Dear Editor:

The town of Westport Island made two hiring decisions at their meeting on January 8.  The first decision was for a contractor to sand the floors in the historic Town Hall.  The second was for a new Town Clerk.  The care and attention to process details between the two was striking.

In the first hiring - for the sanding contractor, the Town Hall Committee defined the job, sent out requirements, solicited interested candidates, evaluated their capabilities and their track records and their reputations, solicited quotes, evaluated all the data and made an objective recommendation to the Board of Selectmen.  Based upon the data gathered, and the recommendation provided, the Selectmen made a well-informed decision.  The job was completed well.

On the other hand, for the second hiring - for our municipal Town Clerk, the process was much different.  The Selectmen accepted, with regret, the resignation of the previous Town Clerk.  They then read a note from the previous Town Clerk endorsing a candidate who had been assisting her part-time over the last few months.  In a matter of 15 minutes, the decision was voted on to hire the assistant, in spite of objections that other candidates should be considered and a proper process should be followed for such an important hiring decision. 

No effort was made to ask the Compensation Committee, as required, to lead the selection effort. No effort was made to define and post the job requirements, to solicit interested candidates, to set evaluation criteria, to evaluate interested candidates and to make a decision on the basis of the best qualifications. This, in spite of the fact that it was pointed out that there were other candidates with outstanding qualifications that might be interested in applying. 

Perhaps the most important job decision in municipal town government was rammed through in 15 minutes! 

Article 5, from the March 28, 2003 Westport Island Town Meeting stated:

"To see if the Town will appoint a committee of three to advertise, interview and recommend to the Selectmen, person or persons qualified to fill appointed positions, until rescinded or revoked. Selectmen recommend that the Compensation Committee perform this duty."

It was voted to accept this article as written and it remains in force today.  So why short-circuit the process they themselves established?  Could it be they didn't want an objective evaluation, following an appropriate impartial process?  If so, why?  It can only be concluded that they didn't want to risk having to select a candidate that was not to their liking.  The best way to retain control was to end-run the appropriate process. 

Our new Town Clerk is capable and will learn the job.  She will be a good Town Clerk for us, although her inability to work the hours the Town Office is open is unfortunate.  The issue is not with the selected candidate, it is with the selection process chosen by our Selectmen. 

Westporters deserve much better than the abuse of power, arrogance and bias shown by this process. When the voters agreed to change from an elected Town Clerk to an appointed position, it was done with the understanding and trust that a rigorous process, as directed in Article 5, would be carried out by the Selectmen. They were sadly wrong.  The rigorous process seems to apply only to floor sanding contractors.

Dennis Dunbar

Westport Island

Dear Editor,

We have been reading an account of Westport Island's dealing with consideration of a salt and sand facility, erroneously referred to as a salt shed. I do not intend to present myself as an investigative reporter, but as one who simply recalls events and supplements that by asking questions of those who also remember the facts of the past.

There was a time when state pressure caused Westport Island to focus attention on two tracts of land near the old Town Hall as possible sites for the proper storage of sand and salt. One of those sites could also serve to provide parking space adjacent to the Town Hall and the Church. Circumstances developed that prevented each site from becoming town-owed. Personal events did not permit one owner to transfer title and the other parcel was included in a larger purchase by a less than civic minded resident.

A temporary solution to the storage problem was developed and the none-availability of the two tracts was reported to the state. Later consideration suggested any future solution should involve a location closer to the center of the island (less transportation costs.)

Much has been made of the loss of aid funds when the earlier proposal was prevented by the lack of sites. If we accept the report of the amount at $46,000, then it is curious that the writer of last week's commentary, who laments the loss, is one of those attempting to obstruct state grants and an interest accumulation totaling just about 10 times that figure.

People who want to know the history should go back and read the study done by former selectman Reggie Lee. Also, I offer this statement submitted to the town by Dennis Cromwell, of G & D Cromwell, who in past years has served as the town snowplow contractor:

"The town of Westport is not proposing a salt shed. The town is planning a sand and salt facility. Anyone can have a shed, garage, or lean-to to contain salt and hopefully keep it dry.

"The only place on Westport where as much as a few thousand yards of mixed salt and sand can be stored is located at the site by the town office.

"However, a contractor may only store up to a hundred mixed yards and must keep it covered. This is not an efficient procedure for several reasons:

"(1) The mixture freezes.

"(2) 100 years is not sufficient for a large storm.

"(3) A dry, well-mixed material is easier and safer to uses in all respects.

"(4) Approximately 500 yards is lost to freezing each year. (That represents a loss of $6,500 at present price, including cost of trucking)

"(5) Outdoors, covered storage dilutes the mixture making it less effective.

"In addition, the state of Maine is requiring an approved site. An approved sand and salt facility allows for storage of 2,000 mixed yards. Carry-over of the unused mixture could save up to $15,000 in the event of a mild winter. Bidding contractors would have equal use without property hassles, as in the past. Savings increase each year, as the costs of sand, salt and trucking inflate."

John Nelson

Westport Island

Dear Editor:

There is something that's been on my mind. A member of WICIC (Westport Island Citizens Information Committee) once told me I couldn't use this column for politics. The following isn't so much a political stand as it is an observation of people.

I often run into people at local stores and area events who ask me, "So, how do you like politics? Are you glad you ran?" My answer is always the same. "I still don't like politics, and yes, I'm glad I ran."

Running for office of second selectman, I already knew a majority of Island residents. That was a natural result of having been born and raised here with a large extended family, having run a local day care center, having raised children who attended local schools, having worked in the school system, operating the one and only general store and attending many of the public functions. Being in office, I have come to know many more people.

