Dear Editor,

I was deeply disappointed to read that the vote of three of our five selectmen was enough to put the ordinance change on the November ballot, when many, many citizens had been urging that the process be slowed down for careful and thoughtful study and reflection.

The rhetoric has gone from shrill to abusive. (Scott Houldin has kept his cool, however; one wonders how he does it.) Is this the way we want our village to decide issues of long-term consequence? Do we really want to leap into the future angrily and divisively? This is supposed to be a community, not a chaotic camp of Us and Them, shouting across the divide.

It makes me wonder how Maine Yankee came to town… what is the history there? Of course, it and Mason Station provide the precedent for Twin River. I view all this from the perspective of a homeowner within a mile of what is now (and forever?) a nuclear waste site. It is what makes me so fervent about taking our time and doing the research before deciding on a course that will have reverberations down the years.

Please read everything you can about the proposed plan and processes involved. Take care that your November vote is an informed one, given the short period of time allowed for information, that is. Make sure you vote wisely - not angrily.

Dulcianne Vye

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

Our house in Wiscasset is about a mile and a half south of the proposed Twin River Energy Center (TREC). We chose to raise a family in the Midcoast more than 35 years ago because of the Maine's natural beauty, healthful environment and the relative peace and quiet.

When TREC announced its proposal we were hoping that an innovative plan to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign energy might fit right into the area. But when we attended the first public meeting and learned about the huge size of the project, we began to question its suitability for Wiscasset.

Certainly TREC's sales pitch sounded good: jobs, reduced electric rates, clean diesel fuel, all with minimal environmental impact. But because like most people, we're skeptical when something appears to be too good to be true, we began to educate ourselves about coal gasification. We feared that there might be a darker side to this `new era' for Wiscasset but we were still hoping to be convinced that this project would be as just as good for the town and the Midcoast as the developers promised.

Unfortunately the information we've gathered has raised some red flags and generated worrisome questions. We think these are a few of the issues that should be addressed before Wiscasset embraces coal gasification:

• This technology and its large scale is so new it should be called `experimental'. There are only two similar, but much smaller plants in the U.S., one in Florida and another in Indiana. Before approving this massive buildup of heavy industry in our town, we think people ought to have more than an artist's conception and colorful slideshow presentations of the proposed facility. Town representatives should become experts on coal gasification and visit the other operations to get a clear picture of the noise, smell, and toxic impact such a refinery might bring to our town. Armed with the knowledge of those visits and that study, Wiscasset could consider additional protective ordinances to beef up the town's legal authority for enforcement.

• The scale of TREC is enormous. In dollar terms it has been called the largest single proposal in the state's history. The developers tell us that 7,000 tons of dusty, dirty fuel will be needed every day. It's hard to imagine quantities of this size, but by our calculations a week's supply of coal would fill a four-mile long coal train. The plan is to import the coal by sea, but the difficulty of piloting enormous barges up and down the Back or Sheepscot Rivers may force the consideration of alternatives---and those alternatives will be unregulated if Wiscasset votes for this height ordinance change, without protective laws in place.

• TREC says it will discharge substantial amounts of water. They've said they may send it through the Wiscasset treatment plant. The coal gasification plant in Indiana has been cited for discharging processed wastewater with levels of selenium, cyanide and arsenic in violation of their permit, and levels of selenium and cyanide have been routinely out of compliance. Will Wiscasset's treatment plant be up to this challenge? Will the Sheepscot and Back River… their fish, worms and lobster…. be harmed by those heavy metals?

• Mercury, in particular, is a powerful poison that according to the U.S. EPA causes birth defects at relatively low exposures. It can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs and immune systems at higher levels. TRE says they'll remove more than 95 percent of the mercury, only discharging 22 lbs locally. What will happen to the other 500 or more pounds of mercury per year contained in the coal feedstock? Will some of it leach out of the stockpiles or the vitrified ash byproduct? The developers say that they'll avoid pollution by storing these materials in buildings, but this plan could change once this project is actually financed, built and operated by a giant energy company. Will a mega-corporation, sensitive to its bottom line and its shareholders, be willing to voluntarily pay for structures to cover these materials or for other safeguards? Will economic limitations lead to contamination of our air, our groundwater and our rivers? We don't question the good faith of TREC or their spokes people, but we fear that their good intentions and promises might not be honored in corporate boardrooms in Europe, Asia or New York.

