Opinion

Letters to the Editor

Not too late to fix Sangerville’s ‘big mess’

To the Editor:
    At our annual Town Meeting in March, the residents of Sangerville voted for a selectman as they do every year, but as has happened several times in the past, the voting process was flawed. Indeed this year several laws were violated, creating a really big mess. And the mess keeps getting bigger as time passes and our select board keeps making poor choices.

    Before our town meeting started, registered voters were issued little pink squares to use when a “show of hands” vote was required. These pink slips were also used to identify who was entitled to a written ballot, which state law requires for voting for the position of select board member. Three of these pink slips were used as ballots and placed in the ballot box. The counters, moderator, and clerk, being too late to stop these individuals from using the wrong ballots, sent the three “pink ballot” voters back to get proper ballots and allowed them to vote again.
    When the votes were counted, Melissa Randall had 34 votes, Irving McNaughton had 33 votes and 3 invalid ballots had been cast. As Sangerville has no charter and has a population under 4,000, selectmen must be elected by a majority vote, half the votes cast plus one.
    Due to the use of illegal ballots and three people being allowed to vote twice, the total number of votes cast was 70. A candidate would need 36 votes to win. No one won, but a winner was announced.
    When the vote was challenged, the moderator explained how common sense had been used to correct the voting irregularities, that the vote had been fair, and that Mrs. Randall was the winner.
    When several people loudly objected, they were asked to leave the meeting. The meeting eventually closed with the vote still standing, but many questions linger.
    Those questions include:
• How did three people get pink slips into the ballot box?
• Did they also put real ballots in while putting in the pink slips?
• How did they get a real ballot when they needed a pink slip, which they no longer had, to prove they were entitled to one?
• Can selected people vote twice on one vote?
• Did all three voters who used pink slips actually vote again?
• What did they use to vote with when a “show of hands” was required for the rest of the meeting?
    What a mess! The really sad part is that this incident isn’t the first or even second time Sangerville has tried to elect a selectman with a mere plurality. It is, however, the first time I have heard of the town allowing certain voters to vote twice.
    Back in 1999, Sangerville elected a selectman who did not receive the majority vote. A vote was held; someone received a plurality, but not a majority of votes; that person was declared the winner of the election. Someone spoke up during the meeting, explaining that a majority vote was needed. The town received bad advice from their moderator and let the select board seat go to the person with the plurality, only to discover the following week that the town had indeed broken election law.
    In its infinite wisdom, the town decided that because no official complaint had been issued, they would let the election stand and remember to never commit this mistake again. Unfortunately the town’s collective memory is short.
    In 2010, Sangerville once again used a plurality to elect a selectman. This time, however, the town recognized their failure to legally elect a select board member and held another election, once again vowing to never make this mistake again.
    In 2012 at a special town meeting, a select board winner was announced for a seat. Shortly thereafter, it was realized that an error had been made and no one had received the majority vote. The moderator called for a new vote and the townsfolk voted twice more, eventually electing someone with a majority vote, although each subsequent vote had fewer voters participating, suggesting that the error may have influenced the vote.
    It seemed like the town was slowly getting the concept of the majority vote, until the fiasco at town meeting this spring. When faced with an illegal election, the current select board decided to forge an entirely new path to correct the problem. They didn’t ignore it and they didn’t have another election. They declared that the only way to fix the situation was for the loser of the contest to file suit in court. It is hardly surprising that that has now occurred.
    But Mr. McNaughton hasn’t sued the town. He has sued Mrs. Randall for her seat on the board. One would think that this leaves the town out of the suit, until one learns that the select board has voted to pay Mrs. Randall’s legal fees, on the grounds that no one will run for the board, if he/she might get sued for doing so.
    However, the board didn‘t address the other candidate‘s legitimate complaint. Certainly people won’t want to run for town office if they can’t be assured that the election will be fair. Shouldn’t the town be paying his fees as well?
    The town is not named in the lawsuit, although the flawed town election is at the heart of the issue. What does it say about our town leaders, that they are willing to financially support one candidate and not the other? It looks like the board is willing to pay to get the candidate they want in office. Mrs. Randall sat with the board when they voted to pay her legal fees as a select person. While she was not allowed to vote, she spoke strongly to the issue, thus opening the potential for intimidation.
    When I wrote to the board to express these opinions and ask them to hold another election instead of paying extravagant legal fees, I was told that the board would not discuss the issue because it could be prejudicial to the upcoming case. The board attempted to take the issue into executive session, but declined to discuss the issue, when they were advised they couldn’t go into executive session.
    Where does this all end? Who is going to take responsibility for this mess and fix it?
    The people of the town of Sangerville need to speak up and the select board needs to listen. Otherwise we will be facing this problem again somewhere down the road. And undoubtedly it will cost us, the townspeople, more money to fix.
    It isn’t too late to fix this mess. The select board needs to stop wasting taxpayers’ energy and money on lawsuits. State law allows them to hold a new election when the town has failed to elect a person legally. So, Selectmen, do it!

