The Camden Select Board held a regular meeting Sept. 9 and following 45 minutes of public and board discussion on the tannery agenda item, a 4 to 1 vote determined language of a non-binding Nov. 4 Warrant referendum question.

Tuesday night's business was not without controversy though, as board member Leonard Lookner told the other board members that it was wrong to be taking another vote on the advisory question language, which he said the board had already discussed and voted to approve Sept. 2.

The straw vote motion and vote came about Sept. 2, with the goal to help determine if the community wants the Select Board to continue to adhere to the Apollo Tannery Redevelopment Work Group's 2008 Report and Recommendations.

It followed a contentious neighborhood meeting in August, held after neighbors of the tannery property, and some of their friends, learned that the Select Board, by authority of the voters in June, was about to enter into a purchase and sale agreement to sell the property to North East Mobile Health Services. Before that happened, and days after the neighborhood meeting, North East dropped its plan, saying it had found another location to pursue moving its Midcoast headquarters, four ambulances and 33 employees to.

The final approved advisory vote language, Article 3, as presented to the Select Board in its packet for Sept. 9, reads:

"Do you support using the Tannery property for commercial/business uses described in the Guiding Principles approved by the Town Meeting, or do you support using the Tannery property for park/open space?

Please vote for one:
___Commercial/business
___Park/open space"

An "Information Note" is included below the question, and it reads:

"Since June 2008, the Town Meeting has voted to authorize the Select Board to sell the Tannery property – except the land dedicated to the Riverwalk, to a business which would provide year-round, good-paying jobs. The voters also established "Guiding Principles" which are the criteria for the types of businesses that are acceptable to be located on the Tannery site. Recently the Town had an opportunity to sell the property to a private business, but some people in the community proposed that a park or open space was a better use of the Tannery property. The purpose of this Advisory Question is for voters to let the Select Board know if they think the Town should continue to market the property and sell it to a suitable business that will create year-round jobs, or should the property be turned into a park."

Six community members spent the first 20 minutes offering their opinions on the proposed language of the straw vote question. Like the board members, who get their agenda packets the Friday before a Tuesday meeting, residents in attendance also had a chance to see the question prior to the Sept. 9 meeting.

Mt. Battie Street resident Elizabeth Schuman thanked the board for the "greatly improved wording" that included the "park/open space" wording, which she said earlier, Sept. 2, had been "public usage space."

Board Chairman Martin Cates offered a point of clarification to Schuman, saying that the wording had not yet been decided.

"We voted [Sept. 2] on the motion to move the question to the warrant and tonight we are deciding the language of the motion," said Cates. This comment by Cates would later be disputed by others on the board, but the public comment portion of the meeting continued with Schuman.

"In any case, I am delighted to see the new wording that you are going to be discussing. I think the use of park and open space will get a really good read from the community...I think it's perfect," said Schuman.

Schuman was one of the Millville neighborhood members who spoke Aug. 21 during a community meeting with then-proposed property developer North East Mobile Health Services. At that meeting, Schuman said she was opposed to the ambulance company moving onto the site, located in the River Business District, because she was highly opposed to the sound of sirens. She said she also viewed the Riverwalk portion of the parcel as meant to be a "meditative" spot.

Tuesday night, Schuman told the board that of 31 people in her "group," only one wanted to see commercial use of the property.

"Everybody else wanted a park, a few didn't mind if there was a building on it, but most people wanted a plain park," said Schuman. "So that gives you a little sense of the neighborhood, but from some people outside the neighborhood as well."

Rawson Avenue resident Tom Resek, also previously an adamant opponent of NEMHS' proposed move to the tannery property, said Tuesday night that he too was in support of the "public part" of the article's language.

"The park part is the important part for me," said Resek. "So people know that is what they are voting for. Because obviously public use could mean a lot of things, maybe even including an ambulance company, I'm not sure."

Union Street resident Eleanor Masin-Peters told the board that following the Sept. 2 meeting, she was confused about the meaning of the word "public use" so she looked it up.

"It was more than I thought public use would be," said Masin-Peters. "Public use includes schools, streets, highways, hospitals, government buildings, parks, water reservoirs, flood control, slum clearance and redevelopment, public housing and public theaters, and stadiums, safety facilities, harbors, bridges, railroads, airport terminals, prisons, jails, public utilities, canals and numerous other purposes designated beneficial to the public. When I read that, I thought, huh, that's not really what our group was about.

She said that for her, the word park, or open recreational space, is more applicable to what her group is trying to represent.

"I also think the people are open to some sort of community building and maybe some sort of commerce in that building, but something just fitting in the neighborhood," she said.

Jeff Scott, who served on the Riverwalk Committee but said he was speaking as a resident, suggested the board invest some time and money in a postcard survey of residents. He said the survey could be tailored to elicit multiple and more "interesting" responses from the community than just a yes or no that then begs more questions.

