September 13, 2008
By CHRISTINA TATU
FRANKFORD -- It appears voters will not have the option of whether or not to recall Mayor Robert McDowell this November.
On Friday, Frankford administrator Louanne Cular rejected the petitioners' appeal of her original Aug. 26 rejection of the petition. While the law eventually may be on the petitioner's side, time apparently is not.
According to County Clerk Erma Gormley, the deadline to have questions added to the November ballot was Sept. 5. Since the original petition did not request a special election, it seems unlikely this matter will be resolved in time for the Nov. 4 election.
"We did not request for a special election because we were hoping that this would not cost the tax payers any money," said petitioner Gary Larson, a member of the township Land Use Board, who hopes to eventually run for a seat on the township committee.
To be considered for a special election, petitioners would have to begin a new recall petition, specifically requesting a special election, and again collect the 947 required signatures.
"We'll do whatever it takes, but it should have ended up on the November ballot, and it's that simple," Larson said.
The twist is just the latest in the saga to attempt to have McDowell removed from office.
After months of gathering 1,227 signatures, a recall petition was submitted to the township Aug. 13, but it was rejected by Cular two weeks later, citing a technical error for failing to sequentially number each section of the recall petition.
Petitioners had 10 business days to file their appeal, which they did Thursday. Cular again failed to give it a stamp of approval the next day.
"It was denied based on the attorney's recommendations. It is still a technically deficient petition, and following his advice, it will be denied," she said Friday.
McDowell said he is just waiting to see how the next step in the process unfolds.
"There are other steps that need to be played out here," he said. "The whole process has been wearing on everybody and hopefully it will soon be over."
On Friday, township attorney Kevin Benbrook sent a letter to the petitioners and their Montville attorney, Edward Buzak, notifying them of the township's rejection of their appeal.
"It is the position of the Township Clerk based upon my legal advice, that she cannot certify a technically deficient petition and that any such relief can only be secured through recourse to the court," the letter read.
Recall committee members could fight the decision in court, but would have to receive a judge's order to have the question placed on the November ballot, a difficult task considering the election is just seven weeks away. As of Friday, Larson said the group still was awaiting counsel.
Buzak did not return phone calls Friday seeking comment.
In their 40-page appeal, petitioners cited the 2006 Mount Olive recall, a case in which the judge sided with the petitioners and not just statutory requirements.
"It's statutorily required, I don't know what else to say," Benbrook said. "The sequential pagination is to ensure it's a unified petition and the people signing it have seen all the information that's supposed to be a part of it. (The recall committee) acknowledged they didn't do it properly and they are asking us to consider that a minor technicality."
Larson said although not every section came with the cover page, each person signing the petition was presented with the information and checked off a box next to their name saying they had read the cover.
"We'll have to continue our appeal," Larson said. "All Mayor McDowell has to do is allow the will of the people to be heard."
