01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, May 24, 2007

By Maria Armental

Journal Staff Writer

CHARLESTOWN — A complaint seeking to bring to voters four contentious citizen-sponsored questions was dismissed with prejudice yesterday, ending a legal dispute that had reached the state’s highest court.

The dismissal means that the four petitions will not appear on the town’s June 4 financial referendum ballot.

With the lawsuit withdrawn, the printing of the ballot — on hold pending a state Supreme Court hearing that was originally scheduled for next Tuesday — will proceed with the two questions the Town Council had originally approved: asking voters to authorize the town to issue $1.3 million in bonds for road work.

In addition, voters will be asked to vote on a requested $9.1 million for municipal expenses and ratify the $13.6 million previously approved by voters for the regional schools system.

In documents filed yesterday afternoon in the state Supreme Court, Carolyn A. Mannis, a lawyer for the residents who filed the complaint in Washington County Superior Court, agreed to dismiss the Superior Court complaint with prejudice — meaning that the plaintiffs could not file another complaint on the same claim.

The dismissal stipulation was faxed to Washington County Superior Court, said Town Solicitor Robert E. Craven, who will personally file it this morning.

Mannis also agreed to annul a previous order entered by the court, directing the four proposed warrant items to be added to the ballot.

Craven, in turn, agreed to dismiss the town’s appeal of the Superior Court order to the state Supreme Court, which was set to hear oral arguments on the case Tuesday.

Under the agreement, both parties are responsible for their own legal fees.

“It’s the right result,” Craven said of the lawsuit’s dismissal.

“There are ways for the plaintiffs to carry out whatever grievance they have that motivated their petitions, but this [petitions] is the wrong method.”

The proposed warrant questions had sought 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.

The town had challenged the validity of the questions, saying they violated either state law or the Town Charter, and that they were legislation in disguise.

“This whole thing was an act of irresponsiblity,” Mageau said, “that has subjected the town to a lot of unnecessary bad publicity and expense.”

Mannis and a representative for the residents who filed the complaint could not be reached for comment yesterday.

marmenta@projo.com