“Chaotic,” “divisive” and “costly” are adjectives that describe Sharri MacDonald’s tenure as chair of the Old Orchard Beach Town Council. These adjectives are part of the reason why she has the distinction of being the only town council chair to ever be recalled in our town’s history.
Under her tenure as chairwoman, meetings were chaotic, with little order or control, allowing screaming, name calling and degradation of meeting decorum among those in attendance.
Her time as chairwoman also proved to be costly to us, the taxpayers, due to what seemed to be her commitment to her own personal, hidden agenda. (Follow protocol when it’s time for a TM to go.) This resulted in a lawsuit brought on by Mark Pearson, which the town was forced to settle, paying tens of thousands of dollars for the settlement. No one really knows how much it cost us all in the associated legal fees throughout the entire fiasco, which began in December 2012 and ended in the vote to recall Ms. MacDonald in June 2013 by a nearly 2-1 margin.
Let’s take a look at her performance at the state level. She voted against LD 1487, which would extend Medicaid coverage for low-income, working Maine people, including more than 3,000 veterans. Many in Old Orchard Beach could have benefited. She voted against LD 1762 ”“ revenue sharing for cities and towns in Maine. She accomplished very little as our representative.
At all levels of government, we need people who are cooperative, and go through a thoughtful, collaborative decision-making process to reach the best solutions. We do not need people who are divisive and create additional problems, because they cannot compromise with those of differing opinions. Sharri MacDonald’s past performance at the local and state level illustrate that she is not interested in the best interests of the people of Old Orchard Beach.
Marc J. Bourassa, Old Orchard Beach
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