Council members question mayor’s actions

PROSPECT — The actions of Mayor Robert Chatfield leading up to Election Day did not sit well with several Town Council members.

There were five Charter revision questions on the ballot Nov. 8. As Election Day approached, Chatfield urged voters to reject all five questions in local media and was part of a small group that paid for signs that encouraged “No” votes on each question.

All five questions were soundly rejected by voters.

Council Chairman Tom Galvin and council members Carla Perugini-Erickson and Patricia Geary felt Chatfield overstepped his bounds as mayor and made their feelings known at the council’s Nov. 15 meeting.

“I think your role as mayor, as leader, should have been to encourage people to read the language of the Charter revision changes,” Perugini-Erickson told Chatfield.

The most contentious proposed change throughout the Charter revision process, which was the first time officials reviewed the Charter for possible changes since 2000, was making the town clerk, town treasurer and tax collector appointed rather than elected positions.

While that issue was the most discussed during public hearings, there were a variety of other revisions proposed. They included changing financial procedures in town, revising the definition of conflict of interest to include personal interests, and removing a requirement that employees hired or appointed to town positions have to be residents. The current Charter has that requirement in it, even though some positions aren’t filled with town residents.

Geary said other than the elected versus appointed issue, which she added many on council didn’t agree with but let it got to the voters to decide, Chatfield gave no induction that he would urge voters to reject them all. She said has far as the council knew, the only contentious question was the one that dealt with the town clerk, town treasurer and tax collector positions.

“Then to come out and urge people to vote against them all, I felt was basically irresponsible because that opinion had not been expressed to the [Charter Revision Commission] that worked so hard and long on it,” she said.

Chatfield read a prepared statement in response to what he called “accusations” that he waited until the 11^th hour and used his power as mayor to come out against the revisions.

He said his opposition to the changes was not a “final-hour decision.” He said he gave his opinions to the commission throughout the process and during public hearings.

“As mayor, my first concern is the bottom line while making sure the welfare of the residents is protected,” Chatfield said.

As Election Day approached, Chatfield said he heard from residents who said they didn’t understand what was being voted on. He said information provided on the revisions was not clear and complete.

“As with any decision in town, I exercised my right to let the voters know where I stand on the issue,” Chatfield said.

The three council members said Chatfield should have known that his opinion carries a lot of weight with voters.

Galvin, who served on the commission, described it as “an abuse of power.” He added that he didn’t understand why anyone would want to vote against measures that strengthen the town’s financial practices and conflict of interest definition.

“To vote against those things, I have no taste for at all,” Galvin said.