PRESQUE ISLE – After months of unrest over the closure of the Westfield town office, residents voted out two incumbents during their annual town meeting on Monday night. Voters also rejected a referendum that would have made the town clerk position an elected instead of an appointed seat.

The town meeting was held in Presque Isle because there was not a large enough meeting room in Westfield.

Residents overwhelmingly voted to replace First Selectman Richard Watson with Susan McPherson and to replace Third Selectwoman Susan Fulton with Robert Glidden. In a surprise vote, however, those at the meeting widely approved an amendment to the election referendum question, but ultimately voted the question down 79-44.

The referendum question stems from the closure of the town office in early January because of a personnel matter. Town Clerk Lisa Lovely was placed on paid administrative leave at that time, and after an executive session on March 16, the Board of Selectmen made a motion not to reassign Lovely to the position. Town officials have said they are bound by state law not to speak about the matter until mid-April, 30 days after Lovely was notified of the decision.

After the town office closure, however, some residents circulated a petition that placed a question on the election agenda asking whether the position of town clerk, tax collector and treasurer should move from an appointed position to an elected one effective at the 2007 annual town meeting.

If the article had been approved, it would have placed the process of hiring a town clerk in the hands of town residents instead of the Board of Selectmen.

In a discussion before the vote on the article, town residents raised several points, including how townspeople could ensure that the person they elected as town clerk had the right qualifications, who would oversee disciplinary matters and how replacements would be made.

Town officials explained that if the position reverted back to an elected position – in 1997 residents voted to change it from an elected position to an appointed position – and the elected town clerk didn’t know anything about the job, the town effectively would be “stuck” with her or him for a year.

“I am adamantly opposed to this article,” Watson said on Monday night. “… If you elect the town clerk, who decides the salaries? Who decides the discipline? If they’re elected by the people, they don’t have to listen to the selectpeople.”

McPherson suggested that since the town has a job description on the books for the town clerk position, if the appointee is not following those parameters, the selectmen could still use the town’s evaluation process to handle the matter.

Watson also pointed out that a yes vote on the article would cause the three positions to be joined into one. He said auditors have told town officials that those positions need to be segregated for better financial controls.

In Westfield’s annual report for 2005, the town’s auditor listed reportable findings on the municipal financial statements; other matters were reported to the town in a separate letter. The reportable findings indicate that Westfield:

. Does not maintain proper segregation of duties in the accounting department.

. Does not reconcile the general fund checking account on a regular basis.

. Has not reconciled its current year general ledger account for taxes with supporting documentation.

. Does not always issue a treasurer’s receipt for vehicle registrations. Not all registrations could be traced to a bank deposit.

. Does not make bank deposits on a timely basis.

The audit also found that receipt numbers were not being cross-referenced on vehicle registration forms. It suggested the town segregate duties in its accounting department, prepare cash account reconciliations, reconcile general ledger accounts on a monthly basis, and require and monitor bank deposits on a weekly basis.

Watson said the town would not be able to follow the auditor’s suggestions if the positions were not segregated.

Kyle Green suggested the town amend the wording of the article to read “positions” instead of position, an amendment that was heartily approved. However, when the matter came down to a vote, only 44 people voted to accept the article and 79 voted to reject it.

While the rest of the meeting was taken up with mostly budgetary matters – the town passed a budget of about $300,100 – on the last article, residents voted to “investigate the possibility of joining with one or more participating municipalities in forming a joint municipal government and/or deorganization.”

The Board of Selectmen and five residents will work together to review the matter. They must report back to the town their findings within six months of the annual town meeting, or Oct. 27, and they must hold two public informational meetings along the way to tell residents what they have accomplished so far.