Sep 07, 2025

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY

We welcome letter submissions to The Bar Harbor Story.

For details on our policy, please visit our about page and scroll down or just visit here.

The beliefs, opinions, and viewpoints expressed by the writers of letters to the editor and included here do not necessarily reflect the beliefs, opinions, and viewpoints or official policies of The Bar Harbor Story.

We do not have an exclusive submission policy. That means if your letter is published here, it is fine by us if it’s also published in other places and vice versa.

All the past letters to the editor can be found on the Substack site here.

---

Ceding Community Values to Supposed Expert Guidance: Bar Harbor’s Over-Reliance on Planning

To the Editor and Fellow Citizens:

The account in this week’s Bar Harbor Story of the Bar Harbor Planning Board’s recent discussion on the purpose and meaning of meeting minutes, and our local government’s penchant for totalitarian-like word-smithing and untruthfulness in general, was for me a “Straw That Broke the Camel’s Back.” Accordingly, this letter amounts to what could (and I hope will) be a “Shot Heard Round the World” (or at least town-wide) initiating a fundamental discussion of what I view as the ongoing and ever-increasing illegitimacy of Bar Harbor’s traditional local government, that replaces community-based values with words, process and “expert” planning and guidance.

The Planning Board discussion in question (9/3/25) revolved around the meaning and purpose of official meeting minutes, that Chair Dority (an occasional past opponent in local town politics but here in complete agreement with my own views) felt should be unmanipulated and as complete as possible. Otherwise, and as supported by extensive background information presented in the Bar Harbor Story, what is the purpose and use of such minutes?

Planner Bondy responded to this request with the frankly astonishing view that meeting minutes need not be complete and accurate records, but rather a summary listing of the topics discussed, and thus allowed to contain variable and uncontrollable degrees of truthfulness and/or manipulation. But if a mere shorthand record of topics discussed is adequate, why does the planning department go to such lengths to manage and massage the content of these historical non-records, and how can citizens or other town groups trust the accuracy and integrity of materials and/or policy recommendations therefrom, passing through this department’s hands?

What makes the question larger than Ms. Bondy’s relative inexperience is that it mirrors and illustrates the long-standing stance and approach of her boss and mentor, Planning Director Gagnon. I know this from an informative experience that to date is only known to three other people besides myself and Director Gagnon, namely, (then) Appeals Board Chair Dohmen, Vice-Chair Durand and Member Ryan, who were in attendance at the 7/9/24 meeting of the Board of Appeals, whose sole agenda item was finalizing the minutes of the board’s 5/14/24 meeting (where my appeal of the Town Council’s 3/6/24 Statement expressing the planned, and in fact executed, unilateral modification and non-implementation for the 2024 season of the voter-passed Cruise Ship Ordinance even after the Federal District Court had upheld the ordinance was denied, improperly IMHO in a 1984-ish manner. This decision is yet in the legal appeal process and so will not be further discussed here.).

What is relevant now is that at the board’s 7/9/24 meeting, Planning Director Gagnon 1. directly expressed to me (before the other attendees arrived) surprise and displeasure that I had decided to attend, 2. resisted and vigorously negotiated numerous requested changes to the draft minutes suggested by well-prepared Member Ryan, and most significantly, 3. explicitly instructed the board, twice, that minutes need not be accurate and comprehensive, as original transcripts and recordings rather than minutes are determinative in any subsequent legal proceedings. In other words, Director Gagnon cared deeply about creating and leaving a historical record as far as possible of her own choice and crafting, under the justification that minutes are not the ultimate further decider of anything, and can therefore be manipulated at will. I personally find this attitude and approach unprofessional, unworthy, and unacceptable, and coloring everything done by this important component of our town government.

Next, knowing full well how the frankness above is likely to be received by town officials such as Council Chair Peacock, who endlessly opines against division (i.e. disagreement with her own views) and relentlessly urges everyone to work for the “common good of our town,” I must express that I recognize and appreciate Chair Peacock, Director Gagnon, and Planner Bondy as all putting in many hours and likely doing what they believe to be in our town’s best interest. The issue, though, is that many disagree vehemently with what these individuals feel is best for our town, and that such disagreements are legitimate subjects for vigorous public debate such as this letter.

Spending unending hours in discussion, pretense, and political theatre, under what I regard as the fantastical and unrealistic belief that kumbaya consensus can, must, and always will be reached through the analytical expertise of others, does not merit the self-appreciation and praise that our officials delight in bestowing on themselves and each other, and is not performing the job that we citizens are entitled to. Decisions must be made, and democratic voting by citizens is the most legitimate means of making difficult choices, even if they cannot always be universally agreed upon. Instead, our town officials forever kick cans down the road and hide interminably behind expensive consultants and experts either external or internal (whose words manifestly do not always mean what they say).

In this vein, the recent comprehensive plan checked a legally required box, and although resulting from countless hours of citizen volunteer as well as paid official and consultant time and effort, is primarily a collection of feel-good platitudes lacking sufficient guidance for practical future decision-making. We all know who engineered and intends to further administer and interpret this effort.

Next, our newest project on “Sustainable Tourism” should be renamed as and directed toward “Citizen Acceptable Tourism,” since many approaches can be conceived and maintained long-term, even if to the primary benefit of narrow business interests (such as Ocean Properties and APPLL), but still not acceptable to our town’s citizens. This project, handed off yet again to professional, expert, and expensive consultants but guided by our own planners, is already mired in semantics and indulging in selective input and participation. Not a good start to a well-intentioned effort and unlikely to yield results acceptable to the community.

Third, our town’s “ready, shoot, aim” approach to the multiply renewed commercial housing construction moratorium, where it is now admitted that the town did not have, but may soon receive, necessary underlying factual data (from the not always entirely truthful planning department, see above.) I find myself sympathizing with developer St. Germain, who laments an endless process with no clear criteria, time lines, or possibly ever actionable results, a local form of Calvinball where the Town always wins.

Finally, I second the book Abundance, by Klein and Thompson, that prior Council Member Shank recommended on social media; a major takeaway for me was its cogent core warning that government does not gain legitimacy through endless process and words (Hear, hear, Bar Harbor!), but rather only through practical results for its citizens. Our town has become utterly obsessed and preoccupied with process, political theatre, creation of endless committees, handing off of difficult decisions to expensive consultants, and rarely saying no to an expensive spending proposition, with few practical results other than ruinously increasing taxes on citizen landowners.

In conclusion, what would I suggest? The following might be a good start:

1. Town Council action that any and all public hearings, processes, meetings, etc., MUST have proper recordings made and available, or else not take place at all, and that minutes should also be complete and accurate.

2. Planner Bondy and Director Gagnon should either resign or be counseled regarding truthfulness in the interest of their personal and their department’s legitimacy and impact.

3. The Planning Department’s budget and staff should be significantly reduced.

4. Data or recommendations from this department should be independently scrutinized and verified before being accepted and used.

5. Town Council should focus on results rather than process (which is necessary but not sufficient). Otherwise, its members should be replaced through regular or recall elections or circumvented as necessary by further citizen initiatives.

In the end, “No Mas!”, Planner Bondy, Director Gagnon, Chair Peacock, etc.

Submitted in a spirit of truthful, honest, necessary and healthy public debate,

Charles Sidman

Bar Harbor

---