At the Selectmen's meeting on September 18, many people asked that a town wide vote be delayed long enough to allow some investigation of the risks associated with the plant.

Instead, the selectmen chose to proceed with a November vote on the height ordinance change that will allow the project to move forward. We urge our town leaders and voters to become better informed about the serious health, safety and quality of life issues raised by this proposal. We need to come up with sensible ordinances that match the sheer size of this project, so that 10 years down the road we won't regret having given away our chance to protect this special place and its residents.

Kayda and Sam Selby

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

Finding cheap entertainment in Wiscasset, since my television went belly up, has not been easy. Hanging out at Red's Eats watching bug eyed tourists gamble on whether that pickup is going to stop as they walk across Route 1 gets a bit dull after awhile.

So I went for my daily visit to the post office and was corralled by several citizens wanting me to put my name on a form which I thought was for a chance to win a free $37.50 basket of food from Hannafords. It wasn't until I had signed every day for over a week that I found out it had something to do with getting the selectmen to postpone some vote on something important the following Tuesday night.

So Tuesday night I found myself at the town meeting room in a front row seat surrounded by a large crowd of rather agitated fellow citizens. Pretty soon the selectmen filed in and sat behind microphones from CNN, NBC, CBS and Fox News. Also in attendance was our town manager Arthur Faucher, who I have found to be a competent and intelligent guy whose expression, during the evening, was like he had just been appointed the mental ward orderly in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

A short distance away sat Jeff Hinderliter, the town planner, who if I'm not mistaken, had some strings attached running along the floor to the selectman's table.

The meeting was called to order and everyone stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. My first inkling that all was not going to go well for the anti- gasification plant folks was when I overheard some of the selectmen alter the pledge to "I pledge allegiance to the flag and the Twin Rivers Energy Center, etc."

Incidentally, I think that the folks for this development should stop using the phase "gasification plant." Gasification is what happens after you eat at one of the baked bean suppers put on by the ladies auxiliaries around the county.

Anyhow, there was a lot of interesting town business to take care of before the main event, including a request from the stand-in Chief of Police, who I was glad to note had more than one bullet, unlike Deputy Barney Fife of Mayberry. He wanted to increase the fine for parking in front of a fire hydrant. The penalties suggested ranged from a $50 fine to execution by lethal injection.

I'm not sure which was settled on, but there was some discussion about penalties for illegal parking in a handicap parking spot. One selectman, who said he had a disabled relative, I think favored execution, but then found out that offense is regulated by the state.

I have checked on this and found that 94% of all of the parking spaces in the United States are marked "handicap."

The next order of business was to determine if the gentleman seeking re-appointment to the airport committee was, in fact, a legal resident. After pointed questioning about his immigration status, he was re-appointed. I wasn't surprised, because he didn't even look Mexican.

Now came the time for the citizens to have their voice heard and a line of orators quickly formed behind the lectern. At this juncture I must tell you that I have a habit of visualizing people who speak with my own distorted images.

The first speaker was John Reinhardt of the Stewards of the Sheepscot. He eloquently stated his views against the project. The minute he stepped up to the podium I visualized him tapping and then raising his baton as he conducted the New York Philharmonic in a rousing symphony. It was grand indeed.

Next was Larry Lomison armed with several actual photos of existing gasification plants. He excitedly waved these photos in the air like a teenage boy who had just downloaded, for his buddies, the first porno images of Paris Hilton.

Then came my personal favorite, Karl Tarbox, who always sounds a bit like O.J's lawyer, Johnnie Cochran. Anyhow, Karl immediately entered my visualization as Mighty Mouse complete with theme song "Here he comes to save the day." If you close your eyes, you can actually hear it.

I particularly enjoyed the local waterman who stated that the coal barges on the river would kill all the fish and lobsters. I thought as he was speaking, wouldn't they just swim out of the way of the barges? Anyhow, I don't care for lobsters that have shells. I much prefer the delicious shell-less variety I can get at Red's Eats.

During these emotional pleadings, I noticed the selectmen almost managed to mask their boredom and stay awake. In spite of this indifference, the steady stream of speakers, most of whom were against, continued receiving great bursts of applause. There was one notable exception, and that was Mark Ramsey, who, with great clarity, spoke in favor of the project. However, he lost all credibility when it was determined he had his house on the market and was leaving Dodge ASAP.

