By Dawn DeBusk

Staff Writer

NAPLES — The idea of renaming the Naples Maintenance Department a public works department went down the drain last week.

Actually, the purpose of having the public works renaming on the agenda was NOT to change the department title, but to put a limit on the number of times an issue can be voted on in a set time period.

The idea was to bring to the surface some type of policy to prevent items that get voted down — whether by the public at the polls or at the board table — from returning to the agenda for another vote without much passage of time.

Having the topic on the Naples Select Board agenda gave the public a chance to seek some clarification.

On Dec. 23, resident Ed House asked the board, “Is there a benefit to changing the name?”

He was concerned that if the department is referred to as a maintenance department that label would prevent the town from purchasing certain items.

Chairman Ted Shane, who is employed as the New Gloucester Public Works Director, set the record straight.

“It doesn’t matter what the department is called. You are not getting a better deal on a salt pile because it is public works or a maintenance department,” Shane said.

Naples Town Manager Jason Rogers focused on the real reason the topic was on the agenda.

“As it stands tonight, there is nothing pushing us to change to public works. The reason the agenda item was placed on there is to illustrate this topic that was discussed and voted on, discussed and voted on,” Rogers said. “We could look at having a local ordinance to say when the item fails at a vote, there has to be a minimum waiting period until we vote again.”

“There is no intention to arrive at a decision tonight to rename it public works,” Rogers repeated.

Vice-chair Colin Brackett answered the question that had caused an uproar earlier in the evening.

The question was: Why was an issue that had been voted down by the public during the November Election on the local select board’s agenda again?

“We are constantly voting on things until we get them approved. We just voted on the community center 45 days ago. We are enacting another plan for a community center. We have a comp plan in progress. Let’s wait until the comp plan is done,” Brackett said. 

“I don’t understand what we are doing policy wise,” he said. “If we are going to vote on things 45 days later, when people clearly voted it down, I am concerned that we are voting on things arbitrarily and not because it is what people want.”

He repeated, “I don’t understand what we are doing here. Are we going to put a policy in place? Or arbitrarily bring things up and vote on it again?”

Later in the discussion, community member Jim Grattelo shared his thoughts.

“To Colin and the town manager’s point, there are a lot of towns that have policies in effect, there is two-year moratorium before an item can come up for revote,” he said.

He said it would be best if the town got its ducks in a row before presenting a public works plan to the Naples voters.

“Before you are even ready to rename it, somebody has to come out with a whole scheme of public works. The public worries that if you change the name to public works, you need a public works building and more equipment,” he said. “We have had a de facto public works department for past five years.”

Although it had been mentioned, it was unclear whether a policy would be written up to establish a moratorium on items that have been voted down.