LEWISTON — The municipalities of Androscoggin County have rejected the county’s offer to settle the ongoing civil lawsuit challenging commissioners’ action to raise their own salaries and benefits.

A dozen municipalities filed a lawsuit against the county and its commissioners in July, challenging the commissioners 2014 vote to raise their salaries and benefits above the level set by the Budget Committee.

On Nov. 4 — the day after voters approved a charter amendment drafted by commissioners to prevent commissioners from raising their salaries or benefits without the approval of the Budget Committee — the commissioners proposed a settlement of the dispute. The cities had until Wednesday evening to answer.

In rejecting the offer, the municipalities’ attorney, Peter Brann, said, “The municipalities are not going to dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice, meaning that these complaints can never be raised again, and thus give the county carte blanche to spend as much money as it wants on whatever it wants for as long as it wants without any oversight or accountability. If that is the county’s ‘settlement’ proposal, it is rejected.”

The settlement offer, made directly to municipalities by County Commission Chairwoman Beth Bell, is “that the lawsuit be voluntarily dismissed with prejudice and no costs or fees to any party, putting a stop to this wasteful litigation.”

The county has spent close to $50,000 defending itself to date; the municipalities have spent more than $15,000 and expect to spend another $20,000.

In her letter, Bell wrote “given that the voters have endorsed the charter amendment we proposed, and given that the terms of the county charter are now unmistakably clear (if there ever was any doubt), nothing will be served by continuing the litigation unless the cities and towns really want to target individual county commissioners for money damages.”

She went on to make the point that although the lawsuit seeks to hold the current seven commissioners accountable, four of them had not yet been elected when the disputed vote was held in 2014. And, further, that since the commissioners’ vote to raise their salaries and benefits “the commissioners have been doing the job and earning their salaries.”

On Wednesday, Brann responded to Bell’s offer.

The letter was sent to the commissioners’ attorney, Ron Lebel, and before diving into whether the settlement would be accepted, Brann chastised Lebel over how the settlement proposal was sent “directly to my clients without copying me even though I am lead counsel in this litigation.”

Brann then declines the settlement offer because “the county’s proposal is not a settlement or a compromise, but simply a demand that the municipalities drop the lawsuit entirely.”

He reiterated that, “as we have stated from the outset of this dispute, the municipalities are willing to compromise, and they are willing to meet with the county either with or without a professional mediator to see if we can find common ground,” but they are not going to drop the suit.

Brann takes aim at the cost the commission has been willing to pay to defend itself.

“The county’s willingness to spend unlimited money on this litigation underscores the municipalities’ broader concern in this matter — because the county does not have to go (to) the taxpayers to raise money, it has no incentive or inclination to exercise any judgment over spending the taxpayers’ money.”

Brann also takes issue with Bell’s assertion that the commission is unaware of the municipalities’ precise concerns, saying he had provided a five-point proposal before filing suit outlining the cities’ concerns. “To date, the county has not responded to any of those concerns or made any counterproposal,” Brann wrote.

While the charter amendment vote addressed the dispute over the authority to raise salaries and benefits, it did not address, Brann said, the municipalities’ other concerns. They include the municipalities’ assertion that the county should not have paid the personal legal expenses of the commissioners and their assertion that the county budget — not just salaries and benefits — must be approved by an independent finance committee.

“Accordingly,” Brann said, “the current commissioners are inappropriately collecting salaries and benefits” because “the charter amendment was not retroactive and it did not purport to give the commissioners’ prior unauthorized receipt of salaries and benefits.”

Given these factors, Brann said, “your demand that the municipalities simply drop their lawsuit and go away is scarcely a ‘settlement’ proposal.”

Brann again offered to have the municipalities meet with the commission to reach a settlement.

In August, the commission filed a motion to dismiss the case in Androscoggin County Superior Court, and the parties will now await an order on that motion.

The 12 municipalities in the lawsuit are Lewiston, Auburn, Lisbon, Turner, Greene, Poland, Durham, Sabattus, Mechanic Falls, Livermore Falls, Minot and Leeds.

At issue is a dispute over commissioners setting their yearly salaries at $5,000, and $5,550 for the chairwoman, which is $2,000 more per commissioner than approved by the Budget Committee. Commissioners also restored their health benefits, valued at $8,400 annually, after the Budget Committee eliminated those benefits.

The three commissioners who approved that change were Bell, Elaine Makas and Randall Greenwood. The vote was 2-0-1, with Greenwood abstaining.

Bell, Makas and Greenwood are still county commissioners. Four new members have since been elected; they are Ronald Chicoine, Sally Christner, Alfreda Fournier and Matthew Roy. All seven are named in the suit.

[email protected]