By ANDREW MARTIN

PROVIDENCE – Those of you waiting for a quick decision in the William Felkner case, will have to wait a while longer. The state Supreme Court’s decision on the ousted Chariho School Committee member’s bid to regain his seat is expected to take several weeks.

According to the court’s spokesman, Craig Berke, the typical timeframe for a written ruling is six to eight weeks. But he also said that timeframe is not set in stone.

“It’s hard to say,” Berke said, referring to when the court will make its decision. He added that the justices recognize the case’s timely nature.

The case stems from the Nov. 18 School Committee meeting when the board, acting on the advice of its attorney, Jon M. Anderson, disqualified William J. Felkner through a 6-3-1 vote. Anderson contested that Felkner’s recently elected position to the Hopkinton Town Council was in conflict with his School Committee seat, which was a four-year term that began in 2006.

Felkner then sued Chariho to regain his seat and his case was first heard in Superior Court. Associate Justice O. Rogeriee Thompson ruled that it was out of her jurisdiction, which is why the case moved to the Supreme Court.

Thompson also mandated that the School Committee take another vote on Felkner’s status at the Jan. 13 committee meeting. And after a 7-2 vote – committee member George Abbott was absent – the board accepted his “virtual resignation,” which again removed him from the board.

(Felkner also contests that the School Committee violated the Open Meetings Act, but a final decision on that part of the case will come after the Supreme Court’s decision.)

The state’s highest court heard the case Monday morning with former Chief Justice Frank J. Williams filling the fifth seat and justice Francis X. Flaherty recusing, though no reason for that was given.

The hearing focused primarily on whether Felkner’s two seats would conflict or be incompatible with one another.
Acting Chief Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg referred heavily to the Hopkinton Town Charter. She cited the following regarding multiple office holding: “No elected member of the town government shall hold more than one elective or position in the town government at the same time.”

Goldberg also mentioned another part of the charter stating that councilors and School Committee members, amongst others, are elected officials. She then asked why the case would not be decided on the fact that the charter bars individuals from holding two elected offices.

Anderson echoed Goldberg’s statements regarding the charter language. He also said that the court does not need to decide on whether the School Committee has the authority to remove one of its members but whether the law allows it, which he contended it does.

“The narrowest possible way [to determine this] is through the charter,” Anderson said.
Williams later agreed that the “narrowest” decision would be based on the charter and doctrine of incompatibility, which refers to two elected positions resulting in a conflict of interest if they are inconsistent and repugnant.

But Williams then had the following to say about the school board’s removal of Felkner, “It was a gutsy move for the School Committee to move on its own.”

Felkner’s attorney, Nicholas P. Gorham, disagreed with the charter discussion. He argued that it does not state that the School Committee is part of town government. And in his brief, Gorham cited the following charter language backing his opinion that Felkner should be able to hold both seats:

“Membership on boards or commissions that act as representation of the town of Hopkinton in regards to the school district shall not disallow that elector from serving on another board, committee or commission in town government.”

Regarding incompatibility, Gorham said the two seats are in fact equal as Felkner represents the same constituency, the people of Hopkinton, whether he is a councilor or member of the school board.

Anderson emphasized that Chariho is a regional school district and said Felkner represents more than Hopkinton since School Committee members act as “public trustees” for children in all three towns.