To be certain that facts are accurate on the topic of recalls and petitions and legal roles, let's recap:
*Two citizen petitions for recall were filed - 338 signatures to recall Selectman David Ivey, and 334 signatures to recall selectmen Troy Ripley - and were certified 11-24-09 by then Paris Town Clerk Anne Pastore;
*12-07-09, whether because of failure to agree on a date, or failure to look at a calendar, or disbelief in the deadline set in the recall ordinance for the town of Paris, selectmen refused to do their ministerial duty to set a date for the recall election requested in the 11-24-09 petition;
*12-14-09, a citizen petition, filed in accordance with 30-A MRSA §2521(4), certified by then Town Clerk Pastore with 279 signatures, asked a notary public to call a town meeting for the voters in Paris so there could be a recall election for the aforementioned selectmen;
*Town officials refused to respond, in any way, to the 279 petitioners [see editor's note below], and would not facilitate either a town meeting or an election. Selectmen chose, instead, to schedule their own version of elections (the field having grown from 2 candidates to 4...).
[editor's note: a citizens' petition to a notary public to perform a task is still a citizens' petition. The notary public is not the representative for the citizens, simply the performer of a task. The individual contact for a citizens' petition would be on file in the town office.]
In The Sun Journal, 1-18-10, "Paris declines participation in election called by notary," a communication from Town Attorney G. Hole is quoted with various directives about what citizens can and cannot expect as far as their petitioned requests. It is to be supposed, perhaps, that a one-month-late response is better than no response at all.....
Although if a tax payer was one month late with a tax payment, one month late would be far too late....
In addition, in The Sun Journal article mentioned above, the following statement appears: "Hole, in a letter to [Interim Town Clerk] Knox also said the recall ordinance does not allow a notary to call a town meeting...."
While Hole's statement is true, it's completely misleading - a mixing of apples and oranges. There is no mention whatsoever of a notary public in the "Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine."
It is statutes and job descriptions that describe and limit a notary public's role in calling town meetings; a recall ordinance plays no part in telling a notary public what to do.
Whether this confusing statement was an interpretation by the town office or the Journal is not important; what is important is to be accurate.