During this heated discussion our selectmen did offer some interesting viewpoints. Chairman Goud showed some emotion I had never seen from him when he reminded everyone about how Maine Yankee had provided us with a state of the art fire department that actually reduced our insurance. It was at this point that I saw him jammed into a child's pedal fire truck, complete with little ladders on the side, wearing an undersized fireman's hat. Can't you just see it? Also, I must confess, every time I look at selectman Dave Nichols I conjure up the sight of Crusty the Clown from the Simpsons.

Finally, selectman chairman Duane thought it was time for a vote.

Right then, our very own Mommie selectperson announced it was time to put her children to bed and left minutes before this very important vote. I am not making this up folks. I guess in her previous public service work on the playground committee all votes were completed before it was time for graham crackers, milk and nap time.

Anyhow, the vote was taken and - surprise, surprise - the resolution to move forward on the vote to raise the height restriction passed 3 to 1. "Here's to you Mrs. Robinson" as sung by Simon and Garfunkel.

I then felt it wise to exit the festivities before the natives got restless. I did hear some of the Back Water Alliance boys mutter as I drove off, "Don't worry we got 'em right where we want 'em"

I can't wait until November. In the meantime I think I will attend the upcoming Waterfront Committee meeting. I hear they have finally determined that the waterfront is indeed located where the land meets the water. Of course low tide is still being debated.

After that, it's back to the crosswalk at Reds.

Skip Taylor

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

In her September 20, 2007 article on the Right to Know Law, your reporter failed to discuss the questions you posed in your September 6, 2007 editorial about the application of Section 405, 6A of that law to an executive session previously held by the board of commissioners and my response to those questions which I gave to her.

Instead she described a conversation we had during the board meeting held on September 18, 2007 wherein she asked me if I would be willing to add a reference to subsection 1. of Section 405, 6A when entering executive session in the future to further clarify the issue and I said I would be happy to do so. She then made that the centerpiece of her article. In previous telephone discussions on this matter, I commented generally on your questions and on the application of the four subsections, both of which you mentioned in your editorial, in light of the fact they are part of a compound sentence. I stated I would provide a formal written response to your editorial and I did so at the board meeting.

Until the newspaper received my response, I am not sure how it could ask anyone if they agreed with me. By doing so, the newspaper framed the issue the way it saw it without benefit of my response.

I stated in my written response on September 18, 2007 that subsection 1. only applies in the instance of citing a specific reason for entering Executive Session under the first part of the compound sentence that makes up the Section 405, 6A (which is why I agreed to the reporter's request to add it in the future even though it is implicit in the law itself) and that all four subsections apply when entering executive session under the second part of the compound sentence. People who routinely administer this law understand this. Contrary to your reporter's assertion, I have not changed my mind about anything.

You posed a number of valid questions in your editorial and I have provided my answers to them. I did so in writing so there would be no misunderstandings about my interpretation of this law.

I respectfully request that you print my written response to your editorial in full so that your readers can at least see what I had to say and not just rely on the newspaper`s description of what I said. Only then can your reporter legitimately ask others whether they agree or disagree.

The interesting thing about all of this is that I don't think we are in disagreement at all. I think someone wants to create an issue. If true, that is indeed unfortunate.

Sincerely,

James K. McMahon

County Administrator

This is the statement James McMahon read at the September 4 meeting of the Lincoln County Commissio n ers:

After reading the editorial in the Wiscasset Newspaper of September 6, 2007, I called the editor and explained the rationale I have used for many years with regard to executive sessions. This is a law with which I am quite familiar and I have been careful to follow it through the years that I have been advising boards of selectmen in my former capacity as a town manager. I also told the editor I would respond publicly to the editorial especially since it quotes the Attorney for the Maine Press Association as saying I am wrong in my interpretation.

First, let me deal with Mr. Piper's assertion. I am unaware of any court decision that interprets 1 MRSA 405, 6A sub. 1-4 any differently than I interpret it. Since I was out of the state for two years working in Florida, I also confirmed this with the county's attorney [Matt Trasevich, Bernstein Shur]. He is also unaware of any such decision. In the absence of any case law to back him up, Mr. Piper is being a bit disingenuous when he says I am wrong.

