A proposed referendum question over hether Bangor should support a methadone clinic in its midst is the understandable result of frustration over a process that has struck many in the city as arrogant from the outset. But holding a nonbinding referendum based on incomplete information in an atmosphere of distrust is no way to advance this discussion.

The referendum question itself is one more example of what has plagued this issue for months. Both sides in the debate say they are open-minded on the idea of such a facility, yet officials at Eastern Maine Healthcare and Acadia Hospital are as unambiguous in their support of the clinic as some factions in town are virulently opposed. The debate so far has more resembled a political campaign than a rational discussion of a complex topic.

The City Council is supposed to decide next week whether to put the question of the clinic to voters. Before councilors do, however, they might consider that even as hospital officials have been clear in their support of the clinic they have expressed willingness to make changes to the plan for the operation. So what plan, exactly, would Bangor residents vote on and would the outcome of that vote be altered under changes acceptable to the hospital? A leading opponent of the clinic has attached his opposition to a time frame – a clinic would do more harm than good at this time – but suggests that this might not always be the case. Would the referendum describe a particular time frame or would the assumption be, should the opposition prevail, that Bangor stands opposed no matter what occurs in a year or two from now?

The value of the referendum is suspect because not only does it suggest authority the city does not have – the state decides where to put clinics – but it asks voters to answer the question before the information about methadone maintenance that was supposed to come out through the end of the year had been presented. The council itself is working through a lengthy list of important concerns that have come out so far, and no doubt more will arise over time.

If a petition arrived on a wholly different health or safety question – say, whether the amount in the Bangor school budget dedicated to health classes was adequate – city councilors would find a ozen good reasons not to proceed with a vote, even though, in this example, they actually have some authority. They would recognize that some questions are proper subjects for referendum and some are not; that, in the methadone case, the siting of a medical facility to treat serious, even life-threatening addiction should not be held up to a popularity contest.

The hospital, for its part, could have avoided much of this turmoil by more fully explaining the scope of the problem being addressed, the types of risks the community would incur and avoid from this form of heroin treatment, where treatment has been most effective and how the hospital planned to emulate the effective treatment centers. It would also do well to note that there are 900 methadone facilities in the United States. Chances are that not all of them are run well and offer lessons in what not to do. Describing these would not satisfy everyone, but would demonstrate that a clinic is not a command from the state and EMH but a process that the community should expect to participate in.

As hospital officials now know, when the community is not encouraged to join the discussion in a productive way, it can easily find less productive ways to contribute.