Marshfield’s recall fight moved Friday from political argument to procedural challenge, as three residents asked the Board of Registrars to scrutinize whether the petition targeting Select Board member Eric Kelley was properly certified, properly prepared and supported by valid signatures.
The May 22 hearing did not produce a ruling on whether the recall petition should move forward. Instead, registrars spent hours hearing objections from Steve Lynch, Pam Keith and Joe Pecevich, along with responses from the petitioners’ attorney, testimony from petitioners Lara Brait and Sean Costello, and guidance from special counsel Lauren Goldberg. By the end of the day, the board had continued the hearing to May 29, when registrars are expected to take up the signature challenges more directly.
The hearing opened with a threshold question: whether petitions filed after an initial certificate of sufficiency could be counted toward the total number of certified signatures. Goldberg told registrars that Lynch had raised concerns about what he called “extra petitions” that were not part of the April 21 certification letter from the clerk’s office. She said the legal question was whether petitions filed by the April 24 deadline could still be counted if they were certified after the initial certificate of sufficiency.
Lynch argued that the April 21 certification should have closed the process. He suggested the early certification date was not accidental, but tied to the town’s effort to schedule an override ballot.
“So as far as I'm concerned, once they closed it with this letter, that's it. Nothing should be added afterwards. There was no reason for them not to wait till the 24th, till all the signatures were certified to write this letter. They had no reason to have to write it on the 21st other than political reasons so they could have a timeline to set up an override ballot. That's why they did this at 8:11 AM in the morning. So once they wrote this letter, that's it. It closed the certification process as far as I'm concerned.”
Attorney Richard Ash, representing the petitioners, said the clerk’s office acted within the allowed period because the filing deadline had not yet passed. Goldberg said the board could take the issue under advisement, and Chair Walter Sterling did so.
The early part of the hearing also made clear that the three objectors were not acting through a single lead person. Pecevich said the board had asked for a lead objector to make more efficient use of time, but he said there was no requirement that one be designated. He said Lynch wanted to preserve his ability to make arguments that might overlap with, but differ from, those raised by others.
That distinction mattered as the hearing unfolded. Lynch focused heavily on certification, chain of custody and alleged forged signatures. Keith pressed questions about the legal timeline for objections and whether the petition followed the charter. Pecevich raised concerns about access to records, the role of special counsel and who authored the language printed on the petition forms.
Keith objected to Goldberg’s recommendation that late-filed objections or amendments be rejected because, in Keith’s view, the law gave objectors more time than Goldberg had described. Keith said the applicable timeline ran from either the petition filing deadline or the certification deadline, whichever was later.
“The law seems to read that people who are making objections have the later date and have the latest date. The date that if we go by the very latest date that the petition was filed on, which would be Friday, April 24th, objections could have been filed all the way to May 12th according to that I read. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but ignoring the or clause, I don't know that you can ignore the or.”
Sterling said he would defer to legal counsel on the issue. Goldberg said that, even if the board chose not to act on later-filed amendments or objections, much of the content appeared to overlap with issues raised in the original filings. The board took that matter under advisement as well.
Pecevich’s objections went partly to the conduct of the hearing itself. He said he had requested information about the hiring arrangement for Goldberg and questioned whether she was acting as the board’s counsel, advocate or judge-like adviser. Sterling said the issue was outside the scheduling discussion at that moment, while Goldberg said requests for records were different from requests for information about the proceeding.
“I object to that characterization because this is pertinent to the conduct of the hearing. It is not under regular public records request, which is a 10 day request minimum. So this can't be held under risk constraint to following those rules because it's pertinent to conducting a fair hearing.”
The hearing later turned to the petition forms. Lynch argued that the recall blanks should have included the town clerk’s signature, official seal and a time stamp. Kelley made a similar argument later, comparing the current recall papers with recall documents from the previous year and saying the earlier documents had been signed, stamped, sealed and dated.
“This is this year's one, all right? There is no timestamp or date stamp on it. It's not signed, nor is there a town sale on it. Okay? So if you go in the charter in regards to the process where it's supposed to go to the select board, this as well as some other documents, but I don't think you need those is what's sent to the select board and the thing. So my opinion is that if you review this in the process in regards to the charter and what was done before and what was not done this time around, in my opinion, you should just discount whole recall.”
Keith also focused on the charter, saying the petition forms and the sufficiency letter repeatedly referred to the Marshfield Town Charter. She said the word “charter” appeared multiple times in the petition materials and certification letter, tying the recall process to the town’s own governing document.
