OPLA~Notes

Nonpartisan Quarterly Newsletter

Volume III, Issue 2
June 1999
Publication of the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis for the Maine State Legislature


In This Issue

• Smoking Related Issues
Tobacco Settlement
Maine’s Restaurant Smoking Ban
Legal challenge Facing the FDA

• Recent Legal Developments
Supreme Court Rules on ADA Cases

• Did You Know?

• Executive Orders Issued

• Internet Intersection

• OPLA Publications

• Authorized Legislative Studies


Newsletter Greetings

Welcome to the second edition of OPLA~Notes for 1999. This edition includes articles that summarize smoking-related issues, including the 1998 national tobacco settlement, Maine’s restaurant smoking ban, and the legal challenge of the Federal Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to regulate tobacco. This edition also includes a summary of the United States Supreme Court’s review of five ADA related cases, useful Internet sites, a listing of Executive Orders issued by the Governor in Fiscal Year 1998-1999 and a listing of legislative studies authorized for this interim.

As always, we welcome your comments or suggestions.

An Overview of the 1998 Tobacco Settlement

The law suit against the tobacco industry by the state attorneys general over smoking-related Medicaid expenses was settled on November 23, 1998. The 46 states, 4 territories and District of Columbia that sued the tobacco industry signed a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with the major tobacco companies of Brown & Williamson Corporation, Philip Morris Incorporated, Lorillard Tobacco Company, and R.J. Reynolds. Since the settlement was signed in November, several other tobacco companies have decided to join the original participating manufacturers in agreeing to the settlement. Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Texas did not sign the MSA because in 1997 they settled lawsuits with the tobacco companies totaling $40 billion.

The 1998 MSA financially compensates the states, regulates certain tobacco industry practices, and brings to an end all state lawsuits against the tobacco companies.

The Financial Settlement

The 1998 MSA states that the settling tobacco companies will make five initial payments, as well as annual payments in perpetuity to the states beginning on April 15, 2000. In turn, the companies will be protected from any lawsuits from the state attorneys general. Specific components of the settlement include:
· “Up front” or initial payments to the settling states by the tobacco companies totaling almost $13 billion, starting in January of 1999 and continuing through January of 2003;
· As shown in Chart #1, tobacco companies will pay steadily rising annual payments totaling $206 billion through 2025, and continuing on in perpetuity. Payments will be made in accordance with formulas specified in the MSA;
· The establishment of a Strategic Contribution Fund, costing a total of $8.61 billion, which the tobacco companies will finance from 2008 through 2017. This fund is designed to financially compensate states for their efforts in the tobacco settlement;
· An agreement by the tobacco companies to pay $50 million to a State Enforcement Fund which will aid in the investigation and enforcement of tobacco laws by the state attorneys general;
· The tobacco companies will finance a national foundation (which will be selected by the Executive Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), for $25 million each year for ten years. The foundation will support anti-smoking programs directed at educating youth on the dangers of smoking and substance abuse;
· Payments of $1.45 billion over five years to the National Public Education Fund, also established by the tobacco companies, which will finance programs designed to prevent teen smoking; and
· Payments of $1.5 million over ten years to NAAG to aid in the overall resolution of settlement issues.*

Protecting Youth from Tobacco Marketing

Under the MSA, participating tobacco companies may no longer employ any marketing tactics, or participate in any efforts to lure young people into using tobacco products. In addition, tobacco companies are prevented from: using cartoon characters in any form of promotion; using brand name sponsorship in any event attended predominantly by youth, including any concerts, youth events, and athletic competitions; using any outdoor or transit advertising; compensating the entertainment industry to promote their products; sending gifts through the mail prior to obtaining proof that the recipient is not underage; producing and selling clothing and merchandise with brand name logos; and distributing free samples, unless they are given away in places where minors are not allowed.

Lobbying, Enforcement and Attorney’s Fees: Further Restrictions on the Tobacco Industry

Participating tobacco companies will no longer be able to challenge administrative rules or state and local legislation which attempts to reduce the availability of tobacco to youth. Lobbyists will have to sign documents which state that they submit fully to the new company policies arising from the settlement, and the settling companies must now provide prior approval for any lobbying done on their behalf on the federal and state level. The state attorneys general will be given access to any necessary company documents needed to properly enforce tobacco laws, and all previously concealed industry documents will be open to the public.

