The Town of Waldoboro, via their attorney, officially responded to a lawsuit filed against the town earlier this month.
The lawsuit, filed by nine residents, alleges that a July 2011 special town meeting is invalid because it was held by traditional open town meeting. The plaintiffs cite a November 2008 referendum special town meeting, at which voters approved an article calling for all future town meetings to be held by referendum.
The residents – Dennis Blanchet, Travis Reed, Michael Robitaille, John Higgins, Doreen Weiss, Wallace Walton, Patricia Chapman, Duncan Morrell and Scott Dupuis – argue the 2008 article created an ordinance that binds all future town meetings and special town meetings to referendum votes.
In its motion for dismissal, sent to the Lincoln County Superior Court Aug. 26 with the town’s response to the suit, Waldoboro argues the 2008 article does not create an ordinance. “It is nothing more than an advisor, non-binding warrant article passed at a particular town meeting in 2008,” according to the defendant’s motion for dismissal.
“The big thing is that the town doesn’t agree that there is an ordinance, and even if there was, it would still be non-binding,” the town’s attorney, William Kelly, said in a telephone interview Aug. 29.
This last comment is supported by a legal opinion written by the Maine Municipal Association.
That opinion, printed in “Maine Townsman” in January 2006, states that only a charter may create any binding regulations regarding a town’s voting methods, and final authority for choosing the voting method at any town meeting rests with the board of selectmen.
Waldoboro does not have a town charter.
According to the article, with the exception of certain business, such as the election of town officers, “…a directive to use the secret ballot method of voting … is not legally binding unless it is contained in a municipal charter.”
Any town meeting article regarding voting method should be taken as a recommendation to the selectmen, but not a binding rule, MMA wrote.
So, according to MMA, when Waldoboro voters approved the 2008 article calling for referendum voting, they were offering their opinion to the selectmen, but not creating a binding requirement.
Clifford Goodall, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, disagrees. A voting method ordinance should be binding with or without a charter, he said at the time the suit was filed.
Although the 2008 voting method article does not specifically refer to the creation of an ordinance, “an ordinance is anything that passes that governs the way the town operates,” Goodall said. Particularly when the article was placed on the warrant by petition, he said, as was the 2008 voting article.
Goodall said his opinion is driven by Home Rule; state law governing the legality of local ordinances, which states that anything passed at a local level that doesn’t violate state law should be implemented “based on the obvious intent of the voters.”
In the next few weeks, the plaintiffs are expected to file a response to the motion for dismissal. A judge will then review and decide on that motion. If the suit is not dismissed, the court will then take up the lawsuit.
