion on the importance of the humanities in Maine. The panelists discuss community care, technology's impacts on the humanities, and much more. Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy Transcript: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/2024/05/30/s5e6-the-maine-difference-championing-the-humanities-in-a-rural-state/

This episode features a one-on-one interview with Charlene Virgilio, executive director of Four Directions. Then, you’ll hear a panel discussion with Tracy Michaud, Steve Lyons, and Rauni Kew on Maine’s tourism trends and hospitality. Tracy Michaud's coauthored Maine Policy Review article: "The Role of Aquatourism in Sustaining Maine’s Working Waterfronts" https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1940&context=mpr  Steve Lyons's Maine Policy Review article: "Coastal Tourism in Maine" https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol32/iss2/38/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy You can access the transcript here: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/2024/03/26/s5e5-maine-tourism-trends-and-hospitality-part-2/

In this episode, we interview David Vail, Caroline Paras, and Stuart Kestenbaum on Maine’s Tourism Sectors. Article on Maine's outdoor recreation economy: https://www.pressherald.com/2023/11/20/commerce-report-says-maines-outdoor-recreation-economy-grew-16-5-in-2022/ Caroline Paras's coauthored Maine Policy Review article "The Role of Aquatourism in Sustaining Maine’s Working Waterfronts" https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1940&context=mpr Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy You can access the transcript here: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/s5e4-maines-tourism-sectors-our-economy-traditions-and-sense-of-place/

This episode is part 2 of a two-part series on Maine’s offshore wind efforts. In this episode, we’ll be following up on our interview with Dr. Habib Dagher, Executive Director of the University of Maine’s Advanced Structures and Composites Center, by interviewing Celina Cunningham, Nicholas Lund, and Jack Shapiro on the environmental and policy implications of Maine’s offshore wind efforts. If you haven’t listened to our interview with Dr. Dagher and would like an introduction to Maine’s offshore wind efforts, make sure to listen to Season 5 Episode 2: Habib Dagher & Leading Energy: Maine’s Offshore Wind Advantage (Part 1). Governor's Energy Office - Offshore wind: https://www.maineoffshorewind.org/ https://www.maine.gov/energy/initiatives/offshorewind/roadmap NRCM: https://www.nrcm.org/ Maine Audubon: https://maineaudubon.org/   Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy You can access the transcript here: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/s5e3-policy-and-environmental-impacts-maines-offshore-wind-advantage-part-2/

In this episode, the first of a two-part series, we interview Habib Dagher, the founding Executive Director of the University of Maine’s Advanced Structures and Composites Center. In two weeks, we’ll be featuring a discussion with Celina Cunningham, Nicholas Lund, and Jack Shapiro on the environmental and policy implications of Maine’s offshore wind efforts. Dr. Habib Dagher is the founding Executive Director of the University of Maine’s Advanced Structures and Composites Center (ASCC).  Advanced Structures & Composites Center: https://composites.umaine.edu/why-offshore-wind-2/ Advancing Offshore Wind Energy in the United States: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/advancing-offshore-wind-energy-highlights.pdf Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy You can access the transcript here: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/s5e2-leading-energy-maines-offshore-wind-advantage-part-1/

In this episode, we interview Lee Kantar and Griffin Dill on the impacts of ticks on Maine wildlife and communities. Lee Kantar is a moose biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. He was awarded the Distinguished Moose Biologist Award by his peers at the 53rd North American Moose Conference. Griffin Dill manages the Tick Lab within the Diagnostic and Research Laboratory.  Resources: https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/infectious-disease/epi/vector-borne/#ticks https://www.maine.gov/ifw/ https://extension.umaine.edu/ticks/ Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/umainepolicy You can access the transcript here: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/from-moose-to-mainers-the-state-of-ticks-in-maine/    

In this episode, we interview Mikayla Reynolds, Tamra Benson, Santiago Tijerina, and Caroline Paras, winners of UMaine’s 2023 Student Symposium. The mission of the UMaine Student Symposium is to give graduate and undergraduate student researchers the opportunity to showcase their work, research, and creative activities to the greater community, fostering conversations and collaborations that will benefit the future of Maine and beyond. Mikayla graduated as Salutatorian in May 2023 and earned her B.S.B.A with majors in management and marketing. She is currently a graduate student pursuing her MBA with concentrations in sustainability and public & non-profit management and is an Alfond Ambassador Scholar. She is a Sustainability Graduate Fellow with the George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions. Mikayla serves as the Lead Peer Coach for TRIO Student Support Services, where she partners with students on their personal and collegiate goals. She is also a core organizer and the Impact Assessment Director for the Black Bear Mutual Aid Fund. Tamra Benson (she/her) graduated from the University of Maine in 2023 with a B.A. in Biology. She is the founder and vice president of the Black Bear Mutual Aid Fund. She now works as a Community Organizer for Food AND Medicine, a nonprofit based in Brewer whose motto is that no one should have to choose between food, medicine, and other necessities. At FAM, Tamra primarily helps to coordinate the Collective Gardens Program. She strongly believes that everyone, no matter their circumstances, deserves to have their needs met, and that community care initiatives are healing and effective methods for collective, sustainable change.  Santiago Tijerina’s documentary short film titled, Climate Action at the University of Maine, won first prize in the arts category at the 2023 Center for Undergraduate Research (CUGR) Student Symposium. Tijerina currently attends the Salt Institute for Documentary Studies at the Maine College of Art & Design. Caroline Paras grew up in Southern California as the daughter of immigrants from Argentina, whose own families escaped religious persecution in the Old World. A first generation American, Caroline has been proud to call Maine her “home” since 1993. Over the last three decades, she has pursued two distinct careers: first as an educator who helped teachers create service-learning opportunities for K-12 students; and second, as a planner who engaged residents in economic and community development. Her third career was born on a trip to Italy, where she traveled to Bologna to learn how the distinct products of Denominazione d'Origine Protetta (DOP) Parma are made. Through an Interdisciplinary PhD at the University of Maine, she is researching whether agritourism experiences on culinary trails can facilitate consumer loyalty, brand experience, and regional economic development, thus keeping working farms and waterfronts in production while transforming consumers into lifelong customers of Maine farm and fishery products. On the side, Caroline also serves as the principal of her own consulting firm, ParasScope, providing market research and grant writing to support local and regional food economies. Caroline graduated from the University of California, San Diego with a double major in Political Science and Communication. At the University of Southern Maine, she has earned a Master of Arts in American and New England Studies, Graduate Certificate in Community Planning, and a second Bachelor’s in Tourism and Hospitality (‘22). She lives in Portland with her husband, Peter. Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en Threads: coming soon You can access the transcript here: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/s4e7-impactful-research-discussions-with-award-winning-student-researchers/

In this episode, we discuss the Maine League of Women Voters, and this organization’s ties to the Margaret Chase Smith Library and most notably, Margaret Chase Smith herself.  First is an introduction by Dr. David Richards, the director of the Margaret Chase Smith Library on Margaret Chase Smith’s lifelong connection to the League of Women Voters, how she won the League’s Carrie Chapman Catt Award, and the significance of this honor. Then we talk with Anna Kellar, executive director of the League Of Women Voters of Maine, about what it truly means to make democracy work, their essay, “What’s In a Name? Being a League of Women Voters in 2022”, and their connection with the Margaret Chase Smith essay series. Kellar’s essay was featured in Volume 31, Issue 1 of Maine Policy Review. Our Website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en Threads: coming soon You can access the transcript here: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/s4e6-democracy-margaret-chase-smith-and-the-league-of-women-voters/

In this episode, we talk with Edgelynn Venuti and Victoria Leavitt about their winning essays in the Margaret Chase Smith Library Essay Contest on the government’s role in combating climate change. You can find Edgelynn's essay here: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol32/iss1/10/ You can find Victoria's essay here: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol32/iss1/11/   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en Threads: coming soon Today's episode transcript cannot fit in the show notes. You can access the transcript here:

In this episode, we talk with Caroline Noblet, Jean MacRae, Dianne Kopec, and Caleb Goossen about PFAS (Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances) and their effects on the environment, Maine’s efforts to combat it, the public’s understanding of the issue, and how PFAS affects agricultural systems and interstate commerce. Caroline Noblet's MPR article: “Forever Chemicals Needing Immediate Solutions: Mainers’ Preferences for Addressing PFAS Contamination Jean Macrae's MPR article: “Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from PFAS Treatment of Maine Drinking Water” Our website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en Threads: coming soon Today's episode transcript cannot fit in the show notes. You can access the transcript here: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/s4e4-pfas-the-forever-chemicals-we-need-to-know-about/  

In this episode, we talk with Rebecca Schaffner, Chris O. Yoder, Brian Kavanah, and David L. Courtemanch about the Clean Water Act, in celebration of Maine Policy Review’s special section titled “50 Years of the Clean Water Act.” This significant milestone of half a century since the passage of the Clean Water Act, we are bringing in a panel of experts to highlight Maine’s efforts to improve water quality and the need to maintain and strengthen water quality protections. You can find the articles discussed in this episode by following this link: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/ Our website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en Threads: coming soon Today's episode transcript cannot fit in the show notes. You can access the transcript here: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/s4e3-50-years-of-the-clean-water-act-in-maine/

In this episode of Maine Policy Matters, we talk with Ali Abedi, Salimeh Sekeh, and Peter Schilling about navigating AI in research and education. More from Ali Abedi: https://cugr.umaine.edu/people/director-ali-abedi/ More from Salimeh Sekeh: https://umaine.edu/scis/people/salimeh-yasaei-sekeh/ More from Peter Schilling: https://umaine.edu/citl/people/peter-schilling-ph-d/ Our website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en Threads: coming soon Today's episode transcript cannot fit in the show notes. You can access the transcript here: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/s4e2-the-impact-of-ai-on-research-and-higher-education/

In this episode of Maine Policy Matters, we’ll be talking with Peggy McKee, director of the Maine Government Summer Internship Program, to hear about the history and impact on students and government agencies. We’ll also be hearing from a few interns and their supervisors throughout the episode to get an inside look at what it’s like to participate in this program.    Our website: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/maine-policy-matters/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/umainepolicycenter/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/umainepolicy Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcs.policy.center/?hl=en Threads: coming soon   Today's episode transcript cannot fit in the show notes. You can access the transcript here: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/summer-interns-impact-on-maine-government/    

Today’s episode has two parts. Part one is a synopsis of Amanda Rector’s article, “Maine’s Changing Demographics: Implications for Workforce, Economy, and Policy”. Part two features an interview with Everett Beals and Michael Delorge, winners of Margaret Chase Smith Library’s 2020 essay contest. Beals’s article is titled, “Making Maine More Attractive to Young People” and Delorge’s is titled, “Progress for Young Mainers Paved by Education”. The essay prompt asked students to propose how they would make Maine “the way life should be” for young people so that more of them will choose to live in a state with one of the oldest populations in the nation. You can find the articles here: Rector: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol29/iss2/13/ Beals: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1872&context=mpr Delorge: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol29/iss2/18/ Transcript [00:00:00] Eric Miller: Before we start today's episode, we'd like to let listeners know that this is our last episode of season three. We'll be back for season four on August 29th, 2023, covering a variety of topics like PFAS, Investing in Teachers' Leadership Capacity: A Model from STEM Education, Maine's Libraries, Moose and Ticks, and AI in Higher Learning. Thanks for your support throughout this season, and we look forward to returning in the fall. Now let's get started with the episode. How has Maine's changing demographics affected our workforce economy policy and Maine's younger generation in light of Covid-19? This is the Maine Policy Matters podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. I'm Eric Miller, research associate at the center. On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. Today's episode will have two parts. Part one is a synopsis of Amanda Rector's article, "Maine's Changing Demographics: Implications for Workforce, Economy, and Policy." Part two will feature an interview with Everett Beals and Michael Delorge, winners of Margaret Chase Smith Library's 2020 essay contest. Beals article is titled, "Making Maine More Attractive to Young People" and Delorge is titled, "Progress for Young Mainers Paved by Education." The essay prompt asked students to propose how they would make Maine "the way life should be" for young people so that more of them will choose to live in a state with one of the oldest populations in the nation. Amanda Rector is the Maine state economist, we've had her on the podcast before, a position she has held since 2011. Rector is a member of Maine's Revenue Forecasting Committee and serves as the governor's liaison to the U.S. Census Bureau. She also serves on the advisory board for the New England Public Policy Center at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and is a member of the Board of Visitors at the Muskie School of Public Service. Everett Beals is a rising senior at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, pursuing a degree in environmental science with a minor in creative writing. On campus, Everett has served on Clark's Undergraduate Student Council and serves for the Department of Philosophy and the Office of Undergraduate Admissions. In the fall semester, he'll serve as editor-in-chief of Clark student Newspaper, The Scarlet. He spends his summers in Maine as a faculty member at a summer camp, working as the instructor for sea kayaking and marine biology. Everett is a graduate of Kennebunk High School in Kennebunk, Maine. Michael Delorge of Biddeford, Maine, is a third year student at the University of Maine pursuing a dual degree in biology and political science. On campus, Michael is the president of the University of Maine Student Government and also leads UMaine's Partners for World Health Club. He is a John M. Nickerson Scholar and a Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center scholar researching the Maine substance use epidemic. Michael has also been a UMaine UVote Ambassador, a member of the Sophomore Owls Tradition Society, a resident assistant, and recently inducted into the Senior Skulls Tradition Society. Michael hopes to pursue a career in health policy upon graduation. Rector's, Beals's, Delorge's respective articles were published in volume 29, issue 2 of Maine Policy Review, a peer reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to the original article, which can be found in the episode description. Rector argues that the events of 2020 were a sobering reminder of why it is important to understand the demographics of a region. With the onset of Covid-19 our lives were upended. The economy, which had been chugging merrily along, came to a screeching halt. There is nothing like a public health crisis to help clarify that every policy, at its core, is about people. The fundamental purpose of any policy, be it federal, state, or local, is to safeguard and improve the wellbeing of people. The understanding of any policy decision, therefore, must start with a understanding of demographics. Demographics describe the characteristics of a population. The most basic demographic data or simple population counts: how many people are living in a given area at a point in time? From here we can delve into ever more detailed demographics such as age and sex, race and ethnicity, migration patterns, fertility and mortality rates. These demographics provide the data we need to make policy decisions. The Decennial Census is the single best source of demographic data available in the United States. Every 10 years, the US Census Bureau accounts every person living in the country and gathers some basic demographic data about them. These decennial population counts are used to determine each state's representation in Congress as well as districts for state legislatures. They're also used to distribute billions of dollars of federal funds every year. Policymakers, researchers, business owners, and others use the data to make decisions that affect our lives every day. Helpfully, Maine became a state the same year the United States conducted its fourth decennial census. This means we have a snapshot of what Maine's population looked like near the time of statehood. In 1820, when Maine became the 23rd state in the nation, Maine's total population was 298,335, 3% of the US total at the time, and the twelfth largest population. Only 13% of the population was 45 or older, compared to around 12% of the US population. Reflecting the times, the census counted "free white" males, and females separately from slaves and "free colored" males and females. Maine's population density of 10 people per square mile was nearly twice that of the 5.5 people square mile for the nation. By 1920, Maine's total population had increased more than 150% to 768,014, but this was only 0.7% of the US total. The 1920 census included six different options for "color or race." Despite the increase in categories, population remain 99.7% white. Jumping ahead, another 100 years to 2020, Maine's total population has increased another 75%, making Maine the 42nd most populous state in the country. Half Maine's population is age 45 or older, compared to around 42% of the US population. The 2019 population estimate from Maine shows 93% of the population as "white alone, non-Hispanic." Maine has the highest percentage of white alone, non-Hispanic population in the country. Since the beginning, Maine's population has grown more slowly than the nation's, and while population density has increased, Maine has become relatively less densely populated than the rest of the country. Participation in labor force has changed substantially over the past 200 years as baby boomers age, labor force participation rates in Maine and the United States will continue to decline. Employment itself has followed a similar trend with a rapid increase in the 1970s, but Maine reached a new record non-farm employment level in 2016, followed by a further increases in 2017, 2018, and 2019. It is still unknown exactly what trajectory current economic conditions will take. The single most dominating demographic force in Maine in recent years has been the aging of baby boomers, with this generation making up around 27% of Maine's population. As baby boomers continue to retire, fewer new workers will enter the workforce, which may lead to fewer available workers in the future unless more younger workers move to Maine. Maine has seen a natural population decline since 2010, but net migration has helped offset this decline and led to increased population growth. In 2019, Maine's rate of net domestic migration ranked 16th in the nation, an overall population growth ranked 25th. According to US Census Bureau's American Community Survey, the only age cohort that saw net domestic out migration in Maine in 2018 was age 75 and older. The largest increase in the domestic migration rate came out of the 18 and 19 year olds. We also saw high rates of migration for young children and adults aged 30 to 44. Demographics are on our minds more than ever these days, even if we don't realize it. There are some possible silver linings for Maine. Those rural parts of the state that may have seemed too far for some people in the not-too-distant past, suddenly now hold new attraction. While some businesses in Maine have certainly faced tremendous uncertainty and unpredictability in our bicentennial year, they have also demonstrated their adaptability. That concludes our synopsis of the Rector article. We will now move on to the interview with Michael and Everett. Thank you both for joining us today. [00:09:31] Everett Beals: Yeah, absolutely. My pleasure. [00:09:32] Michael Delorge: Thanks for having us. [00:09:33] Eric Miller: Since both of your essays were published in Maine Policy Review in 2020, would you both mind catching up our listeners on what you've been up to since you wrote your high, essays in high school? Michael, we'll start with you. [00:09:44] Michael Delorge: Yeah, sure. I think I submitted my essay in the height of the pandemic. And at that point, I don't even know if I knew where I was gonna college at that point. But I've just spent my last three years finishing up my third year here at the University of Maine in Orono. I started as a biology major, pre-med, decided that I did not want to go to med school, and I picked up a political science major and I'm leaning towards going in, into a public health policy in grad school. I've done some work here on the student government. I'm the president of the student government for the remainder of this year and for next year. I've done some work in global public health with this branch of a Portland-based nonprofit called Partners for World Health, and my club here at UMaine is a branch of their chapter and or a branch of their nonprofit. And we sort medical supplies from some local Bangor area hospitals and distribute them down to Portland, who distributes them all over the world. Last May, I got the opportunity to go to Senegal on a, like a non-religious medical mission trip with a nonprofit. And I've done some stuff in voter engagement while I was at UMaine and just try to take advantage of as many opportunities as I possibly can with political science and clubs and whatnot. Yeah, I didn't think I would be here doing this, going to a STEM school in high school studying biology and sciences and stuff like that, but here we are. [00:11:15] Eric Miller: That's fantastic. You clearly, Covid, didn't really slow you down that's all fantastic stuff, Everett, how about you? [00:11:20] Everett Beals: Yeah I guess we're both juniors now I ended up going to Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. I had a pretty good idea even before I enrolled anywhere that I want to do environmental science for a bachelor's degree. That's what I stuck with. At Clark, there are three, three tracks and I'm on the environmental science and policy track, so that's a program I've really enjoyed. I also added a minor in creative writing on the suggestion of one of my advisors who's been big help to me, as a personal editor and someone who's helped me push my boundaries. So that's something I've really enjoyed. In terms of extracurriculars I was on Clark's undergraduate student council for two years. And I've been writing for our student newspaper the Scarlet for three years. I'm currently the news editor and next year I'll be the editor in chief. I have a couple jobs on campus that I really enjoy doing. One is that I'm an undergraduate admissions ambassador, and the other is that this year I'm a peer learning assistant for a philosophy class on environmental ethics. So that's what I've been up to in terms of like during the academic year. And yeah I'm pretty happy where I am. [00:12:19] Eric Miller: Oh, that's fantastic. Yeah. I imagine you've read a fair amount of, Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson in your journey. [00:12:25] Everett Beals: Absolutely. [00:12:25] Eric Miller: That's fantastic. As fellow bachelor's in environmental studies myself, really appreciate that. Everett, when you wrote your essay, you had a statement, quote, first and most importantly, we need to emphasize that we as a whole state have to solve the problem together. Could you speak to that problem you discussed in your essay and how collaboration within the state could help solve that issue? [00:12:48] Everett Beals: Yeah, I was trying to recognize basically the geography of the situation we're dealing with. Michael and I are both from New York County. Michael, I know you went to MS SM, which is a lot further north than where we ended up settling. But I was trying to recognize that the state is a big place, and I have grown up in kind like my entire life and I wanted to acknowledge that my experience was siloed. And understanding Maine's history, a lot of the population has been concentrated sort on that bottom southwestern portion, but the state being so large, in fact, so much of it that frankly I have not yet seen myself. I think it's really important, especially with the kinds of frontier communities that I was talking about, Skowhegan being one of them, but also lots of towns like, which are important for my family ties like Millinocket which used to be major industrial centers and now in the recent past have been struggling. I was trying to make it clear because I believe this really firmly that any solution that's going to apply to the entire state of Maine needs to be informed by the entire populace of the state of Maine. So it can't come just from Kennebunk and it can't come just from Orono. It needs to come from everywhere. I know that sounds aspirational. It's vague in a sense, but that was my emphasis that we can't silo any solution that we have, and it's really important to hear every kind of diverse perspective that we have. So that's what I was getting at and trying to start there saying, we need a comprehensive, holistic solution that everyone should be a stakeholder in. Totally fantastically put. Michael, do you have any comments on the same type of issue, like statewide thinking? [00:14:22] Michael Delorge: Yeah. Yeah. I think Maine is not diverse in a lot of ways, but it's very diverse in more ways. I, like Everett said, so Everett and I crossed paths a lot when we were growing up being from neighboring towns. And Everett said, I'm from Bedford in York County, and I had the opportunity to go up to the Maine School of Science and Mathematics in Arista County in Limestone, Maine. I could see the Canadian border from my dorm room. You can't get that in Bedford, Maine. And now I'm in Central Maine going to college. And I've seen the two Maines that people talk about, that really urban, rural divide. And I wish that more students, young people could see that, because Maine is really diverse in a lot of what it offers geographically. And I definitely agree with what Everett's saying, where we need like a whole state approach to this. There's a lot of communities represented from every corner of the state. And I've noticed that kind of as a student in the University of Maine's system too, when I talk with people that go to other UMS schools it's something that students are aware of too. [00:15:31] Eric Miller: Yeah. And as someone who isn't a native manor myself, but spent quite a few years there, I find that when I describe what Maine's like and what you should do when you visit, don't just stop at Freeport if you're gonna go up the coast, or don't skip all the coast and go straight to Acadia. Those places are all beautiful, but the type of Maine that you get from every stop along the coast from Portland to Lubec, you get so much variation in there, in economy, in population density, in just the natural features. It's just really interesting and this obviously gets way more diverse as you go west inland. No, I completely agree. And oh, go ahead, Everett. [00:16:12] Everett Beals: That divide isn't just like a social thing that, that Mainers have made up in our minds. It's a tangible political boundary between Maine's two congressional districts and Maine is only one of two states that can actually split its electoral votes, right? Yep. So it's a real thing. And as you're saying though, it's really different from town to town, even just one, one town over, even in York County. So I absolutely agree with what you're saying. Yeah. [00:16:33] Eric Miller: Michael, you close your essay by writing, "encouraging young Mainers to feel their own fire and ambition as Senator Smith puts it, while they give back and contribute to their communities and economy, is how we make Maine the way life should be." Could you speak to your experience with the Maine education system and the ways you were encouraged to feel your own fire and ambition? [00:16:55] Michael Delorge: Yeah. I think a lot of what I meant through that wording was just like helping students find their own purpose is really important. Helping students find their own purpose in the state of Maine is also really important. And I think the state should invest in opportunities that allow students to find their own purpose. In, I think 1994 the state allocated funds to found my high school. That's a pretty new school and it's a magnet school. It's all state funded. The taxpayers of the state of Maine, paid for my education rather than the taxpayers of my town. And I am personally very grateful for the education that I received there, not only in science and technology and math, but in political science and social science and humanities. And just the lived experience of being up there. And that was how I found my purpose. But I also know for a lot of students that I would have graduated with in Biddeford High School. They found their purpose through trades or business, which wasn't something I experienced later on in high school. Like I'd talk about in my essay, there were students that I would've graduated with that had multiple trade certifications before I had even figured out where I wanted to go to college. And, for them that was how they found their purpose. And for me I'm still finding mine, but I think the investment in that is really crucial and like just meeting students where they're at, like we talked about just now geographically too, is huge and investing in those opportunities. [00:18:31] Eric Miller: Everett, you have alluded to, but to this by staying the course in, in a subject matter that stayed consistent over the years since before starting college, what's something about like environmental policy or your education that found that you found inspiration or were energized by [00:18:48] Everett Beals: Yeah, I think first off, I really have to thank some of my teachers. Lisa Farrell was my biology teacher, and she also taught IB environmental science. That was one was the intervention of a really good teacher. The other is that I guess we mentioned before when we started this conversation earlier that, Michael and I were both boy scouts, so I had that experience in the first place and I've always like paddling and like kayaking, so that was part of the connection. But another is that, like when you live in Maine it's hard to not be aware of the pressing situation we have globally with global climate change. And to me, just trying to understand that and loop it all back into what's happening in my backyard was really important to me. So that is what motivated me, motivated me to stay on that track. My interests have evolved over time, but no matter what, like that will be my grounding experience was, what I got outta high school. And I'm glad that this is the kind of skillset I've been able to develop as an undergraduate. I think it's really important, and I actually, I just reread your essay, Michael, and you said in, as an example, that Maine students should be learning, like really early on, correct me if I'm wrong, about climate change and about the way that it's affecting our fisheries the way it's affecting more generally, just our agriculture system in general. The way it's happening right here in every town in Maine. I think that's a fantastic idea. And you know it's happening in some classrooms, but maybe not everywhere. And as you said in your essay, that is largely a funding issue. So I think that's one example of that's a great way to bring Maine students to understand the relevancy of the work they're doing in their towns and that gets them involved in their communities. Make them feel, our children should feel like they are stakeholders in their communities and in our climate future. I really like that point you made three years ago. [00:20:26] Michael Delorge: Yeah, thanks. And I'm glad you brought up that thing about like climate change as well because, there are so many great research institutions here in the state and advocacy institutions like, Jackson Laboratory, Bigelow Labs, like those are just two that come to mind that I had some experience with in high school that are like working on, genetics and also like marine research that, can get into local school systems and really partner with local school systems to show students that there are opportunities here for them, waiting for them, after they go to college, maybe somewhere else. And they can come back and contribute to research on the Gulf of Maine, which is the fastest warming body of water in the entire world. And it's right in our backyard. And not a lot of people know that, and there are opportunities here for them, but just like I said, highlighting that. That sense of purpose and that sense of belonging and that Maine is waiting for them here with open arms, I think is important. [00:21:20] Eric Miller: It's amazing what a, a strong sense of place, especially a place like Maine and the guidance from a specific educator and how far that can go. So in a Amanda Rector's 2020 article, "Maine's Changing Demographics: Implications for Workforce, Economy, and Policy" she wrote about the possible benefits of Covid-19 for the state of Maine's demographics with the following passage: "We have had a massive real-time experiment in telework, and for many people in businesses, this has been a success. If people can live anywhere and connect to their jobs remotely, why not live in Maine? Those rural parts of the state that may have seemed too far for some people in the not too distant past suddenly hold new attraction." How do you both feel about this statement? [00:22:04] Michael Delorge: Yeah, I think that, I think that telework has definitely shown people outside of the state that they can move to Maine. I know firsthand folks who do telework in rural Maine, we have a problem with wifi and broadband here in the state of Maine, which I think the legislature is slowly improving and addressing. I don't know that, like my thoughts on this are fully fleshed out. I do know that I like the idea of people moving to Maine year round and committing to the state of Maine. I, after you had emailed us, Eric, to set this up, I just happened to come upon an article in the Bangor Daily News from I think February or something like that, that had to do with rebranding the state from Vacationland to something different because the moniker, the name Vacationland implies low commitment to the state. You can come when you want and you can leave when you want. And just use what we have and then you can leave when you're done your vacation, which is a silly way to think about it. But I think that telework and the ability to work wherever you are bridges the gap between what Maine has and its natural beauty in like the best of both worlds with what we have to provide people this great livelihood and way of life. This, the way life should be. But I'm interested to hear what Everett has to say on this. I, like I said, I don't really know that my thoughts on it are fully fleshed out yet. [00:23:36] Everett Beals: Yeah. This is a tough one. [00:23:37] Michael Delorge: Yeah. [00:23:38] Everett Beals: Amanda Rector wrote this as we did in 2020, and like the workforce itself has changed a lot. And part of her, I think the reason maybe that she wrote that is that it's trying to just predict what might happen with Maine and the entire world was in this really uncertain state. In terms of the way that remote work is going, I can't say I have much experience with it myself. But I am curious specifically, not that it's a zero sum game, about like the amount of like economic productivity and square-scare quotes that brings to the state. Not that like things end at the political borders of the state, but if someone anecdotally, and I don't know if this is true, but people in Facebook comments on Portland Press Herald articles are like, oh, all these people are moving to Bedford or Portland and they're still working in another state. So like what's the benefit for the state of Maine other than the money they're now spending here? I think that, to me is also too pessimistic and we gain a lot from having new knowledge into the state and just we need more people who are actively participating and the municipalities that we have and in our local economies. Something I alluded to, I guess in my essay was that I was thinking about like transit time to get to work, like commute time. And that's a problem in faster the state if you don't have a car. So like it's really great if people are moving, especially to rural towns and energizing like local Main streets. But if the state isn't building the infrastructure for that, or especially to build more affordable housing or just more housing in general to increase the stock that we have. Then to me, a lot of people moving in can be something. I can imagine it being something that might be anxiety inducing for some maybe older people in the workforce. It's a good thing, maybe in net, but I'm, I really can't forecast what exactly it means. So that would be like one concern of mine is, I think like in general, the state should be building a lot more housing. I'm really encouraged actually by speaker Talbot Ross proposing LD 2 recently. Which would basically tackle a statewide houselessness problem by doing housing first statewide, which would a fantastic initiative in my opinion. So that's a long-winded answer to an admittedly challenging question. But that's how I would approach it. [00:25:54] Eric Miller: Yeah. Thank you for entertaining that, that question for us. And because it's, forecasting is, and speculating is largely for the talking heads on whatever channel you'd like to check out. And it is extremely difficult to predict the trade-offs with just a dynamic economy and just public health circumstance that was induced by Covid. And so yeah, it was, I heard many as living in Bangor, many anecdotes of people moving to either Bangor or further north who are very much urbanites in the New York, Massachusetts area and buying up in Aosta County. And it's a conversation in my work that we have quite frequently with the Policy Center about community resilience, emergency response times, and whether it's firefighters or ambulance or what have you. Some of those places are pretty darn rural, and especially if you're coming from a extremely urban setting your expectations of the, of those services may not align with reality at the moment. And that speaks to the infrastructure point that you made Everett. So since you both experienced the Maine education system in, across the state, so in, in Maine, what's something that you felt was potentially missing from your respective experiences and what motivated you to submit your essays? Everett, we'll start with you. [00:27:20] Everett Beals: Yeah. So I, I'm a graduate of Kennebunk High School. I really enjoyed my time there. As I said, I had some great mentors, some great teachers like Lisa Ferrell and also Ms. Moy, who I got a lot of my history background from and who encouraged me to be a good writer. And the, I don't know how many shout outs I should give. I wasn't planning on it, but the person who encouraged me to submit this essay was Ms. Carlson, who's an English teacher at KHS. I was motivated by it because quite frankly, like I, scholarships are really important to me. And college affordability I think is something that Michael and I both wrote about actually in our essays. So like I, this to me was really personal to try and just help. I wanted to contribute to the literature. I wanted to throw my hat in the ring and try my best to try and address that question as a, as an academic challenge. And I guess since this is from the Policy Review Center, as a civic participation thing. But also like I used the scholarship to pay for the computer I'm doing this Zoom on. So for me it was like, it was personally important to try my best to try and make my education affordable. So in terms of answering the first part of your question about the educational system, another thing Michael and I both wrote about and he did a great job explaining earlier about like vocational programs. That was something I concurred with and that I think the state needs a lot more of them. Something that I thought, what really excited me recently was it didn't apply for everyone, but for several graduating years, I wanna say at least three or four community college in the state of Maine is tuition free. I know that has had cascading benefits, especially in the larger University of Maine system and with potential budget shortfalls at Orono. Stuff that I don't think I fully understand, but on the net, like making education more accessible for everyone in the state of Maine and more attractive to people outside of Maine I think is really good. That was something that would've encouraged me to stay at the University of Maine system or to try and invest more my time in it is if it was more affordable at the time I was applying. So I felt like I got a lot outta my high school experience. There's a lot I really liked, and I can absolutely agree with what Michael was saying earlier about, friends and the vocational trades. That's something that is really successful for a lot of main students and making sure that everyone has the same, nice facilities as are available, like in the next, most students in Kennebunk go over to Stanford. They have a brand new regional technical center that is really nice. I pretty sure in Bedford it's also like some really high quality facilities. I wanna make sure that everyone in the state has access to that and not just here in York, Cumberland County. I think that my experience was pretty holistic, but I wanna try and acknowledge that a lot of other Maine students probably weren't as fortunate. So that's how I feel about that. [00:30:02] Michael Delorge: Yeah, I definitely relate to that statement. I was really grateful for my education, but I know that there are others who didn't have the same education I had and the same opportunities. One thing I touch on in my essay is the legislature's obligation to that they made to the taxpayers. When the taxpayers in the state of Maine voted on a 2004 referendum, they voted in favor overwhelmingly in a 2004 referendum that the legislature would pay the majority of municipal school funds for public schools. I don't know what has happened since 2020, but I knew that from the time period where that referendum passed up until 2020 when I wrote my essay, the state had not met that obligation at all for a single year. And what I think that leads to is a lot of in inequity in local school systems all around the state. So when I went to the Maine School of Science and Mathematics up north, I had friends from all these different school systems in Maine, from York to Fort Kent and everywhere in between rich towns, poor towns, rural towns, urban towns, everywhere. And I got to meet a lot of these people and I got to learn about the state through them. But I also know that for a lot of my peers back at Bedford, they didn't have that same opportunity. And so one of the things that came to mind when you asked that question was just recognizing that Maine is a lot more diverse than your one town. And I hope that we as a state can celebrate some of the, going back to our conversation from earlier, like we can celebrate some of the, at least geographic diversity in our state. [00:31:52] Eric Miller: Yeah that's wonderful. Thank you both for submitting those essays. We really appreciate it. And so before we close out you have any final thoughts or comments that you would like to say as we close out here? [00:32:05] Everett Beals: I guess one last thing I'll mention, just building off of the question you just asked about education. Is that the work is not done, obviously, and things are not back to normal after Covid. From a page of the Portland Press Herald on April 25th, the subheader was Maine kids are experiencing more poverty, homelessness, more poverty, homelessness, and mental health emergencies than before the pandemic, and high school graduation rates across the state are dropping. So clearly secondary education, primary education are all suffering statewide. I know this is a national problem, but I think in Maine we have a real resiliency problem with our public education. I think that was something Michael addressed really well in his original essay. So just saying and recognizing, I come from a family of educators who are, have been involved in all kinds of different levels of public education. I just, I know and appreciate, think we all can, how hard that work is, and know that in the vast majority of Maine towns, our teachers are woefully underpaid, they are often struggling for better contracts, and our students deserve the best in the country, right? So there's a lot left to do and I don't have any one answer to, and I don't think any. But there's a lot of knowledge building that's going on thanks to the, this journal and thanks to just people like you guys at the University of Maine. So thank you for the work you're doing. [00:33:33] Eric Miller: You're very welcome. Michael, any closing thoughts? [00:33:36] Michael Delorge: Yeah, ditto. Everett you're very well spoken. Everett and I, like I said, we grew up in a neighboring towns, grew up together. But we also met at this program called Youth in Government. And it's a YMCA program that meets annually on Veterans Day Weekend, where students from high schools all around the state of Maine get together and sit in the seats of their legislators at the State House and play model state. Basically where we write our own bills and we vote on our own bills, and we all assume the positions of our legislators in committee. And then both the House and Senate bodies. And that was the one experience I think in high school that I had, or I guess in my childhood, like before the age of 18, that really helped form my worldview and my thinking. And I just, I'm very grateful for that program and wanted to mention it because I think it informed a lot of my goals for the future and a lot of my views in this essay that I wrote back in 2020. And it also ultimately was what led me to write the essay to even go for applying in the first place, and also led me to meet David Richards down at the Margaret Chase Smith Library, who was the one that encouraged me to apply. So I hope that others can have similar kind of experiential learning opportunities that Everett and I had that helped teach us about our state, and, helped show us that there was a sense of purpose for them in Maine. [00:35:13] Everett Beals: That's a really fun one to do. [00:35:15] Michael Delorge: Yeah. Those are two very excellent closeouts. So you both are 21, right? 21, 22. [00:35:22] Everett Beals: I'm 20, actually 20. I'm young for my class. My birthday's in August. [00:35:25] Eric Miller: Okay. All right. And so I strongly dislike generational labels and especially like pessimism that goes along with placing generational labels. But it seems like there's a lot in the ether about Gen Z. ,And I'll have to say that you two provide a lot of hope, and we're very excited to keep tabs on your work going in the future. Whether it's your current studies or you choose to divert, we know that you'll land on your feet. And so thank you both so much for checking in with us and we look forward to keeping tabs with you. [00:35:54] Everett Beals: Thanks for having us, Eric. [00:35:54] Michael Delorge: Thanks Eric. [00:35:59] Eric Miller: What you just heard was a synopsis of Amanda Rector's article, "Maine's Changing Demographics: Implications for Workforce Economy and Policy", and an interview with Margaret Chase Smith Library's 2020 essay contest winners, Everett Beals and Michael Delorge. Maine Policy Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. The editorial team for main policy review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, script writers for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant as mentioned at the beginning of the episode. Our next episode will be coming out August 29th, 2023 to kick off season four of Maine Policy Matters. We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform and stay updated on new episode releases. I'm Eric Miller. Thanks for listening and have a great summer.

