OTISFIELD – The debate Saturday about whether Otisfield should adopt the town manager form of government ranged across a number of issues, but in the end, residents voted 107-67 at the annual town meeting to defeat Article 5. Part-time selectmen and current town staff will continue to take care of town business.
Some residents felt having a town manager was not in the best interest of the town and questioned the wisdom of adding another layer of bureaucracy
Jim Thomas, who formerly served as selectman and member of the fire department, said, “I’m not opposed to change if there is a cost/benefit associated with it.” But, he continued, a town manager will not make the town immune to lawsuits or sexual harassment or budget problems.
He noted, “We have not missed a filing deadline, people are served effectively, staff is cordial and well-organized.”
Joe Vaillancourt, principal of Otisfield Community School, spoke of the difference between fixed costs and intangible savings. He said, “A town manger would be able to save a large part of his salary by writing grants and reviewing expenses. People doing the day-to-day work don’t have time for this kind of research.”
But this reasoning was rebutted by Jerry Robbins, a former selectman, who said there aren’t that many grants for which a town like Otisfield can apply.
The debate continued at length, until one resident moved to close the discussion, noting that 67 other articles on the agenda also needed votes.
After defeating Article 5 by secret ballot, the discussion moved ahead to Article 61, which asked voters if they would appropriate $5,000 to fund the Thompson Lake Youth Conservation Corps.
Meeting attendees seemed to support the work done by the corps. One resident wondered how much other towns bordering on the lake contributed. The concern was that each town – Oxford, Casco, and Poland – step up to the plate and pay their share, an amount reflected by the percentage of shoreline in each town.
Bob Tracy spoke of the nature of non-point pollution sources. He said, “Everyone is affected by pollutants no matter where they come from.” He encouraged people to look in terms of the watershed, and recommended that the article be amended to delete the line, “These funds are to be used on property located in the town of Otisfield.”
The amendment to Article 61 was defeated resoundingly. Article 61 as originally written passed by a wide majority.
Residents were surprised to learn that the town has a surplus of $650,000, which appeared to some to be excessive.
Selectman Mark Cyr explained that this amount of money is considered prudent in case the town faces a massive emergency, such as a hurricane or other disaster. He also noted the town earns interest on the fund.
Comments are no longer available on this story