/

District 113 candidates debate the issues at UMF

7 mins read
Ed David, left, moderator Christopher O'Brien and Andy Buckland at the Monday's debate.
From left to right: District 113 candidate Ed David, left, moderator Christopher O’Brien and District 113 candidate Andy Buckland at Monday’s debate.

FARMINGTON – Residents of New Sharon and Farmington had a chance to see the next representative for District 113 at the University of Maine at Farmington’s North Dining Hall Monday evening, as candidates Andy Buckland and Ed David answered questions posed by political science honor students for more than an hour.

Republican candidate Buckland, a retired educator and Farmington selectman, and Democratic candidate David, a lawyer, are running for the district seat that will be vacated when Rep. Lance Harvell (R – Farmington) steps down at the end of the year. Farmington and New Sharon joined District 113 last year, as part of the redistricting. Farmington was previously in District 89, with Industry, while New Sharon was in District 87, with Chesterville, Jay, Mercer and Starks.

The debate, arranged by Pi Sigma Alpha, a national political science honors society, the Young Republicans and the Young Democrats, featured a series of probing questions concerning education, healthcare, economic development and energy. Audience members submitted additional questions. Each candidate had two minutes to address each issue, plus a 30-second rebuttal for the lead candidate. Christopher O’Brien, an associate professor of history, moderated the debate.

In their opening and closing remarks, both candidates stressed the ties between their families and the community. Buckland said that he wanted to serve as the representative out of a love for the region, citing the community’s generosity in assisting his family during a family member’s serious injury. David echoed those comments, saying that he believed the “anchors” of the community – Franklin Memorial Hospital, UMF, the Mt. Blue Regional School District and the municipality – were all in danger due to decisions that had been made in Augusta.

Several early questions dealt with education in Maine, at both the secondary and collegiate levels. UMF students wanted to know how the candidates would solve issues facing the UMaine system, which has been undertaking a series of cuts to reduce operating expenditures. Both candidates stressed the importance of UMF and the UMaine college system, with Buckland saying that programs should consolidated into specific campuses, which would then be marketed for those specialized, high-quality offerings. David said that state funding for the UMaine system had been repeatedly cut over the past several years, and steps to improve the system couldn’t be undertaken without funding.

“I think you’re nibbling around the edges,” David told Buckland. “The funding is at the heart of the problem.”

Medcaid was another big issue, with a student questioning if either candidate would support expanding the program through the federal Affordable Care Act. David would support the expansion, telling the audience that vetoes of expansion proposals by Governor Paul LePage had a significant impact on the local hospital and region. One of the latest of those expansion proposals included Republican participation by Sen. Roger Katz (R – Augusta) and Sen. Thomas Saviello (R – Wilton), David said, adding that he would work with those and other Republicans to get an expansion approved.

Buckland said that he was willing to consider specific proposals but did not give a definitive yes or no answer to the expansion question. He did say that he believed that there had been some improvements in case efficiency through greater Department of Health and Human Services case management, and that any expansion would require a component of increased case management to save money.

“I think the goal is that we want health care for everyone,” Buckland said. “I think we all can agree on that.”

Turning to the candidates’ approaches to economic development, student questions read by O’Brien quizzed Buckland and David on energy policy, bond questions and welfare. Buckland said that the success of businesses in Maine was tied to the tax rate and availability of skilled workers, touching on the latter need several times throughout the evening.

David said that he believed that government should be involved in economic development, noting that he had served 12 years on the Greater Franklin Development Corp. board. Western Maine would be a strong draw to new businesses David said, thanks to natural and recreational resources.

On narrow, yes/no questions, the candidates agreed more than they disagreed. Both candidates said they would support Bond Question 3, which would provide for the issuing of loans to small businesses, and vote against Question 1, which would ban bear trapping and certain kinds of bear hunting. Both also supported same sex marriage and both favored rehabilitation programs rather than jail for those convicted of some drug-related offenses.

Both candidates touted their endorsements; Buckland with a National Rifle Association endorsement and an A-ranking from the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and David with the Maine Education Association and Maine Conservation Voters. David, who got a B+ from the Sportsman’s Alliance, joked that he would have gotten an A if he had been a better shot.

Buckland closed with a brief statement that spoke to his work on the Board of Selectmen in Farmington. “I feel all of my questions and decisions have been in the best interests of the citizens of Farmington,” he said. “With Andy Buckland, what you see is what you get.”

David said that as a lawyer, he put significant stock in the word “representation,” and that he didn’t take the concept lightly. He said that he believed he had the qualifications to read and write laws and the forensic skills to get to the bottom of issues.

Election day is Nov. 4.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 Comments

  1. Very proud of our students for organizing this event. I would like to publicly thank UMF Seniors Tyler Hadyniak and Tom Bearor, the leaders of the Political Science Honor Society who came up with the initial questions for the debate. Super job, guys!

  2. Congratulation to all involved and participating for demonstrating to Bulldog readers that political dialog, discourse and debate doesn’t always have to include name calling and mud slinging and truth stretching

  3. Yes, job well done. Now if we could convince the ones in AUGUSTA and WASHINGTON D.C. to do the same. We would be in better shape.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.