All organizations that previously performed research on behalf of the tobacco companies (Council for Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute, Council for Indoor Air Research) will be abolished and any future research performed and disseminated that demonstrates the health hazards of tobacco may not be misrepresented or suppressed by the tobacco companies. .The tobacco companies will no longer be able to question the legality of state tobacco laws and rules enacted prior to June 1, 1998.

* Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Attorneys General

Maine’s Share of the Tobacco Settlement

In order for the settling states to receive their portion of the settlement funds, the states must achieve state specific finality by December 31, 2001. State-specific finality is achieved when state courts officially approve the settlement by signing a consent decree. Maine achieved state-specific finality when the Superior Court approved the settlement agreement by docket entry on November 9, 1998 in State of Maine v. Philip Morris et. al., Kennebec County Superior, CV-97-134. In order for states to ensure that they receive the full compensation from the settlement, the MSA requires that the settling states enact a model statute.

This model statute is designed to eliminate unfair profit advantages in the tobacco market by manufacturers who have not participated in the settlement. The model statute would give states the authority to require non-participating manufacturers (NPMs) to pay into an escrow fund on a yearly basis. This fund would ensure that the state would have money available to pay for any future claims brought against the NPMs, particularly if the NPMs are found to be immune from future claims against them. If there is no model statute in place, payments to the states can be altered should the participating manufacturers lose a certain percentage of their share of the market due specifically to the settlement. Maine’s model statute was enacted in the FY 1999-2000 Part II Budget, Public Law 1999, Chapter 401, Part U, under the Tobacco Manufacturer’s Act.

Figures coming from the Maine State Treasurer’s Office indicate that Maine stands to receive an estimated $86,850,082 in initial payments.** Initial payments are subject to fewer adjustments (volume adjustment, nonsettling state’s reduction, and miscalculated/disputed payment offset) with payments being divided yearly from January 1999 to 2003 (see Chart #2). As a result of Maine achieving state-specific finality, on January 4, 1999 an initial payment of $18.4 million within the national escrow account was designated for Maine. Now that an independent auditor has been selected to oversee the process of dispersing the settlement funds, the $18.4 million (along with its investment earnings) were deposited into a Maine State Escrow Fund on June 4, 1999. Payments will be released to State Treasurers nationwide by June 30, 2000,even if some states have not achieved finality.

Annual payments to Maine, which will be subject to more adjustments than initial payments, will total an estimated $2,075,001,636 between April 2000 and April 2031 (see also Chart #2). The first annual payment in April of 2000 is estimated to be $27,548,352, and the payments will slowly increase from $41,391,915 in April of 2003, to $57,635,924 in April 2010. Payments to Maine’s portion of the Strategic Contribution Fund will also be made every April from 2008 to 2017, totaling $124,200,822. These figures, provided by the Maine State Treasurer’s Office, represent the best estimate of potential settlement payments available at this time. The settlement does not restrict how Maine uses the funds.

Tobacco Settlement Provisions in the Fiscal Year 1999 - 2000 Budget

The approved Part II Budget (P.L. 1999, C. 401) establishes a “Fund for a Healthy Maine,” in which settlement funds will be deposited and utilized for health purposes. These health purposes are defined as: smoking prevention and cessation programs which focus largely on youth, prenatal and young children’s care, child care, health care, prescription drugs for the elderly and the disabled, dental care, substance abuse, and school health programs and centers. Ninety percent of all settlement funds will be deposited into this Fund, and the remaining ten percent will be credited to a “Trust Fund for a Healthy Maine.” The monies placed in the Trust Fund will earn interest and could potentially be used to fund these various health programs should the income from the settlement end.

** The figures provided by the State Treasurer’s Office have been calculated with adjustments for volume (assuming Moody’s Forecast), and inflation (a conservative 3 percent).


The Federal Goverment’s Claim to the Settlement Money

There had been some question as to whether or not the federal government would claim a portion of the settlement funds for Medicaid expenses. The settlement was based on the states’ right to reimbursement of Medicaid expenses used for the treatment of tobacco-related illnesses. Since the federal government pays, on average nationwide, 57 percent of Medicaid expenditures, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Health Care Finance Authority could assert entitlement under Medicaid law. However, on May 20, 1999, the Emergency Supplemental Bill for fiscal year 1999 was passed by the U.S. House and Senate, stating that the federal government would not lay claim to the settlement funds.

