A constituent’s July 12 letter (“Representative angers Scarborough resident”) posed the question, “Who is Heather Sirocki working for?”

Last November, voters in my district selected me, a Republican and a mother of three, to represent them. It is a tremendous honor to represent the individuals in my district.

I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I take the job of a citizen legislator very seriously, striving to represent the interests of the citizens within District 128.

My 100 percent voting record shows I never skipped tough votes. It is to be expected that some may not agree with every vote I cast. Two tough bills were cited to question my integrity.

I supported L.D. 35 and the Second Amendment rights of individuals who have a legal concealed weapons permit.

I opposed L.D. 412 banning bisphenol A in sippy cups and baby bottles.

BPA is being phased out. Rushing the new replacement is, however, not a wise course of action when the guinea pigs are young children. Forewarned that I was committing “political suicide,” I voted my conscience.

The claim that I “pledge allegiance to large corporate lobbyists” was somewhat amusing, given my reputation.

As an “inexperienced” freshman, I was recently pointed by a colleague toward the lobbyist-lined hallway to give me some friendly advice. And when he said, “You need to learn to spend some time here; this is where all of the work is done,” I cringed and walked away.

Our Constitution guarantees individual rights, and as Ayn Rand said, “The smallest minority … is the individual.” That is who I work for.

To improve our government, we must ask for answers, and we must respectfully consider differing opinions of the citizens in our districts.

I thank the letter writer for giving me the opportunity to respond publicly. I welcome my constituents to contact me.

Rep. Heather Sirocki
District 128
Scarborough

A recent letter to the editor (“Representative angers Scarborough resident,” July 12), references L.D. 35 as well as other issues supported by Rep. Heather Sirocki, R-Scarborough.

The writer indicated that Rep. Sirocki is more interested in advancing the interests of out-of-state lobbyists than voters of the state. I do not agree.

Rep. Sirocki rarely talks to lobbyists, but does work for individuals in her district and Maine citizens; she researches issues to make informed decisions and supports affordable government plus looks for common-sense solutions. This is the type of representation Maine needs and this family supports her.

Sumner Thompson
Scarborough 

A letter criticizing Rep. Heather Sirocki, R-Scarborough, falsely alleged that she pledges allegiance to large corporate lobbyists. I have had many personal discussions with Sirocki about how corrosive she finds the whole lobbyist culture to our state.

L.D. 35, for example, merely allows people with concealed weapon permits to keep firearms in locked cars and out of sight while working. It does not allow firearms to be carried contrary to company policy while working. Maine issues concealed weapon permits only after a background check and passing a training course.

Sirocki and I spoke about the BPA ban after she cast that vote. She was urged to vote for the ban by party leadership, but she had reservations about the safety of what was going to replace BPA. She also knew, as did anyone watching the Legislature. that the vote against BPA was going to be quite lopsided. Her vote did not change the outcome.

The letter writer alleged that Sirockli is interested in advancing the interests of out-of-state lobbyists without regard for the Maine business community and the rest of her constituents. That allegation doesn’t pass the straight-face test.

Sirocki has two basic questions regarding any bill she votes on: Does it comply with the state or federal constitutions? Is it the right thing to do. We may agree or disagree with her votes but we cannot honestly doubt her integrity.

Michael Coleman
Old Orchard Beach 

Readers still concerned about anti-bullying bill 

State Rep. Mary Nelson, D-Falmouth, sets up an impossible situation when she says that it is her hope that “the Legislature will put aside political and ideological agendas.” (Another View, “Critics mischaracterize much-needed anti-bullying bill,” July 23).

Every politician represents a political agenda to the voters, and we vote for that person based on his politics. In addition, everyone has an ideological agenda. Every Mainer has a value system ranging from secular humanist, atheist, Christian, Jewish or another set of values.

Why don’t we ask, which ideologies or values best serve the children of Maine?

As a Christian, I’m with our Founding Fathers in saying that a Judeo-Christian value system best serves children of every ideology.

Debra Wagner
Lisbon Falls 

This is in answer to Tim Russell’s legal analysis of the bullying bill (“GOP lawmakers should be applauded for rejecting flawed bullying bill,” Maine Voices, July 13).

Mr. Russell states that the bill “incorporated no protections” for students’ First Amendment rights, but that’s hardly a “serious flaw” because no state law trumps constitutional rights.

I have a gay son. He was terrified to come out to us, his parents. He thought we would kick him out of the house. He couldn’t come out at school, as he was afraid of the reaction of his peers. What made him so afraid?

He read stories on the Internet by hundreds of gay adolescents who had been kicked out of their homes due to fear.

I have spoken with many of them. They have told me, “Why would I want to be this way? Why would I want to be hated and bullied by my own culture?”

Subsequently, these children have had a very difficult time coping. Depression, suicide and substance abuse have plagued them.

So it is time to examine why some think there is a “gay agenda,” as Mr. Russell states in his letter.

What is the “gay agenda”? I’m puzzled. The only agenda I see is the civil rights and lives of our gay adolescents and adults, being abridged. They deserve equal rights and a culture that does not thrive on fear of the “gay agenda.”

New York state was able to cross party lines and approve of gay marriage. Why not Maine?

Don’t let the facts get contorted. Our gay adolescents and adults don’t deserve this.

Shelby Patton
Brunswick

Copy the Story Link