GORHAM – After learning that the Office of Maine Attorney General has been asked to launch an investigation, the Gorham Town Council on Tuesday tabled action to send a town document for forensic testing to verify its authenticity.

At issue is whether the town’s paperwork associated with a 12-year-old eminent-domain case, is authentic. The matter sparked debate in Tuesday’s Town Council meeting.

The matter stems from a civil lawsuit recently settled through mediation in which two Gorham landowners, Paul Smith and Patrick and Susan Smith, recovered their property on Phinney Street Extension. The town had seized the property by eminent domain in 2002 for use as a public road.

In court documents, the Smiths alleged the town didn’t file a so-called certificate of taking with the Registry of Deeds until 2012. A handwriting expert hired by the Smiths also raised the question of the authenticity of the town clerk’s signature on the certificate.

On Tuesday, Town Councilor Benjamin Hartwell sponsored an agenda item to send the certificate to a forensic lab for verification. Hartwell wants the ink tested and said the lab could verify whether the certificate was created in 2002 or 2012.

“The testing can put an end to this,” Hartwell said in Tuesday’s Town Council meeting.

Resident Bernard Broder, a criminal defense lawyer who lives on Phinney Street, spoke on Tuesday from the public podium as a resident. Broder told the Town Council he had reviewed the lawsuit files in Cumberland County Superior Court on Tuesday.

Broder said his opinion is there may have been criminal conduct involved. Broder said he contacted the Office of the Maine Attorney General also on Tuesday and asked for an investigation.

“I requested they look at it,” Broder said.

Tim Feeley, a spokesman for the attorney general, could not be reached for comment by the American Journal’s deadline on Wednesday.

The Town Council, Broder said in Tuesday’s Town Council meeting, should “take the reins on this matter,” and, Broder warned, “The documents better not disappear.”

Tuesday’s debate in the council meeting on the certificate’s authenticity included arguing between an upset resident, Hans Hansen, and Town Council Chairman Michael Phinney.

Hansen, who read from and waved last week’s issue of the American Journal with a story about the certificate of taking, said his daughter and son-law, Susan and Patrick Smith, were involved in the lawsuit against the town and had spent thousands of dollars.

“We are not debating merits of the case,” Phinney said.

The matter before the Town Council on Tuesday only involved whether the council should send the certificate to a lab for verification and whether to appropriate up to $2,500 to cover testing costs.

Hansen urged the Town Council to take action on forensic testing.

“The council should put it to bed,” Hansen said. “Take it to an expert.”

At one point during the public comments, a former town councilor and chairman, Phil Gagnon, advised the Town Council to halt comments.

“I would recommend to you to stop commenting,” Gagnon said.

Town Council Vice Chairman Shonn Moulton recommended postponing the council’s verification action.

“I say wait to see what the attorney general says,” Moulton said.

However, Town Councilor Suzanne Phillips favored a forensic lab analyzing the certificate. “I owe it to the taxpayers to find out,” Phillips said about authenticity.

The Town Council delayed action in a 4-3 vote with Hartwell, Matthew Robinson and Phillips opposed to postponing. Robinson said before the vote he did not support sending the document out for testing.

Hartwell said on Wednesday he’s disappointed that the Town Council tabled the matter. “It’s unfortunate because it has the potential to resolve this quickly,” Hartwell said,

After Tuesday’s meeting, Broder said he had talked earlier Tuesday with Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner and said he plans to confer with Gardiner again next week.

Hartwell said on Wednesday that he had also contacted Gardiner and believes the attorney general’s office is interested in investigating the matter.

In other action, the Town Council voted 4-3 (Moulton, Phillips and Hartwell opposed) to ask voters in a November referendum to approve a charter change defining what constitutes “moral turpitude” to include drunk driving.

Now the term is undefined in Gorham’s charter. A public hearing on the referendum question is set for Sept. 2.

The Town Council’s action came after the board rejected defining “moral turpitude” in its rules. Resident Ken Curtis advocated voters deciding at the polls and not take up council time. Curtis suggested leaving personal issues outside the Town Council chambers.

Robinson supported both agenda items dealing with defining the “moral turpitude” term.

“We got elected to uphold the law,” Robinson said.

The Town Council unanimously enacted a town ordinance to provide residents with a procedure to recall elected municipal officials, excepting school board members. Phinney said state law does not allow including School Committee members in the ordinance.

The ordinance goes into effect immediately.

Gagnon viewed recall as a tool for political assassinations and opposed the measure.

“We’re not trying to make this political,” Town Councilor Bruce Roullard said.