Selectboard rejects petition to reverse 2002 rec center vote

The Springfield Selectboard has unanimously rejected a citizen petition to add an article to the 2017 town meeting that would reverse a 2002 vote related to funding the Edgar May Health and Recreation Center and return those funds to the town.

www.eagletimes.com    

2016-12-29 / Front Page Print article Print Selectboard rejects petition to reverse 2002 rec center vote By TORY JONES toryb@eagletimes.com SPRINGFIELD — The Springfield Selectboard has unanimously rejected a citizen petition to add an article to the 2017 town meeting that would reverse a 2002 vote related to funding the Edgar May Health and Recreation Center and return those funds to the town. “The petitioner cannot, 14 years later, ask to rescind a vote that occurred,” or change an agreement that was the result of that vote, said Town Manager Tom Yennerell. The Vermont Supreme Court has said a selectboard can decline to put an article on a town meeting warning, “when you can’t do what is being asked,” town attorney Stephen Ankuda said on Tuesday, Dec. 27 at a regular selectboard meeting. “It’s too late,” said Ankuda. A petition circulated by Springfield resident Walter Clark asked that the selectboard place an article on the annual warrant that would allow voters to decide whether or not to “rescind the original vote of 10 September 2002 and the resulting agreement between the town of Springfield, Vermont and the Southern Vermont Recreation Center Foundation (SVRCF) with regards to the funds received from the state for hosting the correctional facility” in Springfield, and that the funds be returned to the town and used “as directed by a Citizen Committee appointed by the selectboard.” He cited a yearly loss in tax revenue for the town as a result of the vote as his reason for starting the petition. Petitions must be made within 30 days of a vote, Ankuda said. In 2002, not only was the vote not opposed within that time frame, but the town also entered into a signed contract because of that vote, he said. In theory, the selectboard could put the article on the warning, but it would have no effect because a petition cannot change a signed contract, he said. He recommended the selectboard reject the petition on the basis of both town charter rules and state law. Clark has been circulating the petition for several months. Rescinding that vote would allow the funds and the fund gains to be returned to the control of the town, he said. “Let the voters vote,” Clark said. Clark also cited Vermont state statute 17 VSA 2642, (3)(A), which states that a warning shall “contain any article or articles requested by a petition signed by at least five percent of the voters of the municipality and filed with the municipal clerk not less than 47 days before the day of the meeting,” and said it is at the board’s discretion to accept or reject articles. The petition has more than the required 400 signatures, or 5 percent of voters, according to Town Clerk Barbara Courschene. Clark said that the town has taken an approximate $25,000 loss in tax revenue each year, citing the center’s partnership with the nonprofit Springfield Medical Care Systems. Clark also said that the recreation center was “supposed to be a separate entity,” not intermingling with the hospital system. Two women in the audience, both Springfield residents, said that they each had signed the petition without reading it thoroughly. Both said they later learned more about the recreation center’s uses and the original vote, and now wish they could remove their names from that petition document. The selectboard was advised to reject the petition based on state law and case law, which states that a petition must “set forth a clear right which is within the province of the town meeting to grant or refuse through its vote.” “It’s time to put a stop to it,” said selectboard member George McNaughton. “There is a time when some things, you just let them die. It’s time for the constant attacks to stop.” McNaughton said that while he normally supports public petitions, “this issue has been beaten to death.” Selectboard member Peter MacGillivray said a “great many” people were involved in creating the facility, and that he has a November 2016 letter from Edgar May Center Director Christian Craig that documents community support. May was a “mover and shaker,” MacGillivray said. He also said he would not want to take any action that would jeopardize the use of the facility, and did not support putting the article on the ballot. In 2000, the SVRCF was created as a nonprofit organization with support of local residents and businesses who wanted to build a recreation center. Selectboard member Stephanie Thompson moved to acknowledge receipt of the petition with the appropriate amount of signatures, and to reject the inclusion of the petition on the warrant for the 2017 town meeting and vote, scheduled for March. The motion was approved unanimously. The next regular selectboard meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. Monday, Jan. 9. Two public hearings on amendments to the Town Charter are also scheduled in the coming months. A copy of the complete charter document will be available at www.springfieldvt.govoffice2.com, and in the town clerk’s office. Those hearings will take place at 6 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 30 and Monday, Feb. 6 at the municipal office meeting hall.