Dover-Foxcroft

Selectmen opt not to place citizens’ community bill of rights petition

Officials and CBR group to work to address concerns raised

 By Stuart Hedstrom
Staff Writer

DOVER-FOXCROFT — Recently the town received a petition, with over 300 signatures, requesting a secret ballot vote on a community bill of rights ordinance, stating that a community bill of rights for the residents of Dover-Foxcroft will be established to secure those rights by prohibiting corporations and governments from engaging in the acquisition of land for, or the siting of, private and public-private transportation and distribution corridors.

According to statute once such a petition has been presented to the town, municipal officials shall have a related ordinance be placed on the next ballot or call for a special town meeting.

Last month the Board of Selectmen held a public hearing on the community bill of rights ordinance  and opted to seek legal opinion on the document as well as another legal opinion on how such as proposed ordinance would fit within the state’s environmental law. On the evening of Sept. 8, the board held a special meeting with both attorneys and members of the public present.

By a 4-3 decision, with Select Vice Chair Cindy Freeman Cyr and board members Gail D’Agostino and Ernie Thomas being the “no” votes and Chair Elwood Edgerly and Selectmen Jane Conroy, Steve Grammont and Scott Taylor voting “yes”, the selectmen opted to not put the petition contents on a warrant (the community bill of rights needs to be placed either exactly as written or not at all). Freeman Cyr  and D’Agostino have been involved with the group that organized the community bill of rights ordinance, and during the meeting last month their fellow board members took a vote saying the two could take part in any ensuing motions and did not have to recuse themselves.

“We definitely want to have some meetings on these,” Edgerly said about the concerns raised in the community bill of rights ordinance. After about two hours and 20 minutes of discussion, the board passed a motion, unanimously 7-0, saying the selectmen would meet with the petition committee and work with the two attorneys in attendance to identify and resolve issues in the document to potentially bring something new forward.

Attorney Timothy C. Woodcock of Eaton Peabody provided two memorandums on the petition. “What I concluded is if sections four through seven of the ordinance are enacted all of it would be legally invalid,” he said, saying portions of the community bill of rights ordinance could be seen as going beyond the scope of law set by the U.S. and State of Maine constitutions.

In closing, Woodcock said, “I do believe that with respect to the authority of the Board of Selectmen here, you are not authorized to send this ordinance out to vote.”

Attorney Lynne Williams of Bar Harbor was also retained to review the community bill of rights ordinance, having worked with other  towns on rights-based ordinances including in Sangerville and Cambridge.

On the issue of town officials fearing that they will be sued individually and held legally responsible for the impacts of an ordinance they voted to be placed on a ballot, Williams said elected officials have qualified immunity from being sued and cannot be sued for actions taken as public officials under the Maine Tort Claims Act.

“You have many issues on this but I think potential lawsuits is not one of them,” Williams said.

She wrote, “I believe that the town attorney will argue that because there are so many aspects of the proposed (community bill of rights) that are clearly violative of settled State and Federal Law, that it would be within the authority of the Select Board to refuse to place the measure on the ballot. I concur with some of the concerns of the town attorney, particularly with respect to Section 4–Enforcement. It is clearly settled law that only the state can set fines for State law violations and only the State can define those violations. Likewise, the municipality cannot void State law or regulations and only the  judicial branch can determine costs and attorney’s fees recovery.”

Woodcock said if the community bill of rights ordinance is enacted as written then this would be the ordinance in place if a developer wants to build a corridor through town and the language preventing such as a project could proved to be invalid in court. “It could be literally years before anybody challenges it,” he said.

“It shouldn’t be put on the books just to be put on the books, it should be put on the books because it will serve a purpose,” Woodcock said.

A question was raised regarding an alternate process for bringing the community bill of rights ordinance to a public vote. Williams said, “What you would do is find a notary and call a citizen’s town meeting. It would be a town meeting to vote on the measure.” A warrant for such a meeting would be created and then decided on by those present.

Edgerly wondered ensuing enforcement, and Williams replied, “It becomes an ordinance of the town.”

Freeman Cyr asked what those involved with creating the community bill of rights ordinance would like the selectmen to do.

Sidney Mitchell said all over the world challenges are being made to the concept that corporations are people. “What this is about is we are challenging this contradiction,” she said, as the the community bill of rights ordinance states that corporations that violate or seek to violate the ordinance shall not be deemed to be persons nor possess any other legal rights, privileges, powers or protections that would interfere with the rights or prohibitions enumerated by the ordinance.

“I’m asking you please put this ordinance on the ballot, if it ends up being challenged we will deal with that later,” Mitchell said. “We want to see the bigger picture on this, we are probably not going to give up on this — that’s how I feel.”

Edgerly wondered why those involved in the community bill of rights ordinance have not pursued an addition or amendment to the land use ordinance.

“We need more, we need civil rights, we need rights of living things to come into the conversation,” Mitchell said. She said the selectmen, planning board, comprehensive planners and everyone else is all part of the process and “there’s no conflict from my point of view.”

 

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.