The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO: CY;98-;184
K '6/ /
~C C \;""V\-- b/; (I.) L
INHABITANTS OF THE
TOWN OF HARPSWELL,
Plal~tiff,
(,'.<\ '.
/
... ., .. ....\
~.-.,
v. • J'~ i
<>''''.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
MARK E. WALLACE,
Defendant.
Before this Court is Plaintiff Inhabitants of the Town of Harpswell's
(Town) motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(c) on
their Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 57.
BACKGROUND
The question before the court is whether, under the Maine common law
doctrine of incompatibility of offices, or otherwise, Defendant Mark E. Wallace
(Mr. Wallace) may simultaneously serve as both a Town selectman and a Town
employee.
The facts in this case are undisputed. Mr. Wallace was elected to be one of
three members of the Town Board of Selectmen (Board) on March 8, 2008. At the
time of his election, Mr. Wallace was employed by the Town as one of five full-
time employees at the Town transfer station. His duties as a transfer station
attendant include the operation of heavy equipment, assisting customers in
sorting recyclables, and collecting fees. He has retained his employment
subsequent to being sworn into office as a selectman. Mr. Wallace took no oath
of office for his position at the transfer station.
1
As an employee of the Town, Mr. Wallace's position is under the exclusive
power of the Board. The position is also subject to a collective bargaining
agreement between the Town and the lAMAW, AFL-CIO (Union), of which
Town transfer station employees are members. From February 2005 through
March 10, 2008, Mr. Wallace was a representative member of the Union,
participating in negotiations between the Union and the Town. He no longer
holds that position. As a selectman, Mr. Wallace would determine allocations of
the Town budget, including allocations for transfer station operations.
The Town does not have a charter. Nor are there any Town ordinances or
personnel policies prohibiting a Town employee from serving as a selectman. A
Town selectman is paid $6,000 annually as salary. The Board serves as the
executive officer of the Town government.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review Declaratory Judgment
"Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to
declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or
could be claimed." 14 M.R.S. § 5953 (2007). Accordingly, pursuant to 14
M.R.S.A. §§ 5951-5963 and M.R. Civ. P. 57, the Superior Court has the discretion
"to entertain requests for and to enter declaratory judgments in appropriate
circumstances." Capodilupo v. Town of Bristol, 1999 ME 96, ~ 3, 730 A.2d 1257,
1258 (citations omitted). "The court should exercise its authority to issue such a
declaration only when some useful purpose will be served." [d.
II. Incompatibility of Offices
At common law, under the doctrine of the incompatibility of offices, "one
person cannot hold two incompatible offices./I Howard v. Harrington, 96 A. 769,
2
770 (Me. 1916). "The acceptance of the later office vacates ipso facto the prior
one." Id. An office has been deemed incompatible when "the holder cannot in
every instance discharge the duties of each (emphasis added)." Id. "[T]he fact that
incompatibility may from time to time exist is insufficient to warrant
disqualification where the duties of each office are inherently dissimilar."
McQuillin, The Law ofMunicipal Corporations § 12.67 at 373 (3rd ed. 2001).
Under Maine law, certain offices have been deemed incompatible by
statute. See e.g. 30-A M.R.S. §§ 2526 & 2632 (2007). The Town acknowledges that
Mr. Warren's situation has not been barred by statute, local ordinance or charter.
Accordingly, the common law would have to prohibit Mr. Warren from retaining
his municipal employment concurrently with his elected office.
Though some states have extended the doctrine of the incompatibility of
offices to incompatible municipal employment, Maine has not. Indeed the Law
Court has stated that:
[p]rinciples relating to incompatibility of positions as a legal
concept independent of 'conflict of interests' have applicability only
when each of the positions under assessment for 'incompatibility' is
'a public office.'
Opinion of the Justices, 330 A.2d 912, 916 (Me. 1975). Accordingly, this Court
cannot declare that Mr. Wallace's concurrent employment and tenure of office
are unlawful under the common law doctrine of incompatibility of offices.
Moreover, this Court does not find that Mr. Wallace's positions are
inherently incompatible: that is, that they are incompatible in every instance.
There is no evidence that, in every instance, Mr. Wallace's duties as a selectman
will be in conflict with his position as a transfer station attendant. To the degree
that they are in conflict, he has a duty to recuse himself.
3
Therefore, the entry is:
Defendant's municipal employment is not inherently incompatible
with his duties as a selectman.
Pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 5962, costs are awarded to Defendant.
The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference
pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).
Dated at Portland, Maine this /,'th day of -J~--{,..<l:4l\----,."'L..\'Y'
4
)F COURTS
land County
Box 287
line 04112-0287
SALLY DAGGETT ESQ
PO BOX 4510
PORTLAND ME 04112
F COURTS
md County
30x 287
ne 04112-0287
JAMES KATSIAFICAS ESQ
PO BOX 426
PORTLAND ME 04112