RUMFORD — Five residents are suing the Board of Selectmen, alleging it did not follow state law when it classified a proposed spending-cap charter amendment as a charter revision, and used that to effectively ignore a citizens’ petition.

Phil Blampied, James Windover, Henry Zinck, Diana Casey and Paul Lowell filed the suit in Oxford County Superior Court in South Paris.

At the Board of Selectmen meeting Thursday, Town Manager John Madigan said he turned the matter over to Town Attorney Jennifer Kreckel.

“They didn’t like the answer that we gave so they’re taking us to court on that. Is that the deal?” Chairman Greg Buccina asked.

“That’s what is sounds like,” Madigan said.

On Feb. 18, the board voted 3-2 to reject a petition for a municipal spending-cap amendment to the town’s charter.

Selectmen Jeff Sterling, Brad Adley and Buccina voted for the motion, while Mark Belanger and Frank DiConzo voted against it.

The vote was taken following a written legal opinion submitted by Kreckel, which concluded that the petition is a charter revision rather than a charter amendment.

The petition carried 575 valid signatures. Blampied asked the town to schedule an election under a section of state law that allows citizens to petition for changes in a local charter. He said the voters would be asked whether to add a section to the charter to put a $6 million cap on town spending.

The cap would not affect the school budget, nor would it limit initiated articles or the overlay, an amount the town puts aside each year to cover tax abatements. It could increase if the total tax base increased, but would decrease if the tax base decreased.

Earlier, Charter Commission members voted to indefinitely table discussion of a municipal spending cap, because it previously decided not to include it in the charter.

The lawsuit includes the following components:

* By complying with most of the provisions of the law, the defendants and the Town of Rumford demonstrated their acknowledgment that the petition for a spending cap was valid under that statute and governed by its provisions.

* The defendants failed to comply fully with the law that states, “Within seven days after the public hearing, the municipal officers of the committee appointed by them shall file with the municipal clerk a report containing the final draft of the proposed amendment and a written opinion by an attorney admitted to the bar of this state that the proposed amendment does not contain any provision prohibited by the general laws, the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Maine.”

* The action of the defendants defies the evident intent of the Legislature to convey a specific right and power to citizens to be able to petition for an amendment to a municipal charter.

* The statute makes special provisions to allow for citizen petitions.

* The defendants failed to take action that would have been required if they did, in fact, believe the proposal to be a revision.

* The spending cap proposal would be an amendment to the Rumford Charter, not a revision.

* The town attorney’s claim that the spending cap would cause undue financial hardship for the town is incorrect.

* Allowing municipal officers to freely redefine a petitioned amendment as a revision in order to prevent a vote on the matter would create so large a loophole as to effectively nullify the intent of the statute.

* The right to vote must be given the benefit of the doubt.

bfarrin@sunmediagroup.net