HOULTON – It took only five minutes of discussion on Monday evening before town councilors decided to table a local resident’s request to use the town’s public access channel to support the 1 percent tax cap referendum.

The group voted 4-2 to put a decision off until the next council meeting, scheduled for Nov. 6.

Stan Ginish contacted town officials after they hosted a forum last week on the public access channel, presenting facts about what the impact of the cap would be on the municipality.

No opinions were offered about the measure, which would scale back assessed property values to their 1996-97 level and cap property taxes at $10 per $1,000 of valuation if approved by voters on Nov. 2.

It also would limit assessments to an increase of 2 percent a year while a property remains in a family. Houlton stands to lose $2.7 million in revenue if the so-called Palesky tax cap is passed.

Ginish, a proponent of the referendum, issued a letter to the town on Oct. 14 requesting that he be allowed to use the public access channel to present facts “from the opposite side.”

Interim Town Manager Phil McCarthy told Ginish that the ultimate decision about the matter would be left up to the council.

Neither Ginish nor McCarthy was able to attend Monday’s meeting. This left no one to answer councilor’s questions about the situation, which prompted them to put it off until Nov. 6. By doing so, however, anything that Ginish has to say about the topic will be irrelevant, as citizens will vote on the referendum on Nov. 2.

Councilors were mainly concerned about whether Ginish, who was hospitalized until Tuesday morning, would be able to conduct the forum, and also his position as a candidate for Town Council.

McCarthy had already warned him that if he made any type of political statement regarding the election or his candidacy, the program would terminate.

“I have no problem with any citizen who wants to express an opinion,” Councilor Gerald Adams said at the meeting. “But what type of thing are we going to see here if we do allow him to speak? As a political candidate, he has to be very careful.”

“I don’t believe it is appropriate for us to allow anyone a venue to promote any political agenda with this public access channel,” Councilor Kent Good argued.

Chairman Dale Flewelling told councilors that he’d sought an opinion from Town Attorney Dan Nelson, who said that the town would not be infringing on Ginish’s rights if it denied his request.

Ginish had threatened legal action if the town didn’t allow him to present facts in support of the cap.

Councilor Paul Cleary noted that he and other councilors had many questions about the situation that couldn’t be answered at the meeting, and recommended tabling any decision. The council quickly agreed to the idea.

After the decision, however, Councilor Phil Bernaiche told the group that their decision was “another farce way to get out” of making a decision.

“He asked fairly to have a meeting,” he maintained. “The [election] will be all over by the time this comes back to us, and one way or another we ought to hear his opinion.”

Ginish could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening.