HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-18 Board of Selectmen HandoutDRAFT MOTIONS
BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
MAY 189 2010
Tafoya, Bonazoli, Anthony, Goldy, Schubert Hechenbleikner
1a) Move that the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading call a Special
Election pursuant to a petition. filed* pursuant to Section 2 -15 of the
Reading Home Rule Charter, amended through April 2006; said election to
be held at the Hawkes Field House at Reading Memorial High School 62
Oakland Road on June , 2010 from 7:00 am until 8:00
PM. The sole item on the ballot at the election shall read:
"Shall the Town vote to approve the action of the representative Town
Meeting whereby it was voted to accept the provisions of Massachusetts
General Law Chapter 64L, Section 2(a) to impose a local sales tax upon the
sale of restaurant meals originating within the Town by a vendor at the
rate of .75 percent of the gross receipts of the vendor from the sale of
restaurant meals? Yes No—"
Move that the Board of Selectmen adjourn the meeting at p.m.
• May 3 - approved by Annual Town Meeting under Article 13 by a roll
call vote of 116 -35
• May 12 -637 certified signatures filed on referendum. petition
(deadline by Charter section 2 -15 is seven business days from 5/3)
• May 14 -5 written objections filed to petition (deadline by MGL 55b
section 7 two working days from 5/12)
• May 17 -Boar d of Registrars (deadline by MGL 55b section 7 of four
days after 5/14)
• May 18 -Boar d of Selectmen (deadline to meet by Charter 10 calendar
days from 5/12)
BRACKETT & LUCAS
COUNSELORS AT LAW
19 CEDAR STREET
WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01609
508- 799 -9739
Fax 508- 799 -9799
GARY S. BRACICETT
JUDITH A. PICKETT
ELLEN CALLAHAN DOUCETTE
JASON D. GROSSFIELD
May 18, 2010
VIA EMAIL ONLY
Ben Tafoya, Chair
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
OF COUNSEL
ELAINE M. LUCAS
Direct email:
ecdoucette@brackefflucas.com
Re: Referendum Petition — Article 13 of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting
. Supplemental Memorandum
Dear Mr. Tafoya:
A referendum petition, with signatures certified by the Board of Registrars of
Voters ( "Registrars "), has been filed with the Board of Selectmen ( "Selectmen " -) to have
the Town Meeting's approval of Article 13 of the May 3, 2010 Annual Town Meeting
submitted to the voters at a.Special Election. Reading's referendum procedures are set
forth in Section 2 -15 of the Reading Home Rule Charter ( "Charter "). The Selectmen
have scheduled a meeting this evening to.review whether the petition complies with
Section 2 -15 of the Charter. You have asked this office to advise the Selectmen as to
whether or not the petition is in conformance with the Charter. In addition, you asked if
the Selectmen have the discretion to decline to schedule a Special Election in the event
that they determine that the petition does not conform to the Charter.
1. Compliance with Section 2 -15 of the Charter
Although the requisite number of signatures was certified- by the Registrars, some
pages of the petition contain handwritten changes. Though the general rule is that
signatures on separate sheets constitute a single petition, the issue has been raised as to
whether the handwritten changes alter the form of the petition such that it is not in
compliance with Section 2 -15 of the Charter. More specifically, do the alterations in the
language of the petition permit the Selectmen to find that more than one petition has been
- - -- filed- under - the - circumstances,— and, —that none -of the - petitions - contains - the - requisite
number of signatures required by Section 2 -15?
The variations in wording (in bold), as they appear on the petition sheets, are as
follows:
• We, the undersigned registered voters of Reading, Massachusetts,
hereby submit this referendum petition of Article 13 of the 2010 Annual Town
Meeting Warrant to ask: shall the Town vote to approve the action of the
representative Town Meeting whereby it was voted to accept the provisions of
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 64L, §2(a) to impose a local sales tax
upon the sale of restaurant meals originating within the Town by a vendor at
the rate of .75 percent of the gross receipts of the vendor from the sale of
restaurant meals?
i We,: the undersigned registered voters of Reading, Massachusetts,
hereby submit this referendum petition of Article 13 of the 2010 Annual Town
Meeting Warrant to repeal the vote of Town Meeting accepting the
provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 64L, §2(a) to impose a
local sales tax upon the sale of restaurant meals originating within the Town
by a vendor at the rate of .75 percent of the gross receipts of the vendor from
the sale of restaurant meals?
