August 21, 2000 - Regular City Council Meeting

C. Town of East Greenwich regarding an Ordinance regulating smoking in eating establishments.

D. Councilman Lazieh to Finance Director John P. Kuzmiski regarding City's operating budget.

E. Councilwoman Rose Marie Canavan to City Solicitor, James Briden regarding Mayor's Budget, 2000-2001 fiscal year.

F. Councilwoman Rose Marie Canavan to City Solicitor, James Briden regarding use of outside legal services from outside city.

G. John P. Kuzmiski, Finance Director to Councilman Lazieh response to request regarding City's Budget etc.

H. Thank you acknowledgement from Central Falls Youth Soccer Association.

I. Correspondence from Chief Alan DeNaro re: China House Restaurant on 555 Dexter St.

Motion to accept collectively Item A through D and H and place on file was made by Councilman Leger and seconded by Councilwoman Canavan. All Agreed. So Voted.

Councilwoman Canavan addressed her correspondence to the City Solicitor (Item E) and explained that the City Council needed to accumulate documentation on every issue relative to the request in order to create a record for future needs. She stated that she is extremely disturbed that the Mayor had disregarded the Council's direction that no approval is given for the use of approximately $280,000from the surplus fund. She stated that she would like a written opinion from the City Solicitor as soon as possible in regard to this action being in violation of the Charter. She stated that she believes that Council approval is necessary to use surplus funds. She stated that in as much as the Mayor taking this action usurping the power and authority of the Council she would expect that the Legal Department have fully researched this issue and advised the Mayor previous to this action. She stated that she would like a written opinion of the Legal Department's advice to the Mayor in regard to this issue. If in the event that the Mayor had done this without consulting the Legal Department she stated that she would like the written opinion that would have been offered to him had he requested it. The answer that she received from the Legal Department is please note that these issues are addressed in the Legal Department's written opinion to the Mayor a copy enclosed. She stated that Mr. Briden is referring to the Veto Message and that he feels that he answered the use of the Surplus funds without permission through the veto message. This is the important sentence that she thinks is important and necessary for documentation along with his answer "in sum the Mayor has acted consistent with the advice of legal counsel." This is the documentation we need that legal counsel is advising the Mayor to use the surplus funds. She referred to the part of the veto message that the Solicitor is referring to the Council's Budget that the Council passed the legal department is giving the Mayor two options #1. Live with last year's budget option #2 keep the total appropriations with includes the surplus and veto the amendments that the Council has made. She stated that this would balance the budget. She reported that the Mayor did that and she stated that she can't understand why the legal department is not present at this meeting but that she can't understand how the legal department can instruct the Mayor to veto a budget and disregard the override. The Charter does make it legal for the Mayor to veto she said but it also makes it legal for the Council to counter act and override the veto. She stated that the Legal Department advised the Mayor that he could veto certain amendments, the Council overrode the veto according to the rights by charter and she stated that by the Council overriding made the veto moot and that makes second option moot and she stated that this leaves only one option and that is to live with last year's budget. She said that this is what she means by documentation if in the Council does end up in court, the City Solicitor has put it right on paper that he has advised the Mayor to use this veto and disregard the override. She stated that the veto and override go hand in hand and that you can't have things both ways. She said the Mayor had the right to veto and the Council has the right to override the veto. She stated that the Legal Department has given the Mayor the right to veto and have completely disregarded the Council's power to override which would have made the veto moot. She stated that this is why she wanted the documentation and that the Council is on their own legally and the council will have to use its own resources. She stated that this is issue E. She went on to explained the correspondence (listed as item F) and the issue of the legal opinion of the third lawyer Mr. Benoit which is the outside lawyer causing the expenditure of outside legal fees. She stated that since Mr. Benoit was hired by the City of Central Falls and the Taxpayers are paying these outside fees she stated that she is requesting his official and legal opinion in writing. Councilwoman Canavan stated that she feels that she is entitled to this request. She stated that the legal opinion presented by the Mayor was signed by the Solicitor and Assistant City Solicitor making the Council aware of the Legal Department's positions but Attorney Benoit did not sign the document making her wonder what his position is. She stated that she is also requesting a copy of the signed contract with Attorney Benoit along with his fees. She stated that the response she received from Attorney Briden of this letter was that he does not have a copy of the opinion nor a copy of a contract with Mr. Benoit. She stated that when she is asking the Solicitor for these items that she is aware that this is not sitting in the Legal Department's Office but that it's somewhere in the building. She said that the intention in asking for this is that the Legal Department would go to the Department where the item is and obtain a copy of it from them and inform them that they have a legal responsibility to provide it. She stated that this is why she asked the Legal Department for the information, since she had no idea where it would be and she stated that she considered the Solicitor as the liaison between the Council and the Administration. She stated that the Council in its letter is asking for Mr. Benoit's opinion and what he thought about the veto message. She stated that it was not her intention that the legal department has this information but rather that the legal department would refer it to the proper department and inform them legally that the Council must get the answer within 10 days. She stated that the Council is not getting any co-operation. She stated that on this matter she would like to resubmit this request and she said that it's important and that the Council needs Mr. Benoit's opinion. That the Council needs to know what he said about the veto if the Council is going to have a case. She requested that the Council join her in this request.

