AUBURN — A Superior Court judge has ruled that the Androscoggin County commissioners have the final authority over the county budget and can make adjustments to all line items, except for their salaries and benefits.

Superior Court Justice Lance E. Walker ruled in favor of the county on four of the five issues brought forward in a lawsuit filed by 12 of the 14 county municipalities in Androscoggin County.

A dispute with the salaries and benefits of the commissioners triggered the 2015 lawsuit that sought to define whether the commissioners or the Budget Committee, consisting mostly of city and town officials, had final say over the county budget.

Walker did agree with the municipalities that the commissioners overstepped their authority when they adjusted their salaries above what was recommended by the Budget Committee in both 2014 and 2015.

But, the judge rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that commissioners received unjust enrichment due to the higher salaries and that they are not liable for the additional compensation.

“All claims against individual commissioners personally were thrown out,” said county attorney Bryan Dench. “In fact, Judge Walker comments he was wrong when he failed to throw out those claims on our prior motion to dismiss.

“And the towns also lost on all the other charter claims they brought,” Dench added. “Judge Walker confirms that the commissioners have final authority over the entire budget and over every line item in it, except increasing compensation of elected officials.”

Walker also ruled that the commissioners are entitled to have the county pay for their legal fees since they “were incurred in performance of their official duty to adopt a county budget,” according to the ruling.

Walker also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the budget must be approved by a “finance committee” as well as the Budget Committee, saying they are the same entity.

“We’re happy we now have a decision,” said commission Chairwoman Sally Christner of Turner. “It’s great that we can leave it behind us.”

In his ruling, Walker said the county charter was clear that the commissioners have “broad authority to modify the proposed budget, including individual line items, and to adopt the final budget.”

He rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the charter only gives the commission power to adjust the budget as a whole and not individual line items. Such an interpretation, Walker wrote, “would create an absurd and illogical result.”

But because the charter contains a separate provision that gives the Budget Committee separate authority to decide salaries and benefits for elected officials, Walker ruled commissioners had no authority to modify their salaries and benefits during the 2014 and 2015 budget negotiations.

While acknowledging that ruling favored the municipalities, Dench called it “entirely academic, of only historical value,” because commissioners have since relinquished that right after voters approved a charter amendment in November 2015 that hands the Budget Committee the ability to raise salaries.

Peter Brann, the attorney representing the municipalities was out of state Wednesday, but issued the following statement.

“We’re pleased that the court ruled that the commissioners illegally set their own salaries and benefits, overruling the Budget Committee,” he wrote. “We were disappointed that the court concluded that the commissioners nevertheless were not unjustly enriched by collecting their illegally awarded salaries. It’s unfortunate that the court concluded that the commissioners can override the checks and balances provided by the Budget Committee in setting the county budget.”

Budget Committee Chairman Michael Lachance, a Lewiston city councilor, said he was disappointed with the ruling. Even though the judge said that commissioners were wrong to adjust their salaries against the wishes of the Budget Committee, they won’t face any consequences.

“The court still affirms that the commissioners did violate the charter, but then ‘reflects’ and backtracks, apparently feeling it is now an ‘official duty’ of a county commissioner to violate the charter, with the costs of defending repeated violations for over two years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, being a ‘reasonable’ legal expense. … With this I ask: If a truck driver gets caught speeding, do they get out of a ticket because driving a truck is their official duty?”

ssherlock@sunjournal.com

Statement from Michael Lachance, Lewiston City Councilor and Chairman of the Androscoggin County Budget Committee

In receiving the court’s opinion today, it quickly became apparent that the summary judgment yielded too many nonsensical assertions and inconsistencies to go without immediate comment. Speaking only as Lewiston’s representative in the current litigation, I offer my response.

The court correctly opines that the ‘Budget Committee’ acts as the statutory ‘Finance Committee’, affirms that the Budget Committee has the final authority to set salaries and compensation for elected officials, and that the Commissioners violated the charter as such.

However, Justice Walker illogically asserts that once the Budget Committee reviews, adjusts and approves the Commissioners’ first proposed budget, the Commissioners are then free to adopt any budget of their choosing — new or old — with no need for subsequent Budget Committee review. I disagree. Logic says an “approved” final proposed budget becomes “new” once changed. (It is no longer “approved.”) In addition, State Law and the charter allows the Commissioners to re-submit any newly adjusted “proposed budgets” back to the Budget Committee for approval. Walker also cites charter “intent” yet ignores fact. Such a leap of faith is preposterous and certainly defies the “intent” of checks and balances specifically framed by the charter commissioners; intent documented and clearly stated on record numerous times since 2012.

With regard to legal costs, the court still affirms that the Commissioners did violate the charter, but then “reflects” and backtracks, apparently feeling it is now an “official duty” of a County Commissioner to violate the Charter, with the costs of defending repeated violations for over two years (and hundreds of thousands of dollars) being a “reasonable” legal expense. I disagree. After that “reflection” the judge seems to have “changed his mind” now allowing that while the salaries and benefits the Commissioners set for themselves were not lawful and violated the charter, the Commissioners should keep it all without consequence, at the taxpayers’ expense.

With this I ask: If a truck driver gets caught speeding, do they get out of a ticket because “driving a truck” is their “official duty”? Reflect on that.