BATH – The Bath City Council met to discuss the process for hiring an investigator to look into the sale of the old Bath Hospital property on Park Street Tuesday evening.

Of concern to the council was finding a way to approach, interview, and hire an investigator without the appearance of a conflict of interest. 

In the end, the council agreed to have City Solicitor Roger Therriault craft two letters, one to the Maine Municipal Association, and the other to the Attorney General’s office, to ask advice about how other municipalities had gone about this process, before hiring an investigator.

Michael Wischkaemper, one of the most vocal critics of the hospital sale, at the invitation of the council, offered some suggestions, which were considered by the body.

The second item on the agenda, however, neatly negated all the work the council had done in the interest of openness on the issue.

The second item pertained to the issue of allowing an investigator to speak to councilors and other parties about events that took place within executive session, and allowing the investigator to make the information part of a public document.

The issue had been set aside at the last meeting to give the City Solicitor time to consider the legal ramifications of the issue, but at Tuesday’s meeting, Therriault said that it was legal, and recommended that the councilors approve the item.

Since many of the discussions that took place around the sale issue occurred in executive session, and since the public documents that are available are hazy, or inaccurate, on the timeline surrounding the sale, Ward 6 Councilor David Sinclair felt that allowing the information to be revealed would hope to “restore the trust that has been either damaged or lost in the course of these proceedings.”

The vote was specifically surrounding the events of one executive session, which according to the City Clerk, occurred on February 6. 

Councilor Meadow Merrill was concerned, she said, “that allowing information learned in executive session might compromise the interests of other parties involved.”

Councilor Sean Paulhus said that he was concerned that it would set a precedent, essentially revoking the council’s privilege of conducting business in executive session.

Councilor Steve Brackett said that he had reservations about releasing information learned in executive session, and felt strongly about it because Therriault said that it had never been done before.

Councilor Carolyn Lockwood said that “most of the information” was already in the public domain, and didn’t see the need to waive confidentiality of executive session for the investigation.

Councilor Andy Winglass objected too, saying that “essentially, what we would be allowing is public scrutiny” of information that was revealed in executive session.

Councilors Tink Mitchell, Mari Eosco and Bernie Wyman did not speak on the issue.  David Sinclair, who had made the motion at the previous council meeting, said, “I share my fellow councilors’ concern about the sanctity of executive session, but I believe our privilege ought to be yield to the public’s legitimate right to additional information about what is being done in their names in their city government.”

When the vote was taken, seven voting councilors  — Brackett, Merrill, Paulhus, Lockwood, Eosco, Mitchell, and WInglass, voted against giving the investigator the right to talk with them and others about events that took place in executive session.  Wyman did not vote, and Sinclair voted in favor.

Essentially, the vote means that the public will have no more access to information about the sale than they currently have, with the publicly available documents, even after the investigation is concluded.

“We need to examine a referendum to have them removed,” said Larry Scott, one of the most vocal of the critics of the sale.

He was joined by Michael Wischkaemper, who said, “Recall has to be considered.  We have a situation where a single lone vote voted for common sense in city government,” referring to Sinclair.

Scott also threatened a boycott against some of the businesses that councilors are affiliated with.  “Stupidity has to be punished,” he said.  “I wouldn’t have said that before tonight’s vote.  I wouldn’t have suggested that we take away a man’s livelihood because of his actions in this chamber.  But this vote changes everything.”

Recall may be a tall order.

In order to recall a sitting councilor in Bath, a petition must have half of the number of signers as voters in the ward who voted in the election in which the councilor was last elected.  That may vary depending on whether the councilor was elected in an off-year election or during a presidential year.

Mari Eosco, councilor for the 5^th ward, said after the meeting that it was her understanding that executive session was supposed to provide privacy for people who are coming to the city with proposals, although she said that the new process should address many of the issues going forward.  She said she knew that many people would be unhappy with the vote taken Tuesday night.  “I don’t think we’re ever going to make everyone happy about this issue,” she said.  “Executive session is a matter of principle.”  However, after a discussion with Wischkaemper, Eosco said that she would reconsider and perhaps offer the vote again at a future council meeting.  “I just want this issue to go away and get business done,” she acknowledged. 

She also didn’t fully understand, she said, why the lone ‘citizen’ on the joint Economic Development committee tasked with making changes to the way the city disposes of its property, Rabyrne Hutton, had offered a public letter of resignation at the last meeting, which cited a lack of openness and unwillingness to answer questions on the part of the council, and on his feeling that authority was vested too heavily in one position. 

“I would think he’d want to stay and work to change things,” she said. 

David Sinclair did not respond to requests for comment by presstime.