Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-14 83-118 ORDER83-118 Introduced by Councilor Soucy, larch 14, 1953 CITY OF BANGOR (TITLE.)"r ApN axing Deppty, Finance Director to Execute_ Municipal ______------------------------------------ puitclaim Deed - Property on Stillwater Avenue .._.... .. ___ ......1:, ...__ BV the Cay C%mudl Of NW Cfv OfBamovr: ORDERED, THAT John G. Field, ceputy Finance Director, is hereby authorivee anl directed to ae cute a Municipal Quitclaim Deed, in a form approved by the City Solicitor, releasing any interest the City oqy have to certain property located on Stillwater Avenue by virtue of a tax lien recorded in the Penolticot Registry of Deeds in Volume 318,1, Page 113. Said dead shall be directed to Yvonne B. IaGasse. In City Council March 14,1983 83-n8 v Passed 0 R 0 E R Title, C ty Clear Autirorizind'Deputy Pinanoe Mrector ..................... I................ to Execute Municipal quitclaim need ...................................... Property on Stillwater Ave. Introduced and ad n GI1' TIIIII In. H. Ctu of $angor, Acne CITY COUNCIL December 10, 1982 To: All City Councilors Fr: Councilor Ed Brawn Re: Goals S Procedures for FY 84 Budget OPENING COMMENTS _ The reality that the property tax in Bangor is higher than in surrounding communities and the fact that the cost of government is directly related to services provided is why the Council should decide which services are appropriate and consistent with the taxypayer's ability to pay. Last year the Council started an approach which would focus on the relative importance of each service as well as which service should be rendered. It should be realized that this approach does not involve any radical departure from our current method. It only asks that we adopt a budget far FY 84 based on a thorough program analysis. Comparative judgements are necessary not only between activities performed by a particular department but also between entirely unrelated services. Thisanalysisis best achieved when the Council works from written justification reports that would pro- vide an informed basis for decision making. PROCESS OF PRIORITIZING CURRENTLY UNDERWAY During late 1981 and early 1982, the City Manager and all department heads provided the Council with an inventory of activities. We should proceed from where we left off last year by agreeing on what programs have high priorities and what programs have low priorities. It should be remembered that certain functions of government are held in much higher esteem and as a consequence these services seldom are questioned. I believe all services should be scrutinized the same. In reviewing the budget in this manner, the City Manager n focus our attention on the many decisions reo_uired from the City Council to determine standards of service. He can discuss management problems that require legislated action. -2 - While emphasis should be placed on a thorough program analysis, it is necessary that decisions be converted into monetary terms. For purposes of our analysis, the current breakdown of the budget which is consistent with the operation of the City is the only way that makes sense. There are at least two reasons to continue with areas suggested. 0£ primary importance is the fact that this is the way the books are kept and secondarily any restructuring of departments which might take place would more than likely be made in these broad service areas as follows: I. General Government a. Council g. Legal b. Executive h. Personnel c. City Clerk 1. Economic Development d. Finance j. Insurance a. Registration ofVotersk. Cont. to Agencies f. Assessing 1. Planning II. Education III. Public Safety a. Police b.- Fir c. Code Enforcement IV. Health, Welfare, Recreation a. Health b. Welfare c. Recreation V. Public Buildings 6 Public Services a. Public Buildings - b. Public Services C. Motor Pool d. Private School Services VI. Other Agencies a. Taxes Paid to County b. Public Library .VII. Other Appropriations a. Overlay b. Debt Expense C. Recreation District Tax d. Pensions E Other Fringe Benefits - Contingency f. Debt Service VIII. Enterprise Funds -3- JUSTIFICATION REPORTS Before voting on Council Order 93-21, I would ask each Councilor to consider the following. The publicity of actions of the Council on -a budget review process furnishes the public with the chance of judging the work of the Council. A well documented budget inspires public confidence. IIfPORTANCE OF PRIORITIZATION d JUSTIFICATION REPORTS In order for the Council to judge the adequacy of our current service programs andtoestablish level of services to be rendered, the Council needs to determine that there is a valid public need for the service provided and that the public benefit from the program is sufficient to justify the cost. In addition we would need information on private programs having similar or complimentary objectives. Writing justification reports gives the department head the opportunity to review critically the existing practices in various activities under his/her jurisdiction to determine what improvements canbe made. It also gives them the opportunity to suggest services that can be changed, eliminated or replaced by a more important activity. It should be noted that many department heads have already submitted justification reports. Lets not forget that a budget is not just a statement of dollars and cents. It is a program of work which is important to the health, safety and convenience or citizens. I believe we need these reports. PIX yCouncTiud$ar B. Brown EBB: j dr 414 of pangor, j (nine LEGAL UEPARTMENT ... Oct. 20, 1983 Robert E. Miller city Wlie er Memo To: Bangor City Council Subject; voting by Secret Ballot As you all are aware, meetings of the City Council most be conducted subject to the requirements of the so-called "Right - to -Know" law found in 1 M.R.S.A. 16 401 at seq. In the past there have been unanswered questions relative to the application of this statute to voting by secret ballot in a public meeting. In the Fall of 1981, in response to a request by the Hancock County District Attorney, the State Attorney General i'Saued .an opinion on the issue. A COPY of the Opinion is enclosed. As the result of the Opinion, and because of the sanctions that may be imposed for violation of the Act, I have since con- sistently istently advised the Council to not use the secret ballot in any matter involving city business. Recently there have been some inquiries relative to the possible use of the secret ballot i voting for the new Chairman of the Council. In response to these inquiries, I have affirmed my position that the Council