SHUTESBURY - Will the Select Board authorize a vigorous legal defense of the Board of Registrars in the lawsuit challenging the board's decision to throw out a pro-library vote?

That was the question raised by a library opponent this week, as Shutesbury braced itself for the latest twist in the ongoing debate over building a new $3.5 million library.

Last Friday, the project's supporters filed a lawsuit challenging the Board of Registrars' ruling in Greenfield Superior Court. It alleges that the board erred in counting two anti-library ballots cast by a couple also registered to vote in Florida, while discounting the yes vote of a man registered to vote in Kentucky.

That decision left the second vote on the new library deadlocked at 522-522, an outcome that would block the project.

But with the focus now shifting to the courtroom following four months of campaigning, some wonder what type of defense the town will offer the registrars. Officials have shown support for the library in the past.

"My question is is there a conflict because the Select Board supported the library?" asked Robert Groves, a leading opponent of the library. "Who is the client - the registrars or the Select Board? It's fair for [Select Board members] to have their own views, but they have to uphold the process in a fair and even way," he said, adding, "At what point do we prevail in this election. I thought we did twice and it seems like I am wrong."

The Select Board, which oversees the town counsel, voted 2-1 in November to hold a second election after voters rejected paying the town's $1.4 million share of the project. In addition, Select Board member April Stein and Board Chair Elaine Puleo have both publicly expressed support for the project. Last week they sent letters to the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners asking for an extension on the $2.1 million in state funding for the project.

The MBLC had initially given Shutesbury until Jan. 31 to accept the money, but set June 30 as the new deadline last week.

Pledging support

Puleo said the town always defend its boards and committees. Failure to do so, she said, could jeopardize residents' willingness to serve.

"I think that's the obligation," Puleo said. "When you come onto a town committee you have to expect an appropriate defense. We're not going to say 'no we're not going to defend the Board of Registrars.'"

Puleo, who cast the decisive vote in favor of holding a revote, said the Select Board has not yet discussed the case with the town's attorney, Donna MacNicol.

It remains to be seen if the Select Board should play any role in the case, she said, adding, "This is new territory for us, too."

Shutesbury Town Administrator Becky Torres said she expected the town to "fully defend" the registrars' decision noting that MacNicol advised Town Clerk Leslie Bracebridge, Selectman Al Springer and Torres following the Jan. 10 election that the matter was likely headed to court regardless of the outcome of a recount.

"With a tie vote, either side would have a reason to pursue clarification," she said.

At that point, the election was also knotted at 522-522, but that tally was later amended to 523-522 in favor of the library after a provisional ballot in favor of the project was ruled eligible.

MacNicol did not return a request seeking comment.

Eligibility challenged

As of the Jan. 25 recount, the town had spent $700 in legal fees relating to the library, Torres said. There is no estimate of what the litigation will cost Shutesbury, she said.

Groves said opponents are trying to determine what role, if any, they should play in the pending lawsuit. But, he noted, his groups is "firmly committed to keeping the election results intact."

Aron Goldman and Michael Pill, who have coordinated the legal challenge, but are not among of the 10 plaintiffs named, said the group has no comment at this point.

The lawsuit suit was filed on behalf of the Friends of the M.N. Spear Memorial Public Library. The plaintiffs are Christopher Buck, Meryl Ann Mandell, Gair R. Fleischaker, John-Christian Aierstuck, James Walton, Joanne Sunshower, Joan M. Hanson, Dina Stander and Clifton R. Read.

The suit lists the defendants in their official capacity as members of the Board of Registrars. They include Bracebridge, Marilyn E. Tibbetts, Linda Lawton-Jacobson and Ruth Todrin. It does not claim any damages.

The suit alleges the defendants erred in not disqualifying ballots cast by Richard F. Paczkowski Jr. and Joan L. Paczkowski but throwing out the ballot cast by Christopher Buck.

The suit claims the Paczkowskis have taken actions to qualify for status as permanent residents of Edgewater, Fla. According to the complaint, the Paczkowskis applied for and received a $25,000 tax exemption extended to full-time residents of the state.

On the matter of Buck's eligibility to vote in Shutesbury, the suit claims he was only briefly registered to vote in Kentucky and was deleted from the voter rolls in that state Jan. 25, the day of the Shutesbury recount. However, he was registered to vote in Kentucky in December and was still registered there at the time of the Jan. 10 election.

"We believe there were some errors made, not intentionally, but errors nonetheless," said William A. McDermott, a Boston attorney retained by the Friends of the Library to represent them in the case.

A preliminary hearing in the case will be held on Feb. 14 in Hampshire Superior Court in Northampton because there is no judge sitting in Greenfield Superior Court.