In this episode, we cover an article by Angela Daley, Prianka Sarker, Liam Siguad, Marcella Sorg, and Jamie Wren titled, “Drug-related Morbidity and Mortality in Maine: Lost Productivity from 2015-2020.” Daley is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Maine, Sarker and Wren are both research associates at the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, Sorg a forensic anthropologist, and Siguad a research assistant at the Mercatus Center in Arlington, VA who was a graduate student when this study was conducted. After briefly summarizing the article, we will speak with Dr. Sorg and Prianka Sarker about the opioid epidemic and how we go about quantifying some of the costs of the opioid epidemic. This article was published in volume 31, issue 1, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to Daley et al.’s article , which can be found here: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1887&context=mpr   Transcript [00:00:00] Eric Miller: Of the significant challenges today, few are as insidious as the opioid crisis, which has divided public discourse and devastated communities across the country. In this episode, we'll recap an article published in 2022, assessing the economic harm of lost labor productivity in Maine. This is the Maine Policy Matters Podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. I'm Eric Miller, research associate at the center. On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. Today we'll be covering an article by Angela Daley, Priyanka Sarker, Liam Siguad, Marcella Sorg and Jamie Wren titled, "Drug Related Morbidity and Mortality in Maine: Lost Productivity from 2015 to 2020". Daley is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Maine. Sarker and Wren are both research associates at the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, Sorg is a forensic anthropologist, and Siguad is a research assistant at the Mercatus Center in Arlington, Virginia, who was a graduate student at the time the study was conducted. After briefly summarizing the article, we will speak with Dr. Sorg and Priyanka Sarker about the opioid epidemic and how we go about quantifying some of the costs of the opioid epidemic. This article is published in Volume 31, issue 1 of Maine Policy Review, a peer reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to Daley et al.'s article, which can be found in the episode description. The increase of prevalence of overdose deaths has been a devastating phenomenon since the pharmaceutical opioids, namely Oxycontin, kicked off an epidemic that has evolved and worsened since the late 1990's. In addition to the heartbreaking losses, there have been significant economic impacts as well, with Maine ranking among the highest in the nation for per capita overdose death rate as of recent years. The emotional toll on individuals, families, and communities is far reaching, leading to poor physical and mental health, reduced quality of life, lost productivity, increased accidents and crime, and higher social welfare and healthcare costs. The economic impact is staggering, estimated at just over 1 trillion in 2017 for the United States and 6.8 billion in 2017 for Maine alone. In this paper, Daley et al. use a human capital approach to estimate loss productivity from drug related morbidity and mortality in Maine. This approach measures the lost value to society that occurs when individuals cannot fully contribute to market and non-market activities. For example, individuals may be less likely to participate in the labor market, or they may be less productive due to absenteeism, problems with concentration and memory, impaired judgment or interpersonal challenges. This loss of productivity negatively affects their earnings as well as their productivity of their employers and the economy as a whole. Of course, drug related morbidity and mortality also affect non-market activities, such as household work, caregiving, and volunteering. There are a lot of statistics and figures published in this piece, so we recommend giving the original article a read if you're interested in learning more, but we'll cover some of the major takeaways. Also, it is important to note that the authors used all illicit drugs, not just opioids, for this analysis. This analysis found that drug related morbidity is lower among females. However, the prevalence of illicit drug use disorder has been increasing for both males and females from 2015 to 2019, and 18-25 year olds are the age group where the percentage of illicit drug use disorder is highest. The annual loss productivity due to drug-related morbidity on market activities was greater than non-market activities for males, and the inverse is true for females. However, due to the higher prevalence of drug use among males led to higher non-market costs than female non-market costs. In 2019, $40 million in market activity and $62 million in non-market activity was lost among females and among males. $104 million in market activity and $64 million in non-market activity was lost. In total for 2019, approximately $144 million in market activity, and $126 million in non-market activity was lost in Maine due to drug-related morbidity. Drug related deaths concentrated among individuals aged from 25-64, so there were many years of potential life lost. In fact, the authors found that among individuals aged from 25-54, account for more than 80% of years of loss productivity in 2020. Life loss productivity in 2020 for females was estimated to be valued at $170 million and $564 million for males yielding a total of about $734 million lost for Maine. Those numbers may be large, but they're also emitting the reduction in quality of life as well as the value of life. Some estimates that include methods of valuing life lost yield much higher economic costs. All of these approaches to understanding the entire societal effect of the overdose epidemic are helping to inform program and policy decisions that aim to address this crisis. And now onto our conversation with Dr. Marcy Sorg and Priyanka Sarker. Thank you both for joining us today as this article covered drug related morbidity and mortality through 2020. While most everyone is aware that the fatal overdose epidemic has gotten worse, what is the current state of the opioid epidemic in Maine and what are some of the primary drivers lately? [00:06:03] Marci Sorg: The opioid epidemic has really continued to challenge Maine in a lot of ways. I can mention several primary drivers, at least from my perspective, and they're all really interrelated. First there's already a large population in Maine that is experiencing addiction to opioids and that population. And it's probably more than 8% of the population of Maine. It potentially grows whenever new users are persuaded to try opioids. And it potentially decreases when people transition from using drugs to long-term recovery or if they pass away. And secondly, drug trafficking is an international problem with influences beyond Maine, beyond our borders, and it's generally out of reach of Maine's policies. Yet it's affecting Maine's epidemic every day. The third thing I could mention is the particular drugs that are trafficked during the last seven or eight years. Non-pharmaceutical fentanyl has been the most influential of the drugs. Fentanyl is a really rapid acting opioid, and it's a lot stronger and more potentially lethal than other opioids that were common in the past. And it causes approximately 80% of Maine's drug deaths, although, most of those drug deaths have more than one drug. So fentanyl's just one of usually three or four. The fourth thing that I mentioned, and there are five things altogether is the access to appropriate treatment modalities. And that includes not only the medications like Suboxone and methadone, but also and very important inpatient and outpatient treatment programs and peer support programs. Maine's been working pretty hard to increase treatment resources. The fifth thing is stigma. Addiction is still mostly hidden from public view not only from the public at large, but healthcare providers and even users themselves engage in stigmatizing behaviors. It creates barriers to treatment, barriers to problem solving, and it's a strong barrier to asking for help. Many of the persons who die from overdose are using alone. We believe partly due to stigma. And there may be no one who notices they have overdosed until it's too late to reverse the overdose. So these are five things that I think are main drivers of the problem in Maine today. [00:09:10] Eric Miller: Thank you Marci. And as a data researcher on this team myself, it's really hard to parse exactly how much influence each of those drivers have. And as it is a data scarce problem we can just try to get whatever insights we can. And so, especially since the, in the Covid 19 pandemic coming in 2020, that was hypothesized to be linked toward deaths. But it's even really hard to parse out on the data end how much influence Covid-19 has had on fatal overdoses. We just know that it came along with more illicit supply and other such factors and increased housing costs and what have you. The Covid-19 rise in fatal overdoses. How does Maine seem to compare to other states? [00:10:01] Marci Sorg: After Covid-19 was over there's still a residual effect that's pretty important. I think it's important to also, to mention that the deaths from drug overdoses, they're a national problem, not just a Maine problem. And it takes up to two years for the state data to filter up to the federal data and be shown in drug rates and overdose rates and so forth. And, so it takes two years before we can get numbers that'll allow us to compare one state to another, and that's a pretty important thing. Right now, we're in 2023. We are dealing with 2021 data. We have some preliminary data from 22, but mostly it's 2021. So that is still sort of within the pandemic. What happens at the federal level when the state data come up is that they get normalized so that the state age structures, for example, are weighted so that they can be compared. So the federal CDC has reported that the US age adjusted drug overdose death rate was 32.4 deaths per a hundred thousand population. That's for the country as a whole. The highest rates were in West Virginia and they had 90, Columbia had 63.6 now. So that's the range for the highest. Maine's rate in 2021 was 46. For all drugs, that is, not just opioids. It we were number seven in the country for all drugs. If you look just at opioids, we rank at 41.4 deaths per hundred thousand, and that's number five in the country. So it's pretty high. For comparison, Vermont, both Vermont and New Hampshire are less than Maine. Maine's, vermont was 39.4 and New Hampshire was 30.7. So they're a little bit lower than Maine, the lowest in the country. By the way, we're in Nebraska, South Dakota, and Iowa, which were 11 and 13 and 15 respectively. So that's a lot lower than these other states, including us. Provisional data for 2022 at least, from our perspective as in collecting those data, it suggests that 2022 increase was about 10%. [00:12:42] Eric Miller: Very interesting. It's so hard to, or so fascinating rather, to assess these regional trends and how various populations are affected by different substances more so than others. Because the plain states that have a lower rate of opioid age adjusted rate fatal overdoses, have other substance uses that are more dominant in, in those areas. Not the, to the extent is not necessarily the same across all states and substance epidemic type of course, but it's, it is something that is, is kind of curious in the public health researcher perspective. And so this. Huge impact, of course, has the human cost. And one difficult thing is assessing and quite often controversial and highly debated thing, is assessing the economic impact of the opioid crisis. And while there's several different ways to do it we'll focus on the one that was discussed in the article that was published in Maine Policy Review, and that is years of Potential Life Lost. So, Priyanka, would you mind explaining the concept of years of potential life lost and how it factors into the calculation of economic cost in this paper? [00:13:58] Prianka Sarker: Yes, of course. So the concept of years of potential life lost means the years lost due to premature mortality. In other words, when a person dies before an expected normal age, then the gap we have between their age at death and the age that they would have otherwise lived. It's called the potential years lost. We have different life expectancy for both males and females based on the age groups and we usually expect people to leave approximately up to that age. For example, if say there is a 40 year old person, we would normally expect them to live, say another 40 years. Now if they die from an avoidable cause like drug overdose today, then we would be losing those 40 years. So for example, if we have 10 people from that age group dying from overdoses today, then we would have a total of 400 years of potential life lost. Now in our paper, we attempt to calculate the productivity loss that is associated with these years of potential life lost. We tried to measure the value of productivity that would have been possible to achieve, if we could have avoided this drug related deaths that occurred during the study period in the state of Maine. So as long as a person is alive and they're active, they're contributing to the economy in various ways, like by working in the labor market, doing household shores, taking care of children, or by volunteering. So when people die prematurely from drug overdoses, we lose several productive years from their lives. In our paper, we calculate the annual as well as the total lifetime value of these productive years for each person. And once we have an estimate for each person, multiplying that by number of debts, then give us a sense of how much productivity losses are occurring in the state due to this premature deaths. [00:16:15] Eric Miller: For those of you who would like some more nitty gritty details, you're more welcome to reference the paper. But that was a great overview of how you all came to those numbers in the paper. So this essay specifically will be included in a larger cost report that I'm actually leading the charge on. There are several previous iterations of this cost report dating back to 2000. So there's one published in 2000, 2005 and 2010. And then we'll be publishing an update that includes 2020 in the near future. Due to the changes in the, and waves in the opioid epidemic is it safe to expect that the economic cost to be increasing. [00:16:59] Prianka Sarker: I think it's fairly safe to expect higher economic costs in the upcoming report. As you have said that the current analysis that we have in our paper will form a portion of the last larger cost report, which is under preparation. One reason I reiterate that is in our paper, we only consider the cost from lost productivity. There are many other costs associated with substance use disorder, such as treatment costs, reduced quality of life, incarceration, social welfare, and such other costs, and as you say, those will be covered in the larger report. So in our paper, even though we focused only on the productivity aspect, still, the numbers are high compared to productivity losses that were calculated in the earlier version of the reports. The last iteration of the cost report from Maine, which you mentioned in 2010. So that estimated the cost around 1.4 billion. And in 2017, a report which was based on the entire USA. And that focused only on the cost of opioids alone, estimated the cost for Maine to be around 6.8 billion. So just looking at the trends, I think, yes, it's pretty safe to expect the numbers to be quite high in the upcoming report compared to the earlier ones. [00:18:26] Eric Miller: Yeah, it's incredible what's been happening. And tragic, of course. The larger cost report will also include alcohol, which I think will, which people will find surprising, the degree of alcohol, use related disorders and mortality. And how the magnitude of effect economic costs that has as well. Because more people die due to alcohol related disorders than opioid. But it's really difficult to capture all of the alcohol related deaths because if someone dies of old age but was an alcoholic, then it's considered a natural death. So, we are undercounting in our analysis, but we kind of have to recognize that and state that in our assessment. So we have addressed the, increased economic cost of lives lost. What are some measures being implemented to address the crisis, and what are some significant barriers we face as public health researchers? [00:19:26] Marci Sorg: I guess I can answer that. Maine has really been working very hard to address the crisis for a while, and to make those actions visible to the public. And that's done on mainedrugdata.org, a website where all the data are kept and updated all the time. I'll mention just a few things. One of the most important areas has been the increase in distribution of overdose reversal drug, naloxone, or it's sometimes called Narcan, that's the trade name. Naloxone is used by both law enforcement and the emergency system. Both EMS and the emergency room use it as well as community members. They use it to reverse overdoses. If the person's still found, they are still alive, and the state has distributed hundreds of thousands of doses over the last seven years. So we, we do publish the absolute numbers of the distribution on the Maine drug data.org website. The second thing I'll mention is improving access to care in rural areas. The development of the options program, and that acronym stands for Overdose Prevention through intensive Outreach, Naloxone and Safety. And that program has increased the pathways to recovery and treatment. It uses what's called a non-responder model. Options liaisons are people that are hired in each county to respond to overdoses talk to the person who survives an overdose, and provide referrals to resources and referrals to treatment, depending on the needs of that person That program has recently been expanded quite a bit. The third thing I'll mention is treatment. And people need treatment not only to have it, but to have it close to where they live and work. Unfortunately though and part of this is due to Covid pandemic, there's been a real labor shortage in healthcare and it's slowed the expansion of treatment programs. However, these, the numbers of treatment programs have been increasing in the state. [00:21:51] Eric Miller: Thank you for plugging Maine Drug Data Hub. We'll have a link to that in the description of this episode as well. You can find all sorts of data and reports if you would like to learn more. This upcoming question wouldn't have been mentioned if it wasn't making headlines in the past couple months. But the FDA recently made Naloxone or Narcan a product that could be acquired over the counter. There's been a lot of speculation of how this could help deter overdose deaths. But we, it's really difficult to completely understand. And so some, we're going to ask our guests to do some friendly speculating as to what exactly that change in the rule from the FDA will, how that will affect the overdose crisis. [00:22:36] Marci Sorg: Yeah, I've got a couple comments here. Apparently this over-the- counter Naloxone will not be rolled out until the summertime. So it's not happening right now yet. In order to get over-the-counter Naloxone, the customer is still going to have to pay for it at the pharmacy. And so that price range that will be charged is not yet known. It's also not known if they're going, the, if Naloxone's going to be offered in all of the pharmacies or how much of it's going to be available? Unfortunately we think that the presence of stigma, which is still very much present in our communities, may still keep people from asking for it at their pharmacies. And also we think that the price may be a deterrent, particularly for low income folks. Maine's program of state funded Naloxone is likely to continue in the next little while, even after the over-the-counter Naloxone is available and it's going to be a pretty important source for people who can't afford to buy it. This program, it's called the Maine Naloxone Distribution Initiative, MNDI, it provides Naloxone at no cost to a group of four tier one distributor organizations who then distribute it to a wide range of tier two organizations and individuals. Anyone who is in need of reversing overdoses regularly or maybe just needs to have it on hand. [00:24:18] Eric Miller: Thank you so much for indulging in some speculation there. It's of course, it's very difficult for us in this field to assess what is happening in data that's in, or the present day, what's in front of us, let alone projecting into the future, and especially with a massive real change like this. So we've covered quite a bit of ground here in the, just touching the opioid crisis as a whole, as well as some of the economic factors. But are there some other things regarding this subject that you all would like to share that we haven't already covered? [00:24:51] Marci Sorg: I guess it's important to just say that Maine's working really hard to understand the issues that are faced by people living with substance use disorder. And we're focused on opportunities for, intervention and effective resources. We're looking much more at people who survive overdoses and at non-fatal overdose events. We've increased the availability of public data as we've mentioned already today. Maine also provides a monthly overdose report, and I wanted to mention that. And that report has statistics just from the previous month that, it uses suspected overdoses. Some of those cases haven't been confirmed, but we have a pretty good idea how many of them are going to turn into confirmed overdoses. Those data are provisional and they change slightly. But we now have a pretty timely idea of the overdose trends on a monthly basis. And it includes not only the fatal overdoses, but the non-fatal overdoses that are reported to us by the Naloxone distributors by the EMS, by the emergency room, and all of these events. Fatal and non-fatal add up to big numbers which shows us the real size of the problem. Finally, I will mention that I think the discussions about overdose and substance use disorder are much more likely these days to be taking place in public spaces. And that suggests to us that stigma has been declining. In the broader community, and I think that's a very meaningful change. [00:26:45] Eric Miller: I strongly agree. Thank you both so much for joining us today and shed some light on and update the paper that was published recently in Maine Policy Review. What you just heard was Dr. Marcella Sorg and Priyanka Sarker's discussion of their article, "Drug-related Morbidity and Mortality in Maine: Lost Productivity from 2015 to 2020," and the current state of the opioid epidemic. Maine Policy Review is a peer reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Katherine Swacha, script writers for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. In two weeks, we'll be discussing changing demographics in Maine and how attractive Maine is to young people. We'd like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margeret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases. I'm Eric Miller. Thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.

In this episode, we cover an article by Richard Barringer, Lee Schepps, Tomas Urquhart, and Martin Wilk titled “Maine’s Public Reserved Lands: A Tale of Loss and Recovery”. The authors tell us a story of Maine’s public reserved lots and its history to show how efforts to maintain these lots have preserved Maine’s natural heritage. This article was published in volume 29, number 2, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to Barringer et al.’s article , which can be found here: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1843&context=mpr Transcript [00:00:00] Eric Miller: To preserve the crown jewels of Maine's heritage, tune into today's episode to learn about Maine's consolidated public lots and how they can remain for public use and enjoyment as long as they are valued, accessed, and safeguarded from harm. [00:00:22] This is the Maine Policy Matters Podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. I'm Eric Miller, research associate at the Center. [00:00:30] On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. Today we'll be covering an article by Richard Barringer, Lee Schepps, Tomas Urquhart, and Martin Wilk titled "Maine's Public Reserved Lands: A Tale of Loss and Recovery." [00:00:47] Richard Barringer is author and editor of numerous books, reports and landmark Maine laws in the areas of land use and conservation education, the environment, energy, sustainable development, and tax policy. Lee Schepps represented the state of Maine in the public lots matter, both in the litigation and as the second director of the Bureau of Public Lands. Thomas Urquhart was formerly executive director of the Maine Audubon Society, where forest practices and the opportunities offered by Maine's North Woods were among his top priorities. Martin Wilk represented the state of Maine in the public lots litigation and in the settlement negotiations that followed the Maine Supreme Court's decision in the state's favor. [00:01:31] The authors tell us a story of Maine's public reserved lots and its. History to show how efforts to maintain these lots has preserved Maine's natural heritage. This article was published in Volume 29, number 2 of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to Barringer et al.'s article, which can be found in the episode description. [00:01:58] In 1820, when Maine separated from Massachusetts, it acquired a public domain of 10 to 12 million acres, which was later reduced to 8 million acres. The Maine Constitution required the state to reserve four lots of 320 acres each in any newly organized township. Later, the formula was changed to a single, 1,000 acre lot in each new township for "public use." The legislature authorized the state land agent to sell the "right to cut and carry away the timber and grass" from the public lots in 1850. In 1874, the legislature tried to terminate the Office of Land Agent, but it did not have the power to do so, and the office was eventually abolished in the 1920s. Responsibility for the public lots passed to the Maine Forest Service in 1891. By the early 1970s, the Maine state government had undergone significant changes. In 1972, there were concerns about the state's stewardship of the public lots, and the Attorney General looked into the legal issues surrounding ownership and responsibility for them. [00:03:08] Schepps researched the history of public land reservations, timber trespass, and forestry practices in Massachusetts and Maine. He found that professional forest management was not a concept in the early and mid-1800s, and that it only came into practice through early forestry pioneers such as Gifford Pinchot. Schepps also looked into the legal disputes involving the word "timber" and argued that if the original deeds only granted the right to cut and carry away the existing timber, the duration of that right could not expand its substance. Schepps submitted his report to the Attorney General, but it was not released to the public. However, due to the relentless reporting of Bob Cummings, the issue became highly publicized and politically charged in Maine. [00:03:58] In 1973, Jon Lund became attorney general of Maine and released the Schepps report, which argued that the right to cut timber on public reserve lands only applied to the standing timber at the time of sale, not subsequent growth. The report also stated that the state had legal rights of use and access to public lots that had not been located on the ground. The legislature created a joint select committee to investigate the matter and pass legislation to terminate timber rights on public lots, leading to a lawsuit by paper companies and landowner seeking adjudication of their rights. They argued that the state's persistent and long-standing course of conduct barred from asserting rights it may have once have had. The state counter-claimed, stating that the timber cutting rights had expired because the timber in existence at the time of the conveyance had long since been cut. The lawsuit was then used politically to delay consideration of the grand plantation legislation that would terminate cutting rights. [00:04:59] Then the Maine legislature created a Bureau of Public Lands, to manage the state's interests in public lands. However, the agency had no staff or direction, and its mission was unclear. In 1974, the Maine Forest Service Director assigned a desk, a vehicle, a forester, and a forest ranger to the Bureau of Public Lands. [00:05:19] The Bureau of Public Lands led by Richard Barringer, surveyed public lands and proposed a grand plantation, but public sentiment was lukewarm. However, in June of that year, the president of the Great Northern Paper Company, Robert Hellendale, approached Governor Curtis to suggest a negotiated settlement to the disputed public lots. Over the summer and fall, Barringer and Helendale negotiated an agreement to consolidate the 60,000 scattered public lots into a small number of high value places that Great Northern Paper Company owned outright. In December, 1974, governor Curtis and Helendale signed the agreement which violated a long established behavioral norm among paper companies and large private landowners. However, Helen's action broke the political log jam, and over the next five years, all but one of the paper companies engaged in similar exchanges with the Bureau of Public Lands. [00:06:14] In November, 1974, Attorney General Erwin ran unsuccessfully as the Republican candidate for Governor against Democrat George Mitchell and independent James Longley in the wake of the Watergate scandal and President Nixon's resignation in August, 1974, Longley won a surprising victory among Maine voters. [00:06:33] In 1975, shortly after the Great Northern Paper Company trade was consummated, Barringer was nominated by Governor Longley to become commissioner of the Maine Department of Conservation. Schepps subsequently became director of the Bureau of Public Lands; John Walker, director of the Maine Forest Service; and Herb Hartman, director of the Bureau of Parks and Recreation. Together, the four agreed on a strategy for dealing with the claims of the remaining paper companies and private landowners. [00:07:03] Using the same value-for-value approach and selection criteria as used with the Great Northern Paper Company, Schepps and his staff evaluated and proposed lands for consolidation, negotiated trade deals with paper companies, and sought approval from the legislature to add another dozen consolidated parcels to the Bureau of Public Lands land-holdings. In each exchange, landowners claimed to be donating the timber rights on the public lots and took tax deductions. Subject to the outcome of the Cushing v. Lund litigation. The Bureau of Public Lands grew as forest operations and other management activities expanded to hundreds of thousands of acres of newly consolidated units. [00:07:43] Schepps shared information about lands he believed might best be acquired with Barringer, Walker and Hartman for their consideration and approval. Schepps then negotiated a trade based on tax-value for tax-value, without separate appraisals. The state accepted no discount to the value of its own lands because they were scattered, largely inaccessible, and in many cases small minority interests not located on the ground. The private landowners in each case received a release of any liability for timber trespass. In the past, if the state were to prevail in the litigation and claim tax deductions for the assessed value of their timber rights, if the state were to lose the litigation. Each of the trades thus negotiated were consummated after the proposed contract was approved by resolve of the legislature. [00:08:34] Meanwhile, back in the courts, the lawsuit which spanned 125 years and involved voluminous documentary evidence, was assigned to a retired Supreme Court Justice Donald Webber, who considered two main concerns. One, whether the cutting rights related only to timber in existence at the time they were conveyed, and two, whether the cutting rights were limited to certain sizes and species of trees considered timber at the time. The two issues were presented to Justice Webber based on a Stipulated Record of over 1,000 pages and more than 250 exhibits. Two days after evidentiary hearings were held during which the state presented as its lead witness, University of Maine, Professor David C. Smith, on the contemporaneous meaning of the term timber in the timber and grass deeds. [00:09:22] After evidentiary healing hearings and presentation of expert testimony, the referee ruled in favor of the private landowners stating that the cutting rights included all standing timber in existence at the time they were sold, as well as timber growing on the land thereafter. The state appealed the judgment. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the state, stating that the cutting rights related only to the timber in existence at the time the rights were conveyed and that these rights had been exhausted. [00:09:51] The court did not address the party's subsequent conduct or the effect it may have under various legal doctrines. The private landowners had continued to harvest timber on the public lots until the present, which the state claimed were unauthorized and entitled to it to damages for the value of all such timber. The court left it to the state to determine how to proceed with a final settlement given the potential damages were substantial. The court also recognized the special status of the state as a trustee of the public lots stating that it held title to them in its sovereign capacity. [00:10:26] In the 1980s, there was a legal battle in Maine between the state government and private landowners over the control of millions of acres of forest land. The state believed that these private landowners had harvested timber from state-owned land without authorization, resulting in significant economic losses to the state. The landowners resisted the state's proposals for land exchanges and were initially united in their opposition. [00:10:50] The state government, however, came up with a comprehensive proposal to resolve the issue which it presented to the private landowners at a meeting called by Governor Joseph Brennan. The proposal involved consolidating public lots to compensate for the timber value lost over the past six decades of company harvesting. The landowners were shocked and angry and left the meeting without reaching an agreement. [00:11:13] For the next three years, the state government negotiated with the private landowners to settle all outstanding issues. Initially, little progress was made as both sides refused to budge from their positions. Then, in a surprise move, Seven Islands Land company on behalf of the heirs of David Pingree, broke from the other private landowners and entered an into negotiations directly with the state. The Pingree settlement became the standard for all future settlements, and the other private land owners began to rethink their opposition to the state's proposals. [00:11:44] The state government focused its efforts on landowners who were most amenable to settlement and deferred discussion with those who were most reluctant. The one at a time negotiating strategy proved effective, and all of the remaining landowners eventually came to the table and entered into mutually agreeable land exchanges. The state government claimed damages of approximately $50 million for unauthorized cutting since the 1920s, which accrued added value to the state, in addition to the value of the extraordinary lands acquired. During the eight years of litigation before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court rendered its historic decision in favor of the state, the land holdings in Bureau of Public Lands unchallenged jurisdiction increased from 50,000 to 600,000 acres. Meanwhile, the state government drafted two far-reaching Maine laws to improve the management of public lots according to the principles of multi-use, and to create the nonlapsing revenue account for their improvement in public access and use. These laws have stood the test of time and have been used as models by other states in their management of large blocks of multi-use land. [00:12:51] In 1972, there was this dispute between the Baxter State Park Authority and the Great Northern Paper Company, over the latter's rights to residual cutting in one of the two scientific management townships located in the north end of the park, which had been acquired by Governor Baxter in 1962. The controversy was based on the application of the multiple use concept and law that guided the management of federal lands by the US Forest Service, particularly the provisions of the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of June 1960. [00:13:26] The multiple-use concept in law prescribed that public lands should be managed in a way that ensures their sustained use for various purposes, such as recreation grazing, timber harvesting, wildlife habitat, and water conservation. This approach aims to balance the needs of different user groups and ensure that the resources are not overexploited or degraded. [00:13:50] Schepps, who was the assistant attorney general at the time, was familiar with the federal multiple-use mandate and used it as a framework to build a case against Great Northern Paper Company's harvesting techniques in the township. The case aimed to limit the Great Northern Paper Company's cutting rights in line with the principles of scientific forest management, which entails managing the forest for long-term productivity, ecological health, and multiple benefits. [00:14:16] In Maine, the multiple-use mandate for managing public reserve lands is based on the Federal Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of June 1960. This law requires that all renewable resources on federal land, such as timber, water range, and recreation, be managed in a way that ensures their sustained yield or maximum use without degrading the environment. [00:14:36] Overall, Schepps used the federal multiple-use concept and law as a precedent to establish the principles of scientific forest management and the sustainable use of natural resources in the Baxter State Park controversy. This approach helped resolve the dispute between the state and the Great Northern Paper Company and laid the groundwork for future management of public lands in Maine and elsewhere. [00:14:59] In 1974, Schepps wrote, "Maine's Public Lots: The Emergence of a Public Trust." In it, he stated that no precise legal definition of what constitutes a public trust and different examples can exist along a spectrum At one extreme, large public domains inherited by states such as Maine can be considered assets of the state similar to surplus land or the balance in a state's bank account, the state acts as proprietor and has full power over their disposition and use. At the other end of the spectrum, there are public trusts such as Baxter State Park in Maine, where the state is just the nominal owner for the benefit of the general public and the judicial branch of the government has large powers with respect to the use and disposition of such public trust assets. [00:15:48] Under US law, courts enforce and protect the beneficiaries of trust. For example, the US Supreme Court has held that submerged lands in Lake Michigan are not merely public domain, but constitute a public trust. Maine's public reserve lands, which are explicitly required to be reserved by the Maine Constitution, appear to enjoy special and restricted status and their use and protection for the people of Maine ultimately and properly reside with the judicial branch of the state government. Schepps brought attention to the fact that if the legislative or executive branch of Maine state government decides to use the public reserve lands for a purpose that strays from the existing authorized use, the judicial branch may be willing to assert its traditional power with respect to public trusts. [00:16:34] Maine's success in implementing environmental protection policies in the face of strong opposition from the state's powerful lumber and power interests, interests that had outsized influence over economic affairs relative to most every other state was due to a rare alignment of factors, including a free press, sustained leadership, support from the legislature and judiciary, talented staff, strong analysis, good teamwork, skillful negotiation, calculated risk taking, devotion to the task, good timing, good luck, and personal courage. The issue was made public by persistent private citizens and intrepid reporters, and the presidents of two private companies broke the tradition to support the effort. [00:17:16] Environmental consciousness was growing in Maine and the nation, and the right people came together to meet the challenge with an abiding belief in the public interest, government as an instrument of the public good and unceasing teamwork as the vehicle of high accomplishment. The passage concludes with quotes from retired landowners who now accept and feel satisfied with the policy changes. [00:17:38] And what of the landowners today, some 40 years later? In the afterward of his forthcoming book, Thomas Urquhart writes, "With the passage of time, much of the bitterness around the struggle has termed to acceptance, even a feeling of satisfaction." Urquhart quotes Brad Wellman, retired president of Pingree Associates: "Take away all of the resentment and whatnot, I think the result has been good for both the landowners and the State." And Roger Milliken, president of Baskahegan Company, stated that "the dominant-use policy [was] farsighted, an example of Maine leading, and ecological reserves never would've happened otherwise." [00:18:24] Timber harvesting-related controversy began once again in 2011 when Doug Denico, a corporate forest manager, appointed by Governor Paul LePage, proposed a more intensive commercial approach to timber management in the public lots. Denico ordered a 61% increase in harvesting without consultation with the bureau or public comment. This led to a years-long encounter between the Maine Forest Service and the Bureau of Public Lands, as well as between the executive and legislative branches of Maine government over management of the public lots and access to the public reserved lands trust fund for non-trust purposes. [00:19:01] The governor's office proposed using the trust fund to pay for a cash rebate from the state to replace old, inefficient home-heating furnaces with energy efficient wood pellet boilers. The trust fund had pre been previously used for an unrelated purpose in 1992, but authorizing legislation from the government for the MPFA proposal, LD 1468 was voted down by the legislature. [00:19:28] Governor LePage won a second term in 2014 and proposed cutting more timber on the public reserved lands to prepare for potentially devastating spruce budworm outbreak in the Maine woods. However, Robert Seymour, a longstanding member of the Bureau of Public Lands Silvicultural Advisory Committee, called the governor's rationale an unnecessary scare tactic to secure more revenue from the public lots, for a favored public response. In response, LePage proposed splitting the Bureau of Parks and Lands between a new Bureau of Conservation, and the Maine Forest Service. [00:20:04] In 2015, the state of Maine considered changes to its management of public reserve lands, which are protected by a constitutionally mandated trust. Governor Paul LePage proposed increasing the annual timber harvest from 141,500 cords to 180,000 cords to generate additional revenue for the state, but opponents argued that this would threaten the long-term sustainability of the forests and violate the terms of the trust. A special commission was established to study the issue and ultimately recommended maintaining the existing allowable cut, conducting regular forest inventories, and providing oversight by the legislature. [00:20:45] The historic importance of this commission's deliberations was underscored in a letter dated September 23rd, 2015, signed by five former conservation commissioners- Richard Barringer, Richard Anderson, Ronald Lovaglio, Edward Meadows, and Patrick McGowan. On October 26th, 2015, then-Attorney General Janet Mills sent a written opinion regarding the legal risks of rating a constitutionally protected trust fund. A definitive answer would have to come from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court she argued, but based on the 1992 case, the governor's proposal "would likely meet great skepticism." Further, public reserved land dollars spent on state parks would replace general fund monies effectively making trust money interchangeable with general fund revenue, which is not permitted." [00:21:36] The special commission released its unanimous report with recommendations in December, 2015. Mindful of the attorney general's warning, it did not include money for Efficiency Maine among its recommendations. The Bureau of Public Lands should maintain a cash operating account of $2.5 million a year against unexpected costs; a forest inventory should be undertaken the next year and every five years thereafter, and Bureau of Public Lands Foresters should make decisions on harvest levels, subject to ACF Committee oversight by the legislature. [00:22:09] Governor LePage attacked the commission and its report as well as the bill that would implement its findings. The legislature passed LD 1629, however, and the governor promptly vetoed it. The legislature's vote to override his veto fell nine votes short. In 2016, Senator Saviello again presented a bill to implement the committee's recommendations, which passed, and again, the governor vetoed it. The Environmental Priorities Coalition, a partnership of 34 Environmental Conservation and public health groups, took up the battle this time and the legislature succeeded in overriding the Governor's veto. [00:22:46] These possibilities would have to wait, however, upon a new gubernatorial administration. In January 2019, Democrat Janet Mills succeeded Paul LePage to become Maine's first female governor. Amanda Beal, the new ACF Commissioner, previously led the Maine Farmland Trust's efforts to revitalize Maine's rural landscape. Andy Cutko, the new Bureau of Public Lands director, is an ecologist who has worked for the Maine Natural Areas Program and the Nature Conservancy. He comes to his position with a depth of knowledge about the public reserve lands, and well equipped to manage these natural treasures as they were intended for the people of Maine and our visitors, for their many and diverse values. [00:23:29] Bill Patterson, the new deputy director of the Bureau of Public Lands, when the original article was published in Maine Policy Review, believes that an important challenge facing the agency is to increase public awareness and appreciation of these lands, "where they are, how and for what purpose they're managed, and what is their potential to serve Maine people and are growing numbers of visitors." To this end, he'll seek to improve the management capacity and tools available to his staff to identify for improvement particular sites with high demand and large need, and invest in their future by leveraging the new federal America's great outdoors monies for strategic investments. [00:24:10] Forty years of experience teaches that the public reserve lands are at once a high-value and highly vulnerable asset- vulnerable to periodic raids on the trust fund, to meet emergency political needs, and to takeover by private commercial interests. If it is to succeed in this new opportunity, the Bureau of Public Lands must take the offensive and build a comprehensive strategy to broaden public knowledge of the public reserved lands and their many values to improve public access to them and to the facilities they offer, and realize their potential to help strengthen Maine's rural economy. [00:24:46] This strategy will be best created in collaboration with other state and federal agencies and private organizations that leverage Maine's exceptional outdoor recreation assets to increase economic opportunity and revitalize remote rural communities. Most of all, if there great potential is to be realized, the Bureau of Public Lands must take care to build abiding support for the public reserve lands among the citizens of Maine, just as Governor Baxter did for his own renowned state park. [00:25:14] These lands must become part of all that Maine people know, understand, enjoy, take pride in and love. They will endure and become all they might be, only as part of Maine people's hearts, minds imaginations, and ongoing conversations. [00:25:29] Finally, then one may ask, what is the overriding lesson in all of this for all of us? It is to heed the words often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, "Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty, then, now, and always.". [00:25:47] What you just heard was Richard Barringer, Lee Schepps's, Tomas Urquhart's and Mark Wilk's perspectives on Maine's Public reserved lands. Maine Policy Review is a peer reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. [00:26:01] The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, script writers for the Maine Policy Matters podcast. And to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. [00:26:16] In two weeks, we will be hearing from me the host Eric Miller, Marci Sorg, and Priyanka Sarker on "Drug Related Morbidity and Mortality in Maine". [00:26:26] We'd like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform and stay updated on new episode releases. [00:26:41] I am Eric Miller. Thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.

