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