OUR VIEW: Town is right to challenge petitions

Staff Editorial
Published: September 27, 2008

» SUMMARY: With the town’s future hanging in the balance, we need to make sure the consolidation petitioning process was conducted properly.

The town of Culpeper last week filed papers in Culpeper County Circuit Court asking that petitions to consolidate the town and county be dismissed or to clarify the town’s responsibilities in the process.

In January, petitions with about 1,500 signatures were filed after a drive spearheaded by local businessman Joe Daniel. Under state law, that gave the town one year to come up with a consolidation plan, which would be put before town and county voters.

The town released a draft of the plan last month.

But the town has questions about how the plan was conducted.

“There may be a number of petitions that may have been handled irregularly in obtaining signatures,” then-acting Town Manager Tom Huggard told the Star-Exponent last month. There is some question as to whether every single signature was witnessed by another person, he said.

Signatures on a clipboard left unsupervised don’t count.

There also is some question as to how the petitions were being pitched to potential signees. Town Councilman Chris Snider said in January that he was duped into signing a petition.

“Joe (Daniel) says to me, ‘Don’t you think y’all should talk more and possibly bring some departments together to save money,’” Snider wrote in an e-mail at the time. “I signed it and never read the actual petition question.”

With so many questions about the methodology, we think the town is right to challenge the petitions. If we’re going to take a step as drastic as abolishing the town, we should not do so by hook or by crook. If the aforementioned incidents are true, the process was at best negligent.

We need to make sure that every signature represents a person who at least supports a consolidation study, if not consolidation itself.

If the petition drive was conducted improperly, the town doesn’t want to keep spending taxpayer money on the process, and we agree. The consolidation study is an expensive undertaking and possibly an unnecessary one with the town and county making progress in forming a water and sewer authority — Daniel’s motivator for starting the process in the first place.

The town, in its filing, also asks the court to award its costs “or whatever relief deemed appropriate.” We’re not sure where the town plans to get that money, but Daniel certainly has a right to circulate and file petitions. We’re not sure he should be on the hook for the town’s hiring of an attorney and other such costs.