Motion was made by Councilman Leger and seconded by Councilman Lazieh to accept and place on file correspondences E & F. All Agreed. So Voted.

Councilman Leger asked if the second part of Councilwoman Canavan's request should be taken up at unfinished business. Council President Noury stated that if the Council wished to act on it now, it could do so.

Motion was made by Councilman Leger to ask the clerk to send a letter to the Mayor requesting a Attorney Benoit's legal opinion and also a letter to the Finance Director asking for a breakdown of the cost to acquire Mr. Benoit's services.

Council President Noury suggested that the motion to state in accordance with open records law.

Councilwoman Canavan stated that she has already drafted a letter stating the open record law. She also informed the Council that she has already checked with the Attorney General's Office because previously the Council failed to site state law, but she was informed that its not really necessary to site state law, if the Council really wants to state strongly the law, but its not necessary.

Council President Noury asked if Councilman Leger would like to amend his motion to send Councilwoman Canavan's letter instead of the Clerk.

Councilman Leger amended the motion which was seconded by Councilman Lazieh. Councilman Leger requested a copy of the letter.

Councilwoman Canavan explained that the letter is addressed to the Legal Department because the Legal Department can go to the Department that is in control of these records and the Legal Department can say to the Department that legally you are under obligation to provide these documents within ten days. She stated that she is using the legal department as a vehicle to get these records.

Councilman Leger amended his motion to send the letter to Mr. Briden.

Councilman Lazieh stated that this request has already been made in his request made to the Finance Director dated August 2, 2000 as well as to the Mayor, Legal Department, Bond Counsel, Auditor General, Review Commission etc. The Letter also asked for legal documentation opinions, etc. He stated that a request for this information has been made and that he supports thisr equest. He also stated that he received a response from the Finance Director stated that the opinion of bond counsel was not available in the Finance Office and that the request should be made to the Solicitor. He stated that pursuant to the open meeting law the 10 days started kicking on August 2.

Council President Noury questioned Councilman Lazieh on Bond Counsel.

Councilman Lazieh responded.

Discussion continued between Councilman Lazieh and Council President Noury relative to Councilman Lazieh's request.

Council President Noury stated that he agreed with Councilwoman Canavan's and Councilman Lazieh's requests and comments. He stated that the Administration has yet again sought the opinion of another outside Attorney. He stated that the people of the City have a right to know what this opinion is and to receive it in writing. He also stated that he wanted to know what the status of this Attorney is, Bond Counsel or independently, who is he working for as Bond Counsel of for himself. He stated that the people have a right to know what they are paying for. He then asked for a vote. 4 ayes 1 no. Councilman Robichaud voting in the negative.