He said his idea likely derails the straw vote idea, but Camden Town Manager Patricia Finnigan told him, "It's never too late."

"The way this is worded, I would have difficulty voting," said Scott. "How do I say I like parks and open spaces but I like commercial. I don't want one or the other, I want both. How do I say what Eleanor just said...it's OK if we have some commercial but this doesn't offer that flexibility whereas if you did a survey, you could get that kind of information back."

Grove Street resident Stephen Gold said he agreed with Scott, that the advisory question should not be "either-or."

"Potentially [there could be] some beneficial mixed uses, a park would be great, so nothing against a park, but if some great opportunity comes along that represents a diverse use, don't put people in a corner with your work," said Gold.

Anita Brosius-Scott, who served on the Apollo Tannery Site Redevelopment Workgroup that met seven times between October 2007 and February 2008, said she agreed with the others before, but that she too felt "put in a corner" on the either-or vote.

"Do we want to retain a fairly significant size lot for commercial use or do we want it to be entirely a park?" said Brosius-Scott. "I think a park would be a great idea, I am also in favor of appropriate commercial use in this district. If I am asked to vote, I probably will vote for park. If I was asked to vote, appropriate commercial use with public use as a significant consideration or something along those lines, I would definitely vote for that.

She said she was concerned that the select board, in its rush, chose the wrong language, though she said she very pleased that they were considering a park idea that many people are "in favor of, and I strongly support your move toward getting the pulse of the community on this issue."

During the board's discussion, Lookner told the other board members that not only was it was wrong to take another vote on the advisory question language, which the board had already discussed and voted to approve the week prior, he said that just moments before moving to the Advisory Vote agenda item they had unanimously approved the minutes of Sept. 2.

Lookner read those minutes as they pertained to a motion made by board member John French to hold a nonbinding referendum to establish whether the community wished to "continue to pursue a commercial/industrial use" for the tannery property or Washington, "...pursuant to the Guiding Principles as reflected at the June 2008 town meeting, yes or no." Continuing, the minutes also noted that French's motion was followed by an amended motion made by Lookner, who added a line after "June 2008" that read "or would they rather use that property for future public uses, commercial use public."

The motion, as amended by Lookner, was unanimously approved sept. 2. French's motion and Lookner's amended motion, as recorded in the minutes, say nothing about determining or reserving the right to determine final language of the referendum at a future meeting. Tuesday night' agenda also do not reference further discussing the language.

Those issues, and the fact that completely different wording was before the board for approval, were the crux of Lookner's frustration and admonishment of the other board members Tuesday night.

"Now under this new article, all of a sudden the commercial/industrial thing has disappeared and it becomes commercial/business," said Lookner. "I don't understand how we can vote 5 to zero on one occasion and use specific language, and then come here tonight and change the language. Can we do that with anything that's passed or just this specifically?"

Board member Don White asked Finnigan to weigh in on the technical aspect of whether, given that there had been discussion of adding a third option, could they adjust the wording. White asked because he was under the impression they had not voted on specific wording Sept. 2, just to agree to put it before voters.

Finnigan said White was correct, and that the amended wording was not actually worded in the form of a question, as it needed to be.

"As I have made it clear, I have suggested the warrant article wording - to make it vote for this or vote for that - which I think is what the intent, what the select board wanted," said Finnigan. "I also said that if you guys were happy with the way you worded it, then that was fine. If you want to do it the other way, that was fine too. It's a discussion."

Lookner said in his mind, they don't know if it's actually legal for the board to change a motion in the fashion they were moving to do that night.

When French told Lookner that they can reconsider anything they do, as long as it's a decision of the majority, Lookner countered that it needed to be properly noticed on the agenda.

"It's on the agenda, to discuss the warrant article," said French.

"I can't believe government can run that way," said Lookner. "I can't believe anything can run that way. I think it's skullduggery, quite frankly...the citizens of Camden should be appalled."

French then said that they had just heard from some of the citizens that they were OK with reopening the discussion and consider rephrasing the question to make it clearer at the polls.

"I am talking nuts and bolts, John. I am talking about something we voted on and now, for some reason, we are changing what we voted on. And quite frankly, I feel uncomfortable that it was kind of a back room kind of thing," said Lookner.

Lookner continued to question the language change from commercial/industrial to commercial/business, and then went on to question the phrasing of the "Information Note," that would appear under the question. He called it incredibly biased.

Chairman Cates then said that following the Sept. 2 vote, he took the language of the amended and approved motion to people and asked if they understood it as written.

"Frankly, they said no," said Cates about his canvassing. "And the more I got looking, at specifically the word industrial, and the place where I firmly believed in retrospect it should say 'park or open space,' both were lost. And so I support the willingness to change that."

Cates said that both versions, actually all three versions, included references to the Guiding Principles for any future use considerations.

Cates also said that in the scheme of things, there is no difference between a commercial/business use and a commercial/industrial use, as far as needing to know the current will of the community. The crux of the question at hand is whether they want to change the use to something other than exclusively business and industry.

