EAST PROVIDENCE — It was a jam-packed Canvassing Authority meeting last night.

Numerous arguments, outbursts, gavel banging and topics were tackled in the 90-minute meeting. And the audience flowed out the door, with people listening from the hallway.

Several of the quarrels focused on complaints filed against several candidates’ nomination papers. A hearing for most of the challenges will occur Tuesday at 7 p.m. in City Hall.

All candidates have to collect a specific amount of signatures from registered voters from their ward, district, city or state. Who can sign and how many need to be obtained depends on the office being sought. Canvassing clerks certify and disqualify signatures and if enough are valid, the person becomes a candidate. The chair of the city’s Democrat or Republican committees, as well as any candidate, can challenge nomination papers.

The three-member board decided in a split decision two weeks ago to ask the state police to investigate whether signatures were fraudulently collected for candidates Shannon Barbosa and Brian Coogan.

Coogan, seeking the Ward 2 seat on the council, submitted 397 signatures. Canvassing clerk Maryann Callahan (who filed the challenge) said 280 were certified and of the 117 disqualified, 14 appeared to be signed by the same person. Barbosa, seeking the Ward 2 seat on the school board, submitted 315 signatures. Callahan said 209 were certified and 26 disqualified signatures looked questionable.

Both needed to submit only 200 certified signatures and will therefore continue with their campaigns.

Yet the city’s Democrat Committee chair, Nuno A. Branco, filed a subsequent complaint regarding whether Barbosa and Coogan were witnesses to every signature collected on their nomination papers. They signed affidavits stating they were, but resident Victor Silva, of 12 Elm Ave., told The Journal for a previous article that he collected for both candidates. Silva also said the questionable signatures were signed by the residents.

Branco attached copies of The Journal article to his complaint as his evidence.

Authority member Peter Barilla Sr. said he hoped Branco had more evidence than the article because The Journal “makes an awful lot of mistakes.” Barilla, who wasn’t at the meeting two weeks ago, also said he thinks having a hearing about this and other complaints, as well as sending them to the state police, were “ridiculous.”

Member Thomas Riley agreed, stating the complaint was “hearsay” as evidence.

The board decided to have the hearing anyway. They will also hear complaints regarding 43 signatures on Brian Monteiro’s nomination papers. Monteiro, who was seeking the Ward 2 seat on the school board against Barbosa, submitted a total of 285 signatures. A little over half, or 154, were certified by the canvassers office last Wednesday.

While he does not have enough certified signatures to stay in the race, the authority had to decide what to do with the complaint.

“What’s the sense of going forward?” Barilla asked.

He, as Riley said two weeks ago, asked if some were being “singled out” for invalid signatures when every candidate had at least a few signatures disqualified. Barilla said, if “we’re going to fool around with this one,” the authority should review everyone’s nomination papers.

“What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” Riley said. “Let’s bring them all in or bring none in to handle this thing evenly.”

When chairwoman Dorothy O’Gara tried to halt discussions, Riley said, “Would you please stop interrupting me with that little wooden handle [the gavel].”

And when Callahan asked if she could speak, Riley told her no despite it being the chairwoman’s job.

Said Callahan, “Don’t tell me no.”

Replied Riley, “I’m telling you no. You [Callahan] set this whole thing in motion.”

O’Gara stopped them both by pointing out that some people signed for others on Monteiro’s nomination papers. She called it “forgery” and said the board should send it to the state police just like they did with the other two candidates.

The other two members disagreed because they wanted to see if there was “hard evidence” presented at the hearing first. He said the state police wouldn’t do anything without proof.

He then summarized this “whole parade here” is “nonsense.”

apina@projo.com