should vote openly. If any member of the Council has any questions or would like to discuss the issue further, please feel free to call me. R.B.M. to Enclosure cc: City Manager City Clerk(/ _ lnmis E. TeRN[y ATTORNEY o.RE,,.. alws s.,TR'IF Rta.R .. _. DUARTNuNT OF TOE A17ORNF.Y GENERAL N October6, 1981 .. Michael Povich District Attorney, District VII 60 State Street Ellsworth, Maine 04605 Dear District Attorney Povich: In your letter of July 29, 1981, you have raised two ques- tions concerning the provisions Of 1 M.R.S.A. 55 401, at sem. (1979) (Maine's Freedom of Access Law). :hose questions are: "(1) Can a public body in an open meeting vote by means of written and secret ballot and not be in violation of the freedom of access law?; and •(2) Under the circumstances of this case, l/ was there a violation of law by not prepar- ing and disseminating an agenda?" With respect to your initial inquiry, it is our conclusion that when apublic body is required by the Freedom of Access Law to hold an open meeting, it may not vote by secret ballot.?/ 1/ You have advised us that your questions are prompted by complaints arising from a meeting of the Flanders Bay Community School District. ?/ The only exceptions would be for those cases where vote by secret ballot is authorized by a constitutional or statutory provision. We suspect that such exceptions are very rare. -2 - Maine's Freedom of Access Law is intended to insure "that to a maximum extent the public's business must be done in public." Moffett - City o£ Portland, 400 A.2d 340, 347-48 (Me. 1979). T eT a sta�ides, in relevant part, that "[the] Legislature finds and declares that public proceedings exist to aid in. the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the Legislature that their actions be taken openly and that records of their actions be open to publ'c spe tion.and their delibera- tions be conducted open-"TM.IE:SSdbl (1979) (Emphasis added). Thus, the use of a -secret ballot, a device designed to sure privacy and anonymity, is antithetical to the express pur- poses of the statute. Although there are no Maine decisions addressing your specific question, a Michigan appellate court has observed that "a secret ballot effectively closes part of a meeting to the public, since the balloting withdraws from public view an essential part of the meeting." Es erance Chesterfield Township of Macomb County. Mich. 'App., 0 N.W.LtT55J, 56 137 T e M1c rgan court a so stated that, "[it] can hardly be contended that a vote by secret ballot at an open meeting is any more open than a vote at a closed meeting. In either case the public official has shielded his stand from public scrutiny and account- ability. "It -should also be recognized that because the act requires all meetings to be opened to the public it implicitly requires that all parts of the meeting (unless specifically excluded by the act) also be open to the public." Esperance V. Chesterfield Township of Macomb County, supra, at 563. It is our conclusion, therefore, that a secret ballot is not a permissible means of voting in a meeting required to be open by the provisions of the Freedom of Access Law. Such a method of voting defeats the intent of the Legislature and fails to promote the underlying purp3sea and policies of the Act, namely, openness and accountability._/ 3/ Since our opinion on this question may lead to the conclusion that the Flanders say Community School District violated the law, we think it appropriate to briefly explain our approach to the enforcement of this statute. Particularly in light of the - fact that the criminal provision requires a "Willful" violation, see 1 M.N.S.A. y 410, it has been our policy not to treat as criminal those deviations from the law which result from a honest belief that the action is proper. This approach seems particularly appropriate when the disputed action raises a question of statutory interpretation which, at the time of the action, had not been addressed either by the courts or by this office. - _3- Turning to your second question, we, do not believe the Freedom of Access Law can be read as requiting the preparation and dissemination of an agenda prior to a public meeting. This issue is governed by the Access Law's "public notice" provision, 1 M.a.S.A. g 406, which reads as follows: "Public notice shall be given for all -public proceedings as defined in section 402, if these proceedings are a meeting of a body or agency consisting of 3 or more Persons and the body or agency will deal - with the expenditure of public funds or taxation, or will adopt policy at the meeting. This notice shall be given in ample time to allow public attendance. In the event of an emergency meeting, local .representatives of the media shall be noti- fied of the meeting, whenever practical, the notification to include time and location, by the same or faster means used to notify the members of the agency conducting the public proceeding." As is readily apparent, 6 406 is silent on the question of whether, and to what extent, the notice must specify the subject matter of the meeting. In our view, it is possible to argue that inherent in the concept of public notice is a requirement that the public be given some indication of the subject matter of the meeting. Interpreting a statute similar to g 406, a New York court concluded that "Whe minimum criteria forameeting which would meet these statutory requirements would include a general notice of the nature of the meeting adequate to inform the public and the officials involved. Oianga Ct etc. v. Copncil of Cit f Newbur h, 393 N.Y.5.2d 296, 00 6.Ct. 1 Whlle S 06 mrg t thus construed as mandating some indication of the general purpose of the meeting, we see no basis for reading the statutory language to require the preparation and dissemina- tion of an agenda. Having concluded that an agenda is not required, we would nonetheless add that a public agency would be well advised to insure that its notice contains information adequate to inform the public of the general subject matter of the meeting. /Since the Legislature has directed that the Access Law is to be 4/ What is needed to adequately inform the public will vary from case to case and thus is not susceptible of an easily applied, general rule. Furthermore, we recognize that the - notice of an emergency meeting may, as a matter of necessity, have to be less complete. _4_ liberally construed in favor of open meetings, 1 M.R.S.A, S 401, this approach not only comports with the obvious spirit of the law, but also minimizes the possibility of a violation. Sincerely, TAMES E. TIERNEY Attorney General JET/ec I