Maine Passes Smoking Ban in Restaurants

On April 6, 1999, Governor Angus King signed into law L.D. 1349, Public Law Chapter 54, “An Act to Protect Citizens from the Detrimental Effects of Tobacco.” This law prohibits smoking in all Maine restaurants, excluding bars and taverns, starting on September 18, 1999. The bill was passed in response to a rise in public awareness about the health risks associated with environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and concern for those whose occupation put them in daily contact with ETS. ETS is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a Group A human carcinogen, causing 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year in non-smokers. Non-smokers who are exposed to ETS on a regular basis are at risk for developing a range of health problems, including cardiovascular disease, lung cancer and increased respiratory problems. Maine joins four other states in banning restaurant smoking (Vermont, Maryland, Utah, California), and many similar restrictions have begun at the local level in other states. In Maine, the communities of Portland and Sabattus both enacted similar ordinances banning smoking in restaurants prior to the enactment of L.D. 1349.

The Regulation of the Tobacco Industry: How Far Can the FDA Go?

With what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) perceived as mounting scientific evidence of the harmful health effects and addictive properties of tobacco, the FDA decided in 1996 to declare nicotine a drug and began regulating the sale of tobacco products.

The FDA’s priority in regulating tobacco centered around the prevention of youth addiction and the restriction of tobacco advertising techniques. Soon after the FDA’s decision was made, its legal authority to regulate the tobacco industry was challenged.

In 1997, in Coyne Beahm v. FDA, 966 F.Supp. 1374, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled that nicotine may be regulated as a drug by the FDA but that the FDA did not have the regulatory authority to determine how the tobacco industry advertised its products. In 1998, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided in Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. FDA, 153 F.3d 155, to overturn the District Court’s ruling. The Court ruled that the FDA did not have authorization from Congress to regulate tobacco products. The decision has been appealed by the FDA to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear arguments on this issue beginning in October of this year.

____________________________________________________

Supreme Court Rules on ADA Cases

During its 1998-99 term, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to five cases interpreting the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101). Four of these cases dealt with employment discrimination, specifically who is “disabled” under the ADA law. The remaining case dealt with the issue of state services required to be provided to the mentally disabled under the ADA.



ADA Employment Discrimination Cases

In three of the ADA employment discrimination cases which the Supreme Court reviewed, the central question facing the Court was whether a disability should be evaluated without regard to potential corrective measures, such as prescription medicine or eye glasses. Under the ADA, disability means “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities” or a person “being regarded as having such impairments.” The three cases under review by the Court were brought by workers who claim they were each denied jobs based on their medical conditions. The workers’ employers claim that these individuals may not sue under the federal ADA law because their impairments are not serious enough to meet the ADA standard of disability. Specifically, the three cases involved are:
1). Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc. (67 USLW 3681). In this case, United Airlines rejected two applicants for commercial airline pilot positions because they each had poor eyesight and did not meet United’s uncorrected vision standards of 20/100. The two applicants sued United claiming that they are disabled under the ADA and therefore not being hired constituted unlawful discrimination. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that the pilots were not disabled under the ADA because with corrective lenses they were not “substantially limited” in the major life activity of seeing because with the use of corrective lenses their vision is 20/20;
2). Murphy v. United Parcel Post Service, Inc. (67 USLW 3681). In this case, a mechanic for UPS was fired from his job because his high blood pressure did not meet the U.S. Department of Transportation’s safety standards required for the job. The mechanic argued that he was “disabled” because without his medication his high blood pressure substantially limited him in several major life activities, including working. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff was not disabled because he experienced no “limitations in major life activity” when treated with medication and that when determining whether a plaintiff is disabled, the court should take into consideration “mitigating or corrective measures utilized by the individual,” and
3). Albertson Inc. v. Kirkingburg (67 USLW 3681). In this case, the plaintiff, a truck driver who is blind in one eye, obtained a waiver of applicable DOT vision standards by showing that he had good vision in one eye and had a good driving record. However, his employer refused to accept the waiver and fired the plaintiff. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1998 that by refusing to accept the waiver, Albertson Inc. violated the ADA because the plaintiff was “substantially limited” in the major life activity of seeing.

On June 22, 1999, the Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs in these three cases. In its rulings, the Court reasoned that people with correctable impairments generally can not rely on the ADA to sue their employers over alleged discrimination. In its decision, the Court stated that “ if a person is taking measures to correct for, or mitigate, a physical or mental impairment, the effects of those measures - both positive and negative- must be taken into account when judging whether that person is substantially limited in a major life activity.”

