Editor’s Note: This is the last of a three-part series probing local politics and issues in the town of Windham. This week’s article focuses on the phenomenon of councilor texting, public comment at meetings, the perceived lack of open discussion, zoning and the role of the Windham Economic Development Corp.

WINDHAM – At a meeting of the Windham Town Council last October, residents who had gathered to speak their mind on whether an issue regarding then-Councilor Donna Chapman should be taken into an executive session were barely able to contain themselves as then-Chairman Bill Tracy and other councilors wouldn’t allow them to speak.

Tracy was within town charter rules by not allowing the public to comment during a workshop, but audience members were nonetheless incensed at the denial. Perhaps due to that divisive meeting, where audience members cursed aloud their elected representatives, the council is currently considering new rules governing public comment.

Communication, as always, remains a hot topic, both between councilors and what they choose to say publicly and what they choose to keep hidden in executive sessions.

The Lakes Region Weekly recently sat down with Council Chairman Scott Hayman and Town Manager Tony Plante to discuss issues surrounding communication as well as other issues such as zoning, and the loss of businesses in Windham.

Q: Scott, you mentioned at a meeting recently that you had received a text from someone commenting about impact fees and how they scare off developers. Should councilors be taking text messages from friends or family during council meetings?

Hayman: I don’t see anything wrong with it. From a professional standpoint it should be for emergency purposes only. I don’t think I read that text during the meeting. I think I read it after the meeting and I believe I was probably discussing it in the lobby after the meeting and somebody must have overheard me discussing it with another individual in the lobby, but I don’t believe I took the text during the meeting.

Q: So nobody takes texts during a meeting?

Hayman: I can’t say nobody does but I will tell you this, we’ll address it.

Q: The public is not allowed to comment during workshops, so isn’t taking a text message during a workshop akin to taking public comment? Texting is like a direct line to the council, with no one knowing about it since no one can see what’s being text messaged, unlike when someone goes up and speaks at the podium. It’s a new phenomenon.

Hayman: It is a new phenomenon, and to be honest with you, I don’t text. I receive them, but I don’t do it. But I can see people’s concern about councilors receiving texts during a meeting, and as chairman you’ll probably see me address this in the near future. I can see their concern. I will say I don’t read my phone at the table. I may read it at a break, or immediately after we adjourn. This instance I remember it distinctly, I read it after the meeting. I was talking about it after the meeting in the lobby so it had no effect on any decision I might have made.

Q: It does go to a larger point, doesn’t it?

Hayman: It does, and I understand your point, and we will address it.

Q: Sometimes the council will hear public comment during workshops; sometimes it doesn’t. This has frustrated some folks who drive to a meeting hoping to speak their mind only to be shut out through procedural rules.

Plante: There seems to be some recent misunderstanding about public participation at workshops. Customarily, traditionally, there’s nothing in the council rules that addresses workshops. But council workshops as I understand it were modeled after legislative committee work sessions at which the committee doesn’t take public input. If they’re talking about a particular project or proposal, sure they may invite people to the table; that is for the council’s benefit for gathering information. It’s not to engage in a public dialogue at that point. At any point before it goes to the council for action, there’s always opportunity for public dialogue, there’s public participation on any item not on the agenda at any regular meeting plus opportunity for public input before the council votes on anything.

So it’s long been the practice of the council to invite staff people, people from the community, outside experts and other resources to come in and brief it about topics to discuss things without opening it up for public discussion. That’s nothing new. That has nothing to do with the new council-staff communications policy. There have been times, and it’s up to the council and council chair’s discretion, to say OK, we’d like to hear from so-and-so on this. And they’ve done that. I can see how some people may see that as a mixed message, but the council has used workshops to hear from staff, to hear from experts to hear about a particular issue before an action is taken, and not to engage in general public debate. The council can invite that, it hasn’t always, but I think for people to say that somehow this council has behaved different from previous councils, I don’t believe that is true. I think people are interpreting it differently.

Q: Scott, you have complained that more people should attend meetings, but you only allow people to talk at regular meetings, and by then it sometimes seems a vote is a foregone conclusion. Why not allow public comment at workshops? Wouldn’t that be the best time to allow public comment?

Hayman: I don’t believe that’s the best time to have public comment. People can voice their opinions when they have their chance on the issues during public participation or public comment on a particular article. A workshop is a time for councilors elected by the people to debate issues and if we allow the public to get involved in that debate, how do we get our debate between the people that are going to be voting completed in a timely manner? Those folks can watch those workshops, get information that we’ve debated amongst ourselves and bring their concerns before the vote, but we’re not going to get into a debate, so to speak, with the public one on one back and forth from the podium to the council table during a workshop. We do as councilors have a chance to respond to the public’s input during a regular meeting prior to a vote so I don’t see it as a problem not allowing it.