Today, we will be following up on a 2018 Maine Policy Review article titled, “Our Path: Empower Maine Women Network and Leadership” by interviewing the authors Parivash Rohani, Oyinloluwa Fasehun, Ghomri Rostampour, Bethany Smart, and Laura de Does along with a conversation with Cathy Lee, co-founder of the Empower Network. Their article was published in volume 27, number 1, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Policy Center. The article can be accessed here: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1807&context=mpr Link to "Justice for Women Lecture": https://mainelaw.maine.edu/events/justice-for-women-lecture/   Transcript Welcome to Maine Policy Matters, a podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. I am Eric Miller, Research Associate at the Center. Today, we will be following up on a 2018 Maine Policy Review article titled, “Our Path: Empower Maine Women Network and Leadership” by interviewing the authors Parivash Rohani, Oyinloluwa Fasehun, Ghomri Rostampour, Bethany Smart, and Laura de Does along with a conversation with Cathy Lee, co-founder of the Empower Network. Their article was published in volume 27, number 1, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Policy Center. The article can be accessed in the description of this episode. In 2016, Mufalo Chitam (now the executive director of the Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition) and Catherine Lee (founder of Justice for Women) created the Empower Maine Women Network, referred to as the Empower Network. Their goal was to address the isolation New Mainer women felt and to give women who have long called Maine their home the chance to interact with new members of their community. Mufalo was unavailable for an interview, so we will do a reading of her section of the article: On March 12, 2018, I stood in a room at the Maine State House in Augusta on behalf of my organization, the Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition (MIRC), to testify against a bill, LD 1833 “An Act to Facilitate Compliance with Federal Immigration Law by State and Local Government Entities.” My daughter Grace was home on spring break, and while it was a privilege to have her there in the room to witness the work I have been so passionate about for much of her young life, it was also heartbreaking. Eighteen years ago (Now 23 years ago), I met a young man in my African country of Zambia. He was on vacation, and we met just a couple months before my husband, my then 2-year-old daughter, and I were about to emigrate to America. His words to me were simple: “Please come to Portland, Maine. It is a safe place to raise your family and even though there are few immigrants, Mainers are very nice and welcoming.” If LD 1833 had passed, it would have changed not only this narrative, but also how my daughter feels about Maine, the only place she has called home. That day I was upholding our humanity, a value my late father taught me at an early age, so that this bill would not make immigrants feel less welcome in Maine. I have spent my whole life constantly looking for small opportunities and for connections to improve someone else’s tomorrow. My role as executive director of MIRC grew from working with immigrant women from diverse countries, ethnicities, and religions. Leadership is seen in suffrage, shown in courage, tolerance, and kindness, and is driven by strength. End of passage. Empower network met regularly in Portland to connect New Mainers with nonimmigrant women so they could talk about the challenges they face and how to help each other overcome these challenges, as well as to highlight opportunities for engagement in the community. The meetings offered a special presentation featuring women speakers making a significant contribution to the Maine community. On March 24th, 2018, the women that penned the original piece sat down to discuss the concept of leadership and their definition of what makes a leader. They were asked to reflect on the idea of empowerment and specifically tie empowerment to kindness, suffrage, and tolerance. Now, we will catch up on the authors and hear their perspectives on the importance of community building and interpersonal relationships. Then we had an opportunity to talk to Cathy Lee, one of the co-founders of the Empower Network to speak about her journey and experience working and community engagement in Maine Eric Miller: Hello everyone. Thank you all so much for joining us on podcast today. To get us started could each of you give an overview of your experience of moving to Maine and how you all met each other? . Let’s start with you. Pavarish: Okay. Before I just tell you how I got to Maine, I have to give you a little background. I’m originally from Iran, so in 1979 when revolution happened, My house was burned down because I belonged to Bahai community and I had to leave the country. So really I became homeless overnight, and then I escaped Iran to India with two of my cousin for safety. We chose India because the proximity to Iran, and also because most people were Buddhist and Hindu, we felt that we were safer among that kind of population. And then after few years being in India, The embassy of Iran did not actually renew our passport again because of our religious belief. So we had to convert and we refused to convert. So we became from being homeless in Iran stateless in India, and the only option we had to become a refugee. So we became a refugee and came to United States in 1986. As you can imagine, coming to Maine, I felt I’m a kid in a candy shop, for the first time, I had identity, I had respect. I have freedom. Things that really, even today, people are living their country and giving their life to come to America for freedom. So I really found out my identity in Maine. As a human being and being respected and because of the climate, actually, I felt at home, because I came from northeast of Iran, the climate is identical to Maine, so I immediately felt at home. I know many people are surprised when they hear, I’m from Iran and I live in a climate like this. But in the north we do have a similar really climate. I just wanted to mention, really it wasn’t the event that it brought me to come to know Bethany, Laura, Ghomri and Oyi. It wasn’t one event. It was really the desire to serve our community and our intentionality that we wanted to group with people who were doing things in the community. And that’s how I feel, I came, I crossed path with all of these lovely woman that I have really learned a lot from them. And I have so much respect and love admiration for them. And I think that’s the key. The love that we have for each other have made this connection so meaningful. It wasn’t the event because you can meet people at event. And then you go your separate way. So that doesn’t mean anything but our desire to be together and advance or community for better. Eric Miller: That’s a very special connection and I am glad that you experienced some of the Maine style climate prior to getting there. Let’s go with Ghomri next. Ghomri: Hi. Yes. I came from I grew up in Iran. Obviously as Parivash mentioned, just they had they executing them for different reason because of the religion, and they executed us because of all ethnicity, because of our language, because of our, just practicing even. We are not allowed to practice our culture. And so I became a refugee and stayed in Turkey for -I think I stayed in Turkey for, yeah, so many months. And then I I came to USA and the reason that I ended up to Maine, one of my cousin was here. And at the same time, we have a similar climate, and we have a lot of snow and we have a lot of, just rain and obviously it’s a little different. We have ocean here. We don’t have any ocean over there. And I miss mountains a lot because , we have mountain here, . I miss it anyway. And yeah, and feel very connected to Maine. I feel like that I am home, especially with the friendly environment and welcoming people here. And so yeah, unfortunately the thing that is just too much for us here, it’s just when any kind crisis, any kind political turmoil or war is happened in in Iran or in region, in general, it’s it’s too much for us, and I know we have great friends and which is very thankful and always we have them here that they they’re out there for us always. They’re out there for us. Yeah. And otherwise, yeah. And being free here and practicing my language, my cultural, my culture, my ethnicity, my identity. And imagine in country that even they are not giving birth certificate. They didn’t give birth certificate to, our great parents, and yeah, it’s feel like that you are you’ll find yourself, and then you feel that you are at least belong to humans. You are a human and belongs to a community that you are getting support from. And then it was back in 2018 that we start to have empower the immigrant women. And I I just became friends and not only as Parivash mentioned to -it’s just not like a group that we are meeting. We meet with each other and just everyone go back home and, just being on their own business now, we’re still friends. We are doing hiking together. We are going to restaurant with each other, we’re spending time with each other. We eating, we are crying with each other. We’re celebrating with each other, and sometimes in the middle of night when I get so tired especially Laura , I pick up the phone and give us give her a call, and long conversation and not, and the other friends as well. Yeah. Yeah. But at the same time, we are in general that, the role of a leader is to coach, guide, and inspire others and to motivate team through you, if you motivate the team through challenging the challenging time that you, they have and guide them. I was very active on so many areas, I should say, but mostly with women and especially Afghan women, I was able to establish the Maine Afghan woman community and which is running right now. They have little by little at the beginning it was really, it was not easy for them to come along with each other, but I, we were able, to make this unity happen. And so at least, let to share their beliefs with each other, to be honest with each other and their integrity. And, just the influence that we had, kind of like building especially building the skills, acting women that they, when you know, when you are in, when you grow in a country that is dominate country and they’re not letting you to be out there it’s not easy to bring them, to the field. It’s not easy, to inspire them. But anyway, so it was amazing and it’s running right now and I’m a member of I’m a member of housing Authority Board member, sorry, the board member of Housing Authority and Opportunity Alliance and Civil Commission. And at the same time, I’m a civic activist and happy, and excited and at the same time have my education and raising my two beautiful kids here in university, safe in environment. And they finished their education and they have their own career. And if you wanna be out there as a role model, just, it’s very important that someone who ensures their team has supported and tools to achieve their goals. You have to start it from your yourself. You have to start just the commitment, the passion, the confidence that you have, and how much you are able to give this to your community. It’s very important, either directly or indirectly or what kind of work vision that you have and the vision that is also managed, for the managing them deliver this vision and inspire them to achieve their goals. Eric Miller: That’s great. Ghomri. Laura, how about you give me an overview of your experience and with this community? Laura: Sure. I decided to attend the rather small meeting. It wasn’t a huge meeting of the empower of the immigrant women, and I hadn’t been a part of the organization at all, and went with Bethany and really didn’t know what I as a white Mainer, I was born and raised in Maine, had to contribute, and I was amazed how all of us just really supported each other and we were there and talked around the room and we were each able to state our needs, something that we needed help with. I had taken in a young man from another African nation who was really struggling and I was trying to find ways to help him, assist him. And so I brought that to the attention of the group and we just really all supported each other with whatever it was that we needed. And I’ll never forget at the end of the meeting, walking out to the sidewalk and just realized that we were all gathered together, a bunch of us, and just realizing that we had just made these incredible friends. Now, some of the people I knew, but not, other than Bethany, not on that level. And it’s amazing that more than 50% of the people there I consider my very dear friends today. There was a conference that was put on in part of the Community Network conference that Ghomri and I, not really meaning to ended up co-hosting it. So I was involved in it in that way too. And again, like as a couple of the women have said already, just the incredible friendships and the support that came out of that first meeting was just amazing. Oyi: Yeah, I think what everyone has said so far, especially Parivash is actually true. I came into the country as a student, so my story is a little bit different, but and when I came into the country, I came into New York and I met my husband in New York and then he got his first full-time job with the university in Maine, and that’s how I found myself in Maine. Now, Maine was like definitely very cold compared to New York, but I can’t remember exactly how I found myself in the Empower Women Network, but I know Mufalo was the first person I met, and then I started attending the meetings, while I was in Maine, even though I came in as a student, I came in to do my master’s, but after my master’s was over, I needed to still find something to do to keep myself in status, immigration wise. That’s one of the things we have to deal with as immigrants. You have to, to stay legally, I had to do something like go to schools or something. So I went back to community college. I was actually attending Maine community college at that time. But going to these meetings with these women, I’m like, I’m the youngest so everybody on this group is like my big Auntie , I – going to these meetings, meeting these people was like, it was really it was a great opportunity to just meet people and I found out that everyone was very supportive of where I was at that point in time, even though it wasn’t like I was working, but having good conversations with these great ladies and them supporting me. Even at that time I was even trying to like, get a job, get a job that could could file for me, that could give me like a work visa. And even though I didn’t get to that point, eventually everyone was supportive of me trying to get that including, especially like Mufalo. She tried to connect me with some law firms. ’cause I studied law. I have a legal background. So Mufalo was trying to connect me with people who could like, employ me and file a work Visa for me. And for me that’s like really part of what Empower Women Network is about, trying to ensure that immigrants find their voice, they find something, that they, they can get to do in Maine and Maine is very welcoming in that regard. And that’s just like the most welcoming place I’ve ever lived in so far. Yeah, they’re very welcoming of immigrants, which was what I appreciated about them. And the Empower Network and like Parivash said, everybody was intentional about building that bond, building that relationship. I remember when I had to have my first child, Bethany was there. I had complications, bethany went through it with me. She cried with me. Parivash was also with me. Laura came to the hospital. Parivash came to the hospital. Parivash was like telling me,’causemy baby was in ICU for a period of time. Parivash. I remember Parivash telling me to speak with her, even though of course she’s a baby. She couldn’t, but Parivash made me understand that, okay, she’s a baby, but she can hear your voice. You’ve carried her for a long time. And, eventually my child ended up doing great. She’s still a miracle to everybody today. But yeah, we have that sisterhood, that bond and even though we’re miles away, we don’t call each other every. When we get to connect with each other, we share pictures. We connect with each other on Facebook. When I post something, Bethany, Laura, Ghomri, comments, and even though I haven’t been to Maine in a long time, I still plan to visit the place with my daughter and see everyone, I think it’s more of the fact that everybody was intentional about building this relationship, building this sisterhood, and I really appreciate. I really appreciate that network and I really appreciate everyone on this call for that. Yeah. And since then we moved to Missouri. From Missouri. We’re now in Tennessee. Yeah. And like I said, it’s like the last move. And I’ve had another child. I’ve had another child in August, and so right now I am. Eventually my husband actually filed for me while I was in Maine to get a green card, but it wasn’t coming through on time, which was why I said I had to go to community college. Eventually it came through in 2020 and I was able to pursue what I really wanted to do. Right now I’m working for a consulting firm working in the financial services space. I work in like the financial crime investigation side of it, and I work hundred percent from home, which, gives me the flexibility of being a mom, being a present mom, and, working at the same time. Yeah. So that’s really a summary of, what has been happening to me. Eric Miller: That’s a wonderful story. There’s so many beautiful memories and congratulations on, on acquiring Your Green Card, finishing school, getting the job, moving around all over the place successfully raising children. What an amazing experience. And since you named dropped Bethany let’s round up getting to know everyone here. Bethany: Hi, I’m Bethany Smart. I live in North Yarmouth I in 2018, but prior to the Pandemic was as a volunteer work volunteering through Hope Acts and Hope House as a mentor coordinator. So I would talk to people about Hey, would you like to connect with a new Mainer and help them navigate some systems, be their friend, show them around Portland connect and just listen over coffee, like to what their needs are and see if you can help or, if Hope House can help or, getting the, we can get the word out to the community and see what folks need. I actually attended, like Laura said with Laura this first meeting I mean my first meeting of the Empower Women Network with, along with a young woman that I was mentoring from Rwanda. And I think my initial thought going was that like she would have a place to connect and that she would know this group existed. So it’s interesting how it turned out that really for me, here we are like all of us connected strongly. And she was even younger than Oyi. So maybe it was just an age factor, but but still I hope that she knows that, she has proceeded with her life here. She has, sorry. She has I’m sure like, linked up with other friends and organizations in Portland and has the support that she needs. But as it turned out, as you’ve heard from everyone, we had a very strong connection. I mean, I do look at things from through my faith and a spiritual lens so for me, I just feel like it was just all of us coming with really open hearts to connect with one another. And Mufalo asking, like just saying, introduce yourselves and say who you are and say a need that you have. So all of us have multiple needs, right? But I think us coming from Oh, I’m from Nebraska. I didn’t say that I moved to Maine in 1996, but coming, whether, from any place in the us as a white woman, like in that group, it can be really intimidating to express, like what can my need possibly be when I’m seeing people whose lives I’ve had to, be torn apart and start over. But as Oyi said, we all rallied around each other’s needs. I remember Laura I think did some editing for somebody who said they needed some editing work, done for work. Maybe that wasn’t you, but I think it was. Yeah, and then the aunties, that’s what we called us planned a baby shower that was at Parivash’s house that she hosted. And just we started, connecting. Laura and I had always for a long time prior to this been connected and trying to meet needs where we saw them. But this was just clearly just a deeper level of friendship and connection that kind of allowed us all to, I think, extend our leadership into our own spheres even more with the strength of knowing one another. So I just saw Parivash last week at the State House and I realized later I think I said at the beginning to my husband I’m so glad I went to that meeting. I can’t imagine not having met those women like we were, like Laura said, there’s something about, I think it was supposed to be a one hour meeting and it ended up being three hours. And then we were doing like selfies and the elevator on the way downstairs who does that when you’ve just met a group of people. But it felt like there was like a reunion and we’d known each other forever. So I realized later, had I not met Parivash that day, I would’ve met her eventually’causeshe’s everywhere all the time activating. But yeah, this has been a really amazing group and amazing friendship and amazing leaders. Eric Miller: Wow, that I am blown away by the the strength of connection that just going to one place and all, having a collective goal and then letting your guard down and being okay to be intimate and how that builds this community is just such a wonderful thing. And Oyi you answered this question a little bit already, but that article was published in Maine Policy Review about five years ago, a lot has transpired since then. So I’d love to hear about where people are at now and if Bethany, you mentioned you and Parivash spend time at the State House, if you like to mention other advocacy group or other organizations you’re part of be happy to share that or just general life updates. Oyi’s been very busy. Pavarish: Yeah, so I mean, Everybody who is really here in this podcast, we are all involved and we feel, women in general, it is in our DNA to try to make our community a better place. From the unit of home to, you know, local community, national and international. It’s just that, I don’t know how to say it. We don’t think that we are alive if we are not doing something for somebody or making changes in our community. So yeah, if there are things that, need support at the policy level, look, as Bethany mentioned, it was a day of advocacy in the state house. So we all rallied around Wabanaki people, because we believe in justice. So the justice cannot be discriminated. If you feel everybody have to have a equal, right, then you have to be in forefront of that fight for those people who are really fighting it. And beside that, I do a lot of advocacy around the homelessness and also that recently we had 55 family move to South Portland. So the, interfaith group decided that, there were items that they needed. So we wrote a email, like I forwarded the email to the Maine ___, and I was overwhelmed with their response of items that had to be delivered to South Portland for the asylum seeker. And I’m not the only one. Every one of these women who you see here, they are involved in many level with that because we all think that it is important. And I’m among few of the board in Portland Family Promise Board and Portland Park Conservancy that, just doing different thing. It is not maybe so much gear towards the immigrant and asylum, but it is geared towards environment and conserving parks in Portland. Eric Miller: It’s wonderful. Yeah, you are certainly busy. As Bethany said let’s go with Ghomri. It’s, it is five years later. Ghomri: Five years later, yes. As I was my official position was a refugee and immigrant resettlements through Jewish Community Alliance. And when, as you know that how they fragile when they come into this country and we house them when we provide them what food with clothes and reach out to so many organizations, other non-profit organizations, and even, just volunteers that they come out and regardless of color, ethnicity, identity, you know, they house and we were able to house 100 in total. I think in total we had 150, but 50 of them were Afghan community, Afghan families. And in addition of this one, as I said, I was very involved, to establish empower I mean empower the Afghan woman and, just establish their community. They had community, but it was not very active community. It was not like they didn’t have structure and they, especially the women were not involved at all. Not at all. I remember at the first meeting that they had only males and they were there and I said, what are the women? And they said, no, we don’t have any woman here. And I said, I’m gonna cancel it out. So then for the next one, we had only two women, and for the third one we had just three women. And for the fourth one that we had it here in housing Authority, we had 25 women, Afghan woman. So luckily right now, and they are very happy and they’re running their organization. We choose the name for them. Maine Afghan Women and at the same time, civic activist as well and working on my degree to finish it and hopefully another, just the 40 units left to get my master degree from our university international violations. And the job that I recently, they offered to me, which is, I did not announce that because I have one more exam that I have to take, became a foreign service general. So I know that it’s not an easy job. But anyway, I’m very excited and hopefully to be in the office officially by the August at the end of the August. And at the same time, I’m a very active member of Worldly Woman. Worldly Woman is under the World Affair Councils here in Maine. The same thing that Empower Immigrant Women did it. We are going out and Laura actually participate in one of our meeting because we are very new and we are still reaching out, just kinda like international women from different group, from different, background and to participate and share their memories and, just supporting each other. And we have empathy for each other and. So yeah, that is five years later and hopefully in another five years, be president of Iran . We need a woman, yeah. Bethany: We’ll need a new podcast then. Eric Miller: Congratulations on making it to this point. Good luck on your final exam there. I have little doubt and how that’ll go for you. I’m sure you’ll pass it without a question. Let’s go to Laura next. Laura: So I’m trying to think from five years ago how things have changed and I’m not involved in too many direct organizations yet I kind of dabble in a few different ones. And I had a friend, an African friend, tell me not too long ago that,’causeI was trying to find my place in helping in certain situations and he’s, he said to me, you’re a connector. That’s what you do. You connect people. So I’ve kind of taken that and run with it and felt like, that, that is a purpose to connect people that whether it be, to services or that they are trying to better their career or better. In this particular case, my friends and artists and he just needed to connect with people to Lead to jobs that he has picked up since then. So whether it be people, just needing clothes, I have a couple families right now that are two women are having babies and just even finding some of the basics for some people when they’re new here and they don’t know the language, they don’t have transportation is a struggle. So anything that we can do, all of us to help make their make their settlement here a little bit easier is what we can do. So I also am on the board of directors of ___ African Newspaper, which is an African newspaper here in Maine. Started in 2018, and the main goal of the newspapers to really connect africans here with Mainers here and also provides news back in Africa for folks settling here so they don’t lose the connection with their homeland. And it also teaches us why a lot of new Mainers are here from African nations, mostly asylum seekers and what might have made them flee and why they’re here and what things are like in their country. So that’s been really near and dear to my heart. I have an African son, so when I first heard about this newspaper, I thought this is something I really wanna be involved in. So that has helped me connect to other people and just become more and more part of the immigrant community. And, but we’re all Mainers now, so we have to support each other. Eric Miller: Yeah, that’s absolutely fantastic. Bethany, how about you? Bethany: So I would say I’m also not, like directly involved like on boards and things like that. But I think just, again, I think my description of leadership in the article like five years ago was just like more pushing myself to do new things. Pushing myself to step outta my comfort zone. To make, always be making new connections, to always be trying to build awareness of what’s happening in Maine, but what’s happening in people’s lives that is important to them. And I think for me it’s allowed me to have conversations on a more informed level than just here’s a general idea of justice. Everybody should have these basic rights or everybody should be able to do X when they come to the United States and not have all these hoops to jump through kind of thing, but even with family members, with other friends, having like just a greater understanding of the struggles and to say, my friend’s going through this like this, we, we all need to be supporting one another. So I think, I’d say like Laura’s a major connector. I’ll take minor connector. I’m a connector as well. And I just going back to the spirituality and faith piece, I just look at leadership, not so much as being out front and center as standing my integrity and like doing small things and trusting the ripples that we don’t see. And yeah, just gaining awareness and it’s it’s like more of a scaling in then scaling up kind of perspective. Eric Miller: Absolutely. That’s great. So a lot of these points that you all have made actually feeds really nicely into the next question because Parivash in the article in 2018, you mentioned often grassroots leaders making seemingly small decisions have a huge impact on the lives of ordinary people. Would you mind providing some examples of some of these small decisions? It seems Laura, Bethany have captured these small decisions in small actions and there’s large ones serving on boards. Would you like to elaborate on that a little bit? Pavarish: Yeah. So really in general, I don’t feel that this, we have this conception of leadership that we think leadership is some alien or coming out of a space and making things work better or we have this complex, I don’t know, idea, and to me leadership is not complex because leadership is about others. It is not about the leader, it is not about us, it is about other people. And I always feel there are so many unsung heroes that they, doing a small thing, but do a small thing or organically changing your community. Sometimes when we talk about complex thing, it’s very disappointing because when you want to take a big, have a big goal. Sometimes it is not possible to fulfill it, but if you make small changes, it is encouraging because you see the result. Like what all the stories that Laura, Bethany and Ghomri share, these are little changes that they are all making and making our community a better place. So I have an example that I mentioned earlier, like just sending the email, it wasn’t a big deal, but the response that I got was so overwhelming to me. And it wasn’t the leadership because it was about orders, but people were generous. They stood up and, really contributed. But I have, few years ago, I went visiting this family in Lewiston from Congo, and I was visiting them with one of my friends who was from Paris. She was from France. So she was able to translate, all of our conversation. And I casually ask the woman why she’s at home and she is not taking English classes because everybody in her household was gone for, the class except her. And she said, because she cannot see. And I was very surprised because I didn’t see any disability with her sight. And I mentioned to her, I said you can’t see what you mean. She said, I cannot read. I cannot see, to read right. And I had over counter glasses that I bought from Dollar Store, so I thought, okay, I’ll just try to give her this reading, over counter reading glasses. And she had a paper in front of her and she started reading and she started crying because she was overwhelmed that her problem was just, was solved with reading over counter reading glasses. It wasn’t a big deal that I offered to her, but just being intentional to make sure what is her problem, and if there was anything that I could do to make a difference, which I wasn’t sure that it would make a difference, but just being intentional. So when I left there, I was thinking really many of the problem that people are dealing with is not a big problem. They are a small problem is just that we are people who are connecting with other people, whether they are immigrant, asylum seeker. If you are intentional in our day-to-day work, we would be able, with a small decision, make a change in people’s life. So this intentionality is very important and doing something about the problem that we are facing and not saying, oh, okay, so what, they are dealing with this for a long time and nothing has changed, so just let it be. I think that’s the important, really lesson for all of us, that the small changes can be perceived big from the point of view of the person who received that small change. It can impact their life. Eric Miller: Yeah. Thank you. For expanding on that point in intentionality is a very special and powerful thing and can be channeled into, I like how you framed as it be channeled into as small or as large as an act as what is in front of you in that moment. And so as leaders and yourselves and as immigrants or have worked intimately with new Mainers yourselves can you all speak to how leadership and community networks can help individuals and families that call Maine their new home? Pavarish: Yeah, I would like to say because I’m immigrant, what am I offering is not some vague, something in a vacuum because I live the immigrant life and I know what was important to me was learning the language was one of the really the most important thing that you need to learn the language of the country that you reside in because that could also improve your own life, if you are fluent in the language. The second thing is, I think the attitude or attitude towards getting job, because most immigrants who come here, they are highly educated. So if we want to wait for that perfect job that pays $150 an hour, it’s very hard . So we have to have a different attitude towards job. And I share a little story after I say this. That’s very important. The another point is that as immigrants, we should not take everything and anything that people say and put it in a category of discrimination that, oh, these people tell me this because I’m from another country, so you can’t take everything as discrimination because that would make our life very hard. Another point that I really want to make sure that as immigrant, the immigrant are paying attention to that, is just that we need to take the first step. If we want to become friends with other people, we need to take the first step. I remember when we moved actually to Maine, it was winter and people hibernate in Maine, so you can’t connect with anybody. And I remember, my neighbor heard that we are from Iran and they thought this terrorist family moved next door to them. They were worried about their children and all of that. And I was alone. I left everything that I was familiar with in Iran. I didn’t have family. When I came to Maine, it was only me, my husband, and my daughter. So I needed connection, but my neighbors didn’t need connection because she already had relative, friend, well established, community. But I didn’t. So I couldn’t sit home and say, oh, I’m waiting for my neighbor to come say, hi, Parivash, how are you? I’m glad to meet you. If I would have that attitude after 30 some years, I still would not have any connection with anyone. So I say that we really, as immigrant, we have to take that step. I want to tell you the story. My husband was doing his PhD in India. So when we came, he was working two jobs as a stock clerk in 7-Eleven, and he was also as a stock clerk in L.L. Bean. So the first job, the first week we were in Maine, got a job in L.L. Bean I remember when he would go to job, I would sit and cry because I was thinking, oh my God, he’s so intelligent. He has done all of this PhD work and now he’s stocking, somewhere in 7-Eleven and I don’t know, in L.L. Bean, and I would not let him know that I was worried about that. So I remember one day he came home and I was crying. I would make sure he doesn’t know that I cried because I thought he’s working hard for me and my daughter. There is no reason that I should show him that I’m distressed. So I remember he came home sick and he saw me crying and he thought something happened to my parents. So he said, something happened to your parents? I said, no. He said, please tell me why you are crying. I said, I’m crying because you are an intelligent man. You have did your, pre PhD and all of this work while you are now folding clothes at night in a L.L. Bean. My husband got mad at me. He said, what is the use of PhD if I cannot put food in front of you and my daughter,. He said, still whatever I’m making is better than $0. And because I’m working in L.L. Bean actually I’m aware of other opportunities because if I am not working in L.L. Bean, most of a job are posted within the company. So the fact that I’m there as a stock clerk makes me aware of the posting. So I have the ability to apply for better job. So really these all the advice that I’m offering humbly if, because we went through that as an immigrant, it’s not some abstract something out there that I have no clue or I didn’t go through that hardship. So I feel these are something that we need to remember. Or attitude need to be very positive and not, because I have PhD, I’m not going to work here, I’m not going to work there. But those are all opportunities for better future. Bethany: Can I just also say that, Parivash cut the story short, but she took her neighbor that a meal to meet her, right? In the first story. Pavarish: Oh yeah. Bethany: When you were feeling like your neighbor didn’t wanna meet you and you said you need, people need to take the first step. You cooked her a meal and it should have been the It should have been the reverse, but it wasn’t. Pavarish: Yes, I make food. I, with any excuse, I go and knock at the door. And I have to tell you, it had a happy ending because when we became friend, she gave my name as somebody in the school because her kids had allergy, very bad allergy. So if something happened to them, they would call me because she was working full-time. So it had a really happy ending, but it had a happy ending because I try to make sure we connect so she doesn’t have this misconception that I’m terrorists because I’m from Iran. If I would have really, that would have been something that I would say, oh, okay, she thinks I’m terrorist. I’m not going to reach out. She would’ve never found out that our similarities is more than our differences. Thank you for reminding me Bethany. Eric Miller: Ghomri, d you have something that you’d like to add for how as an immigrant yourself, you can speak to leadership community networks in, in Maine and how that can help individuals and families? Ghomri: Yeah, a lot, just if you share your stories with them and journey that you had, and anytime when we have when I have home visit with them, because we have a lot of home visit with them, we’re talking about our stories. How I was mentioned to it, I was a principal back in Iran and I had my master’s degree, but I never prayed to go to ___ food, and pack food, just work very hard and I’m telling them the same, just they are really frustrated and they are sometimes, they get so emotion, they’re crying and obviously, that is’causeof the barrier language called for shot, not they’re not able to navigate with the system. But when you out there and telling them that is my story. When I came here, I went back to work, I went back to education, and you will get there. You will be there. So yeah, that is very important. And then at the same time, just , it’s, the difference is it’s here. Some people with the strong but strong educational background. And then the other one is with zero educational background. That makes your job much difficult. When you know the language and when you just, at least a little bit familiar with technology world. This is the technology world and the thing that they suffered a lot and some of them, they’re dealing with a very little, email address and they do not know how to send an email address and just, but we’re providing with classes for them. Just teaching them and even sometimes you are going to their home and we’re there, just to help them. But they give the cell phone to you and they don’t know how to use the app. They don’t know how to do the online banking. They don’t know how to, just send the documentation to their , the organization that they’re supporting to their attorneys. Who are mostly working with asylum seekers and the attorney is asking for a lot of documentation, pictures and this and that, technology world, it’s not easy for them, but still, just, if your action inspires others, to dream more, learn more, do more. So then became more. It means that you can, you have a good message for your community and you can inspire them in so many ways. I know that they’re frustrated sometimes. And as an example, the immigration system, when they when they’re coming here, some of them even, they do not have their own name and they change their name and then they get frustrated and their name is not matched with their age and their name, their age is not matched with their name, and then social security and, dealing with social security, dealing with the department of Health and Human Services and dealing with the medical system, they became sick, just so tired and anxious, nervous, and, exhausted and but we were there and we’re trying to help them in so many ways. Not only emotionally, not only, how to navigate with the system that is the most difficult part for them. But just I hope this world, be just like how the birds are migrating, if people, to get to this point, if they get to this point, the migration is not hurting anyone and migration is not hurting any system, anything. Just for make a world to a better place to live. If they come to this concept, the world will be much better. Look at the birds, they’re migrating. When it’s winter they’re flying. When it’s getting warmer, they’re coming back just for the contribution. Right? And the same as, said, if they do not think that you are coming here, just you are not a terrorist, you are not a danger person, you’re a human. Humankind, just every, everybody else in this area, we have all of us, regardless of the color, religious, ethnicity, background, we have just one type of blood and it’s red. Eric Miller: Yeah. Thank you so much Ghomri I can’t imagine something more isolating or intimidating than trying to navigate a foreign bureaucracy. So having those resources are invaluable for people new to an area. Oyi it sounds like you were quite the beneficiary of this cultivated community. Would you like to share you shared a little bit about how you benefited and had support. Would you like to share some of your experience with the leadership and community networks with folks who are new to Maine or anywhere? Oyi: Like I said, when I introduced myself, I was trying to find a job as a new immigrant, but of course I didn’t have a green card. So I was looking for an employer who could file for me. And like I said, even though I didn’t get that eventually I got support from Empowerment Network . As to connecting with people who were in my field. And I feel like every immigrant has a story. they have a story of how they started and how they got to where they are now. And I always tell people who just move into the country who have had the opportunity to know maybe back from Nigeria, that, you have to be patient with the process because it’s a process, it doesn’t happen overnight and you have to just be patient with it. And if you stick through the process, you eventually find it rewarding. And that is what I have realized in my own journey as an immigrant. It was tough at the beginning because I had a master’s degree. I sat for the New York BAR exam, but I couldn’t work with it because I didn’t have a green card, and it was really frustrating. I had to go back to community college, the degree, yeah. There’s no, you can’t knowledge, no knowledge is wasted, so I won’t say that I didn’t gain from that, but eventually that was like an associate degree. I already had a master’s degree. So at the end of the day, it was just like, let me just do something to be in status. But so at that point it was frustrating us. And if you’re not careful, you may feel like, oh, you’re not good enough. You may begin to doubt your worth. You may begin to say, oh, my friends they pass the by exam. They’re working with a law firm. Now what am I doing? But at the end of the day, everybody’s story is different. Everybody’s story is unique and you just have to believe in yourself and know that it’s a process. And, being an immigrant everybody has to go through it. Everybody has to go through it. As an immigrant, whether you come in as a refugee, whether you come in as a student, everybody has to go through that process, that was what I was able to benefit from the, this network of amazing women. I was able to meet people. I was able to meet people that were like me, that I could share my story with, that I could hear their own stories, which, eventually encouraged me to keep pushing. And I think that is what is important for, moving forward for people to be able to come together as immigrants, as Americans, to support each other, to keep each other going that, okay, you’ve got this, there’s light at the end of tunnel, at the end of everything you’re going to be better for it. So I feel that was one very important thing that I gained from the network, and I feel it should continue, and I feel every immigrant should be encouraged and should know that at the end of the day, you are, you’re going to go, you’re gonna get to where you want to go to eventually. Eric Miller: That’s great. And to bounce back from that adversity after passing the BAR exam and being, hitting that administrative wall that forced you to adapt is very impressive, and the yeah the message is very powerful. Laura and Bethany, you each had quite a bit of experience working with new Mainers. I would love to get your perspective on, on, on leadership and community networks and Laura, would you like to start? Laura: It always resonates me when somebody says to me, particularly new Mainers will say, oh, you’ve done so much for me. You’re so amazing. Look at all the things you’ve done. How could I do this without you? And I just, it, it’s always makes me uncomfortable to hear that because I know what I have gained from, the richness I have gained from having such a diverse group of friends and learning people’s culture and just seeing things through their eyes when they come here. Moving anywhere new is so difficult, but then you add the lack of the language and just how to navigate anywhere in this country, particularly Maine, of course we’re talking about, and I just feel like I, I want to tell people how much they have to gain by reaching out. Just like how Parivash’s neighbor, thought that she was a terrorist. And we have, people have these bias and these stereotypes, and once they actually get to know someone, it’s hard to have that same feeling about them when you become friends with them. And I feel like when we take the time to truly connect with others and learn about them, there’s no longer, and us and them, it’s just us. And that’s really what this world needs right now. I just feel so grateful to have the ability to connect with people from other nations. When I grew up here in Maine, there, there was nobody from other nations in the Portland area really, very few . I went to a pretty big high school and it was a very white high school. So our world looks very different now. Again, I have an African son, it’s just made things so much better and our family to have so many other people from other nations be his big brother, his auntie, his, really connecting with others. So I just wish everyone could feel how wonderful it is to truly make our world a little bit smaller and to connect with people that we really don’t think we have anything in common with, ’cause we do. Absolutely. Eric Miller: Bethany, do you have anything to add? Bethany: I feel like I’ll probably reiterate like that connection is just where it’s at. People have to build relationships. I would say like the distressing, situations like Ghomri’s describing and just the challenges people have and just getting to the point where you’re like, is this even worth it? What am I doing here? Having. Being there, being able to be there for people is a gift. It’s a gift to us. I know it means a lot, like people will say like we’re their American family and that benefits everyone involved. But I can also say, so that sounds beautiful. I can also say it like breaks my heart and I know Laura would say the same thing, you just get to a point sometime, you’re like why are these things the way that they are? And it’s hard to have this conversation without naming that our immigration system is broken and it’s created by a system of white supremacy and it, it can’t be a white person in this conversation without saying that It’s painful to see where we’re at and I don’t know the way out unless people choose to connect. What I can say is that many of the cultures that share our community now in Portland have such strong cultural concepts of community that I think we can learn from. And people already if there weren’t all these barriers, if there weren’t all the barriers to working, barriers to language barriers if life wasn’t so difficult I, and we didn’t make it so difficult, our system didn’t make it so difficult for people. Even they’re, just ready to get in there and be community and give back and work even sooner. So we’re talking about yes, it’s beautiful when it happens, and then there’s also this like unsaid piece that I feel like we haven’t addressed it. Like it can happen sooner. We need to, be advocating for changes to make this not so complicated and not so charged politically and stuff like that. That might be a bit off topic. I feel like that has to be said that we have to work for a change. Eric Miller: It’s all relevant. Thank you. Thank you both so much for your perspectives on this issue as well. As we close out in our final question here, I do you have any quick thoughts for budding young leaders in this space? And any advice or short stories that would you think that they’d find beneficial? Parivash? We’ll start with you again. Pavarish: I think few things I would like to stress. One is of course, to listen and to learn as new leaders. That’s very important to listen because sometimes we think we are leaders. Everybody else has to listen to us, and we don’t have anything to learn from others if we feel that we are leaders. But really, as a good leader, you have to be listening and also being open to learning. Another thing is really I feel that the leadership, as I mentioned before, is about others. It is not about us. So if we are good leaders, we are not creating followers, but we are creating leaders who would be leading, because, I mean, the global community is full of leaders who have followers, but we don’t see changes happening in our community because people blindly following these leaders without knowing where they are going. And also to give vision and inspiration to people who are with collaborating as supposedly leaders with people who we cross path, it is important to do, be intentional that they become leaders and we all actually empowering other people and creating resources in the community because if we are just thinking about us and our own leadership, nobody is there to step up for taking the role of leadership in the future. I think really those are among the thing that those think it is important. And one last thing doesn’t have anything to do with leadership, but I always say if I die and they dissect me, they never going to find a gene that say, para honey was Iranian. No gene would indicate that we are all human. So what they find is just indicating that I’m another human like anybody else. So I think it is important to remember that we are all more interconnected, more interdependent than we think we are. We have, and that’s why really connecting with people no matter where they come from. And connecting and forming relationship doesn’t happen going to the lecture, listening to podcast, it happened at each other’s kitchen, sharing food and being together and celebrating important things. Recently I dropped my phone in somewhere that it was not very nice, but Laura supported me, and she stayed with me till my husband go and get something to fetch the cell phone. So those are the things that, make our friendship and connection stronger, and I don’t think Laura is going to let me forget it because she texting me and she says, take care of your cell phone from Parivash. Laura: I’ll never let you forget that. Pavarish: No. I want to say that I have a lot of trust in this younger generation, really wherever I go, if I don’t see young generation among people, I say something is wrong with this picture because this younger generation is the generation that is going to lead global community. They have it right. We just have to support them and accompany them and let them know that they are doing great thing, really. I mean, I mentioned few things, but I really, I think this younger generation know it all. They know how to lead. They have proved it in many areas that they know. They know the priority. Eric Miller: That’s great. Thank you for the story. This is great. Ghomri, do you have anything you would like to say about young leaders Ghomri: Yeah. For young leaders? Yeah, absolutely. Always your action is louder than your talk or your speak. When you inspire others, as I said, as I mentioned before, when you inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, became more and this one will have to be done by your action. So it means you are Good leader. And at the same time to me, just because after Covid, you know that 4 in 10 household have lost their job, their business, and they reduce wages and hours, and the rate of the death. And then the young generation are fortune afraid. They are home right now and they’re always on technology and technology is good. It’s so many ways, it’s very beneficial, but at the same time, the communication, it’s getting, it, the skills, communication skills get lost. And we have to, and then the the empathy, the compassion we have to take them out and, just pull them, they, their commitment, and confidence, commitment, communication. To me, those are really important and we have to work on this one, in this area . Eric Miller: That’s wonderful. Thank you so much. Laura, quick if you have any thoughts about young leaders in the community? Laura: My only thought really is to just not get overwhelmed with the idea of how can I be a leader? How can I, what can I do? What difference can I make? And, as Parivash said it’s not, leaders aren’t necessarily the ones in charge. They’re the ones maybe just being there for others who want to make a difference. And I think if I had concentrated too much on being a leader, I wouldn’t be doing anything because the idea of having to lead and might be overwhelming to me and thinking, what do I have to offer? But as we’ve talked about, it’s the little things that can make a difference. If we all make a little difference, what a huge difference it becomes for everyone. So I think it just do something, whether it be learning more about everything from race to different cultures to policies that aren’t helping anyone besides the white man. I think that everyone can make a difference. So whatever it is, whatever your passion is, even if it’s the environment that affects all of us, whatever your passion is, try and find your way to make a difference. Eric Miller: Very inspiring. That’s great. Oyi, do you have anything you’d like to mention as we close out? Oyi: Yeah, I, the only thing I want to add is at the end of the day, everybody is a leader in their own space. And at the end of the day the work of a leader is to serve. And it’s not just, having the title of being a leader. Everyone should be able to have some form of influence in the space that they find themselves. And once you realize that you have that kind of influence, you want to make sure that you are, you are being the person that you’re treating people the way you want to be treated. That’s like the summary. At the end of the day, everybody is, we’re all human beings. Whether you’re white, whether you’re black, whether you are from Iran, whether you’re from Nigeria, at the end of the day, we are all human beings and we should be able to treat each other with respect, with dignity. And, the world will be a better place if everybody has that understanding. And you if you wanna be treated right, you want to be able to treat people right as well. And yeah that’s all I have to say. Eric Miller: Fantastic. It’s hard to close out everything after all those amazing perspectives and insights Bethany, but do you have any thoughts you’d like to share for young leaders or your community involvement as we end here? Bethany: I would just really echo all of that Ary saying, inspiring people to do more, to act more, to dream big. Laura’s points about everyone has something to offer and always that people are standing in their integrity and treating others as they would want to be treated. I just think that our definition of leadership has been so skewed. And especially these past few years, like what young people have grown up with and seen as labeled as leadership is horrifying. That we need to like rebrand. What does it mean to be a leader. And I think it is totally like just back to these basics of treating each other well and focusing in our immediate environments, as Oyi said. We can always branch out from there, but we always have a immediate sphere of influence in our community around us will uplift us to more if they see gifts that you know, like that we can inspire in others. But otherwise, our job, I feel, is to be uplifting those around us. Eric Miller: That was great parting thoughts. Thank you all so much for joining us today. It a great conversation. And thank you all listeners for tuning in and I hope our panelists enjoyed themselves and have a wonderful rest of their day and we’ll be in touch sometime soon. Cathy Lee That was our discussion with the co-authors of the article. And now to our discussion with Cathy Lee. Hello, Cathy, welcome to the podcast. It’s a pleasure to have you. Cathy: Thank you, Eric. It’s wonderful to be here. Eric Miller: So you helped start the Empowered Network in Maine, and could you touch a little bit on your personal professional history? Cathy: Sure. I grew up in Lewiston and in those days the ethnic community, that was the target of a lot of hostility were French Canadians. I was surrounded by that whole dynamic. I eventually moved to Brazil for a year in high school through a program that Maine has, or Maine. And the most northeastern state in Brazil are sister states and the program still exists. And that was my first real international experience that is being in another culture ’cause I went to a place where no one spoke English at that time. So I, after two weeks of not saying anything to anyone, decided I better try to learn this language. And I did. And it just, the experience of living in another culture as part of that culture just opened up the world to me. So that was a really important event in my life. I came back, went to college, left college, went back to Brazil, went to law school in Brazil for a while. came back finished college in New York City, went to law school, and then became a sex crimes prosecutor. And I think in addition to the language and opening up the world, the experience in Brazil also strengthened my sense of being a very committed feminist. Watching the way women and girls were , and living the way they were treated there made me very clear about what I believe. So I worked as a sex crimes prosecutor in New York City for three years and then moved back to Maine. Got married, actually got married, commuted for four years, and then moved to Maine with some reluctance because I had experienced Maine as boring, as not diverse as, just limiting. That’s how it felt to me for many years growing up. But we moved to Portland and I’ve made a really exciting and interesting life for myself. I spent 13 years at Bernstein Shore, one of the big law firms in Portland, and then worked for a few more years managing the main office for a New Hampshire law firm, and then decided I want to do something else, more international, more entrepreneurial work, where I feel every day what I’m doing is making a difference. And I started to focus on climate change and that’s still the work I do as a lawyer. But I also in 2010, felt it’s time to stop traveling because a lot of my work was in Southern Africa. The climate work and spend a little more time in Maine. That was the year my father died and I felt like he did so much for the community. I need to do more and I need, but I needed to do something from me that was based on what I had to offer. And one of the first things I did was start a program called Justice for Women. And it’s a program that brings some dynamic leader from the developing world, from the global south to Maine every year for a week. And the woman gives a big public lecture that’s free. In fact, this year, it’s April 26th at Hannaford Hall and spends the rest of the week meeting with different communities. And what inspired me was watching the demographic change in Maine and realize there were women in African dress walking up and down the Franklin arterial and traditional Mainers look at these women and they have no idea who they are. They make assumptions that they’re victims or that they’re ignorant or uneducated. And I knew just from all the travel I’d done that there are so many amazing leaders out there around the world, particularly in Africa, in Southeast Asia, and parts of the world that people in Maine don’t get to experience for the most part. And I ought to bring some of those women that no one’s ever heard of here and put them up on a stage, have them meet with members of different communities as a way of trying to show that, first of all, there are incredible women leaders from some of the very places that we have asylum seekers and refugees, so don’t make assumptions. Second, they’re all activists. They’re all outrageous, strong, active. And I thought by bringing them here, it can help to send the message that everybody can be an activist in their own backyard. You just need to find your inner courage. So I think it was through that, that I met Mufa lo and just thought she was one of those incredible women who has yet to grow into her own. This was years ago here in Maine, has yet to be recognized for the strength and the courage and just. Her ability to lift others up. And the same the, so we got together and decided we need to find ways to bring main women, white women together with the immigrant women in the communities and get to know each other and get to help each other. And it really is helping each other, that those of us who have a lot of, let’s say social capital, can open doors for some of the women immigrants, but they can show us other ways of looking at the world also and how to be courageous and so on. So that’s how we met and decided we would start this thing to get women, to give women an opportunity to know each. Eric Miller: What a beautiful life story. Thank you so much for the work that you’ve done. And if you’ve made this far in the podcast you have heard the discussion we had with the panelists earlier, and you can see the dividends that were paid in, the relationships they formed based on your work, and truly incredible. And to this day are regularly in contact with each other and building those community ties. And we touched a bit on community and leadership in their discussion, and I’d really like to hear your perspective on the qualities in the leader or when you first met Mufalo, hat were some of the things that spoke to you as this individual is, has the potential to be a leader, and what are some tools of engagement? If people are looking to get more involved themselves, what can they do as well? Cathy: I think the first thing is don’t make assumptions. Don’t think, you know who this woman is. And that’s one. Number two, whether it’s in employment or in friendship or in any other context, give these women a chance to show who they are, because so often they’re limited in what their opportunities are and they just don’t get a chance. And when they do Mufalo, Ghomri, like Parivash like so many other women, they flourish. But part of the issue is often give them an opportunity to show you who they are. So that’s one piece of advice I think, in one of the early years when I brought. I, when the speaker was from Zimbabwe, I remember years ago, and she led an organization, this is the Justice for Women’s Speaker. She led an organization in Africa in 17 countries that worked on food security. So we used that opportunity to raise an issue of child hunger in Maine. So try to always connect the speaker with an issue of importance in Maine. And the Empower Network, which was still very much active in those days, gave a dinner at somebody’s apartment. And there were maybe 25 women who were all crowded into somebody’s living room. Everybody brought food that they had made from their own country. And we went around the room and these women, there was a dental surgeon. I mean, they were just incredible and they were stuck in these. Dead end jobs for many that hadn’t yet learned enough English, which is almost always number one challenge to integrating into the workforce, into society. But they were just something I saw in Mufa and I see in all of these women strong, courageous, have the ability to persevere in the face of the most incredible challenges. And, but people don’t know that about them. Each one has her own story of difficulty in just getting here and trying to make it here, and they just don’t give up. And another year we had a. A justice women speaker from India, who is one of the worldwide leaders in the movement, a against sex trafficking. And at one point she made a state, made a comment saying, courage is contagious. And I thought, oh, I love that. That’s great. It turns out it was actually Gloria Steinem, who said it, who’s a good friend of ___, but the dean, oh, I didn’t say before that when I created the program Justice for Women, I took it to the law school and said, would you like the law school to be the home for this program? I’ll raise money for it and I’ll put the community piece together every year. But the public lecture, it will all be identified with the law school. So it’s been at the law school . So every year the dean of the law school gives a Courage is Contagious Award, and this year it’s going to two immigrant women who were part of those who I met through those that, that early networking that the Claudette and Mickey, who are co-founders of in Her Presence, which is a fantastic program in the greater Portland area that helps immigrant women with all sorts of things from English to employment and so on. So they’re going to get the award this year very much deserve and they just capture. Leadership as Mufa does, just being able to show by example, lift other people up and get help. People just have the courage to keep going. Eric Miller: That’s wonderful. And so many insights and your just casually trafficking so many groups and events as well. And I would love to hear, so April 26th is there’s an event going on there if you’d like to remind us what that is. So if people would like to attend, they can. And I’d also love to hear about any ideas you have or for the future of your own work or any other type of initiative or advocacy that you’d like to highlight before we, we close out here. Cathy: Okay. The Justice for Women Week is April 24th to the 28th. The lecture, which is Wednesday evening, Hannaford Hall 7:00 PM and it’s open free, but you have to register. So I sent you the link, Eric, just so you could see what the program is. I don’t know if there’s a place for you to post it, but if people just want to Google Justice for Women Main Law, they’ll go right to the link. And our speaker this year is a very courageous journalist from Brazil. Who was targeted by the former president on social media. And she just embodies all of those qualities. And the rest of the week we’ll be going to high schools during high school where she’ll be meeting with a group of 30 plus recently arrived Lan minors who are asylum seekers who speak Portuguese like she does. And we’re going to Brunswick High School, so we have a whole week of events. But the public lecture we’d love to have people come and join us. April 26th, Wednesday, 7:00 PM Hannaford Hall, just Google Justice for Women Main Law and you can. You can sign up. One of the things I haven’t mentioned two things I wanted to mention that the, in addition to just becoming friends with so many immigrant women, in addition to the ones I’ve mentioned, Saia Khalid, who’s in Lewiston, and Betty and Vicki and some of the other women from the South Sudanese community, Angela and Dina from Bangor, Deka Dak, who we supported going to emerge and she then ran for office and was mayor of South Portland now is in the legislature. So many amazing women who’ve come into their own. But I’m also on the board, I’m actually currently serving as vice president of the board of the Greater Portland Immigrant Welcome Center. And we just got an earmark thanks to Representative Pingry substantial amount of money to develop a program called Women Lead. And we’re going to be working on this very question of women and leadership under the direction of Raza Jali, who’s the executive director there. But I’m very excited about the work that the Great Appointment Immigrant Welcome Center is doing, and the opportunity gives me to try to continue to offer so, So watch for those programs. It’s, there’s an English lab, small business hub, but the Women Lead program is going to be something I hope will be a national model. Eric Miller: Oh, that sounds amazing. And we’ll definitely keep tabs on that going forward. And I’ll put link in the description of this episode for the event as well. Great. And so we are very grateful for the work that you’ve done. Very impressive. And look forward to yeah, like I said, keeping tabs on this new women lead group that’s going to be established. And we really appreciate you taking the time to speak with us today. Cathy: Thank you for the work that you do. I think it’s great that you take the time and make the effort to give an opportunity for these women to speak. Eric Miller: It is our pleasure. You can also livestream the Justice for Women Lecture if you are interested and cannot attend or prefer to watch it online What you just heard was our panel discussion with Parivash Rohani, Laura de Does, Ghomri Rostampour, Oyinloluwa Fasehun, Bethany Smart, and Cathy Lee about community, engagement with New Mainers, and leadership. Maine Policy Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, scriptwriters for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. In two weeks, we will be covering Richard Barringer’s Lee Schepps, Tomas Urquhart, and Martin Wilk story of Maine’s public reserved lands. We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases. I am Eric Miller–thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.

On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. This episode covers an article by Lloyd C. Irland, author of five books, fellow of the Society of American Foresters, and participant in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and National Assessment on Climate Change. Irland gives us an inside perspective on Maine’s Forests from 1820-2010 in his article titled, “From Wilderness to Timberland to Vacationland to Ecosystem: Maine’s Forests, 1820–2020”. This article was published in volume 29, number 2, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to Lloyd Irland’s article: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1863&context=mpr Transcript This is the Maine Policy Matters podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. I am Eric Miller, research associate at the Center. On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. Today, we will be covering an article by Lloyd C. Irland, author of five books, fellow of the Society of American Foresters, and participant in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and National Assessment on Climate Change. Irland gives us an inside perspective on Maine’s Forests from 1820 to 2010 in his article titled, “From Wilderness to Timberland to Vacationland to Ecosystem: Maine’s Forests, 1820–2020.” This article was published in volume 29, number 2, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to Lloyd Irland’s article , which can be found in the episode description. Want to know the history of Maine as a vacationland and how the forest has changed over the last 200 years? Lloyd Irland has some answers. The story of Maine’s forest has many themes across American economic history, including technology and markets for wood products, labor-management conflicts, financial technology, and logging equipment to name just a few. Irland touches on these topics by focusing on how Maine’s forests have changed over time. He examines many aspects of Maine’s forests, and in this episode we focus on Maine’s forest at statehood, as timberland, as part of Vacationland, and as ecosystem, and carbon sink. Maine had a rough start at its statehood. Communities were trying to restitch a political society after three devastating events: Jefferson’s embargo, the War of 1812, and 1816—the “year without a summer.” Two years of unprecedented harsh weather brought famine to the countryside and stimulated significant outmigration. In1820, most of Maine’s population of 300,000 people lived along the coast and by a few inland rivers . In rural areas, many people spent some part of a year cutting wood. 1820s Mainers preferred fishing and lumbering to establishing farms, which they say contributed to the slowing down of Maine’s development as a state. In 1820, Maine’s land was 92% forests (only 1% of which was managed for timber),11% wetlands, 4% farmland, and 1% urban. In 1829, Moses Greenleaf, one of Maine’s earliest cartographers, predicted a future in which Maine’s northern forests were replaced by thriving farms and small towns along with managed woodlots and town forests. But a combination of events, including transportation revolutions, westward migration, and new agricultural technology, meant Maine’s farm economy was short lived. World War 1 caused crop prices and Maine’s farm economy to crash. The final blow to Maine’s farm economy came with a new invention that replaced horses: the tractor. The demand for hay, which had supported many marginal farms, virtually disappeared. As farmland areas continued to shrink in response to its diminished competitiveness, plowland and hay fields shifted first to pasture, then went back to scraggly, uneven forests. Between 1920 and 2020, Maine’s farmland dropped from 10% of the state’s total acreage to 2% and forestland increased from 76% to 89%. Before Maine’s first legislature met, 9.8 million acres of Maine had already been sold or granted away in the Bingham purchases and royal grants. This meant that Maine forests were already owned by mostly out-of-staters. In 1820, 6.6 million acres of mostly forest land were in the settled towns and plantations. In the Act of Statehood, Maine and Massachusetts split 5 million acres of surveyed public lands into two roughly equal parts. This act ended Massachusetts’s interest in Maine lands with a buyout in the 1840s. Between the 1840s and 1870s, public lots in many wildland towns were held in common and undivided tenure with the majority owners and never laid out on the ground. Statewide after 1880, the Maine forest gained some 4 million acres through natural reseeding, which led the forest to return as a timberland. Historians say puritanical New Englanders thought that sport fishing and hunting were for ne’er- do-wells; hard work was king. However, this idea began to shift in the late nineteenth century when resort hotels along the coast and the lakes became popular, marking the shift to Maine as Vacationland. These hotels began to sprout in Rangeley and on Moosehead Lake. Prosperous families summered at high-ceilinged hostelries with captivating views and access to public transportation. The Boston sports participated in a genteel culture of small sporting camps with their guides, guide boats, and refined fly-fishing techniques. These gentry were also among the first to explore the paths up the region’s peaks to see the views. Irland names three events that solidified Maine’s status as Vacationland. The first was union membership, the 40-hour week, and higher wages in manufacturing. The second was widespread auto ownership. Blue-collar families now had the means and the time for enjoying activities that were once reserved for the wealthy. Returning GIs in the late 1940s sought well-earned peace and recreation in the forests and brought the kids along. Many were used to camping out and preferred the outdoor air to the Brahmin atmosphere of the old and costly hotels. Third, the turnpike and the Eisenhower era’s interstate highways trimmed travel times dramatically. The gateways to the Northwoods became busy on summer weekends and during hunting season. Only a few of the big resort hotels survived the Depression and WWII, which led to more people camping in the Maine woods and eventually purchasing land for camps. This caused people to resort to tenting, then camping with travel trailers, and eventually purchasing land like homes and lots. Rafting and canoeing also increased and caused some conflict. Groups jostled for places at crowded put-in points on major wilderness rivers. Allagash paddlers sought more solitude and fought bitterly against access points that might allow motorized canoes to disturb their peace. Managers of Baxter State Park struggled to contend with large groups holding parties atop Katahdin in defiance of regulations designed for a more conservative age. The age of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles brought baffling new conflicts to both private and public timberlands managers, now rebranded by the tourism industry and outdoor magazines as the wilderness. For the first time, recreationists were traveling the Maine Woods in numbers, and many did not like what they saw. The wildlands people remembered from childhood visits was now full of large clear-cuts with little evidence of regrowth or care for long-term sustainability or for the forest as home for wildlife and fish. By the 1980s, it was clear that vacationland, timberland, and the wilderness did not always comfortably coexist. Wealthy individuals were buying large lots on mountainsides and lakefronts. This threatened to change the view and restrict public access. By the 2010s, hunters were reporting that the extensive road network spawned was shrinking. Roads were blocked and reverted to shrubs; bridges were being removed, and old hunting haunts could no longer be reached on wheels. During the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century, timber harvesting in Maine was relatively benign compared to today’s technology. Amazingly, crews with horses or oxen logged the steep upper slopes of major mountain ranges, even building flumes to run logs to drivable water. Logging and roading wasn’t seen as a threat to Maine’s regrowing forests and its ecosystems. But with the beginning of ecological research in the 1970s,, researchers began to dig more deeply into Maine’s ecosystems. They uncovered disturbing facts about the effects of insecticides on birds and the effects of intensive harvesting on soils. Naturalists noticed that some rare species were in danger of disappearing. Conservation efforts are now focused on keeping track of a list of federal and state threatened and endangered species and their habitats. In the twenty-first century, Maine woods came to be threatened by global change: the warming climate and its ominous implications. Changing temperatures, longer growing seasons, lower snowfall, and more frequent intense storms are likely to shift habitats for many trees, shrubs, animals, and associated creatures. Economic effects will not be far behind. Now, scientists and managers are trying to understand how forests can be managed to store more carbon, and how they might better adapt to the changing climate that lies ahead. These problems are more complex and difficult than many realize. To date, much of the discussion has been at the level of vague and unhelpful generalizations. The knowledge base is so limited that virtually every constructive suggestion is promptly attacked by skeptics. After reviewing two centuries of Maine’s forests, where does it stand now? Irland writes, [quote] “Today, Maine’s forest is nearly as large as it was when captain John Smith first gazed on it in 1614…to this day [Maine’s forests] remain largely in private hands”. For a century and a half, Maine citizens and successive governments welcomed new mills, dams, power facilities, and railroads as tokens of progress and improved life prospects for Maine people and for immigrants as well. Interregional and international changes in demand, competition, and technology have brought creative destruction to the doorsteps of Maine’s small farms, mill towns, and rural communities, and the entire forest. In mill towns, local civic and economic development groups struggle to find new manufacturers or other occupants for the vacant spaces and to create new housing projects, to bring a few jobs, pay taxes, and provide community stability. The days when passive state and federal governments could gaze calmly over Maine’s forest as it shifted from wilderness to timberland to vacationland and to an ecosystem and carbon sink have passed. We are only beginning to learn how our forest—the backdrop of Maine’s 200-year history as a state—can continue to produce the benefits. In 2020, private owners still owned large swaths of the wildlands, though some had sold development rights in the form of easements. Offshore capital, nontransparent investment funds, and a few wealthy individuals joined the roster of timberland owners. Public and conservation ownership now accounts for 20 percent of Maine’s land area, an amazing accomplishment, born of intense effort in less than 30 years. Additionally, key reaches of Maine’s re-engineered rivers, especially where dams blocked migratory fish, have been restored to free-flowing condition. Yet, the recent rearrangements of ownership and expansion of conservation interests have not led to full agreement on the larger purposes of all this activity. Irland concludes by asking his audience to contemplate the following questions, “Have these changes been done to retain wood production potential and a basic industry? To conduct re-wilding as some advocate? To preserve deer or canoeing opportunities? To preserve scenic views from the decks of high-end homes on mountain view lots?” What you just heard was Lloyd Irland’s perspective on Maine’s changing forests from 1820 to 2020. Maine Policy Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, scriptwriters for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. In two weeks, we will be commemorating Women’s History Month by hearing from the authors of an essay titled, “Our Path: Empower Maine Women Network and Leadership”. We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases. I am Eric Miller–thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.

