Ann Strong believes Barrington residents at this year’s FTM should be allowed to vote on whether to keep the monastery property preserved as open space.

The longtime Barrington resident and former Town Council member recently submitted the motion to the town clerk for the upcoming Barrington Financial Town Meeting. 

Strong’s motion called for a vote to “preserve the entire parcel as passive open space with a minimum of trails/walking paths and/or therapeutic farming that would allow agricultural use of less than 20 percent of the total acreage…”

Strong’s proposed motion also called for the monastery building to be "mothballed," and possibly used in the future, but only for elderly or veteran housing.

The motion will not be included at Barrington’s FTM, however. 

Barrington Town Solicitor Michael Ursillo reviewed Strong’s proposal and filed a memo with the town clerk’s office stating that the motion was “out of order because it is not tied to any appropriation or tax levy in the budget of the upcoming fiscal year.”

“The power of the FTM in this provision falls into two categories. First, it may raise money in taxes to pay Town debts and ‘necessary charges and expenses.’ Second, it may assess, levy and impose other taxes to support the Town. Ms. Strong’s motion does not do either of these things. It simply places a restriction on the use of Town property. Therefore, this motion does not fall within the scope of the FTM’s authority,” Ursillo wrote in the memo to Barrington Town Clerk Meredith DeSisto.

Strong said she disagrees with Ursillo’s decision.

Strong said there are “many, many, many motions” that are on the FTM docket that do not have a direct financial decision. She said FTM attendees are often asked to eliminate certain accounts, add accounts and also vote on Committee on Appropriations members. 

“Those don’t have a monetary value,” she said. 

Strong said she checked the town charter and did not see anything that specifically prohibited a motion such as hers. 

Ursillo, in his memo, cited a section of the charter that states: “The registered voters at the Financial Town Meeting shall have and exercise the powers vested in the Town to raise by a tax upon real and personal estate such sums of money as may be required to pay Town debts and to defray the necessary charges and expenses of the Town and they also may assess, levy or impose any other taxes for the support of the Town which legally may be assessed, levied or imposed under any general or special laws which are now or may hereafter be in existence.”

Ursillo also referenced the restrictions placed on the monastery property — that the building be preserved — during the 2021 FTM where taxpayers voted to purchase the property. He said those restrictions were different than the ones requested by Strong, because they “were tied to the appropriation of money necessary to purchase the property.”

“…just because the FTM at one time appropriated money for a particular purpose does not mean that it may exercise ongoing general legislative authority with regard to that matter,” Ursillo wrote.

Strong argued against this point. She said voting to preserve the property would have a direct connection to taxpayer funds, after all, more than $3 million in taxpayer money was used to purchase the property.

“In an of itself, it has a monetary value,” Strong said.

Ursillo’s response: “In sum, because the motion to preserve the Carmelite Monastery property isn’t tied to any specific appropriation of money in the budget under consideration, it isn’t within the authority of the FTM to pass the motion. Further, the fact that the FTM had previously appropriated money to purchase this property does not give the FTM ongoing authority to regulate the use of this property. Instead, any use of the property that doesn’t involve the appropriation of further Town funds and doesn’t transgress a restriction previously imposed on the purchase funds for the property is within the general legislative authority of the Town Council.”

Second motion

Strong filed a second resolution for the upcoming FTM that was also rejected. She asked that all motions raised at the upcoming FTM regarding the monastery site be included on the Nov. 7 ballot for disposition. 

In response to that resolution, Ursillo wrote: “There is no mechanism whereby a single voter can propose a motion to the FTM requiring that the FTM transact business on a different date.”

Strong said she believes the town should place three possible options for the property on the Nov. 7 ballot, so that residents can make the final determination. She said one of the options should be to preserve the property as open space. 

“It should be up to the public. That’s the way to go,” she said. 

Solicitor assistance?

Strong said she believes that some residents are receiving assistance from the solicitor in drafting resolutions for the upcoming FTM. She said that town officials should either offer that assistance to all residents filing resolutions or not extend it to anyone.