Plante: Let’s also not forget councilors have e-mails and phone numbers and are around and about in the community so people have opportunities. If they want to persuade you of a particular position, they can do that. Pick up a phone, write an e-mail, write a letter. Talk to you in the store.

Hayman: And that concern of votes being a foregone conclusion before we get to a regular meeting, I would say that’s not true. Most of the time, but at the same time, most of our debate takes place at those workshops. So for the people who just tune into the vote-able meetings that see us vote without much debate after public comment, and then there’s not much councilor comment, the councilors have pretty much said what they needed to say at the workshop the week before.

Q: The recent appointment of Peter Anania had little discussion. It seemed to be all wrapped up before the vote. That’s a good example of lack of discussion, and that was a big decision about who’s going to represent the town. Are these types of decisions being made via e-mail or phone calls prior to meetings?

Hayman: We discussed that in executive session, the six of us, and it was a unanimous decision that Peter Anania was going to be the man. There was no vote taken in executive session. We didn’t raise our hands, but we pretty much discussed it and we didn’t take a vote, we held that out. But basically, we decided we were going to nominate Peter Anania and we discussed all the applicants. And the fact that decisions are made over the phone or via e-mail? No. Are there discussions one on one? I’m sure there is. Are there discussions at any political level one on one whether you are a state rep, a U.S. senator? That is the way.

Q: Some people do wonder where these decisions come from. They just think the worst when they don’t see the public discussion.

Hayman: What don’t they see? We workshop every decision. The only thing that they’re wondering about is a personnel decision, which is basically an appointment of a councilor. In fact we as a council didn’t even have to fill that seat.

Q: We seemed to be weathering the economic downturn fairly well until the last few months. Some have criticized local government for putting onerous regulations on businesses such as the recently enacted sound ordinance, which forced some restaurants to pay for sound measuring equipment. This council says it wants economic development, but then you go and issue these new burdens. Is there a schizophrenic governing philosophy happening in Windham?

Hayman: The last I knew Tim Hortons doughnuts don’t have live bands. So how did we drive that out with the sound ordinance decision? Charlie Beiggs doesn’t have live bands, so how did we drive them out of business? They had an amusement permit but they weren’t using it. The ones that are most affected by that new noise ordinance is Club 302 and Gilbert’s Chowderhouse. They’re both still in business. So to blame the sound ordinance and the Windham Town Council for putting too many regulations on businesses so they’re going out of business is wrong.

Plante: You’ve got other decisions the council has made that have loosened some restrictions. I’m thinking of outdoor sales, for example. So I think you have to look at each decision in context. In terms of the sound ordinance, we had an existing ordinance that established sound level criteria that were not administrable or enforceable. We tried to come up with a solution that would work to the benefit of the both the business and the residents because the business had no ability to demonstrate it was in compliance. Now it does. Does that result in some additional cost? Yes it does. But if it helps eliminate frivolous complaints, then that has to be worth something.

Hayman: And I believe that we actually made that sound ordinance more liberal. We raised the (allowed decibel level). So to say we’ve regulated businesses is unsubstantiated.

Q: Some think the Windham Economic Development Corp. shouldn’t so much focus on luring new businesses in the current economic climate as they should focus on retaining existing businesses. Economic Development Director Tom Bartell recently said the purpose of WEDC isn’t to retain, it’s to attract. Is that an appropriate philosophy especially in light of recent business closings?

Plante: There’s both the business retention and attraction component to what the WEDC and Tom’s office does. We’ve had instances over the last few years where we had businesses who we were aware might be going elsewhere and we’ve reached out to those businesses to find ways they could expand here in town. One of those businesses hasn’t pursued expansion plans yet but we’ve been working with them to try to expand in Windham. Sometimes these decisions have nothing to do with Windham, it could be availability of real estate, or proximity to the turnpike or the airport. Business retention is part of the mission, but a substantial part of the focus is on attraction.

And I know one of the frustrations for Tom is when you see a business announcing it’s closing, by the time you hear about that, it’s too late to intervene. And we frequently are among the last to hear about these things.

Q: Bushmaster closed, that was a big blow.

Hayman: I think it’s unfortunate. I don’t think that’s a Windham issue. I think it’s a Maine issue. It’s no secret Maine is one of the least business friendly states in the union. And that is unfortunate. But when you’re in the manufacturing business as they are, geographically, you’re not in the best area. They’re not the only manufacturer to be leaving the state of Maine.

Q: People used to criticize the council for incivility toward each other. Now, it seems to get criticized because it gets along so well. People charge it with collusion. What do you think when people say this current council is a boy’s club?

