By Adam Swift
A citizens’ petition effort to recall Town Councilor-at-Large Max Tassinari did not garner enough certified signatures to place the recall vote on the November town election ballot, according to the Town Clerk’s office.
The recall petition signatures totaled a certified final count of 1,992, according to Town Clerk Denise Quist, with approximately 2,863, or 20 percent of the registered voters in the town, needed to place the recall on the ballot.
However, those leading the recall effort stated that their efforts are not over, and dispute the number of signatures necessary to place the recall on the ballot.
“The People of Winthrop far exceeded the number of signatures required by our Charter to place the recall on the ballot,” stated Diana Viens in a written statement to the Sun-Transcript. “A plain reading of Section 5(k) (the Winthrop Recall language) makes this clear.
“After weeks of research, backed by seven (7) attorneys and experts, it’s beyond dispute that 822 signatures (20% of voters from the last regular election) is the correct threshold, not 2,863 (20% of all registered voters)” to put the recall on the ballot.
“Other Charter sections use the language, ‘all’ or ‘total’ registered voters when that’s what’s intended. The Recall section does not,” Viens continued.
“Courts in Massachusetts have consistently ruled that signature requirements like 2,863 — nearly 72% of actual Winthrop voters — are unconstitutional because they render elections meaningless and block ballot access,” Viens stated. “Those same rulings make clear that language like that in Winthrop’s Recall provision refers to a percentage of voters who participated in the last regular election, not all registered voters.
“With more than 2,000 certified signatures, ballot access is under formal review. We expect a resolution before November,” Viens added.
Viens and others supporting the recall have charged that Tassinari engaged in repeated attempts to undermine public trust, disrespected long-standing members of the community, and “stacked the Town Council with political allies aligned with Mr. Tassinari’s acknowledged special interest in 3A.”
However, Tassinari has denied that his participation in Town Council votes on 3A constitues a conflict of interest. At a recent council meeting, Tassinari stated that he initially had recused himself from the 3A guidelines issue because he lacked information as to the extent of the involvement of his employer, MassDOT, in creating those guidelines.
“I never wrote anything about a conflict of interest because I did not have that information,” said Tassinari. “At the time, I didn’t know all the facts and I sat out those discussions, I sat out the vote on the guidelines.”
After 3A was reclassified as a law and not guidance, Tassinari stated that he completed additional research that showed all that is required to dispel the appearance of a conflict of interest is an explanation through filing what is called a 23B Disclosure, which he sent to the Town Clerk on June 12.
In the disclosure, Tassinari stated that his employment with MassDOT does not create a conflict of interest because there is no gain to him or the agency as a result of taking part in the discussion and vote on town-wide zoning.
“Now, I could have stayed on the sidelines because it is politically convenient, but the potential loss to this town of these millions of dollars will be catastrophic; and 2,600 people didn’t vote for me to do the convenient thing, they voted for me to do the right thing,” said Tassinari earlier this summer. “The right thing was to find a way to be involved, or to at least do everything in my power to gather the information on what it would take to be involved and to voice my opinion and voice the opinions of pretty much 90 percent of the people I spoke to about this issue in the town.”