Editor:

 The news at the heart of Mr. Stowell P. Watters egregiously misleading piece“Selectmen review June warrant item proposals” from the Post’s March 7 edition demands a more nuanced analysis.  

 Discussing how Port selectmen have once again taken up discussions about changing the town’s mass gathering ordinance, Watters wrote that the ordinance had been “stricken from the ballot because of claims by the Maine Civil Liberties Union that the ordinance would be in violation of residents’ constitutional rights.” 

This statement is wildly inaccurate.

 The phrase “stricken from the ballot” can only mean that the ordinance was never on the ballot and therefore never voted upon. In fact, the ordinance change was on Kennebunkport’s November 7, 2007 ballot and passed by a vote of 957 to 542.

 Watters’ “reporting” is not only ineffectual but, perhaps more importantly, it draws attention away from the real story.

 Yes, the Maine Civil Liberties Union (MCLU) did attend the October 25, 2005 Board of Selectmen meeting and object to Selectmen riding roughshod over resident’s right to gather. However, during that meeting Selectman Chairman Mat Lanigan dismissed the MCLU’s assertion that the suggested ordinance changes were unconstitutional as merely an “opinion.” Lanigan went so far as to repeatedly assure residents that the purposed ordinance changes had been vetted and ok’d by Kennebunkport’s Town Attorney, Amy Tchao. [VHS tapes of this meeting are available from Town Hall.] After that meeting, Lanigan reiterated his assertion to several different media sources.

 It was not until weeks later (after the ordinance had passed at the November vote) that the truth of Chairman Lanigan’s claims surfaced: Attorney Tchao NEVER saw the purposed changes to the mass gathering ordinance. When Tchao did finally see the ordinance, she was apparently so concerned with the legality of it that after a Nov. 8 Executive Session, Selectmen said they would not be enacting the ordinance. After that meeting, Lanigan told another local media source, “Since it [the ordinance] passed overwhelmingly, we need to make sure that everything’s done right.”

 Forgive me for asking a rhetorical question that the local press has yet to ask, but isn’t the time to see that everything is “done right” with a ballot item BEFORE said item is actually put before the public for a vote?

 You see, Mr. Watters, the real story here resides where so many of the real stories about our often-flummoxed town politicians reside: in the shadows.

 Reporters must ask the “difficult” questions, such as: Why did Chairman Lanigan continually assert that the Town Attorney had given her approval to the mass gathering ordinance changes when she’d in fact never even seen them? Why was Chairman Lanigan so dismissive of the MCLU’s claims? Did Chairman Lanigan intentionally mislead the public with his assertions? Or (and this is just as unacceptable) did Chairman Lanigan make statements that he said were fact, when he didn’t actually know all of the facts?

 It is time for the Post to understand that reporting is not simply sitting at a meeting, writing down everything that happened, and then typing that up. Reporting requires the journalist to glean information from as many sources as possible, to substantiate that information, to observe everything, to not only gather the facts of a story but to digest and contextualize them for the reader in a well-rounded, well-informed story.

 It is time to start reporting, Mr. Watters. Sharpen your pencils. Get out your notebook. Your position and obligation to the community demands it of you.

Joshua Bodwell

Kennebunk