BATH

The City Council discussed hiring an investigator to probe its sale of a Park Street building Wednesday — even as it voted once again to seal records pertinent to the case.

In a 7-1 vote, councilors declined to disclose information from a Feb. 6 executive session about the sale, approved in executive session April 1, of a city-owned building.

The building at 9 Park St. was assessed for tax purposes at $6.5 million and sold to a Phippsburg developer April 17 for $799,000.

Essentially, Wednesday’s vote means residents — many of whom say the building was sold in secret for less than its worth — will have no more information about the sale than they currently do, even after any investigation is concluded.

That prospect prompted longtime critics of the sale to call Wednesday for a recall of sitting councilors.

“We need to examine a referendum to have them removed,” said Larry Scott, one of the most vocal of the critics of the sale.

He was joined by Michael Wischkaemper, who said “recall has to be considered.”

“We have a situation where a single lone vote voted for common sense in city government,” Wischkaemper said, referring to Ward 6 Councilor David Sinclair, who cast the lone vote to disclose executive session information.

Councilor Meadow Merrill was concerned, she said, “that allowing information learned in executive session might compromise the interests of other parties involved.”

Councilor Sean Paulhus said he was concerned it would set a precedent revoking the council’s privilege of conducting business in executive session.

Councilor Steve Brackett said he had reservations about releasing information learned in executive session, and felt strongly about it because Therriault said that it had never been done before.

Councilor Carolyn Lockwood said that “most of the information” was already in the public domain, and didn’t see the need to waive confidentiality of executive session for the investigation.

Councilor Andy Winglass objected too, saying that “essentially, what we would be allowing is public scrutiny” of information that was revealed in executive session.

Councilors Tink Mitchell, Mari Eosco and Bernie Wyman did not speak on the issue.

After Sinclair made a motion Aug. 7 to allow confidential material considered during executive session to be waived for an investigation, City Solicitor Roger Therriault said such a motion would be legal if passed. He recommended councilors approve the item.

Sinclair said allowing information to be revealed would help “restore the trust that has been either damaged or lost in the course of these proceedings.”

“I share my fellow councilors’ concern about the sanctity of executive session,”

Sinclair said Wednesday, “but I believe our privilege ought to be yield to the public’s legitimate right to additional information about what is being done in their names in their city government.”

But when the vote was taken, a lopsided majority disagreed: Brackett, Merrill, Paulhus, Lockwood, Eosco, Mitchell and Winglass all voted against giving the investigator the right to talk with them and others about events that took place in executive session. Wyman did not vote.

Deliberations on sealing talks in executive session came as the council seeks a way to approach, interview and hire an investigator without the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The council agreed Wednesday to have Therriault craft two letters — one to the Maine Municipal Association, the other to the Maine attorney general — asking how other municipalities have gone about this process.

Meanwhile, in addition to the recall threat, Scott also threatened a boycott against some of the businesses councilors are affiliated with.

“Stupidity has to be punished,” he said. “I wouldn’t have said that before tonight’s vote. I wouldn’t have suggested that we take away a man’s livelihood because of his actions in this chamber. But this vote changes everything.”

Recall may be a tall order, though.

In order to recall a sitting councilor in Bath, a petition must have half the number of signers as voters who voted in the election in which the councilor was last elected. That number varies by ward, depending on whether a councilor was elected in an offyear or presidential election.

Eosco, councilor for Ward 5, said after the meeting it was her understanding that executive sessions are to provide privacy for people coming to the city with proposals.

She said she knew many people would be unhappy with Wednesday’s vote.

“I don’t think we’re ever going to make everyone happy about this issue,” she said. “Executive session is a matter of principle.”

After a discussion with Wischkaemper, Eosco said she would reconsider her vote.

“I just want this issue to go away and get business done,” she said.

ghamilton@timesrecord.com