By ANDREW MARTIN

After more than an hour of discussion and the presentation of multiple
legal arguments, ousted Chariho Regional School Committee member William
J. Felkner’s attorney said his client has no other choice then to go to
court.

The situation stems from the last School Committee meeting on Nov. 18 when
Felkner was disqualified from his seat through a 6-3 vote, with one
abstention, by the board on the advice of its solicitor, Jon M. Anderson.
He explained that Felkner’s newly elected position as a Hopkinton Town
Councilor is in conflict with his School Committee seat, which is a
four-year term that he began in 2006.

The vote meant that until Felkner is off the board until he can prove
legally or through the state Board of Elections that he can hold both
seats. He was removed from the meeting on Nov. 18 by a Richmond Patrolman
after the committee was polled and came to a narrow consensus that he was
being disruptive and had to leave.

And at the Tuesday night School Committee meeting, the situation again
came to a head.
Felkner’s attorney, Nicholas Gorham, who is also a state Representative in
District 40 (Foster, Glocester, and Coventry), spoke primarily about how
he wanted to get the issue resolved without disrupting the representation
of Hopkinton taxpayers.

“The only thing I’m here for tonight is to find out what you are going to
do in the interim because the question is going to be resolved one way or
another,” Gorham said. “To me, the fairest thing for you to do is let Mr.
Felkner serve until a court says he cannot.”

Gorham then said the committee had the power to reverse its decision to
disqualify Felkner – a motion made to do this at the next meeting through
a “rescinding vote,” however, was ineffective and deemed out of order by
chairwoman Holly Eaves.

Ultimately, Gorham said that Felkner’s only choice is to take the matter
to court. “He has no option,” Gorham added. “He is compelled to do what he
must.”

Anderson, who will be covered under the district’s retainer for the case,
agreed that there needs to be a resolution in court. He then explained
that, from what he has witnessed, cases surrounding elections tend to
breeze through state Supreme Court.

“I am comfortable saying that you would have an answer from the court by
the January meeting,”

Anderson said. “I will make a commitment here that I will do whatever it
takes to expedite scheduling this in front of the Supreme Court.”

Gorham earlier commented on a previous remark by Anderson that only
Felkner and the Attorney General could legally do something about this.
Gorham argued that the committee should have implored the Attorney
General’s office so this situation could have been handled in the “correct
way.”

Action leading to the meeting

In the last week, Gorham and Anderson responded to each other’s legal
viewpoints via letters outlining their stances. And most, if not all, of
the following information was discussed at Tuesday’s meeting by both
attorneys.

In Gorham’s letter, he addressed that the action taken by the board to
oust Felkner was not on the Nov. 18 agenda, which he called a violation of
the Open Meetings Act.

Regarding the possible Open Meetings Act violation, Attorney General
public information officer Michael Healey said his office has received a
complaint about this. He then noted that the complaint is not public under
exception P of the Access to Public Records Act, though the office’s
findings – not the complaint – will become public once the investigation
is finished.

Gorham also wrote that Felkner’s civil rights were violated since he did
not receive notice of his status on the board, which he noted Supt. Barry
J. Ricci said was intentional. Further, he cited that “research indicates
that the Chariho School Committee does not have the power to remove its
own members from office.

“As for the suggestion by your solicitor that Mr. Felkner’s role as a
School Committee member was “incompatible” with his role as a member of
the Hopkinton Town Council, this is also incorrect,”

Gorham wrote. Hopkinton Town Solicitor Patricia Buckley wrote a similar
letter in support of Felkner and against the committee’s actions.

In response to Gorham, Anderson also wrote a letter that he referred to
heavily at the meeting. He disputed the Open Meetings Act violation by
stating that he was unaware of a legal requirement that the vote to
disqualify be on an agenda. He then wrote that Felkner willfully disrupted
the meeting and refused to “step aside until ordered to do so by a police
officer.”

Anderson continued that he disagreed about whether the committee can
remove one of its own.

He against stated that Felkner “removed himself” when he took the
Hopkinton Council oath of office. Also, he cited a case, Bailey v. Burns,
in which General Assembly members learned Bailey had prior felony
convictions.

“The prerogative of a legislative body to judge the qualifications of its
members, therefore, is well established in the state, let alone in this
country,” Anderson wrote.

School Committee member Terri Serra was not in attendance. Local officials
sitting in the audience were Charlestown Town Council Vice President
Gregory A. Avedisian and councilor Forrester C. Safford; and Hopkinton
Town Council President Thomas E. Buck, councilor Barbara A. Capalbo, and
Vice President Sylvia K. Thompson, who was filming.