Second, in the absence of case law, it is customary to go back to the legislative record to see if the actual debate on the legislation can give any guidance as to its intent and I have done so. A short history of this legislation may be of interest. I filed LD 30 entitled "An Act to Limit the Purposes for holding Executive Sessions" as one of the first bills introduced into the 107 th Legislature in January, 1975. (I also co-sponsored a second bill dealing with other parts of the law with Rep. Doug Smith of Dover-Foxcroft.) LD 30 was re-written and became LD 899.

I led the debate on it in the Maine House on May 19, 1975. I checked the legislative record and the major issue of debate was the list of the then seven items that were to be permissible to discuss in Executive Session (the previous law on this comprised a single sentence, as I recall, and was often abused due to its lack of specificity).

An amendment was offered by an opponent to delete the words "and no others" thereby gutting the intent of the bill. After debate, where I had considerable support from other legislators, the amendment was defeated in a roll call vote of 118 to 11.The bill was then passed to be engrossed and sent to the Senate. It was enacted in the Senate on June 3, 1975 and was signed by the Governor. The Section of the Law we are now di s cussing (1 MRSA 405, 6A sub. 1-4) has remained unchanged since e n actment, although subsequent legisl a tures have amended part of it.

Third, if there is no case law and no legislative record to contradict the interpretation of a law, you then look for consistency in its interpretation. As one who has attended many legal seminars and workshops during my career as a town manager, I can tell you that I have never heard it interpreted in any other manner than I do. I am sure, if asked, most municipal attorneys would confirm this. The county's attorney [Matt Trasevich] has confirmed my interpretations of this section of the law.

Finally, I shall explain my interpretation of the section of the law under discussion (1 MRSA 405, 6A sub. 1-4) since that is the subject of the editorial. I have prepared a copy of the section and have highlighted the application of this law. It is clearly a compound sentence which, by definition, contains two or more independent clauses. The subset 1-4 must be related to the language above it to make sense.

Thus, when discussing the employment, appointment, assignment, duties, promotion, demotion, compensation, evaluation, disciplining, resignation or dismissal of an individual or group of public officials, appointees or employees of the body or agency (first half of the compound sentence) you then have to look at the four conditions set forth in the subset. The reading of them alone tells you that only the first one applies. Likewise, when discussing the investigation or hearing of charges or complaints against a person or persons subject to the following conditions (second half of the compound sentence) the reading of the four conditions tells you that all four apply.

Whenever I recommend the board enter into an executive session or whenever an employee requests an executive session meeting with you, such as you have listed next on this agenda, it is because public discussion could be reasonably expected to cause damage to the reputation or the individual's right to privacy would be violated.

I have always treated this as the single standard to justify an executive session under the first half of the compound sentence. The editor asks if the discussion is about a public employee's assignments, compensation or duties why shouldn't it be public? In many cases it can be and is. However, if the assignment is causing the employee to burn out or to make mistakes or if the compensation needs to be reduced due to the employee's inability to learn parts of the job or if the employee can no longer perform all of the duties of his/her position due to a medical condition, I submit these are sufficient reasons to discuss these matters in executive session. These are just representative examples.

When dealing with human beings, all sorts of personal issues can come up that should be private. If it can be determined that public discussion in a particular situation could be reasonably expected to cause damage to the reputation or the individual's right to privacy would be violated, I will always recommend an executive session discussion. Any votes taken by the board, of course, must be taken upon return to public session thus ensuring that all final decisions made by a public board are made in public.

To the Selectmen of Wiscasset, and to the editor of the Wiscasset Newspaper:

I would like to propose that any ordinance change in any upcoming ballot that would allow a coal gasification plant to be built in Wiscasset, have a condition attached: the process and products from the plant shall be at least as clean as those produced by natural gas fuel and energy production plants.

The U.S. Department of Energy has stated, regarding coal gasification plants, that: "Selective Catalytic Reduction can be used to reach (emission) levels comparable to firing with natural gas if required to meet more stringent emission levels."

Wiscasset should require such stringent emission levels as a part of any change to our height ordinance. A change to our height ordinance without such an emissions requirement could prove to be disastrous. I would like to call this the "Wiscasset Natural Gas Standard." Contracts for such development must be required to include specifications that would demonstrate in detail how the "Wiscasset Natural Gas Standard" would be met for each type of emission that any fuel and/or energy plant would generate.