I know people who've been here for generations as well as for just months; people with little education and those with more than one degree; people with few resources who need assistance and those of great wealth; people residing in small, run down residences and those with homes some of us would call mansions; people who work at two or three jobs and those who will never need to work again. I know people of many races, religions and political views.

Amongst all these people, there appears to be a very common thread. The happy people are those who choose to help others, to be friendly, to share their spirituality and belongings, their homes and their hearts. They are forgiving, selfless, and supportive of everyone, regardless of the qualities mentioned above.

Those who choose to think with their heads and purses rather than hear with open hearts and minds appear to be still searching for happiness, for a sense of community.

The line between those two groups is not drawn by income levels, education, religion, politics, housing, duration of residency here or number of generations here. Despite unhappy people continually trying to draw lines based on "natives" versus "people from away," it is clearer than ever to me those lines do not exist except in the minds of those who draw them.

The majority of Westporters, despite their varied backgrounds, are wonderful, resilient, happy, helpful, spiritual, loving, supportive individuals who pull together to make this small island population what it's always been… a caring community.

I'm lucky to be a part of all this. I'm happy to live here. I still dislike politics, and I'm still happy I ran.

Brenda Bonyun

Westport Island

Dear Editor:

Over the past couple of weeks, the articles in the Wiscasset Newspaper have made me aware of a very disturbing situation taking place within the state prison system. It seems the prison administrators charge the inmates fees to use the telephone, over and above the actual cost, and return the overages to the state coffers.

Now let's conduct a quick comparison here. I, as a working, tax paying, law-abiding citizen of this state, have to purchase my own health insurance, and the inmate doesn't worry about that. I can't afford dental insurance, but the inmate gets that service "free." I like to stay in shape, so I join the gym; the inmate has one at his disposal. I buy my food at Shaw's and prepare it myself. The inmate is served three square meals a day at no cost. Is anyone beginning to see my direction here?

In the early 1990s while doing research on another article, I discovered that the cost of incarceration in the Maine State Prison system for one inmate, for one year, was $31,000. I don't know what it is today, but I would guess that in the 15 years since, the cost certainly hasn't been reduced.

Instead of worrying about the "rights" of our societies' poor, deprived criminals, I think our prison administrators and politicians should be actively seeking out ways to reduce these costs to the taxpayer. Why not make the inmate pay for his/her personal calls. The inmate is in prison because he/she is a criminal. Let's not lose sight of that fact.

Respectfully,

Bill Frenier

Westport Island

Editor's Note: The prisoners do not pay for phone calls - it is the prisoners' family and friends who pay for the phone calls, since prisoners are not allowed to make calls unless they are collect calls. The two articles focused attention on the fact that families and friends are forced to pay exorbitant rates, not the inmates

Dear Editor:

I certainly understand why Dennis Cromwell is upset with my commentary about the proposed sand/salt shed. George Richardson's incompetence and gross mismanagement of this proposed project is enough to upset anyone. He clearly acted against the best interest of Dennis and his contracting business when he turned away all offers of state assistance in planning and funding of a town-owned sand/salt facility.

It must be especially galling for Dennis to realize that just $54,000 in matching funds from the town would have built a facility capable of storing 2,000 cubic yards of sand and salt.

I was at the selectmen's meeting last year when photos were passed around of the selectmen's choice of a sand and salt shed. The engineering fees alone were estimated to be $26,000 and these fees represented just 10 perecent of the cost of constructing the building. Dennis may be able to find a few dollars of savings in such a project - but it will never add up to $260,000.

Additionally, I specifically referred to the proposed project as a sand/salt shed throughout my commentary, as this closely approximates the language that appears in the Town Report dated April 15, 2005. "To see if the Town will authorize the Selectmen to begin construction of a town owned sand and salt shed on town property.." It was the editor's choice, and not mine, to title my commentary "Salt Shed Saga."

Thanks,

Marianne Williams

Westport Island

Dear Editor

When the chairman of the Waterfront Committee called me and asked me to come to a meeting on February 8 to talk about the vision of the Wiscasset waterfront in the next 5, 10 or 20 years, I asked if there is a new recipe for Sea Gulls.

The leadership of Wiscasset has no institutional memory to implement the hundreds of thousands of dollars already spent on past studies and thousands of hours volunteered by so many Wiscasset citizens. First and foremost, the Board of Selectmen sets policy and has been unable to give the Waterfront Committee a job description, as the committee requested.

In February 2002 the Bath Town Planner addressed the Wiscasset Waterfront Committee by saying "There is no big-bang theory and no fairy godmother to just wave a wand. Municipal government has to participate, there has to be leadership and people willing to plan and go after things."

Our tax dollars and future deserve better management by the Board of Selectmen. The Selectmen should give the Waterfront Committee a job description and the following town files:

Economic & Engineering Feasibility Study Recreation Shoreline Development Wiscasset Maine,

Recommendations for Economic Development on Wiscasset's Waterfront by the Waterfront Master Plan Advisory Committee, October 2002, 34 pages

Vision of the Wiscasset Waterfront , by Architect Leon Chatelain, January 24, 2002 (Four Essential Steps to Management)

Downtown Village Rail Station Site Evaluation Study, by Stafford Business Advisors, December 2003, 47 pages

Riverfront Stud,y Wiscasset, Maine by Wiscasset Waterfront Committee, October 1990, 134 pages

River Conservation and Recreation Lands by The Chewonki Foundation, October 2003, 32 pages

Right-of-Way Track Map, Wiscasset Waterfront, by Maine Central Rail Road, Sheet 20, June 1916

Survey of the Wiscasset Waterfront, For the Selectmen, by Surveyor Shirley Beal, March 1978

Bill Phinney

Concerned Landowner

Wiscasset