HOULTON, Maine — Houlton town councilors were once again asked Monday evening to reconsider their stand on funding the town’s community development department.
The matter, which was placed on the agenda by council chairman Wade Hanson, marks the third time in a month and a half that the council has discussed the issue. And once again, the board voted against the measure, only this time it featured a bit more contention between members.
The council first reduced the town’s community development department from $55,850 to $47,075 when it passed a $10,399,677 municipal budget for 2015 at its Jan. 20 meeting. That department features one employee, Nancy Ketch, whose salary makes up about 93 percent of department costs.
Ketch was hired in October 2014 to be the town’s community development director/grant writer, but she did not start the job until December. Ketch negotiated her salary with Houlton Town Manager Butch Asselin prior to her hiring.
The council re-affirmed Ketch’s appointment in January as the town must reappoint all department heads at the first of each year.
On Feb. 9, the council was first asked to reconsider its stand, but no formal vote was taken, as two councilors were not present.
On Feb. 23, the full board gathered and rejected a proposed solution that would have taken $8,775 from the town’s fund balance (surplus account) to restore the department to $55,850.
During Monday night’s meeting, Asselin suggested the board could transfer $8,775 from the 2015 administration budget/consultants and economic development/promotions account, which is different from the community development department. That transfer would result in no impact to the bottom line of the budget.
“This has been voted on twice now,” said councilor John White. “In my opinion this shouldn’t even be on here. If we vote something down are we going to have to keep answering to it over and over again?”
Chairman Hanson stated after consulting with the town attorney, he learned the council chairman may place any item on the agenda for discussion.
“I have the authority to set the agenda to what I feel is pertinent to what is on our plate,” Hanson said. “I took the liberty to bring (the issue) back. I was trying to bring something back that did not have an impact to the taxpayer by utilizing line items already within the budget.”
“So, where this money is coming from, is that just fluff?” White asked.
Hanson stated the account is there for consultants’ fees that may come up and promotion opportunities for the town. Last year, some of the money was used for the Wings and Wheels event.
“I hate to call it fluff, but it is an account that is there for opportunities for development throughout the year,” Hanson said.
Councilor Phil Cloney noted that if the measure were approved, while it would not impact the 2015 budget, it would definitely impact future budgets.
“You are just kicking the can down the road,” he said.
Councilor Dan Peabody said, “I think it is sad that we won’t pay our employee when we fund all these other outside agencies. If we are in this tight of a budget crunch, why did we fund SADC, NMDC, the Chamber of Commerce? And our own town employee was the one we cut?”
Councilor Brent Dickison added he felt Monday night’s proposal was a fair compromise and a way to move the town forward.
During public comments, resident and former councilor Sue Tortello once again implored the board to reconsider its vote.
“We remain steadfast in our conviction that reinstating these funds is the right thing to do for our town,” Tortello said.
Tortello is one of five individuals who took out a petition in January hoping to force the council into action. The town’s charter allows for budget referendum petitions to be filed within seven calendar days after council’s adoption of the budget. Other members of the petition group were Debra Clark, Elizabeth Anderson, Phil Hathaway and Lori Holmes.
To be successful, the petitioners needed to collect 374 signatures — 10 percent of the registered voters who participated in the most recent election — by Jan. 27. That group fell short of its goal, collecting 303 signatures (8 percent).
Tortello paused in her comments and presented copies of that petition to the board and asked those in the audience who were there to support Ketch to stand as a demonstration for the widespread support her request had in the community.
“You were elected to represent the will of the people,” she said. “Now, 303 residents are telling you how we would like you to act on our behalf. It’s not a single voice acting alone, it is a collective group.”
White thanked the roughly 30 members in the audience for attending the meeting, but stated he did not feel that 8 percent of the public who signed the petition represented the will of voters.
“I would call this the vocal minority,” he said.
Hanson said the entire process was “flawed from the start” and suggested some members of the council did not act appropriately by waiting to cut the funds in the manner they did. Hanson said he also felt that some members of the council were disregarding the input from those who attended the meeting and were instead listening to messages they receive on Facebook.
“I think there were some inappropriate discussions, which is a harsh word, but I think there was discussion going on about this,” he said. “Everyone was aware of the process that should have been followed. There was a choice made by a number of councilors to wait until the last minute so there would not be any discussion or opportunity for anything to be adjusted by the town manager.”
He added he feared the town would likely lose Ketch, who he stated was a “valuable asset to the town” and that the measure was going to impact the town negatively in the long run.
White said he took offense to Hanson’s remarks.
“That is a pretty big statement,” he said. “I’m offended that you are inferring there was some plan.”
Councilor Matt Carr echoed White’s statement saying it was “a strong accusation.”
The request to restore funding failed by a vote of 2-3, with one abstention. Councilors Peabody and Dickison voted in favor, while councilors Jane Torres, Carr and Cloney opposed. White abstained from voting and said Tuesday morning that he did so because he did not feel the board should have been asked to revisit the matter a third time.
On Tuesday morning, councilor White emailed the Houlton Pioneer Times with further comments.
“To be told that 303 signatures, 8 percent of the registered voters, is the end all, be all is wrong,” he wrote. “To be told that we’re making decisions ‘on the computer’ is offensive. To me, the people who make the effort to call, text, email or (send messages on) Facebook, those are meaningful things. I listen to everyone.”
The next regular council meeting is set for Monday, March 23, at 6 p.m.
