On November 3rd there will be a ballot for issues that effect citizens in the state of Maine, possibly the Country. But, also, in spite of those who might wish it to be otherwise, there will also be a ballot with an issue for the voters in the Town of Paris.
Why would there be a party, or parties, "who might wish it to be otherwise?"
Why would there be any movement from the arena of elected officials to put up road blocks to allowing voters to have the opportunity to speak? Why would there be dragging of feet on deadlines and decisions that would try to prohibit an article from getting to a ballot so that voters could decide for themselves what they want?
Are the voters of Paris not wise enough to make choices that effect their own pocket books and life activities, and the welfare of their town?
Or, are there individuals who might fear for their jobs if the voters make the choice to vote in a certain item?
Consider what having a ballot means. It means an opportunity to vote our opinion. It means being a part of the voice that manages our town. If there is only one issue, it means that we get to weigh in on that issue and how it might be resolved in a way that will effect our lives as we live them in this town.
So, having been told, at first, that there would be no local questions on the Nov. 3 ballot for Paris voters, now it seems we have evolved to a place where we have an actual item to vote on: "Shall an ordinance entitled 'Ordinance for a recall election in the Town of Paris, Maine' be enacted?" "Yes or No?"
Having a recall ordinance on the books is not a guarantee that any elected official will be removed from office. It is simply a tool that many towns in Maine have put in place to allow voters a means to rescind an earlier vote that elected an official they may subsequently have lost confidence in. It is a re-vote, and as such, should not be taken lightly. A recall ordinance provides a procedure that must be followed carefully.
But, those who would seek to script how voters in Paris should think, need to remember that elected officials, in a municipality run by the democratic process, govern at the pleasure of the majority of the voters, the people who live there.
The recall ordinance proposed for Paris was drafted, at the request of the Paris Selectmen, 2-2009, using, as a model, an example furnished by the Maine Municipal Association. It is a model used in many municipalities in this state, some directly, some with more variations.
No matter how restrictive - or unrestrictive - the language of the final draft ordinances that went before the various municipalities of this state for vote, the intent was clear: these ordinances were to provide the opportunity for voters to un-elect officials in whom the voters had completely lost confidence.
The Town of Harpswell is on their second draft of their Recall Ordinance. The first was so restrictive that people complained they couldn't recall anyone. The second draft hasn't pleased Harpswell voters much more. The Town of Andover's recall ordinance, on the other hand, is very similar to Paris' proposed draft. Andover has tried, twice, to recall the same elected official, and has failed both times, because there have not been enough votes to recall the official.
Neither town has removed any elected official. In both towns it is the voters who are the decision makers. And that is as it should be. It is always the voters, at the polls, who ultimately make the choice about who is elected, and in the case of a recall, who ought to be un-elected.
Paris voters will have the choice of whether to put a recall ordinance in place Nov. 3. Voters need to understand that this is only a tool. This tool - the same one voters in many other Maine towns have - would give them the only means to recall an elected official; and then only if they, the voters, are truly feeling disenfranchised and betrayed.
In the best of times, once the ordinance-tool is in place, life will just go along as usual.
If it is not the best of times, however - if there are enough voters who feel disenfranchised and betrayed - then they, the dissatisfied voters, must mount a petition asking for a recall election, gather a specified number of signatures from other voters who agree, and present that petition to the selectmen.
The voters of the whole town must weigh in at this point; and the outcome decides whether the official in question has a shortened term or not.
It is, in the democratic process, the voters who get to speak. That is the way it should be; the way it must be.