Trying to understand the history of race and public policy in Maine? Today we will be covering James Myall’s arguments on active antiracism to improve the lives of people of color and correct historic wrongs. You can find Myall's article here: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol29/iss2/4/ Transcript Trying to understand the history of race and public policy in Maine? Today we will be covering James Myall’s arguments on active antiracism to improve the lives of people of color and correct historic wrongs. This is the Maine Policy Matters podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine . I am Eric Miller, research associate at the Center. On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. Today, we will be covering an article by James Myall, he is a policy analyst at the Maine Center for Economic Policy, who focuses on health care, education, and the inclusive economy. Myall gives us an inside perspective on  his article entitled “Race and Public Policy    in Maine: Past, Present, and Future.” This article was published in volume 29, number 2, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to James Myall’s article in Maine Policy Review. Myall identifies four factors that contribute to racism and public policy. These are Constructing Whiteness, Second-Class Citizenship, Discriminatory Drug Policy, and School Segregation. First, let’s go back to 1867. In 1867, a heated debate raged in Maine’s legislature and filled newspaper columns across the state. Advocates for Black rights wanted to repeal the state’s long-standing ban on interracial marriages, but opponents rejected the “mixing of the races,” often citing racist theories of white genetic superiority. The Portland Daily Press in 1897 reported on February 4 that people who opposed the repeal were afraid that if families were allowed to have mixed children, that “there will be no Caucasian society left.” Mainers like to think of themselves as being on the right side of history when it comes to racial justice. Maine entered the union in 1820 as a free state and was home to several abolitionists. Abraham Lincoln appointed one Mainer, Hannibal Hamlin, as his first vice president and Another, Oliver Otis Howard, to lead the Freedman’s Bureau. The Maine legislature had just recently ratified the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution in the 1860s. Despite this progress, they stumbled at the idea of interracial marriage. The 1867 attempt to end the ban on interracial marriage failed, and Maine’s anti-miscegenation would not be repealed until almost a generation later in 1883. Myall claims that “This episode is a stark reminder that Maine’s record on racial discrimination is not as clean as conventional wisdom would have us believe. It is easy for residents of northern and western states to assume that racism was largely, or even entirely, confined to the South.” For example, between 1790 and 1970, the US decennial censuses recorded Maine’s population as at least 99 percent white. As recently as 2018 Maine has 93 percent of its residents identifying as white non-hispanic. Myall identifies two ways that Maine has been harmful to nonwhites. The first is explicit racism. An example of this would be the prohibition on interracial marriage. The second is implicit discrimination and unintentional harm. Myall cites this discrimination affected not only Black and Indigenous populations, but also groups whose whiteness was questioned, such as Irish and French-Canadian immigrants, and Jewish peoples. It is important to look at Maine’s past to better understand current policies and the future of Maine’s legislation. The effects of historical racist policies like banning interracial marriages causes a ripple effect through generations. Children inherit the negative impacts of historically exclusionary policies, and so do their grandchildren. Nationally, white families have 10 times the wealth of black families, with this gap being wider in some local areas To understand historic racism, we have to look at how whiteness was constructed. Myall believes that we need to understand the historic definitions of race. These definitions have changed over time because race is a social construct. The decennial census has categorized Americans into at least 14 different racial and ethnic categories in the past 220 years. In early censuses, Americans were divided between “white” and “colored,” with the definition of colored being somewhat ambiguous. An example of this in Maine are Acadians in 1764 and 1765, once deemed “French Neutrals” after being evicted from what is now Nova Scotia. Acadians were not the only group considered to be only partly white, or white in an inferior sense. Other immigrant groups were also deemed lower status. In Maine, Irish and French-Canadian immigrants suffered discrimination alongside people of color, though generally not to the same degree. Maine’s Jewish community was seen as both religiously and racially distinct. Another aspect of Maine’s history with discrimination is the second-class citizenship status of nonwhite groups. The 1890 Census found that among men aged 21 and older, just 3 percent of native-born white Mainers with native-born parents were illiterate, compared to 12 percent of those with foreign-born parents, 25 percent of those who were themselves born abroad, and 38 percent of Mainers of color. The literacy amendment did specify that voters who were already registered could keep their registration without passing the literacy test, which was for first-time voters only. However, 1893 also saw the creation of local voter registration boards, which had the ability to remove voters from the rolls and make them reapply. Discriminatory drug policy is something that greatly affects nonwhite communities today. Black Mainers are six times more likely to be incarcerated than non-Hispanic white Mainers.This disparity has a long history, extending back at least as far as 1840 when the US Census Bureau began tracking rates of incarceration. Throughout Maine’s history, people of color have been incarcerated at much higher rates than white Mainers. Maine’s recent experience with decriminalizing cannabis hints at one possible way to tackle these disparities. However, there are deeper inequities to address in Maine’s criminal justice system. Once arrested, Mainers of color face harsher charges and sentences. A recent report by the Justice Center of the Council of State Governments found that Mainers of color, especially Black Mainers, were more likely to be charged with serious drug offenses. Segregation in schools also has roots in Maine. The right to public education has been enshrined in the Maine Constitution since 1820, but its provision has not always been universal or equitable. Maine towns with Black communities often created segregated school systems. Such separate schools were found in Portland, Brunswick, Warren, and Machias when white residents objected to their children attending integrated schools. In Atusville in Machias, the Black community established its own school in 1853 after their children were attacked by white students for trying to attend the local school. Economic hardship also limits children’s access to education. While Maine had some early laws limiting the use of child labor and punishing truancy, the laws were irregularly enforced until federal legislation outlawed child labor. For many low-income families, the decision to send a child to school meant losing an income. Economic necessity likely depressed school enrollment among children from immigrant families and families of color. Today, Mainers of color still face educational disparities. Black, Latino, and American Indian students graduate high school at lower rates than white Mainers.  Black and Latino students in the University of Maine System are also less likely to graduate within six years of enrolling than white students White K–12 students in Maine are one-and-a-half times more likely to be enrolled in AP classes than Black students, while Black students are two-and-a-half times more likely to be suspended. So, what can Maine lawmakers do to change the course of Maine’s public policy towards more racial justice? Myall concludes with the following message: To truly achieve racial justice in Maine, policymakers need to be deliberately antiracist, with actions that work to overturn more than two centuries of harm. Lawmakers need to recognize the legacy of this harm and the need for targeted policies that repair it. Lawmakers need to continue to ensure that people of color aren’t left out of broadly progressive economic measures like the minimum wage. Lawmakers need to be keenly aware that legislation can have racist effects even without racist language or intention and to consider the racial impact of new policies. Antiracism requires consistent and deliberate work, but it is possible. Mainers deserve no less. What you just heard was James Myall’s perspective on the history of race and public policy in Maine. Maine Policy Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, scriptwriters for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. In two weeks, we will be covering Llyod Irland’s piece entitled, “From Wilderness to Timberland to Vacationland to Ecosystem: Maine’s Forests, 1820–2020.” We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases. I am Eric Miller–thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.

Today, we will be covering a report by Jonathan Rubin, Shaleen Jain, Ali Shirazi, et al. titled, “Road Salt in Maine: An Assessment of Practices, Impacts and Safety”. In their report, they present the results from a research project by a team from the University of Maine, in cooperation with the Maine Department of Transportation that examines the use of road salt in Maine for winter travel safety. This report was published by Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center in April of 2022. You can find the article here: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mcspc_transport/11/ Transcript Eric Miller: A classic public policy dilemma. What do we do to limit the bad impacts of salting our winter roads while keeping the good impacts? Tune into today’s episode to find out. This is the Maine Policy Matters podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. I’m Eric Miller, research associate at the center. On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. Today we will be covering a report by Jonathan Rubin, Shalene Jain, Ali Shirazi, et al. titled, “Road Salt and Maine: An Assessment of Practices, Impacts, and Safety.” In their report, they present the results from a research project by a team from the University of Maine in cooperation with the Maine Department of Transportation that examines the use of road salt and Maine for winter travel safety. This report was published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center in April of 2022. Maine Policy Review is a peer reviewed academic journal published by the Policy Center. We’ll first briefly summarize the article and then speak with Jonathan Rubin and Brian Burne, a highway maintenance and engineer for the state of Maine. Since 2010, there’s been an increase in accumulation of chlorides and freshwater and groundwater environments due to road salt in Maine, a trend consistent with the rest of the Northeastern United States. The state of Maine has 45,586 miles of public roadway, more miles per person than any other New England state. This mileage is maintained by the MaineDOT, Maine Turnpike authority, as well as 483 municipalities in 16 counties, as well as three reservations. There are largely three best management practices regarding dealing with snow and ice on the roads. De-icing, pre-treating roads with brine, and pre-wetting the salt as it’s being spread. The latter two of those options being considered anti-icing. Anti-icing and de-icing are different approaches to achieving the same goal. Anti-icing is different from de-icing largely due to the timing of the treatment. Anti-icing is a pre-treatment of the road before snow and ice start to stick. While de-icing involves removing ice already on the road by plowing snow and applying sand for temporary retraction and salt to melt the ice. Anti-icing is a principle best management practice by MaineDOT and currently uses this approach on almost all state roads by treating them before ice and snow are able to bond to the. The Maine Turnpike Authority uses this on the entire turnpike. A survey shows that roughly 28% of Maine’s municipalities use anti- icing while the rest use the de-icing approach. As mentioned earlier, anti-icing is a strategy that utilizes the application of pre-wetted salt early in a storm or by pre-treating the roads with a liquid brine. Pre-treating the roads with a liquid brine before a storm is another best management practice. As mentioned earlier, Maine Turnpike Authority and MaineDOT do not use this method. 12% of municipalities reported pre-treating their roads. However, it is not specified whether a liquid brine was the treatment of choice as opposed to pre-wetted salt. Pre-wetting salt involves the process of wetting solid salts as they’re being applied, which has been shown to reduce the amount of salt that ends up in the ditch off the road. Pre-wetting can be an anti-icing strategy that the main d o t and main turnpike authority employ statewide. 71% of municipalities surveyed that they never wet their salt before spreading. Ruben et al. report that the most widely used material on winter roads in Maine is rock salt, or sodium chloride because it’s cost effective and easy to handle. The total bulk salt purchases from distributors in the state in 2019 to 2020 amounts to approximately 535,000 tons. According to the authors’ calculations, they estimate approximately 493,000 tons, about 91% of the 535,000 tons of total bulk salt were used by the MaineDOT, Maine Turnpike Authority, and municipal governments. This 9% is likely explained by the non-road use of salt on commercial and industrial parking lots and other private uses. This means that Maine uses roughly of 787 pounds of salt for every Maine resident, or about 11 tons per lane mile per year . They also estimate that the cost of clearing winter roads statewide is 155 million dollars , which translates to $114 per resident million. MaineDOT is obligated to resolve well claims for private water supplies that are destroyed or rendered unfit for human consumption by constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining a highway, including the use of salts for winter road maintenance. This means that MaineDOT has spent an additional 53 million dollars since 2006 to investigate, assess, and resolve well claims. While winter road maintenance practices allow for high levels of safety and mobility for residents, the consequences of our road salt use can be seen in the reduced water quality of some streams, contaminated wells, infrastructure and vehicle corrosion, and state and municipal budgets. Rubin et al. explained that quote, “as salt use increases, so do its impacts. One way to reduce salt is to change driver’s expectations of travel during a storm” end quote. Much of the impacts from road salt are to the aquatic environments in both the short and long term. Winter road maintenance is a significant source of total chloride loading to fresh waters. The short term effects are directly related to the seasonal timing of salt use with peak levels occurring in Spring and Fall. Several long-term studies have shown an increase in chloride trend as well . This can be seen in the list of 20 streams the Maine Department of Environmental Protection has made of chloride impaired urban stream watersheds. Just as we discussed in episode one of the season with regard to wind development, Maine can learn from other states regarding how to manage road salt impacts. For example, Connecticut has followed New Hampshire’s statewide program for training and liability protection to winter contractors. New York has also proposed a road salt applicator training program. They also pilot a program for road salt reduction that is saving the state costs in some Adirondack communities. The main reason salt is used on our roads is to ensure traffic safety for those who need to travel after a storm . According to the report, approximately 67% of all lane departure crashes from 2010 to 2019 occurred during the winter period. Federal Highway Administration data shows that the winter period accounted for an economic loss value of 618 million dollars on a yearly average during the 2010 through 2019 period. MaineDOT also reported that the yearly average cost was 309 million dollars from fatalities alone. The authors suggest a few recommendations for mitigating the ongoing concern for road salt use. The first is that the public needs to better understand the fiscal and environmental costs of winter maintenance. They suggest that all levels of government MaineDOT, Maine Turnpike Authority, as well as municipal need to better articulate the tradeoffs for different levels of service . The second is their recommendation that Maine develop a statewide chloride reduction plan that identifies and prioritizes salt reduction in regions with environmentally sensitive areas on already impacted areas. To accomplish this, they suggest MaineDOT and MaineDEP increase their monitoring of chlorides and water bodies and make this information easily accessible to the public through a data dashboard, which would also contribute to the goal of public awareness. Funding sources should also be identified to help underfunded municipalities upgrade their equipment training and winter practices. Finally, the authors recommend collaboration. They write, quote, “Maine could benefit from stronger connections between university research, environmental monitoring, and road practitioners.” An examination of the partnership structures and practice in other states in New England at both state and municipal levels may offer models for collaborative partnerships in Maine. Now that we have covered the report, we’ll hear from Jonathan Rubin, professor at the University of Maine, director of the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, and contributor to the report. After him, we’ll hear from Brian Burne, a highway maintenance engineer for the MaineDOT. Thank you for joining us today, Jonathan. Jonathan Rubin: My pleasure. Thank you, Eric. Eric Miller: So to start off, what are some of the most significant trends and differences since your last report that was released 10 years ago? Jonathan Rubin: Well, I think in some senses what’s changed is really what has not changed. What has changed is the weather. Climate change has made the frequency and intensity of storms greater. We’ve all seen that very recently, and with the changing weather, you do get changing freezing thaw patterns, which changes the way, you want to manage and control your winter maintenance. So, that is a, that physical change is something we have to adapt to in the state in terms of our winter maintenance practices. Also what’s sort of changed and yet stayed the same is that the costs are still high. About 10 years ago when we did this, it was about a hundred million across the Maine Turnpike Authority, the Maine Department of Transportation and the municipal governments with municipal governments covering about 80% of the roadway in terms of maintenance. And now we’re at up to about 150 million dollars . So in some senses, what stayed the same is that the costs are still really high, and they’re going high for a number of reasons, including weather, as I mentioned. But also the price of inputs goes up, the price of labor goes up. So our costs are not declining, but in fact rising over that time period. And that’s something that everybody should care about . Eric Miller: Yeah. And not every town feels in Maine feels the effects equally as Maine as a, from a biophysical standpoint experiences very different conditions from coastal to mountainous ranges. So the way that you finished the last bit of your answer there about how costs are changing recently do you expect to have winter costs to continue to rise? Jonathan Rubin: I do. Costs are gonna rise unless we collectively as a state that means main Department of Transportation, main Turnpike, authority, and the towns right. The towns are responsible for 80% of winter road maintenance. So, unless people make changes to the way we maintain our roads, how quickly we clear them, get them down to pavement. If unless we make changes, why we are not going to expect any changes in the cost. Because materials are not going to get cheaper. Labor’s not going to get cheaper. Equipment’s not going to get cheaper. So there’s no reason to think the costs are going to go down unless we make changes and those are going to be policy changes at the state and local level . Eric Miller: That makes a lot of sense. So something I found pretty interesting about the report is that many towns spend of like quite a variation of range of costs in terms of maintaining the roads in winter, even if they’re at similar sizes. Would you care to elaborate on why that is? Jonathan Rubin: Well, some of the cost differences in towns Are due to just where they are. Western Interior is quite a bit different in terms of needs versus southern coastal versus an island community. They have very, they are very different towns in terms of snow impacts, ice impacts, freeze thaw cycles. So part of it is just fate of where people are. But some of it is also policy decisions. Some towns clear sidewalks, others don’t, and so that clearing sidewalk cost goes into the winter maintenance cost. So those are, again, I’m not saying I love,  I’m a walker. I think we should clear sidewalks. Not saying we shouldn’t, but that is a reason why you have some cost differences in towns. Another major reason you have cost differences in towns, we think because it’s hard to know for sure, but we think it’s because of choices that towns are making, how quickly to get the roads clear. How do we do our secondary or secondary roads brought down to bare pavement or is some standing snow left there for and people are told to slow down and drive more slowly on snow packed roads. Now what you expect for the interstate is not what you’re going to expect coming out your driveway. And there’s differences in those types of roads and how to maintain them. So some of that is a choice. Another difference is some towns use their own employees, municipal employees for the and other towns contract out to, to to private contractors. Again, those explain some of the differences in the per town costs, but not all. I think a lot of this may come down to and it’s hard to know for sure, but a lot of this may come down to just this policy level choices at the town about how quickly they want snow cleared and how thoroughly I Eric Miller: see, I see. It’s, I know that me personally driving around in winter particularly after the storm, I was in Hampden recently and I saw a flurry of contractors clearing out all of the, what I believe to be contractors, whether it’s by municipality or individual businesses were putting in a lot of work. And so it’s interesting to get an idea of how some of these operations vary so much because you think it’s snow clearing. So it seems like a pretty uniform type of approach, but in fact, there are significant differences in how different areas handle their specific situation and decide to go with the route that they do. Jonathan Rubin: Yeah, that’s correct. So, so some of it’s beyond, so some of it is beyond the controlled towns and some is within is within their control. And these are things that towns should talk about. We talk about school budgets, we talk about police budgets. I think talking about winter maintenance budgets and expectations is a perfectly reasonable thing for towns to talk about because it affects our tax rates . Eric Miller: Absolutely, and the cost outlined the report which I encourage people to check the executive summary of the report because there are some pretty shocking figures in there. To finish things off what is something you’d like to share that we haven’t covered already? Jonathan Rubin: I think one thing we know that safety we, why do we clear roads? We clear these roads for mobility and safety and it’s really important. I wouldn’t want anyone to say, Professor Rubin or Jonathan Rubin is advocating we don’t clear our roads. We need clear roads for our economy and for safety. And it’s not an either or. These are choices that we make. But safety is something we really have to pay attention to, especially with younger drivers and older drivers. And so I think thinking of just remembering. Getting to your destination as fast as possible after snow days may not be the wisest choice. Eric Miller: Makes a lot of sense. Thank you so much for joining us today professor Rubin and I look forward to having you on again sometime. Jonathan Rubin: Thanks, Eric. Eric Miller: Thanks for joining us, Brian. Brian Burne: Sure. Glad to be here. Eric Miller: The MaineDOT costs related to winter expenditures have risen from about 30 million to 46 million from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2020. What are the most significant reasons for this increase? Brian Burne: Well, when you look at two specific winters, like those two, a lot of that is just related to the winter severity. So we had a little bit more of a mild, or actually it was quite mild winter, back in 15 to 16. And you know, the 19 to 20 winter was a little more severe. But absolutely snow and ice costs have, you know, just been on a continuous increase for the last decade or so, and especially in this past year. And that’s on pretty much every single line. So when you’re looking at labor all of those costs relating to labor, All the benefits for the labor that’s all increased. Salt increased dramatically this past year it went from $63 a ton on average, that MaineDOT pays up to over $80 a ton. So that was a very dramatic increase that hit us all at once. Same thing with trucks. Trucks have gotten very expensive. If you can get ’em, they’re very difficult to even get. It’s very difficult to get parts. All the parts have increased. Plow blades, we used to be down around, say $35 a foot, and now you’re up around a hundred. It’s it’s just been every single thing that you can think of has increased in cost. You know, not only just the regular cost of living increases that you normally see, but there’s just been all the challenges that. That are facing more than just the snow and ice industry right now. They’re facing a lot of industries but they’ve all kind of hit and hopefully they’re gonna, you know, not be quite so bad going forward. You know, the, we’ve seen the diesel prices spike up and, you know, now they seem like they’re kind of stabilizing a little bit, and hopefully they’ll stay that way, but or maybe even go back down, which will be nice. But yeah it’s been quite an increase over, over time. Eric Miller: Wow. MaineDOT has, is similarly affected to economic conditions as the rest of us which I, we in the public don’t hear about specifically these things very much. I had no idea, like the price of salt, for instance. Do you mind elaborating on, I’m very curious about why salt prices increased for folks like you. Brian Burne: Sure. Yeah. Well, Well, I don’t know if many people realize, but there, there’s plenty of salt. There’s no shortage of salt on the on earth. We get most of our salt from Chile. And but what it relies on, of course, is the availability of ocean freight. And of course, any fuel costs associated with running all of that freight are gonna affect it as well. So it’s based on just supply and demand of the ships that are out there and and on the fuel. So, moving that salt from Chile up to Maine, it’s like a full week process to do that. They come right through the Panama Canal and it’s just you know, that, that becomes more expensive. So that’s been what’s mostly affected that. We also get salt from, you know, mines around the country. Sometimes you can get ’em out of New York, sometimes you get ’em outta Canada. Northern Maine is supplied from a mine up in Sussex, new Brunswick. That used to be a POTASH mine and salt mining salt was a waste product of that. But they’ve started mining salt only out of that mine in the last couple of years. So we get some out of there, and, but you know, that price went up just as much. In fact that’s our most expensive salt that’s up close to a hundred dollars a ton. Eric Miller: Wow. Okay. I had no idea. The global supply network of salt fascinating. And the salt, one of those resources that human civilization has been mining and getting in some way or another forever. And the fact that it’s not a scarce resource is kind of amazing, but also makes a ton of sense. So in the report crashes were demonstrated to have been increased during snow and rain. How can drivers best avoid an accident and make roads safer? Brian Burne: Yeah, I, that, that is key. It’s, you know, as your, the Margaret Chase Smith Center report calls out, there’s a lot that goes on with snow and ice control. It’s not just what MaineDOT does, but it’s what we do as a society and you know, what we expect our roads to be like. And how long of a, you know, a disruption can we take with a storm? How long can it take to get back to bare pavement and things like that. But a big part of that, of course, is all of us as individuals taking a look at what our needs are. And if we are the type of person that lives in Maine and has a need to be out driving in storms, you want to make sure that your vehicle’s prepared for that. Going into the winter you want to take a good look at your tires and if you are someone who has to drive in most storms, you need snow tires. It’s these all season ones. It’s, that’s really not what an all season tire is best for is running in a Maine winter. There’s a huge difference. To put snow tires on a vehicle. So if you’re going to be running out in storms, do that. If you can avoid storms for the most part, like if you can, you know if you are using vacation or if your business, you know, shuts down during most snow storms, or you can, you know, however you avoid it. If there’s ways to avoid travel during the storms, then you might be able to get by with an all season type of tire. But if you’re going to be out in it, you’re really gonna want an all season tire. Now a lot of people think of that as. Extra expense. You know, you’re buying two sets of tires, but one of the things that they don’t consider is the fact that when you’re changing to a snow tire in the Fall and changing back to your regular tires in the Spring, you’re rotating those tires. So the tires, both sets are going to last much longer. And you know, so you really don’t, in the long run, the cost is not that different. It’s actually better for you. And the fact that you are safer in your travels during the winter because you’ve got more appropriate tires for that you know, that’s even more important. So that’s the first thing is. Just make sure that you think about how you need to drive during the winters in Maine and that your vehicle is prepared for that. Now when you get into a specific storm or you know, just driving in any kind of, you know, problematic weather, it’s just a matter of slowing down. You know, a lot of times people just kind of get rushing and you know, some of the most dangerous storms are the snow squalls, and I think that’s just because. The day’s bright and clear and people are just trucking along and then they come flying right into a snows squall and they’re just in the middle of a condition that they hadn’t really, it hadn’t built up on ’em, you know, it just was on ’em before they knew it. And it’s one of the causes of some of the most severe crashes that are out there. So when you see snow, when you drive into snow just slow it down. The slower you can go, the better off you’re going to be. Cause once you get ice between the road and your tires. There’s really not a heck of a lot you can do. So you just got to make sure that you’re going slow enough that the impacts are lessened. Eric Miller: Makes a lot of sense. I saw in the report that as speeds increased, as did crashes and Brian Burne: Absolutely. Eric Miller: And so, this, if you could avoid the storm, that’s great, but if you can’t, snow tires and slow down. Makes, makes perfect sense to me. Brian Burne: Yeah, they’ve got a lot of really good snow tires out there now. The technology of snow tires has gotten better and there’s some out there that are just as good as snow tires with studs and they don’t have studs. So there’s a lot of really nice stuff out there. So yeah, you can spend a little bit of time looking up some ratings and things like that. And you know, there’s some good. Eric Miller: Good to know. Good to know. Looking forward, how does MaineDOT think about climate change and technological development with regard to snow and ice control? Could you speak to how these factors affect infrastructure and budgetary planning? How does it vary across coastal and more populated areas in this state versus northern western Maine. A nice and easy one for you. We warmed up to it. Brian Burne: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There’s quite a lot there to unpackage. So. I guess what let’s take that in pieces. Snow and ice control it’s kind of unique in that there’s aspects of it that don’t change a whole lot. And that piece is mostly the fact that you’re using a freeze point depressant of some sort. So that’s typically sodium chloride that we’re using to do that. To battle the snow and ice, and that’s been around for decades and that’s probably gonna be around for, you know, for the foreseeable future basically. So, that really doesn’t change too much. But a lot of the technology affecting the information that we get you know, the information we use to make decisions, the equipment that we use, all of that changes pretty regularly. And as the technology’s always advancing in that regard. So just as an example that we, these weather stations called Road Weather Information Systems. And if you’re driving down the interstate, you might see it’s, it looks like a utility pole right behind some guardrail and it’s got a bunch of solar panels and devices on it. And what these devices are is that they’re just weather monitoring devices. There’s a camera on there and there’s pavement, temperature sensors, and you know, just all sorts of things that are gathering information for us. So we put these in various locations along the highways, and then we can also do a thing that’s called thermal mapping, which is where we drive the corridor, the entire corridor that these RWIS stations are located on, and we get a thermal profile of the roadway surface. And you do this under some different conditions. So what this does is it shows you your warmer spots and your cooler spots on the highway, but it’ll also relate it to your RWIS so that now you can look at an RWIS and it can now predict, that, okay, this is the information at this one spot where all these sensors are located, but yet four or five miles up the road, you now have an idea of what’s going on up there as well because you have this thermal mapping profile that goes up through there. So that’s just. One example of tools that, you know, are fairly new in helping us understand what’s going on with the roadways. They’re useful for predicting when your temperatures are dropping down and hitting the dew point and you’re getting moisture coming out of the air and freezing up the road surface. we can now predict that a little more accurately than we used to be able to in the past. So that’s just one piece of it. Another piece of technology that’s associated with those same stations is what’s called a grip sensor. So this is just a video device that looks at the roadway, but yet it’s able to figure out whether you’ve got water on the road, ice on the road, snow on the road, or a combination thereof. And it sort of calculates how slippery that road surface is. So this helps us make decisions on when to apply and how much to apply to the roads. So it’s a very useful tool in that regard. It’s also good for providing some metrics. It helps us understand that when we treat a road, how long did it take for that road to recover? So this is, you know, really useful technology. That same type of technology is now available on mobile devices. So we can now attach this type of device to a truck and drive a corridor and get a profile of the grip along that entire corridor so you can find the areas that are slippery in the areas that are not so slippery. So then another aspect of technology that comes into play with this, is a process called MDSS, which is a maintenance decision support system where trucks are outfitted with, it’s GPSAVL, there’s a lot of different terms for it, but it’s basically you are tracking where all your vehicles are located throughout your network and you can also see how much salt they’re applying and you’re recording all of that. So. When you’re looking at your fleet and you’re looking at the salt applications and you’re looking at the coming weather and the past weather and the impacts that your salt applications have had on the corridor, all of this can kind of be combined into these systems that these MD S systems that then helps snow fighters take and make decisions about what their next application might be and when it might be into the future. So there’s just a lot of improvements in technology that take the basic art of applying salts and sands and things of that to a roadway surface with a truck. But also being able to really make sure that there’s a level of accuracy in there that we never had the ability to reach before. Eric Miller: Wow, that is so fascinating and makes sense. And what a tool to help make more efficient decisions, especially among increasing costs. I imagine that you can make allocation decisions much more informed and that’s, yeah uh, Enraptured by that. Brian Burne: Yeah. Eric Miller: Thank you. Brian Burne: From a, yeah, from a you know, a region sort of a standpoint, the other thing that this has helped us with is, you know, monitoring of more remote locations. A lot of these types of devices come with the ability to send alerts so you can set up alerts that if I see the temperature dropping and it looks like the road’s going to freeze send a text message, you know, or send an email or you know, and we have a transportation management center that’s running 24/7 and they’re getting these alerts and these notifications so that they can call out the crews in a more timely manner than we were able to without these tools. Eric Miller: Very interesting. So in terms of the technological innovations are fascinating. So in the coastal areas and as opposed to up over into the more mountainous spots we have this freezing thawing happening a lot in the winter. Over the past few years and looking ahead it seems like that’ll be more of the status quo and Maine’s pretty used to ice, so, how have these how have those conditions affected some of the decision making? That might be different if you, if I’m up over in a more mountainous like Somerset County area . Brian Burne: Sure. Yeah, absolutely. As the temperatures warm we are seeing more icing. We’re seeing later freezing of the ground. So like you just take a look at this year you know, it’s getting really cold today, but this has been, you know, January it was one of the warmer Januarys and we have a system for tracking our roads for when the frost comes into the ground and when the frost leaves the ground. Because as you may or may not be aware when you get into the spring months and frost that’s leaving the ground, your roads go into this really vulnerable state that affect how we can truck on those roads. Because we have to start limiting weights, otherwise the pavements get ruined. And we used to count on a fairly lengthy time during the winter of, you know, totally frozen ground that adds extra support and allows you know, extra weight even. In fact, there’s even a law on the books that looks at axle weights not being enforced through the January February timeframe because the roads were assumed to be not as susceptible. But yet here we are now in a global warming situation where, when January and February was always solidly frozen, it has not been this year. So, in a lot of areas. So that’s a kind of a challenge for us when you’re looking at, you know, so your question was about comparing the mountains with the coast. Yeah. I mean, we’re certainly going to continue to have the more of the icing right along the coast even more so. But I think what’s also happening is we’re starting to see more icing than we ever used to see in more of Northern Maine and Western Maine, because, you know, by the time you get far enough away from the ocean you didn’t really have as much. Going on, but we’re seeing more of it with this warming that’s been happening. So it, it adds a different level of challenges to snow and ice control because certainly as you’re adding more moisture and you’re getting more freezing rain types of events these will dilute your salt products much quicker. And so as they get diluted, they have to be replenished more readily. So that becomes more of an expense. Eric Miller: Okay. Thank you for indulging the question. Or questions rather. Brian Burne: Sure. Eric Miller: The MaineDOT is armed quite a few tools at their disposal. Quite fascinating how these specific technologies can be employed in ways that you never interact with. You just see as an average citizen, you see plows out on the road. You might see MaineDOT trucks or people on the side of the road taking like traffic measurements. Otherwise you don’t really see what’s going on there. So we get a little peek behind the curtain. I’m really enjoying that. Before we go is there something you’d like to share that we haven’t covered in our few minutes this morning? Brian Burne: Well, basically I think it’s just good to you know, share that report that the Margaret Chase Smith Center had written. I think it brings up a lot of good points and makes some of these things share some of these concepts with people. So that people understand that snow and ice control is, it’s a choice that we can make we can choose to have a little bit lower level of service end up saving a little bit of money. You know, it takes a little longer for the roads to come back, but yet you have less of an impact on the environment and things of that nature. But the more that you push for bare pavement quicker, there’s a, there’s repercussions to that. It’s, it requires more materials and there’s going to be more potential impacts resulting from salt on the environment. So it’s a definitely a balancing act that MaineDOT and all the other public works entities across the state and in any winter climate are constantly wrestling with because you certainly don’t want to see accidents on the road. You want people to be safe to get from point A to point B. But there are a lot of other factors that all come together to decide how any particular road is treated and handled from a policy basis. Eric Miller: Always those pesky trade-offs. Brian Burne: Yeah. Eric Miller: Thank you for joining us this morning, Brian. It’s really been a pleasure. Brian Burne: Okay, thanks. What you just heard was a summary of a report titled “Road Salt and Maine, an Assessment of Practices, Impacts, and Safety” and an interview with Jonathan Rubin and Brian Burne. There is a link to the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center’s website in the description of this episode where the report can be found. Maine Policy Review is a peer reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to the original article in Maine Policy Review. The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. Thank you to Jayson Heim and Katherine Swacha, script writers for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. In two weeks, we’ll be covering the past, present, and future of race and public policy in Maine. We’d like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases. I’m Eric Miller, thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.

