POLAND – The town has no rules on how its elected officials do business. If it does, town officials don’t know, nor do they agree on what they are.

A dispute about a Planning Board member’s not being reappointed after her term expired last month has exposed the town’s lack of procedures and standards.

“I realize that the town of Poland has no rules or regulations,” said selectmen Chairman Glenn Peterson. “We need something we can hang our hat on.”

Selectmen David Corcoran and Steve Robinson admitted Tuesday night that they did not know how votes should be taken or reconsidered. They added that they did not dispute Peterson’s citations from Robert’s Rules of Order and the Maine Municipal Association Manual.

However, Corcoran noted that the board had never officially adopted Robert’s Rules of Order nor any other rules of governance.

Corcoran and Robinson also pleaded ignorance about the difference between town employees and those appointed to serve on town boards and committees. And board members could not agree on which questions to ask legal experts.

Like I’m 5′

“Explain it to me like I’m 5 – I don’t care,” said Corcoran. “I want one letter that explains it to me with the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed.”

Both Corcoran and Robinson agreed that the immediate problem went beyond Sue Ellis’ reappointment and involved how the town operated.

“I want to know and everyone here to know that we are doing things per procedure,” said Robinson. “This doesn’t have anything to do with Sue. Glenn is right in my opinion, but I have no assurance right now of what is right.”

After contentious debate about procedural questions, the Board of Selectmen left the Planning Board seat open. On a 3-2 vote, selectmen decided to leave the seat unfilled until they participated in a legal workshop and agreed to specific questions for legal opinion.

“This thing is going to keep going until Sue Ellis is back in her seat on the Planning Board because this town does things the good ol’ boy way,” said Gary Thurlow. Outside the Town Office, Thurlow added, “I’m sick of the back-door politics in this town.”

Petersonville’

However, other Poland residents argued privately among themselves that Peterson was trying to run the town and change the rules in midstream.

“It’s Petersonville,” said Arthur Dunlap, who was speaking as a citizen and not as the town’s code enforcement officer.

The controversy arose when the board voted down Selectman Bud Jordan’s motion on July 6 to reappoint Ellis. The vote was Jordan in favor, Corcoran abstaining, Peterson and Wendy Sanborn against. Steve Robinson was absent.

The July 20 meeting brought out several supporters of Ellis who urged the board to reconsider its vote. Some of those supporters turned out Tuesday, but only Ellis disputed citations read aloud by Peterson.

“I don’t have an issue with you not reappointing me,” said Ellis. “But I feel you owe it to me to tell me why.”

Robinson read the minutes of July 6, which stated that Sanborn wanted to see new faces on the board and Peterson saw no support for Ellis among townspeople.

Ellis insisted on a written statement that specified reasons for not reappointing her. She claimed that fell under the state statute that required a written record for refusal to renew her contract.

Contract, oath

Peterson asked Town Manager Richard Chick to produce Ellis’ contract, which Chick conceded did not exist. Ellis took exception and claimed that her oath of office sufficed as a contract.

“Excuse me, but there most certainly is a contract,” said Ellis. “I don’t even know what it says, but I swore an oath to serve on the Planning Board. If that oath isn’t a contract, I don’t know what is.”

Bruce Uldall, who was appointed unanimously Tuesday as an alternate to the Planning Board, spoke against paying more money on legal opinions.

“I’m fine with whatever you do with the Planning Board,” said Uldall. “But as a tax-paying citizen, I don’t like the money we’re spending on this. I hope it gets resolved on how things should go.”

The town already received two legal opinions from the firm of Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson of Portland. One, dated July 27, answered the question of who could bring up the vote again. It quoted a version of Robert’s Rules of Order, which Peterson countered with a more recent version of the manual. The other letter, dated July 30, answered the question of who could second a motion to reconsider a vote, and was based on not knowing the original motion.

“These to me are terrible opinions,” said Peterson. “One is based on inaccurate information, and other is based on outdated information. For the money we’re paying these attorneys, we may be well served to get a $19 copy of the current Robert’s Rules of Order.”