Old Orchard Beach voters will be asked next Tuesday to increase their current town council from five members to seven.
While this is necessary in some places, just like congressional redistricting, we cannot see a valid reason for the increase in Old Orchard Beach.
According to U.S. Census data, Old Orchard Beach actually saw a decrease in population from 2000 to 2010 ”“ of about 3 percent. An increase in population is typically the reason for an increase in representation, which is not a factor here.
Also, the proposed charter change does not include a plan for districts or wards to ensure representation is matched to areas of the town. Often a seven-member board simply leads to longer meetings, not necessarily better representation.
Local hotel owner Joe Mokarzel said at a recent public hearing that he served on the town council in the 1970s, both on a three-member council and a seven-member council. Seven was too much, three not enough, and five was a good number for the council, he said.
At a candidate’s forum, current Councilor Sharri MacDonald, who is up for re-election, concurred: “Five, I think, is a good fit for Old Orchard.”
We agree, and would suggest the town stick with five members on the council at this time.
The second question on Old Orchard Beach’s local ballot would be a better way of increasing diversity on the council, by limiting councilors to serving seven consecutive years. This change would allow councilors to take a break and gives others the chance to serve before returning to a seat.
The third question and fourth questions are mostly housekeeping issues of updating language like referring to the “Regional School Board” instead of the school board and department of education.
The fourth question, in addition to all of the other charter changes, would set the town clerk’s salary to no less than the average salary of the top eight department heads. It would also change the term of the town clerk, which is an elected position, from two to four years.
At a public hearing, charter commission member John Bird said changing the formula for town clerk’s salary would keep it in line with other department heads, with whom the town clerk shares the same amount of responsibility. Also, he said, it could not be influenced by the town council. The town clerk’s salary would increase from $54,300 to about $63,000, Bird said.
The salary change, while well-intentioned, seems like it could tie the hands of councilors in the future if a town clerk may not be as experienced as some of the other department heads. Setting the minimum salary of a positions seems like a bad move at this time when budgets are being cut, and everyone is being asked to find savings. Just because others may get paid more does not seem like a good enough reason to make an increase of nearly $10,000 to one position.
The town clerk’s salary should be determined as the rest of department heads’ salaries are: Based on experience, education and comparable salary data for the region.
Changing the town clerk’s term from two to four years, is however, a change we can support. Town clerks are often elected term after term and serve for many years, as the position requires certification and knowledge of the office.
The charter commission could have made a few more questions on the ballot to allow voters the option of voting for or against specific proposals. Even jumping to six questions would have allowed the town clerk issues to be voted on separately, which would have made sense since the salary increase is considerable.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Today’s editorial was written by City Editor Robyn Burnham on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via e-mail at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