Brydie Armstrong
Sangerville

 

Sangerville ordinance would strengthen existing statute

To the Editor:
    Our code of ethics ordinance is and will be on 2015 warrant as an article for the citizens to vote on at the annual town meeting. Now selectwoman Melissa Randall is working her heart out trying to enact a code of ethics policy, so she can tell the public next spring that we already have an ethics policy and do not need a code of ethics ordinance.
    As I see it, there is a number of problems with her policy. One is that she is trying to enact an ethics policy after we already have a code ethics ordinance on the warrant. Two is that her policy is redundant and limited as her policy is only repeating a handful of existing laws and not strengthening any one of them, whereas our Code of Ethics Ordinance is only requiring the town officials to abide by all the maine state laws, statutes and the policies, ordinances of the town of Sangerville, and be polite citizens.
    Our ordinance is also strengthening one of the most important statutes M.R.S.A. Title 30-A Section, §2505, section (9) which limits the recall of a town official to (only if the official is convicted of a crime, the conduct of which occurred during the official’s term of office and the victim of which is the municipality.)
    Our ordinance has legally strengthened section (9) to (9A) Excluding 9 for the purpose of strengthening this statute §2505 by way of this ordinance, replacing 9 with section (103) section (A) of the recall section of the Code of Ethics Ordinance for the town of Sangerville.
    (103) section (A) states: “This ordinance provides the means and method by which citizens of the Town of Sangerville, Maine may seek the removal from office of any appointed or elected official of the Town of Sangerville, Maine if he or she does not comply with the Maine State laws and statutes and the policies and ordinances of the town of Sangerville, Maine, by due process of law.”
   I must also let you know that the latest Maine Municipal Association letter says to the town of Sangerville that our ordinance is not illegal, (therefore is in fact legal) and the Selectmen are legally bound to include it as drafted on the next annual town meeting warrant, and that the board of selectmen do have the right to propose an alternative Code of Ethics Ordinance,
    But as I see it we are only requiring the town officials to abide by the same laws we the citizens do and be polite and respectful citizens.
    Please ask yourself why in the world would they want to change it, and also ask yourself why have we had so much resistance from selectwoman Melissa Randall and absolutely no resistance from any other selectmen, town manager or anyone else?

Richard R. Dobson Sr.
Sangerville

 

Opposition to corridor continues

To the Editor:
    At our town meeting in March, a resolution opposing the proposed east-west corridor passed by a margin of about three to one. We have twice renewed a moratorium against the highway, and it is still in effect.
    Moreover, a group of grandmothers from our town in April initiated a monthly silent one-hour vigil at the Cianbro Headquarters in Pittsfield. Since that time, we have added to our numbers. At our most recent vigil last Friday, 22 grandmothers from eight communities attended. Many more plan to come to our next planned event on Friday, Aug. 22.
    As grandmothers, we women raise concerns about the quality of life awaiting youngsters in our small rural towns. We are unapologetic about our affection for the beauty of our woods and fields, the legacy of our family farms and small businesses, the health of our wildlife and the quality of our water, all of which would be jeopardized by a corridor splitting our town down the middle.

Carol Ippoliti
Charleston

 

Central Hall update

To the Editor:
    We get lots of questions on the Central Hall project. They include questions such as “What is that new addition on the west side?”, “What’s going to be on the first floor”, and “What construction is going on now?”. Members of the Maine Highlands Senior Center will be on hand in Central hall to answer your questions and give guided tours through the building this Saturday, August 2nd, during the Homecoming celebrations from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. We look forward to seeing you there!

Chris Maas
Dover-Foxcroft

 

Property is at risk in rural Maine

To the Editor:
    Why is it that the Internet cannot be used to easily report a crime?
    Crime is very interested in the new array solar electric in Parkman. Unknown persons have “jimmied” the locks on both access doors of my building, destroying their function so I cannot enter my own building. I am locked out with my forklift stranded outside. I have ordered new devices to secure the doors but I will need to destroy a door to get inside, to arm my defenses, and delivery of defensive equipment is several days away.
    I can’t tell if “they” were able to enter the building. As best I can recall there have been well over 30 break-ins and vandalisms since 2006, but now it seems to be accelerating destructively. The Piscataquis County Sheriff’s Department is ineffective, as are the Maine State Police, who when given DNA evidence have asked me who I might suspect. My best response “nobody” or anyone of drug using age in the region. I have no idea.
    I am a hearing impaired Korean War Navy veteran with poor quality VA hearing equipment five years old and would not hear a break-ins in progress so I don’t dare to protect an expensive property myself. If I had the cash to hire “protection” I would do it.

Charles MacArthur
Sangerville

Get the Rest of the Story

Thank you for reading your4 free articles this month. To continue reading, and support local, rural journalism, please subscribe.