UPDATE: Bar Harbor appeal must overcome rulings by two judges in charter case

BAR HARBOR, Sept. 21, 2023 - How likely will the state Supreme Court overturn the rulings by two judges at the Superior Court Level striking down the town’s 2020 charter changes.

Judge Patrick Larson on Sept. 7 issued an order denying the town’s request for “Reconsideration or to Alter or Amend Judgment"of the ruling on Oct. 24, 2022 by a previous judge, William Anderson.

One month after his ruling declaring the town’s charter changes in 2020 to be illegal, Anderson retired from the bench, leaving the town’s motion for reconsideration to be transferred to another judge.

The ruling by Larson was a second “clean win for the plaintiffs,” said their lawyer Max Coolidge of Ellsworth.

Larson wrote in his order, “Because the Court is not persuaded by the Town's motion that the Court's Order granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs and denying summary judgment to the Town was in error, the Court denies the Town's motion to the extent it seeks reversal of the Court's ruling.”

The original lawsuit, Michael Good v. the Town of Bar Harbor, had 10 plaintiffs, each with a specific area of interest in the nine questions being considered on the ballot in 2020 - from Warrant Committee functions to giving the Town Council more power over the Land Use Ordinance.

One of the nine questions was rejected by citizens, prompting Anderson to declare that by separating all the questions as individual votes, the town violated the state’ Home Rule Act which stated revisions to the town charter had to be bundled as a single vote.

In seeking to reverse the ruling, the town attempted several gimmicks, including asking to resubmit the proposal as a single question but without Article 2, the only question to fail, which stated:

“Clarify the recording of recommendations on Town Warrants and Ballots, change the Warrant Committee’s responsibilities to consideration of the Municipal Budget and Land Use Ordinance amendments and remove review and recommendations of Citizen Initiative and Referendum from the Town Council, Warrant Committee, School Committee and Planning Board, as presented in the Town Meeting Warrant.” The vote to reject was 1729 to 1527.

Coolidge wrote in his rebuttal Dec. 29, 2022, “This result - a piecemeal adoption of the charter commission's recommended changes - is precisely what this Court found to be the material and substantial effect on the outcome of the process due to the improper submission of a charter revision as separate ballot questions.”

Coolidge also successfully rebuffed an argument made by then town manager Kevin Sutherland that he wouldn’t have time to bring the town back into compliance with state law mandating the easing of zoning laws by the summer of 2023.

This was a common tactic used by Sutherland, who successfully staved off implementation of the citizens ordinance to cap cruise ship visitation in November of 2022, which gave local businesses time to file a lawsuit seeking to reverse the ordinance. Sutherland was let go in January 2023.

Coolidge wrote, “By the town's own admission, LD 2003 was enacted in April 2022 - 15 months before the required zoning amendments were required to be enacted. To now argue as of November 2022 that that it would be impossible for the town to submit the necessary amendments to comply with LD 2003 by July 1, 2023 ignores the fact that the town has had plenty of time to (and still has plenty of time) to adopt the necessary amendments. This is a false emergency that does not require the court to remedy.”

The citizens cruise ship petition was filed on March 17, 2022, giving the town plenty of time to develop enforcement. Yet, Sutherland did nothing.

The QSJ will follow up with a more detailed report on the long simmering battle for power between the Town Council and the Warrant Committee during the Cornell Knight era when he was town manager.

Knight, who is back as interim manager, and council chair Val Peacock made no effort to inform the citizens that a second judge had recently ruled against the town. The council’s vote late Tuesday night to appeal to the Supreme Court was not recorded on video and the result not made public until after the QSJ broke the story this morning.