Town solicitor: certified write‑in votes can make write‑in candidate next in line for Westerly school committee seat

Town Solicitor Melissa Connley told the Westerly Town Council on May 18 that, under Section 1113 of the town charter and Rhode Island election law, certified write‑in votes count toward determining the sequence of runners‑up who have the right to assume a vacant School Committee seat.

Connley told the council she reviewed the town’s canvass records, state certification of the November 5, 2024 school committee election and applicable state statutes and regulations. "Assuming Mr. Logan is a qualified elector ... the right to assume the vacant office would be afforded to him," she said, stressing that the charter frames it as a right to assume rather than a council appointment.

Why it matters: the explanation arose after the certified first and second runners‑up either resigned or declined to assume office, leaving a vacancy. The certified write‑in tally accepted by the Board of Canvassers and the state shows the leading write‑in candidate received nine write‑in votes; Connley said state law and Board of Elections procedures require those write‑in votes to be counted and certified.

Connley also explained how eligibility disputes and challenges to a write‑in candidate’s qualifications are handled: the Board of Elections certifies statewide results and would be the avenue for appeals over qualifications or a denial of an appointment. "If the write‑in candidate is interested in accepting the appointment, but their appointment is denied, they can appeal the decision to the Board of Elections," she said.

Council reaction was mixed and, at times, pointed. Several councilors said the prospect of a candidate with a single‑digit write‑in total assuming a seat that helps control a roughly $60 million school budget felt politically uncomfortable. One councilor summarized the data cited in the solicitor’s memo: an on‑ballot candidate had 4,634 votes while total write‑ins numbered 118 and the leading write‑in had nine votes.

Members of the public urged fidelity to the charter and transparency. Charter Revision Commission member John Gier told the council the amendment that clarified vacancy succession was intended to reduce political wrangling and preserve voter intent; he asked the council to attach solicitor opinions to future charter materials. Tom Null, another commenter, urged the council to "abide" by the charter language rather than "follow" it as an instruction.

Not everyone agreed with the critique. Michael Ober, who spoke from the audience after his name was discussed, defended past appointment processes and said previous appointments had followed then‑existing rules; he said the council's prior choices were made openly and with votes.

What happens next: Councilors voted to remove the agenda item that would have addressed appointment steps this evening after the solicitor’s opinion made clear the council may have no legal role in the succession if the right to assume the seat falls to a certified runner‑up. Any challenge to whether a specific write‑in candidate meets the statutory qualifications would be addressed by the Board of Elections, Connley said.

The solicitor emphasized that her memo interprets the charter in light of state law and the canvass record; councilors and members of the public suggested the episode may drive future charter clarification efforts or public education about write‑in votes and succession rules. The council set a schedule for considering possible charter questions later in the summer but took no legislative action on the vacancy at the meeting.