Such an ordinance could raise the cost for construction and operation of the plant. But it would not only protect our environment and public health, but it would also serve as a test to determine how interested the developers are in building not only a coal gasification plant, but a plant that could serve as a national model for cleanliness of process and cleanliness of product. Developers who balk at the requirement should not be allowed to proceed with any project that does not meet our standard.

Please consider passing the proposed "Wiscasset Natural Gas Standard" prior to or concurrent with any change to our present height ordinance.

Respectfully yours,

Jim Simonetti

Dear Editor:

Interestingly, my name appears four times in last week's "Tell It To George" column, while "gasification" and "height," which are what Wiscasset voters will actually be voting on between now and November 6, do not appear in the column. Sorry to disappoint you, folks, but my name will not appear on the November ballot! I do, however, want to address some of the points raised.

My past presidency of SOS (Stewards of the Sheepscot). SOS was formed in 2003, and my presidency was well-covered in the newspapers at the time, and was in my candidate profile when I ran for Selectman in June 2004. It has been public information. I hope the writer of this does not wait four years to Google "gasification," as that will take until 2011, and the vote on the proposed ordinance ends on November 6! Since SOS was raised, however, let me address what SOS did.

In September 2003, Dragon Cement came to Wiscasset, offering "$5 million in valuation and two part-time jobs from Rockland" (check the Planning Board notes). SOS was formed very quickly in response, as many people in town had concerns about a rail-to-barge facility so close to town. A number of people in SOS believed, as I did, that there must be a cleaner and better use of the Mason Station site.

It was Bill Phinney, a member of SOS, who introduced Joe Cotter and National RE/sources to Wiscasset town officials. Town officials did not recruit National RE/sources. Many people forget this. SOS helped to deliver a major developer to Wiscasset. Point East in 2007 will pay more in taxes than Dragon was promising in 2003. In addition, we have more clean options for the Wiscasset harbor than we would have had if Dragon were there. Reading the newspaper articles about noise and chemicals in Thomaston surrounding the Dragon plant, I believe, vindicates the efforts of SOS here.

The "strange white-haired man" is John Reinhardt, who is now the co-president of SOS. I am no longer an officer but remain a member. John Reinhardt is a Wiscasset business owner who volunteered many hours of his time towards the Wiscasset Comprehensive Plan. Remember that Wiscasset town officials suggested that SOS members become more involved in town committees, and many have. I will not list them all here. Also, many members of SOS are natives of Wiscasset.

The Back River Alliance was also raised by a writer. Yes, a lot of residents of many towns, including natives of Wiscasset, are concerned about an open-ended ordinance change which relies on verbal promises from a salesman which are legally non-binding. As with the Mason Station, there are also questions as to what is the best use of Maine Yankee. By not taking the first thing that came along at the Mason Station, we ended up with a better option.

Why do we assume that a gasification facility at Maine Yankee is the best use of that site? I have floated the idea for several weeks now of seeking a nuclear plant, as we are already storing nuclear waste at the site. Gasification facilities have carbon and mercury issues, among other issues. The Back River Alliance includes engineers, chemists, and doctors with many years of experience in their fields.

With regard to whether I have abandoned my "conservative" principles, I suggest that the writer of that look at the word "conservative," and how it has been defined. Milton Friedman once said that one does not have a truly free market unless all people have equal access to all opportunity. The average person in Wiscasset cannot promise five to 10 new businesses per year and walk away with a below-market rate loan, a Pine-Tree Zone designation, and tax increment financing. The average person in Wiscasset cannot present a picture and walk away with a zoning change for his/her property.

The use of corporate leverage to receive special favors from the government and the taxpayers did not used to be considered "conservative." If this is now considered "conservative," then perhaps this is a key reason why the Republicans lost control of the Congress in 2006.

If a car salesman tried to sell you a car, would you not ask to look at it and take it for a spin? Would you buy a house without looking at it? Would you try on a suit before buying it? Then why would you vote for an ordinance change proposed by a salesman who cannot tell you who the owner is without asking to either look at the product or asking for a legally binding contract?

Finally, as to whether I have anything better to do, my initial response was yes, I prefer warm weather. However, I have one inherent fatal flaw. My family has been in this area for over 300 years. Somehow, I do not believe that a gasification plant based on verbal assurances was what the early settlers in Popham had in mind for this area.

So, folks, when you go to the polls, please try to remember that you are voting on "height" and "gasification," with no developer, no project, and no written assurances.

Karl Tarbox

Wiscasset