Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:17 PM EDT
Mageau questions recall amendment to charter
 Town Council Acting President James Mageau says proposed recall amendment to charter probably doesn’t pass constitutional
muster. |
Embattled Town Council Acting President James Mageau said again last night that, in his opinion, a proposed recall amendment to the town charter, which provides a process for citizens to oust an elected offical from office, probably doesn’t pass constitutional muster and he is seeing an attorney this week to see what he can do about it.
The amendment, one of eight which voters will be asked to decide on Nov. 4, states that an elected official is automatically subject to removal from office if he or she pleads guilty or nolo contendre to a felony. Noting that state law already mandates ouster in this instance, Mageau said he didn’t see the need for the charter to be amended to that end. Mageau made his comments during a sparsely attended public hearing on the proposed amendments at Town Hall. It was then pointed out to the council president that the amendment also provides citizens with a procedure to remove an elected official even if there is no felony conviction.
“It doesn’t have to be a willfull violation,’’ said Deborah Carney, chairwoman of the Charter Revision Commission.
More specifically, the new provision states that any five qualified voters can commence recall proceedings, but not during the first four months or the last six months of an incumbent’s term and not within six months of any general election.
“I have a problem with it,’’ said Mageau, adding that he didn’t think it was right that “John Q Public’’ be able to initiate recall proceedings and “there doesn’t have to be a reason.’’
After the hearing, Mageau said he has an appointment with an attorney this week to discuss his concerns about the amendment, adding that he thinks it’s too vague to be constitutional.
But Carney said during the hearing that the language of the amendment had already been reviewed by Town Solicitor Robert Craven and had been accepted by the Secretary of State’s office to be put on the ballot. When Mageau said he had problems with it, Carney responded by saying, “That’s fine Jim. That’s fine.’’
Indeed, last night’s hearing was a bit strange since it had already been decided that the proposed revisions would be on the ballot. In this sense, its purpose was more educational in nature than anything else. But the law required the Council to have the hearing, which was attended by about 10 people.
Regarding the recall provision, council member Katharine Waterman said her only problem with it is that, under the new procedure, it can take almost nine months to remove someone from office. At the same time, she appreciates the fact that the process couldn’t be made too quick or too easy, she said.
“We wanted to make it difficult, but not impossible,’’ Carney said.
Taken together, the eight ballot questions tighten and change the Charlestown Home Rule Charter in a number of ways, from granting voting rights to alternate members of the Planning Commission to calling for a stricter definition of ethics. These eight were approved by the Town Council out of 13 originally recommended by the Charter Revision Committee. Mageau last night expressed his concerns about two other questions, in addition to the recall provision. Noting that question six calls for updating “the language for the Charlestown School Committee,’’ among other things, the council president said, “we don’t have a Charlestown School Committee.’’
“This is just causing a lot of confusion,’’ Mageau said.
In response, Carney and others said the charter makes mention of a Charlestown School Committee now and all the proposed revision does is tweak the language to indicate that while there is no such committee now, there may be one in the future.
“The wording change is absolutely perfect,’’ said council member Harriet Allen.
Finally, Mageau said he was concerned that a proposed amendment giving the top vote getter in a council election the opportunity to become council president conflicts with an existing charter provision that enables the council to reorganize itself, and choose a new president, after a year. Won’t the person elected president after the election object in a year’s time to maybe losing his or her position, he asked.
“I bet you that happens,’’ Mageau said.
But Waterman and Allen said there’s no conflict between the provisions. If voters are confused, they can review the proposed amendments online by logging onto the town’s website or picking up a copy of the proposed revisions at Town Hall or the library, they said. The following eight questions will be on the ballot Nov. 4:
• Shall the Charter be amended to provide a procedure for recall of elected officials?
• Shall the Charter be amended to grant alternate members of the Planning Commission voting rights?
• Shall the Charter by amended to change the duties of the Director of Public Assistance?
• Shall the Charter be amended to change the Director of Civil Preparedness to the Director of Emergency Management?
• Shall the Charter be amended to allow the updating of the process for the Budget Public Hearing/Financial Referendum and also allow for the purchasing requirements that reflect today’s dollar?
• Shall the Charter be amended to allow voting rights to alternates of the Commission of Tax Assessment Review, update the language for the Charlestown School Committee, address the age discrimination issue for the Senior Citizen Commission, and update the procedure for annual reports filed by the town’s committees, boards, and commissions?
• Shall the Charter be amended to follow Rhode Island Election Law ballot format and allow a provision for right-of-first-refusal for Council Presidency for the top vote getter?
• Shall the Charter be amended to provide more strict language regarding ethics, than what currently exists?
Click here for explanations of each of these questions.
The amendment, one of eight which voters will be asked to decide on Nov. 4, states that an elected official is automatically subject to removal from office if he or she pleads guilty or nolo contendre to a felony. Noting that state law already mandates ouster in this instance, Mageau said he didn’t see the need for the charter to be amended to that end. Mageau made his comments during a sparsely attended public hearing on the proposed amendments at Town Hall. It was then pointed out to the council president that the amendment also provides citizens with a procedure to remove an elected official even if there is no felony conviction.
