CITY OF CENTRAL FALLS
EMERGENCY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1994
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AN EMERGENCY MEETING OF THE CENTRAL FALLS CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD ON THE ABOVE DATE IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS AT 7:20 P.M.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS
COUNCILMAN GOES
COUNCILMAN PAQUETTE
COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU
COUNCILMAN CANAVAN
QUORUM PRESENT.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT ROBERT CANAVAN PRESIDED.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CANAVAN EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR THIS MEETING AND STATED THAT TIME WAS ESSENTIAL. HE COMMENTED THAT HE WAS IN CONTACT WITH THE CITY SOLICITOR GEORGE MUKSIAN.
MOTION TO RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GOES AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CANAVAN.
COUNCILMAN GOES EXPLAINED HIS REASONS FOR A MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS QUESTIONED COUNCILMAN GOES.
COUNCILMAN GOES RESPONDED.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS YES
COUNCILMAN GOES YES
COUNCILMAN PAQUETTE YES
COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU YES
COUNCILMAN CANAVAN YES
MOTION CARRIED 5 YES O NO O ABSENT.
MEETING RECONVENED AT 7:34 P.M.
NOTED FOR THE RECORD THAT PAULINE MONOFAR OF THE PAWTUCKET TIMES OBJECTED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION STATED THAT THERE WAS NO CLEAR REASON FOR THE SESSION.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT STATED THE REASONS FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION.
1. NEGOTIATIONS-FOR THE USE OF THE CITY SOLICITOR OR PRIVATE ATTORNEY.
2. LEGALITY- LEGAL BRIEF BEING PREPARED BY CITY SOLICITOR.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS RELATED TO THE COUNCIL A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS HE ASKED CITY SOLICITOR MUKSIAN IN TELEPHONE CONVERSATION EARLIER IN THE DAY.
1.COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS ASKED THE SOLICITOR IF HE EVER ADVISED THE MAYOR FROM INCEPTION OF DETENTION FACILITY IN ANY WAY.
THE SOLICITOR RESPONDED NO.
2.COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS ASKED THE SOLICITOR IF HE EVER ADVISED MAYOR TO SIGN AN IGA.
THE SOLICITOR STATED THAT HE MAY HAVE.
3.COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS ASKED THE SOLICITOR WHAT HE WOULD BE SEEKING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
CITY SOLICITOR MUKSIAN STATED HE WOULD SEEK A RESTRAINING ORDER, WHICH WOULD BE FOR 10 DAYS, ANOTHER WHICH WOULD BE 10 DAYS, AND THEN TRIAL.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS STATED THAT IF TRIAL WERE TO OCCUR THEN TESTIMONY WOULD BE INVOLVED. THE CITY SOLICITOR WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TESTIFY. QUESTIONS WOULD ARISE RELATIVE TO ADMINISTRATIVE TESTIMONY THEN A CONFLICT MAY ARISE.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS ASKED IF GEORGE MUKSIAN EVER ADVISED THE DETENTION FACILITY CORP.
CITY SOLICITOR MUKSIAN RESPONDED NO.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS STATED THAT IN HIS OPINION THERE MAY BE A CONFLICT AND NEUTRAL REPRESENTATION WOULD BE
THE BEST FORM OF ACTION FOR THE COUNCIL TO TAKE. HE STATED THAT THE QUESTION MIGHT ARISE AS TO WHETHER THE COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY. COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS STATED THAT HE FEELS THE COUNCIL IS WITHIN ITS RIGHT TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY. HE RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNCIL HIRE AN ATTORNEY EFFECTIVE THIS MEETING.
COUNCILMAN PAQUETTE STATED THAT IN A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH GEORGE MUKSIAN HE ASKED THE SOLICITOR WHAT LEGAL ASSISTANCE WOULD HE REQUIRE IF HE WERE GIVEN THE APPROVAL TO LITIGATE ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL.
THE SOLICITOR STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT NEED AN ASSISTANT. HE WOULD NEED LEGAL AID OR HELP TO DO THE LEG WORK AND SUGGESTED ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
COUNCILMAN PAQUETTE STATED THAT THIS MAY PLACE UNDO BURDEN ON THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
COUNCILMAN PAQUETTE ASKED IF THE COUNCIL COULD HIRE OUTSIDE LEGAL AID WHEN THE CITY SOLICITOR HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO COUNCIL.
DISCUSSION REGARDING CHARTER PROVISIONS BY COUNCILMAN PAQUETTE.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS STATED THAT HE SPOKE WITH MR. HARSCH AND ASKED IF THE COUNCIL WAS WITHIN LEGAL RIGHTS.
MR. HARSCH STATED ABSOLUTELY.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS STATED THAT TYPING, SUMMONS ETC. WOULD BE DONE THROUGH CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. THAT IS
ANOTHER CONCERN OF COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS WILL THE INFORMATION END UP ON THE OTHER SIDE. HE STATED THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.
COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU ADDRESSED USE OF CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DISCUSSED UNION PERSONNEL HIRED TO DO SPECIFIC DUTIES. THE USE OF THE CITY SOLICITOR TO SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY WILL NOT HAPPEN IF ANOTHER HAS TO BE PLACED IN CITY SOLICITOR 'S POSITION. HE WOULD HAVE TO ORIENTATE SOMEONE NEW. HIRING OUTSIDE PARALEGALS ETC. WOULD NOT SAVE
THE TAXPAYER A SINGLE PENNY AND COULD BE MORE COSTLY TO THE CITY.
COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU AGREES THAT THE USE OF A SOLICITOR WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE DETENTION FACILITY IS THE MAYOR'S PROJECT AND HE WORKED VERY HARD ON THIS PROJECT AND HE SHOULD BE COMMENDED. SHE STATED HOWEVER THAT IT WOULD BE A DISSERVICE TO TAXPAYERS TO TAKE CITY SOLICITOR AWAY FROM PRESENT DUTIES.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS ALSO QUESTIONED THE SOLICITOR ON BEING RELIEVED OF OTHER DUTIES AND WOULD IT JEOPARDIZE OTHER CASES.
THE CITY SOLICITOR RESPONDED THAT IT WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON OTHER CASES.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CANAVAN RELATED HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY SOLICITOR. HE REPEATED THAT THE SOLICITOR STATED THAT HE DID NOT ADVISE THE MAYOR ON IGA. THE SOLICITOR COULD CONTINUE TO SERVE THE COUNCIL UNTIL OR UNLESS THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH THEN THERE MAY BE A CONFLICT. REGARDING OTHER
COURT CASES, AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THE CITY IS AVAILABLE AS A FAVOR TO THE CITY FOR THESE CASES.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CANAVAN ASKED THE CITY SOLICITOR WHAT HE WOULD DO IF THE MAYOR ASKS YOU TO BACK OFF.
GEORGE MUKSIAN RESPONDED THAT HE WOULD SAY NO TO THE MAYOR AND HE WOULD FOLLOW THIS THROUGH.
COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU STATED THAT IF YOUR THE BOSS YOU DON'T ASK YOU TELL.
COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU STATED THAT THE CITY OF CENTRAL FALLS, ZONING BOARD ETC. WERE SOLD A DETENTION FACILITY.
DISCUSSION ENSUED.
COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU STATED THAT SHE CONTINUALLY ASKED IF THERE WOULD BE CONVICTED CRIMINALS IN THE FACILITY. SHE WAS TOLD CONSISTENTLY THERE WOULD BE NONE.
DISCUSSION ENSUED.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS STATED THAT HE BELIEVED SOME DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE BETWEEN MAYOR AND CITY SOLICITOR.
HE ALSO STATED THAT APPOINTMENT FOR CITY SOLICITOR HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE AND THERE IS NO SOLID GROUND WITH GEORGE MUKSIAN AT THIS TIME.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CANAVAN STATED THAT HE DOES BELIEVE A CONFLICT COULD ARISE AND THAT THEY COULD BE ENDLESS. HE STATED THAT THE COULD COUNCIL BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CANAVAN WAS TOLD BY THE CITY SOLICITOR THAT THE PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL COULD ORDER THE CITY CLERK TO DO THE WORK.
WHAT WOULD THE RAMIFICATIONS BE IF COUNCIL VIOLATED CHARTER.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT STATED THE HE DID NOT KNOW.
COST FACTOR DISCUSSED.
COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU RESPONDED THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST TO SPEND MONEY THAT MAY NOT PROVE FRUITFUL..
COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU STATED THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COUNCIL THAT THE FACILITY BE USED AS INTENDED. SHE STATED THE SHE VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE FACILITY AND THE COUNCIL IS OBLIGATED TO SEE THIS THROUGH. SHE FEELS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SHORT CHANGED.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS STATED THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY WOULD UNDERSTAND THE COST AND THAT MOST WOULD WANT TO BE REPRESENTED BY AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY.
COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU COMPLIMENTED THE EFFORTS OF THE COUNCIL ON THE MATTER.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CANAVAN ASKED COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS IF THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT COME UP IN DISCUSSION. HE STATE THAT PLACING HIMSELF IN THE PLACE OF THE MAYOR HE WOULD ORDER THE FINANCE DIRECTOR NOT TO PAY THE ATTORNEY.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS STATED THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD EXPECT THE MAYOR TO ORDER NON-PAYMENT.
DISCUSSION ENSUED.
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT WILLIAM W. HARSCH, ESQ.170 WESTMINSTER ST. PROV. BE HIRED TO REPRESENT THE CITY COUNCIL.
COUNCILMAN PAQUETTE COMMENTED.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS STATED TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
COUNCILMAN GOES QUESTIONED IF COUNCIL HAS THE RIGHT TO HIRE THIS ATTORNEY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CANAVAN RESPONDED.
COUNCILMAN GOES STATED THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO SEE THE DETENTION FACILITY SUCCEED AS A FACILITY FOR DETAINEES.
MOTION TO HIRE ATTORNEY HARSCH WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN PAQUETTE.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS YES
COUNCILMAN GOES YES
COUNCILMAN PAQUETTE YES
COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU YES
COUNCILMAN CANAVAN YES
MOTION CARRIED 5 YES 0 NO 0 ABSENT.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS STATED THAT A LIAISON BETWEEN COUNCIL AND ATTORNEY BE MAINTAINED.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CANAVAN CONCURRED.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS COMMENTED ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO PASSAGE AND VETO AND RELATED THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE ORDINANCE. HE STATED THE ORDINANCE THAT IS NOW IN PLACE NEVER HAD INTRODUCTION. HE BELIEVES THAT IT MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER.
MOTION TO ADJOURN WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GOES AND SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU.
COUNCILMAN MATTHEWS YES
COUNCILMAN GOES YES
COUNCILMAN PAQUETTE YES
COUNCILWOMAN MOREAU YES
COUNCILMAN CANAVAN YES
MOTION CARRIED 5 YES 0 NO 0 ABSENT. TIME 8:25 P.M.
---------------------------
ELIZABETH A. CROWLEY
DEPUTY CITY CLERK