® We, the undersigned registered voters of Reading, Massachusetts,
hereby submit this referendum petition of Article 13 of the 2010 Annual Town
Meeting Warrant to repeal ( "approve" is inserted in writing) the vote of
( "the representative" inserted in writing) Town Meeting accepting the
provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 64L, §2(a) to impose a
local sales tax upon the sale of restaurant meals originating within the Town
by a vendor at the rate of .75 percent.of the gross receipts of the vendor from
the sale of restaurant meals?
• We, the undersigned registered voters of Reading, Massachusetts,
hereby submit this referendum petition of Article 13 of the 2010 Annual Town
Meeting Warrant to repeal ( "accept" is inserted in writing) the vote of
( "the representative" is inserted in writing) Town Meeting accepting the
provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 64L, §2(a) to impose a
local sales tax upon the sale of restaurant meals originating within the Town
by a vendor at the rate of .75 percent of the gross receipts of the vendor from
the sale of restaurant meals?
During the hearing held by the Registrars on May 17, 2010 pursuant to M.G.L.
c.5513, §7,' members of the public voiced concerns that the crossed out word "repeal ",
' The procedure of c.55B, §7 is used to object to the Registrars' certification of signatures.
which was replaced in the petition by either "approve" or "accept," may have misled
-- persons -who- signed the - petition- as -to- the - petition' -s - purpose.— Another_concern was_that
only one version used the phrase "to vote ". It should be noted that no persons testified to
the Registrars that they were actually misled, or that they signed the petition without
understanding what they were signing. .
In the matter of Pappas v. Town of Auburn, (Worcester Sup. Ct., June 7, 2000),
the Auburn Board of Selectmen was ordered by the court to submit to the voters two
referendum questions for articles approved by the Town Meeting for the acquisition of
property and for the appropriation of funds, to construct a new high school. Although the
petitions had the requisite number of signatures required by the Auburn Charter, the
Selectmen determined that the petitions did not identify the challenged Town Meeting
vote in substantially the same language and form as the articles submitted to Town
Meeting and they declined to submit the petitions to the voters. The section of the
Auburn Charter at issue is quite similar to the language of the last paragraph of Section 2-
15 of the Charter.
The Superior Court determined that the referendum petitions complied with
Auburn's Charter because they "were sufficiently clear and specific. ". Further, the
Superior Court stated that the applicable Charter provision, governing the form of the .
question did not refer to the form of the referendum petition, but to the form of the ballot
question that is to be submitted to the voters. "A referendum petition ... that identifies
with reasonable clarity a particular town meeting vote in favor of [an action] is a lawful
means under the charter for seeking submission of that vote to the voters at large."
Moreover, the purpose of a "referendum petition" is to submit an act of the
legislative body to the electorate for acceptance or rejection. Arguably, inclusion of the
words "vote ", "repeal ", "accept" or "approve" are redundant and therefore, the versions
do not suggest or provide evidence of separate petitions.
On Wednesday, May, 12, 2010, the Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager,
Town Clerk and I had a telephone conference with Attorney Michelle Tassinari, Director
of Elections /Legal Counsel, for the Secretary of the Commonwealth, regarding this
matter. Attorney Tassinari stated her opinion that the subject matter of the petition was
sufficiently identified being, Town Meeting's vote on Article 13 to accept the local
option meal tax and that all of the petition sheets included reference to a referendum on
the Town Meeting's action. Attorney Tassinari did not view the varying language as
constituting different petitions. After reviewing the Pappas decision, we agree with that
interpretation.
We also want to briefly discuss a case which was raised at the May 17, 2010,
hearing before the Registrars. Persons appearing at the hearing, as well as one of the
Registrars, asked whether the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Walsh v. Secretary of
the Commonwealth, 430 Mass. 103 (1999) was applicable to this petition. In Walsh, the
SJC applied the "exact copy" rule announced in its decision rendered the previous year,
Hurst v. State Ballot Law Commission, 427 Mass. 825 (1998). Hurst dealt with the
language contained in M.G.L. c.53, §22A relative to statewide initiative petitions. The
"exact copy "rule- - prohibits - alterations,— additions -or- deletions- of-any sort to forms
provided by the Secretary of the Commonwealth for use in obtaining signatures for
statewide referendum petitions. Voter signatures on petitions which have been altered or
marked in any way are invalidated. The "exact copy" rule of Hurst and Walsh is
limited to nomination and petition forms prepared and furnished by the Secretary of the
Commonwealth, and is not applicable to local referendum petitions. Application of the
"exact copy" rule was also discussed during our telephone conference with Attorney
Tassinari, and she agreed that it was not applicable to the referendum petition which has
been filed with the Selectmen regarding Article 13.
