'It seems vastly wiser, for both legal and political reasons, to let the voters be heard on the matter'

Thu, 09/03/2026 - 11:47am

Lynda Clancy

Downtown Camden, 2026. (file photo)

Downtown Camden, 2026. (file photo)

CAMDEN — While metered parking in Camden was temporarily shelved (Public Landing aside) by the Camden Select Board last July and there is a plan is to place two nonbinding referendum questions before citizens Nov. 3 on the topic, others are saying the town still must place language from a July citizens' petition on the November municipal ballot.

That petition, with 666 certified signatures, requests that an article asking voters if they want to change the municipal charter to require voter approval for municipal paid (metered) parking programs be on the ballot.

An attorney for one resident is arguing that the town attorney is making a mistake in advising against that ballot article inclusion.

Attorney Kristin Collins, of the firm Preti Flaherty, submitted an Aug. 31 letter to the Camden Select Board disagreeing with Town Attorney William Kelly's, "apparent apparent conclusion that the Select Board has the right to refuse this petition."

Collins said the Select Board cannot refuse, "a charter amendment petition on the basis of perceived conflict with other laws."

She added: "It seems vastly wiser, for both legal and political reasons, to let the voters be heard on the matter."

The Camden Select Board had discussed paid parking at its Aug. 25 meeting when it addressed the agenda item: "Act on adding an Advisory-Only, Non-Binding Referendum questions to address metered parking for the Town Meeting Warrant for Tuesday, November 3, 2026."

The nonbinding referendum questions were designed to get a sense from the public, "of what they want," said Nolan.

While at the outset of the conversation, Chair Chris Nolan said the discussion about the petition would take place at a subsequent meeting, it was talked about enough to engender a written response from Attorney Collins, on behalf of her client, Camden resident Alex Cohen.

The paid parking controversy that built over the last year in Camden was temporarily quieted when the Camden Select Board voted July 21 to suspend the new paid parking program on downtown streets for the 2026 season, reversing a 2024 vote by the then Select Board to install parking meters and implement a pay-to-park system. Voting in favor of the suspension July 21 were Susan Dorr, Bobbi Oxton Blake and Chris Nolan. Opposed were Ken Gross and Chrisso Rheault.

From June 9 to July 1, a citizens' group circulated a petition to amend the Camden Town Charter to allow for voter approval should the town wish to implement a paid parking program.

The petition read: "We believe that the Town of Camden is best served when the voice and desire of its residents are considered when substantive changes to our town are contemplated."

The petition requested that the Select Board place the following warrant article before voters at the Nov. 3 elections, "or next scheduled municipal election, whichever is sooner."

The petition said: "Each of the undersigned voters respectfully requests the municipal officers to provide the amendment of the municipal charter as set out below... Proposed Charter Amendment Text: Shall the Town of Camden Charter be amended to add the following section 2.18: 'Notwithstanding 30-A M.R.S. Section 3009, any ordinance or policy setting or increasing fees to park on Town of Camden public ways shall be null and void unless enacted by voters at a referendum election.'"

"The new petition seeks to amend the town charter to simply allow voters the opportunity to decide whether they wish to have a paid parking program in their town," said Cohen, Sept. 3. "The charter amendment petition does not ask voters whether they want / don’t want paid parking — it only asks that voters should decide if the town seeks to implement a paid parking program. It’s really quite straightforward."

According to Camden Town Clerk Julia Merrill, 666 of the signatures on that petition were valid.

"These citizens represent over 20% of voters in the last gubernatorial election, which is double the requisite 10% requirement for a typical citizens’ petition," said Cohen.

He continued: "Upon certification, I communicated with Town Clerk Julia Merrill to confirm next steps in the procedure. She indicated the petition would be forwarded to the Select Board for consideration. Interestingly, no one from Select Board nor town office / town manager has been in communication with me regarding the petition."

At the Aug. 25 Select Board meeting, Attorney Kelly said the amendment presented is not permitted because metered parking control exclusively rests with the Select Board.

