In what turned out as a marathon 4 ½-hour town meeting, Windham’s $8.9 million budget was eventually passed through a series of unexpected developments and twists that anyone in attendance just couldn’t make up.
 |
| Members of the Windham Town Council and staff gather before the Annual Windham Town Meeting at Windham Town hall on Saturday, June 14. From left are Councilor David Nadeau, Assistant Town Manager Bob Burns, Town Clerk Linda Morell, Councilor Mark Morrison, Councilor John Henry, Councilor Jarrod Maxfield, Councilor Bill Reiner, and Town Manager Barry Tibbetts. PHOTO BY ED PIERCE |
Having elected former State Rep. Gary Plummer of Windham as Town Meeting Moderator, the first six out of the 30 warrant articles were approved following discussions and clarifications by Windham Town Manager Barry Tibbetts.
But voters rejected Article 7 asking for approval of a municipal budget of $39.9 million, and that meant votes were required for each of the next 11 articles. Among those, only Article 8, asking for an increase of 11.39 percent and $8.9 million funding general government operations for fiscal year 2025-2026 was defeated by voters as determined by the moderator. Article 8 included funding for Windham Town Hall offices and services and some contractual expenses, such as benefits for town police officers.
All the other warrant articles were approved by voters, except for Articles 24, 25, 26, and 27, those dealt specifically with creating and funding a new public skating rink and playground in North Windham at a cost of $3 million and renovations to Gambo Park with new soccer field, recreational trails and improved parking at an expense of $3 million.
Article 22, a proposal to construct a new North Windham Public Safety Building behind Hannaford Supermarket off Route 302, involved a lengthy discussion and many questions raised by voters about acquiring the site property, housing a Cumberland County Sheriff’s Patrol Office in the building, and the need to replace the current North Windham Fire Station on Route 302, a structure built in 1960. Tibbetts said approving the article would add 5 cents to the town’s millage rate.
“This substation building meets the needs of today and for the future,” Tibbetts said. Voters approved Article 22 agreeing to its $10 million cost through a combination of $4 million in Tax Increment Financing, using $2.4 million from the town’s General Fund, using impact fees of $1.1 million and obtaining a general obligation bond of $2.5 million.
After the 30 articles had been discussed and voted upon, Tibbetts then reviewed what the implications of the rejection of Article 8 would mean, including the difficulty of rescheduling and legally posting another town meeting, shutting down Windham Town Hall on July 1, potentially laying off employees and not having necessary revenue to meet contractual bills and defaulting on town obligations.
By this time, and after four hours, at least half of residents attending had left the meeting. A series of actions then happened that reversed the earlier vote on Article 8. A voter who had voted no previously then formally made a motion to change his vote, and then a second voter who had voted no to Article 8 previously made a motion to change their vote too and seconded the motion on the floor to reopen the article.
The first voter who had changed his vote then made a motion to amend the budget, proposing to reduce it by $600,000. That was also seconded by another voter who had voted no previously. That meant the original proposed $8.9 budget was back on the table.
Before a discussion on that, a voter from the audience moved to adjourn the meeting and it was quickly seconded. A show of hands to adjourn was too close for the moderator to call, and so votes were counted by the town clerk. The vote to adjourn was voted down.
Following a discussion about amending the budget, a vote to amend the $8.9 million was voted down and then Article 8 as originally proposed was then passed by those in attendance.
At each step voters didn't have to do what they did or vote the way they did. And those who left the meeting didn't have to leave and could have changed the voting.
Windham resident J.P. Belanger attended the Annual Town Meeting and said it was both an eye-opener and a civics lesson.
“Watching the process unfold gave me a deeper appreciation for how our local government works – and how much our participation matters. I left the meeting feeling cautiously optimistic. The approved budget reflects rising costs but also shows our community’s commitment to progress,” he said. “I was especially encouraged to see long-overdue projects like the North Windham Fire Station moving forward – a crucial investment in public safety. At the same time, I was disappointed by the reconsideration of Article 8 during what became a historic 4 1/2-hour meeting. By the time the article was brought back for a vote, many residents had already left. It raised important concerns about transparency and fairness. When community members make the effort to show up and vote, they deserve confidence that those decisions won’t be reversed once attendance thins out. I also share the concerns voiced by others about the rising tax burden. Even modest increases can strain household budgets – especially for seniors living on fixed incomes. With inflation continuing to drive up the cost of essentials like food, fuel, and healthcare, many older residents are feeling the squeeze more than ever. It’s important that we keep their needs in mind as we plan for the future. Perhaps most of all, I wish more residents had been present. These meetings shape the future of our town, and broader participation would help ensure more voices are heard. I look forward to attending more of them myself – because being informed and involved is the best way to strengthen the community.”
Over the days following the town meeting, many angry residents expressed disappointment over the budget passing and claiming they felt “duped” and “disenfranchised” that the Article 8 budget was brought back up for another vote after many who had voted no had left the meeting.
Windham Town Councilor Bill Reiner said he understands the concerns raised.
“I believe it was the fourth item vote of the meeting that was; “Adoption of the rules of procedure as outlined in MMA Moderators Manual.” Those were the rules accepted by a show of hands vote, and the rules followed. All 27 pages of it, it’s not simple but very black and white.”
Reiner said this was the best turnout for a town meeting in four years he’s served on the council.
“Yes, it’s my personal opinion that it’s a terrible time to have an election, but it is stipulated in the town charter that it be the second Saturday of June. Our hands are tied until a change is made,” he said. “Regarding the Town Meeting versus a Referendum vote; each has its advantages and drawbacks. Most clearly that numbers matter greatly in a town meeting forum or any election that has a low turnout. A Referendum vote and a larger turnout is more representative of the population, but no discussions or explanation would be available for voters and referendum language can be tricky."