2. The Board of Selectmen's discretion under Section 2 -15 of the Charter
Section 2 -15 of the Charter provides, in pertinent part; that, "[t]he Board of
Selectmen shall, within ten (10) days after the filing of such petition, call a Special
Election that shall be held within thirty (30) days or such longer period as may be
required by law after issuing the call, for the purpose of presenting to the voters any such
question." (emphasis supplied)
You have asked if the term "shall" means that the Selectmen have no discretion,
and, therefore, are required to schedule a Special Election once a referendum petition is
received. In Pappas, the Superior Court stated that "[a] referendum petition is a solemn
matter. If the Board of Selectmen is presented with a petition that does not clearly
identify the town meeting vote being challenged, the Board has a duty to reject the
petition. Requiring less would invite confusion about the intent of the petitioning
voters."
As the Registrars rejected objections to the certification of the signatures and
certified the number of signatures required for submittal of the petition, and as the
petition is sufficiently clear in identifying Article 13 of the May 3 Annual Town Meeting
as the subject of the referendum petition, the use of the term "shall" by the framers of the
Charter indicates that the Selectmen do not have discretion, under the circumstances, to
decline to schedule a Special Election.
3. Issue of Handwritten Changes on Petition
A question was raised as to whether the handwritten changes ( "repeal" changed to
"accept" or "approve ") were made before, or after the signatures were obtained. In our
opinion, the existence of the handwritten changes and the timing of the handwritten
changes, do not affect our opinion that the petition was clear and specific as to the subject
matter of the petition. Whether the wording stated that the petition was to "repeal ", or to
"approve" or "accept" the adoption of Article 13 by Town Meeting, a referendum petition
necessarily requires a ballot requiring a vote of either yes or no, with the outcome of the
vote resulting in the approval or rejection of Town Meeting's action.
Given our opinion that the referendum petition is clear and specific despite the
handcar -itten_ changes ,_those_handwr_itten_changes_do_ not_ prouide_a_basis -for-the_Selectmen
to decline to schedule a Special Election,
I will be in attendance at tonight's meeting to discuss this matter further.
Very truly yours,
Ellen Callahan Doucette
cc: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager (via email only)
Gary S. Brackett, Esq.
o� OPRi
d-
-d
s
6J9 +tYC�Reo P�'
•• •, 1 Baseball
75-1-00 Kids
TO: Board of Selectmen
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010
Re: Referendum for Special Election
On May 6, 2010 Town Meeting voted the following under Article 13:
Move that the Town vote to accept the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter
64L, § 2(a) to impose a local sales tax upon the sale of restaurant meals originating within the
Town by a vendor at the rate of .75 percent of the gross receipts of the vendor from the sale-of
restaurant meals to take effect July 1; 2010.
On May 12, 2010, (within the 7 business days allowed by charter) the Board of Registrars
certified a referendum petition under Section 2-15 of the Reading Home Rule Charter for a
special election for the voters to consider whether or not to approve the action of the 2010
Annual Town Meeting under Article 13, which accepted the provisions of M.G.L. c.64L, section
2(a) imposing a .75% local meals tax.
While 4 versions of the petition containing slightly differing language were submitted (the
wording follows), the Secretary of State's office, in consultation with the Town Counsel, has
advised that all petitions had* in common the request to have a referendum vote on Town
Meeting's acceptance of the local meals tax under Article 13, and therefore have advised the
Board of Registrars to certify the petition. A total of 499 valid signatures were required to meet
the referendum requirements, and the petitions contained 637 valid signatures.
Registered voters have until 5 PM on Friday, ,May 14 to file a written objection to the petition -
these may be filed at Town Hall at the Town Clerk's office. If there are any written objections
filed, the Board of Registrars then has 4 business days to hold a hearing on the objections. A
meeting of the Board of Registrars has been scheduled for May 17, if needed.
The Board of Selectmen has until Saturday, May 22 to set the election date, and is scheduled to
meet on May 18, 2010 regarding this matter. The election must then take place within 30
days of the certification of the petition.