"There is no legal way to change the charter to say that the metered parking is going to be decided by the town meeting legislative vote of the people," said Kelly. "It might sound a little contrary to what you think democracy is, but because it is about safety and regulation of rights of way and parking, these categories are something our Legislature [decided] a long time ago should not be held to political forces one year or the next, but should be vested in the elected officials as those accountable for safety."

At that Aug. 25 meeting, Nolan clarified that the petition discussion was not on the agenda. He offered the Sept. 8 Select Board meeting as, "another time to go through...."

"That's what I want to make explicit," said Select Board member Ken Gross. "That, yes, it will be, because the people who brought us that petition deserve to have it addressed by the Select Board."

"That's right," said Nolan.

The Nov. 3 municipal warrant needs to be finalized Sept. 8.

Board member Susan Dorr said the proposed charter amendment, "is something that we have been advised runs counter to the charter and to Maine law."

She said she would not be voting in favor of the charter amendment to be before voters Nov. 3. She also acknowledged that the conversation that was to be on the agenda for Sept. 8 was, in fact, happening before them Aug. 25.

While the petitioners had submitted a certified petition for consideration, "that does not mean that we have to move it," she said, citing state statute.

Gross countered, "It does."

Finance Director Jodi Hanson, who is handling town manager business in the absence of Audra Caler, added, "not if it is a legislative item that is...."

Gross interrupted, "I think...."

Nolan then said he wanted, "to get what we need, and maybe if we need a different legal opinion, for example, I'd rather be able to prepare and have that for us for Sept. 8 as to compared to now."

Later in the meeting, he said that in 2027, the town would, "have a charter commission, whether or not that [petition] can be part of that charter commission discussion...."

"Not if the statutes do not change," said board member Bobbi Oxton Blake, suggesting the petitioners may want to approach their legislators, "because there [Augusta capitol] is where it is going to have to change."

But in Aug. 25 letter to the Select Board, Collins referenced home rule authority in Mainer's Constitution, "which provides that, 'the inhabitants of any municipality shall have the power to alter and amend their charters on all matters, not prohibited by Constitution or general law, which are local and municipal and character.'"

She cited Title 30-A M.R.S. § 2101, 2104, which says that petitions to amend the charter with sufficient signatures be placed on a ballot.

"Attorney Kelly’s opinion is premised on the idea that municipal officers can: 'reasonably refuse' a citizens’ petition that they feel is illegal or inappropriate for any reason. While there is case law supporting the context of reasonable refusal, that case law comes from a statutory provision, 30-A M.R.S. § 2521, which pertains to citizens’ petitions seeking ordinance or warrant adoptions. It does not pertain to charter amendment petitions."

Collins said the Select Board cannot refuse, "a charter amendment petition on the basis of perceived conflict with other laws."

She concluded that the Camden Select Board would need, "ironclad legal support to deny this petition, and it simply does not have it."

And, she said, "the petitioners would be able to seek judicial review under 30-A M.R.S. § 2108, including recovery of their legal fees and costs."

As for the nonbinding referendum questions under review at the Aug. 25 meeting, the Select Board favored placing on the Nov. 3 ballot the following questions:

1) The Camden Select Board should remove metered parking requirements from streets in town. Yes or No.

2) The Camden Select Board should maintain metered parking within the Town Public Landing Parking Lot. Yes or No.

As for the third question, "The Camden Select Board should install metered parking within all other offstreet parking and parking lots owned by the Town", the Select Board agreed to wait and more thoroughly review which lots might be appropriate for metered parking.

The Select Board will vote Sept. 8 on the inclusion of those referendum questions. Because the referendum questions are separate from municipal warrant articles, and are printed on a separate page, their inclusion will cost the town an additional $2,000 in election costs, Hanson pointed out to the Select Board.

That prompted a short conversation about having secret ballot box vote, with the results counted by hand, and idea that Kelly said would not be allowed under Maine election laws.

Reach Editorial Director Lynda Clancy at lyndaclancy@penbaypilot.com; 207-706-6657