Wow! Deb Pallasch.  Shame on you for claiming your litany of unsupported assumptions, opinions, and erroneous facts serve as a “path to recall.”

You claim by clairvoyance to know how TTA members are feeling, and the motivations of all the signers of the recall petition.

You assert that the actions of the two town council members who are the subject of this recall “failed to discharge the duties of their office” but you fail to list any of these actions.

You assert they didn’t listen to people who wanted them to go out to bid for a new solicitor who has municipal and land use experience.  Be advised, per the Tiverton Town Charter and State Law, there is no obligation for the town council to go out for bid for a town solicitor, and the solicitor who was hired does have municipal and land use experience.

Your claim they didn’t deal with critical issues like rescue vehicles and land fill is strange given that rescue vehicles have been replaced, and this town council has addressed the land fill closure issue – unanimously. 

You speak about Katz meeting with the superintendent.  So what!  You assume once again to know Katz’s intentions and that they are bad.   You are on the School Board, so stop assuming and go find out what went on at the Katz / Superintendent meeting.

As to Rom’s appointment to the Library Board of Directors, a board of trustees benefits from members with diverse backgrounds and priorities.  Rom was selected for that very reason, and to provide a taxpayer perspective on the library’s requested future funds from the town. 

For your information, it was the Carpionato group who asked to be on the town council agenda to present their development ideas.  When that meeting had to be continued because of too many attendee’s, the Carpionato group decided, the day of the re-scheduled public comment agenda item, not to come.  Further, there is nothing wrong, in fact everything helpful, in an entity considering a huge development that is going to call for a zoning change to want to inform the public and local government.

Recall petitions are serious and should be reserved for major misdeeds – like actual crimes.  If the erroneous and unsubstantiated actions you cite constitute a path to recall, then going forward any elected official will be fair game.  Is this the precedent you seek to establish?  

However, you did succeed in demonstrating the sham of this recall petition for which I thank you, and I urge all voters not to participate.  Reject the recall.  Don’t vote. A non-vote is a no vote.

Recall elections are for recalling sham artists, people who somehow hoodwinked voters into thinking they were great citizens and would steer their town into great prosperity. However, the Tiverton recall election is exactly the opposite. Four million dollars is driving the Tiverton recall election.

A gentleman named Bill McLaughlin (who started the recall election) has a lawsuit against the Town of Tiverton. He and the town went through both state and federal courts over zoning ordinance infractions he committed and refused to correct. That ended with the town tearing down his partially constructed garage. Because of that McLaughlin is suing the town for $4 million.

A federal court subsequently ordered the Tiverton Town Council to enter mandatory mediation with McLaughlin but no agreement was reached. Could it be that McLaughlin seeks to recreate a town council (through the recall process) that will reach a mediation agreement that is more to his liking? Could it be McLaughlin is trying to take your election away from you for his own benefit? I think the answer to both questions is yes.

It is not complicated: It’s the money. I call it the McLaughlin Recall.

In order for a recall election to count, a minimum number of votes must be cast (like a quorum). In this case 808 voters must participate for a valid election. If you do not vote in the McLaughlin Recall your non-vote turns into a no vote. Your non vote would be a vote for: 1) not removing your duly elected councilors, 2) against abusing the recall process, and 3) against McLaughlin’s scheme to maximize his lawsuit payout at the expense of the “will of the people” as expressed in your November 2018 Election.