September 24, 2008
By CHRISTINA TATU
FRANKFORD -- The issue of whether or not voters will have the option to recall Mayor Robert McDowell this November will go before a judge today.
This afternoon, Morristown Superior Court Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis is set to review a civil suit filed by the Committee to Recall Mayor Robert McDowell against township clerk Louanne Cular, McDowell and County Clerk Erma Gormley.
The suit requests the judge immediately order Cular to approve the recall petition and Gormley to place the question on November's ballot, or arrange for a special election.
Despite missing the Sept. 5 deadline to have a question added to the general election ballot, petition organizer Sam Castimore said the petitioners still have a fair chance at getting the question on the Nov. 4 ballot. The group collected 1,227 signatures, more than the required 947.
The group is citing the 2006 Mount Olive recall case, also ruled on by Bozonelis, in which the judge sided with the petitioners and not just statutory requirements, the same reason the Frankford petition was denied by Cular.
That case was filed by attorney Ed Buzak, who also is representing the Frankford recall petitioners.
Buzak said the Mount Olive recall was rejected by the township because of missing signatures from the petition's circulators, who are supposed to sign each page of the document, verifying they witnessed it being signed. Circulators only signed the end of each section of the petition.
"That was a technical defect and it didn't negate the integrity of the process, the signatures or the validity of those signatures and (Bozonelis) was not prepared to invalidate (the Mount Olive) recall because of it."
The Frankford petition was rejected for a similar technical failing.
Frankford petitioners handed in their petition Aug. 13, but it was rejected by Cular two weeks later, citing a technical error for failing to sequentially number each of the 51 sections of the documents. Without page numbers, Cular said she is unable to determine whether those signing the petition saw all the information included with the document.
On Sept. 10, the petitioners challenged Cular's decision, but the next day Cular rejected the challenge, still citing the technical error.
Petitioners said the signers checked off a box next to their signature verifying they had read the document.
"We waited our 10 days and they told us they weren't accepting it because it wasn't numbered, but it wasn't numbered from day one," said petitioner George Lista. "We figure it's a stall tactic on their part."
Township attorney Kevin Benbrook did not return phone calls seeking comment Tuesday.
"It's a legal process and (the petitioners) have every right to go through the legal process," McDowell said. "I just think it's pretty much a waste of money and time, not because the recall may either be successful or not successful, but because I'm up for election again next year anyway."