According to Reiner, he understands that people had valid reasons to leave before the end of the meeting.
“But the town meeting is a live meeting and continues until adjourned,” he said. “People have asked can any item be brought back to the floor and the answer is yes, but only if motioned and seconded by two individuals that had cast a prevailing vote. This is done usually to reconsider or reopen discussion. I can honestly state that there was no plan in place to proceed as was done to reconsider any failed articles. I say this by a simple fact. The two failed capital projects were supported by both staff, and I believe four other councilors and others in attendance yet failed to pass. The town easily could have suggested that both capital project articles be brought back up for reconsideration by two individuals on the prevailing side but did not. If the ‘town’ orchestrated Article 8 because ‘it was to their advantage’ as individuals left early, it easily could have done the same with Gambo and the Skate Park articles.” <
“This substation building meets the needs of today and for the future,” Tibbetts said. Voters approved Article 22 agreeing to its $10 million cost through a combination of $4 million in Tax Increment Financing, using $2.4 million from the town’s General Fund, using impact fees of $1.1 million and obtaining a general obligation bond of $2.5 million.
After the 30 articles had been discussed and voted upon, Tibbetts then reviewed what the implications of the rejection of Article 8 would mean, including the difficulty of rescheduling and legally posting another town meeting, shutting down Windham Town Hall on July 1, potentially laying off employees and not having necessary revenue to meet contractual bills and defaulting on town obligations.
By this time, and after four hours, at least half of residents attending had left the meeting. A series of actions then happened that reversed the earlier vote on Article 8. A voter who had voted no previously then formally made a motion to change his vote, and then a second voter who had voted no to Article 8 previously made a motion to change their vote too and seconded the motion on the floor to reopen the article.
The first voter who had changed his vote then made a motion to amend the budget, proposing to reduce it by $600,000. That was also seconded by another voter who had voted no previously. That meant the original proposed $8.9 budget was back on the table.
Before a discussion on that, a voter from the audience moved to adjourn the meeting and it was quickly seconded. A show of hands to adjourn was too close for the moderator to call, and so votes were counted by the town clerk. The vote to adjourn was voted down.
Following a discussion about amending the budget, a vote to amend the $8.9 million was voted down and then Article 8 as originally proposed was then passed by those in attendance.
At each step voters didn't have to do what they did or vote the way they did. And those who left the meeting didn't have to leave and could have changed the voting.
Windham resident J.P. Belanger attended the Annual Town Meeting and said it was both an eye-opener and a civics lesson.
“Watching the process unfold gave me a deeper appreciation for how our local government works – and how much our participation matters. I left the meeting feeling cautiously optimistic. The approved budget reflects rising costs but also shows our community’s commitment to progress,” he said. “I was especially encouraged to see long-overdue projects like the North Windham Fire Station moving forward – a crucial investment in public safety. At the same time, I was disappointed by the reconsideration of Article 8 during what became a historic 4 1/2-hour meeting. By the time the article was brought back for a vote, many residents had already left. It raised important concerns about transparency and fairness. When community members make the effort to show up and vote, they deserve confidence that those decisions won’t be reversed once attendance thins out. I also share the concerns voiced by others about the rising tax burden. Even modest increases can strain household budgets – especially for seniors living on fixed incomes. With inflation continuing to drive up the cost of essentials like food, fuel, and healthcare, many older residents are feeling the squeeze more than ever. It’s important that we keep their needs in mind as we plan for the future. Perhaps most of all, I wish more residents had been present. These meetings shape the future of our town, and broader participation would help ensure more voices are heard. I look forward to attending more of them myself – because being informed and involved is the best way to strengthen the community.”
Over the days following the town meeting, many angry residents expressed disappointment over the budget passing and claiming they felt “duped” and “disenfranchised” that the Article 8 budget was brought back up for another vote after many who had voted no had left the meeting.
Windham Town Councilor Bill Reiner said he understands the concerns raised.
“I believe it was the fourth item vote of the meeting that was; “Adoption of the rules of procedure as outlined in MMA Moderators Manual.” Those were the rules accepted by a show of hands vote, and the rules followed. All 27 pages of it, it’s not simple but very black and white.”
Reiner said this was the best turnout for a town meeting in four years he’s served on the council.
“Yes, it’s my personal opinion that it’s a terrible time to have an election, but it is stipulated in the town charter that it be the second Saturday of June. Our hands are tied until a change is made,” he said. “Regarding the Town Meeting versus a Referendum vote; each has its advantages and drawbacks. Most clearly that numbers matter greatly in a town meeting forum or any election that has a low turnout. A Referendum vote and a larger turnout is more representative of the population, but no discussions or explanation would be available for voters and referendum language can be tricky."
According to Reiner, he understands that people had valid reasons to leave before the end of the meeting.
“But the town meeting is a live meeting and continues until adjourned,” he said. “People have asked can any item be brought back to the floor and the answer is yes, but only if motioned and seconded by two individuals that had cast a prevailing vote. This is done usually to reconsider or reopen discussion. I can honestly state that there was no plan in place to proceed as was done to reconsider any failed articles. I say this by a simple fact. The two failed capital projects were supported by both staff, and I believe four other councilors and others in attendance yet failed to pass. The town easily could have suggested that both capital project articles be brought back up for reconsideration by two individuals on the prevailing side but did not. If the ‘town’ orchestrated Article 8 because ‘it was to their advantage’ as individuals left early, it easily could have done the same with Gambo and the Skate Park articles.” <