Pecevich pursued a related line of questioning when Brait and Costello appeared under oath. He asked who wrote the text at the top of the petition. Brait said she did, and Costello said he provided insight during the process. Pecevich asked whether the language came from the clerk or a template, and Costello responded that they were responsible for it and stood by it.
The most serious claims came from Lynch, who alleged that the signed petitions were “full of forgeries.” He said he was not referring to isolated cases of one person signing for a spouse, but to what he described as a broader pattern across petition sheets.
“I mean, a directed effort to sign other people's names by the hundreds. These petitions are proof of a massive fraud fraud perpetrated upon the voters of Marshfield. Don't take my word for it. Here they are. You can look for yourselves. The forgeries are clear to any layman. It's clear in a purposeful pattern of deceit.”
Goldberg cautioned that criminal allegations were outside the registrars’ role. She said the board could consider signature validity, but allegations of criminal conduct belonged elsewhere.
“With respect to whether anything that occurred was a crime, the place to adjudicate that is not here, Mr. Chair. It is perfectly acceptable for people to have whatever draw any conclusions that they want, but it's the district attorney's office that prosecutes crimes, not this entity.”
Brait and Costello denied knowing of anyone who signed another person’s name on the certified petitions. Brait said she told people not to sign for anyone else. Costello said he gave the same instruction and described it as basic campaign practice.
“And I had directed the same when folks would reach out to me and we'd speak about it. I would also direct them not to sign for anybody else and to ensure that nobody else signed for anybody else. I've been collecting signatures for 20 years as a volunteer for campaigns and for myself as well, that's 101. We know not to forge signatures.”
Kelley also questioned Town Clerk Narice Casper about dyslexia after asking her about access to sensitive documents in the clerk’s office. Casper said sensitive documents are kept in a safe and that only people invited into the office can enter because the door is locked. When Kelley asked whether there was a town policy on who could enter the office, Casper said there was not.
Kelley then turned to Casper’s earlier testimony, asking whether she had said she has dyslexia. Sterling said she had answered affirmatively. Kelley asked whether Casper could explain what dyslexia is, prompting Sterling to ask about the relevance of the question. Goldberg advised the board that it could decide whether to allow that line of questioning and whether it was relevant to the recall petition review.
“The issue before you is whether this is relevant and whether a person who has come here to provide testimony and information should be grilled about a disability,” Goldberg said.
Kelley disputed that characterization and said he was not attacking Casper personally. He said the issue could be relevant because Casper had testified about errors involving petition sheets.
“Let's put it this way. Mr. Chairman, I'm not grilling her. I'm just asking her a basic, the petitioner, basic question of — She can explain what the selection is, just for the record, as we're all here, but I also, and I'll add onto it if you care to know, and does she believe it impacts her ability to do the town clerk's job effectively? She's already mentioned that she's messed up on 50 petitions, and she's mentioned that she has, I guess, some dyslexia.”
Sterling said the question was close to becoming personal and then ruled the line of questioning irrelevant, saying the board was focused on the recall petition and the signatures. Kelley responded that the process was “deeply flawed,” while Sterling said Casper had testified about how the petition was processed and that the hearing was not the place to challenge her ability to manage a disability.
“I believe this line of questioning might be out of order just a little bit where it's going,” Sterling said. “So I mean, we're very specific questions on the relationship of the recall petition and how it was processed in the town clerk's office. I'm assuming she is very capable of handling her disability and making sure that she does it in a proper way. We're not here to challenge that.”
Kelley answered, “I just wanted to make a statement, Mr. Chair. That is your opinion.”
The most charged exchange came after Costello responded to the objections by saying he believed a “conspiracy theory” was being used to try to invalidate thousands of voter signatures. Sterling pushed back, saying the comment went beyond the board’s purpose. Goldberg noted that terms including “conspiracy,” “fraud,” “fraudulently” and “forged” had already been used during the hearing, but advised the board to move on rather than allow the exchange to continue.
Kelley objected, calling Costello’s comment a “cheap shot.” As Sterling tried to stop the exchange, Kelley said, “Just clearly show us who he is right now. Please,” followed by, “Scumbag.”
The board ultimately did not decide Friday whether any objections would invalidate the petition. Sterling said registrars had received significant information and needed time to review it before moving into the signature challenges. Registrar Dave Kolar said he wanted to look at the signatures, and Registrar Dave O’Reilly said that review would be “the most telling part of this whole case.”
The board voted to recess the hearing until 9 a.m. May 29.