NEW GLOUCESTER — Selectboard members voted 4 to 1 Monday night against waiving signature requirements to allow a town charter question on the November ballot.
The New Gloucester Citizens for a Town Charter, in a letter signed by John Salisbury, had asked the board to waive the signature requirement because of coronavirus stay-at-home restrictions.
The group must secure 587 signatures before June 27 in order to ask voters in November whether they want to create a charter commission to revise the municipal charter or adopt a new one.
The group had secured 307 signatures by March 21, the letter said, and “at that time the petitioners believed they would be able to secure the required signatures should the issues with COVID-19 be resolved in a timely manner. This is no longer our view as the epidemiologist in our state government is advising otherwise.”
The group is concerned it will be unable to secure the required number of signatures by the June deadline.
Selectboard members Tammy Donovan, Karen Giles, George Colby and Linda Chase voted against taking any action to place the question on the November ballot. Joseph Davis voted in favor, saying that the group does not want to place anyone at risk in order to collect more signatures.
Chairman Linda Chase said the group was at the March elections and had an opportunity to gather signatures then and that the turnout was greater than 587 voters. She added they still have a number of weeks to gather the remaining signatures.
“My biggest thing is that (waiving the signature requirement) is against what people already voted on,” Chase said in a phone interview Wednesday.
In a follow-up phone interview on Wednesday, Davis said, “I don’t know how it would be against the voters because (the group is) bringing it to the voters.”
The Selectboard members who voted against the waiver cited the nearly two months left before the deadline and the fact that the question had previously failed. Salisbury and others, including former Selectboard member Stephen Hathorne, have been working on this issue since at least the summer of 2018. The question appeared on the June 2019 ballot and lost by only four votes, according to Salisbury’s letter.
Despite the close margin, opposing Selectboard members said that it still constituted a loss.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