Pursuant to Section 2-15 of the Charter, no action of the Town Meeting shall be reversed unless
at least twenty percent (20%) of the eligible voters vote in the election, and the ballot question
must be determined by a majority vote of the voters voting at the Special Election. The local
meals tax was to become effective on July. 1, 2010 but as a result of the referendum petition
Page 1
2
and Special Election, the local meals tax will not go into effect, if approved, until October 1,
2010,
The following is a portion of the Reading Home Rule Charter, with all revisions through April,
2006:
Section 2-15: Referendum Procedures
No final affirmative vote of a Town Meeting on any Warrant Article shall be operative until after
the expiration of seven (7) days following the dissolution of the Town Meeting except the
following: (a) a vote to adjourn or dissolve; (b) votes appropriating money for the payment of
notes or bonds of the Town and interest. becoming due within the then current fiscal year, (C)
votes for the temporary borrowing of money in anticipation of revenue or, (d) a vote declared by
preamble by a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting to be an emergency measure necessary for the
immediate preservation of the peace, health, safety or convenience of the Town. If a referendum
petition is not filed within the said seven (7) days, the votes of the Town Meeting shall then
become operative.
If, within said seven (7) days, a petition signed by not less than .three (3) percent of the voters
certified by the Registrars of Voters, containing their names and addresses, is filed with the
Board of Selectmen requesting that any question -be submitted to the voters, then the operation
of such vote shall be further suspended pending its determination as provided below. The Board
of Selectmen shall, within ten (10) days after the filing of such petition, call a Special Election
that shall be. held within thirty (30) days or such longer period as may be required by law after
issuing the call, for the purpose of presenting to the voters any such' question. If, however, a
regular or special election is to be held not more than sixty (60) days following the date the
petition is filed, the Board of Selectmen may provide that any such question be presented to the
voters at that election.
Any question so submitted shall be determined by a majority vote of the voters voting in said,
election, but no action of the Town Meeting shall be reversed unless at least twenty percent
(20%) of the eligible voters vote in such election. Each question so submitted shall be in the form
of the following question -which shall be placed on the official ballot: - "shall the Town vote to
approve the action of the representative Town Meeting whereby it was voted (brief description of
the substance of the vote in substantially the same language and form in which it was stated
when presented by the Moderator to the Town Meeting, as appears in the records of the Clerk of
the meeting) "?
The wording differences in the petitions that were submitted that I can identify are:
Version 1 "We the undersigned registered voters of Reading Massachusetts, hereby submit
this referendum petition of Article 13 of'the 2010 Annual Town Meeting Warrant to ask: shall the
Town vote to approve the action of the representative Town Meeting whereby A was voted to
"accept the provisions of Massachusetts General. Law Chapter 64L section 2(a) to impose a local
sales tax upon the sale of restaurant meals originating within the Town by a vendor at the rate of
,75 percent of the gross receipts of the vendor from the sale of restaurant meals?"
Version 2 "We the ' undersigned registered voters of Reading Massachusetts, hereby submit
this referendum petition of Article 13 of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting Warrant to repeal the
vote of Town Meeting. accepting the provisions I of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 64L
section 2(a) to impose a local sales tax upon the sale of restaurant meals originating within the
Town by —a vendor --at the --rate f–.76 percent of the grass receipts of-the verdarfrom-theaaI f
restaurant meals?"
Version 3 "We the undersigned registered voters of Reading Massachusetts, hereby submit
this referendum petition of Article 13 of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting Warrant to repeal
approve (note – the word "repeal" is crossed out and the word "approve" is written in) the
vote of the Representative (note – the words "the Representative" are written in)Town
Meeting accepting the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 64L section 2(a) to
impose a local sales tax upon the sale of restaurant meals originating within the Town by a
vendor at the rate of .75percent of the gross receipts of the vendor from the sale of'restaurant
meals?"
Version 4 "We the undersigned registered voters of Reading Massachusetts, hereby submit
this referendum petition of Article 13 of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting Warrant to repeal
accept (note – the word "repeal" is crossed out and the word "accept" is written in) the
vote of the Representative (note – the words "the Representative" are written in)Town
Meeting accepting the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 64L section 2(a) to
impose a local sales tax upon the sale of restaurant meals originating within the Town by a
vendor at the rate of .75 percent of the gross receipts of the vendor from the sale of restaurant
meals?"
