LEWISTON — Androscoggin County municipalities are considering their options after a settlement offer last week from the county commissioners, who were successful in getting voters to amend the county charter.

The commissioners have called the offer a “comprehensive settlement of the current dispute.”

The municipalities aren’t so sure.

“I’m glad to hear that the commissioners are finally interested in talking. No one wants a protracted legal battle, especially at taxpayers expense,” said Emily Darby, the chairwoman of the Budget Committee and Minot’s member on the steering committee representing the cities and towns in the lawsuit.

“However, after reading the commissioners’ proposal, it sounds like that they just want the cities and towns to drop the suit whole cloth,” she added. “That doesn’t really sound like a good-faith effort toward compromise.”

“This offer doesn’t do anything,” Minot Town Manager Arlan Saunders said.

A dozen county municipalities have filed suit against the commissioners over who has the power to approve the county budget. Commissioners approved their own salary numbers and insurance compensation over the objection of the Budget Committee.

Last week, the commissioners bypassed attorney Peter Brann, who represents the municipalities, and sent a settlement proposal directly to the city and town managers in Androscoggin County. At least two town managers were left off the original list.

The proposal requires that the dozen municipalities of Androscoggin County voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice without costs to any party. The defendants say they would withdraw a pending motion for sanctions.

Commissioners, in a three-page letter from Chairwoman Beth Bell, cited last week’s vote on amending the county charter that was passed by 68.7 percent of the county voters. Commissioners say the vote “reaffirmed” their authority over the budget process, which is the backbone of the suit now in Superior Court.

“Given that the voters have endorsed the charter amendment we proposed, and given that the terms of the county charter are now unmistakably clear (if there was any doubt) nothing will be served by continuing the litigation,” Bell wrote.

Commissioners say the amended charter gives the Budget Committee an advisory role over the budget. It only has the authority to decide any raises and the expansion of benefits for elected officials.

The letter goes on to state that “commissioners have been doing the job and earning their salaries.”

The letter, which also included a settlement term sheet, was not sent to Brann, but a copy was sent to the four attorneys from the law firm Skelton, Taintor & Abbott — Ronald Lebel, Bryan Dench, Amy Dieterich and Stephen Wade — who are representing the seven commissioners.

The dispute between the attorneys became public two weeks ago following the release of correspondences between the parties, who disagree on when or if the two sides ever proposed sitting down to discuss a possible resolution.

Calling the commissioners’ version “revisionist history,” Brann said two weeks ago that “every time we offer an olive  branch, the county tries to break it in half and stab us with it.”

Lebel countered that any offer to sit down and talk was “grossly unreasonable” because it was made days before the Fourth of July and vacation schedules which meant key people were not available at that time.

Reached at his office last week, Brann was waiting to meet with the steering committee before charting the next step in the process.

“Although it is a positive development that the county is finally willing to discuss settlement, which we have been seeking since last summer and they have repeatedly refused to meet or to discuss settlement, I do not agree with their characterization of the litigation or that their proposal amounts to a settlement,” Brann said.

Tony Ward, the interim town manager for Sabattus, said he has still not received a copy of the settlement offer that the commissioners’ office sent last week.

Multiple voters have contacted the Sun Journal complaining that the wording of the referendum was confusing, voting “yes” when they thought they were voting to give the Budget Committee power to approve the county budget.

The amendment said, “Notwithstanding the final authority of the Board of Commissioners over the adoption of the county budget under Section 5.5.4, no increase in the salaries or expansion of benefits of elected officials is effective without the approval of a majority plus one vote of the full Budget Committee.”

“Regardless of the recent referendum amendment, which unfortunately was written in a way so that yes meant no and no meant yes, I believe that the core issue of whether the charter changes made by the commissioners and compatibility with state law is still in question,” Darby said.

“If taxpayers want to make sure that someone besides the foxes are watching the henhouse, then I would encourage them to attend and speak at next week’s public hearing on the county budget.”

That hearing is scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 18. That date is also the deadline commissioners have set to accept their settlement offer.

[email protected]