WINDHAM – The town of Windham removed a sewer project informational display board inside town hall last week after receiving legal advice from the Maine Municipal Association.

The display, which featured sewer project information and a map of the sewer corridor, was prominently located on an easel between the main entrance of the town hall and the clerk’s office, where absentee and early voting takes place. It was part of the town’s $18,500 campaign aimed at informing Windham voters regarding the North Windham and Windham Center sewer referendum that is coming up for a vote Nov. 6.

Opponents of the sewer project, who believe the town has been waging an illegal advertising campaign with the town hall display as well as similarly styled handouts and a website that ask residents, “Why Sewer, Why Now,” are buoyed by the decision by the Maine Municipal Association, an organization that provides support to Maine cities and towns. But they feel the decision comes too late since many residents may have been influenced by the sign.

“As of the last absentee voter data uploaded on Oct. 25 by the Secretary of State’s Office, 566 people cast in-person absentee ballots at the clerk’s office,” said Windham resident Patrick Corey, an outspoken sewer opponent who set up a ballot initiative committee and website in opposition to the sewer project. “All of these people were unnecessarily exposed to this easel sign. No one knows if votes were affected and that’s why I wish the town was guided by common sense, rather than advocacy. I approached the town clerk about this on Oct. 15.”

Town Manager Tony Plante, who consulted Windham attorney Ken Cole III on the easel sign matter when Corey raised the issue two weeks ago, said the decision to take down the sign doesn’t mean the town was engaging in an improper advertising effort near a polling place. He said Windham officials weren’t even consulted on the issue by Maine Municipal officials.

“No one from MMA Legal Services contacted me or the town attorney, so I’m not sure how much they know about how and where voting takes place or, for that matter, what the display board actually says,” Plante said. “Nor did they hear what Ken Cole or I had to say as to our thought process or understanding of the law and relevant court decisions regarding informational displays.”

The Town Council has repeatedly said they want to take a poll of the community as to whether the town supports the costly sewer system, and that Nov. 6, being a presidential election, would offer the best chance at gauging the pulse of the community. Plante and town officials have been outspoken at Town Council meetings regarding their task of educating the public about the sewer without stepping over the line into advocating for the project. Individual councilors have expressed support of the project but the town is forbidden by state law to spend taxpayer money on an advertising campaign. The public relations firm Barton & Gingold, which is being paid $18,500 to educate voters about the sewer project, therefore cannot urge a “yes” vote.

The Maine Municipal official responding to the sign issue was Richard Flewelling, assistant director of Maine Municipal’s Legal Services Department. In an email to Windham Town Clerk Linda Morrell advising the removal of the sign, Flewelling likened the town hall display situation to a “slippery slope,” and urged removal to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

“I certainly respect both Ken Cole’s opinion and Tony Plante’s wishes with regard to the town’s informational display in the lobby, but the demands for ‘equal time’ from opponents of this project are the very reason I read the statute’s ban on advertising conservatively,” Flewelling wrote. “[State law] bars ‘the display or distribution of any advertising material intended to influence a voter’s decision’ within the clerk’s office or on public property within 250 feet of the entrance to the building. The only way I can think of to avoid the inevitable argument over what qualifies as advertising material intended to influence a voter’s decision is to prohibit all materials relating to any ballot question, including those characterized as merely informational. Otherwise, it is a slippery slope, and the arguments will be fierce and endless.”

Asked if Flewelling’s determination regarding the easel sign in town hall will affect the similarly designed flyers or more comprehensive website, Plante said it wouldn’t.

“From what I read in Mr. Flewelling’s email, his remarks pertain to the project display board as it was represented to him and not to the flyers or website. Plenty of communication about the project has taken place outside the confines of the town offices, none of which will be affected by the removal of one display board,” Plante said.

Corey, who says he doesn’t necessarily oppose a sewer but feels the project is unfairly paid for on the backs of Windham’s residential taxpayers, feels vindicated by an outside party’s determination.

“Ken Cole’s interpretation of the law is based on what the town wanted to do,” he said. “I feel that MMA’s interpretation is non-biased and in the interest of all parties.”