WISCASSET
Susan Varney can have her job back, if she wants it.
As if by magic Tuesday night, residents voted overwhelmingly to add $57,939 to the assessing department budget, even though the Board of Selectmen and the Budget Committee both recommended adding just $16,000.
After the vote, members of the board said they had no clue as to the dramatic change of opinion.
Twice before, in secret balloting, voters had rejected funding for the assessing department, leaving Varney without her job. The last vote, by a 389-307 margin, came on Sept. 10.
“I don’t know,” Chairman Ed Polewarczyk said when asked what changed everyone’s minds.
Neither did Selectman Jefferson Slack have any explanation for the dramatic turnaround.
Selectman Tim Merry offered an explanation: “It’s the open forum of the meeting,” he said.
Indeed, moderator Susan Blagden noted at the outset of the meeting — attended by more than 200 people at Wiscasset Middle School — that it was nice to return to an open town meeting format.
As soon as Blagden opened the floor to discussion on Article 3 — to determine how much more to spend in addition to the $16,780 already spent on assessing since June — Judy Flanagan was ready with her motion.
Flanagan noted that another $16,780 would take the assessing budget through Sept. 1. Doing some math, shecame up with the $57,939 that would bring back an assessing department, or Varney. Residents then voted to forego Varney’s $67,340 in severance pay, a contractuual obligation, and $34,000 for legal accounts.
“If we have the contractuual obligation,” Flanagan said, “let’s raise the lesser amount and have a department that is working.”
Recently, selectmen were divided as to whether they should conduct assessing in the absence of a department. Soon after the vote, Varney received hugs of congratulations from wellwishers.
lgrard@timesrecord.com
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less