“It doesn’t have to be a willfull violation,’’ said Deborah Carney, chairwoman of the Charter Revision Commission.
More specifically, the new provision states that any five qualified voters can commence recall proceedings, but not during the first four months or the last six months of an incumbent’s term and not within six months of any general election.
“I have a problem with it,’’ said Mageau, adding that he didn’t think it was right that “John Q Public’’ be able to initiate recall proceedings and “there doesn’t have to be a reason.’’
After the hearing, Mageau said he has an appointment with an attorney this week to discuss his concerns about the amendment, adding that he thinks it’s too vague to be constitutional.
But Carney said during the hearing that the language of the amendment had already been reviewed by Town Solicitor Robert Craven and had been accepted by the Secretary of State’s office to be put on the ballot. When Mageau said he had problems with it, Carney responded by saying, “That’s fine Jim. That’s fine.’’
Indeed, last night’s hearing was a bit strange since it had already been decided that the proposed revisions would be on the ballot. In this sense, its purpose was more educational in nature than anything else. But the law required the Council to have the hearing, which was attended by about 10 people.
Regarding the recall provision, council member Katharine Waterman said her only problem with it is that, under the new procedure, it can take almost nine months to remove someone from office. At the same time, she appreciates the fact that the process couldn’t be made too quick or too easy, she said.
“We wanted to make it difficult, but not impossible,’’ Carney said.
Taken together, the eight ballot questions tighten and change the Charlestown Home Rule Charter in a number of ways, from granting voting rights to alternate members of the Planning Commission to calling for a stricter definition of ethics. These eight were approved by the Town Council out of 13 originally recommended by the Charter Revision Committee. Mageau last night expressed his concerns about two other questions, in addition to the recall provision. Noting that question six calls for updating “the language for the Charlestown School Committee,’’ among other things, the council president said, “we don’t have a Charlestown School Committee.’’
“This is just causing a lot of confusion,’’ Mageau said.
In response, Carney and others said the charter makes mention of a Charlestown School Committee now and all the proposed revision does is tweak the language to indicate that while there is no such committee now, there may be one in the future.
“The wording change is absolutely perfect,’’ said council member Harriet Allen.
Finally, Mageau said he was concerned that a proposed amendment giving the top vote getter in a council election the opportunity to become council president conflicts with an existing charter provision that enables the council to reorganize itself, and choose a new president, after a year. Won’t the person elected president after the election object in a year’s time to maybe losing his or her position, he asked.
“I bet you that happens,’’ Mageau said.
But Waterman and Allen said there’s no conflict between the provisions. If voters are confused, they can review the proposed amendments online by logging onto the town’s website or picking up a copy of the proposed revisions at Town Hall or the library, they said. The following eight questions will be on the ballot Nov. 4:
• Shall the Charter be amended to provide a procedure for recall of elected officials?
• Shall the Charter be amended to grant alternate members of the Planning Commission voting rights?
• Shall the Charter by amended to change the duties of the Director of Public Assistance?
• Shall the Charter be amended to change the Director of Civil Preparedness to the Director of Emergency Management?
• Shall the Charter be amended to allow the updating of the process for the Budget Public Hearing/Financial Referendum and also allow for the purchasing requirements that reflect today’s dollar?
• Shall the Charter be amended to allow voting rights to alternates of the Commission of Tax Assessment Review, update the language for the Charlestown School Committee, address the age discrimination issue for the Senior Citizen Commission, and update the procedure for annual reports filed by the town’s committees, boards, and commissions?
• Shall the Charter be amended to follow Rhode Island Election Law ballot format and allow a provision for right-of-first-refusal for Council Presidency for the top vote getter?
• Shall the Charter be amended to provide more strict language regarding ethics, than what currently exists?
Click here for explanations of each of these questions.
Johnny F. wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:44 AM:
" Re: Kathy...RIGHT ON SISTER! "
Kathy Greene wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:44 AM:
" Re: billd...Jimmy's just following the rules and DOING HIS JOB!!! Maybe if you all got off of his case he could do a better job. He and his family have been life long residents of Charlestown! There's nobody better for the job than he. He has the best interest of the people and the town in mind. So I would suggest that you get off of your high horses and WAIT YOUR TURN TO BE THE TOWN'S HOT SHOT! "
Kathy wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:38 AM:
" He's just following the rules and playing the game. "
billd wrote on Aug 20, 2008 5:11 AM:
" Let me explain it to you Jim. The council wants you out of there as you have become an embarrassment and a bottleneck. Most council members want to progress and make Charleston a better place to live and end the Jim Mageau soap opera. Living proof that power corupts and absolute power corupts absolutly "
 | Share your thoughts.... Our TalkBack option has been updated to improve service to our viewers. Some comments made prior to March 26 may not be available for viewing outside of the archives section. Thank you for your patience during this update. TalkBack is an opportunity for viewers to exchange comments regarding online content. Comments are moderated. Please allow time for posting. Comments are not edited. They are either approved or they are not. Comments should be void of personal attacks, foul language, advertisements or impersonations. Please limit comments to 200 words or less. |