Based on the above information the following draft motion is offered for the Board of
Selectmen's consideration:
DRAFT Motion
Move that the Board of Selectmen* of the Town of Reading calls a Special Election pursuant to a
petition filed pursuant to Section 2-15 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, amended through April
2006, to be held at the Hawkes Field House at Reading Memorial High School 62 Oakland Road on
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 from 7:00 am until 8:00 PM. The sole item on the ballot at the election shall
read:
"Shall the Town vote to approve the action of the representative Town Meeting whereby it was
voted to accept the provisions of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 64L, Section 2(a) to
impose a local sales tax upon the sale of restaurant meals originating within the Town by a
vendor at the rate of .75 percent of the gross receipts of the vendor from the sale of restaurant
.meals? Yes — No
® Page 3
2
Page 1 of 1
Schena, Paula,
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 4:03 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: Article 2 -15 Reading Home Rule Charter
Section 2 -15: Referendum Procedures
No final affirmative vote of a Town Meeting on any Warrant Article shall be operative until after the
expiration of seven (7) days following the dissolution of the Town Meeting except the following: (a) a
vote to adjourn or dissolve; (b) votes
appropriating money for the payment of notes or bonds of the Town and interest becoming due within
the then current fiscal year; (c) votes for the temporary borrowing of money in anticipation of revenue
or; (d) a vote declared by preamble by a two- thirds vote of Town Meeting to be an emergency measure
necessary for the immediate preservation of the peace, health, safety or convenience of the Town. If a
referendum petition is not filed within the said seven (7) days, the votes of the Town Meeting shall then
become operative.
If, within said seven (7) days, a petition signed by not less than three (3) percent of the voters certified
by the Registrars of Voters, containing their names and addresses, is filed with the Board of Selectmen
requesting that any question be submitted to the voters, then the operation of such vote shall be further
suspended pending its determination as provided below. The Board of Selectmen shall, within ten (10)
days after the filing of such petition, call a Special Election.that shall be held within thirty (30) days or
such longer period as may be required by law after issuing the call, for the purpose of presenting to the
voters any such question. If, however, a regular or special election is to be held not more than sixty (60)
days following the date the petition is filed, the Board of Selectmen may provide that any such question
be presented to the voters at that election.
Any question so submitted shall be determined by a majority vote of the voters voting in said election,
but no action of the Town Meeting shall be reversed unless at least twenty percent (20 %) of the eligible
voters vote in such election. Each question so submitted shall be in the form of the following question
which shall be placed on the official ballot: - "shall the Town vote to approve the action of the
representative Town Meeting whereby it was voted (brief description of the substance of the vote in
substantially the same language and form in which it was stated when presented by the Moderator to the
Town Meeting, as appears in the records of the Clerk of the meeting) "?
Peter I. Hechenbleikner
'Town Manager
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading MA 01867
phone: 781 - 942 -9043
fax 781- 942 -9071
web www.readingma.gov
email townmanager @ci.reading.ma.us
Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http://readingma-
survey.virtualtownhall. net !survey /sid /de8bdaal 6db9e6b4/
EORCIORN
WJ
5/17/2010
Dear Board of Selectmen: R E C E I V E D
We, the undersigned registered voters of Reading, Massachusetts, hereby submit this refe�et c �s1 i E � Article 13 of the
2010 Annual Town Meeting arrant to ask shall the Town vote to approve the action of the re re�66L ire Town eting whereby it
g pp p
was voted to accept the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 64L, § 2(a) to impose a local les 4tax o th e sale of
restaurant meals originating within the Town by a vendor at the rate of .75 percent of the gross Ai sYo e Nom the sale of
restaurant meals?
Number
Signature
Address
11.
f
12.
h!
• 13.
14.
15.
_
16.
17.
/61-- Rea i�hPVY7
18.
r� ?ict
19.
A,
Azu ZAI(,
20.
;7` Y7
1 !
Dear Board of Selectmen: RECEIVED
W, CLERK
We, the undersigned registered voters of Reading, Massachusetts, hereby submit thisFrEiajzei IAimi 30hfii� n of Article 13 of the
2010 Annual Town Meeting Warrant to repeal the vote of Town Meeting accepting the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 64L, § 2(a) to impose a local sales tax upon the sale of restaurant meals originating2Nt%WMOTgdh d lbylaPlvendor at the rate of
.75 percent of the gross receipts of the vendor from the sale- of restaurant meals.
Number
Signature
Address
2.
3.
`
b
4.
V
A?�
_
`
5.
i
6.
n
i
7.
S.
%
9.
i
t
eke! �� t zP_� ___-_
C �i �� /J /�
10. r`
4
G� r u
v u
SL
ti:h..YO- y�:y'S!�t.x�` ,f.':�+%:t.ESXC ��h`C:>+r� L .tkk�.+f- X�•..`
--'a- /
RECEIVED
D
Dear Board of Selectmen: T O N N CLERK
E ?F ;DI "G, I`IkA \SS.
We, the undersigned registered voters of Reading, Massachusetts, hereby submit this referendum petition of Article 13 of the
2010 Annual Town Meeting Warrant to repe H the vote of Town Meeting accepting the provigUlk -i � MOss.-AhU5eUGeneral Law
Chapter 64L, § 2(a) to impose a local sales tax upon the sale of restaurant meals originating within the Town by a vendor at the rate of
.75 percent of the gross receipts of the vendor from the sale of restaurant meals.
