Town examines bill of rights

By Stuart Hedstrom
Staff Writer

DOVER-FOXCROFT — In mid-September Dover-Foxcroft selectmen had a meeting with organizers of a 300-plus signature petition concerning a proposed community bill of rights ordinance. The document states that a community bill of rights for the residents of Dover-Foxcroft will be established to secure those rights by prohibiting corporations and governments from engaging in the acquisition of land for, or the siting of, private and public-private transportation and distribution corridors.

The petition requested a secret ballot vote on the document, but town officials opted to not place the ordinance on a warrant. Instead they indicated they were willing to meet again with a committee involved with the community bill of rights, and such a session took place on Dec. 7.

Dr. Lesley Fernow began the approximate two-hour meeting by thanking the board for its willingness to meet with several committee members, saying the committee has been working on the community bill of rights for several years. “I know you have the best interests of the town at heart,” she said. “I think we all probably have similar feelings, maybe not quite the same feelings,” Dr. Fernow added about seeing the community torn in half by a corridor going through.

“Our goal is still to put an ordinance before the citizens for a vote, we look at it as a community rights issue,” she said. She said the ordinance was drafted by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) and “it’s not an isolated ordinance with language out of the blue.”

“Corporations are more powerful than people,” Dr. Fernow explained, saying regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the ability to testify at public hearings do not always fully protect citizens. “This is not a land use ordinance, it is a citizens’ rights ordinance,” she said, saying residents of Dover-Foxcroft have a right to a clean environment and also have “our right to make a law that will protect us.”

Dr. David Frasz said what appeals the most to him about the community bill of rights is the document states that town residents have rights that states and corporations cannot preempt in all situations. “We maintain the right to determine certain things, no matter the outcome,” he said.

“It’s not about East-West or anything,” Select Chair Elwood Edgerly said. “It’s constitutional and whether it’s against the law.” Edgerly said the town attorney read through the bill, and said, “Quite clearly it’s unconstitutional. I think you owe it to the other 2,100 or so taxpayers to find something that will have some teeth and not get thrown out.”

“It is a challenge, it is a statement, it is an attempt to assert what we believe is important in our community,” said Selectperson Gail D’Agostino, one of two board members along with Vice Chair Cindy Freeman Cyr who has been in involved with the community bill of rights committee. “As Lesley said, the final decision is in the courts and why should we shy away from a decision?”

“As Lesley said we have are in a difficult position,” Freeman Cyr said, with the select members balancing their oaths to uphold the Constitution with the obligation to protect town citizens. “I think it’s one of the ways to protect our community and we do it all the time.”

She said the community bill of rights is outside the box and may be uncomfortable. “I also feel really strongly the people of Dover-Foxcroft need to vote on this, if it’s challenged in court that will happen.”

Edgerly said if such an ordinance was enacted then the bill would be challenged in court. “This is expensive, we can’t even fix our roads,” he said. Later in the meeting, when asked, Town Manager Jack Clukey said nearly $8,000 has been spent on legal costs, such as a review by the attorney, with several thousand other dollars still pending.

The question of changing some of the document language was then brought up. Elwood said the selectmen could not say if such adjustments would make the bill stand up better or not. “We can’t make that judgement, we don’t have that expertise,” he said.

Sidney Mitchell, a member of the community bill of rights committee, said should some changes be made, then the document would be nullified as it would no longer correspond to the signed petition. She said the CELDF attorneys could possibly agree to some adjustments

Select member Jane Conroy asked what the group might do if the bill was placed on the ballot, but was voted down.

“It’s a democratic step, to allow the people to say yea or nay,” Dr. Fernow said.

Dr. Frasz said one possibility, that if defeated or not, other Maine communities could decide to take a similar action locally or at the state level.

Mitchell said the law does permit an ordinance to be brought forward again in the future, and she said in Ohio an anti-fracking measure was brought to a vote four times before passing.

“He didn’t say there’s no way, he said this isn’t the way,” Selectmen Steve Grammont said about the town attorney’s comment. Grammont said there is no silver bullet for protection against development projects such as private distribution corridors. “There is a lot we can do that hopefully will protect us,” he added, that any action taken by a town can still be challenged.

“I don’t think anyone is saying this is a sure thing,” Dr. Fernow said. “I think is is one more thing that that we have, one more piece that gives us power in our community.”

Selectman Ernie Thomas wondered about the impact of the community bill of rights on local businesses. “How do you go about specifying somebody like Cianbro form somebody like Pleasant River Lumber,?” he asked.

The response indicated the bill pertains just to the corridor. Dr. Fernow said an existing business or resident’s property is not referenced. She added, “This ordinance would not prohibit a gas pipeline coming into Dover-Foxcroft to serve the citizens of Dover-Foxcroft.”

The enforcement section of the community bill of rights drew a number of comments from the town attorney.

“Is there, in your opinion, anything we can do to construct an enforcement section that you or your attorney would find acceptable and that we could take back to CELDF and find acceptable?,” Dr. Fernow asked.

“My proposal is you would take (the attorney’s) line by line objections and take it back to them so it would not be an instant rejection by the town attorney,” Grammont said. He said if CELDF does not agree to adjustments then at least those involved would know where the organization stands.