Hayman: I would say, absolutely, people just like to criticize. But at the same time, it’s not just a good old boys’ club. We all don’t agree on everything. We just agree to disagree. The fact that it was a good old boys club and that we all knew each other before we got elected is absolutely incorrect. I didn’t know Tommy Gleason until I joined the council. I didn’t know Matt Noel. I knew who Peter Busque was before I was elected. I knew who Bill Tracy was only after I campaigned the month leading to the first time I was elected. I didn’t meet Matt Noel until a month before the election. To say we were all cronies is wrong. But my question to these people who criticize us as a good old boys club and that we’re all getting along, do you want to bicker and fight in the workplace or do you want to get along, agree to disagree and put the disagreements behind you after you disagree, or do you want to hold grudges? I prefer to get along with people and just agree to disagree.

Q: Wasn’t bringing back civility part of the reason you guys did run?

Hayman: Yeah, it was. If you read the papers prior to us being elected, it was very unproductive to say the least because no one could get along. They had arguments, heated arguments, in council chambers among each other. There are times when we have heated discussions and disagree but at the same time you’ve got to act like adults.

Q: Councilor Matt Noel has said he wants the town to vote on a charter amendment that would change the town clerk’s position from an elected position to a council appointment. Some people took the discussion as councilors showing their distrust of the public, that they can better pick a town clerk than the people.

Hayman: I don’t distrust the public. What I do wonder is Matt Noel’s scenario. That’s a paid position. Anybody 18 or older with no working experience, no managerial experience whatsoever – town clerk is in charge of a staff of three or four plus election workers – could run for this compensated position, and with the support of the townspeople who may or may not know their qualifications, may get elected. Does that mean that I don’t trust the public to vote the most qualified person in? Not at all. But does it leave room for an area of chance that we as a town want to take. I’m not sure about that either. So I could go either way on that one. It’s not about power, it’s all about getting the most qualified person for the position.

Q: Sue Scott is a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals and on staff with the town’s legal firm, Jensen, Baird, Gardner & Henry. Some people take issue with her dual roles with the town. Is there a problem with that?

Plante: Sue is a resident of Windham. She’s been on the Zoning Board for years. She’s served as chair of the Zoning Board. She’s bright; she’s capable. I know there have been times in the past she may have been involved in title work on a real estate transaction, but we don’t get billed for her work on the Zoning Board. She’s a Windham resident. She’s a citizen and she’s volunteering her time like everyone else.

Q: Is it right the town’s legal firm has a position on a town board?

Plante: The town’s legal firm does not have a position on a town board. An attorney who works for the same firm that is the town’s attorney has a position on a local board. If you’re going to stop appointing anybody who has any connection with anything, you’re not going to anybody to serve on these boards. People need to be mindful there may be situations where there are conflicts of interest, they need to disclose it and distance themselves from any decisions and if that happens too much the maybe they should be involved. But you can’t just start ruling people out because they might have some business connection or association you might not happen to like. Sue Scott has been a member of the ZBA for years. She’s highly respected. She’s knowledgeable.

Q: They’re talking about rezoning part of Route 302. The town is getting criticized for spot zoning. What’s your theory on zoning?

Hayman: Zoning is a big part of town. Do I think Route 302 from Raymond to Westbrook should all be commercial? Not necessarily. But where there already are businesses that are in-home businesses or businesses that are grandfathered or already running and on Route 302, then I say yes, I would. It’s consistent with the comprehensive plan and I think that Route 302 at some point in time is going to be a commercial artery. Does that mean we need gas stations and used car lots and businesses of that type all up and down 302, no.

But businesses of the professional manner, lawyer offices or accountant’s offices, or just the professional capacity that don’t necessarily have high, high traffic, are good businesses. And I think that’s what the Land Use Ordinance Committee is working on now, trying to come up with a type of zoning along that corridor that isn’t invasive on the residential folks, but that doesn’t tie the hands of people who want a commercial lot there. There’s definitely a happy medium.

Q: Anything else you want to say that we haven’t already touched on?

Hayman: Well, you’ve got to remember – and I think I said it on the night this new council was sworn in – that a lot of times the people that speak the most don’t always speak for the majority.

Q: But those are also people who are closely watching what’s going on.

Hayman: I would agree with that. But then again, the ones that always speak the most seem to speak with discontent, which is human nature. If you’re not happy, you’re going to speak up. If you are happy your tendency is just to lay low. Those people who are unhappy and have discontent need to be listened to and need to be acknowledged but at the same time you need to know there are people out there that are happy with the things going on and they may not come to the podium or write letters to the paper. Those folks are out there.