One Government process invalid?

The three men who collected more than half of last year’s 992 signatures in support of a “One Government” consolidation initiative say they witnessed each person sign his or her name.

That’s notable because Culpeper Town Council is challenging the process in court by which the signatures were collected and submitted.

Town residents who gathered the signatures, however, including consolidation organizer Joe Daniel, said council members may be looking for a way out a movement that, if approved by voters, would do away with Town Council.

“The intention of the citizens who signed these petitions is absolutely clear,” Daniel wrote in an e-mail to the Star-Exponent Thursday. “The town leadership is searching for a technicality.”

On the other hand, technically speaking, it appears the petitions were, in fact, not filed in accordance with state law — or at least that’s what the town’s attorney says.

The town’s side
In a motion filed Sept. 24 in Culpeper County Circuit Court by the town’s special attorney, Carter Glass IV of Richmond, Town Council moved to dismiss the One Government consolidation proceeding “on the ground that the petition of registered voters is invalid for all purposes.”

No. 27 of the “facts” listed in the 10-page motion says council never received a copy of the completed petitions circulated in the spring and summer of 2007, as required by Virginia Code 15.2-3531.
Therefore, the motion continues, Town Council never had the opportunity to verify whether enough registered voters signed the petition or if petition circulators personally witnessed the signature of each voter.

In addition, the motion says, “Certain sheets of the consolidation petition were left unattended in public locations, and as a result some signatures may not have been personally witnessed.”

Mr. Glass, in a phone interview Sept. 24, said Daniel never turned in a copy of the completed petitions to the Circuit Court, either, within the required time period — another mandate of the state code on citizen-led government consolidation efforts.

The petitions, containing the names of 15 percent of the town’s registered voters as of January, were instead filed with the Culpeper County Registrar’s Office.

Registrar Michele White verified the required number of registered town voters on the petitions in December, and sent notice of it to the town soon after.

In her office Friday, however, she said the town did have reason to believe that each and every signature — as it was written — was not personally witnessed by the petition-taker.

That’s because the names of several local businesses are listed at the top of at least four petition pages, she said — physically pointing them out — indicating, perhaps, that the forms were left unattended on a store’s counter, for example.

And as of last week, the completed petitions were not in the consolidation folder on file in the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office, though the file did contain copies of blank petitions.

Glass, the town’s designated consolidation spokesman, said he noticed the inconsistencies with the consolidation filings earlier this spring, at which time he told Town Council.

“Council is concerned about wasting time, effort and taxpayers’ money when we contend the process is defective,” said Glass, widely considered an expert on consolidation.

The other side
Daniel, a longtime town and county resident who owns various businesses including the multi-state Culpeper Wood Preservers, said he “absolutely” filed the petitions correctly.

He personally collected 168 valid signatures on 12 petitions from registered town voters in support of One Government. Daniel said he witnessed every signature on those petitions.

Petition-taker David Craven, who collected 239 valid signatures on 14 petitions — the most of anyone else — said the same.

A retired special education teacher with Culpeper County Public Schools and a 24-year town resident, Craven was newly retired when he saw an ad in the newspaper for a temp agency seeking petition-takers.

He responded to the ad and was put in touch with Daniel.

“He explained to me his frustration with the governments not working together and the problems that they’d had with the water agreements,” Craven said of how the consolidation process was presented to him.

Daniel paid Craven $10 an hour to collect the signatures, which he did on various days from May to July of 2007, setting up outside businesses like Tobacco Road and Safeway in the Southgate Shopping Center.

Craven, in response to allegations that voters were misled into signing something they didn’t understand, said the process was clearly spelled out on the petition as well as signs displayed from a table he used to collect the signatures.

In addition, Daniel said, he ran numerous ads over several months in the Star-Exponent explaining the process. He initiated the government consolidation early last year after the town and county reached yet another impasse over the provision of water to then-under-construction Eastern View High School.

“I told (petition signers) it was an attempt to save tax money by streamlining things and having things run more efficiently and do away with some of the squabbling,” Craven said, adding he was surprised to hear the town was challenging the process.

The retired schoolteacher who works two part-time jobs around town these days remains undecided about his personal feelings on the proposed consolidation. If it saves him tax money, Craven said, he’s all for it.

He added he would reserve final judgment on the issue until the consolidation plan, now under development by the town, is completed. Either way, Craven said, developing the plan is a beneficial exercise.

“If it’s a bad plan, (the voters) should vote it down,” he said, “but hopefully they have intelligent people looking at these things and trying to come up with something that really is a good solution.”

Craven said the town is trying to forestall the process by challenging the petitions.

Another view
Then again, said former Town Councilman David Martin, another paid petition circulator, the town needs to ensure the consolidation process was conducted legally before spending more time and resources on it.

“That’s one way of looking at it,” he said Thursday. “The other way of looking at it is (the town) is looking for a way out.”

Martin, a Culpeper native who served four terms on Town Council from 1984 to 2000, submitted 113 names on eight petitions — all deemed valid by the registrar — from town voters in support of consolidation.

“I told (petition signers), these are petitions that say we are going to bring it to a referendum with the question, ‘Do you want to consolidate?’” he said. “Certainly, there are possible benefits to that, and there may be reasons not to do it. Ultimately, voters would have the final say.”

Martin said he would not vote for consolidation if it did not benefit the town.

“I am not sure myself,” he added. “There is a lot of history to the town and a lot of benefits to being a town resident,” Martin said. “Most people I talked to that signed it liked the idea, but wouldn’t support it unless it benefits us — same level of services, same taxes.”

If nothing else, Martin went on, Daniel’s consolidation initiative resulted in renewed talks between the town and county about creating a regional water and sewer authority, an issue long under debate.

“Prior to this, it was at a stalemate,” he said. “So if nothing else, it has gotten this major issue off dead center.”

Attorney Glass also included that argument in his court filing.

“Because a dispute over public water service precipitated the circulation of the consolidation petition,” Glass writes under No. 29 of the “facts” section, “the registered voters who signed the petition may no longer support this consolidation proceeding.”

The Star-Exponent will explore that statement in an upcoming article.

Allison Brophy Champion can be reached at 825-0771 ext. 101 or .