Today, we will be covering James and Ann Acheson’s article entitled “What Does the Future Hold for Maine’s Lobster Industry?”, which covers problems the industry faces that threaten its future, including shell disease, climate change, increased regulations to protect right whales, and economic uncertainty. You can find their article here: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol29/iss2/11/ After briefly summarizing the article, we will speak with Rick Wahle, Patrice McCarron, and Geoff Irvine about what has been happening in the lobster industry in the two years since the article was published. Rick Wahle is a professor in the University of Maine’s School of Marine Sciences and the director of the Lobster Institute at University of Maine. Patrice McCarron is the executive director at Maine Lobstermen's Association and the president of Maine Lobstermen's Community Alliance. Geoff Irvine is the Executive Director of The Lobster Council of Canada. Transcript Looking for more information about lobster industry issues from the perspective of US and Canadian researchers? Tune in to this episode of Maine Policy Matters to learn more. This is the Maine Policy Matters podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. I am Eric Miller, research associate at the Center. On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. Today, we will be covering James and Ann Acheson’s article entitled “What Does the Future Hold for Maine’s Lobster Industry?”, which covers problems the industry faces that threaten its future, including shell disease, climate change, increased regulations to protect right whales, and economic uncertainty. They also focus on several approaches that could help protect the lobster industry, including enacting lower trap limits, expanding markets for live and processed lobster, and increasing in-state processing capacity. This article was published in volume 29, number 2, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Policy Center. James, who went by “Jim”, was an eminent, internationally recognized scholar, whose work transcended disciplinary boundaries, including anthropology, economics, biology, public policy, and natural resource management. He received three National Science Foundation grants and authored over 90 articles in professional journals, along with five books, including The Lobster Gangs of Maine (1988) and Capturing the Commons: Devising Institutions to Manage the Maine Lobster Industry (2004). This episode is dedicated to Jim’s life and the work he accomplished. After briefly summarizing the article, we will speak with Rick Wahle, Patrice McCarron, and Geoff Irvine about what has been happening in the lobster industry in the two years since the article was published. Rick Wahle is a professor in the University of Maine’s School of Marine Sciences and the director of the Lobster Institute at University of Maine. Patrice McCarron is the executive director at Maine Lobstermen’s Association and the president of Maine Lobstermen’s Community Alliance. Geoff Irvine is the Executive Director of The Lobster Council of Canada. Lobster is the most valuable fishery in the country and most lobsters landed in the United States are caught in Maine. Lobsters have been an important food source for New Englanders since early Colonial times and for Indigenous peoples before. In more recent years, overall lobster landings were worth $485.4 million dollars in 2019. The Maine lobster fishery is one of the world’s most successful fisheries with a high of 132.5 million pounds being caught in 2016. From 2018-2019, catches declined but still remained over 100 million pounds each year, playing a significant role in Maine’s economy. Despite the relative success of the industry, it may face increasing problems in the future. When their article was published in 2020, Jim and Ann Acheson named shell disease; climate change; North Atlantic Right whales; and markets, tariffs, and other economic matters as the four major problems facing the lobster industry. Epizootic shell disease produces unsightly pits, growths, and lesions so that the affected lobsters cannot be sold as high-quality dinner lobsters. Shell disease has had a small effect on Maine’s lobsters to date, but has had disastrous effects on catches in Rhode Island waters. Between 2008 and 2013, an estimated 30% of Rhode Island fishermen were put out of business and others faced severely reduced incomes. Climatic change due to an increase in atmospheric warming has led to increased storms, retreating ice, and rising sea levels that have caused lobsters in Maine waters to shift to colder Canadian waters. Lobster industry advocates do say that lobster can be caught all along the Maine coast despite this observation in the general movement north. Changes in herring movements leading to large schools of herring seeking cooler and deeper waters is leading to a scarcity of a major bait source in Maine waters. All of the ecological complexities regarding climatic change in the Gulf of Maine are something that researchers are continuing to understand. The lobster industry’s problems with right whales began in 1996 when Max Strahan, who had petitioned the federal government to list the spotted owl as an endangered species in the Pacific Northwest, sued the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under the Endangered Species Act to prevent whales from being killed by lobster gear. In a different suit brought to court in 2020 by conservation organizations, the federal judge hearing the case ruled in their favor and found that the federal government was not doing enough to protect right whales from being entangled in lobster fishing gear. Fishermen feel they are being unfairly targeted because most whales are killed by ship strikes, and the proposed rules do nothing to curb ship strikes. Environmentalists argue the law is still not being enforced and that whales are still being killed by lobster gear. The Maine lobster industry believes its whale protection plan is not being given enough credit for reducing risk to the whales. The latest federal omnibus spending bill included a 6 year pause on new whale regulations while funding research as well as innovative fishing gear development which has been celebrated by the lobster industry and criticized by some environmental groups. Lobster fishermen have faced economic problems for a number of years, which they describe as a cost/price squeeze. Between 2003 and 2013, the cost of bait increased 500 percent in response to reductions in the quota fishermen are allowed to catch. Other costs to fishermen have also skyrocketed. Fuel prices increased from $1.50 per gallon in 2002 to $5.00 per gallon in 2010. Prices declined in 2020, but increased again in May of 2022 to peak at $6.43 per gallon for diesel before lowering to the mid to low $5 per gallon mark later in 2022 according to the US Energy Information Administration. A new 36-foot lobster boat, which might have cost $125,000 in 1998, can cost upwards of $400,000 in 2020. The decline in revenue combined with markedly higher costs has put many fishermen in precarious financial straits. An economic study points out that there have recently been large year-to-year swings in lobster prices, quantities, and revenue. In 2020, the market for lobsters was reduced again by the COVID-19 pandemic. Not only had the Asian market already been shrinking due to the Chinese- American trade wars, but the European market also contracted due to the pandemic. Jim and Ann Acheson detail hope for the future in the face of these industry problems, including trap limits that would reduce costs for bait, fuel, and traps, while also reducing the number of lines in the water which can aid the right whale problem. Lobster marketing and expansion of local processing capability can also increase lobster sales and increase income to fishermen, dealers, and others in the industry. Now 2 years after the Achesons’ article, the Maine lobster industry continues to face challenges outlined in this piece and new ones as well. For example, the recent suspension of the lobster industry’s certificate of sustainability from the Marine Stewardship Council led to a pause in purchasing Maine’s lobsters by some major retailers, such as Whole Foods. These retailers use these certificates as a primary guide for informing consumers about the sourcing of their seafood products.  This move to stop buying Maine’s lobsters was criticized by Senators Collins and King, Representatives Pingree and Golden, as well as Governor Mills. What follows here is a response from “the four members of Maine’s congressional delegation — Senators Susan Collins and Angus King, and Representatives Chellie Pingree and Jared Golden — along with the state’s governor, Janet Mills, sharply criticized the decision to stop buying Maine lobster. “We are disappointed by Whole Foods’ decision and deeply frustrated that the Marine Stewardship Council’s suspension of the lobster industry’s certificate of sustainability continues to harm the livelihoods of hardworking men and women up and down Maine’s coast,” Now that we have covered the Achesons’ arguments, we will move into our panel discussion about their article. We have with us today Rick Wahle, Patrice McCarron, and Geoff Irvine about some of these issues and what the future might hold. Interview Eric Miller: All righty. Thank you all for joining us today. So to each of you, how does the lobster industry most significantly affect the economic and environmental wellbeing of coastal communities? Our local impacts of Maine s and Atlantic Canada’s lobster industries, similar or quite different? We’ll start with Patrice and Rick to cover Maine and round out with Geoff’s Canadian perspective. Patrice McCarron: Great. Well, I’ll kick us off from Maine’s perspective. I think it would be impossible to overstate the economic importance of the Maine lobster industry to the state of Maine . We are uniquely structured here in that we have an owner operator business model. So every vessel in Maine is owned and operated by the captain. So the state license is about 4,800 people, which means those are 4,800 small businesses. They’re located. In our rural communities. So all of the money that we earn which is, you know, between 500 and 750 million a year annually, direct at the dock is spent locally. So in most coastal communities, the first dollar in those communities is often a lobster dollar. So if we didn’t have those lobster dollars we wouldn’t have economic, economic opportunity. We wouldn’t have a good tax base, we wouldn’t have kids in school. So it really is the foundation of, of the coast for the state of Maine . Geoff Irvine: Yep– well, I’m delighted to be here with you to have this discussion. We’re so linked in terms of our lobster sector in North America. So we work together on everything. So it’s the same in inland Canada and Quebec, Eastern Canada. There are literally hundreds of communities that rely on the lobster sector. I think I did, I did a bit of research on, there are 329 ports in Atlantic Canada, and 174 of them have the landed value of over a million dollars per port. So that’s a dramatic impact. that’s on the harvesting side. On the shoreside sector, it’s also extremely important. We have literally hundreds of lobster plants in those hundreds of communities. The landed value in 2021 was over $2 billion. So that’s the money in the pockets of harvesters to pay, you know, to run their businesses, but with some profit at the end of it. And for the exporters over 3 billion in export value. So by far the most important seafood sector in Canada. And you asked about the environmental well being. It’s a kind of a constant battle between the economic value and the environmental impact of the sector. which we, we all work on every day to try to mitigate, but certainly the seafood sector and the lobster sector, you know, provides some negative environmental impacts. But I think everybody in the sector works hard to mitigate those. Richard Wahle: Great. Well, and I’ll just follow on Patrice here too. And first I just want to say this is such a great opportunity to bring Patrice and Geoff together from both sides of the border. And to celebrate Jim Acheson’s contribution to sort of the human side of lobster science and the lobster world. But to get to your question, Eric you know, Patrice said it well, and I’ll just paraphrase: the American lobster, again, is the most valuable single species fishery for both countries. And you know, 90% of the US harvest value comes from, from the Gulf of Maine, and about 80% comes from Maine itself. So Maine is really sort of the elephant in the room when it comes to the US side. And in any case, you know, while just the landed value of lobsters comprises about 1 to 2% of Maine’s GDP, that’s not counting the number of other industries that really depend on this fishery that would really inflate that GDP contribution. I’m talking about, you know, everything from trap makers, boat builders, the restaurant industry, tourism, and you can go on. It’s just a really important part of Maine ‘s economy, but to our national fisheries, and a really important international trade item as well. Eric Miller: Yeah. Thank you all for, for your various perspectives on the greater context of the lobster industry in the North Atlantic area. And Jim and Ann in their article do note and comment the yeah, the lobster industry on how they jointly manage sustainable harvesting. But there have been increasing concerns and, and discussion surrounding the practices. And we’ll get into those a little bit further. And then climate change is on the horizon as well as external environmental threats. So given the recent threat developments in cost of operations and relatively lower market price of lobster, how are fishermen with smaller boats and nearshore operations feeling about the future of the lobster industry and how their long-term business viability compared with fishermen who have larger boats and fish 50 plus miles offshore? How have relaxing of Covid-19 restrictions and changes in overseas markets changed this? Patrice McCarron: I guess I can jump in again for Maine. You know, the lobster fisheries are wild-caught fisheries. So anybody who is a commercial fisherman always knows you’re sort of at nature’s whim. You never know how much you’re gonna catch. Lobster fisheries are not quota based fisheries, so it’s survival of the fittest, you know, the most skilled fishermen is gonna bring in the biggest catch. But like you say, there’s a lot in terms of the cost formula that fishermen cannot control. So, you know, year after year, the boat price might be really low or it might be really high. In 2021 we had a record boat price. A lot of money. Input costs were high, but boat price was actually higher than that, and it was a profitable year. 2022, just a year later, the boat price has been about half of what we saw in 2021. And input costs for the business have skyrocketed even further. So it’s a very unpredictable business year to year. I think anybody who fishes is by nature somewhat optimistic because you have to be crafty to make ends meet. You have to be a skilled fisherman and a skilled business person. You have to know when to set out your gear. You have to know when to spend time on the water, when you’re gonna maximize your catch. And I think, you know, for the harvesters in Maine they’ve, they’ve gotten really good with that. What’s difficult for our fleet is that it’s very diverse. So you’re asking about boats that fish beyond 50 miles from shore. We don’t actually have that in Maine. We’re an area-based fishery, so we have a state waters only fishery that takes place between zero and three miles from shore, and those are our smallest vessels and they can be very vulnerable. There’s not a lot of wiggle room in that business model. Our larger vessels, you know, we have a handful of boats that would be in the 50 foot range, but we’re typically like 35 to 42, 45 feet long. So again, they’re not super big boats. There’s a lot of unpredictability. Unit costs are high. But I think over time guys just figure out a way to make it work. They’ll adjust their strategy on the fly, and they learn how to put money in the bank in a year like 2021 too. This year, 2022, where, where profits are lower. So there are a lot of threats, there’s a lot of anxiety, there is a lot of fear about the future, but I would just say fishing’s in their blood and they’re gonna go and they’re gonna hope for the best and they’re just going to be as flexible and innovative as they can to stay in this business. And so far, so good. People are still here. Geoff Irvine: Sure. I mean, it’s very much the same here, although we do have a significant number of in certain parts of the area, Southwest New Brunswick and Southwest Nova Scotia, there is a more mid-shore offshore component. But really the profitability and the business model really depends on how old you are when you got in, what your costs are. So new entrants are finding it very difficult. But, I would argue a bit about low prices. We’ve really, since 2012, even this year, we’ve been on an increase of shore prices for 10 years. And it’s been really very good for many years. 2021, as Patrice said, was an incredible year. Probably the gilded age of lobster, but also the last part of 2020. As soon as the pandemic started to snap back, and really the first half of 2022, our prices, shore prices didn’t start to change here until the end of June. Last year the fall has been more difficult, but this winter our prices are back up, you know, to fairly decent, decent shore prices. So, you know, if you look at the 10 year trend, we’ve seen nothing but increasing prices every year. And also in the market we’ve done a lot of research that shows that 75 to 80% of the export value goes back to the harvester. Very consistently, year in and year out, and just shows you how kind of healthy the industry is. But it’s challenging. And the inputs, I think Jim Acheson calls it the cost price squeeze. And that’s a reality the harvesters have because just because their costs go up doesn’t mean they can charge more because the port price is the port price. And they can’t just say, no, we need more today. It doesn’t work that way. So it’s kind of unfair. But in terms of covid pandemic for the lobster industry was the best thing that ever happened in terms of economic impact. It’s a crass way of putting it, but we’ve never seen a better market for lobster. And so as it adjusts outta the pandemic we’re getting more back to sort of where we were in 2019, which was a very strong market as well. I just looked at the export numbers and 22 is gonna be a big year again, so just gotta keep, keep pushing it and and hope we stay on that trajectory. Richard Wahle: And Eric, I might just add, and I realize this isn’t my wheelhouse, but I’ll only put a little bit of a historical perspective on this. Pulling from the landings graph that Jim has in his paper there, that just shows, you know, for so long, from the 1880s to the 1980s landings almost rock solid with some, you know, dips  during the 1920s and thirties, you know, at least I’m speaking for Maine here,roughly landing about 20 million pounds a year. And that started dramatically changing in the late 1980s, 1990s. And by about 2016Maine was harvesting about six times more than it had been in the 1980s. And while we’ve fallen off that a bit, the value has been maintained although there’s been fluctuations we’ve seen with the coming in and out of the covid years. But I just want to make the point that there’s really a whole generation of fishermen here who’ve known nothing other than a booming fishery. And a lot of their elders have been a lot more conservative about, you know, investing in bigger boats and so forth. But this younger generation have gone whole hog into big boats and venturing offshore, having a couple sternmen. And so I think there’s a concern out there that if things start falling off and costs start becoming unsustainable and with the new whale regulations, that some of these fishermen may be overcapitalized and unable to sustain their businesses at that scale. I’d be interested in Patrice’s or Geoff’s perspective on that. Patrice McCarron: Yeah, I do think that the business model has evolved. I’ve been with the Lobster Men’s Association for 23 years, and from day one I’ve heard from the older lobstermen that the young guys are overcapitalized and they’re in for a rude awakening. And, you know, at least for this last quarter of a century that hasn’t borne itself out. And there have been some economic investigations that are showing that really the most profitable sector of the industry has been this sort of nearshore. Federal waters fishery where you’re carrying more crew because you’re generating overall a lot more income. And I think as we broach the new whale regulations, those are the vessels that have more operating capital. They have more of an ability to invest into high tech more expensive gear. And they may actually prove to be more resilient to some of the places where this management model is shifting. Where you have a small vessel with a single operator, your ability to adapt is pretty limited. Your business model keeps your footprint really small. It keeps you close to shore. You have very small capital flow. And it does really limit your ability to adapt. So that’s one of the things that we’ve really been advocating for through the association, is that we have to recognize that our fleet is very diverse, and it is the combined diversity of that fleet from our small insure boats, our medi and then our larger boats. That together is what makes this fishery really, really work. And to lose any segment of that would really prove to be devastating. So, you know, I don’t know, the jury’s still out in terms of the history that’s yet to be written, but I guess I’m a little bit skeptical about the fact that people are overcapitalized because I think that they have really created a modern business model that has proven very, very effective for them at least so far. Geoff Irvine: Yeah, I could add from the Canadian perspective something I forgot to mention, and that is that we have very specific defined seasons here. So in virtually three quarters of the fishery, it’s a two month season. So you’re either fishing May and June, or you’re fishing September and October. and that’s the whole Gulf of St. Lawrence, that’s all of Newfoundland, all of Quebec, all of Cape Bratton, all of Eastern Nova Scotia. so those harvesters that have a lobster license generally have another job or a business. and we have this, the magic in Canada of the employment insurance program that is a part of our social safety network where harvesters have the ability to have two claims per year because they’re harvesters. So you know, the reality of the business is a little different when you have that kind of support. But, but you know, if you have a two month season, you kind of need it. And we’ve set our fishery up to be that. Patrice McCarron: Yeah, I think another really noteworthy difference–there’s so many similarities between the US and Canadian lobster fisheries, but there are some divergences on the business model–in Maine there’s no cost to entry. So the cost to get into the fishery in Maine is you find somebody to apprentice with and then you sort of buy into the fishery at the level that makes sense for how you want to prosecute the fishery. And you start with a low number of traps and you build up. So in Maine , you can get a skiff, you can get used traps, you can build your way through boats. In Canada there’s actually a cost to entry to actually purchase the license. So the barrier of entry in Canada is significantly higher, is a much higher financial output to get in. We’ve tried to keep Maine sort of more of the traditional model where you can work your way in and kind of not have a model where you need, you know, a big pot of money to actually gain access to the fishery and that that really differentiates some of the profit margins and how the fisheries actually operate. Geoff Irvine: Yeah. And, and that, I guess, the difference as well is that then you can’t sell your license when you want to get out. So here you do have to buy your license, but then you can sell it when you retire. It’s all part of the business calculation. Eric Miller: These are fascinating differences in how people approach their industry. And I am curious about how far offshore are these bigger boats venturing? Because you mentioned, most of them stay with zero to three miles offshore, as well as kind of, if you have an idea of the share of the fishermen that have chosen this more. I don’t know if a more capitalized business model and how noticeable that is compared to 10, 20 years ago. Patrice McCarron: Yeah, so for Maine, the state actually regulates state waters, which are zero to three miles. So every harvester in Maine has a state permit. So we issue the state of Maine issues about 4,800 of those, of that population. just over 20% also get a federal permit from the federal government. So to cross over the three mile line, that’s federal waters, you need to be permitted by the federal government. You do actually need to purchase that license. There’s a limited number of those, so they have to be transferred from person to person. And depending on the market, those have been as high as 40, $50,000 for the permit. And they’re sort of sliding back to, you know, $15,000 right now. So we in Maine have about 1300 federal permit holders. They tend to fish through the winter months. They tend to be on the boats that would be over 40 feet edging up 50 feet or above. Definitely a higher operating cost, but that allows them to kind of nudge over a little bit into the Canadian model where you’re getting to land lobster during the wintertime when it’s a harder shell lobster, a higher yield lobster, typically a higher price lobster. So, the fewer boats were operating offshore, although it costs more to do that, the cost that you’re earning for each lobster that you land tends to be higher and does support that business. I think the big difference between 20 years ago and now is that most of those boats would come in for the summer and then go offshore in the winter.Now a lot of boats strictly fish in federal waters, and if they do come into state waters, they bring a smaller proportion of their gear, so they’ve just sort of shifted away and there’s more of a separation. It’s not, you know, exclusive but less crossover between those federal vessels and those state vessels because the state only tend to be smaller, smaller traps, smaller gangs of gear. And the big boats would have the chance to sort of overwhelm their traps, their boats, their gear. So they’ve been able to make their living by staying more exclusively in federal waters, which is a big shift. Eric Miller: All right. This is an excellent transition into the next question, which is more environmental and climate related. And this change in behavior I find fascinating among lobstermen. How has warming waters and ocean acidification due to climate change affected current lobster stock and longer term confidence in the fishery? Is there increasing concern regarding the ecological condition and changing patterns of the Gulf of Maine in general? Rick, if you don’t mind starting us off. Richard Wahle: Sure, I’d be happy to start that off. And it’s a big question. Well, you know climate change has certainly played a really important role in the past decades. And we’re really seeing its signature on the shifting lobster stocks. and just to sort of set the stage, it’s important to realize that there’s a really,striking temperature gradient from the northeast to the southwest along our coastline. So, you know, Bay of Fundy and eastern Maine are much colder during the summer than say, southern New England. But all these areas have been warming at about roughly the same rate as a result of climate change. But whereas the southern New England was sort of well into the lobster comfort zone, temperature-wise, if you will, early in that time, as things got warmer, the adverse effects of warmer temperatures were really taking their toll. We started to see it in the form of mass mortalities in Long Island Sound that knocked the stock down by 75%. It’s never really recovered from that. We saw shell disease rear its ugly head. Back in the late nineties, early 2000s, prevalence levels went up to like 35% and have just pretty much stayed there ever since and started spreading to the north. And that really knocked back the southern New England stock seriously. But at the other end of the range, in the Bay of Fundy and eastern Maine, we saw that that same warming was starting to bring the lobster nursery habitats into the comfort zone of the lobster. And it started to trigger this wave of larval settlement into nursery areas that were otherwise at very low population densities, or virtually vacant great looking habitat, but nobody’s home. That all changed in the early 2000s, and on up to, to now. And it elevated, it ended up elevating the fishery to its current status now as the most valuable single fishery in New England. In the US we’re really seeing that eastern Maine area, that boom that we saw there really accounted for that dramatic shift. But I should also say it’s not just climate change. We also have been seeing the effects of depleting groundfish, and groundfish are an important predator in this system. This has been seen, you know, throughout the range, whether you’re talking Atlantic Canada or the US. People point their finger to the depletion of cod and certainly cod are an important predator. But really it’s the entire assemblage of groundfish that include flatfish, you know, flounder, halibut, goose fish or monk fish as they’re usually called, other bottom dwelling or near bottom fish that have been widely depleted since the 1970s, eighties. And so that predator release only acted to favor lobsters. And in fact, you know, I remember talking to fishermen back in the nineties already who were saying, you know, we’re catching lobsters in places we’ve never seen ’em before. Way out in the wide open. Well, there weren’t any predators there anymore, or at least the big ones that really take their toll on the small lobsters. Groundfish were severely depleted, so it’s a combination I think we can say the boom was the result of the joint effects of both the favorable effects of warming temperatures, but also the depletion of ground fish. And of course, taking the bigger geographic perspective and including Atlantic Canada, you know, we’re seeing this eastward shift of the center of the population. And definitely southern Gulf of St. Lawrence has been seeing an increasing wave of lobsters and even Nova Scotia and the Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence is seeing higher landings than they’ve ever seen before. So there’s definitely this northward shift as a consequence of warming climate and depleted pressure, predators. Eric Miller: It’s fascinating how ecological systems function in that way and how connections ecologically just move in this truly dynamic manner. I mean, you often hear warming waters, you hear moving lobster so you kind of scratch your head when you see the stocks being caught at this level. But there you have it. The predation being decreased because this was happening due to climate change. So we’ve got some almost increasing foot Northern fishery news. And are there reasons that those of us in the southern part of the fishery are people more nervous? Patrice McCarron: Yeah, so, so I can jump in. , you know, I think overall from a fisherman’s perspective, climate change has been positive, whether you fish in downeast Maine or southern Maine, I think one of the confusing things about the center of abundance shifting north doesn’t necessarily mean that things have crashed below. So, you know, as Rick described in southern New England, that sort of a different oceanographic regime south of Cape Cod, a different system. And, we did see a crash, and that is concerning. But the Gulf of Maine is its own sort of semi enclosed system and we have not seen that crash. We’ve seen landings in southern Maine on a very, very slow increase, above flat, but certainly not on a decline other than the inter-annual variability. We saw in the late nineties and the early 2000s, mid-coast Maine is where the center of abundance had really blossomed, where it had been in Casco Bay prior to that, and then more recently in downeast Maine. And we’re seeing those rises in Canada. But nobody should think that we’re not landing lobster in southern Maine or mid-coast Maine anymore. The landings have really been robust and steady, and the resource remains very strong and people are optimistic about that. I think the other really encouraging thing that came out of the literature on climate change was a study that compared southern New England with the Gulf of Maine, and it found very specifically that the sustainability measures the stewardship practices that we have in the Gulf of Maine fishery, had they been implemented in southern New England, would’ve lessened that decline significantly. So we can’t prevent climate change. We can’t prevent the impacts on the resource, but we certainly have a very robust conservation plan in place, which has provided a buffer. So if Mother Nature is going to provide conditions that are gonna see the lobster stock contract somewhat, we have sort of built in all the protections and that decline is going to be a lot less severe of a drop off than what they experienced in the southern Maine because we are protecting our baby lobsters and our oversized lobsters and our bycatch goes back alive. And we just have a lot of really practical measures that I think really honor sort of the biology of the resource in a really practical way. And a lot of that stuff obviously translates up to Canada as well, so I think fishermen remain very optimistic. I think everybody is sort of bracing for some sort of softening of the landings over time. You know, how severe those are gonna be. The jury’s out; models say different things, but everything is basically saying, you’re not gonna continue up here forever. But we feel like there is a business model if the landings do start to start to soften a little bit in the next few years. And we’ve seen little bits of that so far, but I don’t know, Geoff, probably you’re seeing similar but different things up in Canada, right? Geoff Irvine: Yeah, no, very, very much similar. I mean, I was in Newfoundland a few months ago and I was, this is the first live lobster holding facility in Newfoundland. There hadn’t been one there. So that shows you how much more they’re landing in Newfoundland and Labrador than ever. The landings in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Cape Breton, eastern Nova Scotia all trending up. and in the southern part of the rain, southwest New Brunswick and southwest Nova. You know, there’s still a wonderful business model there, there’s still a great catch. But I mean, we’re seeing that the peak landings were 2016 and we’re seeing them kind of weaken off. I mean, that’s a very recent history. but I think there’s, there’s definitely some concern about what the future holds. And as we talked about earlier, when you’re paying a million dollars for a license in LFA 34 and 500 grand for a boat that’s a big investment. And so this kind of thing keeps people up at night at times, thinking about what the future will hold. So, I mean, it’s like Patrice said, it’s hard to know what it’s gonna look like, but I think there’s absolutely some concern in the southern part of the range and in the northern part sort of great enthusiasm and, and optimism. but as Patrice said, we also have very, very good harvest control rules in place. And every LFA, if the stock goes down a certain amount. We have things that the harvesters can implement to adjust their catch, to adjust their effort to ensure that we keep the everything sustain. Eric Miller: Fascinating. Rick, would you mind elaborating on for, for our listeners, the how vulnerable lobsters are to acidification where the science is there for that aspect of this issue? Richard Wahle: Yeah. Well, the story on acidification is a relatively new and, and short one compared to our understanding of temperature effects. But, you know, it’s a topic that really only has gained some traction in, you know, 10, 15 years ago. And we’re starting to learn a lot across different species and taxa. And with respect to lobsters and crabs some of the literature showing that, you know, these crustaceans are relatively resistant to acidification effects compared to, say, oysters and clams and so forth that are very vulnerable, especially at their earliest life stages when, you know, shells dissolve when on the mud flats, just as they’re settling. So the concern is less for the American lobster in any case, is less focused on acidification effects or their adverse effects, as they are on the direct and indirect effects of warming temperatures. And, you know, even among crustaceans, that varies a bit because, as we look west to some of the Alaska crab fisheries, and their early life stages seem to be more vulnerable to those changes. So but our American lobster for now looks like from the work,and the literature and some of the work that has been done by my colleagues suggest that there are mechanisms in place, physiological mechanisms, that can cope with these changes in acidification. Eric Miller: Fascinating. Thank you for that elaboration to go a little deeper on a notable consequence of climate change, mentioned by Jim and Ann Acheson in their article. As lobstermen south of Maine experienced economic hardships largely due to things like episodic shell disease. How much concern is there along the Maine coast about this specifically? Are there any preventative or mitigating measures for this disease? And these two separate kind of larger capitalized federal waters, fishing, lobstermen, lobstering operations, and the smaller boats is one group more vulnerable to their share of lobster being affected by epizootic shell disease? Patrice McCarron: I, yeah, I guess I. Yeah. so it’s not reached a crisis point for the Maine fishery. I mean, certainly that southern New England fishery that had pretty extreme warm water temperatures, I mean temperatures measured on bottom that were really outside a temperature where you would expect a lobster to survive at all is where we really saw that disease kick off. And as Rick said, we saw it migrate into Maine. The state of Maine puts samplers on boats from May through the end of the year. They do the state waters fishery as well as the offshore fishery. And one of the things that they do record is the presence of epizootic shell disease. So we will, on a year to year basis, have little pockets in, you know, very small regions along the coast where we might see like, More lobsters than we would like to see. But it tends to be female lobsters who are in the reproductive phase, who have not shed their shell in a few years. So there were a few years along the way where we saw it in newer shell lobster and that was very concerning and that was something that they really monitored to see. Is it something where the lobsters had the shell on for a long time and, and the dhell disease sort of has time to take effect, but they’ll ultimately shed it out? Or are we gonna see it in this sort of new shell lobster, which represents the majority of the catch in Maine. And we really, we really didn’t see that trend. So, you know, you’ll get calls in the spring from a handful of lobstermen. You know, I just had, you know, a bunch of female lobsters with dhell disease. Immediately call the state of Maine, they immediately report that. I think it is an issue that’s elevated enough that if somebody sees an anomaly in their catch, they always call the state offering to send up samples. So from my perspective I have not seen anything that, that is just sort of like a really low level of sort of annoyance, but in a sector of the lobster stock that has had its shell for a long time is gonna mold out of that and not something that we’re really seeing sort of spread across the catch. So I think that translates into a pretty minimal economic impact on the fishery. And, you know, something that much more rare we would hear in the offshore waters, like every once in a while, like a deep pocket of warm water, somebody might pull up a few again, a lobster that’s had its shell for a long time, a lobster that’s gonna mold out of that and not something that we’re really seeing spreading through what’s gonna be the majority of our catch those newer shell lobsters. So I don’t know, Rick, if you’ve seen anything different than that in the data, but that seems to be the way that the trend has gone the last five years or so. Richard Wahle: yeah. Yeah. I  think you captured it pretty well there, Patrice. You know, the highest prevalence levels are essentially in the warmest places and also among the lobsters that hold onto their shells the longest. So the warmest places are near shore, southern New England,. and we see, you know, the highest prevalence among the larger, you know, oversized lobsters, but especially, as Patrice said, the egg-bearing females that are holding onto their, their shells longer, their exoskeletons longer. So but you know, once that the epizootic took off, it did start spreading northward and it did start penetrating Maine waters. It sort of wrapped around Cape Cod and into Massachusetts, you know, north of Cape Cod Bay. And it reached its tentacles into, you know, southwestern Maine, but seems to have more or less stabilized, as that pattern hasn’t changed a lot in, say, the past 10 years. So but you know, with increasing warming you know, the suggestion is that we might see higher prevalence levels, but especially in southern New England, I mean, sorry, in southern Maine . Eric Miller: Got it. Definitely something to keep our eyes on as the years go on. According to NOAA Fisheries, approximately 368 North Atlantic right whales are left after what they define as an unusual mortality event, which has occurred since 2017. As the recent passage of the omnibus spending bill here in the States included a six-year pause on federal whale regulations as well as funding for marine ecological research and fishing gear, technological development. Can you all weigh in on the significance of this pause and US federal government investment in those research and technical technological development initiatives? Which research priorities do you all think are most important to fishermen as the North Atlantic right whale and the greater North Atlantic Marine ecosystem? And what do you know and not know about this endangered species? and how is this debate playing out in Canada as well? Patrice McCarron: That is a broad question. Eric Miller: Yep. Yep. An an easy one here. Patrice McCarron: I’ll kick it off. Yeah. I’ll kick it off. Maybe I’ll just answer a piece of it and we can sort of circle through and, and, and work our way through. In terms of the pause that we got from the federal government, that’s truly historic and, you know, very, very meaningful for our fishery. The US Lobster fishery, we implemented whale protection measures in the nineties. We did a significant round of whale protection measures in 2009, another significant round in 2014. And then in May of 2022, we did a brand new 60% risk reduction, you know, off of our revised baseline. So we’ve taken rope out of the water, we weakened rope. We’ve really expanded our gear marking. We now have closures on the books and Maine. So super high impact for our fishermen. The Maine fishery was scheduled to bring that 60% risk reduction all the way up to 90% risk reduction by 2024. And that is controversial because the Maine fishery doesn’t really have a documented track record of entanglement. So a lot of the risk that we’re mitigating now in Maine is hypothetical risk. We know where some of the entanglements take place, we know what fisheries they come from, but for a lot, we don’t know. When we look at rope that right whales are carrying, we can say it doesn’t really look like the rope that Maine fishermen use. We tend to fish a smaller diameter rope than some of the rope that comes off. So the Maine lobster fishery has really been advocating to kind of put the brakes on and have the federal government reanalyze the science. We feel like they haven’t followed the law as prescribed by the Endangered Species Act. What the federal government has done in giving us our risk reduction goals is they’ve basically said, anytime, you know, we, we get to a decision point and our data are modeling, we’re just gonna pick the worst case scenario so that we make sure that the whales get the most protection possible. But actually what the law requires is that the federal government examines scenarios that are reasonably certain to occur. So not things that are so far-fetched that they’ll never happen. So we feel like, you know, bringing us to a 90% risk reduction and ultimately we’re slated to do a 98% risk reduction is something that would have potentially marginal benefit to the whales, but would have devastating impacts on our fisheries. So this pause allows us time to kind of dig into these models, look at the data that we’re using, really examine the implications of the assumptions. and I, and I’ll give you an example of why that matters. When the federal government did a forward population projection for right whales, they said, you know, how many right whales do we think we will have in the year 2050? And when they used very conservative estimates of reproduction, they used 2010 to 2018 in every scenario. Even with closing the US Federal Fisheries, the right wheel population continued to decline if they simply used the full reproductive dataset. So the nineties through 2019, in every scenario projecting that population forward, the right wheel population basically doubled. And so it, it, it begs the question, you know, which is it you took the worst 10 years on record, or the worst eight years on record for a set of data that is without trend? And for us, it, it, it doesn’t make any sense. You know, they didn’t really ask the question of, you know, well, is it likely that whales are gonna continue to, you know, have more success in reproduction? And since then they have. so we feel like, you know, they’ve just made very bad assumptions that will harm the fishery. So this federal pause, Congress recognizes that there’s a lot of work to be done. They actually haven’t solved the problem, but they’ve given national marine fishery service in the fishing industry and the conservation community and all of the stakeholders time to come together and really dig through those questions and try to figure out, you know, what the right risk reduction would be for our fisheries so that we can hopefully have a functioning industry and save the right whales. And in terms of the funding that was a really important piece of the pause. there’s a lot of money that’s gonna come in for right wheel monitoring and surveillance, so have a better idea of where, where right whales are. Models are now indicating that right whales will be even less frequent in the waters where Maine lobstermen fish and shifting more into Canadian waters and down to the southeast US in the winter. So to really get a handle on where the whales are, like what are the, what are the fishing areas we really need to be prioritizing for management will be important. But there’s also a lot of money in there to continue to develop innovative gear solutions, which will include on-demand fishing without rope, as well as other modifications to a traditional fishing system that would pose less risk to whales, that would allow maybe a more flexible, viable business model for some of the, the smaller vessels in our fleet. So there’s a lot of really, really important stuff in there. And it set a high bar for all of us. We have a lot of work to do over the next six years to try to get answers and hopefully size that management to really address the actual risks that the right whales are facing. So I guess I’ll, I’ll leave it at that. Geoff Irvine: Thanks. So the whales effectively came to Canada in 2017 and we did not expect them. They didn’t tell us they were coming. So that is, that is when we had that particular terrible mortality event, which caused us to immediately figure out how we could continue fishing, crab, and lobster and avoid mortalities and, and entanglements. So we brought in a whole suite of measures, the dynamic closure management system where we have over flights and things that monitor whales. So if we see a single right whale on the Gulf of Sale, Lawrence, we close nine grids for 15 days. And if another whale is cited, we close it for the whole season. So we’ve invested millions of dollars in that system and it appears to be working mostly. We’ve also done a lot of things that Patrice talked about you know, removing gear and gear marking and, and all kinds of other things like that, that we hope will work. So the old fishing industry’s committed to it. We know it’s vital to ensure market access to the US to everywhere else that cares about right whales. I mean, we have customers in Europe and Scandinavia in Asia who are constantly asking us, you know, where we are with these measures. So it’s important for the market. And back to the challenges in Maine. We’ve always wondered why the Maine harvesters have been so impacted by these measures by NOAA because we like, like Patrice, know that there aren’t a lot of whales there when they’re fishing. So we could never understand that. And also, we buy half of Maine ‘s lobster in Canada. Uh we’re your biggest customer. and so we need that lobster to keep our plants going in the summer and the fall. So we were, we’ve been very concerned about your industry, notwithstanding all of our close relations. So we were delighted to hear about the pause. and we’re delighted to hear about more research. I think one big thing that Rick will probably talk about is some of the work that he’s gonna do with the new NNA lobster network, which will do some of that work. But no, we’re taking it very seriously and, and the new measures every year, the Federal Fisheries Minister adjusts the measures, and we expect her announcement to come out in the next few weeks for this coming year. But the fishing industry here is committed to doing what it takes. Richard Wahle: Yeah. Perfectly well, both of you did. And really, this pause brings more than 50 million to start to address these really important questions. And they go toward both lobster and right whales and the communities that depend on this fishery. So, as Patrice said, this is an unprecedented opportunity to start to deal with these thorny issues. But I divide the challenges into short-term and long-term questions because certainly, you know, resolving the entanglement issue, area closures and so forth, understanding right whale migration patterns and so forth, tracking them around you know, fields of lobster gear are really urgent needs. And also understanding the impact of the new regulations potentially on our coastal communities. All that’s really urgent to know, but, you know, a lot of these changes that are happening as a consequence of climate change and we’re gonna be seeing longer term decadal scale changes happening. We’re already seeing them and it’s really important to start to understand the mechanisms behind them. And this is where you really have to sort of back up and, and take the broader geographic view that not only encompasses our two fisheries, the US and Canada fisheries, Atlantic Canada, and basically New England, but really pan back to the North Atlantic and start to understand what’s happening here. And what’s really interesting is that some of these dramatic changes that have been happening pivot around 2010 when there was a dramatic regime shift in the Gulf of Maine. All of a sudden we started to see warmer Gulf Stream water moving into the Gulf of Maine. And that had food, web level effects. And, let me just put that in a somewhat broader geographic perspective. You know, we have really two currents that merge right off our coast. There’s the Gulf Stream I just mentioned coming from the south with warm, salty, nutrient-poor water. And then we have the Labrador current coming from the Arctic, bringing really cold, nutrient-rich water, and it’s that Labrador current in the Scotian Shelf water that has really fueled the huge historic productivity that the Gulf of Maine is so well known for. And in recent years, and again, pivoting around 2010, we started to see the Gulf Stream waters play a more important role in influencing the productivity of the system. And that’s where we started to see things collapsing to some extent primary productivity. The phytoplankton that feed the zooplankton that right whales depend on as well as, you know, things like herring, and even cod larvae and sand lance. All those forage fish are strongly affected by the abundance of these tiny crustaceans called copepods. And there’s a particular copepod called Calanus finmarchicus that seems to be a real keystone species here. And it’s the prime and preferred food source for the Atlantic right whale. So that shift in the distribution of Calanus finmarchicus and some of these other cold water zooplankton to the north has played a role in influencing the migration of the right whale to northern waters and more prevalently in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. So, we’ve just secured some additional funding from the National Science Foundation to start to look at what’s influencing these changes in the Labrador current and the Gulf Stream. And, they’re linked to the changes that are happening in the Arctic. And so the program that’s funding this is one of the National Science Foundation’s polar programs called “Navigating the New Arctic.” And it’s really the only project in that portfolio of grants that have been funded that’s looking at the effects of Arctic change at lower latitudes, at a lower latitude system. Most of those projects are looking at changes in the Arctic and the consequences in the Arctic. And here we’re looking at the lower latitude effects, but having those, that larger scale view allows us to build these predictive models that essentially give us the lead time, out decades refining those predictive models so we can better understand these linkages between the changing climate, shifting lobster distributions, and shifting and migrating right whales. Eric Miller: Got it. Yeah. As a data person myself, there always seems to be a need for more. It’s great to see so many resources poured into learning more, which is absolutely necessary. If folks would like to learn more about the North Atlantic right whale, as much as we do know—their habitat range, how many we think are out there, the context in which some of these fatalities have occurred—is on the NOAA Fisheries website for you to learn more. They’ve got maps and tables. So as we’re closing out here on our hour, are there any other things that you, you all would like to share about the lobster industry that we haven’t already covered? Next steps for policymaker, citizens, the lobster industry itself, we’ll start off with Geoff. Geoff Irvine: keep eating lobster… I mean we’ve got a myriad of challenges and issues that are based on the world getting more insular and market access challenges where we’re noticing it in all of the markets, the de-globalization of the world it’s more, more challenging to, to, to sell protein everywhere around the world. So we spend a lot of time dealing with those market access issues. And I’m sure our friends, our people who are exporting lobster for Maine do the same. So that’s just a really high level matter that we’re not gonna solve today. But it’s something that is becoming more and more of a challenge, and that is worldwide sort of nationalism and market access sort of putting barriers up that, that I’m seeing every day. Eric Miller: Patrice, would you like to go next? Patrice McCarron: Sure. Yeah. I would echo Geoff’s suggestion like, eat, eat more lobster. I hope that people took away from this, the incredible sustainability practices in place in the US and Canadian lobster fisheries. They are virtually unmatched internationally. These are quite literally the most sustainable fisheries in the world. You know, throughout time where fisheries have been depleted and overfished and stocks have crashed, you know, these fisheries have blossomed. You know, in part, mother nature has given us a hand. But really it would not have been possible without the incredible conservation practices in place in both countries. And I hope people also understand the commitment that both countries have to North Atlantic right whale conservation, all of the fisheries, the shipping industry. The governments are really trying to get measures in place that will allow these, you know, incredible heritage, fisheries and traditions to continue, and conserve this incredible endangered species that is at risk. And people should feel really good that the fisheries are in fact making changes, that they are actively continuing to improve what they’re doing. And people should feel proud to choose this product and not be confused by the media and wonder, you know, if they’re doing the right thing. Because so much time and energy has gone into really getting it right and really having an industry. We hope that we’ll be handing off to the next generation proudly in both countries. Richard Wahle: Great. Well, it seems fitting to sort of close this out with a little quote from Jim Acheson himself. And there’s this wonderful book he wrote in 1988 called The Lobster Gangs of Maine. And, you know, it’s close to my heart because he did a lot of his interviews in my home town of Bristol, Maine. You know, he was an anthropologist, and so he studied the social systems of territoriality, and used the American lobster fisheries as his case study. So the very first words in that book were, “Hhigh risk and uncertainty in all parts of the world are the everyday lot of the fisherman.” And, you know, I think we just reinforce that message with this podcast today. But I think we also take away a really strong message of the sustainability ethic of the participants in this fishery. They’re, essentially naturalists in the field every day. They’re seeing these changes happening. Their fishery is in their own backyard and it’s in their best interest to make it sustainable. So that sustainability ethic is, a conservation ethic, is in their blood and right whales are part of the ecosystem in which they live and want to see them continue to thrive. So it just means bringing people together to work on this project and problem. Eric Miller: There are some excellent closing words there. Thank you all so much for joining us today, Patrice, Geoff, and Rick. And we will have you look forward to checking in hopefully with you all again sometime in the future. All: Great, Eric. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Thanks Eric. End of Interview What you just heard was Rick Wahle’s, Patrice McCarron’s, and Geoff Irvine’s perspectives on the lobster industry as discussed by James Acheson and Ann Acheson in their article “What Does the Future Hold for Maine’s Lobster Industry?” Maine Policy Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to the original article in Maine Policy Review. Special thanks to the Lobster Institute at the University of Maine for sponsoring this episode of Maine Policy Matters. Since 1987, the Lobster Institute has been fostering collaboration and communication in support of a sustainable and profitable lobster industry in the Northeast United States and Canada as well as aiming to maximize the engagement of UMaine faculty and students with stakeholders in this iconic fishery. The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, scriptwriters for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. In two weeks, we will be reading a summary of Jonathan Rubin et al.’s research on road salt in their report entitled, “Road Salt in Maine: An Assessment of Practices, Impacts and Safety”. We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases. I am Eric Miller. Thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.

In our first episode of season three, we cover an article by Mary Morrissey, who gives us an inside perspective on Maine’s offshore wind development and proposes short- and long-term actions to guide Maine’s development of the offshore wind industry in federal waters in her article “Maine and Offshore Wind Development: Using the Coastal Zone Management Act and Marine Spatial Planning to Influence Projects in Federal Waters.” This article was published in volume 31, number 1, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. You can find Mary Morrissey's article here: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol31/iss1/2/ Transcript How can looking to Rhode Island as an example in offshore wind development benefit Maine? Today, we will be looking at a comparison between Rhode Island and Maine’s offshore wind development projects made by Mary Morrissey, a law student and editor-in-chief of the Ocean and Coastal Law Journal at the University of Maine School of Law. Welcome back to Maine Policy Matters, the podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. I am Eric Miller, research associate at the Center. On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. On our first episode of season three, we will be covering an article by Mary Morrissey, who gives us an inside perspective on Maine’s offshore wind development and proposes short- and long-term actions to guide Maine’s development of the offshore wind industry in federal waters in her article “Maine and Offshore Wind Development: Using the Coastal Zone Management Act and Marine Spatial Planning to Influence Projects in Federal Waters.” This article was published in volume 31, number 1, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to Morrissey’s article in Maine Policy Review. How can comparing Rhode Island’s coastal management plan help Maine’s current offshore wind efforts and potential for marine spatial planning? Morrissey provides some recommendations based on the Governor’s Energy Office offshore wind roadmap process. Morrissey outlines the actions that Maine can take to replicate Rhode Island’s model in a ‘responsible’ way – as concerns for sustainability of marine ecosystems and the coastal economy are quite high given the environmental challenges on the horizon. Back in 1972, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act, or the CMZA, to, “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone.” This act encourages states to develop and implement their own management programs for land and water resources of their spatial zone. For example, both Rhode Island and Maine participate in the CMZA and have their own coastal management plans. Where Maine can learn from Rhode Island is from their site assessment management plan, referred to as an SAMP. Maine has yet to designate a SAMP. Morrissey cites that, “Marine spatial planning is a public, sociopolitical process that aims to manage human activities to achieve predetermined outcomes.”  Marine spatial planning is important because it identifies areas of ecological concern, makes space for conservation efforts, and protects cultural heritage, among many other benefits. Even though there are many benefits to marine spatial planning Morrissey names five main challenges. The first is marine spatial planning cannot be effectively carried out without legislative and regulatory efforts. Second, the necessity of stakeholder engagement to produce an innovative, long-term plan. Third, the requirement for collaboration and coordination to allow for engagement with administrative entities and overlap with regional, local, or other strategic plans, policies, and laws. Fourth is managing errors in plan design and execution. And lastly, that marine spatial planning is a process that can slow offshore wind development. As an example of a state that successfully faced these challenges, Morrissey discusses Rhode Island’s offshore wind planning and their Ocean SAMP. This regulatory document was a result of 2006 Governor Donald Carcieri’s goal of harnessing 15 percent of the state’s electricity from wind within a span of three years. As Morrissey explains: The Ocean SAMP is a regulatory document made up of three integrated approaches: research, policy making, and public engagement. It maps a portion of Rhode Island’s state and surrounding federal waters to identify how to use this region and manage its resources to support the state’s environmental, social, and economic needs. It also specifically details potential effects on existing uses and resources in the Ocean SAMP area, including impacts on port development and job creation, electricity rates, coastal processes and physical oceanography, marine mammals, and commercial and recreational fishing…Ultimately, the Ocean SAMP was one of the first marine spatial plans in the nation and “laid the groundwork for the siting and permitting of the nation’s first offshore wind farm.” It was not until 2010 that the Coastal Resources Management Council approved the Ocean SAMP, giving it the force of law. In 2011, NOAA approved the Ocean SAMP as part of Rhode Island’s coastal management plan, which meant that federal actions that have reasonably  foreseeable effects on Rhode Island’s coastal zone must undergo federal consistency review to ensure they do not conflict with the Ocean SAMP.   This created an issue because NOAA only ensured federal action that impacted the state waters were consistent with Rhode Island’s coastal management plan. This led Rhode Island to take a new approach to apply for a geographic location description. This request was approved in late 2011, and Executive Director of the Coastal Resource Management Council Grover Fugate remarked that the geographic location was “the first of its kind in the state and the nation, and allows the Coastal Resource Management Council to have a voice in what kind of offshore development takes place in the federal waters off Rhode Island’s coast….This tool will work as a major component of the Ocean SAMP, and both will help further Rhode Island’s role as a model for other states in marine spatial planning.” Ocean SAMP has five other strengths and strategies that Maine could find useful: conceptual benefits, tangible goals and guiding principles, strong university engagement and research, extensive stakeholder and public engagement, and adequate funding. In 2019, Governor Mills received a request from the Board of Ocean Energy Management to join a Gulf of Maine Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force. In response, Maine began focusing on its offshore wind through four efforts. The first is Aqua Ventis, an 11-megawatt floating offshore wind technology pilot. It will be located south of Monhegan Island, more than 12 miles off the coast of Maine. The University of Maine designed the VolturnUS floating concrete hull technology that will support the wind turbine and will lead design, engineering, research and development, and post-construction monitoring. UMaine and the US Department of Energy also funded many studies and surveys to help these efforts. The second effort is what is being called a research array, the nation’s first floating offshore wind research site in federal waters, which is a response to  the federal government’s ambitious energy goals and to “ensure that Maine develops [the offshore wind] industry in a manner that capitalizes on [its] innovative technology and abundant resources, while protecting [its] interests, industries, environment and values. The third is a roadmap, supported by a $2.166 million grant from the US Economic Development Administration, that will detail how to advance offshore wind in ways that support Maine’s people, economy, and heritage. The roadmap also looks to understand and plan for the state’s role in commercial offshore wind in the Gulf of Maine. The fourth is a moratorium on offshore wind projects that was established by Governor Mills to restrict the state from licensing, permitting, approving, or authorizing leases, easements, or other real property interests for offshore wind projects in state waters for 10 years. The Mills administration also proposed the moratorium to appease fishing interests, especially lobstermen, who opposed the research array over concerns about what they saw as potentially disastrous impacts on the lobster industry. Morrissey suggests that “if Maine can implement a marine spatial plan, there are potential environmental, social, and economic benefits—not least of which would be more efficient coordination of offshore wind efforts with other marine industries, such as aquaculture and fisheries, while protecting areas of biological and ecological concern.” However, she names a few challenges and possible solutions for implementing this planning. The first is the risk of interrupting progress from changes in administration as well as fitting Maine’s legislative and regulatory process. Planning for differences in administration stance toward marine spatial planning policy is not something that can necessarily be codified with ease, to say the least. However, regarding the issue of fitting a SAMP to Maine’s legislative and regulatory framework, Maine could follow Rhode Island’s plan of building a regulatory framework explaining the marine spatial plan’s goals, means of implementation, decision-making authority, general policies, and regulatory standards. The second is Maine’s large gulf size. The Gulf of Maine spans 36,000 square miles of ocean and 7,500 miles of coastline, with Maine stretching along 3,478 miles of that coastline and the rest being split between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. In comparison, Rhode Island only has 384 miles of coastline with the Ocean SAMP covering roughly 1,467 square miles of the ocean as well as no international border. Maine would need to expend more energy and resources to define the limits of a marine spatial plan and divide the area among different ocean uses. The third is concerns for collaboration. Maine must obtain support from its fishing communities, particularly lobstermen with over 4,800 lobster licenses, to successfully create a marine spatial plan. As a solution to these concerns, Morrisey closes her article with several actions that Maine can take to replicate Rhode Island’s model and responsibly develop offshore wind in the Gulf of Maine. Regarding actions that could be taken immediately, Morrissey outlines the following, increasing opportunities for public engagement beyond a public comment period, including fishing community in research, facilitate collaboration and investigating research gaps using public tools – such as the Northeast Data Portal, develop educational materials to communicate the benefits of offshore wind development, and developing partnerships with other Northeastern coastal states to identify points of concern and how the Gulf of Maine will be affected. Beyond the immediate actions, Morrissey outlines longer-term options including signing memorandums of understanding with neighboring coastal states to facilitate collaboration, a marine spatial plan like the Rhode Island SAMP discussed earlier, codifying the marine spatial plan, and then expanding it into federal waters. As a final note on this issue, Morrissey concludes: Rhode Island serves as a primary example of how to use federal consistency review and marine spatial planning effectively in the form of an Ocean SAMP…Maine can begin working on its own marine spatial plan by capitalizing on preexisting efforts…The offshore wind industry is moving quickly, and it is in Maine’s best interest to take proactive steps to extend its influence into federal waters. Maine’s marine economy, environment, and ecology depend on it. What you just heard was Mary Morrissey’s perspective on offshore wind development and marine spatial planning in Maine based on her article in Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, scriptwriters for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. In two weeks, we will be hosting professionals in the lobster industry for an interview and a synopsis of James and Ann Acheson’s article titled “What Does the Future Hold for Maine’s Lobster Industry?” We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases.

