NEW GLOUCESTER — By a 3-1 vote, selectmen on Monday turned down a request from a group pleading for a third vote on a public water system for Upper Gloucester village.

Turning down the request were Selectmen Nat Berry, Josh McHenry and Mark Stevens. In favor of it was Steve Libby, chairman of the board and brother of the meeting’s moderator, Donald Libby.

Board Vice Chairman Linda Chase was out of town but wrote that she opposed another meeting to vote on the issue.

In January, voters rejected an ordinance governing construction of the $2.4 million public water system because they wanted more information and changes. After amendments were made, a second vote by show of hands on Feb. 16 overwhelmingly approved the project. More than 200 people were in attendance, and the meeting took about 10 minutes.

The system will serve an area where private wells were polluted by benzene, MBTE and salt dating back to the 1980s. Forty-eight businesses and households will be connected to the system. Construction will begin this spring.

On Monday, two dozen residents voiced their concerns, including lack of information from selectmen, the method voting last month and the abrupt end to the meeting.

Debbie May said she has been trying for two months to get some information in writing from town officials.

“Are there things you are trying to hide from us?” she asked. “I feel something shady is going on. Everyone I talk to says this is slippery. One thousand people in this town are furious about the process and don’t trust any of you anymore.”

Resident Steve Hathorne said $200,000 in Pineland Tax Increment Financing money has been spent on the project and said, “There should be some sort of rules on the TIF account. It’s like a slush fund, an account for selectmen.”

Resident Carl Overcash told selectmen, “You are going to lose a lot credibility. I think we should get rid of all of you when the next vote occurs.”

Two weeks earlier, the board authorized Town Manager Sumner Field III to get an opinion from the town attorney to determine if the Feb. 16 meeting was conducted legally.

At that time, some residents raised issues about the meeting process and filed a petition with 160 signatures calling for another vote. Complaints included being unaware the vote had been called, no secret ballot vote, unregistered voters participating and n proper conclusion to the meeting.

Many complained the Feb. 16 vote was before a school vacation week and holiday and was not consistent with town meeting customs.

Town attorney Pat Scully said, “Assuming that the vast majority of voters were registered, we do not believe that a small number of unregistered voters would invalidate the vote.”

And, he said, “I understand that voting was done via a show of hands, without a written ballot or counting of votes, but that the vote in favor of the warrant article was overwhelming as reflected on the videotape of the meeting.

“My real concern,” he said, “is that because the original vote appears to be proper, valid and conclusive, I don’t see that the town has the power to simply decide to conduct a new vote. Further, if you do so and if the vote comes out differently, there will be a serious question as to which vote is effective.”

Scully said he sees the absence of a formal vote to adjourn “as a minor defect that would not cause a court to invalidate the vote or to require a new town meeting.”

Voters were not checked off to guarantee they were registered voters, Gerry Witham said. “I want someone to take responsibility.”