A Warren lawmaker who works for the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA) refused GOP requests to recuse himself from voting against a bill opposed by his employer, raising questions about blurred ethical lines when lawmakers official acts overlap with their jobs.
The bill in question was a major rule change regarding the use of genetically modified plant products that passed unanimously through the Maine Board of Pesticide Control (MBPC). However, because it was a major substantive rule, the bill required additional approval from the legislature’s Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (ACF).
Rep. William D. Pluecker (U-Warren), the House Chair of the AFC, sponsored the bill (LD 2189), as it is customary for committee chairs to sponsor bills that pertain to rule approvals. The rule in question would have reduced the regulatory requirements non-organic farmers must meet in order to plant genetically modified crops.
Despite sponsoring the bill, Pluecker signalled his intention to vote against the proposal, leading Republicans on the committee to request that he recuse himself from the vote due to his conflict of interest or, at least, the appearance of a conflict of interest.
According to Pluecker’s financial disclosures, he has worked for several years as a paid employee of MOFGA — an organization that publicly opposed the bill Pluecker would later vote against.
Pluecker was the first to motion that the new rules not be enacted at the Feb. 14 meeting of the ACF Committee.
In an email to the Maine Wire, Pluecker denied that there was anything untoward about him voting on legislation that benefited his employer.
“The idea that I am paid in any way by MOFGA for my votes in this committee is completely wrong,” Pluecker said.
Rep. Randall Hall (R-Wilton), a member of the ACF Committee, said Republicans on the committee had asked Pluecker to recuse himself from the vote due to the appearance of impropriety, but he refused.
“We asked for him to recuse himself,” said Rep. Hall.
“He refused and said on mic that he has worked for MOFGA since January but only on PFAS [Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances] issues,” Hall said.
Despite Pluecker’s claim, his role at MOFGA was described as a public policy organizer who “leverages [MOFGA’s] political power in Augusta and with the federal government” suggesting that, as an employee of MOFGA, he is, in fact, paid for his activities in Augusta.
After The Maine Wire reached out to MOFGA and Pluecker, the organization changed the description of his role on their website.
“Helping to leverage MOFGA’s broad political power, Bill develops our advocacy communication channels and ensures that members understand priorities in MOFGA’s policy platform,” the MOFGA site now reads.
Pluecker’s vote to kill the rule change followed Feb. 7 testimony delivered against the bill by his boss at MOFGA, Heather Spalding.
The Maine Wire reached out to the Maine Ethics Commission asking whether the commission was concerned about the appearance of a conflict in Pluecker’s vote.
Although Hall informed the Maine Wire that the governor’s office had expressed concern over Pluecker’s conflict of interest, no investigation into his conduct has been initiated, and the Ethics Commission seemed unconcerned.
The commission simply directed The Maine Wire to the state law governing conflicts.
Despite working for an organization that publicly lobbies for or against bills on which Pluecker is required to vote, his position likely does not constitute a legal conflict of interest under Maine law.
This situation exemplifies the weakness of Maine’s ethics laws, which allow someone explicitly employed as a political lobbyist to vote on a bill on which his employer lobbied, and suffer no consequences.
If the bill passed, it would have altered the rules surrounding farmers’ use of genetically modified PIPs.
Currently, farmers seeking to use the modified plants are required to attend classes on the proper use of the PIPs every three years in order to maintain their licenses, and only farmers purchasing enough seeds to plant at least a full acre are allowed to use genetically modified plants that have so-called “Plant Incorporated Protectants” or PIPs.
The new rule would have removed both of those requirements, allowing farmers to be licensed once, permanently, and allowing smaller farmers to use the modified plants.
MOFGA opposed the bill on the grounds that, when planted improperly, the modified plants can spread pollen, and contaminate the fields of nearby farmers who choose not to use genetically modified plants.
They argued that, in addition to the risks for other farmers, those seeking to use PIPs should have the most recent information on the changing technology, which is discussed in the required training sessions.
“Taking a class once every three years does not seem an undue hardship for the
opportunity to plant these technologies,” said MOFGA.
MOFGA opposed the use of PIPs by small farmers, claiming that it is merely a marketing opportunity for the companies producing the modified seeds, and increases the rate at which pests develop resistance to particular strains of PIPs, requiring farmers to purchase newer strains more often.
“While planting backyard gardens with GMO crops might be a marketing opportunity for the owners of this technology, it will only accelerate the resistance of pests and increasingly make these products not useful to growers. Growers then become dependent on the newest genetic technologies, because of pest resistance,” said MOFGA.
The ACF voted 7-6 not to enact the rules, with all Democrats and Pluecker voting against the rules, and all Republicans supporting them.
