The state Elections Enforcement Commission has ruled that the wording of an Oxford referendum question in May 2010 did not violate state statutes.
Last week the commission dismissed a complaint from Oxford Republican Tom Kelly, who said the wording on the referendum for the Great Oak roof and solar panel project was prejudicial.
The questions posed to voters was: ​“Shall the Town of Oxford in accordance with Section 4 – 3 (G) of the Oxford Charter borrow $1,798,150 to pay for the Great Oak Roof and Solar Panel Project, as approved and unanimously recommended by both the Great Oak Roof and Solar Panel Committee and the Board of Selectmen?”
The project was ultimately approved by voters.
Kelly objected to the last phrase about unanimous approval. In his argument, Kelly cited a state statute that says referendum material must not advocate the approval or disapproval of a proposal.
The Elections Enforcement Commission ruled on Sept. 21 that the state statute doesn’t apply to the wording of the actual referendum question — just referendum materials disseminated by the town.
The SEEC disagreed, saying the wording did not advocate a position.
Article continues after the SEEC​’s decision:
Thomas Kelly Elections Complaint Dismissed
Kelly said he was not happy with the result.
“We’ve been told many times by elections enforcement the town can’t put out anything that supports (a proposal) or is against it,” Kelly said.
The complaint had named First Selectman Mary Ann Drayton-Rogers, Town Counsel Francis Teodosio and Town Clerk Margaret West.
“I think that is good for the town. The complaint has no merit,” Teodosio said Thursday.
Drayton-Rogers said she was not surprised, because she had always thought the complaint was frivolous.
“I have every confidence in the town clerk and town counsel of researching the wording of referendums, so this is good for the town,” Drayton-Rogers said. ​“But I’m not surprised because I would have expected this to be the outcome.”