Opinion on QUESTION 2: An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue for Research and Development and Commercialization
The primary research organization is the University of Maine which holds 5848 patents but can't make out on the commercial value of all those patents.
The conversation about the school project continues online in the Boothbay Register. This is the only conversation about public issues where, as an individual, I am allowed to participate and so I do not hold back. All other conversations are conducted by Maine’s ruling institutional hegemony that excludes individuals and the small free enterprise sector from participation.
For your reference: November 2024 General Election ballot order of referendum questions
The institutional hegemony of Maine is requesting 25 million dollars from Maine taxpayers to be invested in its business operations. The act that authorized this bond request dictates the words of the pitch that is no longer than the briefest of abstracts.
The act is titled:
An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue for Research and Development and Commercialization
QUESTION 2: An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue for Research and Development and Commercialization, Do you favor a bond issue of $25,000,000 to provide funds, to be awarded through a competitive process and to leverage matching private and federal funds on at least a one-to-one basis, for research and development and commercialization for Maine-based public and private institutions in support of technological innovation in the targeted sectors of life sciences and biomedical technology, environmental and renewable energy technology, information technology, advanced technologies for forestry and agriculture, aquaculture and marine technology, composites and advanced materials and precision manufacturing?
The Preamble states:
Two thirds of both Houses of the Legislature deeming it necessary in accordance with the Constitution of Maine, Article IX, Section 14 to authorize the issuance of bonds on behalf of the State of Maine to provide funds as described in this Act.
Article IX, Section 14 also states that the question submitted to the electors shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth the total amount of bonds of the State outstanding and unpaid, the total amount of bonds of the State authorized and unissued, and the total amount of bonds of the State contemplated to be issued. but those words are not found in the question to be submitted to the voters.
Pursuant to the Maine Constitution, a bond enactment requires two-thirds approval in both houses. The act states this to be the case but there are no roll calls found for either house, begging the question was one of the incentives for getting votes that the names of those who voted for it would not be published. It’s an odd way of treating the people whom institutions are hitting on to finance their agendas. Further research reveals that “Two can mean a two-thirds vote of those present. That might be a reason not to publish a roll call, especially if those present are a very small number of the total body.
Enactment: After being engrossed, all bills must be considered for enactment or final passage, first in the House and then in the Senate. The necessary vote for enactment is usually a simple majority – there are important exceptions. Emergency bills and bills excepted from the State Mandate provision of the Constitution of Maine require a two-thirds majority of the entire elected membership of each body; referenda for bond issues and constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote of those present. Maine’s Path to Legislation published by the Maine House
There is no argument for such an interpretation as consistent with the intent of the Maine Constitution for what is the purpose of such a requirement for bonds if not to make the bar higher? By adding the words “of those present” the bar becomes lower than for any other type of legislation. The only requirement in the Maine Constitution is that the board be voted in with a two-thirds vote from both houses. If it is intended to mean a two-thirds vote of those present, it makes a mockery of there being any intent at all. With the additional words added, to assure a higher bar, there would also have to be a standard for how many members must be present, how the vote is made known, and that the roll call must be published. Words are not added to a Constitution for no purpose whatsoever. They always have an intent. What other intent could there be than to make the bar for a bond vote higher? Why is there no roll call for this vote?
Article IX, Section 14 also states that the question submitted to the electors shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth the total amount of bonds of the State outstanding and unpaid, the total amount of bonds of the State authorized and unissued, and the total amount of bonds of the State contemplated to be issued. but nothing consistent with those words is found in the question to be submitted to the voters.
The Act outlines many instructions for the Treasurer of the state as to how to handle the bond with a designated purpose identified as “commercialization” but does not address why such a bond is consistent with Article V. Part Third, Treasurer. of the Maine Constitution which states:
Section 2. Bond. The Treasurer shall, before entering on the duties of that office, give bond to the State with sureties, to the satisfaction of the Legislature, for the faithful discharge of that trust.
Section 3. Not to engage in trade. The Treasurer shall not, during the treasurer's continuance in office, engage in any business of trade or commerce, or as a broker, nor as an agent or factor for any merchant or trader.
Is that to be interpreted as the Treasurer’s private interests rather than his capacity as an agent of the state? The term “commercialization” identifies that the funding is for commerce.
