State: Nahant special election within rules

NAHANT – It’s bizarre and confusing, according to state and local officials, but the Board of Selectman’s decision to revisit the $260,000 override proposal in a special election is legal.”As far as state election law goes, on the question of taking it back to the voters for another try, there’s nothing against that,” said Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Secretary of State William F. Galvin’s office.”There are no local laws against it,” said Town Counsel Charles Riley.School officials proposed the override to fill a shortfall due to a $113,000 reduction in state and federal funds coupled with a dramatic increase in special-education costs. According to the School Department’s 2012 proposed budget, 21 line items – including everything from funds to pay substitute teachers and offer art, music and physical education classes to health supplies in the nurse’s office – would be eliminated in order to meet minimum state requirements if the override failed.Town officials aligned in favor of the override, with the School Committee, Finance Committee, Town Administrator Mark Cullinan and the Board of Selectmen all recommending its passage. The Town Meeting on April 30 passed the measure 184 to 43.But leading up to Town Meeting, citizens repeatedly questioned the override’s cost. The override would add approximately $189 or $3.50 per week to the average tax bill, according to numbers from Town Accountant Deborah Waters and based on a median home valuation of $540,000.Town Meeting attendees even asked whether money to fund the schools could be diverted from the 2012 budget as well as Community Preservation Funds in debating those respective measures. (These attempts were ruled out of order, however, according to Town Meeting procedure and Massachusetts General Law by Town Moderator David Conlin as well as Riley). Voters at the town election held on the same day rejected the measure by a 417 to 365 vote.But, at their May 5 meeting, Nahant Selectmen voted 2-1 to honor a petition request and reconsider the override at a special election on June 25, citing “discrepancy” and “confusion” about the mixed results on April 30.Town counsel, the State Elections Board and the Department of Revenue, Local Services Division (which keeps records on override proposals) all agree that the Selectmen have the unique ability to call an election.”The petition is more to show support (for the special election), it’s not required,” explained Cullinan after the May 5 meeting.But the mixed results of the Town Meeting and the election held on the same day and the underlying question of whether Selectmen can call an election whenever they want makes the issue”bizarre,” as Department of Revenue Director of Communications Bob Bliss wrote in an email.”I’ve been answering questions for years and never had a question like this,” Bliss said. “Usually in towns that have Town Meetings, that’s it, an election that goes against it is rare” because they usually hold one before the other.McNiff added that state law is “silent” on whether you can go back to voters on an override proposal and also as to how many times you can go back to a ballot question.Riley said that the calendar presented the only limit to how often Selectmen could call an election. Town Clerk Peggy Barile confirmed that there is a minimum of 35 days between the time she receives the question and the election is held, in order to hold a voter registration and post the warrant according to state statute.According to Cullinan, he could not remember ever having a similar scenario. “I don’t think we’ve had a request for a revocation of a referendum since I’ve been here (since 1995),” he said after the Selectmen’s meeting. But he noted that American citizens had a long history of changing their mind about elections. In fact, he said that he believed that recall referendums in America originated in Massachusetts.