In a fourth ADA employment discrimination case reviewed by the Supreme Court, the issue was whether workers may claim that they are “totally disabled” for purposes of obtaining disability benefits, such as social security or long term disability, while at the same time claiming that they are able to perform the duties of their jobs when pursuing employment discrimination claims under the ADA.

In Carolyn Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems, et al., 120 F. 3d 513, the plaintiff was employed at a telephone background check center. She was employed at the company for six months when she suffered a stroke, which affected her memory and ability to concentrate, speak and read. While recovering from the stroke, the plaintiff signed an application for social security benefits stating that she was totally disabled and unable to work. Several months later, her doctor allowed her to return to work and she withdrew her application for social security benefits. Shortly after returning to her job, the plaintiff was terminated due to her unsatisfactory job performance. She refiled her social security application and sued her employer for disability discrimination under the ADA, stating that the company refused to make “reasonable accommodations” for her disability. The fifth circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiff’s receipt of disability benefits created a presumption that she was not a “qualified individual with a disability” under the ADA. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to address the following two issues:
1). “Whether the application for, or receipt of, disability insurance benefits creates the presumption that the individual is not a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA;” and
2). “If it does not create such a presumption, what weight, if any, should be given to the application for or receipt of disability insurance benefits when a person asserts she is a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA.”
.
On May 24, 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff could proceed with her job discrimination suit and that she should have the opportunity to argue in court that her acceptance of disability insurance did not negate her discrimination claim. The Court reasoned that “the plaintiffs’ two claims did not inherently conflict to the point where courts should apply a special negative presumption.”

The ADA and Mentally Disabled Services

In Olmstead v. L.C., No. 98-536, the Supreme Court ruled on the question of what services states must offer individuals with disabilities under ADA law. The statutory section at issue was Title II, which provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from “participation in” or “be subjected to discrimination by a government program or service.” The case was based on two Georgia citizens with mental retardation and psychiatric conditions who were patients in a state psychiatric hospital. The treating doctors agreed that the two women were ready to be discharged into community programs, but at the time there were no openings available. Therefore, the two women continued to be treated at the psychiatric hospital. The two women sued the state claiming that the state had discriminated against them because the state had not fulfilled its obligation under Title II of the ADA to treat them in a community based center. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the state “can not forgo its ADA responsibilities just because it is more expensive.” The State appealed and asked the Supreme Court to decide if the public services portion of the ADA compels the state to provide treatment for mentally disabled persons in a community placement, when alternative appropriate treatment can also be provided.

On June 22, 1999, the Supreme Court (6-3) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that states must place certain mentally disabled people in community homes rather than hospitals, while considering the resources available to the state and the needs of others with mental disabilities. In its decision, the Court ruled that it is indeed discrimination “when the state’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the state.” The justices stressed that states should have “wide discretion in adopting its own systems of cost analysis.”

Did You Know?


Maine Ranks:
· 3rd in the nation in home ownership
· 15th in the nation for percentage of legislators who are female (51 women in the Maine State Legislature)
· 47th in the nation for violent crime rates


Executive Orders Issued

The following Executive Orders have been issued by the Governor in Fiscal Year 1998-1999:

· Executive Order #1 - "An Order to Reconstruct the Mast Landing Bridge in the Town of Freeport and Damage to the Connecting State Aid Highway" - This Executive Order, issued October 12, 1998, orders that the Mast Landing Bridge over Mill Brook in the Town of Freeport and the connecting State Aid Highway, which sustained damage from flooding, be repaired diligently.
· Executive Order #2 -An Order Establishing the Year 2000 Readiness Task Force” - The purpose of this Task Force is to broaden public and private awareness of the Year 2000 computer problem in both the public and private sectors. The Task Force consists of no more than 21 members with representatives drawn from both the public and private sectors. The Task Force was required to make a comprehensive report with recommendations to the Governor by June 1, 1999, with periodic progress reports thereafter on September 1, 1999 and December 1, 1999. A final report of activities with further recommendation will be made to the Governor by March 31, 2000. The Task Force terminates on June 30, 2000.
·Executive Order #3 - An Order to Implement Amendments to the Maine Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan - Under this Executive Order, state agencies are charged with implementing the amendments to the Maine Atlantic Conservation Plan adopted by the Land and Water Resources Council on April 15, 1999. State agencies, which are assigned specific goals and actions under the plan, were required to prepare and finalize a detailed action plan by April 22, 1999. These agencies were also required to furnish a report every quarter beginning June 15, 1999 summarizing the status of implementation efforts for the preceding quarter. The Land and Water Resources Council is required to make a written report to the Governor semi-annually on the status of implementation efforts, along with a summary of the progress made during that period.


