---

There won’t be a vote this fall after the Westbrook City Council pushes a decision to 2015

---

WESTBROOK – A citywide referendum on whether Westbrook should have a process for recalling elected officials will not take place this November.

The Westbrook City Council voted unanimously Monday to table any action on a recall amendment until January 2015, citing the need for more time to decide on the details of such a change to the city charter.

The City Council’s Committee of the Whole began looking at the process after Westbrook resident and radio talk show host, Ray Richardson, called on the council to discuss implementing a recall provision in April.

Richardson had publicly called for School Committee member Suzanne Joyce to resign following controversy in the school department last year. Coming to the council, Richardson said a recall provision would be an important tool for Westbrook residents.

Any such ordinance requires an amendment to the Westbrook city charter, a change that also requires a citywide referendum. The council was scheduled to hold a second reading on the provision next week, in order for the item to be placed on absentee ballots one month prior to the election. With the council’s decision Monday, no such referendum will appear on the ballot on Nov. 4.

“I’m extremely disappointed that the council kicked this can down the road,” Richardson said Tuesday. “They had plenty of time.”

Richardson added that he agreed with city officials that discussion on the provision should wait until the “political winds cooled down,” but that the council ended up “dragging their heels.”

“By not showing appropriate leadership, this didn’t get to the council so that a rational discussion could occur,” he said. “This process should have started in July, and they waited.”

Councilors discussed specific numbers included in the amendment language, including the number of petitioners and percentage of Westbrook voters required to sign any recall petition. Also discussed was adding a separate amendment for an elected official code of conduct.

During a public hearing on the provision Monday, Westbrook resident Aaron Burns, who is also an attorney, said that he supports a recall process, but feels that it should be difficult to achieve.

“Westbrook officials must be accountable to the people, but must not be micromanaged by them,” he said. “Elected officials must be free to present their body of work to the electorate to be judged, but not thrown out on their ear by a recall if they make an unpopular decision.”

The original proposed recall provision, drafted by city attorney Natalie Burns, stipulated that a recall petition must be initiated by five or more registered voters in Westbrook, and must be signed by 10 percent of the number of registered voters at the time of the previous gubernatorial election. This mirrors the citizen petition process already in the City Charter.

However, the committee voted 4-3 in late August in support of raising those numbers to require 25 signatures to initiate a process, and 25 percent of the registered voters from the last municipal election to support the recall. In the case of a ward official elected by the voters in that specific ward, a recall would require 25 percent of the voters in that ward who voted in the last municipal election.

During discussion Monday, councilors spoke about the need for more time to define these specific numbers, especially whether signature numbers would be defined by gubernatorial or municipal elections.

Richardson said Tuesday that the number of signatures required should be based on numbers from the last mayoral election, not gubernatorial.

Jim Garland, another Westbrook resident, told the council Monday that he also believes the city should look at implementing an amendment to define a certain code of conduct for elected officials.

“Those would go hand in hand in my eyes,” he said.

Burns said that would require a separate amendment to be voted on by the public.

“Unfortunately, we’re here at the midnight hour to consider these items in time to be on this coming November election,” Councilor Michael Foley said at the meeting, adding that he was disappointed that there were not more residents present to speak on the issue, including Richardson himself.

“If I thought there was any way they weren’t going to put it on the ballot, I would’ve gotten down there,” Richardson said Tuesday. “I didn’t realize I had to babysit this process.”

Councilors Paul Emery and Gary Rairdon, as well as City Administrator Jerre Bryant, were also absent from the meeting. Emery is the chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

“I honestly feel we have a lot of work to do on this,” said Councilor Victor Chau Monday. “We’re here rushing to get this ordinance finalized, and it feels like we’re just throwing words on the board and seeing what sticks. This is really important, and we really need time to think about this.”

Councilor John O’Hara said that whenever the city takes up an amendment for the city charter, officials should be “thorough and meticulous,” citing the charter commission in 2012 that made multiple changes and additions to city ordinances.

“I don’t know if that’s taking place right now, being that we’ve probably had a total of 75 minutes discussing this item,” he said. “It’s a significant item, and we really only have one bullet to fire to get it right.”

Councilor Mike Sanphy said that while the provision is a “very important tool that needs to go on the ballot,” the council needs to take a look and “do it the right way.”

“I don’t want to see it halfway done and have to come back and revisit it,” he said.

The council will schedule an informal council workshop to discuss the provision sometime this fall.