More on Sangerville ethics ordinance
To the Editor:
On March 9, 2015, there were multiple telephone conferences calls with Town Manager Ken Woodbury, Melissa Randall and Eaton & Peabody concerning the Code of Ethics Ordinance, and conversation between Eaton & Peabody and other members of their staff, totaling $1,352.50 of billing from Eaton & Peabody.
On March 10, 2015, an Eaton & Peabody billing concerning the opinion letter was $253.50.
On March 11, 2015, Selectman Melissa Randall sent by email to the town manager a copy of a previous Code of Ethics Ordinance Draft with three extra pages that a voter received by email and additional information.
On March 12, 2015, work was done by Eaton & Peabody concerning a draft opinion letter, totaling a cost of $721.50 to o the Town of Sangerville.
All of the above work was based on an email and additional information that a voter brought in to Eaton & Peabody office. The total billing for those three days from Eaton & Peabody was over $2,327.50
The town office received the Eaton & Peabody opinion letter on the evening of March 12, 2015.
The attorney’s opinion letter was based on the above information that was given to him without the vote of the board of selectmen at a legal board meeting. In fact, one board member knew nothing about any of this activity.
The town report was sent out for printing on March 17 2015, and the printed book was delivered to the town office on March 20, 2015 with the opinion of the board and the opinion of the attorney. Also, an opinion letter from the attorney that did not match the attested Code of Ethics Ordinance was inserted into town report without authority or the vote of the board.
On March 23, 2015, Mr. Richard Dobson filed an FOAA form for a request of information as to exactly what did Eaton & Peabody based his opinion on?
Mr. Dobson was refused that information numerous times with the same response of attorney client-privilege information. So Mr. Dobson filed to the court for an appeal of an FOAA denial, not a lawsuit.
Finally at the June 11, 2015 Sangerville Select Board Meeting, Mr. Dobson was given the answers to his questions directly from Eaton & Peabody Attorney Mr. Thad Zmistowski.
In the opening introduction from Mr. Zmistowski at the meeting, he stated after the ordinance was voted down, he was asked at that time to look at the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Zmistowski stated that he based his opinion on a previous draft that had three extra pages attached to it, along with additional information that a voter had come into his office and personally handed to him.
Mr. Dobson was very pleased with the information Mr. Zmistowski gave to him, and the outcome of the board meeting of June 11, 2015.
1. Was the opinion based on the attested ordinance? NO
2. Was any of this authorized by vote of the Board? NO
3. Was any of this activity legal? NO
4. Did the town officials give the voter at the town meeting false information? YES
5. Did every voter that signed the petition see the attested ordinance? YES
6. Can Mr. Dobson back this information up as being the truth? YES
The town officials took an oath of office to abide by the constitution and laws of Maine.
It is about time someone should take reasonability for their actions.
Pam J. Dobson
Sangerville