Standing back and observing the town of Scarborough’s approach to the dog ordinance question unveils a disturbing pattern of willful negligence and questionable governance. The ad hoc committee process has been domineered by Bill Donovan and Tom Hall, who appear to have a bizarre agenda that does not reflect the will of the citizens, observe established, scientific data regarding plover endangerment, or accommodate any semblance of reasonable compromise mandated by the voters of Scarborough.

Because of the committee’s inexplicable continuation of the town’s pre-referendum dog ordinance agenda, which was soundly defeated by the people, email records pertaining to Tom Hall’s interactions with USFWS have been requested. The fact that nobody has seen the incident report filed by USFWS is unacceptable and frankly, suspicious. Additional email requests, for other councilors’ records, will be filed to shed additional light on the curious proceedings and prejudiced anti-dog focus that has dominated their actions.

I implore the citizens of Scarborough to examine the town’s behavior carefully. More than 4,000 of us voted in December to stop the council’s obvious overreach and strangely discriminatory attack on dogs. These same voters, bolstered by many more, will be rallied again if the council votes to approve the lopsided recommendations dominating the ad hoc committee meetings. And while we approach all of the friendly supporters who graciously signed the first referendum petition, we’ll ask for a few more signatures ON RECALL PETITIONS. I wonder if any of the town councilors can muster more than 3,000 votes to keep their seats? Judging by the total votes garnered by council members in the November 2013 election, I don’t think so.

Steven Konkoly

Scarborough


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.