Internet Intersection


Have you ever wanted to create your own web page, but did not want to invest the time and money? Below, is a list of services that will give you FREE Web space, in return for allowing them to display their advertising banners on your webpage. In some cases, these services will help you publish a Web site even if you have no experience in writing HTML (the coding language that is used to create Web pages). With many of these services, the only work on your part is coming up with content ideas for your Web page. The list of possibilities is endless: you can publish your resume on-line, publish a page devoted to your favorite hobby or cause, create a page devoted to yourself and your interests, or have a page that displays your family's photos, etc

· Angelfire Communications - Free web space up to 5 MB http://www.angelfire.com
· FortuneCity - Free web space up to 10 MB http://www.fortunecity.com
· Free Sites Network - Free web space up to 20 MB http://www.fsn.net
· GeoCities - Free web space up to 6 MB http://www.geocities.com
· Hypermart - Free web space up to 10 MB http://www.hypermart.net
· The Globe - Free web space up to 6 MB http://www.theglobe.com
· Tripod - Free web space up to 5 MB http://www.tripod.com
· XOOM - Free web space up to 11 MB http://www.xoom.com

Policy and Government
The Center for Policy Alternatives: The Center for Policy Alternatives is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy and leadership development center devoted to community-based solutions. This site provides policy-related news, issue analyses, model legislation, and links of interest, including a feature link of the month. CPA also links elected leaders across the fifty states with private and non-profit sector leaders.
http://www.cfpa.org/

National Archives and Records Administration: This comprehensive governmental site includes access to government documents and library materials, reports, The Federal Register, an on-line exhibition hall featuring historic documents, grant information and technical guidance on archival preservation and management.

http://www.nara.gov/

Thomas: Federal legislation from 1973 to present, as well as links to other governmental information.http://thomas.loc.gov/
Provides links to “hot” topics in government by subject.http://thomas.loc.gov/home/html.arc/hot-subj.html
State News Information Center: This site is provided by the Council of State Governments and offers up to date information on state legislative actions. http://www.statesnews.org

Maine State Legislature: The State of Maine statutes, including the new laws passed in 1998, are now available through the Legislature’s homepage. The website also now includes access to current bill text, amendments and final disposition information.
http://www.maine.gov/legis

Law and Legislative Reference Library: Provides access to URSUS catalog, collections information, reference information, legislative history instructions and interlibrary loan information, and lists of Justices for the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and Maine Attorney Generals. The Library's website also includes an in-house index to NCSL Legisbrief, a two-page issue brief published by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). The latest addition to this website is the submittal of research request via e-mail.
http://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib

Technology

Search Engine Watch: A wide variety of search engine information is offered at this site including an overview of the major search engines, tutorials on how to use search engines, information on specialty search services, as well as trivia and interesting facts about search engines. http://www.searchenginewatch.com

News

Internet Press: This site presents links to hundreds of In-ternet news sources, radio and TV stations, magazines and newswires by region, country or state.
http://www.usatoday.com/

General Interest
Consumer Information Center: This site is provided by the U.S. General Services Administration. The site offers full text versions of hundreds of federal consumer publications, including information on cars, federal programs, money, children, small business, education, health, employment and travel. http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov

Where’s George: Have you ever wonder where that paper money in your pocket has been, or where it will go next? This website provides a U.S. dollar tracking system. All you need to do is enter the series (year) and serial number of any US dollar bill, and your current zip code. http://www.wheresgeorge.com


OPLA PUBLICATIONS

· Bill Summaries - Now that the First Regular Session has been completed, the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis and the Office of Fiscal and Program Review (OFPR) will be preparing summaries of each bill considered by the joint standing committees this past session. The summaries will include a description of each bill, committee amendments, floor amendments and the final action taken on each bill. The summaries will be available in the near future. If you would like a copy of a committee’s bill summaries, other than those for the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee and the Taxation Committee, please contact OPLA at 287-1670 or in Room 101 of the State House, or download the summaries from the OPLA website at: www.state.me.us/legis/opla