Number
Check
Signature
Address
1,
2.
4.
J� 1
Dear Board of Selectmen: 4;ECEIVED
TOWN G L E Fl K
We, the undersigned registered voters of Reading, Massachusetts, hereby submit this refeirl ht Yii'p6iki WArticle 13 of
2010 Annual Town Meeting arrant t or al the vote o f vL Md" i accepting p
g f Io eetin acre tin the rovisio2gip4 aspgchpegs V8neral Law
Chapter 64L, § 2(a) to impose a local sales tax upon the sale of restaurant meals originating within the Town by a vendor at the rE
.75 percent of the gross receipts of the vendor from the sale. of restaurant meals.
_Number Check Signature Address
1.
2. -
�! /q-
3.
4.
of
Board 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, Nlarsie . West, Sheila Mulroy, Barry
Berman, Mary Ellen O'Neill, Bryan Walsh, Marie Fratto.
Discussion /Action Items
Hearing on Petition Against Meals Tax - Town Cleric Laura Gemme swore in everyone who was
planning on testifying at the hearing.
The Town 'Cleric 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 b- y- 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 reject 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.
r"
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 reject 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 objection 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 reiect the objection by Elaine and Douglass
Webb was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
Board of Registrars Meeting — Mayl7, 2010— Page 4
A motion by Hulse seconded by Simmons to adiourn the meeting of May 17, 2010 of 2:20
p.m. was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0 and the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
I - M-. �
May 14, 2010
I Linda L. Anderson am filing an objection to the petition filed to hold a special election regarding the
Local Meal Tax in Reading.
y
I am filing this objection because signatures were obtained without informing residents of all the facts
and impacts to the town when requesting the signatures. I believe this brings into question the validity
of the signatures obtained in order to meet the minimum requirement to file the petition.
After speaking with residents that were approached to sign the petition some of the key points that
were not disclosed are the following:
1. The petition would result in a special election for this one question that would cost the town
thousands of dollars.
2. The tax is already in place in the many of the towns surrounding Reading and Reading residents
are incurring the tax when eating out in those towns, but Reading does not benefit.
3. The tax benefit goes directly to the towns adopting the tax and is estimated to bring
approximately $150,000 - 175,000 in revenue to Reading.
4. The tax is not paid by the business or residents but by the consumer.
S. Town meeting overwhelmingly passed the article after 2 plus hours of discussion and a roll call
vote because of the difficult economy and town budget.
I feel strongly that this petition must be questioned and rejected due to the irresponsible way in which
the signatures were obtained.
Sincerely,
-
ALinda L. Anderson
M
cn Town Meeting member Precinct 5
o,C:� ¢ Et
w_J
CD
1— W a
L� o
N
RECEIVED
RE .DING, MASS.
2010 MAY I U P 1. 22
Dear Ms. Gemme,
107 Eastway
Reading, MA 01867
(781) 944 -1247
May 14, 2010
Please accept this letter as a filing to you and the Board of Registrars as my formal
written objection to the submitted petitions pertaining to the action of Annual Town
Meeting regarding approval of Article 13 from the April 2010 Warrant.
After a thoughtful and lengthy discussion, Article 13 was overwhelmingly passed in the
affirmative by the representative town meeting. As a Town Meeting member for more
than 6 years and an active member in the Reading community for 24 years, I do not take
this action lightly; however I am compelled to object to the petitions because of the
following reasons:
1. There are four versions of the petition with differing language. How can the intent
of the voter be clear if the language is so varied?
2. Two of the four petitions had words crossed out and additional words inserted.
How are we sure what the intent of the voter was if the petition was possibly
changed after the voter's signature?
3. Only one of the four versions meets the criteria of the Home Rule Charter, section
2 -15, which states that "Each question so submitted shall be in the form of the
following question which shall be placed on the official ballot: "shall the Town
vote to approve the action of the representative Town Meeting whereby it was
voted...""
4. One of the four petitions asked, "shall the town vote ... ", while the remaining
three never mentioned the word "vote ". Did the signers of the petition think they
were expressing an opinion for or against the actions of Town Meeting, rather
than calling for a costly special election?
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I am available to answer any questions
you may have regarding my filing.
