01:00 AM EST on Wednesday, December 12, 2007

By Maria Armental

Journal Staff Writer

CHARLESTOWN — Vice President James M. Mageau said yesterday he intends to seek legal counsel to determine if he can, as an elected member of the Town Council, request on his own a court opinion on the legal standing of the town’s elected Planning Commission.

The standing of the Planning Commission — the only elected planning board in the state — came into question when a Zoning Board member asked the Charter Review Commission to recommend that the Zoning Board — whose members are currently appointed by the council — become an elected body as well.

In response to that request, Margaret L. Hogan, a member of the Charter Revision Committee and an attorney by profession, submitted a memorandum to the committee questioning whether the Planning Commission can be elected under current state law.

The committee then voted to ask the council to seek either a legal opinion from the attorney general’s office or a ruling — called a declaratory judgment — from Washington County Superior Court.

On Monday night — after hearing from residents, two Planning Commission members and a member of the Charter Review Commission — the council referred the matter to Town Solicitor Robert E. Craven.

The Charter Revision Committee is expected to discuss the issue, along with the legal standing of other appointed positions, at its next meeting Monday.

“I was appalled at the number of ‘sidewalk lawyers’ who actually stood up [Monday night at the Town Council’s meeting] and recited state statutes in opposition to seeking the court’s opinion,” Mageau declared in a statement yesterday.

“The issue of whether the Planning Commission is legally constituted is a legal question and I will not stand idly by and permit it to become a political football because of political expediency,” Mageau said.

“In the final analysis it is the taxpayers of Charlestown who will ultimately bear the financial responsibility that may result from any court claims if the Planning Commission is not legally constituted.”

On Monday night, residents questioned whether the Charter Revision Committee had properly advertised the meeting in which the Planning Commission’s status was discussed. Some also charged that raising the issue amounted to an attempt to disenfranchise voters and accused Hogan of having a conflict of interest since the committee appeared to be seeking to implement changes that could benefit some of Hogan’s clients.

The state Ethics Commission said in October that because the charter panel’s powers “are purely advisory in nature,” Hogan and the committee are not “subject to the statutory and regulatory provisions of the Code of Ethics.”

Any changes to the Town Charter proposed by the committee are subject to approval by the Town Council and, ultimately, the voters.

marmenta@projo.com