An Orrington Select Board meeting last month devolved into an explosive half-hour debate between residents and officials about where sex offenders should be allowed to live within the town.
Residents assumed that restrictions on how close registered sex offenders could live to places such as schools and parks were set statewide. But it wasn’t until an offender moved to Orrington this summer that many realized the town does not have those laws in place.
Now residents are asking the selectmen and town manager for help because they feel unsafe in their town. Selectmen and manager Chris Backman answered questions at the Sept. 25 meeting, outlining what can be done in regards to the town charter. Backman emphasized that any new ordinance would take a lot of work — work that he would not do.
The issue has pitted Orrington residents against officials and is reviving a debate over the efficacy of sex offender programs and what role the town should play in enacting rules that they may not be able to enforce. Residents have circulated petitions and gotten the necessary signatures to force a special meeting on the topic, but officials’ unwillingness to move forward is creating tension throughout the town.
The debate began when Orrington residents learned Marc Alberi recently moved to the area. He pleaded guilty in 2014 to possession of sexually explicit material depicting a child under 12, and has eight prior sex crime convictions.
A poster seen stapled to a tree last week in Orrington featured a photo of Alberi’s face and warned, “Level 3 sex offender. Google him.” He’s also a regular topic of discussion in a local community Facebook page with 2,000 members.
After his arrival, residents were surprised to learn that Maine does not have a state-wide residency restriction for sex offenders, but it offers language towns can adopt. Under Maine state law, it would only apply to someone on the registry for a conviction of a crime against a child younger than 14.
Community members are pushing for an ordinance setting a 750-foot restriction from schools, parks, playgrounds and other areas where children are the primary users, but town officials haven’t made any effort to enact it.
“We’ve just been met with a lot of pushback and delays,” said Teresa Littlejohn, who lives on the same street as Alberi. “He checks all the boxes of someone who the community would need to be notified about.”
If the ordinance is adopted, it will not stop Alberi from living in his current home, Backman said. It will also not apply retroactively to other people on the registry even if they are within the 750-foot boundary.
“We are well aware and have been since day one that there’s absolutely nothing preventing this gentleman from building his home there,” Littlejohn said.
Petitions circulated after the Sept. 25 meeting to force the board to at last hold a special meeting about the proposed restrictions got enough signatures for the process to move forward within 24 hours, Littlejohn said.
One version of the petition outlines fines the town can collect if the residency restriction is violated. An additional petition without fines was circulated too, as Littlejohn was told the fines may not be legal.
Fifty signatures were required per petition and 79 verified signatures were collected in 24 hours, Littlejohn said.
The proposed ordinance contains language that says people convicted of sex crimes against children have a high rate of recidivism. Such offenders have a 5.1 percent arrest rate for another crime against children within three years of their release from prison, according to a study from the U.S. Department of Justice.
A study of people released from prison for a variety of crimes found 62 percent reoffended in three years, per the DOJ.
Residency restrictions have an appeal, but can give people a false sense of security, according to a study published in the National Library of Medicine. Some cities have ones in place that essentially mean anyone on the registry cannot live in that community.
“When communities successfully get them to move, community members’ fear subsides, thus making them feel safe,” the study said.
Bangor adopted a residency ordinance in 2013. The change came about three years after the city council declined to adopt one, with one council member saying, “it would do nothing to improve the safety of our children.”
Meanwhile, the nearby city of Brewer does not have a residency restriction ordinance on its website, nor does Orono.
“I understand that there are predators everywhere, ones that have been already convicted and some that you don’t even know about that have never been convicted,” Orrington resident Renee Steller said. “It’s just when this level of an offender moves into your neighborhood, you’re definitely on alert.”
Littlejohn said she thought that at the very least the town would be willing to work with residents to figure out next steps for such restrictions and how to handle them.
Adopting this ordinance is not easily done, Backman said at the Sept. 25 meeting. They are easier to write when the enforcement falls on town police departments, which Orrington does not have, Backman said. The town is served by the Penobscot County Sheriff’s Department.
“The group of petitioners need to do the work,” he said. “I’m not going to do that.”
Selectman Michael Curtis asked why the town can’t be proactive and address the residency request. Backman responded that he does not think it’s a town-wide issue but an issue affecting one road.
Selectmen Curtis and Allan Elkin said they had no comment. Backman did not respond to requests for comment.
There are additional changes residents would like to see as well, including receiving notifications from the town when someone on the registry moves into the area.
The town says it cannot legally do that. Maine law says notification comes from law enforcement where the registrant lives, which would again fall on the Penobscot County Sheriff’s Office.
“These people move into your neighborhoods,” Steller said. “They shouldn’t be able to hide. If we have the knowledge we can protect our kids.”
The petition signatures were validated, so now the town needs to schedule a special meeting to discuss the petition. Orrington did not have any special meetings related to the petition scheduled at time of publication.
The town will have a legal review of the petition and ordinance, Backman said at a meeting.
“I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around why this is so difficult,” Steller said. “I don’t feel like we’re asking for a whole lot, and it is public safety.”
