| Legality of petitions now under scrutiny |
01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 By Maria Armental Journal Staff Writer CHARLESTOWN — The town solicitor is reviewing the legality of five petitions — including one that seeks to remove Councilman James M. Mageau from office — that have been filed to appear on the ballot of the June 4 annual Financial Town Meeting. “It’s appropriate for the town solicitor to review those items,” said John Goodman, one of the organizers of the petition drive. “I think we all agree this might be uncharted territory for the town,” Goodman said, noting the group was ready to present its arguments in Washington County Superior Court if necessary. Town Solicitor Robert E. Craven said he’ll submit his legal opinion by Friday. A public hearing on the proposed warrant items has been scheduled for next Monday. As political confrontation wore on over the last six months, a group of Charlestown residents that calls itself the Charlestown Citizens Alliance decided to make its voice heard through petitions. The group filed five petitions, gathering in less than a week the 200 signatures per petition required under the Town Charter for the measures to be placed on the ballot. Town Clerk Jodi LaCroix said that the bulk of the signatures were certified by Friday morning, with all five petitions reaching the necessary 200 signatures. Additional signatures filed later that day were certified yesterday, LaCroix said. “This is a group of 200 people who believe all the voters of Charlestown should have an opportunity to decide the future of Charlestown,” said Goodman. Three of the petitions seek, respectively, to remove Mageau from office; cut the town administrator’s salary to a maximum of $300 per month, and budget for an acting administrator in the event of Edward M. Barrett’s absence or inability to fulfill his duties. The two other petitions relate to the controversial Blue Shutters beach improvement project. The petitions that collected the most signatures were those to remove Mageau, citing state and Town Charter violations, which received 281 signatures; to fund an acting administrator, at a cost of $80,000 a year, which got 276 votes; and to cut Barrett’s pay until a replacement is appointed following the charter’s provisions, which got 265 signatures. A petition asking voters whether $1.65 million from previously authorized open-space bonds should be used for the proposed improvement projects at Blue Shutters Beach got 203 signatures. And a petition asking voters whether the town should issue up to $500,000 in bonds for the beach improvement project “was on the nose” with 200 signatures, LaCroix said. Both beach initiatives provide for the town’s contribution to be offset through other sources of funds. Mageau, who characterized the petition drive as political machinations by some council dissenters, has said that reducing Barrett’s salary would violate his contract, and that holding a special election to remove the councilman from office would violate the charter as the town document doesn’t include a mechanism for removal. “Mr. Mageau, like it or not, was elected by the people,” said Councilman John O. Craig Jr. Asking the council to set aside $20,000 for a special election to remove Mageau from office, Craig said, is “a big item to throw at the taxpayers.” The same goes for funding a new position of acting administrator for $80,000 a year. “I don’t think we have the capacity or the need to fund that,” Craig said. Currently, the Town Charter calls for the council president or designee(s) to serve as acting administrator during the replacement process for a term not to exceed six months each until a permanent replacement is named. Council members are to determine the compensation and forward a written agreement to the town clerk within 10 days. As for Barrett’s pay cut, Craig said, the charter is clear that the administrator is appointed at the discretion of the majority of the council. “So, what’s the use?” Craig asked of the petition. “It’s almost a moot point.” Craig said he is going to propose conducting an independent survey of Town Hall employees to review work relations under Barrett. “This is a group of 200 people who believe all the voters of Charlestown should have an opportunity to decide the future of Charlestown.” Charlestown marmenta@projo.com |