| Supreme Court will hear case on petitions |
01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 By Maria Armental Journal Staff Writer CHARLESTOWN — The state Supreme Court will hear arguments next Tuesday on whether four citizens petitions should appear on the town’s financial budget referendum, the court announced yesterday. Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg, the duty judge, granted a motion to delay the printing of the ballots pending a hearing before the full court next week to address the legality of the petitions. Briefs are to be filed by 9 a.m. this Friday, with oral arguments being heard Tuesday at 10 a.m. The petitions in question seek to: • Cut the salary of Town Administrator Edward M. Barrett to a maximum of $300 per month with no benefits. Barrett currently earns a $76,000 annual salary with $400 a month for transportation costs. His salary is proposed to increase to $79,040 under the proposed fiscal 2008 budget, while his vehicle stipend would be reduced to $300 a month. • Create a position of assistant town administrator paying $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. • Issue as much as $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. In their arguments, the parties are to address “whether or not the petition is a proper question for a Financial Referendum” and, with respect to the petition to remove Mageau, “what specific provision of the Charlestown Town Charter authorizes ‘a special election to remove and replace’ an elected member of the Town Council.” Lynette Labinger, a Providence attorney who represents Mageau, said that the petition amounts to “purported legislation or a Charter amendment dressed up in the guise of a warrant item.” But the Supreme Court may be hearing only one side of the case. The Charlestown Citizens Alliance, the group that sponsored the petitions, says that it will not file any briefs, said John J. Goodman, a member and one of the residents who filed the original complaint in Washington County Superior Court. “We do not believe it is prudent for the alliance to spend the funds raised,” Goodman said. “We will not be filing a brief by Friday.” Instead, Goodman said, the group is asking members of the Town Council “to restrain from moving forward with the litigation,” noting that the town solicitor filed the appeal without seeking authorization from the council. Goodman said that the group hopes last week’s Superior Court decision — ordering the petitions to be included in the ballot — would stand, with concerns on the petitions’ legality being addressed following the June 4 referendum. Last week Washington County Superior Court Judge Allen P. Rubine ruled that the petitions were to be put on the ballot in accordance with the Town Charter, but Rubine did not address the legality of the petitions. Town Solicitor Robert E. Craven appealed Rubine’s decision Friday and filed a motion to halt the printing of the ballots. Craven said the town would drop the appeal if the residents withdraw the original complaint in Washington County Superior Court and ask the court to dismiss its order that the questions must appear on the ballot. Caroline Mannis, the attorney who represents the residents who filed the complaint, did not return calls for comment. “We do not believe it is prudent for the alliance to spend the funds raised. We will not be filing a brief by Friday.” Charlestown marmenta@projo.com |