Ogunquit Charter Review Commission Chairman Herb Hoffman, seen here, describes the work of the committee to date.
Photo by Virginia Woodwell
OGUNQUIT - The Ogunquit Charter Review Commission has completed a year-long examination of the town's existing charter and, pending the results of a legal overview, is expecting to submit its recommendations to the Board of Selectmen on Jan. 2.
Terms of the current charter require that it be reviewed once every five years. The nine-person commission, consisting of six elected and three appointed members, met monthly throughout 2007 to discharge that obligation.
State law requires that the review be completed within one year, and the commission is essentially on schedule, said Commission Chairman Herbert Hoffman, who reported the group's findings in an interview this week.
The commission is making 11 recommendations for change that it views as "substantive," Hoffman said, at least four of which, he added, "are likely to cause some interest."
Among the latter are two which would make members of both the Budget Review Committee and the Planning Board elected rather than appointed. According to Hoffman, those two proposed changes reflect an interest on the part of the public in having a greater say in both boards. A recent poll taken by the Planning Board, he reported, indicated that 70 percent of taxpayers responding favored such a change for that board.
Each of the two boards in question has five members and two alternate members. The change being advanced would have selectmen continue to appoint the alternates, and a staggered pattern of transition in which alternates would move up into full vacancies as they occur, and no more than two positions would be up for election at any one time. Under that plan, the boards would not be fully elected until the spring of 2011.
Another major proposed change would have the town's fiscal year begin on July 1 and end on June 30, starting in July 2009.
According to a written capsule summary provided by the commission, that shift from using the calendar year as the fiscal year would help ease the budget process by putting Ogunquit in conformity with the fiscal practices of both York County and the Wells-Ogunquit School District. "In addition," the capsule states, "once fully implemented, this change will likely preclude the necessity of borrowing funds, and the associated interest expense, in anticipation of tax revenues."
Ogunquit, Hoffman said, remains one of the few towns in York County still adhering to a calendar-year budget, and, he added, while the transition raises the challenge of, as he put it, "paying two years' taxes in 18 months," he felt confident that selectmen and others could work to make that move smoothly and easily.
Related in topic to that proposed change is another, less controversial: that tax bills be issued semi-annually, in two installments, rather than just once a year. That change, Hoffman said, is likely to be welcome.
Still on the subject of budgets, the commission recommends a shift that would give voters more options on ballots. Where, on any given proposed annual-budget figure, there is a difference between what selectmen recommend and what the Budget Review Committee recommends, the commission would let the voter choose one, the other or neither. That procedure, Hoffman maintains, would restore some of the right to amend a budget motion from the floor that was lost when the town abandoned open meetings in favor of secret-ballot voting.
Two other proposed changes stem in part from recent events.
One, in the words of the commission, "spell[s] out in detail the qualifications, the procedure for determining the salary range and the process for appointing a Town Manager" and "introduces a ‘citizens committee' to assist the Select Board [sic] in screening candidates for Town manager and thereby promotes greater community involvement in the selection process."
Behind this proposal, Hoffman said, was the fact that, when a town manager was last appointed, selectmen promised to execute a thorough search for such a manager but failed to do so, "despite having given assurances, on at least two occasions, that they would."
Another proposal would deny selectmen the right to call a special town meeting for the purpose of reintroducing proposals already rejected by voters. That change, Hoffman said, comes following selectmen's recent proposal that a special town meeting be called to ask voters to reconsider their Nov. 7 rejection of purchase of a fire engine and a police cruiser.
The commission felt the selectmen's action in that instance constituted, Hoffman said, "an abuse of voters' rights."
The commission has also moved to tighten requirements for a recall election. It proposes that the number of signatures required to hold such an election equal 25 percent of the ballots cast in the last gubernatorial election. Current requirements call for a number of voter signatures that is only equal to or greater than 10 percent of the number of ballots cast in the last annual town meeting.
"This is designed," the commission writes, "to preclude arbitrary and capricious recalls."
Two other proposed changes concern matters of ethics. The commission proposes that "a Select Board [sic] member shall forfeit office by a vote of three members for conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 30 days, whether or not such imprisonment actually occurs. ... This change replaces subjective criteria with a clear, objective criterion." The rule currently reads, "for a conviction of a felony or conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude."
In the other ethics matter, the commission simply proposes that the term "appearance of" be added to conflict of interest "to instill additional confidence in the conduct of municipal business."
The commission also recommends creation of an elected citizens' committee "to be the arbiter of election disputes." Selectmen currently have that responsibility.
Additionally, the commission has made suggestions for "codify[ing] the organization and procedures for boards, committees and commissions for which the Select Board [sic] has responsibility."
"The bulk of other changes," the commission noted, "are designed to make the Charter gender neutral, correct typographical errors, clear up ambiguous language, and create an improved organization of Articles and Sections." In all its current proposals, for example, the commission has referred to selectmen as "Select Board."
In arriving at its decisions, Hoffman reported that the commission debated thoroughly and responsibly, and came to conclusions that were unanimous in all but one case, requiring a legal opinion in only one instance.
It held two public hearings, both of which, he said, were poorly attended. Seven people came to the first and even fewer to the second. The commission received only one letter despite inviting e-mail and other input. Its televised meetings, however, he added, apparently generated an audience, judging from casual feedback he received, and he termed them "probably one of the most intellectually stimulating committees in town."
Summarizing, Hoffman offered the highest of praise for the commission's performance.
"It's been one of the best committees I've ever had the honor of chairing or participating in as a member," he said. "Members were hard-working, thorough and self-initiating. They offered to do things and they delivered, they produced marvelous work, and they were creative. And we had a very good, excellent dynamic."
The commission experienced some changes in its composition throughout the year, with three reappointments to replace departing appointed members, and one to replace an elected member; six members participated year-long. The members were, in addition to Hoffman and in sum, Roger Brown, Jack Leary, Lesley Mathews, Wini Mason, Bernadine Speers, Greg Titman, Michael Score, Jackie Bevins, Dale Dixon, Don Wunder, Bernie Stein. Speers served as vice chairman and Mathews as secretary.
