AUBURN — A memorandum sent last week by the Androscoggin County Commission to all municipal officials in the county was met with anger when commissioners stated that the municipalities failed to offer a “comprehensive settlement proposal” during mediation in their ongoing legal battle.

Commissioners sent the memo to explain their side in the dispute and to make certain that the municipal officials “are well-informed and aware of the efforts” of the county to settle the case.

In describing the mediation session held June 1, the commissioners wrote that they “made several comprehensive settlement proposals that day. All were rejected. The plaintiff municipalities, represented by Attorney Peter Brann, made no comprehensive settlement proposals that day.”

The municipal officials, who participated in the mediation session, objected to that characterization and released their own memorandum Tuesday.

“I was shocked to see the commissioners’ memorandum misrepresenting the facts,” Sabattus Town Manager Anthony Ward said in a statement. “We made repeated offers to compromise this litigation before, during and after the mediation.”

“I also attended the mediation, and it is completely false to say that the municipalities did not make a comprehensive offer to settle the case,” County Budget Committee Chairwoman Emily Darby said in the statement.

The dispute could rest in the definition of “comprehensive.”

“It didn’t cover everything; it was not comprehensive,” commission Chairman Ronald Chicoine said in describing the municipalities’ proposal. “We covered everything in the lawsuit and theirs was vague.”

“The proposal did not offer a substantial resolution to the process,” Commissioner Randall Greenwood added.

Despite the continuing dispute, the two sides appear to agree on three major points reached during their negotiations. The competing proposals, offered by the county on July 14 and followed by the municipalities’ offer on July 22, both contain compromises:

• Amend the County Charter to set the votes required by the 14-member Budget Committee, changing a line item in the budget from a super-majority of 11 votes to 8 votes;

• Amend the County Charter to allow commissioners to override a Budget Committee vote if supported by six of the seven commissioners; and

• Lower commissioners’ salaries from $5,000 to $4,000, with an extra $500 for the chairman. The Budget Committee agreed to set that amount as the minimum.

Those points were included in what the county said was its “final comprehensive settlement proposal” on June 16, signed by attorney Ronald Lebel.

The proposal also seeks that judgment be entered in the county’s favor on the claim of a declaratory judgment.

The commissioners said in their memo that the municipalities “refused to accept the proposal.”

Asked why the June 16 proposal was rejected, Brann released the following statement:

“The County’s offer did not even mention the Commissioners’ salaries and benefits, much less give the Budget Committee authority over them. The County’s offer also gave the Commissioners too much authority over the County budget. This was contrary to the clear intention of the Charter Commission and the Charter that the voters approved in 2012.”

But Paragraph 5 of the county’s June 16 offer says:

“In finally enacting a County budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2017, the Commissioners will set County Commissioner salaries for the fiscal year at $4,500 for the Chair and $4,000 for all other Commissioners and no Commissioner shall be afforded any health insurance benefit at County expense for that fiscal year.”

While the county’s proposal does not mention future salaries or benefits, commissioners stressed that the Charter gives that authority to the Budget Committee.

“We can’t do that,” Chicoine said. “We can never raise our salaries without the approval of the Budget Committee.”

The municipalities are not convinced of that fact, believing the wording of the section dealing with compensation is deceptive, beginning with the opening phrase, “Notwithstanding the final authority of the Board of Commissioners over the adoption of the county budget.”

That wording was ratified by county voters this past November.

“The ‘notwithstanding’ business is a legal loophole we want to close and they’re not willing to give it up,” Darby said Wednesday. “If they truly agree that the Budget Committee should have final authority of salaries and benefits, they should not be standing in the way of the settlement.”

The municipalities countered their own proposal June 24. In addition to the above three points, if a majority of commissioners approved the deal, the municipalities offered to drop their bid to recover the extra salaries and benefits from any commissioner who supported the proposed changes.

Court action, however, would continue against any commissioner opposing the changes, and the county would be forbidden from paying their continued legal fees.

Besides calling the proposal “vague,” Chicoine said the proposal sought to divide the seven commissioners, which he called unacceptable.

Both sides have expressed disappointment that no settlement has been reached.

The county’s legal fees are in excess of $160,000, according to figures Darby compiled.

The Maine County Commissioners Association Risk Pool, which agreed last year to cover the county’s costs, has only paid $15,000 to date, according to County Administrator Larry Post.

Malcolm Ulmer, manager of the risk pool, was unavailable for comment.

The lawsuit, with Lewiston in the lead, was filed in Androscoggin County Superior Court in July 2015 and contends that commissioners overstepped their powers in approving the county budget by voting in higher salaries and benefits for themselves than what was approved by the Budget Committee in 2014.

It asks for the return of all salaries and benefits not approved by the Budget Committee. The amended suit also seeks to deny the commissioners from having the county pay for their legal bills.

The salaries approved by commissioners for the 2015 budget were more than $2,000 lower than the previous year, but the Budget Committee sought a deeper cut.