Updated April 3, 2005

A scan of the two-page document distributed by Casella and the State, titled "Public Participation in West Old Town Landfill" has been posted at Dispatch #19 (referred to below as the "timeline"). Because that document has again been distributed by the applicants as part of Casella's brief in the court appeal, dated March 17, 2005, we taking time to present facts that will refute many of the items in it. These facts will be posted here beginning March 21, 2005, as they are collected and verified. A detailed chronology of the WOTL process as prepared by We the People is linked from the Dump Documents Access Page.

Missing: Many relevant events occurred without public involvement earlier than the time covered by this timeline.

This document claims to substantiate the many opportunities for public involvement that were available during the West Old Town Landfill permitting process. Many meetings and decisions made before the Resolve was discussed in the Legislature are absent from this document. Among these was DEP Commissioner Gallagher's diversion of an alternative ownership and management plan as suggested early in the process by State Sen. Tom Sawyer of Bangor, former owner of the Pine Tree Landfill in Hampden (see Dispatch #6 for documentation). DEP staff began meeting with the Governor's office as early as mid-April, 2003. An April 25, 2003 memo from the Governor's policy assistant Jack Cashman to the Governor mentioned a "series of meetings" with SPO and DEP to discuss "details of a plan to have the State buy the landfill as an alternative to Casella." This was at the time when the State was beginning to figure out that the original plan, to transfer ownership from G-P to Casella, could not legally accommodate the range of uses that Casella wanted for the landfill. Then, on April 29, 2003, Cashman met with staff of the State Planning, the DEP and Georgia-Pacific "to choose between the landfill options and set in motion the process of closing that deal." Should we be surprised that the State and Casella have left these events off of this "public participation" timeline?

"May-June 2003: Legislative public hearing, work sessions, and debate on Resolve to authorize the State Planning Office to purchase Georgia-Pacific's WOTL."

Here, Casella and the State Planning Office must be confusing their own activities with the Legislature's.

First of all, none of these activities occurred in May, 2003. The Resolve was only sent to the Natural Resources Committee from the revisor's office on May 30, 2003, a Friday. The notice of the public hearing before this committee was published the following Monday, June 2, only one day before the only public hearing was held. Only supporters of this Resolve showed up and spoke at that hearing.

The entire newspaper notice of the hearing was:
"Public Hearing: Tuesday June 3, 2003. 12:30 pm, Room 437 State House [new par.] Resolve, to Authorize the State Purchase of a Landfill in Old Town, Maine. [new par.] Contact Person: Elizabeth A. Reinheimer, 100 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0100, 287-4149 [new par.] June 2, 2003." (Bangor Daily News, Monday, June 2, 2003, D4)

The official record of actions on this Resolve can be found at Actions for LD 1626.

"June 2003: Old Town City Council Public Meeting resulting in Resolution supporting legislative Resolve."

There is no evidence that this meeting ever occurred. There was a letter signed by all members of the Old Town Council, dated June 3, 2003, the very day of the public hearing held by the Joint Committee on Natural Resources, and apparently carried to that hearing by John Lord, Old Town's city manager at that time. Examination of minutes of the Old Town Council, inquiries of the City Clerk, and review of the record as published in the Penobscot Times have turned up no evidence that any "Public Meeting" was ever held in order to gauge public support for the legislative Resolve.

"June 13, 2003: Public Notice of State Request for Proposals: Contract for Landfill Operations"

It should be noted that the publication of the RFP actually occurred one day before the Resolve was passed (June 14 - see Actions for LD 1626.

As far as we can determine, notice of the RFP was only published in the Kennebec Journal (Augusta; Friday, June 13, 2003, D1). This newspaper has negligible circulation in the Old Town / Bangor region. How is this an example of "public participation"? See the Dump Diggers Dictionary, (page under development).

"August 18, 2003: Bid award selecting Casella as Landfill Operator. No appeal filed within public appeal period."

Two points are of particular interest, here.

First, Casella was awarded the contract nearly a month before the Resolve that authorized it went into effect. According to Sue Wright, Reference Librarian at the State Law and Legislative Library: "Resolve 2003, c. 93 was enacted on June 14. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/dockets.asp?ID=280011148. That is not however when it went into effect. It went into effect on Sept. 13, 2003, along with all the other non-emergency legislation of that session."

Second, the fact is omitted that there was a prior bid acceptance letter dated August 14, 2003. The significance is that Casella refused the first letter and demanded a revised version, that omitted reference to a required $50 million performance bond that was part of the RFP. To compare the two bid acceptance letters, please see Dispatch #13

"September 25, 2003 Public Notice in BDN of Landfill License Transfer to State and certified notice to all landfill abutters."

The entire description of the license transfer as printed in the legal notice is as follows: "The application is to transfer the DEP's Licenses for West Old Town Landfill from Fort James Operating Company to the State. The West Old Town Landfill is a disposal facility for solid waste located off Route 16 in Old Town." The notice then says that the application may be viewed at DEP offices and at the municipal office in Old Town.

Nothing in this notice would cause any interest nor concern among the general public. The inference of this notice is that this will be a simple license transfer to the State -- which in fact reflects the general understanding at the time, that this deal was about transferring a paper mill sludge dump from Fort James to State operation. See also next item.

