Selectmen won't recognize Berry sponsored Article
Published on June 11th, 2003
STONEHAM, MA - Stoneham residents can now make plans for the evening of June 25 because there isn't going to be a Special Town Meeting.
With members of the audience tossing out words like "shame", "sabotage" and a "political slap in the face", the Board of Selectmen voted not to accept a Warrant Article to rescind a Special Town Meeting Article eliminating a Town Meeting approved raise for Town Meeting moderator Mike Rotondi.
With the unfavorable vote on accepting an article sponsored by their department head, Town Administrator Dave Berry, the June Special Town Meeting was effectively squashed.
"I feel like this was a political slap in the face," said Stoneham resident Edie Previdi, one of the two residents, along with Terri Ghannam, who first brought the Special Town Meeting idea before the Selectmen last week. "I feel like we brought this to you (the Selectmen) to be our leaders, and you've let us down."
'The people who voted you into office deserve to be heard, and I don't feel like we're being heard," said PrevidI. "We are your constituency."
The move was a stunning departure from standard Board of Selectmen policy in which Selectmen customarily accept articles submitted by town officials and boards, and then vote favorably or unfavorably on each article.
"Just because it's legal doesn't make it right," said Town Counsel Bill Solomon when answering a question about the legality of not accepting an article. "As a matter of law, you don't have to accept the warrant articles, but the board has always accepted articles submitted by town boards or department heads."
Selectmen Bob Sweeney and Charlie Smith both voted unfavorably to accept Article 2 for the Special Town Meeting warrant. Selectmen Tony Kennedy and Cosmo Ciccarello voted in favor of the Special Town Meeting Warrant Article, and Mary Pecoraro missed the meeting due to personal reasons.
"I understand and respect the need of those who feel they need to rescind their vote because they cast their vote without all the facts presented," said Selectman Charlie Smith. "But based on information I received from the state agency PERAC, Mr. Rotondi qualifies for a pension without the $5 increase in salary."
According to Solomon, the letter from PERAC doesn't automatically trump the local retirement entity.
"Ultimately, it is the Retirement Board and their Attorney who make the decision about pension membership," said Solomon. "
If the committee denied Rotondi membership and he felt he had been wronged, according to Solomon, he could then appeal the decision up to the State Supreme Court.
According to Town Clerk John Hanright, a Special Town Meeting would have cost a minimum of $700 with potential extra costs for police and fire detail shifts.
"I think even a little amount of money that goes toward this meeting could be funneled toward laid-off crossing guards and a fifth grade music program that was cut," said Smith.
In essence the selectmen voted to wipe out their 3-1 vote to call a Special Town Meeting the week prior.
"Whether it's the Town Administrator or us sponsoring the article, we're essentially voting against ourselves," said Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello. "It's wrong and I don't agree with it."
To further the tangled web, selectmen first voted to accept a Warrant article to discuss leasing high school space to the Cable Access Corporation for their cable studio. Then, after they voted down the Rotondi article, they voted to reconsider their favorable vote and voted unfavorably to accept the School Committee-sponsored article.
The vote came after a lengthy recess where Town Counsel Bill Solomon contacted Cheryl Walsh, and gauged her opinion on rejecting the article.
The move constituted a striking departure from the Board of Selectmen's customary policy. The policy, as written, advises the Board of Selectmen to accept for the Town Meeting Warrant any and all articles sponsored by elected boards, appointed board and town officials.
"What happened tonight totally flies in the face of a Board of Selectmen policy that I worked very hard to create," said selectman Cosmo Ciccarello. "My feeling is you accept the articles, and then you vote the following week on whether you are in favor of the article. This article was submitted by the department head of the Board of Selectmen. (Berry)"
Article 2 once again spurned an overabundance of debate as arguments were re-hashed from the prior week's meeting.
Rotondi argued that the Special Town Meeting was setting a dangerous precedent for future town meetings.
"It was an unfortunate series of events that led to a simple misunderstanding," said Rotondi of the $5 transfer. "I think to have an entire town meeting because people felt like they didn't get all of the facts, or felt like they were wronged, is a dangerous precedent."
Rotondi also had several vociferous supporters who dropped veiled accusations that some Selectmen may have used "slander" and "libel" to sully the Town Meeting moderator's name
Stoneham resident Carol Feke angled for the Selectmen to postpone the meeting at several different points in the meeting, to no avail.
"I think many people on this issue have been speaking about things they don't have full knowledge of, people aren't waiting for their turn to speak," said Feke. "The atmosphere around this issue has created a prejudiced town gathering for the hearing, and I think it's time for other people to speak up."
Previdi and Ghannam, along with several other residents, repeated their chorus of concern over the integrity of Stoneham.
"It's not about the money or the pension; if Mr. Rotondi deserves a pension then that's great and he should get it," said Ghannam.
"We feel like we were deceived at Town Meeting, and we simply continue to want t rescind our vote," added Previdi. "We feel like the integrity has been robbed from Town Meeting."
"I think this happened (not accepting the article) because the Selectmen were feeling a little guilt," said Previdi. "This transfer kind of slipped right by them at Town Meeting."
Both women had collected 100 resident signatures as an insurance measure to assure the Town Meeting, but the wording of their petition was both a call for Special Town Meeting and also Article-type terminology for the rescinding of the $5.
According to Solomon, they needed 200 signatures to specifically call for a Special Town Meeting, and didn't have a properly worded warrant article to submit with their 100 signatures.
"I feel in my heart that we should go to a city form of government because that's already the way it's running around here," said Previdi. "It a city form of government that's ignoring the people."
Smith argued that the decision was an issue of logic and funding rather than one of emotion and passion.
"There's a lot of emotion in the room tonight and I can understand it," said Smith. "But I don't think a Special Town Meeting is going to restore your trust in Town Meeting or in Mr. Rotondi."
"I'm sure in retrospect, Mr. Rotondi would agree he should not have requested this increase in salary to circumvent the decision of the retirement board," added Smith.
The Selectmen had scheduled a hearing to discuss their recommendation for Article 2 at next week's meeting, but that, along with the entire Town Meeting, is now out the window.
"You can talk about procedure, practice, bylaw, code, policy," said resident John DeGeorge, who plans to craft an Article for Town Meeting dealing with the timing and procedure of the Warrant. "The town government of Stoneham is in a shambles after tonight."
The Town Meeting Warrant Article that may never see the light of day is as follows:
Article 2. To see if the Town will vote to revise the salary of the Town Moderator, voted pursuant to Article 4 of the May 5, 2003 Annual Town Meeting, by reducing said salary from $205 to $200, and further adding said $5 to the operating budget of the Town Moderator.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!