Today, we will be covering an article by Frank O’Hara titled, “The Great London Plague of 1665 and the US COVID-19 Pandemic Experience Compared.”  This article was published in volume 30, number 2, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to Frank O’Hara’s article in Maine Policy Review.             In the article, O’Hara uses historical accounts from a 5-year-old survivor of the London Plague: Daniel Defoe. Listeners might recognize Daniel Defoe as the author of the novel Robinson Crusoe. Defoe also wrote a lesser known novel called A Journal of the Plague Year. This novel is based on Defoe’s childhood experience of the Plague, city records, and his uncle’s diary. You can find O'Hara's article here: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol30/iss2/14/ Transcript The COVID-19 pandemic and the Great London Plague of 1665. What, if anything, do we stand to gain by comparing these two crises? Actually, quite a bit, according to long-time community and economic development planner, Frank O’Hara.  Today, we will be offering statistics and a survivor’s historical account of the Great London Plague of 1665 compared to the COVID-19 pandemic. While these two events may seem unrelated, the way survivors experienced them isn’t all that different. Welcome to the Maine Policy Matters podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. I’m Eric Miller, research associate at the Policy Center. For those of you who tuned in for this season of the show, we are deeply grateful for your attention and we are excited to bring the next season starting January 17th, 2023. We’ll be bringing in the new year with discussions regarding the lobster industry, opioid crisis, forest resources, and. So we hope that you are as excited as we are for those essays and interviews. Until then, have a safe and happy holiday season and we will be back with you all next year. On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. Today, we will be covering an article by Frank O’Hara titled, “The Great London Plague of 1665 and the US COVID-19 Pandemic Experience Compared.”  This article was published in volume 30, number 2, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to Frank O’Hara’s article in Maine Policy Review. In the article, O’Hara uses historical accounts from a 5-year-old survivor of the London Plague: Daniel Defoe. Listeners might recognize Daniel Defoe as the author of the novel Robinson Crusoe. Defoe also wrote a lesser known novel called A Journal of the Plague Year. This novel is based on Defoe’s childhood experience of the Plague, city records, and his uncle’s diary. Frank O’Hara uses excerpts from that novel to argue that our current experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic are not that much different from those of people in 1665 London. At first glance, it would seem that there is little in common between these two plague experiences. How can we compare the mass deaths in the first 18 months of the Great Plague in London, for example, to the 98 percent survival rate of people infected by the coronavirus? Despite these drastic differences, Frank O’Hara argues that there are similarities in the “human element” that get at what he calls  “basic human reactions to crisis”   that can teach us some lessons for the current pandemic. The human element of both crises goes beyond the differences in medical understanding, research and distribution systems, and public health infrastructure. O’Hara identifies ten main similarities between the Great Plague and COVID, which he calls: the Early Rumors, Fears and Complacency, Fleeing to the Country, Quackery, the Economic Collapse, Government Relief Strategies, Government Public Health Strategies, Masks and Cleanliness, Social Division, and Easing Up Too Soon. Today we’ll be looking at three of these topics: Fleeing to the Country, the Economic Collapse, and Easing Up Too Soon. We’ll start by discussing what O’Hara calls “Fleeing to the Country,” which refers to people’s attempts to leave crowded cities as a way of staying safe. Dafoe writes in A Journal of the Plague Year: The richer sort of people, especially the nobility and gentry, thronged out of town with their families and servants in an unusual manner. Nothing was to be seen but wagons and carts, with goods, women, servants, children, and coaches filled with people of the better sort, and horsemen attending them all hurrying away. In all it was computed that 200,000 people were fled and gone. This type of plague-fueled migration also happened during the COVID-19 pandemic. New York City, one of the most populated cities in the US, had a net outflow of 100 thousand households in 2020. This means that people were relocating to their summer houses or moving back in with their parents in smaller towns to try and get away from over-populated areas. Maine experienced a real estate boom in 2021 for this exact reason. Recent research from the Brookings Institute has found that “51 of the 88 U.S. cities with a quarter million people or more lost population between July 2020 and 2021.” In both centuries, migration to the country highlights a class disparity. Wealthy people in both centuries were able to escape once things got bad, a move that not everyone could afford to make. Relevant to wealth and class disparity is the next section of O’Hara’s article: the Economic Collapse. O’Hara writes that “here in the United States, the country lost 20 million jobs in April 2020, the largest single-month decline on record. As we’ve covered in previous episodes, the hardest hit sectors were leisure and hospitality, retail, professional services, and manufacturing. This economic collapse is similar to what happened to the economy in London during the plague. From Dafoe’s journal: All master-workmen in manufactures stopped their work, dismissed their journeymen and workmen, and all their dependents. As merchandising was at a full stop, for very few ships ventured to come up the river, and none at all went out; the watermen, carmen, porters, and all the poor, whose labour depended upon the merchants, were at once dismissed, and put out of business. All the tradesmen usually employed in building or repairing of houses were at a full stop; so that this one article turned all of the ordinary workmen of that kind out of business, such as bricklayers, masons, carpenters, joiners, plasterers, painters, glaziers, smiths, plumbers and all the labourers depending on such. The seamen were all out of employment, and all the several tradesmen and workmen belonging to and depending upon the building and fitting out of ships, such as ship-carpenters, caulkers, ropemakers, dry coopers, sailmakers, anchor-smiths, and other smiths; blockmakers, carvers, gunsmiths, shipchandlers, ship-carvers, and the like; all or most part of the water-men, lightermen, boat-builders, and lighter-builders in like manner idle and laid by. All families retrenched their living as much as possible, so that innumerable multitude of footmen, serving-men, shop-keepers, journeymen, merchants’ bookkeepers, and such sort to people, and especially poor maid-servants, were turned out, and left friendless and helpless, without employment and without habitation. Listeners might recognize some similarities from this account of the unemployment and supply chain disruptions that we are currently experiencing. Despite the similarities between the two crises, O’Hara points out that unlike 17th century London, the United States had unemployment insurance to cushion the economic impacts, something that did not exist in 17th century London. The last section of O’Hara’s article that we will be covering today is Easing Up Too Soon. O’Hara states that, in the summer of 2021 in the United States, we opened up too soon, which allowed the COVID-19 pandemic to reignite through August and September via the new Delta variant. But even with rising numbers of cases and death, governments did not increase restrictions. Something similar happened in London according to Dafoe: Upon this notion spreading that the distemper was not so catching as formerly, and that if it was catched it was not so mortal, and seeing abundance of people who really fell sick recover again daily, they took to such a precipitant courage, and grew so entirely regardless of themselves, that they made no more the plague than of an ordinary fever, nor indeed so much…This imprudent, rash conduct cost a great many their lives who had with great care and caution shut themselves up and kept, retired, as it were, from all mankind. A great many that thus cast off their cautions suffered more deeply still, and though many escaped, yet many died. The people were so tired with being so long from London, and so eager to come back, that they flock to town without fear or forecast, and began to show themselves in the streets, as if all the danger was over. The consequences of this was, that the bills increased again 400 the very first week in November.  O’Hara identifies other similarities such as the quackery of Londoners and Americans trying to make at home remedy treatments, the swift relief programs the magistrates of London and America’s federal government pieced together, the ways public health was handled by London officials and the US Centers for Disease Control, and Londoners’ and American’s desires for being done with the crises before they were actually over. O’Hara concludes his article with a hopeful message and prediction: There were similar behaviors in both centuries with regard to hating quarantines, falling for quack remedies, and easing restrictions before the pandemic was over. There were also differences. The American response to COVID-19 was much more casual than London’s response to the plague, our social divisions persisted during the pandemic, and oddly doctors in 17th century London appear to have been listened to with more respect than doctors today. The year after the Great Plague ended, the Great Fire burned the City of London to the ground. Many records were lost, and the plague was forgotten in the rush to rebuild. Had that five-year-old boy not returned to tell the story 50 years later, we would know very little about the plague that wiped out a quarter of London’s population in 1665. Which raises the question—is there a five-year-old child in Maine today who will someday tell of our experiences in 2020 to future generations?   What you just heard was Frank O’Hara’s comparison of the Great London Plague of 1665 to the US COVID-19 Pandemic Experience. Maine Policy Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, scriptwriters for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases. I am Eric Miller–thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.

In this episode, we will be offering data and strategies from Rob Brown, the director of Business Ownership Solutions at the Cooperative Development Institute based in Northampton, Massachusetts. Business Ownership Solutions works throughout the Northeast states with business owners to think through whether conversion to a cooperative could meet their needs. They also work with employees or community members to execute the co-op conversion.  You can find Rob Brown's article here: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1905&context=mpr Transcript Today, we will be offering data and strategies from Rob Brown, the director of Business Ownership Solutions at the Cooperative Development Institute based in Northampton, Massachusetts. Business Ownership Solutions works throughout the Northeast states with business owners to think through whether conversion to a cooperative could meet their needs. They also work with employees or community members to execute the co-op conversion. This is the Maine Policy Matters podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. I am Eric Miller, research associate at the Center. On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. Today, we will be covering an article by Rob Brown, the director of Business Ownership Solutions at the Cooperative Development Institute. Brown gives us an inside perspective on how we can build back our economy in his article entitled  “How to Save Jobs and Build Back Better: Employee Ownership Transitions as a Key to an Equitable Economic Recovery.” This article was published in volume 30, number 2, of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to Rob Brown’s article in Maine Policy Review. What are small business owners to do in the midst of a pandemic as they approach retirement age? How can small businesses and their employees successfully stay afloat once the owner decides to retire? Rob Brown has some answers. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Maine was already on the leading edge of what is called the “silver tsunami.” This term refers to the large oncoming wave of baby boomer business owners looking to exit and retire, many of whom do not have a plan and don't understand the process and options. Nationally, the average age of business owners is over 50 years old. In rural Maine, almost half of business owners are over 60. Maine has 12,790 small businesses where the owner wants to retire in the next several years. These retirements would affect 108,000 workers across the state. And yet, less than one in five business owners have a documented exit plan for what will happen to their businesses–and their employees–once they retire. What options do business owners facing retirement have? Having their children take over the business is risky, as business transitions to second generations are only successful 19% of the time. Well, what about retirement age owners selling their businesses? This is also often not a good option either, as only 20% of commercial listings for businesses actually sell. If retirement-age owners are closing their businesses, what happens to their employees? What are they to do when their jobs close down with the business? Brown paints a picture of how such retirements impact employees and the community: “Too often, the default option ends up being liquidation and closure, and the smaller and more rural the business, the greater the likelihood of that outcome. As a result, business closure due to owner retirement is the largest single source of avoidable job loss over time.” Workers affected by business closures had a harder time reentering the workforce. In response, Brown argues that helping businesses transition to employee ownership can address some of these problems. How can employee ownership save small businesses, and how has the “silver tsunami” been impacted by COVID-19? Let’s take a look at a few small businesses in Maine that were saved by an employee ownership transition. Rock City Cafe and Coffee Roasters is a great example. Maine’s first ever espresso bar and bookstore combo was opened in Rockland in 1992. After receiving community support, the business grew and added a coffee-roasting business. This allowed them to move to larger locations and become Rock City Cafe and Coffee Roasters. By 2010, Rockland had become a national model for downtown rejuvenation and Rock City Cafe and Coffee Roasters was an anchor business on Maine Street. At this point, the owner was considering retiring and it was time for her to consider her options. Because she was deeply committed to her 35 mostly young employees, she decided to transition her business to a worker-owned cooperative. This decision preserved her legacy, rewarded her employees who helped her build the business, and helped her secure a good retirement income for herself. But most importantly, this decision helped her business survive the COVID-19 pandemic better than other food and tourist-oriented businesses. Three retail businesses on Deer Isle offer another example of a successful employee ownership transition. Burnt Cove Market, the Galley Markey, and V&S Variety employees heard that the owners of these businesses were thinking of selling the stores and retiring. So what did they do? They worked with a group of advisors to create the Island Employee Cooperative and bought the stores. Now the employee-owned Island Cooperative is one of Deer Isle's largest year-round employers, the largest worker cooperative in Maine, and second largest in all of New England. As Brown argues, these examples suggest that employee ownership transitions are a good option for building back better, especially since the pandemic has impacted small businesses. What are the benefits of employee ownership transitions? First, these transitions are more profitable and productive. They create more jobs in the good times and lay off fewer workers in downturns, and invest more in workforce training. They also have lower rates of bankruptcy, closure, and loan default. For workers, this means increased wages, benefits, and job stability and security. The benefits are even greater for low-income, non college-educated, minority, women, and young workers. A big concern in Maine has been attracting and retaining young workers. One study that tracked 9,000 young workers from ages 18 to 35 highlights the benefits of working for an employee-owned company. These workers saw 33 percent higher wages, 92 percent higher household wealth, and 53 percent longer job tenure. These impacts held true regardless of race, gender, or geography. Formerly incarcerated workers were also shown to have a lower rate of reoffending, had 25% higher annual income, and worked 9% more hours than formerly incarcerated workers in nonemployee owned companies. Even though some businesses were able to survive through employee ownership transitions, others did not or were not able to make this change and as a result, were not so lucky. Permanent business closures between March 2020 and February 2021 increased between one-third and one-half of what was expected before the pandemic.  Even though business closures were not as bad as the pre-pandemic predictions, Brown writes, “Saying ‘It could’ve been worse’ is cold comfort for business owners who lost their life’s work and the millions of workers who lost their jobs.” Factors such as no exit plans and the type of business contributed to many business closures.  For example, businesses offering personal services and food service closed more frequently than businesses like construction and home improvement stores. Even businesses that survived the pandemic are still struggling. In October 2021, Census data confirmed that nearly 60 percent of Maine’s businesses are still facing moderate to severe negative impacts from the pandemic. Many businesses are still behind on at least one bill, such as rent, loan, and supplier bills. Because of this, Brown and others who work with businesses have seen an increase in retiring business owners looking to make an exit plan. Here is Brown’s perspective, “In my work throughout the Northeast providing introductory exit planning education for business owners and consulting on transitions to employee ownership, I have seen a tripling of requests for assistance and attendance at workshops. Lawyers, accountants, and others who communicate directly with businesses, have told me that they are seeing the same thing—older business owners, already thinking about how to retire before the pandemic, want to develop a plan now.” Rob Brown argues that, “If anything, the pandemic’s impact on job security and stability and its acceleration of income and wealth inequality has strengthened the argument for promoting and supporting employee ownership transitions. Helping business owners sell to employees could be a key to an equitable economic recovery.” What could this transition look like for businesses on a national scale? Brown offers a prediction: “An article in the Harvard Business Review calculated that if 30 percent business ownership were extended to all workers through employee-ownership models, household wealth would more than quadruple for the bottom 50 percent of workers, for all Black workers, and for all workers with only a high school degree.” This kind of large-scale action cannot happen without the help of public policy. What have public policy officials been doing to help businesses shift to employee owned businesses? Public policy like President Biden’s American Rescue Plan and the Mills administration’s 10-year economic development strategy could provide benefits for local business owners seeking retirement. These benefits include things like exit planning outreach; education and technical assistance for business owners; expert financial advice for employee ownership transition; assistance in designing and executing a transition; and education and training for employee groups in business management, finances, and strategy so they can succeed. Many states are also offering or considering tax and other incentives for selling a business to the employees. Around 18 states have employee ownership centers to provide education, training, and technical assistance for businesses considering employee ownership. In the past, Maine offered a tax credit to encourage private citizens to contribute to Family Development Accounts programs, so matching funds are available to support low-income workers’ savings, but this incentive was eliminated by the previous administration. Restoring this funding could leverage substantial additional private funding. These funds would be helpful to employees saving to build equity for a worker cooperative transition. These policy examples are a sampling of ideas and resources that could be part of a larger project that is effective in the short and long term. In the short term, these policies can help by preserving small businesses and jobs while building wealth for communities and individuals in the long term. Rob Brown concludes with a hopeful message: “From a public policy perspective, it is oftentimes much cheaper to save existing businesses and jobs than to replace them once they’re gone. Throughout Maine, there are grocery stores, cafés, coffee roasters, construction companies, energy companies, farm businesses, manufacturers, insurance agencies, and many other types of businesses that are owned by their workers. They are a model for how an economy, even in the face of unprecedented threats, can be made to work for working people and their communities” What you just heard was Rob Brown’s perspective on how employee ownership transitions can be an answer to saving retirement age business owners from having to sell or close down theirr businesses. Maine Policy Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, scriptwriters for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. In two weeks, we will be covering Frank O’Hara’s piece entitled, “The Great London Plague of 1665 and the US COVID-19 Pandemic Experience Compared.” We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases. I am Eric Miller–thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.

In this episode of Maine Policy Matters we are joined by scholars Jonathan Malacarne and Jason Lilley to discuss how the pandemic shocked the Maine Food System and how it recovered.  You can find their article here: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol30/iss2/5/ Transcript Eric Miller: The early days of the Covid-19 pandemic quite literally shocked the Maine food system economically affecting many individuals and sectors in different but interconnected ways. Many households, budgets were disrupted as people lost income, which led to acquiring food in two different ways, all while concerned over the availability of certain products. Maine food producers faced multiple stressors as the demand for food at home rose, the restaurant market disappeared, and the availability of labor and the tourist market became uncertain. In response to these shocks, policymakers were forced to innovate and adapt in order to support farms, protect consumers, and ensure the food security of the people in Maine. What can we learn from these shocks of those early days of the pandemic in order to help food consumers, producers, and policymakers deal with the next big shock? This is the Maine Policy Matters podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. I'm Eric Miller, Research associate at the center. On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. Today we will be covering JG Malacarne, Jason Lilley, and Nancy McBrady's Maine Policy Review article entitled "The Response of the Maine Food System to the Onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic", which argues that reflecting on how the Maine food system weathered shocks early in the pandemic can help us prepare for future crises. This article was published in Volume 30 number two of Maine Policy Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the center. We will first briefly summarize that article and then speak directly with Dr. Malacarne, Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Maine, and Jason Lilley, Assistant professor of sustainable agriculture and maple industry educator at the University of Maine Cooperative Extension about where the food system is now, two years later, and what the future of food in Maine might look like. Malacarne, Lilley, and McBrady offer data on how the pandemic shocked consumers, food producers, and policymakers in different ways. For example, before the pandemic, Maine was already the most food-insecure state, and the pandemic made this issue worse. Food insecurity in Maine rose to 14.6% in 2020, compared to 12.4% in 2019. This rise was not related to the unavailability of food, but rather the surge in unemployment and underemployment during the pandemic's early days. Food distribution outlets thus increased their efforts. Good. Shepherd Food Bank of Maine, for example, distributed 31.7 million meals during the first year of the pandemic as part of the USDA's Farmers to Families Food Box Program. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP waived their three month eligibility limit and made it easier for applicants to apply, update, and use their benefits with the pilot programs for online food purchasing. To help curb food insecurity, the USDA announced the Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer Program, which allowed households with children facing school closures to access resources through the state's EBT card system. During the early pandemic, there was also a rise in the demand for local products. Hannaford reported that purchases from Maine vendors went up by 33.5% in March 2020 compared to March 2019. Local vendors were partly able to meet this demand via direct to store deliveries and safe direct to consumer sales. Maine farmers, however, also experienced challenges that complicated their ability to plan for this growing demand, such as, as Malacarne et al. wrote: "The disappearance of the restaurant market restrictions on face-to-face marketing and extreme uncertainty about labor availability and the tourist market. To help address this issue, a farmer led effort led to the creation of the main farm in seafood directory, which opened on March 19th, 2020." By the end of March, 337 farms and seafood vendors listed their operations and available products on the directory. In under a month, the directory received 47,000 views by consumers who were interested in safe, local, and direct shopping. At the end of September of 2020, the Maine Farm and Seafood Directory had gathered 483 farmers, fishermen, and other producers, and received 91,910 views. What did consumers and farmers alike learn from the pandemic in these shifts and how do we move? Malacarne et al. conclude their article with two points. The first is the vital need for investments in agricultural storage, processing, and packaging infrastructure in the state. The second is the need for packaging and processing infrastructure to be flexible enough to shift across the restaurant, institutional, and consumer-facing markets. Having the ability to shift markets when needed will be more sustainable and effective. Malacarne et al. conclude: "Resilient systems include a measure of flexibility and redundancy. Maine can maintain, even enhance its integration into the broader food system while increasing the prominence of its own agricultural products by investing in local agricultural infrastructure, Maine can provide market opportunities to its producers, increase the reliability of the supply of important stable goods for its consumers, and provide sources of employment and income to its workforce. Now we will be talking with Malacarne and Lilley about what the future of the Maine food system might look like. Thank you both so much for joining us today. Jonathan Malacarne: It's my pleasure. Thanks for having us. Jason Lilley: Thanks for having us. Eric Miller: Before the pandemic, what aspects of the main food system are unique strengths and weaknesses relative to other states? Has the pandemic and other shocks changed these attributes at all? And if so, how? Jason Lilley: So I'll jump in on that one. I would say that from the farmer perspective, the production side of things, Maine has really been ahead of the game and has had a leg up in relationship to the diversity of production types here in the state. So there's a lot of different types of agricultural production that happen. And not all, but a lot of that agricultural production is marketed through local channels. So there's a lot of good relationship building that happens between the clients and, and or the consumers and the farmers as well as loyalty on the consumer's part to either specific farms or to just supporting the Maine food system as a, as a whole. And I've spoken with many folks from the Ag Service provider network, so people from Cooperative Extension and various organizations. And it, it really is a kind of out-of-state Maine is really known for the style of agriculture that we have. Jonathan Malacarne: I think that's a great description of some of the strengths on the, on the challenges side and moving a little bit to kind of viewing it through the consumer's eyes. Maine's a very rural state. People are pretty spread out and in certain parts of Maine, one of the challenges is the distance to places to go and buy food. It's often hard to support traditional grocery stores in areas with low population density, and that means that you either have to travel farther to buy food or you have a more limited set of options from which you can buy food, and maybe you need a car to get there. and so as particularly for vulnerable populations, both of those can can make it hard to access food, even if food exists and is offered at an affordable price somewhere. Eric Miller: Yeah, those excellent insights. It reminds me of a couple of facets of Maine in terms of social relationships in that it's like a big small town in that you can get to know everyone, but at the same time you can't get there from here. So it's going to be a struggle to maintain the supply chain connectivity. And both of those strengths and weaknesses are reflected there, and that's really, really interesting to me. You suggest in your article that there's a need for investment in agricultural storage processing, and packaging infrastructure in Maine. You also stress the need for packaging and processing infrastructure to be flexible enough to shift across restaurant institutional and consumer-facing markets. Have you noticed any evidence of these shifts occurring in Maine over the past two years? Jonathan Malacarne: Yeah, I'll start. So I think the first thing to note is that these are really long-term issues. And while it feels like a lot of time has passed in terms of infrastructure changes, we're still very much in the early stages of making use of what we learned during the pandemic. At the same time, I think there has been some great movement In infrastructure investment both on kind of through private sources, farm businesses, realizing what they need and starting to make those changes as well as support from, from the state through access to grants. I think we're just finishing up the Department of Ag Conservation and Forestry administering about $19 million in grant funding specifically for increases in processing infrastructure on farm businesses. I believe they made 64 grants totaling just under $19 million—that finalized maybe this past month. And so it's great to see that happening. And it's also important to acknowledge that that's really just the tip of the iceberg. In terms of needs for infrastructure investment, there were many, many more applicants proposing much-needed upgrades to the system and to their own operation that remain to be funded in the future. So definitely moving in the right direction, but it's a slow process. Jason Lilley: Adding a little onto the Ag Infrastructure Investment program that Jonathan was mentioning, those 60 some awardees they were awarded the grant funds due to the strong agreement and plans to build out the infrastructure on their farm in a way that would help with distribution and processing, not only for their own farm, but for other farms that they're collaborating with. Or other farms in, in the network with, you know, similar types of production. So that was, yeah, really exciting to see. That's gonna have some huge impacts. That's anywhere between 250 and $500,000 per awardee. And as Jonathan, I was also mentioning there were almost 800 applicants. So that really from my perspective shows the immense amount of need for additional funding into these types of improvements. Eric Miller: Yeah. On one hand, it's very encouraging to get so much interest and the fact that this kind of programming and funding is, is, is rolling. But yeah, the, it definitely highlights the, the, the need which hopefully will be addressed as soon as, as feasibly possible, whether it's through the state, federal programming, what have you. So can you talk a bit about the consumer demand for local food markets? Uh, is that demand still increasing? What progress and or setbacks has the local food market faced since you wrote this article? Jason Lilley: So, in my role with Cooperative Extension, I spend a lot of time driving around visiting farms, primarily in the southern part of the state. And one of the, as mentioned in the article, one of the big benefits, I guess, of the pandemic was this big turn towards local food and a huge amount of interest. And um, that has really carried over for the majority of producers. So not only have they built relationships with local people in their communities. Um, but now the restaurants have started open back up and are really trying to, to, to push hard to support local businesses and all that. Jonathan Malacarne: Like Jason mentioned earlier, Maine has long had a strong consumer demand and strong consumer interest in local food. And I think that that has continued for lots of people and for, for lots of you know, businesses that make it their goal to provide food that matches well with what consumers want. But now, like always it's not everyone and it's not a continual upward path. Some shoppers have gone back to previous behaviors. Some businesses have gone back to business as usual. Others, you know, found that they liked what they were doing. When it came to food procurement during, during the pandemic and consumers have, those consumers have continued to prioritize local purchases, and a lot of businesses as they reopened and recovered, have identified that being more integrated with local producers can be something that differentiates them in the eyes of consumers and have, have really doubled down on that. Eric Miller: Yeah, it's really interesting to think about benefits coming out of Covid, but one thing that was really almost like special to see was how much more engagement people had, both what was on their plate and, and how it got there. And I find that to be something that I mean this goes into my, my personal biases, but I'm very happy to see how that transformation happened because prior to Covid, I, you see the grocery shelves and, and most of the calories people were getting were not necessarily from, they were from a longer supply chain. And so it's nice to see maybe some, some nudging toward engagement with local producers. and a more diverse set of types of food is nice to see. Jonathan Malacarne: Yeah, I think it's a little, I know, we all, a lot of us who work in this space and who have these conversations we spend a lot of time you know, being, being happy about that. I think it's important to, to realize, and this is a point that we make in the article as well, that the goal, especially if we're talking about resilient food systems, isn't necessarily to, to make them hyper-local. Eric Miller: Right. Jonathan Malacarne: There are lots of things that we can't produce here, or lots of things that would take many more resources to produce here. And so don't actually kind of have that desirable, say, environmental impact or that desirable impact on sustainability broadly that we might think because they're local. I think the goal is, as you mentioned, to diversify and to really take a little bit more holistic view of the food system and figure out what we can do well here and make sure that we're doing that. And at the same time recognize that there are many ways to ensure access to affordable, high-quality food for, for everyone. And that involves making use of our resources here, but then also integrating in a smart way to kind of the broader national and global food system. Eric Miller: This is why I appreciate having folks like you studying this so carefully because it's so nuanced. There's no silver bullet solution. It's not too industrialized nor hyper-localized. So how would you describe the situation that the main food system is in now, two years in the pandemic and at a point where food costs have been rising for various other reasons? Have any lessons from the early days of the pandemic helped the food system, whether these new shocks? Jonathan Malacarne: Yeah, so there's, you know, one of the things that's more salient now is that We're always facing, there are always shocks to the food system, the, the pandemic, the early days of the pandemic, especially where a sudden, large, unexpected and kind of unprecedented shock. What we're facing now with rising food costs happens repeatedly, right? Food costs go up, food costs go down. and I think that a few things make this different. and consumers have some, some experience now from the pandemic that can help them face rising food costs. And the first is we all have a little bit more practice being flexible. And so whenever the cost of, I'm an economist, and so I imagine that whenever the cost of one thing goes up, consumers decide whether or not they wants to continue purchasing it or whether they want to switch to a similar, but maybe cheaper or good. and we have a lot of evidence that that's actually what consumers do. So I work with a group at the University of Maine and at the University of Vermont that's part of the National Food Access and Covid research team. and we run some ongoing surveys and rising food prices is one of the questions that we asked about. and so in our most recent survey 62% of respondents reported that the rising food costs has made them alter their behavior. But then at the same time, there's a lot of work that's done, and in particular I'm thinking of the Consumer Food Insights report that runs out of Purdue. That happens at a much, much higher frequency. and they see similar things that consumers are changing their food purchasing behavior in response to rising food price. But what they find is that some of that is seeking out more sales and discounts, or some of that is swapping between name brands and generic brands. and so it doesn't necessarily mean that there's a one-for-one association between rising food prices and rising food expenditure in every household. And that is not at all to say that rising food prices are not challenging, it's just that we have a little bit, everybody has a little bit more practice now responding to challenging situations when it comes to procuring food, and so I know that the system itself is dealing with that and is using that experience very wisely. And I'm confident that consumers are doing the same thing. Jason Lilley: I would say that the farmers who again, have more of a direct to consumer outlet um, have, have been able to maintain those relationships and that. A lot of the early structures that they set up in order to, to market safely in the face of, of Covid. So their online sales platforms, their increased, you know, newsletters, all of that have really carried over and not only allowed them to continue to market to these new customers, but have allowed, have allowed them to improve their businesses as a whole. So they've got better tracking of what they're producing and what they're selling and, and what market outlets their products are going through. So there are a lot of benefits and kind of on-farm lessons learned that are definitely going to be carried over from the perspective of the farmers who sell wholesale and who have less control over their pricing, they're, this has been a very challenging season. farm inputs have gone up, you know, between 60 and 120%. So while farmers' cost of production is going, is essentially doubled their, what they're getting has, has really not increased at all. I've spoken to several farmers who work with some grocery chains and, and they haven't seen any increase since 2019. So it's really tough for them to figure out, you know, how they're gonna continue to make the farm viable if what they're selling their product for doesn't match that cost of production. So that's a serious hurdle that needs to be addressed. Eric Miller: Yeah, it's, it's fascinating how this, this practice and flexibility has, has carried over. and it's also, it blows my mind how in the span of two and a half years we have experienced two historic global shocks, One being pandemic and the other, of course being the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So, to, I, I'm glad you are keeping tabs on how this, how input costs, is changing and negatively affecting folks and how that's going to shape policy coming up. And so to transition to little policy talk so there are policy initiatives that help support the food system at the onset of the pandemic. Now that most of those have expired, have there been any new policy initiatives to aid with ongoing food and financial insecurities due the pandemic or even gas price increases? Uh, what kind of food policy do we need at the present moment? Jason Lilley: Yeah, I think that you know, unfortunately I don't have any specific, you know, silver bullet policies that would really solve some of these crises. But I think that, you know, going back to the previous question, my response in that farmers need to get paid more to match the cost of productions is kind of counter to Jonathan's response of the consumer's ability to pay for food and, and rising food costs. So I don't know if, if there is a solution of stipends for food or, you know, offsets for, for the cost of production. I don't know in what form that would come in, but that is something that does need to be addressed. So. Jonathan Malacarne: Yeah, this is actually what Jason just highlighted is often at the top of my mind. I teach a class called the Main Farm and Food Economy and we really engage with this directly like this, this challenge of supporting farmers and wanting farmers to get paid for their effort and for the products they produce and the service that they provide. And at the same time, trying to manage the cost of food so that everyone has access to sufficient quantities and qualities of food to live a healthy lifestyle. and it really is, it's one of those challenging questions to answer and then put on top of that. You know, having to, to realize and recognize that anything that we do that affects the price of, of fuel or affects the price of chemical inputs, you know, may also have undesirable impacts for, for emissions and for our kind of ongoing needs to address climate change. and all of these things are connected and, and that makes it really hard. I think it is important to note that, you know, while some of the specific programs and policies that were designed to address needs at the beginning of the pandemic may have expired. There were lots of organizations and lots of uh, departments and divisions within organizations like the USDA that this is just what they do. And supporting, supporting both farmers and supporting consumers has been their mission since long before the pandemic and will continue to be their mission long after the pandemic, as they administer and run programs to support both farmers and food insecure households every day. And here it's the same, the same is true here in Maine, right? There are organizations and there are many people who get up and go to work every day. And this is just, this is their job, and we are going through a moment where that's been a little bit more in the public eye. And I would love that to be true all the time so that we acknowledge their efforts and support funding for their program even when we're not dealing with a new acute crisis, right? Access to sufficient quantities and quality of food is an ongoing and always pressing need, and as Jason mentioned, supporting farmers is similarly and, and ongoing and always present pressing need and to, to deal with it. We need to pay attention, not just when something new and exciting and big happens, but every day. Eric Miller: I really appreciate you both entertaining such an easy question to toward the end of the interview here, and I also appreciate how you're able to communicate these challenges of consumer prices as well as farmer income as that is very, very challenging problem to address. To finish things off, is there anything else you'd like to share about the Maine food system that we haven't covered already? Jason Lilley: Yeah, I'll, I'll just jump in as kind of a cherry on top here and remind folks of, you know, the scenario we were in at the onset of the pandemic. Everyone was you know, fully stressed out, confused, didn't know what was going to happen. And farmers took a moment, you know, pivoted, you know, almost immediately, and, and really worked on figuring out how to continue to support our community and our local economy and our local food systems. And I would argue that they did that in a way that was wildly successful. And, you know, not at I mean definitely at their own expense and risk to their own health. And you know, it was financially burdensome, but they all stuck with it. And they were, they were here for the state. And now, you know, the tables have kind of turned, like things have kind of leveled off. We're seeing inflation kind of in our general economy. I've heard numbers of eight to 13% for the average American. Um, and to pair that with farmers, increased cost, cost of productions being, you know, 60 to 120% in increases. So, I think it's now a moment to, for the, you know, general consumers of Maine to just really kind of step back and think, you know, if we have the means at all, it's really, it goes beyond just the food that we're putting on our table. Us taking that effort to support our local farmers has that ripple effect at supporting a whole economy, the ecosystem you know, and our communities. So that's what I would leave us with. Jonathan Malacarne: I can't do better than that, so I'll give Jason the last word there. Eric Miller: Yeah, that was very well put. Thank you, Jason, and thank you Jonathan as well for joining us today on Maine Policy Matters. Jason Lilley: Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Jonathan Malacarne: Yeah, it was a pleasure. Thanks. Eric Miller: What you just heard was JG Malacarne's, Jason Lilley's, and Nancy McBrady's perspective from their article, "The Response of the Maine Food System to the Onset of the Covid- 19 Pandemic." Maine Policy Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Policy Center at the University of Maine. For citations for the data provided in this article, please refer to the original article in Maine Policy Review. The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the policy center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, script writers for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. In two weeks, we'll be reading a summary of Rob Brown's article entitled "How to Save Jobs and Build Back Better: Employee Ownership Transitions As a Key to an Equitable Economic Recovery." We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform and stay updated on new episode releases. I am Eric Miller. Thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.

Today, we have with us Liam Riordan, Adelaide and Alan Bird Professor of History at the University of Maine and serves as Chair on the City of Bangor’s Historic Preservation Commission. Riordan was the past Director of the University of Maine McGillicudy Humanities Center, is a past board member of the Maine Humanities Council, and has been a faculty member since 1997. In his current role, Riordan helps organize Maine National History day, a statewide history contest for middle and high school students. His recent work has included him traveling across Maine giving talks such as “What Did We Learn from the Maine State Bicentennial? Reflections on Historical Commemoration”. He also gave a talk titled “Picturing Maine’s Indigenous Context”. Transcript Eric Miller: Welcome to Maine Policy Matters, a podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. I am Eric Miller, research associate at the center. Today we have with us Liam Riordan, Adelaide and Allenberg, professor of history at the University of Maine and serves as chair on the city of Bangor’s Historic Preservation Commission, Riordan was the past director of the University of Maine McGillicuddy Humanities Center, is a past board member of the Maine Humanities Council, and has been a faculty member since 1997. In his current role, Riordan helps organize Maine National History Day, a statewide history contest for middle and high school students. His recent work has included him traveling across Maine, giving talks such as “What Did We Learn from The Maine State Bicentennial? Reflections on Historical Commemoration. He also gave a talk entitled “Picturing Maine’s Indigenous Context.” Miller: Hi, Liam. Thank you so much for joining us today. Riordan: Hey, it’s great to be here. I’m happy to be invited to Maine Policy Matters. Miller: So what brought you into the field of humanities and what role does this subject play in discussing American history and modern policy issues? Riordan: So I’m a history professor at the University of Maine, and I arrived here in 1997, and so my initial way of understanding my work as a historian was a somewhat traditional academic understanding that I’d be a scholar. I do original research about the American Revolutionary era, which is my period of specialization and that I would teach undergraduate courses of all sorts, big survey classes to 150 students, small upper-level classes, and one of the real privileges of being a member of the history department at the University of Maine is that we are the only PhD-granting department in the humanities in the entire state of Maine. And so I think that’s a really interesting responsibility, and it’s an aspect of the history department at the University of Maine that I’m really proud of. Miller: Yeah, very nice. Thank you so much for entering that field and contributing in such a way and taking on a public service to this degree in being so involved and I know the university is paying some dividends from your, from your service. Could you tell us a bit by what you mean, chatting about the public humanities, and how this relates to policy specifically. Riordan: So this is really a significant way in which my understanding of my role as a history professor changed over the course of my 20 plus years at the University of Maine I, I mentioned earlier when I began, I really thought of myself as a scholar and as a teacher both at the undergraduate and graduate level. But, I now realize that there is really an important role for university faculty to play in helping to lead the public humanities in Maine, and what I mean by that is that the humanities have a really vital role to play not just in the scholarly and university tradition, but the kind of impact that the history, particularly, but the humanities more broadly, should have on how we understand life in Maine in the 21st century. And so in this sense, it has a real significant application for public policy, and there are a variety of ways I sort of got involved in this commitment to the public humanities. First was I served two terms as a member of the Board of the Maine Humanities Council, which is the state affiliate of the National Endowment of the Humanities, and that really helped me understand the place of the University of Maine in the context of the state of Maine quite differently.  And then a few years after that, I became, helped to organize and became one of the early directors of what’s now called the McGillicuddy Humanities Center at the University of Maine, and that has a number of goals, but one of them is to share the humanities research that students and faculty do more broadly with the public. And as the director of that Humanity center at UMaine, I guest edited an issue of Maine Policy Review in 2015 that looks specifically at the relationship between humanities and public policy. And then more recently still, because I’m a specialist in the American Revolutionary era, I got very involved with the commemoration of the Maine Bicentennial. So that 200-year celebration of Maine becoming a state that sort of connected the year 1820, Maine’s birthday as a state with 2020 lead to a lot of public speaking all around the state. It’s led to a volume that I’m co-editing with my colleague Richard Bud, and I also organized conference at the University of Maine in the summer of 2019, all of them really emphasizing the public humanities and the need for us to improve our quality of life in the present by having a deeper understanding of significant historical themes and events in the Maine past. Miller: Yeah, that celebrating Maine’s Bicentennial is very exciting. What did you, and you played a very special part in that celebration, what did you enjoy most about touring the state, doing that, public speaking , and maybe what was one of your most memorable interactions during that experience? Riordan: So it was a real privilege for me to do a lot of local public speaking about the Maine Bicentennial and one of the curious things, so I gave I’ve forgotten, you know, close to 100 public talks over the course of four or five years, and one of the sort of curious things about this is that I trained for my PhD in Philadelphia and part of my training was to try to argue that the position of New England in our understanding of early American history was overstayed. So then, of course, I got my job at the University of Maine and I had to sort of start changing my tune and learn more about New England generally and about Maine in particular. So my process of developing my understanding of that statehood era that culminates with statehood in 2020 really began as a listening experience in a lot of ways, and many of these early meetings were really just discussions to try to understand what did people see as pressing issues from the statehood era that had some relevance for them in the 21st century. So one of the memorable experiences I had was being hosted by a colleague in Madawaska and getting a very different understanding of what Maine statehood meant from the perspective of people living in the northern part of the state, where statehood, and especially the eventual clarification of where the northern boundary was with the state that didn’t occur until the early 1840s. This was a much more traumatic event in memory that is very much ongoing to the present, particularly for Francophone people in the Saint John River Valley. So that was one really memorable experience for me and I, I would say the second more broadly is just the way in which doing the Bicentennial commemorative work helped me to realize the incredible passion that is had for history at the local level. So local historical societies, county genealogical societies. Practically every Public Library in the state has a local history room and, and that’s really where a lot of the most intense commitment to understanding our past lies and a lot of that occurs at really a great distance from academic historians and professional scholars. So to kind of circle back to my interest in public history, a commemoration is a kind of special opportunity to try to connect that local passion at the grassroots level with what goes on in the university both in terms of my scholarship, but also in terms of my teaching. Miller: Yeah, we are all very grateful for our librarians and volunteers and passionate stewards of preserving history, whether oral or written down, that is so valuable. And I also find so fascinating how seemingly nearby places can have such different perspectives on the history of a place. And so as you as you mentioned in 1820, Maine was gained its statehood suffering from Massachusetts as part of the Missouri Compromise, which for as I’m sure many know, but Missouri and Maine rendered as states at the same time Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a Free State and so as a historian what does this context of the birth of Maine mean to you as well as this milestone of reaching 200 years. Riordan: So, Eric, thanks for that question. You know, the way in which Maine statehood was connected to Missouri is I think almost certainly the most famous aspect of The Maine statehood era. And it’s a complicated story of how that unfolded. And I have to confess, I never really understood it very well until I began to do my preparation for this Maine Bicentennial commemoration of statehood. And so one of the things that I now feel pretty strongly about is that we probably shouldn’t describe this event as the Missouri Compromise. And I say this because of a letter that four members of The Maine Congressional delegation published in a Maine newspaper in 1820 to explain why they voted against Maine becoming a state. In the US Congress in the spring of 1820. And what they said was that it was such an abomination for Maine to become a state and to accelerate the expansion of slavery West, that it would be better for Maine not to become a state. And they specifically say in their letter that they rejected the idea that this was a compromise, that this was something forced upon them and that they disagreed with and that they thought was a big error for the United States. And what’s really interesting about this very technical vote in the US Congress in the spring of 1820 is that in that meeting of the House of Representatives, the district of Maine, just a portion, still a part of Massachusetts, but the district of Maine before it became a state had 7 U.S. congressmen. Now, that’s pretty interesting to anyone with a sense of civics today, right? We only have two U.S. congressmen today, and we barely hold on to two. Knock on wood when the census comes in. So we had seven when we were a district as part of Massachusetts, and five of those seven voted against the critical bill where Maine and Missouri were linked, and slavery would be permitted to expand into the western part of what was then the Louisiana Territory. Now even just to keep going deeper on this little nugget, the vote in the US House of Representatives was so close on this issue that if those two in the minority in Maine had voted with the majority of the Maine delegation that would have blocked the expansion of slavery to Missouri. And so for me, this opens up a really fascinating counterfactual sort of speculation. That if those if the full seven members had voted against Maine statehood because they objected to slavery expanding to Missouri, I really wonder, might that have led to a very different outcome for slavery in the United States? That, of course, will come to an end, but only with three decades of continued expansion of slavery after, and with the horrific personal and financial cost of the civil war that if we had had bolder and more courageous political leadership earlier, and Maine was really at the center of this, perhaps we would have had a much different course for the expansion of slavery and the kind of, you know, no more pivotal event in American history than the civil war that would, of course, come three decades after the Maine/Missouri crisis that ends with the joint admission of those two states. Miller: Wow, there are so many layers there that we could pick away at I something that just stands out to me immediately is the courage I would assume that would be bad politics to vote against more autonomy in for the, what was then then district of Maine becoming their own state having more control of their own territory, so, a little bit of a follow up. Was there much political cost to those five individuals? Riordan: So that’s a great question and it’s a little tricky to figure out the answer to that. Some of them don’t stand for reelection, others because Maine becomes a state. It then gets 2US senators, so one of those congressmen gets named by the legislature to become a senator. So that’s really a good research question that maybe one of my graduate students should take up in the future. Broadly speaking, the small number of northern members of the House of Representatives who voted with the southern interests to expand slavery, the majority of them faced a very difficult time getting reelected to Congress. Now it is different in the Maine context, right? Because obviously they were voting in favor of becoming a state, but I like to think that there was enough anti-slavery popular interest in Maine that that would not have prohibited them from becoming being reelected or continuing their careers as politicians in the district of Maine, and I do not think it would have seriously changed Maine becoming a state. That the, you know, some people sometimes say that there was a timeline and it had to get done quickly, but I think that’s really not the case. It’s quite clear that political leaders in Massachusetts, as well as the majority of people in the district of Maine, agreed that having two New England states, Maine and Massachusetts, made sense by early 1820. So I think statehood would have happened anyway and I think we might have had a somewhat different future for slavery and antislavery if Maine representatives had acted differently in that critical vote in the Spring of 1820. Miller: Yeah, wow, I love history for this reason is digging into things that occurred centuries ago and getting into the discussions around a particular issue, and that it wasn’t as straightforward as the outcome. There was discussion and disagreement all happening at the same time. I appreciate your clarification and maybe we will get an answer to that question someday. You may have just covered this in the past question, but is there a significant event or period in Maine history that you believe is underappreciated? Riordan: Well, let me, I’ll just continue to talk a little bit about the statehood era. Cause this sort of represents my specialty in what I know best. And I do think that talking about the Maine/Missouri crisis is the most famous aspect of how Maine became a state. But it’s interestingly also to sort of start our discussion at the very end. And I think one of the things that’s really surprising to people in Maine today is that it took a very long time for popular opinion in Maine to decisively express itself that Maine did want to separate from Massachusetts. So I think this does kind of surprise people ’cause we are pretty familiar with this idea of being suspicious from people of from away and having, you know, cutting comments about flatlanders from Massachusetts. But this is a good example of how the distant past surprises us. It, it was not an easy decision for people to cut that long connection. And so when I talk about this statehood era, I’m really talking about a period from the 1780s to the final successful vote for Maine statehood in July of 1819. And in that final vote, there are overwhelming majorities for Maine to become an independent state. But previous to that final vote, there were five other statewide elections that were all bitterly contested and the movement changed a lot over time, and so something that we might think would be an automatic or easy decision from the perspective of 2022 was actually something extremely difficult and that really required a lot of work and a lot of changes in the independence movement over the course of several decades before we got to that explosive moment of the Maine/Missouri crisis in 1820. Miller: Yeah. Thank you for expanding upon with that answer, talking and diving so deeply into the Maine/Missouri crises. And so, of course the Wabanaki Nations were present long before Maine statehood. So, would you like to discuss the context of relations with Wabanaki Nations at the point of statehood and how these relations have changed or developed over two centuries? Riordan: So this is really a very important issue, both for thinking about the history of Maine, but also thinking about contemporary circumstances in Maine and one thing I think is important to stress is that when we’re talking about commemoration. That, I think, is a different act than just celebration. And so commemoration calls on us to reflect and engage and think about the circumstances of how Maine became a state in 1820. And that means more than simply being partisans and fans and saying that that was really a great thing. And so one of the important observations is that Maine statehood in 1820 accelerates the colonial process of dispossession of Wabanaki people from their homeland, and I would say that it even accelerates a experience of genocide for those Wabanaki people. And this was an absolutely crucial issue in 1820, as Massachusetts prepared to transition away from having a sort of sovereign government roll over the district of Maine. And part of the articles of separation that the Massachusetts legislature required Maine voters and the new Maine government to accept as part of the terms of separation was an explicit recognition that the new state of Maine would take on all the duties and responsibilities and obligations that the state of Massachusetts had entered into in its state-to-state treaty negotiations with tribal nations. And that is a very serious and you know textually specific aspect of the articles of separation that become part of The Maine Constitution. Now some of your listeners may know the Maine Legislature and Maine voters in 1875 voted to redact this passage from printed copies of The Maine Constitution. They said it would remain lawfully intact and enforced, but this specific language about Maine bearing responsibility for maintaining Massachusetts treaty agreements no longer would be printed in The Maine Constitution. This is kind of bizarre and hard to wrap our heads around. And as recently as four or five years ago, the legislature revisited this, but were not successful in getting this language restored to printed copies of The Maine State Constitution. You can actually find the language the, Secretary of State’s office, in a separate piece of legislation, has made it available to the public, but this, I think, really stands as a clear symbol of just how unequal that transition to Maine State sovereignty was for Wabanaki individuals, for Wabanaki communities, and for Wabanaki sovereignty as their own tribal governments. And Massachusetts even gave the new state of Maine a large sum of money to continue to honor their treaty obligations. So, we might think in the 21st century that Wabanaki issues are somewhat newly resurgent in public life in Maine, but this was also a searing issue in the statehood era and was a big part of the transition from Massachusetts to Maine sovereignty that I think, if we think about this logically, also had clear implications for Wabanaki sovereignty. The last thing I will say is that it’s striking that that 2020 bicentennial of Maine statehood is also the 40th anniversary of the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Act that is the sort of crucial Federal legislation that remains a matter of really intense political debate in Maine about the balance of tribal state relations. And I do feel that that hasty language in the 1980 law that has been interpreted as excluding Wabanaki federally recognized tribes from the benefits of over 200 Federal laws pertaining to Indians since 1980 is really an extraordinary injustice and is something that should be addressed by the Maine state government, so that Wabanaki tribes don’t discover this, don’t continue to suffer this very unfair discrimination in how they’re treated as sovereign entities. Miller: I really appreciate your differentiation between commemoration and celebration. There are things in history that we don’t have to celebrate at all, but recognition being a huge factor in just grappling with the past, and something that comes to mind as we’re just talking about the courage of those five legislators that voted against slavery or the Missouri Compromise, but then also at the same exact time, that language being striked from the distributed papers of the Maine Constitution, I find that quite interesting and taking a stance on one subjugated population and not necessarily carrying that over to a different, and within the bounds of the new created place, minority population. So as guest editor of the 2015 Maine Policy Reviewspecial issue on Humanities and Policy, you covered William Adams’s piece entitled “The Urgency of Democracy”. What would you like to share about the significance of that piece in the current state of American democracy? Riordan: Great. Well, thanks for that question about the issue of the Maine Policy Review that I guest edited back in 2015, and I’ll remind your listeners that all issues of the Maine Policy Review are accessible on the Digital Commons of the University of Maine Library, pretty easy to Google and get there, and you can look up in the special issues column, you can click on the one related to the humanities and policy and see the wide spectrum of pieces that were in that particular issue. William Adams wrote one of the two Margaret Chase Smith essays that opened that 2015 issue. We had sort of two high profile national figures on the humanities landscape in the United States, write our Margaret Chase Smith essays, William ‘Bro’ Adams was then the chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities and he wrote a piece called the Urgency of Democracy. I think you’ve covered this on a recent podcast so listeners who are regular subscribers have probably heard him read that piece. And one of the things that really strikes me about it is that he, you know this was published in 2015. So this was before both of our most recent presidential elections that have been so controversial, and I think that he was really, had a sense of foresight about the coming crisis of American democracy and how this connects directly to our need for a more robust engagement with the humanities in order to preserve the quality of civic life in the United States. So, I’m going to just repeat what I think are the final lines of William Adams’s essay in that 2015 issue. He wrote that, “the humanities provide richness, beauty and wisdom in our lives, and they help our communities to flourish. But we need them, especially because the humanities provide the intellectual and emotional foundations for democratic life and citizenship. For Maine and the country as a whole, the urgency of the humanities is the urgency of democracy.” So for me, what I think he means by this is that a concept like citizenship, well, what does it mean to be a citizen or a concept like democracy? These are both fundamentally born out of the humanities, right. We don’t get a sense of citizenship from mathematics. We don’t get a sense of citizenship from a well-designed bridge or road. We don’t get a sense of democracy from a bottom-line analysis of how to have the most successful investment, right. And I think a lot of times scientific, technical, economic calculations are ones that get prioritized in how we think about what matters for public policy. And so, William Adams’s essay at the start of that 2015 issue of Maine Policy Review really was the opening note of, I think, some 30 essays in that issue that explored, you know, what do we mean by the humanities? What are the value of the humanity? And how could a more robust engagement with the humanities have a positive impact for our quality of life in Maine and for the types of public policy that we value and choose to pursue? So, you know, we’ve got in the time since that article was written, we’ve got a national presidential election that remains contested. We’ve had the US Capitol building stormed in a violent riot. And this is absolutely crucial that I think we really take up William Adams’s point that the urgency of democracy and the urgency of humanities are deeply related to one another. And this circles back to my opening comments of why I think the public humanities are so crucial for where Maine and the nation are in the 21st century. That the humanities prioritize the qualitative aspects of human experience. And in our daily life that means the basic skills that we have for insight, for reflection and for better understanding our place in an often confusing and complex world. Miller: Thank you for all that additional context around William Adams’s piece. I second the recommendation to listeners if you haven’t listened to that episode or read the piece. I’m frankly when I read it, I was so taken aback by the fact that it was written in 2015. I would have assumed that it was sometime in 2021 if the date was removed. It’s amazing how some folks can articulate such an incredible point at a time, but that seemed a little bit, not quite, as of course was very relevant at the time, otherwise you wouldn’t have wrote it, but even more relevant today. So to finish things off, is there anything that you’d like to share that we haven’t covered already? Riordan: Well, I guess I’ll close with another plug to your listeners. I’m really proud of that 2015 issue of Maine Policy Review that looks at the intersection of the humanities and policy. And of course we’ve got people like William Adams or the President of the American Association of Arts and Sciences who give our sort of opening Margaret Chase Smith essays, but the, the heart of that issue are about 30 other essays that really showcase the vitality of the humanities in Maine. And this is partly university faculty, but it’s also important organizations like the Maine Humanities Council, like your public library like, your local historical society, like museums, theaters, concert halls, and movie houses. So, I would encourage everyone to take a look at that issue online at Digital Commons, and I’d also say it’s time to reengage with the humanities. And that could be something different for every single listener. It could be pursuing other podcasts, it could be reading a book, it could be visiting your local historical society or library and participating in the way that the humanities can really enrich our individual lives, but more significantly, is how it can enrich our communal lives. And I, I do think we’re at a moment where we need a more robust sense of what are our civic responsibilities as citizens and how can we have a more civil life in the state of Maine? So that starts with our family and our households and our friends and our neighbors, but the humanities should have a robust part in that for everyone. Miller: Thank you so much for your perspective and your service to humanities in the state of Maine. And thank you so much for joining us today, Liam. Riordan: Thanks, Eric. It’s been a pleasure to be on the podcast. Miller: What you just heard was Liam Riordan’s perspective on Maine’s history. Maine Policy Review is a peer reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, scriptwriters for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. In two weeks, Jonathan Malacarne and Jason Lilley, two of the authors of an article entitled “The Response of the Maine Food System to the Onset of COVID-19 Pandemic” will join us for an interview. We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases.  I am Eric Miller–thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.

