Poor old New Gloucester, it’s been a tough few months. Firing of staff, questionable executive sessions of the selectmen, a police investigation into missing personnel files … no wonder folks have lost faith in some of their elected officials.
On May 5 at the annual town meeting, residents will have the choice of two ordinances to initiate a recall process. One was submitted by a committee appointed by the town and one by a group of citizens who drafted the document and got enough petitions from fellow citizens to get it on the warrant.
There are striking differences in the two documents: the town’s version places many limits and criteria for a recall process, whereas the citizens’ ordinance lays out a more straightforward approach.
Let me be clear, as a general principle I think that recalling elected officials should be done rarely and is not a course of action I typically support. I do support the public’s ability to hold their elected officials accountable in an open, simple fashion.
I also support an informed electorate, but the mail piece that went out to every voter in town does not support such an idea. It seeks to distort the message of a group of people who live in this town, people who have been very public and open about the process. The mailing is anonymous; the senders do not have the courage to stand behind their fear-mongering aspersions.
Residents should compare both ordinances. Which one makes sense? Which is by residents and for residents?
Christopher Rheault, New Gloucester
Send questions/comments to the editors.
