Rep. Katrina Smith (R-Palermo) presented a bill on Monday on behalf of House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor), addressing vague Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) language by requiring agencies to define what they mean by “equity.”
[RELATED: AI Startup Reveals DEI-Related Language Embedded in Maine Education Laws…]
“At its core, LD 1593 is about transparency, accountability, and public trust. It does not seek to interpret the social or political intentions behind equity initiatives. Instead, it seeks to ensure that when public institutions invoke the term ‘equity’ to justify actions such as adopting personnel policies, awarding contracts, or shaping hiring practices, the public clearly understands what is meant, and how success is being measured,” said Rep. Smith.
“In recent years, equity has become a guiding term for many public policies, but without a clear, consistent definition, it risks becoming a vague or politicized term that confuses more than it clarifies,” Smith added.
Smith, who serves as assistant minority leader, was among the eight Republican co-sponsors of Rep. Faulkingham’s LD 1593. She spoke in support of it during a public hearing in the Committee on State and Local Government.
The bill would simply require any public agencies or educational institutions to define the word equity whenever they say they are using it as a metric in adopting policies, awarding contracts, or hiring. That definition would then have to be publicly available on the institution or agency’s website and must include any metrics used to measure equity.
Smith argued that the bill does nothing to impose or assess the ideological value of equity-based policies and is merely a transparency bill.
This vague metric has been used in the Maine Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) official activities, according to a 2021-2023 plan. That strategic plan suggested that equity would be considered in awarding contracts and potentially as a criterion in other decisions as well.
“Conduct training on how to do an equity review of competitive bidding processes, proposals, and contracts and make training available to all staff participating in contracting processes,” reads the document.
“The purpose of this plan is to prioritize equity in all programs, policies, and practices and to foster a culture of health equity predicated upon anti-racism, anti-poverty, community engagement, and collaborative data-driven approaches to the promotion of health and human services,” it adds.
Though the DHHS planning document does define equity as “when barriers are identified and removed to ensure fair treatment, equality of opportunity, and fairness in access to information and resources for all,” the vague definition does not clarify how the idea will actually be used in official decision making.
The University of Maine System’s 2023-2028 strategic plan also suggests that the institution prioritize equity in its official operations.
Faulkingham’s bill would cut through the vague language of these and other agencies to force a clear and readily available definition of equity and its impact on policy decisions.
“There is widespread public confusion and often disagreement about what equity means in practice, especially in the context of public policy. For instance, equality of opportunity ensures access for all, while some interpretations of equity focus on engineering outcomes,” said Smith.
“These are fundamentally different approaches, and the public deserves to know which is being pursued,” she added.
Jon Reisman, an emeritus professor of economic policy at the University of Maine at Machias and a Cooper town selectman, testified in support of the bill.
“A series of FOAAs has revealed that Maine State Government has no definition of equity despite broadly promoting equity as part of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, and as part of specific policy initiatives such as the Climate Action Plan,” said Reisman.
“Promoting an undefined policy goal is pure policy malpractice,” he reasoned.
He provided an extensive list of state agencies that fail to provide definitions of equity, including the UMaine System, the Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Secretary of State’s Office, and numerous other agencies.
Reisman was the only member of the public who testified in person on the bill, though it did receive two pieces of testimony online.
The Maine School Management Association (MSMA) testified against the bill, claiming that since the schools use equity as a metric in “nearly every decision” they make, being forced to explain how those decisions are made would be unnecessarily burdensome.
“Schools are already held to high standards and regularly report achievement scores, attendance data, behavior information, graduation data, and more. We believe this is already sufficient. In addition, local school boards hold transparent, open discussions as they adopt new policies, in full open view of the public – providing ample opportunity for public input. If a local community requests additional information about a particular policy a school district will provide it,” said the MSMA.
The Maine Municipal Association also weighed in, in opposition to increased transparency, claiming that a definition would actually hinder equity-based policies, because equity does not actually have a uniform meaning.
“Equity is a core value of any municipality who are committed to reducing disparities and ensuring that all residents have an opportunity to thrive, regardless of race, income, disability, or background. However, a blanket requirement to define equity and the metrics used for every decision not only misunderstands the nature of equity work, but it also impairs the ability to respond effectively to local needs,” they said.
“Finally, a community’s understanding of what is equitable evolves with community input, data, and lived experience. To codifying a single definition or metric prematurely could freeze that evolution, or worse, allow political actors to manipulate equity definitions to suit ideological aims. During a time when trust in government is fragile, we cannot afford to create more red tape that obstructs the delivery of fair and responsive services,” they added.
No work session has yet been scheduled on the bill.