In preparation for election day on November 1st, today we are hosting William D. Adams—the tenth chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities—for a reading of his essay “The Urgency of Democracy.”  Link to essay: https://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/mpr/2021/06/16/the-urgency-of-democracy/ William D. Adams served as the chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 2014 to 2017 and where he launched a new initiative, The Common Good: The Humanities in the Public Square, as a way to demonstrate the critical role humanities scholarship can play in public life. He was president of Colby College from 2000 to 2014 and served previously as president at Bucknell University. At Colby, Adams led a multimillion dollar campaign that included expansion of the Colby College Museum of Art and support for several other humanities-based initiatives. Transcript Eric Miller: In preparation for election day, today we are hosting William D. Adams—the tenth chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities—for a reading of his essay “The Urgency of Democracy.” William D. Adams served as the chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 2014 to 2017 and where he launched a new initiative, The Common Good: The Humanities in the Public Square, as a way to demonstrate the critical role humanities scholarship can play in public life. He was president of Colby College from 2000 to 2014 and served previously as president at Bucknell University. At Colby, Adams led a multimillion-dollar campaign that included expansion of the Colby College Museum of Art and support for several other humanities-based initiatives. (Music) This is the Maine Policy Matters podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. I am Eric Miller, research associate at the Center. On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. The article covered in this episode was published as the Margaret Chase Smith Essay in Maine Policy Review, Volume 24, Number 1. Here is William D. Adams. Williams D. Adams: Maine is well known for producing impressive political leaders and for producing impressive women political leaders in particular. Senator Margaret Chase Smith is rightly remembered as the first of these in the contemporary era, anticipating and no doubt inspiring the impressive careers of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Chellie Pingree, among others. Senator Smith grew up in Skowhegan, where her father was the town barber. She attended Lincoln and Garfield elementary schools and Skowhegan High School. I don’t know what subjects Senator Smith learned at Lincoln and Garfield elementary schools or at Skowhegan High School, but considering her distinguished career it’s not too fanciful to imagine that they included healthy doses of civics, American political history, and the American constitutional tradition. In Maine and across the country, these foundational concerns of primary and secondary education, along with many humanities subjects, are under increasing pressure. We are familiar with the reasons—fewer resources, the pressure of testing regimes and expectations, the introduction of new technologies, and misguided, if understandable, anxiety over career readiness, which continue to envelop many of our policy frameworks for assessing and reforming education. The effects of this pressure are not surprising. According to statistics produced by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, in both 1994 and 2010 “a substantial majority” of school-age children in the United States “failed to demonstrate ‘proficiency’ in U.S. history.”1 Worse still, nearly 60 percent of high school seniors graduating in those years failed to demonstrate even a basic knowledge of U.S. history. It’s some consolation, though not much, that the history proficiency of students in the fourth and eighth grades improved between 1994 and 2010, though the percentages of students with only a basic understanding remains depressingly low. Student achievement in civics shows a somewhat more encouraging trend. In this realm, fourth and eighth graders showed improvement between 1998 and 2010. Still, less than 20 percent of all students in these grades demonstrated civics achievement levels of proficient or advanced. As was true of the National Assessment of Educational Progress assessments in other humanities subjects, strikingly lower levels were observed among older students, with only 64 percent of twelfth graders demonstrating a mid-level of basic achievement in 2010. In what seems almost surely to be a related development, meaningful political participation in the United States continues to decline, and civic engagement of all kinds is increasingly fragile. For evidence, we need look no further than the most recent general election. As the Washington Post reported (November 10, 2014): General election voter turnout for the 2014 midterms was the lowest it’s been in any election cycle since World War II, according to early projections by the United States Election Project. Just 36.4 percent of the voting-eligible population cast ballots as of last Tuesday, continuing a steady decline in midterm voter participation that has spanned several decades. The results are dismal, but not surprising— participation has been dropping since the 1964 election, when voter turnout was at nearly 49 percent. It’s hard to imagine a robust democratic political culture without a citizenry that is at least proficient in U.S. history, the basic structure and workings of our political institutions, and in the founding principles and values of American democracy. And it’s hard to imagine proficiency in these areas without an abiding commitment to civic education in our schools, colleges, and universities. But the democratic significance of the humanities goes well beyond the need to cultivate specifically civic and historical sensibilities. Democracy and democratic citizenship also require the ability to think critically and clearly about the central issues of shared concern, to imagine alternatives to standing arrangements, to entertain and advance the common good, and, perhaps most important of all, to feel empathy and respect for others. These capacities are in some important sense inherent to human nature, but they require the cultivation, reinforcement, and testing that lie at the heart of humanistic learning, exchange, and understanding. Democracy flourishes alongside a robust sense of place. This may be especially true in Maine, where sense of place is such an important part of collective identity. With the help of the National Endowment for the Humanities, scholars from the University of Maine have recently given to the people of Maine a remarkable new asset related to place—the Historical Atlas of Maine. Now a beautiful printed book, the Atlas is entering a planning phase to become a national model as an interactive digital resource. It will then serve as a resource for schools and individuals across the state and beyond. Maine also has another wonderful humanities resource in the Maine Humanities Council (MHC), one of the most energetic and admired of the national system of state and territorial humanities councils supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The MHC is doing exemplary work around the state, providing resources and leadership to the statewide humanities network. Over the years, Maine has also served as a mecca for creative writers and artists and now boasts an international reputation for its literary and artistic production. Our lives are richer and fuller as a result of such creativity in our backyard. We’ve also experienced the power and impact of the cultural economy, which will be such an important part of Maine’s economic future. The humanities matter in all of these ways. They provide richness, beauty, and wisdom in our lives, and they help our communities to flourish. But we need them especially because they provide the intellectual and emotional foundations for democratic life and citizenship. For Maine and the country as a whole, the urgency of the humanities is the urgency of democracy. (Music) What you just heard was William D. Adams’ reading of his essay entitled “The Urgency of Democracy.” Maine Policy Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. For all citations for data provided in this episode, please refer to the original article in Maine Policy Review. The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, scriptwriters for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. In two weeks, we will be hosting Liam Riordan—Adelaide and Alan Bird Professor of History at the University of Maine and Chair on the City of Bangor’s Historic Preservation Commission—for an interview of his perspective on Maine’s history. We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases. I am Eric Miller–thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters. (Music) William D. Adams served as the chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 2014 to 2017 and where he launched a new initiative, The Common Good: The Humanities in the Public Square, as a way to demonstrate the critical role humanities scholarship can play in public life. He was president of Colby College from 2000 to 2014 and served previously as president at Bucknell University. At Colby, Adams led a multimillion dollar campaign that included expansion of the Colby College Museum of Art and support for several other humanities-based initiatives.

In commemoration of Indigenous Peoples’ Day on October 10th, we will be hosting Gail Dana-Sacco on today’s episode with her reading of her article entitled “Indigenous Voices Charting a Course Beyond the Bicentennial: Eba gwedji jik-sow-dul-din-e wedji gizi nan-ul-dool-tehigw (Let’s try to listen to each other so that we can get to know each other)” Link to article: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1857&context=mpr Credit for intro and outro music goes to Allen Sockabasin, who advocated for the restoration of the Passamaquoddy language throughout his lifetime through his music and his teaching. Gail Dana-Sacco became the first known Passamaquoddy to earn a Ph.D. when she completed her doctorate in health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University in 2009. Today, her work centers on advancing wolibmowsawogon, a world in which Indigenous peoples, lands, and languages can thrive. This article is dedicated to all the Passamaquoddy who have come before us and who are with us today, and the ones who are still to come, whose love and support have made this journey possible and will guide us forward. Gazelmulpa.

In this second episode of Maine Policy Matters Season 2, Eric Miller interviews Amanda Rector, the Maine state economist since 2011. Rector describes what it was like to be the state economist during the pandemic, how things turned out compared to how she originally thought they would turn out, the effects from the federal response to the pandemic, changes in the workplace, and makes predictions for the future. Maine State Economist Amanda Rector Transcript  Miller: Welcome to your main Policy Matters podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. I am Eric Miller, Research Associate at the Center.  Today we have with us Amanda Rector, State economist since 2011. In her role as state economist, she analyzes Maine's economic and demographic conditions to help inform policy decisions.  Rector is a member of the state of Maine Revenue Forecasting Committee and serves as the Governor's Liaison to the US Census Bureau.  Amanda Rector has published an essay in the Maine Policy Review entitled, “(Un)precedented: Reflecting on the Early Lessons of the COVID-19 Pandemic”, which you can find of reading of right here on the Maine Policy Matters podcast. Her essay details her personal experience with the pandemic and her journey from unprecedented to precedented times.  She explains how research has given us a historical reference point for the pandemic, saying we will be talking with Rector about her thoughts on what has changed since those first days of the pandemic.  [Background music]  Miller: Firstly, thanks so much for joining us today.    Rector: It's my pleasure.    Miller: To start with an easy one, can you describe for us a bit what it was like to be the state economist in those early days of the pandemic?    Rector: Well, I suddenly became a lot more popular. It's funny how a pandemic and recession will make economists suddenly people that everybody wants to talk to. You know, I think that one of the things in the early days, everyone was scrambling to get a sense of what was happening and scrambling to get data. And so, in some senses, there was this sort of drinking from the firehose effect of just everybody trying to grab onto any piece of information they possibly could.  So, I felt like I was spending hour upon hour just reading things that were in some cases completely foreign to me. I had not done a lot of reading about pandemics in the past - not in my usual wheelhouse.  And then I started just - I think one of the advantages to Maine is that because it's that, it's that sort of big, small town feel. Everybody is willing to just pick up the phone and talk. And so I spent a lot of time just getting on the phone saying, “Hey, you know? What are you seeing? What's happening in your field? Are you seeing things going on in your businesses? What are you worried about? What are you concerned is going to happen that you're not going to be able to come back from or recover from?   And you know, it was really challenging to try to wrap my arms around everything that was going on in a fashion that I could then condense that and share helpful information with the folks who are making policy decisions.    Miller: Yeah, I can't even imagine. I can't say that I heard too much from a state economist prior to the pandemic myself and I have a masters in economics, so it really has been interesting to observe how the ground has shifted in so many ways over the past two years.  What surprised you over the past two years now that we're in a different part of the pandemic, did any of what you predicted in your piece come true, or what did we get right? We need to work out.    Rector: You know, I think we thought it was going to be a lot worse than it really was in economic terms, particularly at the very beginning.  And if you look back at some of the predictions that were coming from very qualified forecasters, there was a lot of doom and gloom that was coming out. And I think that the thing that we didn't and what prevented those really dreadful outcomes was the federal response.  We simply had no way of knowing that the federal response was going to be as rapid and as extensive as it was. And so that really provided enough cushion to prevent those outcomes that were being tossed around early on where you know revenues declining by just tremendous numbers and it didn't happen.  And in fact, if you look at our revenue picture now, we have revenues that are well above and beyond even what you know, our most recent forecasts were we've seen just a lot of revenue growth.  We certainly we don't have explanations for all of it. You know a lot of it is still unprecedented in a different way now, I guess, because it's, you know, looking at this and saying, gosh, we don't really know where all this is coming from.  But I think some of it was a matter of the federal supports that came out. If you look at what happened for personal income, for example, personal current transfer receipts, which are the funds that come from a government entity, either to or on behalf of an individual and it includes things like Social  Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, other income maintenance benefits, veterans benefits, a whole slew of different things.  Those become a really important component of personal income during a couple of quarters.  In particular, the quarters where stimulus checks went out when the enhanced unemployment benefits were flowing, and then when the child tax credit payments were going out during the second half of 2021.  And so that enabled people to continue to engage in the economy at a level that wasn't really anticipated. We haven't really seen that kind of a response before and so that was able to keep people paying their bills, going up shopping.  Maybe in some cases ordering online because they couldn't actually go out. But able to engage with the economy in a way that If they hadn't had those supports, we wouldn't have seen those purchases continue and it would have been a very different situation for revenues in turn.     Miller: When you mentioned the speed of the federal response, my mind immediately goes to the 2008 and the federal response was a little bit slower. They'll shift your targeted in a much different way than the CARES Act that came out at the beginning, which I'm interested in how the policymakers learn from that and realize the scope of the pandemic and what that means economically, as well as from a personal health context.    Rector: Right. I think there were there were a lot of feelings that the response following the Great Recession wasn't enough and there were a lot of concern is that we, the federal government, needed to move more rapidly this time around.  And of course, now we'll learn from this one and hopefully we won't face another global pandemic anytime soon, but certainly in terms of what the response might be next time. Learning what worked, what didn't work. Uhm, and where things need to be tweaked further?    Miller: Right. Every experience is definitely a learning experience. Yeah, as a research Economic Research practitioner myself, I have a little bit of a technical question I'm interested in asking you if you indulge me. Now it's been a couple of years we have data from the more traditional economic giants that like the Census Bureau that release data. How does the unconventional and creative data sources that you piece together match up with what they've released now, like the Census Bureau, such as, you know, calling up businesses, et cetera.    Rector: Yeah, you know, some of some of what we heard absolutely panned out. I mean, when I talked to folks who were in the leisure and hospitality industry, they said we can't do anything because it is literally our business model is face to face interactions and we cannot do face to face interactions.  We knew that they were going to be hard hit and they absolutely were and that has been a piece of the economy that has been somewhat slower to come back although certainly as we're in the summer tourism season now, they're hopefully doing better than they had been.  I think you know I think that some of the pieces that we looked at there were there were some data sources that I was looking at from Opportunity Insights. They had a website, tracktherecovery.org was their website and we relied on that because it was reasonably well vetted, but they put together a bunch of different sources on things like small business openings and consumer spending and employment. And they were much more timely than a lot of the official sources they had some on employment where they were looking at employment levels by income rank essentially so high wage, middle wage, low wage workers and what were the employment. One of the things that we were seeing there was this K shaped recovery where the higher wage jobs were coming back faster than the low wage jobs and that seemed to pan out in the official data as well. If you looked at the sectors that were lagging behind in the recovery, they tended to be lower wage sectors. So leisure and hospitality, which I mentioned, some parts of health care and social assistance including long term care and social assistance - child cares in particular - and state and local government particularly, sort of the public education piece of it.  So that was one piece that we had an indication that that that was happening before we got the official data on that one.  And another one that actually tracked really well was the time spent outside the home.    Miller: Those walks those walks were big.    Rector: One of the earliest data sources that was actual data that I got was vehicle miles traveled from the Department of Transportation, which you would not think of as a traditional economic indicator, but if you think about the nature of the recession, like, people physically couldn't go anywhere and so we saw vehicle miles traveled drop because of course people weren’t driving to work anymore and they weren't driving to restaurants or to go shopping and or to schools.  And that matched up very well with some of the early declines in employment and then the declines in sort of time spent outside the home, which was one from the track, the recovery website that I mentioned that was I think they were using cell phone data to figure out where people were traveling to using, you know, pings off of cell phone towers and stuff, and that they broke that down by times set up outside the home for different purposes, like going to a workplace and the workplace numbers as everybody shifted to remote work, or a lot of people, shifted to remote work.  We saw that remain subdued, even though things like time outside for recreation went up considerably higher than they had been.  So, there were certainly there were some sources that gave us early indications of what the official data sources might be trending towards later on.    Miller: It's so interesting and fun to reflect how parsing different levels and really digging into the nitty gritty can yield things like the differing recoveries or reactions in different blue collar, white collar, and what type of industry.  It's really interesting and important for responding to and learning from the pandemic and any sort of economic disruption.    Rector: Absolutely.    Miller: So, we are recording this shortly after the June consumer price report came out and, speaking of government speed and degree of response, some would argue because of the 2008 was slower and obviously did not have the as much of a direct U.S. citizen level response in help.  The recovery was quite slow and obviously the pandemic response was fast and quite a bit of money went to U.S. citizens. So, which is led to very different recoveries.  So, there was a 1.3% increase for the month of June and a total of a 9.1% increase of the last 12 months.  Can you reflect on the current economic picture or how much of this inflation is beyond our control in the state of Maine? And how much is from the stimulus packages and what role do supply chain issues play at this current moment?    Rector: Inflation has been one of the hot topics of the past few months. I would say that here in the state of Maine, our control over the national inflation numbers is basically non-existent.  I mean, we are a very, very small portion of the overall national economy.  I think Maine makes up .3% of the US GDP, something like that. So, what we do here has pretty small impacts in terms of the national inflation there. There's been some research and some studies done trying to figure out sort of how much of an effect the national stimulus had on inflation.  It, you know, it seems like it may have contributed, but the more important factor is going back to what we talked about at the beginning. If it hadn't happened, things would have been just so much worse from so many different levels, everything from, you know, supporting state revenues to people being able to continue to support businesses that they are patronizing or being able to pay their rent, being able to buy groceries, I mean, those federal programs had actual calculable results, reducing poverty levels, for example. So, there were a lot of impacts that came out of those beyond, you know, the potential negative consequence of having higher inflation.  I think a lot of what happened with inflation and honestly, nobody really knows for sure.  Inflation, if anything, I think economists have discovered that we have less of an idea of what causes inflation than we did previously. So, certainly there, the supply chain piece of it I think was a very big part, particularly early on essentially prices were going up because you couldn't get the stuff that you needed, got bogged down for a number of different reasons. Part of it was certainly related to COVID and closures due to COVID workforce shortages.  Because of COVID there were some issues around, you know, we really learned just how globally integrated our economy is during the pandemic. Part of it is that the cost of shipping containers went up so much and if you have pain so much more to move stuff that price gets translated through the price of the actual thing that is being transported and that you're buying.  So, there were factors related not just to the shortage of the stuff, but the movement of the stuff.   There was a lot of demand that happened at the same time.  And then there are things that are completely unrelated to all of that. More recently, energy prices have been playing a big role in the increases in inflation as food prices have as well as shelter.  For a few different reasons. I mean, the Russian invasion of Ukraine played a big factor in those rising energy prices, although they've been rising even prior to that.  But it has really added a whole extra level of volatility and increases and that's playing into the food price increases as well. And then shelter, you know, if you look at the housing market in Maine, we saw real estate become extremely desirable as a lot of people wanted to be here and we just haven't had a lot of supply. If you look at when do people decide to, you know, when do businesses decide to make the investment in building a bunch of new housing stock?  Well, it's when you're expecting a lot of new household formations and either it's because you have a lot of young people who are moving out of their parents' homes and into their own homes or you have a lot of migration into an area and Maine hadn't had a lot of that before the pandemic. And so, we haven't had a lot of new homes being built for a long period of time. So limited housing stock and a lot of demand and prices went through the roof and that's been happening in a lot of the country.  It's not just in Maine, but those are certainly if you look at the contributing factors to inflation, those are really essentials.  Those aren't things that we have a lot of discretion over we all need to have shelter, we need to have food and we need to be able to have you know a mode of transportation and heating our homes and electricity and all of those things that go into energy prices.  So, we're at the whims of inflation right now. Really, I think the, you know, the good news is that we did see energy prices come down a little bit in the past few weeks.  Gas prices in particular have started to tick down a little bit. And the Federal Reserve is acting very aggressively to raise interest rates in the hopes of cooling inflation. And that, of course, plays into cooling demand, particularly for things like housing, doesn't do anything to alleviate the affordability issues.   But it does perhaps put a little bit of a damper on how much that has been growing recently, but it also the psychology of it is almost equally as important because it gets into people's minds that this is a temporary situation, there is action being done to bring it under control and so people don't become locked into the mindset of we're going to have prices just higher and higher and higher.  Which then in turn tends to make prices go higher and higher and higher.    Miller: Right, yeah. Something that is encouraging about the lower energy prices and seeing at the pump myself a small but real decrease is that I guess it gets into that economic theory of increasing velocity of the dollar and that's the fears of hyperinflation, which is really, really catastrophic. And speaking of global integration, today, I think it came out that the euro and the dollar are of the same value, which hasn't happened in a long time. And so there are these macroeconomic trends manifesting all around the world, and so it's from an economic perspective, interesting to observe and curious how it will all play out.    Rector: A fascinating time to be an economist.    Miller: In your essay, you mentioned that the notes on your whiteboard were up for so long before you went back to your office that you could still see their traces. How has your workplace and the way you conduct research change since moving to remote work? Then back to in person working, has returning to normal been possible?    Rector: You know, I'm still actually primarily working remotely, and I think that for the type of work that I do and long term, I'll be in more of a hybrid situation, which for the type of work that I do, makes a lot of sense. A lot of what I'm doing is sort of me and a computer and an Excel spreadsheet.  And I do not need the distractions of being in the office when I am trying to do that. At the same time, there are certainly times when it's really helpful to be in person, in the office, meeting face to face with people and collaborate.  And getting back to that is definitely nice.  I think that it's been really interesting. I do a lot of presentations for different groups, and I have had a mix of in-person and remote presentations and I think there are a lot of advantages to having that flexibility now.  It used to be that everything was in person and there are a lot of things that actually are better suited to an online format. Maybe you want to have a lot of breakout groups, and boy, it's a heck of a lot easier to do those when you can just click a button and send people into little groups instead of having to physically move people into small group discussions. And it means, you know, particularly for a shorter presentation, it means that instead of spending an hour driving there, parking, getting in, getting set up.  And then we're reversing that whole process for a 20-minute presentation.  It's just a matter of logging in, doing the 20 minutes and then moving on to the next thing.  But there are also certainly some advantages to the in-person presentations. I like being able to sort of read the room as I'm giving a presentation. I get a much better sense if I'm actually there.  Are people following? Did I lose everybody somewhere down the line and they're just staring blankly at me? Is it after lunch and they're all snoozing now? I can't tell that I'm doing a presentation online whether that's the case, but I like the fact that it seems going forward there's going to be more of this flexibility in how work gets done and how meetings take place and how presentations are done that sort of best suits the format to what the type of work or event or presentation is.  And I think that one of the things that we did a lot more of during the peak pandemic period was the collaborations and just trying to figure out, ‘oh, hey, you know, I don't have any data on this. Can I talk to some people or gosh, you know?  I'm working on this stuff and it's kind of related to that. Maybe we should talk about this together and see if we can figure out some way to work together on this.’ I think there's a lot more collaboration.  I think people became more used to sort of all hands on deck during the pandemic, and having the ability to be comfortable with reaching out to other people and asking for help or asking for a chance to collaborate, I think is maybe one of the other silver linings to come out of this as we're realizing that you can get a lot of really interesting insights if you're working with people that you don't normally work with.    Miller: Totally - it's really amazing that we had all this technology before and then we were all forced to figure it out. And really interesting things that have come out of it is obviously allowed us to do this, which we could have done before, but I mean it just seems like everyone realized, oh all right, we are going to adjust and we'll take what we like moving forward and then once, you know, the pandemic has changed and has become more severe, sometimes less severe other times, and in the lulls, you can kind of be creative in how in person you want to be, which has been really nice for those that are more vulnerable than that.  So, to kind of cap things off, I won't hold you this, but we have to do predictions because you're an economist, even though you're trained to be how precarious the nature of that business is. Will we ever see $3 gasoline or $6 lobster again?    Rector: Uh, gazing into the crystal ball. You know the thing you learn about being an economist is that your predictions are pretty much always going to be wrong. It's just a matter of minimizing how wrong they are. Uh, you know, I think in in terms of inflation, I do think that we're on a course for inflation.  I don't know if it's peaked this month or if it's going to peak next month, but I think we're at the point now where we should start seeing inflation come down in the coming months and return to more normal levels.  I think it's going to be high for a while still, but I don't think it's going to be as high as it is right now. I think the fact that the Fed is acting so aggressively is going to curb the inflationary pressures.  You know, there's also the people are muttering about the next recession and are we in one or are we going to be in one.    Miller: The perennial question.  Rector: Uh, yeah, I know. If I'm not talking about a recession, it just doesn't feel like a normal year, you know. But I think that it's sort of an interesting shift. Normally we're thinking about the next recession and states generally don't have a lot of resources and we're thinking about, well, what is the Fed going to do? How can the federal government both, in terms of fiscal policy and monetary policy, help states whether whatever the recession might look like.  States are actually in better shape than the feds right now, I think, because we still have money flowing out from the American Rescue Plan Act, and in Maine, it's going out through the Maine Jobs and Recovery Plan, and that's a not insubstantial chunk of change.  You know, it was it was a billion dollars, all told so we still have, we have hundreds of millions of dollars, that is still flowing out wrote over a period of a year plus. Which is timed I think really well in terms of helping to support economic activity now at the point when we're sort of thinking, oh gosh, are things going to be slowing down and the federal government doesn't have a lot of resources right now to do things if there is another recession and the state Budget Stabilization Fund is in really good shape and I think that provides us with a lot of cushion if there is something that happens to be able to continue to provide programs and services without having to do the mad scramble to cut things right off the bat the way often happens in a recession.  So, I think it feels very strange to be in this position, you know, at a state level facing down potentially the next downturn, whatever shape it might take, but having reasonably good resources as we're looking ahead to that.    Miller: Very nice.    Thank you so much for entertaining the prediction question.    Is there any exciting research or anything we haven't particularly asked a question that you would like to toss out there as we close out?    Rector: I think one thing that I would mention, you know, I talked a little bit about the real estate market and how interested people were in moving to Maine and I would just say, you know, we did see a really strong migration into Maine during the pandemic. 7th in the nation for our migration rate in 2021, and when we just recently got the final breakdown of 2021 population estimates, we got age and race and ethnicity. We actually saw our median age decline.     Miller: Wow.    Rector: And that's the first time in decades that that has happened, and we were the only state that saw that happen. So, we did in fact see migration of younger populations into the state, which is really important in terms of providing future workforce as more of the baby boomers head into their traditional retirement years we've been struggling, wondering where the workforce is going to come from in the future and this really provided some positive signs that we will in fact have some available workforce down the line.    Miller: That's an excellent note to end on.    Thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate it, Amanda.    Rector: It was my pleasure. Thank you for having me.    Miller: You just heard Maine State Economist Amanda Rector’s thoughts on lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and what the future might hold.     You can read her published work on this topic in Vol. 30, Issue Number 2 of the Maine Policy Review.  The editorial team for Maine Policy Review is made up of Joyce Rumery, Linda Silka, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center at the University of Maine. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, scriptwriters for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our Production Consultant.     In two weeks, we will have a reading by Gail Dana-Sacco of her essay, “Indigenous Voices Charting a Course Beyond the Bicentennial” to celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day.     We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases.     I am Eric Miller–thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.  

Maine Policy Matters—Season 2, Episode 1 Link to Essay: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol30/iss2/1/  What’s a state economist to do in the middle of an unprecedented global pandemic? When everyone is asking for answers, but they are hard to find? In this episode of Maine Policy Matters, Amanda Rector, the Maine state economist since 2011, shares her thoughts on the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic’s economic impact, and what the future might hold. Transcript What’s a state economist to do in the middle of an unprecedented global pandemic? When everyone is asking for answers, but they are hard to find? Amanda Rector, the Maine state economist since 2011, shares her thoughts on the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic’s economic impact, and what the future might hold. [Background music] This is the Maine Policy Matters podcast from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine.  I am Eric Miller, research associate at the Center. On each episode of Maine Policy Matters, we discuss public policy issues relevant to the state of Maine. Today, we are going to hear an essay written by Amanda Rector–the Maine state economist–entitled  “Unprecedented: Reflecting on the Early Lessons of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” In her words (full text of original article): I remember very clearly the last days I spent in my Augusta office before the COVID-19 pandemic had me working from home. The last in-person meeting I spoke at was awkward as we tried to figure out the social dynamics: do we shake hands? Elbow bump? Wave from a safe distance? I chatted with someone in the parking lot who was hauling a computer monitor and keyboard and box full of paperwork to her car. “Who knows when we’ll be back,” she joked. The white board in my office was covered with notes on the potential economic effects from the pandemic. They were up for so long before I came back that I can still see traces of it that I couldn’t fully erase—a memory of the last days before so many lives changed so much. I spent the early days of the pandemic drinking from a firehose of information, trying to wrap my brain around the economic impacts of a global pandemic. As an economist, I found I was suddenly a very popular person, even though it felt like I was just repeating the phrase “I don’t know” in every conversation. The only upshot was that no one else knew either. I took advantage of the small-town nature of Maine to start calling folks up, asking how their businesses or sectors were doing, what they saw coming down the pike, and what might be helpful as they navigated this strange new world of PPE (personal protective equipment) and stay-at-home orders. While the plural of anecdote is not data, on-the-ground perspectives do count for something when data aren’t available. Data are my bread and butter: I use numbers and trends to understand what is happening and then translate that data for people who are trying to make decisions, whether policy, business, or research related. The challenge was that the pandemic broke my data sources. Demographic and economic data are notoriously lagged and most traditional sources wouldn’t start reflecting effects from the pandemic for months. The first source of real data I could get my hands on was vehicle miles traveled from the Maine Department of Transportation. We could use this as a proxy for economic activity because of the nature of the economic disruption—economic activity had slowed because the physical movement of people had slowed. Even as quickly as the pandemic was breaking traditional data sources, though, there were people and organizations scrambling to put together innovative new data sources. Many of these new sources used big data and all of the digital information we trail behind us as  we move through the world. Opportunity Insights, for example, gave us estimates of consumer spending, small business openings, employment, and time spent outside the home. Were the data perfect? No. But it was much better to have semireliable, timely data (with an understanding of the shortcomings) than to be flying blind. Even the US Census Bureau, the staid bureaucratic stalwart of thoroughly vetted and significantly lagged data, got into the act, producing Small Business and Household Pulse Survey data with astonishing speed. Federal policy response happened rapidly as well. The Federal Reserve Bank made monetary policy shifts and Congress passed fiscal stimulus and economic supports that were signed by the president in short order. Recent analysis has shown just how important those measures were: the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which takes into account various assistance programs, actually fell in 2020 and would have risen if it weren’t for the federal stimulus packages. Federal supports staved off what could have been disastrous economic consequences. It is important to remember, however, that the COVID-19 pandemic has been a highly individualized experience. Everything from race and ethnicity to gender to household status to income level to geographic location to industry and occupation to the presence of children in the home has affected any given person’s impact from the pandemic. It has been difficult, at times, to remember that not everyone is having the same experience and that what has been a mild inconvenience for some has been an earth-shattering disaster for others. It appears that, for many people, the pandemic has triggered a period of soul-searching. No one has been completely untouched by the pandemic, and the rapidity with which change happened has thrown us all for a loop. For some workers, this has been a time to think about what they really want out of life and work. Maybe it’s higher wages or better benefits (or any benefits, in some cases). Maybe it’s a different field of work. Maybe it’s more time spent at home instead of on the road commuting to a job. Maybe it’s more autonomy or more respect or more consistent hours. Anthony Klotz, an organizational psychologist at Texas A&M University, coined the term “the Great Resignation” to describe recent rises in job quits tied to the desire for better work, however that might be defined. We seem to be engaged in a nationwide period of navel gazing, with the final conclusions yet to be determined. Where is this period of reflection and re-evaluation taking us? In some cases, it is accelerating trends that already existed. Remote work was already increasing before the pandemic, but with so many people working for so long in some form of remote work, it is likely that a higher share of remote work is here to stay. Recent surveys have indicated that workers are looking for the ability to work either fully or partly from home or a remote location. The combination of health risks for older people and a strong stock market likely accelerated the retirements of many older workers. Challenges in hiring workers, particularly in fields such as retail or leisure and hospitality, will likely accelerate the automation trends that were already beginning to take over for some hard-to-fill vacancies. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a recession that lasted from February to April of 2020. A mere two months. The shortest recession on record. But it was also the deepest recession on record. It shows up in our economic data as a rift, or a spike, depending on the measure. Long-term analysis will have to treat the pandemic period as an outlier; I anticipate many future research papers with an asterisk next to 2020–2021. During the first months of the pandemic, the word I heard most often was “unprecedented.” It became so overused that it started to lose meaning. We used that word so much because there were so many things we had no benchmark for, no prior experience with, nothing to look back on. I have to imagine this is one of the words that will be synonymous with the COVID-19 pandemic. But now, what we have been through is precedented and the analysis that has resulted provides us with a historical reference point when looking back at the pandemic period and the resilience, ingenuity, and change it has sparked. [Background music] What you just heard was a reading of Maine state economist Amanda Rector’s essay entitled “Unprecedented: Reflecting on the Early Lessons of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” You can find this essay in Maine Policy Review’s special issue on Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Volume 30, No. 2. Maine Policy Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine, edited by Linda Silka, Joyce Rumery, and Barbara Harrity. Jonathan Rubin directs the Policy Center. A thank you to Jayson Heim and Kathryn Swacha, scriptwriters for Maine Policy Matters, and to Daniel Soucier, our production consultant. In the next episode we will host Amanda Rector for a more in-depth interview about her thoughts on COVID’s economic impact. We would like to thank you for listening to Maine Policy Matters from the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. You can find us online by searching Maine Policy Matters on your web browser. If you enjoyed this episode, please follow us on your preferred social media platform to stay updated on new episode releases. I am Eric Miller—thanks for listening and please join us next time on Maine Policy Matters.  