If you would like copies of the bill summaries for the Joint Standing Committee on Appropriations and Financial Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on Taxation, please contact the Office of Fiscal and Program Review at 287-1635 or in Room 225 of the State House, or visit OFPR’s website at: www.state.me.us/legis/ofpr

· Study Reports - A listing of study reports of legislative committees and commissions categorized by year from 1973 on is available from OPLA. For printed copies of any of these reports, please contact the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis at 13 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333 (287-1670) or stop by Rooms 101/107 of the State House. The first copy of a report is free; additional copies are available at a nominal cost. In addition, many of the legislative studies staffed by OPLA during the 117th and 118th Legislatures are available on the OPLA website at: http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla


Legislative Studies


The following is a list of legislative studies approved by the Legislature for this interim. These studies are the result of legislation considered during the First Regular Session of the 119th Legislature.

Study Name Staffing
ACF Committee Study - Subcommittee to Review Regulatory Responsibilities of MLURC and DEP OPLA
Blue Ribbon Commission to Establish a Comprehensive Internet Policy Legislative Council
Business Advisory Commission on Quality Care Financing Department of Economic and Community Development
Citizen’s Advisory Committee to Secure the Future of Maine’s Wildlife and Fish OPLA and Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Commission to Encourage Incorporations in Maine
Legislative Council
Commission to Examine the Adequacy of Services at the Togus Veterans Administration Medical Center OPLA
Commission to Propose an Alternative Process for the Payment of Forensic Examinations for Sexual Assault Victims OPLA
Commission to Study Bulk Purchasing of Prescription Drugs and Medical Supplies OPLA
Commission to Study Children in Need of Services Legislative Council
Commission to Study the Enhancement of Fire Protection Services Throughout the State OPLA
Commission to Study the Needs and Opportunities Associated with the Production of Salmonid Sport Fish in Maine Legislative Council
Commission to Study Single-Sales Factor Apportionment OFPR
Committee on Sawmill Biomass State Planning Office
Committee Study of the Application of Real Estate Transfer Tax to Corporate Transfers OFPR
Committee to Address the Recognition of the Tribal Government Representatives of Maine’s Native Sovereign Nations in the Legislature OPLA
OPLA
Committee to Establish a Memorial Dedicated to the Civilian Conservation Corp.		 State House and Capitol Park Commission
Joint Select Committee on the Year 2000 Computer Problem OPLA
Review of Traffic Congestion Including Truck Traffic Along the Route 1 York Corridor OPLA
Select Commission to Study State Participation in Funding Cleanup and Remediation of Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Sites OPLA
Staff Study of Statutory and Regulatory Changes Regarding Milk and Milk Products OPLA
Staff Study to Examine Utility-related Laws Outside of Title 35-A OPLA
Study of Current Regulations Imposed on Small Businesses to Require Greater Efficiency Legislative Council

Study of Standardized Periods of Military Service and Other Matters Related to the Award of State of Maine Veterans’ Benefits		 OPLA
Study to Develop Alternative Programs for Violent and Disruptive Students OPLA
Task Force On State Office Building Location and Other State Growth-related Capital Investments OPLA
Task Force to Review the Educational Program and the Governance System of the Governor Baxter School for the Deaf Legislative Council
Task Force to on Early Care and Education Dept. of Human Services
Task Force to Study the Improvement of Public Water Supply Protection Dept. of Environmental Protection and Dept. of Human Services
Task Force to Study the Need for an Agricultural Vitality Zone Program. OPLA
Task Force to Study the Operation and Support for the Board of Environmental Protection OPLA

If you have any questions concerning a particular study, please contact the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis at 287-1670.


OPLA~Notes

Published for the Maine State Legislature by the Office of Policy & Legal Analysis

Director: David E. Boulter
Editor: Darlene Shores Lynch
Article Contributors: Natalie Hicks, Researcher and Darlene Shores Lynch, Senior Researcher

We welcome your comments and suggestions.
Contact the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis by writing to 13 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333; calling 287-1670; or stopping by Rooms 101/107/135 of the State House. The newsletter is available on the Internet at: www.state.me.us/legis/opla/newslet.htm






















OPLA~Notes
Quarterly Nonpartisan Newsletter
Office of Policy and Legal Analysis
13 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333