Also, the Landfill, while located in Old Town, is actually off Route 16 in Alton, not Old Town, since the dump access road connects to Rt. 16 in Alton. Alton's status as a host community has been a topic of discussion and dispute since the License has been issued. Certainly nothing in this notice would catch the attention of Alton residents.

"September 26 - October 16, 2003 20-day public comment and request for public hearing period on transfer application. No written comments or requests for public hearing received."

See previous entry. That no written comments nor requests for a hearing were received should not be surprising, given the very concontroversial nature of the information that so far had been made public, including the very m inimal description provided in the public notice printed in the Bangor Daily News.

"October 16, 2003* Public meeting with Old Town City Council to review benefits of project to Georgia-Pacific, establishment of Citizens Advisory Committee, and to discuss Host Community Benefits."

Note: Single asterisks in the timeline mean "Public meeting not required by Maine law."

The spirit of this meeting is captured in the story about it that appeared in the Penobscot Times on October 23, 2003: "Less than a handfull of residents attended the 6:30 p.m. meeting, which had begun a half hour earlier than scheduled due to the television airing of game seven of the baseball playoffs." This was the night that the Yankees eliminated the Red Sox in Game 7 of the American League championship series. Details of the meeting can be found in We the People's timeline.

It should also be noted that this meeting, the first to be held in Old Town, was the evening of the last day when public comments would be received related to the license transfer (see above).

"October 21, 2003 DEP License Transfer Order approval. No appeal filed within public appeal period."

See also entry above, no written comments nor hearing requests received Oct. 16 on the license transfer application. The comments about "no comments received" seem aimed to assure us that there was very little concdern about these licenses. Exactly how do they explain the total absense of public involvement during 2003, whereas by Jan. 21, 2004 the landfill issue was a public controversy that inspired hundreds to attend the informational meetings held after the period for requesting hearings had closed?

Missing: Old Town Council meeting, October 23, 2003

Of particular note was the Old Town Council special workshop of Thursday, Oct. 23, 2003 at which issues related to Old Town control of the license transfer and landfill regulation were discussed. This was the meeting referred to in Dispatch #23 (in process). E-mails from MacDonald and Douglas 2003.10.24 express great relief that the Old Town Council has not pursued its potential right to be involved in approving the permit transfer. MacDonald: "...but that now seems to be dead!!!!" Douglas: "Great news ... Bob Miller basically did not offer any opposition ... John indicated that he kept the idea of a City Resolve (T. Doyle document) to himself, since he got the Council position he wanted ..." We must ask: Where does that leave us in terms of open public process?

"November 21 - December 11, 2003** 20-day public comment and request for public hearing period."

Note: Two asterisks in this document mean "DEP accepts written comment throughout the application processing period even though the 20-day period expires. DEP accepted written comments from the public until the end of the comment period, March 30, 2004."

This was the critical time for the public to request a public hearing on the landfill deal. Five requests were received, and all were deemed to lack "credible conflicting technical information" that would help the DEP come to a decision in the case. The receipt of these requests was not noted in the "public participation" timeline.

"December 9, 2003*: Public meeting with Alton Board of Selectmen to discuss project, establishment of Citizens Advisory Committee, and community benefits."

This event prompts our scepticism about the depth of the State's concept of "public." After Alton Board Chair Ron Borja requested further information on the plans for the landfill, the SPO's George MacDonald suggested that a meeting be arranged, "... to fully address the questions and concerns you raised. In order to focus on the issues you identify in you [sic] letter, I suggest that this meeting be limited to the three Selectmen, representatives from Georgia-Pacific, the intended landfill operator (Casella Waste Systems, Inc.) and their engineers, and myself." This letter is posted at Dispatch #24. This is the State's approach to "public involvement"? Bring three of you, ten or more of us, and let's pretend this is fair.

"January 21, 2004* DEP Public Information Meeting in Old Town."

The 20-day window to request a hearing or to ask for BEP original jurisdiction ended on December 11, 2003 (see above) which was 41 days (almost 6 weeks) after the window for requesting a hearing had closed. The meeting was truly "public," the first of the process, and approximately 300 very motivated citizens showed up. The struggle to get a fair hearing for public concerns began this day.

"March 29, 2004* Public Informational Meeting and opportunity for public comment under oath in Old Town."

"March 30, 2004* Continuation of Public Information Meeting and public comment session in Old Town."

These were the meetings where public participation involved having a limit of five minutes to make comments over the course of two days. Because I (PCS) asked questions in the question periods, the meeting's moderator decided that I had already taken my time to present, and was not going to let me actually present my public comments! After a somewhat heated exchange, he agreed to give me five minutes -- during the final session, if there was time, as allocated for people who had "already spoken." This, after they had already stated that time taken in questions would not count against time given for making statements!

"April 9, 2004 Commissioner signs final order approving Amendment Application.

Missing: The issuance of the Response to Comments document, May 4, 2004.

This 83-page document represents the official answers from the SPO and the DEP to all of the questions and comments offered during the permitting process. It is posted as a .pdf file at the DEP's website. It was issued nearly a month after the license was granted, and only 6 days before appeals of the license were due.