News
Gray
Council stands by Order 29
Says OK to put on ballot at late date
By Elizabeth Prata
Gray--Does shortening the time period for putting
items on the ballot lead to the potential for disenfranchising
absentee voters? Is the time-shrinkage even allowed
by statute? These questions were posed to the Council
Tuesday night at their workshop meeting and at the
previous regular council meeting on October 5.
The Gray Town Manager Mitch Berkowitz had offered
the council a way to mitigate the tax cap impacts
by describing a way to set current debt outside the
cap. But the idea had come late in the game.
Voters will decide on November 2 whether to pass a
statewide 1% tax cap. Ever since the referendum was
certified by the Secretary of State for placement
on November's ballot, municipalities have quailed
at the thought that it might pass. They have looked
for ways to deal with what they say will be massive
cuts to municipal and school budgets under a passed
tax cap.
Lately, several municipalities, including Gray, did
find one way to moderate any impact. That method was
by using language in the tax cap proposal, which states
that debt prior to 1999 would be outside the cap.
The clincher is that the tax cap referendum language
is based on California, and specifies only debt that
has been passed at a general election by 2/3 of voters
is allowed to be set apart. Most municipalities in
Maine vote fiscal matters at Town meeting or through
local legislative bodies.
Gray decided that if they ask voters to re-ratify
debt, all debt including before and after 1999, at
this November's general election, it would satisfy
both the spirit and intent of the Cap language and
would withstand any challenges. It would also satisfy
the goal of mitigating cap impacts.
Gray proposed it through Order 29 at their September
21 and October 5th meetings.
On October 5, the Order 29 passed with a 4-0 vote.
The result is that it will be placed on the November
2 ballot as a local initiative. During discussions
at both meetings, there were some questions and challenges
to several aspects of the Order, however. On October
5, Gray resident and former councilor Fran Monroe
asked whether the Council had taken the Maine Municipal
Association's interpretation into account.
The MMA states that the issue is not clearly delineated
through statute that local bodies can put things on
the ballot sooner than 35 days before an election.
It should be noted that the statute has recently been
amended to 45 days. Monroe also asked how absentee
voters will be taken care of.
The Council sent the question back to Town Attorney
Bill Dale for clarification, along with concerns stated
from The Monument Newspaper that echoed the procedural
aspects of the time-shortened placement the Order
onto November's ballot.
The pertinent statute is 30-A sec. 2528(4) E. That
paragraph states that it is OK to allow a shrunk time
period for nomination papers, as follows:
"E. Notwithstanding this subsection, when the
municipal officers determine to fill a vacancy under
section 2602, which must be filled by election, the
municipal officers may designate a shorter time period
for the availability of nomination papers, but not
less than 10 days before the filing deadline, and
may designate a shorter time period for the final
date for filing nomination papers, but not less than
the 14th day before election day."
The question was if municipalities are allowed to
shrink the time period for nomination papers, then
it can go one step further also shrink it for local
initiatives.
MMA warns against this, as follows:
"An open question is whether, if the municipal
officers determine to shorten the period for filing
nomination papers for certain officers under the authority
of 30-A sec. 2528(4) E , the deadline for filing a
petition for a secret ballot referendum can also be
moved closer to election day.
Clerks should urge persons inquiring about how to
circulate a petition to avoid this if at all possible,
as it may call into question the validity of the vote
on the referendum question. ... When the municipal
officials pick a date for the election, they should
ensure that it will be at least 35 [now 45] days after
the date that they make their Order....it is an open
question whether a petition can be filed as late as
a shortened nomination paper filing deadline established
by the municipal officers under the authority of 30-A,
section 2528(4)E. The same question is open with respect
to municipal officers' Orders for referendum elections.
For the same reason stated above, it recommended that
this be avoided-- stay with the 35 [45] day deadline."
Council Chair Pam Wilkinson assured audience members
Tuesday night that after having asked the Town Attorney
again, that he still stands behind his interpretation
and that it is OK to put the initiative on November's
ballot. Berkowitz also spoke to the concern about
absentee ballots. He said that new ballots will go
out to every absentee voter who had already requested
them.
Gray resident Mike Salvetti said that the Council
is imposing the unusual circumstance upon these voters
and said that they should go to extra lengths to ensure
they are allowed their right to vote. He asked whether
a including return receipt with the absentee ballot
would be feasible.
Vice Chair Lynn Olson said that doing that would be
expensive and there are only so many lengths to which
the Council would go. Wilkinson and Berkowitz said
that the matter would be handled with utmost diligence.
With this action, the Council is setting a precedent.
If the shrinkage of the time period for placement
on the ballot is allowed to stand for this Council,
for Order 29, then placement of all shortened-time
period initiatives on the ballot can now be allowed,
whether initiated by this or future Councils, or by
citizens.
The matter will be decided November 2. If it is passed
by 2/3 of voters then it will allow $11 million in
debt to be set apart from the cap, if the cap is passed
that is. The measure does not allow for new debt,
only re-ratification of existing debt. If Order 29
fails at the polls then Gray still has the same amount
of debt. If the Tax Cap fails then there is no impact
to having passed or failed Order 29.
http://www.MonumentNews.com/2004/news/1014/1014a.shtml
