SCITUATE – Most Town Council members chose to remain silent on the topic of the town’s elderly tax freeze on Oct. 8, even as they were peppered with questions about how certain members ended up being added to the list for the benefit.
Council President Charles Collins said the reason the tax freeze matter wasn’t on the agenda that night was because councilors wanted to get an opinion from the Rhode Island Ethics Commission. Once that is done and if they don’t have the required quorum to take a vote, they’ll probably have to request that the Ethics Commission allow a rule of necessity allowing even those with a conflict to vote.
Councilor Theresa Yeaw asked why she would need an ethics opinion to discuss administration of a current ordinance. Nothing about the tax freeze ordinance has changed, she said, and this is instead a matter of how the existing ordinance is being administered. Yeaw made the motion to add the administration of the tax freeze to the agenda for discussion, including the pause of it as announced by the town treasurer, the exclusion of individuals on the freeze who don’t meet requirements, and next steps related to correction of those now included. There was no second on Yeaw’s motion, so it failed.
The council then took public input on the topic, and Michael Marcello, former council member and state representative, rose to tell members how disappointed he was that they wouldn’t discuss the controversial topic of how the current ordinance is being administered or not.
Marcello previously received an answer to his public records request showing that both Collins and Councilor Tim McCormick were added to the list for the senior tax freeze, even though neither met the requirement of living in their home for at least 10 years.
Plans to expand the tax freeze for those age 65 and older no matter how long they’ve lived in town are now on hold until next year. The matter has pitted Democrats against Republicans again, with Democrats questioning the all-GOP council’s plan to eliminate the 10-year requirement, saying basic information such as loss of revenue or how much of the tax burden will shift onto others should be known first.
Marcello said at the Oct. 7 meeting that he had an email conversation with Councilor Jason Parmelee where Parmelee told him he wouldn’t be getting an ethics opinion, but something seems to have changed.
Marcello said he can’t believe there can’t be a discussion on administration of an ordinance already on the books that hasn’t been changed. That ordinance requires that someone be at least 65 years old, be a resident of Scituate for at least 10 years, and own their current Scituate home for 10 years. Somehow the treasurer through an error put Councilors Collins and Tim McCormick on the list for the benefit, along with 50 other people, and they’re not going to discuss that?
“That’s shameful,” said Marcello.
He then posed questions to the council, including whether the town is still maintaining the same requirements to qualify. Yeaw was the only one to respond, saying yes, that’s how she reads it. Marcello asked what error led to the addition of the two councilors and dozens of other people, on whose advice or by what authority the 10-year requirement was eliminated, and whether the decision by the treasurer was unilateral.
Councilor Collins responded that he’s not answering the questions until they have an opinion from the Ethics Commission.
Yeaw responded that she learned the changes came as a result of a 2026 settlement where the precedent of a 10-year residency in one home requirement was determined to be gone.
Marcello then noted that that case had unique facts and the findings were explicitly said to not set a precedent for any other property or taxpayer.
Councilor Peter Meusert said he does have concerns about what transpired, but he wants to wait for the ethics ruling before commenting. He said his understanding is that the 10-year requirement still stands. Responding to Marcello, he said the matter of up to 50 people being added to the list despite not owning their homes for 10 years needs to be looked into further, adding that he thinks it was due to a miscommunication.
Marcello asked when they were notified that the 10-year requirement would no longer be recognized by the treasurer’s office, and Yeaw said she was never notified. Marcello then asked others if they were notified of the change of interpretation, but no one answered. He then asked what date the 50 people were added to the tax freeze list.
“This is a huge issue,” he said, adding that it’s been a big deal since it was revealed two months ago, and councilors shouldn’t be hiding behind a pending ethics ruling. He also asked if anyone on the council requested the 50 names on the list, as he did.
“Why does Mike Marcello have to do the job of the Town Council?” He asked, adding that this is the council’s job.
Councilor Gary Grande said the council is going to address this matter, but it’s not going to be in Marcello’s timeframe. He said he too is concerned by a few things. He said Marcello’s intent is to make the council look stupid through all of this.
“You don’t need my help to look stupid, Mr. Grande,” responded Marcello.
Marcello asked if they would commit to a full hearing, and Grande responded that no one made that commitment. Why go to the Ethics Commission then, asked Marcello? Grande then accused of him of using “lawyer-speak,” saying he refused to allow Marcello to paint him into a corner. Grande said he knew that was what Marcello was trying to do because he himself does the same thing to people as a salesperson.
Marcello said he’s very disappointed in Grande and the council for not scheduling a hearing, saying they have an obligation to get to the truth. Grande responded that he doesn’t control public hearings, and if Marcello doesn’t think he cares about finding the truth, he hasn’t been paying attention for the past eight years. The council will deal with this in the proper timeframe, he said.
Marcello thanked Yeaw for stepping up and speaking, saying none of the other council members appear willing to step up.
Charles “Chuck Nasty” Collins Jr. then went to the podium, calling out Marcello as the attorney who tried to sue the town because his client, Richard Finnegan, didn’t qualify for the freeze, and is now saying that no one else qualifies (Scituate GOP members have criticized Finnegan for aligning with the previous “Independent Men” on the council).
Marcello responded that he was not Finnegan’s attorney in that matter, though Finnegan did list him as his trial lawyer if it had gone to trial. He said he did not participate in the settlement.
Collins said his point was that Marcello was listed as Finnegan’s trial lawyer, and Marcello has represented Finnegan many times. He alluded to the connections of Finnegan and the Independent Men to past controversial projects, including Rockland Oaks and the Chopmist Hill development. Marcello, said Collins, can’t win a return to the council because everyone knows he’s a liar.
Resident Steve Kornatz said it seems to him that the ordinance in place and the people being added to it are not compatible, questioning the idea of changing the ordinance after the fact. If no one who didn’t meet the letter of the ordinance had been added to the list until after a change was made, no one would be arguing, he said, and it makes people wonder what else is happening.
Finnegan said the council should investigate what happened with the tax freeze, and if members can’t, they should hire an attorney to do so.
Resident Jon Foster reiterated Marcello’s contention that the agreement signed with Finnegan on a tax freeze matter was not intended to be used for anything else regarding a tax benefit for someone else, period. He said he hopes the Ethics Commission sends this matter back to the council with that as a mandate.
In a recent letter, McCormick said much of the focus on the tax freeze has been on him and his wife, Erika. He said they applied for the freeze the year he turned 65 under the mistaken assumption that the 10-year provision was for being a resident of town, not for being a resident of a certain home for that long.
“It never occurred to me that our history of paying taxes in Scituate for the more than 35 years was not one of the requirements for receiving the tax freeze,” he wrote.
At the August council meeting, the ordinance came before the council to discuss an amendment, which reflected a recent legal challenge to the ordinance, he added. “The proposed ordinance amendment resulted from a determination that the 10-year home-ownership requirement had not received approval from the state General Assembly, which is required by law. No action was taken on this agenda item at the August meeting.”
Subsequently, they received their annual tax bill this month, said McCormick, and to their surprise, it showed them receiving the tax freeze.
“I have since learned that the treasurer will be recommending a pause in adding new names to the tax freeze list, which will allow the Town Council to make a final clarification on the provisions of the tax freeze ordinance,” he wrote. “This would impact approximately 40 residents, including us, recently added to the tax freeze list. Admittedly, it’s all a bit confusing, especially since the ordinance allows a person currently receiving a freeze benefit to transfer that benefit if they move to a new home in town. Regardless of how this plays out, we did not ask for, nor do we want, anything more than is allowed to other residents in town.”
