HOULTON – Town councilors got a refresher course Wednesday on their responsibilities as outlined in the town’s charter and the state’s right-to-know law.

For two hours, councilors met with Town Attorney Daniel Nelson discussing bid procedures, executive sessions, conflict of interest, and the public’s right to know what is going on in the town.

Discussion on executive sessions drew the liveliest debate as councilors wondered where the line had to be drawn between councilors gathering socially versus meeting for town business.

“The people are entitled to know what the government is doing,” said Nelson, noting that state law is specific about when a governing body can go into executive session.

He said that in the past, the town has been lax about providing details of why an executive session has been called. He said there were occasions when the council entered into executive session to discuss pending litigation without being specific about the nature of the litigation.

On other occasions, executive sessions were called because public discussion might jeopardize the town’s competitive bargaining position, which is allowed by law, when, in fact, the session dealt more with protecting a prospective developer or buyer.

“If you’re going to spend the public’s money, I think you need to let them know what you’re doing,” Nelson said, adding that more recently the town has provided more details before going into executive sessions.

There was debate, however, as to what happened if councilors met socially or at a retreat.

Nelson pointed out that any time town business is discussed, the public must be notified. If that discussion takes place at a social gathering or retreat, “you’re having an illegal executive session,” he said.

Councilors had mixed views on that subject. Most felt it was important for councilors to meet informally on occasion to build a stronger working relationship.

There also was extensive discussion about what councilors could and couldn’t talk about with town employees.

The town’s charter is clear that the hiring and firing of town employees is the sole responsibility of the town manager. Council responsibilities are limited to confirming appointments made by the manager.

Councilors are prohibited from talking directly to any town employees about that employee’s job, even in a social situation.

“That needs to go through the town manager,” said Nelson, adding that if employment comes up in a conversation “you’re violating your oath of office.”

On the question of conflict of interest, Nelson said councilors who own businesses in the town probably could provide those services to the town, but only if they abstained from any discussion or vote on the matter and clearly disclosed their full ownership or involvement with that business.

Councilor Dale Flewelling, who operates an automotive transmission business, said it was important for the town not to penalize councilors as businesspersons simply because they’re on the council.

Councilor Michael Carpenter, a lawyer and former Maine attorney general, noted that the public could misconstrue such actions regardless of how aboveboard the business owner and town were.

“You need to be very, very careful,” he said, “because things can get blown all out of proportion as to who’s doing what.”

In a related matter, Nelson said if the town uses the bid process for town projects or purchases, it should go with the lowest bidder even if a local business has provided a bid that is only slightly higher.

He said that unless there was a specific charter amendment allowing local bids within a set percentage more than the lowest bid, “it’s not rational to spend more of the local taxpayers’ money than that low bid.”