01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, May 8, 2007

By Maria Armental

Journal Staff Writer

CHARLESTOWN — Voters last night overwhelming endorsed the least expensive of three proposals to finance improvements at Blue Shutters Beach.

Voters were asked whether to spend $500,000 or $1.65 million on the beach improvement project. Had voters supported the $1.65 million in spending, they would then have to vote on whether a council or a residents’ proposal — which differed slightly in the wording of the request — would be presented to voters at the financial referendum on June 4.

By a standing vote, the nearly 100 residents in attendance overwhelmingly supported the $500,000 proposal.

The discussion came down to an exercise over how to eliminate the two similar proposals and what appeared a conflicting request over a building proposal at Blue Shutters.

At issue was how to reconcile a warrant item that was proposed by the Town Council and the one proposed by residents. Both proposals asked for voters’ authorization to use up to $1.65 million of open-space funds to finance a beach improvement project.

The voters’ request proposed to issue up to $500,000 in bonds for that same project.

In all three cases, the Parks and Recreation Committee would seek to raise funds from other sources to offset the town’s contribution.

For nearly two hours, voters and town officials battled over what those proposals entailed and how to best proceed, with most of the voters in attendance asking for all three to be rejected.

Under the Town Charter, a vote could be taken only if there were conflicting petitions before voters.

In the end, Town Solicitor Robert E. Craven said the proposal to spend up to $500,000 on Blue Shutters did not conflict with the other two proposals to spend up to $1.65 million.

Asked by a reporter whether that vote was consistent with the Town Charter given his previous statement, Craven said referring to the two spending proposals, “I think they are conflicting enough to confuse voters.”

“I think it was a reasonable reading,” he said.

The Town Council will finalize the budget proposal Monday, when it could vote to eliminate some of the petitions.

In an opinion issued last Friday, Craven found that the residents’ petitions did not meet the legal definition of warrant items because three of those petitions were not consistent with the charter and state law.

As it stands, the warrant items that head to the council next Monday seek authorization to:

• Issue up to $500,000 in bonds for the reconstruction and resurfacing of a portion of Old Coach Road.

• Issue up to $788,800 in bonds for the reconstruction and resurfacing a portion of Buckeye Brook Road. The council last summer spent just over $700,000 in reconstructing and repaving another portion of the road.

• Issue up to $500,000 in bonds for the design and development of public recreational facilities at Blue Shutters beach, with the town’s contribution being offset by any other funds raised.

• Cut the town administrator’s salary to a maximum of $300 per month with no benefits.

• Create a position of assistant town administrator for $80,000 a year, without benefits.

• Set aside up to $20,000 to hold a special election by Sept. 30 to remove Councilman James M. Mageau from office and elect a replacement.

Last night, residents had asked that all three proposals related to the beach construction project be eliminated until the recreation committee presented a firmer proposal on cost estimates. The committee will meet Thursday to review the project.

Some residents also questioned whether approving the $500,000 expenditure would mean the council could spend up to $2.5 million on the beach pavilion. In addition to the $500,000, if approved, the council could use up to $2 million previously approved by voters for open space and recreation.

While legally that would be possible, Craven said, that was not the council’s intention.

“That’s not the way any responsible council would” act, council President Katharine H. Waterman said.

“To even suggest that we would pile it all up into one project is just absurd,” she said.

Controversy also arose over the petitions seeking to cut the administrator’s salary — which Craven said would result in “a de facto firing of the town administrator — and the petition to remove Mageau from office.

Mageau, who has retained legal counsel, said the move would violate the civil rights of those voters who legally elected him and referred to a possible lawsuit, asking those who are trying to force him out to sign promisory notes that they “will be willing to pay all the legal fees incurred by the Town of Charlestown when they go to court to lose.”

Charlestown

marmenta@projo.com