Laws are created in the context of other laws. Constitutional context differs from the statutory context, The Maine Constitution forbids the Legislature from chartering corporations (Article IV Part Third, section 14) and instructs it to write general laws that regulate corporations (section 13). In the constitutional context, the question of whether the prohibition against dealing in trade refers to the Treasurer personally or in his role as a state agent would not arise because the Constitution forbids the state from engaging in commerce by prohibiting the Legislature from chartering corporations if the object can be achieved another way, such as in the private sector, in Article IV Part Third Section 14, and instructs the Legislature to regulate commerce in Article IV section 13.
Recently enacted statutory law includes the charter for the Maine Space Corporation, adding to a long list of state-chartered corporations. The state enters a field crowded with private sector companies in an industry that pokes holes in the earth's ozone layer and proliferates debris and chemicals floating around the earth's atmosphere, also threatening the ozone layer. If the state is participating in th field, how can it be entrusted with regulating it?
The sales pitch for a twenty-five million dollar subsidy is a joke! Imagine asking any other source for funding with a brief description of how those funds will be used.
Note that all the categories except the last one can be interpreted as addressing environmental issues confronting humanity collectively, the last category "precision manufacturing" can apply to any kind of business manufacturing. Throwing "precision manufacturing" in the mix undermines any argument that this funding is for a public cause.
But precision manufacturing (as in robots?) is necessary for commercialization, which will be parlayed as job creation for the sector that must work for a living and is excluded from receiving entrepreneurial capitalization, such as flows so freely to the institutional sector that it believes it needs only the shortest of an ask pitch to receive millions upon millions of dollars. The first version of this act requested 100 million dollars but the innate modesty of the institutional sector must have caused them to reduce the ask, or maybe some of our legislators protested the amount and they had to reduce it to get their votes.
We are told that deciding which projects and institutions will receive funding will be a competitive process- where the public and private institutional sector composes both the competitors and the judges.
If the enterprises want the public to finance their costs, then let the public be the judge of the competition. That requires framing the ask as funding for specific projects so that the public can decide if their money will be used for a commonly shared cause. The inclusion of "commercialization" in the title of the act says the funds will be used for commercial projects conducted by public-private institutions and we already know that means profits going to the owners of the facilities and the top leadership and not much going to the workforce.
This distribution of wealth is the basic institutional model as I wrote about in The Other Undocumented Workforce. Add tech startups to the list of workers realizing they are being excluded from profits extracted from the fruits of their labor.
Tech Employees Are Beyond Burned Out, and This Time They Need More Than Empty Promises
Morale is in the tank. Quiet quitting is through the roof. Here’s why.
Joe Procopio Published in Entrepreneurship Handbook June 24, 2024
For validation look to the labor union that student researchers for the University of Maine just formed, with an emphasis of getting better pay. As recently as September 17 the student labor held a rally. “They are concerned about “low and inconsistent pay, substandard health benefits, protections for international student workers and the need for a voice at work,” according to a press release from the group.” source
The workers say they don’t think the university is negotiating in good faith.
“I’ve been frustrated to see how slow the administration has been in responding to our elected bargaining team’s proposals,” said Allison Molinari, a teaching assistant in the physics department. “Not only has the UMS team not been offering acceptable proposals of their own, they don’t even come to bargaining sessions prepared for effective negotiations.”
In response, university spokeswoman Samantha Warren said the university values the contributions of the workers and recognized their union last fall without requiring them to take extra steps.source
These are the same institutions that exclude individuals and small free enterprises in the bottom half of the economy from being included in policy discussions or in the redistribution of wealth for commercial purposes.
Even when individuals are formed as a legal organization they still have to struggle to have a voice at the table with the institutions. The University uses the student labor strike as a pitch for more money but the ask for 25 million dollars say nothing about paying student labor. It is a generalized pitch lacking specific details:
“Ultimately, as a public university system, our ability to improve work opportunities and conditions without shifting costs to Maine students and their families in the form of unreasonable tuition increases is largely dependent on our state funding, which has historically been increased at a rate well below that of inflation,” she said.
Warren said the university hopes to reach an agreement with the graduate student workers “within the existing resources of our public institutions.” source
From The University of Maine’s response, one might think it was entirely financed by tuition and state funding, but what about all the patents they own? Are they worthless patents of no commercial value?
This is how that patent wealth is distributed at the University of Maine
It is hereby agreed that: For the first $100,000 of cumulative net income the default minimum distribution shall be as follows:
50% to the faculty creator / inventor 50% to the University
For cumulative net income in excess of $100,000 the default minimum distribution shall be as follows: 50% to the faculty creator / inventor 50% to the University
Sorry student labor! We can only pay you well if the public will generously subsidize our business expenses- and then, we’ll see, no specific promises!