Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-17 Board of Registrars MinutesBoard of Registrars Meeting May 17, 2010 The meeting convened at 1:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Registrars Harry Simmons, Gloria Hulse and Krissandra Holmes, Town Clerk Laura Gemme, Town Counsel Ellen Callahan Doucette, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Office Manager Paula Schena and the following list of interested parties: Les Masterson, Michelle Halloran, Thomas Ryan, Kara Fratto, Kenneth Holt, Mary Chicoine, Dan Ensminger, William Brown, Peg Pratt, Ronald O'Keefe Jr., Linda Anderson, Marsie West, Sheila Mulroy, Barry Berman, Mary Ellen O'Neill, Bryan Walsh, Marie Fratto. Discussion/Action Items Hearing on Petition Against Meals Tax - Town Clerk Laura Gemme swore in everyone who was planning on testifying at the hearing. The Town Clerk asked for nominations for Board of Registrar Chairman. Gloria Hulse placed the name of Laura Gemme into nomination for Chairman of the Board of Registrars and was seconded by Harry Simmons. There being no other nominations, the nominations were closed_ and Laura Gemme was appointed Chairman of the Board of Registrars by a vote of 3-0-0. The Town Clerk noted that on May 3, 2010, Annual Town Meeting voted under Article 13 to adopt Massachusetts General Law Chapter 64L, Section 2(a) - Meals Tax. Town Meeting adopted Massachusetts General Law Chapter 64L, Section 2(a) - Meals Tax - by a vote of 116 in favor to 35 opposed in a roll call vote. On Wednesday, May 12, 2010, the Board of Registrars certified 637 signatures on a petition requesting an election allowing the registered'voters of Reading to cast their vote on Article 13. In order for the petition to be complete, there had to be 3% of registered voters signatures - 499 were needed. On Friday, May 14, 2010, the Town Clerk's Office received five written objections to the petition. The Board of Registrars has called this hearing pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 55B, Section 7, to address the objections before them, and it was noted that one member of the Board of Registrars has signed the petition, and one member of the Board is a Town Meeting Member and voted on Article 13. The Board's sole function with respect to the petition is to check and certify the names of registered voters thereon based upon the Standards set forth in 950 CMR 55.00, Certification of Nomination Papers and Petitions. They are not required to investigate a registered voter's signature but they must rely on Town records. Board of Registrars Meeting - May 17, 2010 - Page 2 Objections to the petition must address the Board's certification of the petition; i.e., objections must be based upon whether or not the petition was signed by a registered voter, and whether the signature conforms to the above Standards. Town Counsel Ellen Doucette noted that the hearing has to do with whether or not certified signatures were valid. The Board of Registrars has no authority over the content of the petition. Krissandra Holmes read the objection letter from Linda Anderson and the main objection being that signatures were collected without informing residents of all the facts and impact to the Town. Barry Berman of 54 Longview Road noted that he examined and found four different petitions, none of which has enough signatures. He cited case law where it has been found that petitions cannot be altered, and he questioned how it is known if the petition was altered before or after the signatures were obtained. He feels that the names on the altered petitions should be discounted. Registrar Harry Simmons agreed that the words that were crossed out have an opposite meaning of the words they were replaced with, and he feels that signatures can be invalidated if they are on a bad form. Town Counsel noted that the Hearst case cited by Mr. Berman only applies to the State ballot petitions. She had a conference call with Michelle K. Tassinari, Director/Legal Counsel of the State's Elections Division, and was assured by Ms. Tassinari that the Walsh and Hearst cases do not apply to a local petition. Town Counsel also noted that the issue sited by Mr. Berman is for the Board of Selectmen: Only the people who signed the petition can verify when the changes were made. If they have not objected then the Board of Registrars may take no. action with respect to this issue. Only the Board of Selectmen will decide if a Special Election will be held. Margaret Pratt of 136 Salem Street asked if all 499 signatures need to be on one petition, and. Town Counsel indicated that multiple copies of the petition may be made. There being no objection from Linda Anderson to the validity of the signatures on the petition, the following motion was made. A motion by Simmons seconded by Hulse to reiect the objection by Linda Anderson was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Linda Anderson asked what the recourse is if it does not go to a Special Election. Town Counsel noted that the petitioner's recourse would be to take the matter to court. Dan Ensminger of 6 Oakland Road noted that the Charter indicates that the Board of Selectmen "shall" call a Special Election, and noted that "shall" is a very strong word. Town Counsel indicated that it is up to the discretion of the Board of Selectmen. Registrar Harry Simmons read the objection from Sheila Mulroy with the main objection being that there are four different versions of the petition with cross outs and words added in. Board of Registrars Meeting - May 17, 2010 - Page 3 Sheila Mulroy of 107 Eastway noted that if the petitions were changed afterward signatures were collected, it should invalidate. the signature. 'Town Counsel noted that unless she signed the petition, her name could not be removed, and Town Counsel is sure that there were some people who knew exactly what they were signing. Barry Berman noted that Town Meeting deliberated this issue for hours. The Town of Reading is a representative form of government. He also noted that there were four different petitions and, hopefully, the Board of Selectmen will act appropriately. Bill Brown noted that anybody has recourse to the court but it is expensive. There being no objection from Sheila Mulroy to the validity of the signatures on the petition, the following motion was made. A motion by Holmes seconded by Simmons to reiect the objection put forth by Sheila Mulroy was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Gloria Hulse read the objection put forth by Janice Jones with the major objection being that people who signed the petition were not informed of the consequences of their decision. There being no objection from Janice Jones to the validity of the signatures on the petition, the following motion was made. A motion by Hulse seconded by Simmons to reiect the obiection by Janice Jones was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Krissandra Holmes read the objection from David and Julie Talbot with the major objection being the cost of a Special Election. There being no objection from the Talbots to the validity of the signatures on the petition, the following motion was made. A motion by Holmes seconded by Simmons to reiect the objection by David and Julie Talbot was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Registrar Harry Simmons read the objection by Elaine and Douglass Webb with the major objection being the loss of revenue from not having the meal tax. There being no objection from the Webbs to the validity of the signatures on the petition, the following motion was made. A motion by Simmons seconded by Holmes to reject the obiection by Elaine and Douglass Webb was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Board of Registrars Meeting - May 17, 2010 - Page 4 A motion by Hulse seconded by Simmons to adjourn the meeting of May 17, 2010 at 2:20 p.m. was approved by a vote of 4-0-0 and the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary