Residency put to rest
Published on October 23rd, 2002
STONEHAM, MA - A pair of candidates for four vacancies at the Stoneham Fire Department were caught in the middle of an “Are they, or aren’t they” brouhaha this week.
Melissa Painter and Stephen Purcell both had their Stoneham residency called into question after a cursory investigation, and the spread of rumors through the corridors of Stoneham Town Hall that out-of-towners were being named Stoneham firefighters. The pair were part of four candidates named to fill the positions opened by the four firefighters opting for the state’s early retirement incentive program.
According to published reports, Painter had paid excise taxes from a Saugus residence and Purcell was on the City of Woburn street listing throughout his residency in Stoneham.
An emergency meeting of the Board of Selectmen was scheduled last week after several Selectmen openly questioned Painter and Purcell’s residency prior to the public disclosure of their identities.
“My only concern is that Stoneham people get the Stoneham jobs,” said Ciccarello in keeping with his mantra of hometown preference. “We requested a list of Stoneham residents from the Civil Service, and that’s what we expected to get.”
According to a Stoneham town bylaw referencing Police and Fire Department residency, “Any person appointed to the regular Police or Fire Department of the Town shall be a resident of the town when appointed, and shall remain a resident for one year after the appointment.”
In order to qualify for the list of Stoneham candidates as part of the requested “residency preference”, each applicant had to prove their residence in Stoneham for 12 months prior to taking the Civil Service Exam.
Both Painter and Purcell, as well as Paul Doherty and Eric Burnat, provided documented proof to Civil Service officials of their Stoneham residence prior to the Apr, 27, 2000 test date.
“Does that bylaw mean that we have to live in Stoneham for our entire lives,” said the 25 year-old Painter. “I was born and raised in Stoneham, and I lived here for the first 24 years of my life.”
Painter pointed out that she sold her Saugus home several months ago, and wants to make plans to build a home in Stoneham.
Purcell and his wife Renee also came to the meeting armed with documentation cementing their status as, at the very least, very recent residents of Stoneham. The couple provided cancelled rent checks for a Stoneham apartment from March 1998 through November 2000, and are also listed in the 2001 Stoneham phone book at a Marble Street address.
According to Stoneham Fire Chief Lawrence Lamey, both candidates proved their residency to the department and to the Civil Service.
“I told them during the interviews in early October that they couldn’t even be considered unless they were Stoneham residents,” said Lamey. “I received notarized documentation from both that they were living at Stoneham addresses.”
According to Lamey, all four candidates still have to undergo Civil Service psychological exams as well as physical and agility tests, and it could be weeks before their respective appointments.
The letter of the bylaw requires that the firefighters are living in Stoneham at the time of their appointments.
“It’s becoming an increasing problem, and something that Stoneham is going to have to look at,” said Lamey of the residency requirement. “Families living on the firefighter salary can’t afford to live in a town with property values like Stoneham. Many of them move to places like Dedham, Quincy and Tewksbury, and anywhere else within 15 miles with cheaper real estate prices.”
According to Lamey, only one of the last ten appointed firefighters has remained in Stoneham after their initial year in the department.
The Selectmen called the emergency meeting to qualify within the seven day window open to them to challenge Town Administrator Dave Berry’s candidates. Ciccarello made a motion to reject Painter and Purcell based on their residency questions, and the conflict between Stoneham’s bylaw and Civil Service requirements.
Ciccarello’s motion was defeated as both Selectman Bob Sweeney and Selectman Mary Pecoraro voted against rejecting Painter and Purcell.
“We see this at almost every Selectmen meeting, where it seems like the department heads drop the ball, and other people have to pay the price,” said Sweeney. “It shouldn’t have ever reached this point, but I’m not going to pull the rug out from under these two people because we messed up again.”
Ryan Mahoney, a Governors Road resident and a candidate not chosen for one of the vacant spots, had helped stoke the fires of the inquiry process, and planned to appeal to the Civil Service.
“I’m going to keep on trying,” said Mahoney after the Selectmen voted against rejecting Painter or Purcell. “As long as they were residents of Stoneham and they have proof to back it up, then I have no problem with the decision.”
“I was just a little confused about the bylaw and the whole situation, and things seem a whole lot clearer now,” added Mahoney.
Town Counsel William Solomon had cautioned the Selectmen against rejecting the Civil Service candidates, and opening a can of worms by “challenging a Civil Service decision.”
Solomon warned that Civil Service state statutes could, by way of reasonable argument, overrule Stoneham’s hometown bylaw, and the appeals process could result in a finding that the residency bylaw is in direct conflict with the Civil Service process. Solomon advised against challenging the Civil Service and their process of screening candidates.
The Selectmen directed Solomon to ask for an opinion about the conflict between Civil Service findings and the Stoneham residency bylaw.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!