Terrance Smith leaves the Board of Registrars meeting after they denied the complaint against him regarding voter eligibility in Ware.
Reminder Publishing photos by Tyler Garnet
WARE — The complaint regarding whether Select Board member Terrance Smith is an eligible voter was decided at a Board of Registrars meeting on Aug. 28.
The Board of Registrars hosted a public hearing regarding the residency and voter registration of Select Board member Terrance Smith after a complaint was filed by fellow Select Board member Joshua Kusnierz.
Ultimately, after an hour-long discussion and statements from Smith, Kusnierz, audience members and attorneys, the Board of Registrars unanimously voted to dismiss the complaint after they had all the information.
Kusnierz said he filed the complaint with the Board of Registrars to see if Smith was still allowed to serve as an elected official who could vote on issues. Kusnierz said it is nothing personal, but he had a lot of concerned residents reaching out to him about the status of Smiths residency.
Kusnierz said, “The complaint came after multiple residents called me and asked me and heard that Terrance Smith was living in Shutesbury, Massachusetts. I confirmed that through other people in the public, they gave me his exact address as well as other information. I came to them as their representative, as the town’s Select Board member. That is my job to represent anybody and all who have a complaint.”
Attorney Conor Carey of the firm Bacon Wilson was representing Smith and provided a 60-plus page binder with an affidavit from Smith as well as evidence of bank statements, mail items and utility bills with his address being in Ware.
Smith said he has been living out of town in Shutesbury because of divorce proceedings, but stated he intends to move back to Ware.
“My wife and I have two properties, our primary home in the town of Ware and a vacation home, that is a three seasons cottage in the town of Shutesbury. The proceedings in our divorce, there was supposed to be a pretrial conference the first week of September. So, this temporary order took effect in May and today I got notice that pretrial has been extended to January,” Smith said.
Smith said if the temporary order is still in place this winter, he may relocate to a temporary residency in Ware.
Town Clerk Nancy Talbot read Smith’s affidavit out loud which confirmed he filed a complaint for divorce in March. As part of that proceeding, the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court Justice issued a temporary order on May 17 that said his wife would occupy the Ware property and Smith would occupy the Shutesbury property. The temporary order denied him access to his house on Old Poor Farm Road.
Even though some residents expressed they felt it wasn’t right that Smith could temporarily live somewhere else and still serve Ware, most said they felt “duped” that his elections papers included his Ware address.
It was confirmed that any visits at the Ware property that took place prior to May 17 would have been at his own discretion and it was not until after the election that he was legally barred from that residency.
Talbot said Smith’s nomination papers were received on Feb. 16 with his Old Poor Farm Road address.
Many residents took the time to express their displeasure in the location of Smith before, during and after the election.
Former Select Board member Keith Kruckas said he brought up the issue to Town Manager Stuart Beckley to be put on the agenda before his last Select Board meeting and it never was.
“The fact of the matter is on the ballot itself; it stated his address at Poor Farm Road and that was not his address and it misrepresented and misled the taxpayers into believing that he was a local resident. I’ve been voting since I was 18 years old and never would I vote for someone that didn’t live in town, whether they owned land or not,” Kruckas said.
Catherine Buelow-Cascio also spoke out about her displeasure because she was one of the three candidates running for a Select Board seat.
“I love the word that was used which was duped, this is not personal to a point of running as a candidate, I didn’t know that Mr. Smith physically wasn’t residing in the town of Ware. I assumed that that would be happening. What was going on in his personal life has nothing to do with me but just hearing this now to put an address that he wasn’t physically at to me, I question the whole election,” Buelow-Cascio said.
Carey talked about more of the information in the binder including a residence for voting purposes document from the Secretary of the Commonwealth website for evidence that Smith was doing nothing wrong.
Carey said, “The Massachusetts law requires that you consider certain facts. It’s not just where he lives or where he physically is located, it’s where is his domicile, that’s the question for you. It lays out the law that you’re supposed to consider in these circumstances. Mr. Smith’s affidavit before you is clear. His home is in Ware, he pays taxes in Ware, he pays utilities in Ware, he owns property in Ware, he comes to Ware every day, his bank is in Ware, he goes grocery shopping in Ware, he has friends in Ware, he attends the Town Meeting in Ware, he has documented status of serving in Ware. No one in this room can change the domicile of Mr. Smith.”
Carey also included a past determination from a previous Select Board ruling when this situation happened in the past. The response is from Attorney Brian Riley from KP Law and is on the town website under the Town Clerk page and part of it reads, “Based on this legal standard, when a voter moves outside of town but still intends to return, the fact alone that they are living outside of town is not a disqualifier.”
It continued, “In general, there are three ways where a voter is removed from the voter list. He or she may voluntarily notify the town clerk that they no longer reside in town, or the town clerk receives formal notice from another city or town that the individual has registered to vote there. The third method, less frequent, is if the Board of Registrars receives a written complaint pursuant to G.L. c.51, §§48 and 49, alleging that a voter is no longer legally registered and should be stricken from the voter list.”
There was also information in the binder that explains seasonal types of homes not being a primary residence.
“My domicile and my place of home is in the town of Ware. If things had settled down in my household prior to the election, there was nothing keeping me from moving back there. It’s just that we reached a point in our marriage where I filed for divorce. For a voter that might feel duped, my primary house is in Ware. I’m here every day. I come to more meetings than most elected or appointed officials,” Smith said.
It was ultimately decided that based on all the information provided, the Board of Registrars had no evidence to uphold the complaint and voted to dismiss it.
Board of Registrars member Sheryl Adamczyk said, “I just want to state for myself it’s our duty to uphold the law as it is written and that’s what we have to do. We can’t entertain notions and thoughts about things. In this affidavit, Mr. Smith does affirm that he does intends to return and have a residency here in Ware and that’s a big part of the law to determine residency or domicile.”
She added there are students who go to college, residents who go on mission trips or sabbaticals, or others who serve in the military but that doesn’t change their right to be able to vote.