In this episode of Maine Policy Matters, Daniel Soucier sits down with Dr. Michael Howard to discuss the confluence of Universal Basic Income and the novel coronavirus pandemic. [00:00:00] Daniel Soucier: Hello and welcome back to Maine Policy Matters, the official podcast of the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine, where we discuss the policy matters that are most important to Maine's people and why Maine policy matters at the local, state, and national levels. My name is Daniel Soucier and I'll be your host.  [00:00:26] On June 19th, 2019 governor Janet Mills signed. LD 1324 into law. The bill created a committee to study the benefits and feasibility for social safety net reform in Maine. That could include a basic income program for the state. On the national political stage, entrepreneur, Andrew Yang made the Freedom Dividend a $1,000 per month stipend for every American adult. [00:00:52] The major pillar of his 2020 Democrat primary campaign recently due to the intense economic distress felt across the world due to the Coronavirus pandemic countries have embraced experimenting with basic income to address workers and families battered by the virus. In the CARES Act, Congress appropriated direct cash payments of $1,200 from most adults and $500 for each child. In Spain, the government is moving forward to create a permanent basic income program to address the long-term economic stress brought on by Covid-19. We sat down with Dr. Michael Howard, a philosopher at the University of Maine, who is the co-editor of the Journal Basic Income Studies, and is also the national coordinator for the United States Basic Income Guarantee Network to find out what basic income is, what type of pilot programs exist in the United States and across the globe, and the confluence of basic income policies with the Coronavirus pandemic. [00:02:02] Michael, thank you so much for joining us today to discuss UBI as a policy matter at the local, state, and national level, and why UBI matters for the state of Maine.  [00:02:13] Michael Howard: Yeah, I'm glad to be here. Thanks for inviting me.  [00:02:15] Daniel Soucier: Michael, I've noticed in just about every media outlet over the past year, there has been discussions of universal basic income, which some folks refer to as UBI or basic income, and we'll refer to it in all those ways throughout this podcast. [00:02:30] A lot of times these media reports tend to be vague and oftentimes they mischaracterize universal basic income. So can you explain for us the major tenants of UBI and does it have supporters on both sides of the political aisle?  [00:02:46] Michael Howard: Yeah. The universal basic income as scholars refer to it is one kind of minimum income guarantee. [00:02:54] It's distinctive features are that it is individual. It goes to each person and not to households. It is universal. Everyone gets it regardless of age, wealth, or income. And it is not means tested. It is also unconditional. It is not conditional on any behavioral requirements such as willingness to work or look for work or having been laid off or pursuing some particular course of study or approved volunteer work. [00:03:24] And it is in the form of cash rather than an in-kind benefits such as food stamps. There are variants of a minimum income guarantee. And when you mentioned the confusion sometimes people use basic income to refer to some other forms of minimum income guarantee, such as a negative income tax, which is like a basic universal basic income, but it is phased out as income from other sources rises. [00:03:51] So it goes to the people who need it, but not to people who were above a certain threshold. And the earned income tax credit is similar to a negative income tax, but it is in addition to being phased out at higher incomes, is conditional on working for wages and it phases in as one earns more income and then phases out as one's income continues to rise. [00:04:15] So the earned income tax credit, while it is responsible for lifting a lot of people out of poverty, it still leaves a lot of people in poverty who are not eligible. Now universal basic income has supporters across the political spectrum. On the political left, you have groups like Black Lives Matter that have endorsed basic income. You have on the right libertarians like Charles Murray, who's written a book supporting a basic income. So in a certain sense, there's a broad support for the general idea, but when you get into the policy details, you find considerable difference between the kind of basic income people want on different parts of the political spectrum. [00:04:54] Daniel Soucier: Wow. Thank you so much for clearing that up for us. So UBI seems to be this unique and innovative policy solution that in recent times have been circling around both national and state level, even in the state of Maine. And so we recently saw entrepreneur Andrew Yang, who made UBI a major part of his platform as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 and here in Maine, governor Janet Mills signed LB 1324 into law just this past June in this established committee to study the benefits and feasibility for starting a universal basic income for the state of Maine. So are there currently UBI programs in place right now in the United States or maybe even globally, and if so, are those programs able to achieve their desired policy effects? [00:05:48] Michael Howard: Yeah, let me start with the the LD 1324 here in Maine. It's a matter of full disclosure. I'm on that committee. And we've only had one meeting and partly because of the pandemic and partly because of the business that the legislature's engaged in, we've only met once and things are on hold right now. [00:06:07] But the bill isn't actually necessarily looking at universal basic income at the state level. It's a bill to explore ways to enhance basic income security and that sort of broad sense of ensuring that everybody has basic necessities covered. But it might be done through an expansion of the earned income tax credit, making it refundable. [00:06:31] There are lots of different things that the committee's looking at. And I suspect we might look at ways to move in the direction of basic income like policies, but it's really too early to tell where we're going with that committee at this stage. The only long-term government, universal basic income policy, I think anywhere in the world is Alaska's permanent fund dividend. [00:06:56] And I co-edited two books on the permanent fund dividend. It's not a full universal basic income in the sense of being adequate for basic needs. But since the 1980s it has given every Alaskan, including children between a thousand and $2,000 annually. Based on the performance of the Alaska Permanent Fund, which was capitalized from Alaska's Oil Wealth. The policy contributes to Alaska being a state with relatively low poverty and relatively low inequality, and it's extremely popular. [00:07:29] It's almost the third rail of Alaska politics. It was introduced by a Republican governor. With support from Democrats and the legislatures as well as Republicans. So that's a policy that's very interesting to look at. And currently there's a minimum income pilot project underway in Stockton, California, where a sample of residents in Stockton are receiving $500 a month for an extended period of time. And there are some initial results that show it's quite promising. What people find is that this money is not wasted. People at the ground level know what their needs are. And about 40% of them are using it for food. It's a way that it highlights the amount of food insecurity, even with existing welfare policies in place, that when given some extra cash, people spend it on food, they spend it on healthier food. [00:08:21] So that's an experiment to watch. And there's planning for a project underway in Oakland, California that's privately financed. There's talk about a pilot project in Chicago. Our neighbors to the north in Ontario launched a very serious basic income pilot project, and unfortunately it was brought to a halt by the incoming Ford government. [00:08:42] That's not really gonna go further, but there's enough initial evidence from that to, to be worth exploring. And although not a government program, the Eastern Band of Cherokee in North Carolina have given regular cash payments to all tribal members over a fairly long period of time. And those the results of that have been studied and people have found that it's not so much a handout as it is a hand up. [00:09:09] Recipients experience better mental health results better results in finishing school, finding their way into meaningful employment. And so the cash payments are really more of an investment in human capital. And that's one ex another experiment that people point to. So it's been around for a while and there's a fair amount of evidence of what people would actually do if they received a universal basic income. [00:09:34] Daniel Soucier: So that's fascinating. So there's some sort of precedent out there. There are some examples to point to. And with this increased media attention, this increased political attention for ubi as a policy option as a means to reform the social safety net. So does UBI draw a larger, a longer history? Has this, is this a fairly new idea? Did it, start percolating up with the Alaska permanent fund and discussions around that? Or is there a longer history here for universal basic income discussions? [00:10:07] Michael Howard: It actually goes back quite a ways. The American Revolutionary, Thomas Payne is one of the earliest proponents of a universal cash payment in the form of a lump sum to be paid at the age of maturity and an old age pension. And this was gonna be based in his proposal on a tax, on the rent from land. Payne's idea was that once the land is bought up by a minority of the population other people are excluded from what ought to be thought of as what nature provides to all of us in common, the land. [00:10:43] And those who have appropriated the land owe a compensation to the people who've been excluded. And so his idea was you give a lump sum and maturity and an old age pension so that nobody is thrust into poverty from lack of access to the commons. In the 20th century, a guaranteed minimum income, it was in the form of a negative income tax, was proposed on the political right by economists, Milton Friedman. [00:11:09] And it was supported on the left by Martin Luther King Jr. and many other people. George McGovern in his presidential campaign favored what he called a demo grant, which was a kind of a minimum income guarantee to all citizens. And after that presidential election, Richard Nixon proposed a family assistance plan, which would guarantee a minimum income for all. Now, that included some work requirements and it failed to pass the Congress, but it came out of that milu of discussion about guaranteed minimum income. And then the idea was faded into the background for quite a while but more recently late 20th century in the last couple of decades. [00:11:51] Partly in response to persistent poverty in all the countries with advanced welfare states, partly in response to fears of job loss due to artificial intelligence and automation. And partly to regardless of how the automation will unfold the growing precarity of employment, more people in part-time and temporary jobs without benefits. [00:12:17] There's been interest in some kind of floor to be put under all earned income, and we could add to that concerns about the ecological limits to growth. The way that capitalist economies have dealt with poverty and low wages is to try to increase the pie. So capitalists still keep their profits and workers get a trickle down from the growing economy, but, if we face ecological limits to growth, then we have to find new solutions to a growing population, more people coming to the labor market, but perhaps fewer full-time well-paid jobs there for them. [00:12:55] As evidence of the sort of growing interest, we see pilot projects popping up all over the world from India, which had a major pilot project. Namibia in Southern Africa, Finland, about a year ago, had a pilot project Ontario, I mentioned in Stockton, Oakland and California. Mississippi has a pilot project underway, and there's been considerable interest in UBI across European countries Germany, Italy, France, the UK, the Netherlands, Scotland, Switzerland have had either discussion about pilot projects or referenda showing a widespread public interest. So it's really on the agenda. And of course, Andrew Yang's campaign in the United States has put it on the political agenda here in a way that it hasn't been for a very long time.  [00:13:44] Daniel Soucier: As an American Revolution specialist, I find it absolutely fascinating that ideas circling around basic income can be traced back to the founding of the country. So it seems like there's this bipartisan support for UBI today and his historically over time as well. And there are some, pilot projects in place for UBI policies at local, state, and national levels throughout the United States and in the world. [00:14:13] So what are the objections then, to look at the other side of the coin? What are the objections to universal basic income from either, political, economic, or maybe philosophical stem.  [00:14:26] Michael Howard: Yeah. I think the two major objections one is economic and the other is moral. The economic objection you often hear is that it would cost too much. [00:14:36] For example, if you take the US population of roughly 330 million and multiply that by say $12,000, which is a ballpark figure that some people would propose for a basic income. You got a figure of nearly 4 trillion dollars and that just people's throw up their hands and say, who could afford that? [00:14:58] Now $12,000 is not enough for an individual to live on, but you can imagine a family of four with $48,000 they might be able to meet a lot of their basic needs with that. If children got only half of what adults receive, which is quite commonly the proposal, you get a amount for parents, maybe half that for children, the family of four would receive 36,000, but the gross cost would be quite a bit less than 4 trillion. [00:15:28] Andrew Yang's proposal didn't have anything for children, so it would be significantly less, but you're still talking about a pretty large gross cost somewhere in the trillions. One response to this gross cost worry is to point out that in a well-designed basic income scheme, the money going to those above a certain threshold would be routinely clawed back in taxes. [00:15:55] So the net cost to the taxpayers would be closer to maybe a sixth of the gross cost that would be from my, 4 trillion figure, it'd be a little over half a trillion. Now that's still a lot of money, but it's not the apparent budget, busting amount of the gross cost. And if people find the gross cost nevertheless to be an insurmountable problem, a negative income tax would achieve the minimum income guarantee for what amounts to the net cost of a universal basic income. [00:16:27] And actually in practice even the net cost would be substantially less because some of the other cash transfers of the current welfare state would become redundant. It's not clear why you would need an earned income tax credit or a food stamp program if everybody had a universal basic income. I think the cost argument is really much overstated most of the time. [00:16:51] But that is when you just look at the, it's you look at university tuition, at the prestigious private colleges and you say, oh my God, $60,000 a year. I can't afford that. You look at the fine print and there are always scholarships, there are loans, and it becomes manageable for quite a few people to still go to a one of those schools. [00:17:12] Now, the moral objection actually may be the more difficult one to overcome, and this is the objection that people have to giving quote people something for nothing. Why should able-bodied people who are able to work be given cash that's not conditional on their doing any work. Now the main response to this point is to call attention to the rather narrow conception of work that we tend to take for granted. Many people make contributions to society all the time but they're not paid. The most important example of this is people staying at home and raising their children. Most often these are women and they are often economically dependent on their husbands if they have a husband. [00:18:03] If they don't, they're often in extreme poverty. And moreover, those who are in families with husbands, they are often trapped in situations of domestic violence. So basic income would first of all recognize that they're doing important work and it would give them an option to leave if they're in a situation that is really not tolerable. [00:18:26] So that's one kind of feminist argument for a basic income that there's work going on, it's not paid. It may in fact be exploited, and this is a way to address that exploitation. There are other kinds of work that people do that is unpaid and not recognized. That has to do with artistic creativity, volunteerism, and community. [00:18:46] This would be a way to encourage, recognize that and enable people to do it who otherwise would not be able to do it. A further response is to argue that with support from some of the past pilot projects there will not be a catastrophic number of people dropping out of paid employment. On the contrary, a universal basic income can enable people to enter the labor market, facilitating transportation, tools, training, and flexibility in choosing between full and part-time work while attending to childcare and dealing with other necessities of why.  [00:19:27] Daniel Soucier: So I find these pilot projects and how people are spending the money to be absolutely fascinating and shows the different ways that UBI could be implemented and have people utilize that income for a variety of reasons. Now with recent news, we would be remiss not to discuss the convergence of UBI policy with the novel Coronavirus Pandemic. [00:19:49] Governors throughout the country, including Maine, have issued widespread stay-at-home orders due to Covid-19, and there's been vast economic disruptions in the United States and across the globe. So Congress has recently passed the CARES Act, which is a 2.2 trillion economic relief package that includes $1,200 payments for many Americans, as well as $500 for each child and prior to its passage, we saw proposals for unconditional cast payments to address the crisis, not only from more progressive liberals like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but also from conservatives like Mitt Romney. Now as Congress is coming to consensus on a fourth phase of Covid- 19 economic relief that includes more direct payments, it makes me wonder what the role of UBI has what ability UBI has to play in times of national emergencies, such as the novel Coronavirus Pandemic to provide citizens with some sort of economic stability. [00:20:52] Michael Howard: Yeah, I think it has an important role to play. Of course we don't understand enough about the virus to know when the stay-at-home orders can be safely lifted. It'll be interesting to see what happens in China as restrictions, which have been much tighter than in the United States, are slowly lifted. [00:21:10] After having reached zero new cases, at least if you accept the government reports there, will the virus come roaring back requiring a retightening of restrictions? In the United States, we're nowhere near the peak of infections and even further from zero new cases. So I think this could go on for months. [00:21:31] A one-time payment of $1,200 is clearly not gonna be enough to relieve the economic distress and unemployment compensation, which is another part of that package. Even if it's liberalized to include some self-employed people as the law included, it still leaves out many people who are not employed when the crisis began and they're now, they can't get jobs 'cause there are no jobs to be had. [00:21:57] So not only will people be suffering with no income, the economy will be further weakened from lack of demand. The most straightforward method to restore confidence, stimulate demand, and reach all the people who are needing help, and to do this with a minimum of bureaucratic delay is to send checks to everyone on a regular basis until the lockdown can be safely lifted. [00:22:26] The House Fi nancial Affairs committee proposed $2,000 to adults and a thousand dollars to children for the duration of the crisis. That's, I think, something in that ballpark is what we need. Now, of course rich people don't need it. People will say, why do you give it to everybody? But I think we can address that problem rather easily by just taxing that money back from those who are still earning substantial incomes by the end of the year. [00:22:53] That seems to me to be the solution to the, giving it to people who don't need it, just as in, in a well designed basic income scheme, that scheme that's permanent. You build that into the integration of the tax code together with the income payments.  [00:23:07] Daniel Soucier: Interesting. So as you noted before, one of the common objections to universal basic income is the claim that it would disincentivize working for wages and cause people to become comfortable staying at home. [00:23:21] However, it seems like in the times of a pandemic that UBI could be a valuable tool in policymakers tool chest for combating the spread of disease. What role do you think UBI can play as a public health policy to help flatten the curve?  [00:23:36] Michael Howard: Yeah, exactly. The usual objections to basic income simply aren't relevant in this situation. [00:23:43] We want to incentivize people to stay home and not to seek employment, or to put it more accurately, most people don't need an incentive to stay home. The jobs have vanished as non-essential businesses have been closed. The problem is to enable people to survive during the lockdown without spreading the infection. [00:24:04] I can add that the other objection, the cost objection is much less relevant in the current context. We've seen in space of a week, the Congress appropriated over $2 trillion without a thought as to where the money would come from. Apparently it's just gonna be deficit spending. Now, in normal times, the worry would be that such spending would be inflationary, but our situation now is the threat of deflation. [00:24:32] Plunging ever deeper into a recession, we may very shortly be facing higher unemployment rates than during the Great Depression. So this is not a time to worry about inflation. It is a time to worry about keeping people economically secure in their homes and in their small businesses so that there is an economy left to rebuild when the virus has passed. [00:25:01] Daniel Soucier: So you've discussed earlier that there are several programs at local, state, and national levels throughout the world for direct basic income payments. Now, at least on a temporary basis, right? The United States of America is experimenting with UBI as a public health and economic policy to combat novel Coronavirus and provide economic relief to millions of Americans once the pandemic subsides. What do you expect that America's gonna learn from this experiment with temporary UBI?  [00:25:33] Michael Howard: Yeah. First, one big caveat. As with other, universal basic income experiments. We won't know whether the way people behave with a guaranteed income that is temporary is the way that they would behave if the income were permanent. [00:25:50] And all the proposals for this are for a temporary emergency, basic income. So that's an unknown. That said the experiment would be unique in that it would include the entire country. All of these previous experiments have been either a sample population or maybe, rare cases, a whole town as in Dauphin, Manitoba. [00:26:14] A limitation of these earlier minimum income experiments, in addition to there being temporary, was that they were limited to particular cities. So the systemic effects on the labor market of everyone receiving the guarantee are not observable. But if the entire country gets a universal basic income, then we'll have a chance to see for some period of time what some of those systemic effects might be. [00:26:37] For example, we might find that employers will need to make some jobs more attractive in order to get people to take them on. Right now, people, if they have no choice but to take the job that's on offer or they have no income at all. That's a choice that significant numbers of people won't have if everybody's getting a basic income. [00:27:00] And it gives a little more bargaining power to the worker in relationship to the employer for the conditions of work. And we might be able to see some more of that effect if a universal income is spread throughout the whole economy.  [00:27:15] Daniel Soucier: That's quite thought provoking. Unknowing, the, we don't really know how this is gonna play out and but we will see what some of the systematic effects are as this unfolds. [00:27:27] As many Americans have never really recovered from the economic stress brought on by the 2008 Great Recession have experienced a rather precarious work life over the past decade or more. So do you think that the millions of individuals that are now suddenly experiencing temporary job loss may increase their empathy with individuals who are struggling on a more regular basis with economic security? And could this perhaps lead into some policy changes at either the local, state, or national level?  [00:27:59] Michael Howard: I would hope that would be the effect. The phrase I hear a lot during this pandemic is, we're all in this together. I think it's not quite true. Some people have no choice but to report for essential work. [00:28:11] And some of them, like the frontline healthcare workers people in food production and transport they don't have any choice but to show up and they're doing so often that considerable risk to themselves and their families. On the other hand, you have some people who are privileged enough that they can retreat to their country homes and just ride it out. [00:28:31] So the risk is very unequally distributed. Nevertheless, the threat of illness is real for all of us, and most of us are being affected in our family lives, our economic security, or our work. Many of us who are still working or working at home that could bring us together and break down some of the usual divisions that separate us between the employed and the unemployed. [00:28:59] Or between those who work at home and those who work outside the home. And I'm thinking work here again, in a broader sense of just paid employment. People who do homework, who take care of their children. If everybody's at home, we're all doing a little more of that kind of work. And I think it may increase sympathy and understanding both within families and across some of the usual divisions in society. Also having to live for some period of time on a fraction of one's normal income, which many people will have to do, may educate many people about what it is like to survive on a low income. And this could lead to more generous and less restrictive policies down the road. But a lot of this depends on the politics, both during and after the pandemic. [00:29:45] And I don't think it's clear what that response will be. In Hungary, Victor Orban has used the pandemic as an excuse to start ruling by decree. Basically, it's declared a dictatorship, so you have, on the one hand, the politics of fear and authoritarianism, but I would hope in this country that instead we would take the path of politics, of hope and solidarity instead. [00:30:10] Daniel Soucier: So it seems like UBI might be able to be used by policy makers to help minimize some of the effects happening by novel coronavirus. However, I've noticed on the news that many policymakers are skeptical that these direct cash payments are a good idea during the Coronavirus pandemic because there, there's a fear that once these policies are in place, even if they're temporary, that they're gonna be hard to roll back. [00:30:39] But as you've noted that, we're not sure how long the pandemic's going to last for. Some experts have suggested it could be as long as 12 to 18 months from now. And if that's the case, there certainly will be some intense economic distress for an unknown period of time. So even once the virus is battled back a bit, there's still gonna be some economic ripples to come out of this and this is most noted by the fact that in the first two weeks of these stay at home orders, there's been nearly 10 million new unemployment plans, which is a truly unprecedented figure. So what do you think the role of UBI could be in restarting the American economy after the pandemic subsides? [00:31:21] Michael Howard: Yeah. I think it, it actually won't be hard to repeal 'cause you can simply stipulate in the law that the payments will end when the crisis is passed. But people may find that there is, and I think people may find there's much less labor market withdrawal and the critics fear. Doctors are reporting to work even when they're facing life-threatening conditions because they're committed to work, they have a dedication. And in normal times, most people want incomes above $12,000 per year. So they will seek employment above the basic income as soon as it's available. As the crisis ends, we may find that it would be desirable to continue the basic income, or we may find that we taper it down to a lower level so we still have an income floor, but not what we need when we have mass unemployment. Or we may decide to phase it out altogether, but as you suggest it, it may be necessary after the pandemic is over to maintain income support until businesses can get back into full operation and people can deal with accumulated debts. [00:32:32] The future is so clouded that we really can't know exactly what we're dealing with. But one thing we can see right away is that to rely on the existing structures of the welfare state, in particular the unemployment compensation system it's not prepared to handle a crisis like this. [00:32:51] The bureaucracy is too small to handle this deluge of applications. And more importantly, there are just lots of people who don't meet the bureaucratic requirements to receive unemployment payments. Many people are just gonna fall between the cracks. So we need something else that's more efficient, more tailored to the across the board needs that everybody's experiencing and I think we're likely to see something like a part, a temporary universal basic income, regular cash payments to everyone on the agenda for the fourth phase of the response to this crisis.  [00:33:32] Daniel Soucier: That's very interesting. So before we, before our time together is over it's not every day that we get to sit down with a trained philosopher to discuss what might come out of the coronavirus pandemic if it does indeed extend longer than a month or two. Clearly there's gonna be some need for innovative policy responses that's gonna allow at least a portion of people to return return back to the typical traditional workplace from either working at home or being dislocated from work if the United States is gonna keep the economic engine from failing. But what do you see as the long term, maybe social, political, or lifestyle changes that might come out of the Covid-19 crisis?  [00:34:18] Michael Howard: Yeah. As you say some essential work will need to be done throughout the shutdown. People need to eat and be housed. There are the other usual health emergencies that will continue to arise. Essential infrastructure will need to be repaired. That includes the communications infrastructure that we're increasingly relying on. And our economy is so integrated into the world market that there's not going to be any rapid decoupling of the United States from the world market, and they're going to need to be manufacturing and transport across national lines. [00:34:55] It's really the whole world is in this thing together. But, in the context of the pandemic ,I think interestingly, the role of a basic income may be the opposite of what is usually thought of. Basic income advocates often argue that job losses due to artificial intelligence and automation combined with lower levels of consumption if we are not to overshoot the planet's ecological limits, that these two things point toward people working less, sharing the remaining work more, and spending less time, less spending, less money on consumer goods and enjoying more leisure and quality time in their communities. A basic income as normally conceived can facilitate all of these by partially decoupling income from paid employment. [00:35:49] If part of your income is from a basic income, and part is from wages, then you can share a job more easily than if all of your income has to come from that job. However, during the pandemic, we don't want to maximize the participation of everyone in the paid labor market. That would only increase exposure to the virus. Rather, we want to maximize non-participation and keep the number employed doing the essential tasks to the minimum. Interestingly, an emergency universal basic income in combination with the right other policies can do that. But for those kept from employment, the basic income needs to be regular and it needs to be large enough to enable people to survive. [00:36:36] That's why I think if this, if the lockdown continues for a more extended period of time, you really have to look at unconditional cash payments going out. Beyond just the onetime payment that people are supposed to be receiving.  [00:36:51] Daniel Soucier: Michael, thank you so much for virtually sitting down with us today to discuss Maine policy matters and why UBI matters to the state of Maine. [00:37:01] Michael Howard: Thank you. Thanks for having me. [00:37:06] Daniel Soucier: Thank you for joining us. We would like to thank our sponsor, Maine Policy Review for bringing Maine Policy Matters podcast to you. You can find this in all of our episodes where podcasts are hosted, including SoundCloud, Stitcher, Spotify, iTunes, and Google Play. Remember to follow the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center on social media and drop us a direct message to express your support, provide feedback, or let us know what main policy matters to you. [00:37:37] This is Daniel Soucier, and I'll see you next time on Maine Policy Matters. The information provided in this podcast by. The University of Maine System, acting through the University of Maine is for general educational and informational purposes only. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and speakers, and do not represent the official policy or position of the university.

The focus of Maine Policy Matters is the exploration of policy matters at the local, regional, and national levels as well as to highlight how policy decisions in Maine matter at the local, regional, and national levels. The double play on the title reinforces the mission, vision, and values of the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center to inform public policy processes and promote civil discourse, integrity, and societal decision-making to solve the critical issues facing Maine and the nation. The podcast facilitates open and inclusive communication to advance relationships between policymakers, community leaders, students, faculty, and staff in the University of Maine System. In the first episode of the podcast, Dr. Linda Silka, the executive editor of Maine Policy Review and Senior Fellow at the Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions discusses the emerging and innovative policy research featured in the journal. She emphasizes MPR’s essential role in policymaking and policy education in Maine and discusses the scope and impact of the publication which has been downloaded over 260,000 times in over 203 different countries. This highlights that Maine policy matters to individuals across the globe. [00:00:00] Daniel Soucier: Hello and welcome to Maine Policy Matters, the official podcast of the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine, where we discuss the policy matters that are most important to Maine's people and why Maine policy matters at the local, regional, and national levels. My name is Daniel Soucier, and I'll be your host. [00:00:26] There are so many interesting and innovative things going on in Maine politics and Maine policy today that deciding on a topic for our initial podcast was no small feat. Instead of choosing one in our first episode, we sat down with Executive Editor of Maine Policy Review, Dr. Linda Silka, to discover the emerging policy issues that researchers, students, and policymakers are writing about in the Journal. Since its inception in 1991, Maine Policy Review has published nearly 800 articles and has well over two thousands subscribers. Since augmenting its print edition with a Digital Commons website, Maine Policy Review's articles have been downloaded over 260,000 times from over 9,100 institutions from over 203 different countries. This excellent resource highlights the variety of Maine policy matters being researched and debated in the state, but also shows that Maine policy matters to individuals across the globe. Transcript [00:01:35] Hi Linda, and thanks for joining us today. Thanks for asking me. Linda, can you tell us the topical focus of Maine Policy Review? What's contained in the journal the pages of the journal, and what's the overall mission for Maine Policy Review?  [00:01:50] Linda Silka: One of the things that is just so interesting about Maine Policy Review is what the title says, what the name of we are really focused on Maine and we're really focused on policy, and we're very much focused on, not the most immediate thing, but very much on review, on really thinking about what's gone on in the past, what's going to go on in the future, what's going on now, and how we can think about all of these things. [00:02:19] Daniel Soucier: So would you say, so it's sounds like Maine Policy Review is not your, say, your typical academic journal with these like theorists and specialists that are speaking to audiences of like their specialist peers. But Maine Policy Review is something that's a bit broader. So could you describe for us the writing style and maybe the accessibility of Maine Policy Review? Who's really writing these articles for publication and what do you think their intended takeaways or their intended audience is?  [00:02:48] Linda Silka: Yeah. Really a good question. In a lot of states there's a big gap. There are great things being written by academics and there are great things being written by newspapers, but there isn't anything like a journal that, that takes a longer view that brings in different kinds of writers and really speaks to a kind of style of writing that doesn't assume that you have a whole bunch of academic knowledge. It doesn't dumb down anything. It just doesn't hide things behind the kind of academic knowledge we often use and our writers vary greatly. We have academics we have policy makers, we have business leaders, and we try very hard to help people write in a way that's going to help them reach a broad audience. That's really important. We want high school students to be pick able to pick up Maine Policy Review and say, oh, this relates to a class I'm in. We wanna have people living in senior facilities be able to do that. [00:03:55] We want people in the Augusta State House. We want people that are working for councils of government. We want people to pick it up and say, I need to tell my other colleagues about this because it's really covering some important things.  [00:04:09] Daniel Soucier: That's fascinating. So it sounds like it combines the best of both worlds as part, living in the realm of academia, but still it is accessible to a broad broad audience. So it sounds like Maine Policy Review is this really content rich journal and is able to speak to a variety of different individuals. Both that are, in the realm of policy making as well as individuals just interested in understanding policy. So have you found that there's any specific themes or topics that's gotten more coverage over time in Maine Policy Review? Does Maine itself have any recurring issues that keep popping up in the journal over time?  [00:04:47] Linda Silka: One of the things that's a recurring issue and probably won't be a surprise to a lot of people, is. How do we keep our children in the state once they leave school, how do we make sure we have the jobs and the opportunities that people will stay? [00:05:05] How do we make sure that people want to come to Maine who have the skills that we need? And that's a, that's an interesting struggle that if you look back we're in our bicentennial year. That's been a long-term struggle for Maine, is how to make sure that people can find what they need in the state. [00:05:25] And there are a lot of policy issues there. They're about what kinds of jobs are available, how do we train people? They're about education. They're about the infrastructure that exists. We are. We are so far apart compared to other states in New England. Our distances are so great. We have opportunities to think about that in terms of the policy kinds of issues and having people come and have people stay, but they're recurring kinds of issues. [00:05:53] And we are a state that is, on the one hand, we've long term been focused on things like marine issues and forestry and farming. Those are still very important, but how do we blend and think about those with other things that are going on in the times now. And so it, those are common kinds of issues that keep recurring and we really go at 'em, we really think about 'em. [00:06:20] We don't say we haven't solved it, so we're never gonna be able to solve it. I, there's a real interesting can-do kind of approach.  [00:06:27] Daniel Soucier: So these, so I guess I'll look at it from the other side of the coin for a second. So do you think the fact that these policy issues keep recurring, so things like articles about jobs, articles about training, about education, about, eliminating the drain of young people from the state or maybe even attracting others to the state. [00:06:48] If you, so you see these as recurring issues over time in Maine Policy Review. Do you think the state is does it mean we're having trouble solving these problems as a state? Or what do you make of that? [00:07:01] Linda Silka: Another interesting question. What I make of it is that they really are difficult problems and we need to step up and try things. [00:07:10] Not assuming that they're necessarily gonna work, but they're are. What we do is, is really based on the best evidence in terms of what's gonna go on. But they're really difficult kinds of issues and we gotta keep trying. One of the, they're now books being written by policy makers and academics that are about wicked problems and that should really resonate with Maine. [00:07:34] And they use that term for these problems that don't have a single solution. They might be things that combine what we need to do about education. So increasing the number of students that go to college, what we need to do about the decline in certain industries, what we need to do about the issues that are going on in terms of an aging population. [00:07:57] And they're, when I tell students, I say, okay, we're gonna talk about wicked problems. And I hold up, some of the books that have been written about it, they laugh. They just say, oh yes. 'Cause it really resonates in terms of the use of Wicked in, in, in Maine.  [00:08:14] Daniel Soucier: Absolutely. So you've, I guess you see Maine Policy Review looking at these wicked problems as a real asset that they keep recurring in the journal. [00:08:24] Linda Silka: Yes. Yeah.  [00:08:25] Daniel Soucier: Great. So in every issue of Maine Policy Review, I see that you write a column entitled Reflections. And one theme I've seen running through these columns in Maine Policy Review is how Maine is at the forefront regionally and nationally and policy related matters. Can you expand on this and maybe speculate a little bit on Maine Policy R eview's role in propelling Maine to its position as this policy innovator? [00:08:52] Linda Silka: Yeah. Last week I was down in Maryland at a meeting that was bringing together people from a lot of different states who were thinking about policy kinds of issues. And I took some copies of Maine Policy Review and we talked about some things that were there and that. In two weeks, I'm going to Arizona to give talks about some of these kinds of things at University of Northern Arizona. [00:09:15] And they're interested in part in trying to figure out why is it that there are these interesting things going on in Maine. And there are a couple things that are. To me or fascinating about Maine, that may be why some policy kinds of things get started here and get going here. One is that people know each other. [00:09:37] The degrees of acquaintance are people are pretty linked. It's so information gets passed around fairly quickly. The second is, and I'm not gonna name any states, but states that I've lived in. There's a lot of status oriented things that are not a part of the Maine kind of way of doing things. [00:09:58] And I saw that status oriented approach really getting in the way of coming up with solutions. It was more about the person and less about the problem solving. And I think a third interesting thing is we have a whole set of the issues come together. So we have a coastline, a lot of interesting opportunities and problems. [00:10:26] We have forestry, we have just all these things that come together and so we have to keep thinking about policy across our different kind of positions and points.  [00:10:37] Daniel Soucier: That's very interesting. So it's in some ways Maine Policy Review then is really reflective of Maine culture and of Maine society. [00:10:46] Now one of my favorite parts of the journal, Linda, are these thought-provoking covers that are designed by Maine artist, Robert Shetterly. Now, we know that there's been a bit of controversy at times regarding the cover art for Maine Policy Review. Can you tell us a little bit about that controversy and what are the assets and liabilities for Maine Policy Review that come along with having such evocative cover based on original artwork?  [00:11:12] Linda Silka: Yeah. Yeah. Sometimes people are concerned when they see the artwork. They've, they draw conclusions about the artwork that are different than the artists expected. And I think it's the Maine way that they let us know. [00:11:28] They don't just go and talk to their neighbors and say, but they let us know and then we actually try to be responsive, have a little piece, in the so the next issue about it. But one of the things that's interesting about the covers is I was over at one of the offices the, in the university, one of the big offices and we were talking a little bit about Maine Policy Review and they said, we are so jealous, we just love those covers. And when I go to visit different legislators, the first thing you'll see oftentimes on their table that in their waiting room is the Maine Policy Review. And when I was down in Washington for a meeting with our congressional representatives going to their offices, They had them on their tables, the Maine Policy Review, that was very exciting. [00:12:18] Daniel Soucier: Interesting. So the having the same artist over time definitely gives Maine Policy Review a distinct look to it and it's brands it in a way. Now my favorite personal cover is, the sheep that's sitting in front of the recliner watching television and smoking a cigarette. This looking at a quintessential what's wrong with American lifestyle, piece of artwork. [00:12:42] Which MPR cover is your favorite and why?  [00:12:46] Linda Silka: I have two favorites. One is the one for the library issue and where it shows a drawing of a cell phone, capturing that now we listen as opposed to ne necessarily reading. But it also shows the steps going up to it that look just like a library. [00:13:07] So it captures that whole issue was about do we do we still need libraries? And the head of the UMaine Library and I wrote a piece for it that was called something like our library's necessary or are libraries obsolete. And it has been downloaded more than anything else I've ever written and I hear from people, and you look at the map that comes up on our website about what's being downloaded and where, all over the world people are thinking about that issue apparently.  [00:13:42] Daniel Soucier: That makes me really think about the scope and impact of Maine Policy Review and sort of the shift that covers really exemplary of the shift of Maine Policy Review in some ways from just being a print medium to having some sort of digital space. [00:13:58] Now, the content of the journal from the articles and columns like yours that you write, To the cover art really make the journal a compelling read and a really recognizable feature, like you said, in legislative offices, in businesses, places like this. And so Maine Policy Review in its history is published nearly 800 articles over three decades, and there are over 2000 subscriptions to the print copy of the journal. [00:14:27] So who are the individuals or institutions on MPR's mailing list that's that's receiving the journal.  [00:14:33] Linda Silka: Yeah. Every library in the state gets it, and you'll often see it displayed all the legislators get it. And then there also are a lot of individuals and organizations that, that get it. [00:14:48] My hope is that high school students. Will you sit in their classroom? Since they can download articles and they can see things that we find more and more ways to really reach people across the age range because policy issues affect us all and the writing is really intended to be accessible to everybody. [00:15:09] And we do have I mean there was a wonderful article in the Citizen Science issue that was a teacher who interviewed one of his students who was doing really interesting citizen science. I'd love to have every student in the state know about that, download it and read that article. [00:15:30] Daniel Soucier: That's fascinating. Now I do know that the journal does have some relationship with high schools through the Margaret Chase Smith Library's essay contest, and that you do publish yes. At times articles from high school students. Could you talk a little bit about that?  [00:15:45] Linda Silka: Yeah. It's just, it's such an important kind of initiative to have, to assist students in seeing that they have something to offer, that they have something to say and to learn how to frame what it is they have to say and that it isn't just something that they shared with their family or shared with their teachers, but that it gets a broad audience by being in each year in one of our issues. [00:16:10] And it's just really interesting to read those and. See what the students have to say and to get a sense of kind of, of what's going on. And another one of my dreams would be to have everyone who comes to Maine to teach in colleges in their orientations, that they would read those essays written by high school students in Maine to give a sense, get a sense of the culture and the talent that's there.  [00:16:37] Daniel Soucier: That's very interesting. A lot of people say that youth, is the call provides the call to action for policymakers. So it's great that you fold high school students into the journal. [00:16:47] Now, what's really impressive to me regarding the readership of Maine Policy Review is it's not only, its vast impact throughout the state of Maine, right? You said it's in every library and in all these institutions, but it also has this worldwide readership. So I was thinking about this just this morning. And I looked online at the readership of the journal through University of Maine's Digital Commons website, and there was over 260,000 downloads of Maine Policy Review articles from almost 9,100 institutions in over an astounding 203 countries. So who's the typical audience accessing the journal online? In what ways do you think they're using Maine Policy Reviews content?  [00:17:32] Linda Silka: It's when you have time in the morning and your bored go on the website and just, you can just sit there and watch the downloads and it tells you which article. Who's downloading it, and there's a wonderful map. So you can see that people in India are downloading, or the it's just really interesting to see. And you can see that there's every kind of institution, represented. There are governments in different countries. There are schools, there are colleges, there are businesses. It's just very interesting. And I, to go back to the example earlier of the library issue, it's, and how often it gets downloaded. [00:18:21] It's getting downloaded in all these different countries. You see it all, all over in Africa, in Eastern Europe. It, and so trying to think about what does that mean and how do we pay attention to that is just, it's just very interesting 'cause on the one hand, our primary audience is having this work for Maine, but knowing that it's really getting downloaded at a lot of, in a lot of other locations is very exciting.  [00:18:51] Daniel Soucier: Yeah, I absolutely agree. And it shows to how things have changed over time for Maine Policy Review. That, it's gone from this The sort of in-print only journal to having this broad worldwide appeal through the University of Maine's Digital Commons website. [00:19:06] So clearly having some sort of online presence really is a benefit to the journal. So you're utilizing UMaine's Digital Commons website to increase the readership. In whay other ways is Maine Policy Review moving itself into the digital age where, print media seems to always need some sort of supplementation online, right? Because we have this 24 hour news cycle now, and individuals have this insatiable need that once they start learning about or researching various topics, it's just this need for instant gratification to learn everything you can about that topic. So in what ways is Maine Policy Review interacting with that? [00:19:45] Linda Silka: What I think is really interesting is we're saying we're not going to simplify things in the sense that we're not gonna keep this kind of deep knowledge going on, but what we're gonna do is bring eyes to it and we're gonna use whether it is things like Twitter or other kinds of really skills that, different strategies that we're learning about and we have a lot to learn. [00:20:06] But bringing the eyes to the issues, to the questions, to the opportunities, and using all of those different opportunities to increase people's thinking about policy in Maine, because what's true of a democracy, it's that we, ideally, we make decisions based on what everyone, thinks. Maine is leading in some of the ranked choice kinds of things that we're really thinking about those things. [00:20:39] So how do we make sure that we're using new technologies to bring people to the complicated issues.  [00:20:46] Daniel Soucier: Yeah. So I did notice that you are you, like you said, you're on Twitter. There's this increased presence on social media, a Instagram account, a Facebook account, and it's very true that a lot of the content in Maine Policy Review can't be simplified down, can't be boiled down to the 144 characters or whatever. So it's interesting that you're using a platform like Twitter to steer people in the right direction by looking what people are talking about online and then saying, Hey, if you're interested in tourism, check out these articles. [00:21:18] Linda Silka: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:21:20] Daniel Soucier: Fantastic. [00:21:21] Linda Silka: Yeah. And it is just amazing on, really on all my travels. One of the first things I ask people when I'm giving talks different places, I say, have you been to Maine? And I get one of two different responses. One is, oh yes, and then long stories about being there. And the second is no, but I want to go to Maine.  [00:21:45] Now, growing up in Iowa, we didn't hear people saying things like that. And so how do we, people are very interested. They are interested in how we're solving problems. They're interested in coming and spending time here. How do we make sure that they know about the interesting kinds of ways we're thinking about how to solve problems. [00:22:07] Daniel Soucier: So it sounds like you've been traveling a lot for work and you tell people about About Maine Policy review. People will have this interest in Maine. Maine has this very strong sense of place with visitors, with local people. Now, when you travel, do you take Maine policy with you?  [00:22:23] Linda Silka: Yes. [00:22:23] Daniel Soucier: And what do people when you're traveling for conferences, to give talks, to have meetings? What are people's reactions? Those people from away when you introduce them to Maine Policy Review?  [00:22:33] Linda Silka: Two or three things people say. One is, We don't have anything like this. How did this get started? How do you do all of this? That's one thing people say. The second is are pieces downloadable. And the third thing that people often say is, I'm interested in _ policy issue. Have you had anything on that? And then I say yeah, and if we happen to be near a computer, I show 'em how you can go online and check those things out. [00:23:04] Or if we're not, I show them. A copy or two that I'm carrying and I say let's see what's in this issue and things. So those are the kinds of questions that I get. But the first thing that, or the comments, but the first thing is usually, oh, we don't have anything like this.  [00:23:19] Daniel Soucier: That's interesting. So in some ways, Maine Policy Review is at the forefront of this exchange between academia, policy makers and having this real mix, this real asset of being able to talk amongst audiences, talk across different education levels like you said, getting high schoolers, college students involved all the way up through academics, policy makers, business leaders that's fantastic. [00:23:44] And maybe [00:23:45] Maybe if you look at that map of downloads as you're traveling around the country, maybe the downloads spike in areas where where you have been. [00:23:52] Linda Silka: That would be fun.  [00:23:54] Daniel Soucier: So that's interesting because in some ways, it seems throughout our conversation here you're talking about how Maine Policy review exemplifies the uniqueness of Maine society and the uniqueness of culture in the state of Maine. Do you have any further thoughts on that or/ [00:24:09] Linda Silka: Here's an example of how I think that it does illustrate that, and that is one of the, we always have a Margaret Chase Smith essay written by somebody who's noted, about issues that are going on. One of them in the last few years was by Ted Ames. A fisherman. But he's also somebody who won the MacArthur Genius Award, and he's really thinking about how do we maintain our fisheries in a warming ocean? And having him be the person who wrote that, I think really illustrates something about Maine. Here's somebody who is deeply committed to fishing, but also deeply committed to policy and is internationally recognized for his innovative work in that area. [00:24:57] Daniel Soucier: That's interesting. So Maine Policy Review in some ways is made by local people for local policy concerns, obviously with these broader ramifications, but it also creates some sort of local buy-in to these policy policy issues as well. That's, that's all incredibly fascinating. So I guess before we're out of time together, it'd be great for you to share with us like what's on the horizon for Maine Policy Review. Give listeners an idea of what where Maine Policy review is going in the future. Now I know Maine Policy Review has had a variety of special issues in the past, right? So topics like leadership, food, aging, climate change, and of course my favorite as a historian, the intersections between humanities and policy. [00:25:43] So does Maine Policy Review have anything planned to commemorate Maine's bicentennial?  [00:25:48] Linda Silka: Yes. We're so excited about, we're doing an issue that's focused on the bicentennial and it really, the bicentennial in so many ways illustrates the kind of thing that we're trying to do with Maine Policy Review. [00:26:02] Looking into the past, looking at the present, thinking about the future. And there's just so much that's terrific that is going on right now. Little snippets and papers. Just all kinds of wonderful things. Colin Woodard who's on our, our Maine Policy Review board has been doing amazing lead articles in the Portland paper about the bicentennial and the kind of history. [00:26:28] So we're, we have great people who have come forward to write articles. We're really trying to capture all kinds of different perspectives, the past, the future, where we're going as a state and very excited about it as this issue will represent, I think what we do which is not focusing just on the present. [00:26:52] But looking at the past, looking at the present and looking at the future.  [00:26:55] Daniel Soucier: That's interesting because it circles back to what we were talking about at the beginning of our conversation, which is the assets of Maine Policy Review, having these issues occur over and over again in the in the journals. [00:27:08] So it sounds like the bicentennial issue in some ways brings all of that together and combines the when...  [00:27:14] Linda Silka: Great point.  [00:27:14] Daniel Soucier: ...the past, the present and future together, and a very concrete way for readers. Now moving into the digital world and administering a journal, editing a journal must have some unique challenges. [00:27:28] So what are some of those unique challenges for Maine Policy Review as you move forward?  [00:27:33] Linda Silka: Really thinking about again, this, how to keep the depth of analysis that's included, but how to do it in a way that works when we have podcasts or when we have Twitters or when we have things on Facebook and how to really think about continuing to keep the complexity of the analysis so we end up with policies that have a long life, that work across different issues. And so many people haven't solved this yet. We probably, it'll take us a while to figure out how to bring together the digital age things, but we're working on it and we have. Telling people like you that are helping. [00:28:14] Daniel Soucier: Thanks, I appreciate that. Now I know, yeah, I have seen that do, there's some facts and figures that get posted to Instagram and Facebook that shows like a chart of for example the age range of suicides in Maine.  [00:28:28] Linda Silka: Yes.  [00:28:28] Daniel Soucier: And then that steers readers to that article on that subject, or it talks about tourism in Northern Maine- there's charts about that, and then that steers readers to those broader articles. So in some way, it sounds like you're harnessing social media to say, here's an interesting clip that fits into those that one image or those 144 characters, and then saying, and here's the broader thing that, here's the broader topic you can get at. [00:28:56] Linda Silka: Yeah. That's not the whole story. Go read the whole story.  [00:28:59] Daniel Soucier: Fantastic. That's great that you're doing that in this age of clickbait where people get headlines and then all they do is share the headlines and they never dig into the story. So it sounds like Maine Policy Review's really committed to this. [00:29:13] Moving people towards the broader, the more complex story instead of just delivering those small snippets. And that is it.  [00:29:21] Linda Silka: And wouldn't it be fun if we had in neighborhoods across the state, like we had a Maine Policy Review day where neighbors just come together and everybody talks about the same article, but that's really relevant to something, that's going on in the state right now. [00:29:37] I'm leading a number of book groups and where I'm really seeing just how much people like having something that can focus their discussions and boy, it would just be so interesting if we could move in that direction or thinking about the different faith communities where people regularly get together and could we have May is the month where you read a Maine Policy Review issue and talk about it. And we all, or people who are listening to this we decide, to do that in some way or going to a lot of the retirement communities, that are there, or that we come up with a package of materials for newcomers that come into our communities and one piece of that is a one pager about the Maine Policy Review and how they can, get it and learn from it.  [00:30:23] Daniel Soucier: Very interesting. So if you are if an individual who's listening is interested in setting up a book group or bringing MPR into their faith communities I've provided your contact information as the summary. [00:30:35] Is it would it be good for them to contact you?  [00:30:37] Linda Silka: I'd love that. [00:30:38] Daniel Soucier: You can steer them in directions.  [00:30:39] Linda Silka: Yes. I'd love that. Yeah.  [00:30:41] Daniel Soucier: So let's say to close let's pretend for a minute I'm a policy maker or I'm a business leader, or I'm an educator who's really discovering Maine Policy Review for the first time through this podcast, right? Listener out there. So can you tell me quickly why I should hop online and access my free copies of the journal? And in what ways is Maine Policy Review an asset to these individuals?  [00:31:06] Linda Silka: Yeah. What I would say to myself is, what's a problem that I'm worrying about or thinking about? And I don't know as much as I would like about it. [00:31:17] Could be about roads, could be about children, could be about the environment. And if you go to the website, you'll see you can put in a word and a topic and pull it up. And so I would say you're gonna find think about what you're worried about. Think about things you want more information at. [00:31:37] Think about things you really care about for Maine. Take a look at the website. Put in some words, see what you find, and then think about who are two or three other people that you know that you'd like to share those ideas with.  [00:31:54] Daniel Soucier: Fantastic. So Linda, I would like to thank you so much for sitting down with us today to talk about maine policy matters and why Maine Policy Review matters to the state of Maine. [00:32:05] Linda Silka: Thank you. It was a pleasure. [00:32:13] Daniel Soucier: Thanks for joining us on Main Policy Matters. You can find this in all of our episodes where podcasts are hosted, including SoundCloud, Stitcher, Spotify, iTunes, and Google Play. Remember to follow the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center on social media and drop us a direct message as this show develops to express your support, provide us some feedback, or let us know what Maine policy matters to you. The information provided in this podcast by the University of Maine System acting through the University of Maine is for general education informational purposes only. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and speakers, and do not represent the official policy or position of the university. [00:33:00] This is Daniel Soucier and I'll see you next time on Maine Policy Matters.