CLIFTON, Maine — Resident Cindy Grant started a petition drive this fall and successfully got a question on the November ballot that, if approved, would add a town-official recall ordinance to the books.
Town officials are holding a public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at the town office on the proposed ordinance and four amendments to the land use code that have been in the works for months.
Grant said she and others in town were upset with a town official when she started the petition process, but since then “things have calmed down,” which is why she declined to say which local official was causing the controversy.
“I believe it’s something every town should have,” Grant said Wednesday afternoon. “It’s a preventative measure, if we ever need it in again in the future.”
She presented the completed petition and a three-page recall ordinance draft to Clifton selectmen in September, who, per town rules, put the question on the Nov. 4 ballot along with the land use code amendments.
The proposed recall ordinance, copied from others in Maine, establishes the rules for citizens in town to remove an elected municipal official, not counting school board members who have their own rules.
“An elected official may be recalled for (a) failure to appropriately carry out duties and responsibilities of the office; (b) engaging in conduct which brings the office into disrepute; (c) engaging in conduct which displays an unfitness to hold the office; or (d) for the indictment or conviction of a crime,” the proposed ordinance states.
The draft rules state recalls cannot be filed against a town official with less than four months in office or with fewer than 60 days remaining in a multi-year term.
The recall question will be a yes-no question that asks residents if they want to enact the ordinance as written, Town Clerk Deborah Hodgins said Wednesday.
The four amendments to the Clifton Land Use code going before voters in November ask:
1. Should Woodchuck Hill be listed as a scenic resource?
2. Should a medical marijuana ordinance be clarified so new operators know dispensaries and cultivation facilities will be required to have both a site plan approval and an operational permit approval?
3. Should the drug treatment center portion of the ordinance be clarified so new operators know they will be required to have both a site plan approval and an operational permit approval?
4. Should the wind ordinance definitions include the following: “Wind Energy Facility Only — Definition, The Sound contributed only by the Wind Energy Facility excluding all other ambient sound?”