Process, procedures and what constitutes bias get debated in Rockport
Rockport Town Office. (file photo)
Rockport Town Office. (file photo)A debate in Rockport over the appearance of three letters on the front page of the municipal website grew forceful in a lively weekend exchange of emails between the town manager and a Rockport citizen. The letters from various citizens were advocating for voter approval of a new rental housing ordinance and other land use amendments. The objection was not against the opinions expressed in the letters, but the placement of those letters under the municipal web page section entitled "Upcoming Meetings".
It did not help that some of the ordinance amendments themselves are controversial, and have raised tension in the small town of 3,164 registered voters.
While the statewide ballot before voters Nov. 3 constitutes elections of federal and state candidates, there are also local warrant items and questions, and Rockport citizens have their own municipal questions to consider at the polls. After approval of the Select Board at Sept. 14 meeting, Rockport moved to place before its voters two questions that are now referenced as Articles 2 and 3, on the November 3 municipal warrant (Article 1 is to elect a meeting moderator, as required by statute). Then, the town held a public hearing on the two ballot items at its Oct. 13 meeting, where the two proposed articles met public resistance.
The questions include asking voters to approve increased building heights allowances for houses and apartment buildings throught town, various housekeeping amendments to the land use ordinance, and a new rental housing ordinance that would, if approved, require all owners of rental properties, short-term and long-term, to register their units and obtain a certificate of occupancy.
The articles, as stated in the Oct. 13 Town Manager's notes, included, "the questions directed by the Select Board at its August meeting to respond to changes in the land use ordinance and have been recommended by the Planning Board. The second attachment, as drafted by former Director of Planning and Community Development Orion Thomas, shows the edits to the ordinance from these recommended articles."
The Town has noted in its election explanations to voters that Article 3: "will require a registration of all Rental Units within town to ensure Life and Safety standards of the building code to occupy and inhabit a structure are being met. This is already a requirement of Hotels, Motels, and Inns, and should be extended to all rental units. This is also related to the Comprehensive Plan strategy H-6.
"H-6 Seek to achieve a level of at least 10% of new residential development built or placed during the next decade be affordable. Most of this 10% will be new builds which will be required to meet these standards. However, we are finding a healthy mix of ADUs [accessory housing units] being created for additional household revenue to pay for yearly costs. These ADUs, if gone through proper permitting, will also meet these life and safety standards, which include ensuring adequately sized septic systems are in place. The ones that do not obtain proper permitting end up not meeting these standards and are only found out after an issue is discovered, such as a failed septic system. This ordinance will help mitigate these issues."
Passage of the ordinance would create an applicable fee schedule for rental property owners to follow.
The Oct. 13 Select Board meeting provided townspeople the opportunity to debate the proposed articles, which they did, at length and with vigor, opposing especially the proposed rental housing ordinance.
The conversation continued for almost two hours, and eight residents took to the podium to critique not only Article 3, comprising the rental housing ordinance, but Article 2, which established short-term rentals in a table designating commercial uses in the Rockport Land Use ordinance, thus suggesting, one resident said, that the units would be subject to personal property tax.
While there was initial confusion amongst the Select Board members as to how short-term rentals were classified as a commercial use in the land use ordinance, there was a commitment to consult with Rockport's municipal attorney Philip Saucier, at Drummond Woodsum, about that particular point.
But residents remained skeptical of the two warrant articles, and since then, signs urging the public to vote no on them have popped up around town, citing intrusion on property rights. There have likewise been letters to the editor opposing the articles. And there have been two letters submitted to the Select Board favoring Articles 2 and 3, as well as an explanation of the Planning Board's reasoning for crafting the rental housing ordinance. Those letters subsequently landed on the front page of the town's website, a development that drew the ire of resident Steve Bowen, who wrote to Town Attorney Jon Duke and Select Board Chair Denise Munger on Oct. 23:
"Jon and Denise, can you please explain to me how the town publishing three letters in support of Articles 3 and 4 [sic] on the Town's website, with no dissenting views on that matter included, does NOT constitute biased, one-sided political advocacy by the Town of Rockport?
- At some point prior to the Oct. 13 meeting, the Select Board received three letters in support of Article 2 & 3. These were unsolicited and received by email, and were, I assume, the only emails the Town received in this matter. Nether the Board nor anyone on the Town staff, yourself included, ever received ay communication from the pubic signaling any opposition to these two articles (otherwise, I assume, those would also be included).
- These three letters were not included in the Board Packet for the meeting, where they would be available for public review prior to the meeting, but were, at some point, included on this page, where the board packets and other board materials are posted. This was done by “staff” without any direction from you or the Board.
- This same “staff” also, either at the same time or later, posted those same three letters to the town’s homepage. Again, this was done without your knowledge or that of the Board.
- You received my complaint on Friday and had the letters removed from the homepage, though they remain on the Board meeting page.
- Is it the policy of the Town that when letters are sent to the Board regarding an issue to come before the Board at one of their meetings, those letters are to be posted on the Board website rather than (or in addition to) being included in the Board packet? If so, why is it that when I look at this page, this page, this page, this page and this page, going back five years, there is not one other instance of a direct link being provided to letters sent to the Board on any matter that ever came before them? At no time in the last 5 years has this been done.
- If it is not the policy of the town to do this, and it evidently never having been done even once in recent years suggests no such policy or practice exists, why would the “staff” take it upon themselves (again, without any guidance or instruction from you or the Board) to post these letters, first to the Board site and then to the homepage? There appears to be no precedent for it being done, so why did the staff do it, especially in this particular instance, on a highly controversial topic only a couple of weeks out from an election? Do you have staff policy on this? If so, what it is it?
- If it is the policy of the town to do this, where can I find guidance to or instructions for town residents indicating that any letters they send to the Board will be handled in this manner? You note that a number of attendees at the hearing “spoke in opposition” to these Articles, yet I didn’t see in the meeting recording, for example, any instance of you or the Board chair describing this process to attendees or soliciting written responses from them for inclusion among these letters. Was this guidance given to attendees and I just missed it? Has this guidance ever been given to town residents in any way? If not, why not?
- Lastly, I remain confused about the origin of these letters, which you say you received prior to the hearing. You have encouraged residents like me to “keep it simple” and reach out directly with document requests (rather than go through a formal FOAA request process), so I would ask that you please forward to me the actual emails to the town by which these letters were sent.
"I am especially interested in the date and time stamp for these emails, so please be sure these are included and the emails by which, as you say, they were "shared with" the Board. As I noted above, I assume you received no other emails or letters from town residents on this matter (otherwise they would have been included as well, I assume), but in the event you did, I would also ask that you forward along any emails from residents to you, town staff, or the Board, related to Articles 2 and 3, received in the last three weeks. If such emails were sent, I’d appreciate better understanding why they were not, and are still not, included among the letters that still remain on the Board webpage.
Reach Editorial Director Lynda Clancy at lyndaclancy@penbaypilot.com; 207-706-6657
