‘This is entirely inappropriate and if it isn’t outright illegal, it is certainly legally suspect’’

Rockport Select Board hears citizen concern over short-term rental ordinance article published in town newsletter

Mon, 01/11/2021 - 8:15pm

    ROCKPORT – At their Jan. 11 meeting, members of the Rockport Select Board were read a letter submitted by resident Stephen Bowen, who outlined concerns with how a proposed ordinance that would regulate the operation of short-term rentals was editorially presented in a municipal newsletter. That newsletter, funded by the town, was recently mailed to Rockport households.

    The board listened to the bulk of the letter, but no discussion about it ensued.

    “I think we will take that up at another meeting or discuss it further, but not tonight,” said Vice Chair Denise Kennedy-Munger, who, during the reading of the letter by Town Manager Bill Post, also asked how long the letter was, and added, “do we need to hear more?”

    Last fall, a draft ordinance was prepared by Select Board Chair Debra Hall, Vice Chair Kennedy-Munger, and Ordinance Review Committee member Bob Hall. If enacted by voters, the ordinance would limit the number of short-term rentals allowable in particular zoning districts throughout Rockport, require each homeowner wishing to rent out their property to register with the town Code Enforcement Officer each year and be willing to have their property inspected by the Code Enforcement Officer and the Fire Chief. 

    As the Jan 11 meeting was held remotely via Zoom, Bowen’s letter was read to the board by Town Manager Post during the public comment portion of the agenda.

    Hall was absent from this portion of the meeting, as she was participating in a discussion of broadband internet with the Lincolnville Select Board. Kennedy-Munger, as Vice Chair, led the meeting in her place.

    Post said that Bowen asked that the letter be read into the record at the meeting; Post said there were no other members of the public who wished to speak during this portion of the meeting.

    In his letter, Bowen refers to an article by Hall that was published in the Rockport Resource, a newsletter printed and distributed by the Town of Rockport.

    “I come before you today to express my grave concern with regard to the Town’s use of the January & February edition of the Rockport Resource to advocate in favor of the proposed Short Term Rental Ordinance,” Bowen wrote. “The 2200-word article that appeared in that edition, authored by the Board Chair, was not an information item or update, but was, rather, a one-sided argument in favor of the proposed Ordinance, without any dissenting views described, despite public testimony providing plenty of rationale for opposition.”

    “The Board Chair, as a citizen of the Town, is of course welcome to share her opinions on this matter as we all are, but what is gravely concerning is the use of a public, taxpayer-funded newsletter, bearing the seal and the imprimatur of the Town, which is written, edited, printed, and mailed at public expense, as a vehicle for what is essentially political advocacy. My tax dollars are being used by the town I live in to lobby me as a citizen to support a controversial matter that is to come before citizens for their vote. This is entirely inappropriate and if it isn’t outright illegal, it is certainly legally suspect.”

    Bowen said that the article, and it’s placement in the municipal newsletter, also violated aspects of the Rockport Town Charter, which Bowen said he assisted in drafting, with regard to the charter’s statement that, “It is the policy of the Town of Rockport that the proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials and members of all boards and committees be independent, impartial and responsible to the citizens; that public service not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its municipal government.”

    The letter went on to describe a growing sense of citizen distrust in governments at large, as well as a feeling in the community that “the fix is in” with regard to the proposed ordinance. At this point in Post’s reading of the letter, Kennedy-Munger interjected.

    “Bill can I just stop you...how much longer is this? I didn’t get a copy of [the letter] today,” said Kennedy-Munger.

    “It’s a couple more paragraphs,” said Post.

    “OK, because I’m a little concerned. It’s supposed to be ‘brief and to the point,’ and I think we get the point. Do we need to hear more?”

    “I’ll skip ahead a little bit,” said Post.

    In closing his letter, Bowen asked that the Select Board either issue an apology for the “improper use of this taxpayer-funder newspaper for advocacy purposes,” adopt a new policy for the newsletter going forward or offer opponents of the ordinance the chance to have an editorial published.

    Bowen’s letter can be read in its entirety below. See attached PDF for the letter, plus Bowen’s specific criticism of certain sentences in the article.

    The next meeting of the Rockport Select Board will be held Monday, Jan. 25 at 5:30 p.m.


    Public comment, Rockport Select Board, January 11, 2021

    Members of the Select Board,

    I come before you today to express my grave concern with regard to the Town’s use of the January & February edition of the Rockport Resource to advocate in favor of the proposed Short Term Rental Ordinance. The 2200-word article that appeared in that edition, authored by the Board Chair, was not an information item or update, but was, rather, a one-sided argument in favor of the proposed Ordinance, without any dissenting views described, despite public testimony providing plenty of rationale for opposition. The article puts forward one biased opinion about this controversial matter after another, and if any mention of opposing views is made at all in the piece, it is to minimize or poorly and/or inaccurately characterize those views.

    The Board Chair, as a citizen of the Town, is of course welcome to share her opinions on this matter as we all are, but what is gravely concerning is the use of a public, taxpayer- funded newsletter, bearing the seal and the imprimatur of the Town, which is written, edited, printed, and mailed at public expense, as a vehicle for what is essentially political advocacy. My tax dollars are being used by the town I live in to lobby me as a citizen to support a controversial matter that is to come before citizens for their vote. This is entirely inappropriate and if it isn’t outright illegal, it is certainly legally suspect. Public dollars cannot be used for political advocacy in this way - pure and simple.

    The Rockport Town Charter, which I had a hand in drafting many years ago, states that “It is the policy of the Town of Rockport that the proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials and members of all boards and committees be independent, impartial and responsible to the citizens; that public service not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its municipal government.” There is no way that the article in question can be read to be anything other than a blatant argument in favor of a controversial matter still to be decided by Rockport citizens. It is far from the independence and impartiality that the Charter calls for. If you have any question of this, I have taken the liberty of attaching an annotated copy of the article, along with my notes identifying what I believe to be areas of clear bias and partiality.

    We live in a time of unprecedented mistrust in government. Members of the Board know full well that there is a growing sentiment in Rockport that the “fix is in” on this matter—that the Board, at the behest of their personal friends and nameless special interests, is ramming through an ordinance proposal that does not represent the views 

    of the town, to solve a problem it is has struggled to identify with anything beyond anecdote and hearsay. Using a taxpayer-funded newsletter—an official public document created by the Town’s employees and paid for by the public—to advocate for a certain political outcome in this controversial matter only makes this lack of trust worse, and gives voice to those who believe fair treatment in this matter is not possible.

    In response to this impropriety, I would ask that the board take the following three actions:

    1. That the Board issue an apology for the improper use of this taxpayer-funded newsletter for advocacy purposes, acknowledging that its actions were inconsistent with the standards if independence and impartiality called for by the Town Charter.
    2. That the Board adopt a clear policy going forward to prohibit the newsletter (or any other taxpayer-funded municipal resource) being used for this purpose in the future, limiting its future use to the unbiased and impartial reporting of information of interest, consistent with the standards described in the Town Charter.
    3. That the Board offer opponents of the ordnance, and there is a large and growing group of these citizens organizing as we speak, the opportunity to rebut the claims in this article in the next issue of the newsletter. Opponents should be given “equal time” to present their views in response, and to have that rebuttal distributed in the exact same manner as the original article.

    I thank the Board for its attention to this important matter, it is my hope that Rockport can move forward and have a healthy debate about the ordnance in question, without the Town throwing its considerable weight and authority behind one side or the other. The Town is called on to be impartial and I hope that it will be.

    Sincerely,

    Stephen Bowen