Sincerely,
Sheila Mulroy
d.I'i M�
CC Board of R gistr s
Oro]
Friday May 14, 2010
22 Mt Vernon St
Reading Ma 01867
Dear Town Clerk or Selectman,
RECEIVED
T-O N -C -L -E R-K
READING, HASS,
2010 MAY I U P 2., I I
I am strongly objecting to the recent petition submitted to hold a special Town Election to vote on the
Meals Tax that was passed by an overwhelming roll call vote by town meeting members in favor of the
Meal Tax on May 3, 2010,
My objections:
In talking to people that signed the petition, they were not told this would be the only, question at a
costly special town election now. Pros and cons were not explained.
They were not told that the surrounding towns already have this meal tax that they are contributing to
when they eat in restaurants in these towns.
They were not told how much revenue this would give the town budget towards schools, seniors,
conveniences and other programs they like.
They were not told that this tax was only if they ate in a restaurant not an every household
individually tax.
They were not told this was only pennies, only the customers pay not the restaurants ... ®75% of meal.
They were not told that this is only for 3 yrs and we could change our mind if it wasn't successful.
An informed voter is an intelligent voter and these signers have not been properly informed of the
consequences of their decision.
Thank you,
anise M Jones
v�
Reading Town Clerk
Town Hall
Lowell Street
Readingi MA 01867
May 14,.2010
To Whom it May Concern,
RECEIVED
-T O-WILC L E R K
READING, MASS.
2010 MAY I U P 3; 4*U t
We write to strongly object to the Town organizing a costly special election to consider a repeal of
the meals tax.
Town Meeting voted overwhelmingly in favor of this very small tax, Town Meeting recognized the
size of the budget gap, and that the Town's bond rating could be in jeopardy -- something that
would be far more costly to businesses and residents than a 0.75 percept meals tax.
Town Meeting will have the opportunity to repeal this tax in three years, and th6t: will be the
proper venue for reconsidering this matter.
We need to avoid conducting such a wasteful process as a special election. There are many
more productive ways that the organizers of this effort could be directing their efforts.
incerely,
vi
x�avid'and Julie Talbot
'\� ,5 Linden Street
Reading
RECEIVED
READING, MASS. May 14, 2010
Elaine L. and Douglass E. Webb
2010 MAY I U P 4: 30 309 Pearl Street
Reading, MA 01867
Town of Reading
Board of Registrars
Town Hall - Hand Delivery to Clerk
Reading, MA 01867
Re: Written Objection to the Petition to force a Special Election on the Meals Tax
Question.
Douglass is a life long resident of Reading and Elaine has lived in Reading for 32
years. We have resided at 309 Pearl Street since 1984. We were present at the
April Town Meeting for the entire discussion on the Meals Tax and voted to support
this additional revenue mechanism for our Town. We object to moving forward
with this special election for the following reasons.
There is unanimous agreement among the town boards, including the
Financial Committee that the town has a significant revenue problem.
According to our Town Accountant the revenue shortfall will be -more severe
next year to the tune of $1.5 million dollars. This was made imminently clear
during the April Town Meeting discussion of this tax. Under these conditions,
any action that increases expenses or decreases revenue is unadvisable. This
special election will cost close to $19,000.00 in expenses and $37,500.00 in
revenue will be lost, due to a 3 month delay in the tax effective date. This is a
total loss to our Town of $56,500.00
■ This additional reduction to our current and FY11 budgets is unconscionable
considering the cuts in our school's staff and curriculum, and the sacrifice
that all municipal and school non- represented staff have voluntarily accepted
a 0% increase for FYI I.
■ Based on the voter turn out of the of the last three local only elections; 14 %,
12%,7%, the probability of securing a voter turnout of 20% for a valid result
this June is 0% (Zero percent).
■ We disagree with the Secretary of State's Office and our Town Counsel's
liberal interpretation of the language inconsistency of the petitions.
■ On March 23, 2010,1 (Elaine Webb) listened to Representative Brad Jones;
respond to a question by Deanna Castro, of North Reading. The group from
North Reading was petitioning Brad not to cut local aid. When.Brad
indicated that the cuts would likely come to fruition, they asked how they as
a community could help him. In his answer, Brad indicated that one thing his
communities could do was take advantage of the power that he fthe
Legislaturel gave them and pass the meals tax. At that time N. Reading has
passed it, but it had narrowly failed in Reading at November Town Meeting.
■ Lastly, we understand fully that families are struggling in our community.
This is a tax that will only apply when individuals and families feel that they
have the resources to eat out. If they feel that they cannot or do not want to
pay the additional $.75 on a $100.00 bill, they can choose to prepare a meal
at home.
