Four of us selectmen at the most recent Woolwich Board of Selectmen meeting voted (some of us reluctantly) to accept a second petition that would place a vote on PAYT on the November ballot. PAYT, as many already know, is a program where residents pay for garbage bags in an effort to increase recycling and reduce trash. This ballot question will give voters in Woolwich the opportunity to repeal (or keep) the current contract the town has with WasteZero, the nonprofit organization that administers the town’s trash bag program.

Many of this newspaper’s readers read a commentary by us recently that explained why a majority voted against putting a similar question on the ballot. The article was a ringing endorsement of town meeting and a decision not to reconsider what was decided at the recent annual town meeting.

This kind of action could result in disruption and uncertainty in government. All of us support the town meeting process. And a majority rejected the first petition in large part because we were exercising our authority to “reasonably refuse” it because of the recent town meeting vote.

Circumstances surrounding the second petition resulted in a different decision. First, the Town Attorney Kristin Collins stated that, in her opinion, “this petition was at least arguably sufficient to allow the selectmen to put it through for a vote. The language itself is clear enough in terms of how the article is intended to read.”

She went on to say, however, that “the article still requests action that would be repetitive of the vote taken in May. The selectmen could, in their discretion, decide that it is too soon to take the action up again, but a refusal on those grounds alone could be challenged.” None of us wanted to open the town to the possibility of a lawsuit, no matter how remote.

Other factors, in varying degrees, also played a role in our collective decision to put the PAYT contract to a vote in November: This petition, the second submitted by the same group of people within two weeks, was worded much more clearly, and some of us found it harder to ignore the wishes of many people in town, more than the number of people who attended town meeting. We also noted that both petitions were a representative sample of the town.

Finally, some of us feel that repeated complaints by a few about May’s town meeting vote on PAYT has created the appearance of dispute, enough to warrant another vote. To be clear, we trust the judgment of the long-time moderator of town meeting.

In deciding not to use our discretion to reject this petition because we felt it was too soon after town meeting, we all believe that this particular vote sets a bad precedent that will not become the new norm. Petitions like this have rarely if ever been used in Woolwich. And we hope that they continue to be rare.

Some of the members of the board of selectmen voted against PAYT at town meeting and some voted in favor. Regardless of which way we voted, some of us will be voting to keep PAYT at least until next May because we think it’s important to see if this system has allowed us to get a handle on our trash and reduce our costs. And some of us will be campaigning to keep PAYT.

After the meeting was over, a Woolwich resident, Al Brawn, said that none of this would be a problem if everyone attended town meeting. Truer words were never spoken. If we trust the town meeting process, we need to show it by showing up.

Allison Hepler

Jason Shaw

Lloyd Coombs

Dale Chadbourne, Vice Chairman