Council President Noury stated that he agreed that the Council is on its own and that the Council should seek an outside legal opinion until the Council appoints its own Assistant City Solicitor and stated that he would entertain a motion to do that. Not only on the budget issue but also on the expenditure of outside legal fees.

He opened the floor for discussion on the issue.

Councilman Leger asked why would the Council want to hire an outside Attorney why not just follow through on the Ordinance that the Council passed.

Council President Noury stated that this is an area that could be pursued and also he reminded the Council that there are two other Attorneys on the City Payroll that presently serves as Municipal Court Judge and Probate Court Judge. He wonders if one or both would serve the Council until the appointment of an Assistant Solicitor is made by the Council. He asked the Council for direction.

Councilwoman Canavan stated that the Judges are City Employees and both are reputable. She also stated that they would be expected to give an advisory opinion pro bono and that they have no allegiance to anyone. She stated that since the Municipal Court Judge's workload is heavier then the Probate Judge should be asked and would recommend him.

Council President Noury asked that the Chair be given the opportunity to approach both Judges on the issue.

Motion was made by Councilwoman Canavan that the City Council President be authorized to approach both the Municipal Court Judge and the Probate Court Judge to solicit their help in seeking an opinion on the issues before the City Council. She also motioned that they be instructed that they are doing this pro bono and that their allegiance is to the City and not to the Council or the Mayor.

Motion seconded by Councilman Lazieh for discussion.

Councilman Lazieh stated that he had one concern and one request that he strongly believed that they should be obtaining counsel and not incurring any further expense to the City. He also requested that they research to be sure that there is no conflict with them in providing an opinion and advice to the Council according to Legal Codes or Ethics or conflict of interest.

Council President Noury stated that he would note to the Judges that it is expected to be pro bono and that there is no conflict of interest.

Council President Noury asked for a vote. 4 aye 1 no. Councilman Robichaud voting in the negative.

Motion to accept Item G and place on file was made by Councilman Leger and seconded by Councilwoman Canavan. All Agreed. So Voted.

Motion to accept Item I and place on file was made by Councilman Leger and seconded by Councilman Robichaud.

Councilwoman Canavan stated that the Chief's letter states that they have been out several times even after 2:00 a.m. She stated that the Council needed to do more than place it on file and recommended that the Clerk send a warning indicating that the Chief has a problem and if it continues the Council may have to call them in.

Council President Noury stated that there is a motion on the floor and that he would recognize Councilwoman Canavan's motion after action on the motion on the floor. All Agreed. So Voted.

Councilwoman Canavan explained why she wanted to send a letter of warning.

Motion by Councilwoman Canavan to send China House a letter of warning. Seconded by Councilman Lazieh for discussion.

Councilman Leger stated that he disagrees about send a letter and that he believes that the Chief wants the Council to take action and that Chine House should be summoned before the Council. He doesn't believe a letter would solve the problem.

Councilman Robichaud stated that he agreed that the China House should be called before the Council.

Councilwoman Canavan withdraws her motion.

Councilman Leger motioned that China House is summoned before the Council. Motion seconded by Councilman Robichaud. On the vote 4 aye 0 no Councilman Lazieh abstains.

Motion to approve was made by Councilman Lazieh and seconded by Councilman Robichaud.

Councilman Lazieh commented on Captain Tierney's many years of service. All Agreed. So Voted.

Councilman Lazieh moved to table. No second.

Councilman Lazieh explained his concerns.

Council President Noury stated that this is State Law and is required.

Councilman Lazieh stated that this is an $85,000 project and some concerns and questions should be answered before approval.

Motion to table was made by Councilman Lazieh. No second.

Motion to approve was made by Councilman Robichaud and seconded by Councilwoman Canavan.

Motion carried 4 yes 1 no.

Council President Noury commented on the correspondence regarding Jewish Holidays and asked the Clerk to note them on the Council Calendar so meeting will not be scheduled on those days.