LEWISTON — What the Androscoggin County Commission calls myths are not myths at all, Lewiston City Administrator Edward Barrett said.

“In each case, the ‘myth’ asserted by the county is actually the ‘fact,'” Barrett said in a nine-page memorandum sent to all Androscoggin County municipal officials Tuesday.

The letter is in response to the “Fact vs. Myth” missive sent last month by the county commissioners in the ongoing dispute between the commissioners and municipal officials.

The board sent the “Fact vs. Myth” memorandum on Dec. 31, 2015, to every elected city and town official in the county. That document spelled out what commissioners believe were 12 myths circulating as fact concerning the authority of the commissioners and the Budget Committee in their dispute over the county budget.

Municipalities and the county have been locked in a dispute since the 2015 county budget was passed in the fall of 2014. The Budget Committee voted to lower the commissioners’ salaries below what commissioners proposed. The committee also voted to eliminate health insurance for commissioners. 

Those changes were made because the new Androscoggin County Charter increased the number of commissioners from three to seven and added the position of county administrator.

Claiming the changes in the amended charter gave them power to set the budget, commissioners overruled the committee and restored their salaries and health benefits. The county municipalities objected, saying the commissioners did not abide by the charter.

The dispute is in court after the Androscoggin County municipalities, whose officials make up the Budget Committee, filed suit in July.

In his response to those perceived myths, Barrett takes on each myth one-by-one, using specific language from the charter and from state statute to explain why each myth is actually fact.

Among some of his points:

• When the dispute first began, the language in the charter clearly gave the Budget Committee authority to decide salaries and benefits for the commissioners. Barrett said commissioners picked one sentence out of the minutes of a 2012 Charter Commission meeting to make its argument, but that sentence referred to a different section of the charter. The Charter Commission’s final report said the Budget Committee would be “the primary mechanism” for the budget and would have “the authority to reject or modify any line item in the budget by supermajority — 11 members.”

• State statute requires independent approval of the county budget. That is the Budget Committee. “The county never explains why it is so vociferously opposed to having independent approval of the county budget. Since municipalities provide about 80 percent of the county’s budget, it is good government for the municipalities and their residents who are paying the bills to exercise control over the county’s budget.”

• The municipalities proposed a “detailed settlement” offer and only filed the lawsuit when the county failed to respond. Since then, the municipalities have made repeated attempts to meet and resolve their differences, but the county has refused to meet and has made no offers to compromise.

• Commissioners say the Risk Pool will pay for defense of the lawsuit, estimated at more than $40,000. Barrett said there is no evidence that the county has been reimbursed for its legal fees. In fact, the county has not even billed the Risk Pool yet, according to County Administrator Larry Post. In contrast, the municipalities have spent less than half of what the county has spent, Barrett said. That points to the need for “independent control over the county’s budget from the people who ultimately pay the bills” — the municipal taxpayers.

• It is the county, not the municipalities, who has used “scorched earth tactics.” The county, according to Barrett, has fought over every routine and simple motion filed in court, including adding and dropping parties from the lawsuit. The county even filed a complaint for sanctions against the municipalities’ counsel. Each filing and objection requires a response in court, which drives up the cost of the suit. The reason is to “force the municipalities out of this litigation by driving up its costs.”

Commissioners have pointed to the results of a November referendum to amend the charter, which was passed by more than 70 percent of the voters, as supporting their view of the charter. While the critics have called the wording of the ballot question misleading, the amendment gives the Budget Committee authority on budget matters to only approve increases to salaries and benefits. 

Commissioners interpreted that as giving them authority over the rest of the budget.

The day after that vote, commissioners made a “settlement proposal” for the municipalities to drop their lawsuit with prejudice.

“Demanding that the other side wave the white flag and give up is not a ‘settlement proposal,'” Barrett said.

“The municipalities believe that our positions are supported by the plain language of the charter and state law, but the county remains unwilling to meet or mediate to reach a compromise,” he said. “Unfortunately, the county has chosen a different path.”

The next step in the dispute will be a court hearing Jan. 20 on the county’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

ssherlock@sunjournal.com