Political wrangling stalls West Wildwood recall efforts
Nov, 18-2009 8:51 pm
By CAROLE MATTESSICH
Staff Writer
WEST WILDWOOD – Three recall petitions, each involving one of this small borough’s three commissioners, are making their way through the system here, but officials have varying interpretations of who’s doing what and what happens next.
Interviewed Monday, Borough Clerk Dorothy Tomlin said she currently has two petitions bearing voters’ signatures awaiting her review and action: one calls for a recall election involving Mayor Herbert Frederick, and the other calls for a recall election involving Commissioner Scott Golden.
Tomlin said the third petition, calling for a recall election involving Commissioner Gerard McNamara, has not yet been turned in to her.
Tomlin was suspended from her position as borough clerk in early August, shortly after she approved the original Notice of Intention filed by the committee to recall Frederick. Frederick repeatedly has said that Tomlin’s suspension was not political, but is related to charges brought by the borough that will be the subject of a Dec. 9 hearing in Trenton.
Tomlin was reinstated to her office as borough clerk on Nov. 2, after the state Department of Community Affairs ruled that the borough lacked legal authority to suspend her before her merits hearing, and a Superior Court judge agreed with that determination.
“I can’t give you a comprehensive update because I just got my files back last week, and I’m still confused myself on a few issues,” Tomlin said Monday about the various recall petitions. “I’m still in the review process.”
Nevertheless, she added, the Frederick petition “is nearing to the point that I will be able to set a date very, very soon.”
Under state statute, when a clerk is presented with a completed recall petition, his or her task is to verify whether it contains the required number of signatures of registered voters. In West Wildwood, that number is 116.
Typically, once a clerk verifies the signatures, he or she serves a “Notice of Sufficiency” on the official being recalled. Among other things, the notice establishes a date for the recall election.
Tomlin sent a letter dated Nov. 5 to the Committee to Recall Frederick in which she noted her understanding that the committee originally provided its signed petitions to Acting Deputy Clerk Richard Deaney on Oct. 9, and that he “reported his findings” to the recall committee on Oct. 26.
“Since I am the recall election official, by statute,” Tomlin added, “I should have been the only person allowed to certify those petitions.
“After careful review, there were 133 valid signatures,” Tomlin continued in her Nov. 5 letter. “I hereby certify that the Committee to Recall Herbert C. Frederick has met the requirements of the law and I will now proceed with the next step in the process.”
Although the Nov. 5 letter indicates that a copy was sent to Frederick, Frederick said Monday evening that he has received no notice from Tomlin and that she should not even be reviewing the petition to recall him.
“I don’t know why she would be doing anything on this, because Mr. Deaney already handled it,” Frederick said. Deaney was brought in as acting deputy clerk during the time that Tomlin was suspended, and he left when Tomlin was reinstated.
According to Frederick, after receiving the signed recall petition, Deaney wrote to Frederick saying that the process was procedurally defective and the petition was rejected.
One of Deaney’s concerns, Frederick alleged, was that Tomlin failed to publish a copy of the committee’s original Notice of Intention at the time she originally passed upon it.
“That’s a big procedural issue,” Frederick said, adding that he intended to file an official protest with Tomlin immediately, stating both this objection and his position that Tomlin does not have the power to overturn Deaney’s ruling.
Frederick also asserted that Deaney formally accepted the petition to hold an election to recall Commissioner Scott Golden.
Interviewed Monday, Golden said he has filed an objection asserting that the recall committee failed to serve him with a copy of the petition before gathering voters’ signatures, and failed to observe his right to add a short statement on the petition.
“I’ve challenged my petition, and I’m waiting to hear back,” Golden said. “I first went to Richard Deaney, then I forwarded it to Clerk Tomlin, and my understanding is its in Tomlin’s hands.”
Golden wrote Deaney on Oct. 22, challenging Deaney’s authority to address the recall petition at all.
“There are other issues as well,” he said Monday, “but the lack of opportunity to file a statement for potential voters to read was the prime one right now.”
As for the McNamara petition, recall organizers said this week they are holding it in their possession for the time being, because of the uncertainty surrounding the other two.
Carole Mattessich can be e-mailed at gazette@catamaranmedia.com or you can comment on this story by calling 624-8900, ext. 250.
