Becker's Testimony: True or Untrue?

On December 8^th, 2006, Ethics Commission Executive Director Wayne received a voicemail from Commissioner Mavoureen Thompson requesting that the staff seek out legislative testimony to check statements made by Becker during the Commission’s October 31^st session. In that meeting, Commissioner Thompson wondered if MHPC had expressly advocated for LD 2075, the pre-TABOR bill before it became a ballot issue:

MAVOUREEN THOMPSON:  Did Andrews or Adams get your participation from the Center when in fact their bills were debated before the legislative committee?

MR. BECKER:  We were called to testify, by the Tax Committee primarily.

MAVOUREEN THOMPSON:  And were pros and cons indicated in that?  Sometimes the legislature will ask for people who are pro legislation and con.

MR. BECKER:  Yes.

MAVOUREEN THOMPSON:  And either to sign up and indicate or just to take turns and so forth for the thing.  Has there been a testimony?

BILL BECKER:  We represented basically the authors of the model legislation.  That's the way we were represented.

MAVOUREEN THOMPSON:  So you didn’t — you were not like on the pro side or the con side in terms of -

BILL BECKER:  (Interposing) I think we had been perceived that we went on the pro side because wrote it.  We were obviously proud of something that we had drafted two, you know, a year earlier.  But we represented it as the experts as the policy experts on that piece of the model legislation. (P. 42-43)

Later in his testimony, Becker reiterates this point saying that it is part of MHPC’s general policy:

 MAVOUREEN THOMPSON:  Do you take any pro or con stance on any other public issues?

Mr. Becker:  We don't take any pro or con stance on any issue. (p. 59)

(Click here for the transcript on the Commission's site)

However, the documentation gathered by Wayne specifically contradicted these claims as he summarized the content of these documents in the cover letter of his 12/8 memo:

At the hearing, Bill Becker testified for the Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC). The MHPC testified in support of LD 2075 (the MHPC thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify in “full support” of the bill). When Mr. Becker signed up as the second witness, he placed a check-mark in the proponent column…

(Click here for the sign in sheet along with Becker's testimony)

Other examples? During the 123^rd Legislature, MHPC’s Tarren Bragdon expressly advocated against LD 1890. 

***

So, judge for yourself. Is this statement true or untrue:

 Mr. Becker:  We don't take any pro or con stance on any issue.

Again, I encourage all interested to review the materials and reach their own reasoned conclusions based on the evidence.

                                                                                                 -CL

All materials on this website are copyright © 2007 by TrueDialog.org. All rights reserved.