With the utmost concern for our community, we strongly urge you to consider the
unequivocal decision of our elected Town Meeting to stand as voted, with the .75%
(3/4 percent) meals tax approved.. These are dire economic times and we cannot
squander $56,500.00 dollars knowing that there is zero probability of securing an
election turnout that would yield a valid result.
A timely example reflecting the severity of the economic realities we face; Brockton
implemented truly draconian cuts yesterday, eliminating 36% of their teachers. WBZ, May 13,
2010, "Malone explained 430 teachers were laid off in an effort to address .a $977,750 budget
gap. He said the district has 1200 teachers."
Res ec ully,
Goo Q
Elaine . Webb
Douglass E. Webb
J
M.U.L. - Chapter 55b, Section 7
The Gen_eral. Laws of Massachusetts
Search the Laws_
Page 1 of 1
Go To:
Next Sec ion
Previous Section
PART (.''ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT Cite e Table of Contents
MGL Search Paae
General Court Home
TITLE VIII. ELECTIONS ass
CHAPTER 55B. THE STATE BALLOT LAW COMMISSION
Chapter 55B: Section 7. Objections; city and town offices
Section 7. Objections to certificates of nomination, nomination papers, or withdrawals for city offices, or to
petitions for local ballot questions shall be filed with the city clerk within two working days of the last day
fixed for filing such nomination papers, withdrawals, or petitions, or of the day on which certification of the
names on a petition must be completed, whichever is later, except where city charters provide otherwise.
Objections to certificates of nomination, nomination papers or withdrawals for town offices, or to petitions
for local ballot questions, shall be filed with the town clerk within two working days of the last day fixed for
filing such nomination papers, withdrawals, or petitions, or of the day on which certification of the names on
a petition must be completed, whichever is later, except where town charters provide otherwise.
Objections filed with the city or town clerk shall forthwith be transmitted by him to the board authorized to
hear such objections as provided under this section.
Objections in cities, except in the city of Boston, shall be considered by the board of registrars of voters and
the city solicitor: Objections in towns shall be considered by the board of registrars of voters. Boards in cities
and towns may, at hearings on such objections, summon witnesses, administer oaths and require the
production of books, records and papers. Such witnesses shall be summoned in the same manner, be paid the,
same.fees, and be subject to the same penalties for default, as witnesses in civil cases beforc the courts. A
summons may be signed, and an oath may be. administered by any member of such board.
When such objection has been filed, notice thereof shall be sent forthwith by registered or certified mail,
return receipt requested, by the city or town clerk'to the candidates affected thereby, addressed to their
residences as given in the certificate of nomination or nomination papers, and to any party committee
interested in the nomination to which such objection has been made; or in the .case of local ballot questions
to the first five names appearing on the petition or any other persons designated as sponsors.of the petition. If
more candidates bearing the same designation are nominated for an office, otherwise than by nomination
papers, than are to be elected thereto, such boards shall determine the candidates, if any, entitled to such
designation. Such boards shall render a decision on any matter referred to them, pertaining to certificates of
nomination or nomination papers or to petitions for local ballot questions for any regular or special city or
town primaries or any regular or special city or town election, or to withdrawals of nomination therefor, not
later than four days after the last day fixed for filing objections to such certificates, papers, petitions, or
withdrawals, as the case may be, under this chapter. But such decision need not be rendered until fourteen
days after the last day fixed for filing objections to a petition, if the timing of such decision will not thereby
prevent the question from qualifying for the ballot not later than thirty days before any previously scheduled
election at which the question could appear. In the event that any such board fails to render within the'
aforesaid period its decision on any matter so referred, the city or town clerk shall, notwithstanding such
failure, proceed forthwith to cause to be printed the ballots for such primaries or elections.
http: / /www. mass .gov /legis /laws /mgl /55b -7.htm 5/13/2 0
M.U.L. - Chapter 54, Section 42c
The General Laves of Massachusetts
Search the Law
PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VIII. ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 54. ELECTIONS
PREPARATION AND FORM OF BALLOTS
Chapter 54: Section 42C. Deadline for ballot questions
Page 1 of 1,
Go To:
Next Section
Previous Section
Chapter Table of Contents
MGL Search Pape
General Court Home
Mass. ov
Section 42C. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law to the contrary establishing a
later time, the state secretary shall not print on the biennial state election ballot any question to the
voters for which he receives final written notice after the sixtieth day before said election.
Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law to the contrary establishing a later time, a
city or town clerk shall not print on a city or town election ballot any question to the voters for which he
receives final written notice after the thirty -fifth day before such election.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/54-42c.htm
6)
5/10/2010