The views stated here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors of this newspaper. We welcome supporting or opposing views on any published item. Received October 31, 2021.
The Town Attorney wrote that because the Killingworth Town Charter says “no member of the Board of Selectmen shall, during his/her term in office, hold or be appointed to any other office, board, commission, or position of employment in the government of Killingworth. . . ” that a selectman can’t also be on the Board of Education without a revision to the charter. In addition, a recent letter to the editor from another individual further opined that “the Town Attorney has given his legal opinion that membership on the RSD17 Board of Education is, in fact, holding an office in the government of Killingworth…Unless and until a revised charter is approved by town vote, the current charter is the law.”
This is misleading. In fact, section 1-2 of the charter, defines the term “board”, and that is precisely the language which serves as the basis for Ms. Blewett’s legal challenge. In order for service on a board to disqualify an individual from simultaneously serving on the board of selectman, the board in question must have been “…established by town ordinance or charter provision.” The RSD17 Board of Education was established by state statute.
I agree with the premise that the mechanism for altering charter provisions is a charter revision committee; however, the suggestion that a revision to the charter is necessary to permit Ms. Blewett to hold both offices is misplaced. In fact, the charter must be revised should anyone wish to prohibit Ms. Blewett from holding both offices. While unfortunate that the commission established under Ms. Iino’s Administration was formed in violation of state statute and therefore disbanded, presently, the language of our charter remains unchanged. In support of Ms. Blewett, a selfless and committed Killingworth volunteer, her legal challenge, which remains undecided by the court, does not rely upon a demand to ignore or subvert the town charter; it merely seeks an accurate, complete reading of that document.
It is worth noting that whatever the original drafters of the charter may have intended it to accomplish, it is the actual text of the document itself that matters. We are not privy to the inner thoughts of the original drafters, which likely were quite different from one another. Governing documents are rarely, if ever, formed without debate; however, the final written product becomes the law of the land. It binds us in our decisions and protects our rights as individual citizens.
Additionally, I take exception to the implication that the town attorney’s opinion is infallible. An attorney’s opinion is just that, an opinion. While attorneys have and present opinions about the law, judges ultimately make the enforceable decisions on those laws, and it is for that procedural reason that Ms. Blewett has turned to our court system. Some may believe that this was an act of betrayal to the town; I disagree. It is my view that Ms. Blewett is well within her right to pursue this legal decision in an effort to protect not only her rights to serve her town as an unpaid volunteer, but also the rights of the town electors who choose her to serve as their representative on both the Board of Selectman and the Regional Board of Education.
In the spirit of democracy, I encourage all town electors to vote on November 2, 2021, regardless of political view or opinion. Let us exercise our right to vote together and let us unite as a town to make this community one that makes us all proud.
