By Sue Walker

Kennebunk Resident

At the Sept. 23 selectmen meeting, I voiced strong opposition to question No. 5 on the Nov. 4 town ballot. This same question is numbered “three” in the proposed charter package available at the town clerk’s office. Having attended all but two of the charter commission meetings as a member of the public, I would like to explain my opposition to No. 5 on the town ballot as well as explain the other proposed charter changes with their proper numbering on the town ballot.

In my opinion, question No. 5, which gives the selectmen additional legislative power, strips the citizens of their right to override a selectmen decision with which they disagree. Question No. 5 gives to the voters the right to petition for an override by obtaining signatures equal to 5 percent of the votes in the last gubernatorial election (presently less than 300 signatures) within 28 days. However, added in question No. 5 is a requirement that at least 25 percent of Kennebunk’s registered voters must vote on that day to make the citizen petition valid. There is no other vote in Kennebunk that has a percentage of voters requirement. The citizen part of No.5 says to the signature gatherers that even if you do all that work and your petition is approved by the voters, it will be invalid if 25 percent of Kennebunk’s registered voters (presently about 2,500) don’t vote at that particular election.

I encourage a “No” vote on No. 5 so that the citizens can retain equal legislative power.

Question No. 3 on the town ballot, budget voting by referendum (secret ballot), increases the voting power of the citizens concerning taxpayer money spent on budget items. Referendum voting would mean that the citizens will be able to vote from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. in the privacy of a voting booth, and absentee ballots will be available. Public informational meetings will be held prior to budget referendum voting to familiarize the voters with the warrant articles.

A “Yes” vote on No.3 certainly makes sense for all those who want input about how taxpayer money is spent.

Question No. 4 on the town ballot provides the citizens with referendum (secret ballot) voting on zoning and land use issues, keeping these critical issues in the hands of the public where zoning and land use belong.

Question No. 6 on the town ballot asks the voters if they wish to expand the number of selectmen from five to seven. This was a close vote (5-4) by the charter commissioners. I feel that expanding the board from five to seven would serve no purpose other than to make the selectmen meetings longer and more unwieldy. A move to seven selectmen would bring the town that much closer to a council form of government which would further erode the decision-making power of the citizens.

Question No. 7 on the town ballot (another close vote by the commissioners ) concerns term limits. This proposal would limit a selectman’s term to three terms (nine years) and then a full term (three years) out of office before being able to run again. I like term limits because more citizens would have a chance for election to the board without the disadvantage of running against incumbents. Term limits would reduce the possibility of “arrogance of power.”

Question No. 8 is a “catch-all” for all the other proposed charter changes, including some interesting changes to the conflict of interest section and to the increased powers being proposed for the selectmen.

I encourage all voters to pick up a copy of the proposed charter at the town clerk’s office prior to Nov. 4. I thank you for your attention.