What that then looks like, is the next question.

As it stands, both a park and open space, or even public space, is not listed as an "acceptable use" in the Guiding Principles, as the objective for redeveloping the site was and is to "create good, year round jobs for Camden."

To that end, the workgroup's objectives were to form a list of business/industry sectors that would be suitable for the site and the economic needs of Camden; to establish a target number of new jobs to be created, including a target salary/benefit level; to establish a list of conditions and requirements that are important for site development (walk ways, public access issues, etc.); create a list of possible incentives to offer potential businesses; recommend a list of parties with which to coordinate business recruitment and marketing efforts; set a time frame for those efforts; and present the above to the Select Board.

Board member Jim Heard said that at first, he considered the word park a flash word, one that draws a negative connotation when it comes to generating income and jobs for a town. He said that while he has come to view that word for some as a negative, as in "we don't need more parks," he has never been in a place that had too many parks.

"Do you understand why park is not a great word? And why I would want to use a different term?" said Heard.

He said that people understand that public use doesn't generate tax income, versus commercial use that does.

"So whether it's any of those uses within a park, or public use, it doesn't do that and I think that's a major concern for people - that we need something that's going to generate some revenue," said Heard.

Cates countered, and said it's much in the same thing. He said he wrestles with the word industrial much the same what that Heard said he wrestles with the word park.

"I'm sorry to be simplistic with this, but which do you want?" said Cates. "Spades over here or hearts over there? If the town walks in and says, yes, we want a park, we've got our direction. And yes, park will be a four-letter, dirty word to some people, but on the other side, industrial is going to be the longer dirty word to other people."

Lookner again said the language should not be up for discussion or further amendment, because it had already been voted on.

"I always take a person's character at their word," said Lookner. "And our word was what we voted on Sept. 2 and you are reneging on your word. If that's the kind of community you want to live in..."

He questioned why they didn't have the discussion they were having Tuesday night, last week, and why when they voted Sept. 2, they didn't vote to decide the final language later.

Cates and French both said they had second thoughts after they voted Sept. 2 and saw the language in print.

"If you think my character is bad because I changed my mind, then go ahead," said Cates.

French then made a motion to reconsider the language approved at the Sept. 2 meeting.

Cates seconded the motion and during the discussion before the vote, Lookner objected because he said reconsidering the Sept. 2 motion was not on the agenda. He also again said that if they had wanted to reconsider the motion of Sept. 2, someone should have made the motion before approving the minutes of Sept. 2.

The motion carried, with a vote of 4 to 1, with Lookner opposed.

French then made a motion to accept the Advisory Vote language as it appeared on Tuesday night's agenda, and White seconded.

Before taking this vote, Lookner said he was really upset with the information note included on the Advisory Vote language, again calling it biased. Second, he said that if he were to vote on the motion, he would want to see a third possibility of perhaps a mixed use option for voters to choose.

"Thirdly, I am not going to sway from my original intent, which is we already voted on this," said Lookner. "This whole thing is a sham and I am absolutely, for the first time, really not happy about being on the Select Board. I just want to say that I will do everything I possibly can to educate people into what happened tonight. I am going to get up from this meeting in a moment after the vote and leave in protest...because I don't believe that we should renege on a motion we made."

"So you're going to leave in protest because we are trying to clarify, amend a vote for the people to give us information," said French.

"Yes, that's correct. Because of what you've done. I'm appalled by what you've done," said Lookner.

Cates called a vote and it was 4 to 1, with Lookner in opposition. He packed up his laptop and left and the other members continued with the night's meeting agenda without him.

Related stories:

• Camden voters will influence tannery site future; decide if innkeeper can try to serve dinner

• Camden leaders put tannery  issue before voters

• Leaders say enough is enough with Camden’s problem property

• North East drops bid to buy tannery property

• Camden Select Board to discuss tannery sale to North East

• Camden plans to sell tannery land to North East Mobile Health ambulance service

• PAWS Animal Adoption Center closes on Camden First Aid Association building

• P.A.W.S. under contract to buy former Camden First Aid building

• North East Mobile hires 11 Camden First Aid staff members

• Clearing up misconceptions, rumors: Camden, Hope, Lincolnville, Rockport heading to town meeting, tackle complicated EMS vote

• Camden's Riverwalk takes shape where once a tannery stood

• Camden Public Landing, Riverwalk concepts get refined

• Camden Riverwalk, Public Landing concepts on the table

• Final Camden Riverwalk and Public Landing meeting

• In Camden, concepts for a riverwalk and redesigned public landing

• Second community meeting on Camden Riverwalk, Public Landing project tonight

• Meeting tonight: Camden Riverwalk

• Camden chooses designer for Riverwalk, Town Landing

Editorial Director Holly S. Edwards can be reached at hollyedwards@penbaypilot.com or 706-6655.