January 13, 2003 - City Council Meeting

City of Central Falls

Regular City Council Meeting

City Hall Council Chambers

MONDAY

JANUARY 13, 2003

4:00 P.M.

A Regular Meeting of the Central Falls City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers at 4:02 p.m.

1. Roll Call

Councilman Noury

Councilman Leger

Councilman Patino

Councilman Weber

Quorum present.

2. Pledge of Allegiance

Council President Weber presided and led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Without objection Council President Weber moved around the agenda to accommodate all persons having business before the Council not related to the Retirement Issue.

*Note: for clarity the minutes were written in the order presented however the City Council President moved around the Agenda. Some items were discussed, approved or tabled throughout the 3-days that this meeting was in session.  The meeting began at 4:00 p.m. on the above date and continued Tuesday, January 14, 2003 at 8:00 p.m. and concluded on Friday, January 17, 2003 at 4:00 p.m.

Councilman Issa for the record was not present on Monday January 13^th or Tuesday January 14^th but did attend on Friday, January 17, 2003.

3. Retirement

A) Board of Pensions & Retirement regarding non-work related disability pension for Firefighter Thomas Gamache.

B) Executive Session PURSUANT TO RIGL 42-46-5(A)(1) RELATIVE TO A PENSION FOR FIREFIGHTER THOMAS GAMACHE.

Council President Weber asked the Assistant City Solicitor Matthew Oliverio to report his findings on what the Council’s legal authority is as it relates to retirements. Mr. Oliverio stated that he’s done some research and reflecting on the matter and he knows that this issue has come up in the past probably about eight years ago. He stated that the only provisions governing this issue is in the Ordinances Chapter 16 entitled Board of Pensions and Retirement.

He stated that the Council is aware that the Custom, Practice and Procedures of the City are that all pensions go before the Board of Pensions and Retirement. He stated that they make their decision based on information received in doctor’s reports, the testimony of the applicant and of any conflicting testimony. And, he said, that based on all the information that the Board gathers they make a determination as to what type of or if any pension is due the applicant. He stated that he feels that that was done in this case rather exhaustively.  He said that the Board then submits, as provided by Ordinance, a recommendation to the Council. He stated that the Council has some degree of oversight in the process. He said that it would be a fruitless endeavor for the Board to make a decision without some type of oversight and, he said, it would be inconsistent with the Charter if the Council didn’t have any type of oversight. The Council may review all of the information that was considered by the Board and accept that recommendation, or reject that recommendation. He stated that this is where the Charter is not quite clear and he said what if the Council rejects the recommendations of the Board of Pensions and Retirement. He said, then the applicant would appear to get nothing. He then stated that in this case the Board is recommending a certain type of pension for Mr. Gamache.

Council President Weber cautioned the Solicitor that this opinion is totally autonomous and that he did not want to relate this to any one particular case at this time. He said he did not want this to tarnish in any way the proceedings that would follow.

Mr. Oliverio stated that in order for the Council to approve a pension, the Board of Pensions and Retirement must ordain that the applicant is entitled to a pension. He said if the Board decided that the applicant is not entitled to any pension then under section 4-1601 the Council could review that, but, as a threshold there has got to be a recommendation to give some sort of pension. Mr. Oliverio said that if they recommend a certain type of pension then the Council could review it and accept or reject that.  What happens if the Council rejects the recommendation, although its not in the ordinance, it could either go back to the Pension Board for reconsideration or the Council may have the authority to modify the type of pension that was recommended, although its not expressed in the ordinances. He said the Council might, by their ability to oversee the Board, have that implicit authority. He stated, however, that if the Council chooses to take that action to either send it back to the Board or to modify the pension its got to be based on credible evidence that was heard before the Pension Board. He stated that the Council couldn’t supplant the Board’s decision-making authority. It’s got to be rationally based on the evidence that was submitted before the Board of Pensions & Retirement. He said that’s his interpretation.

Councilman Noury asked if any City Council in the past every approved a pension that was different that what the Pension Board recommended.

Mr. Oliverio responded that in the years since he’s been the Assistant Solicitor (1994) he doesn’t believe so. He said that it might have happened in other Administrations prior to Mayor Lazieh or Mayor Matthews. He commented that hasn’t done that research but would be happy to if the Council wishes to see how the City interpreted this provision. He said there might be a case that the City modified the type of pension.

Councilman Noury asked if that if this occurred would that has established a precedent.

Mr. Oliverio replied that the he thinks it would be indicative of how the City, in the past, has interpreted the pension and how the authority of the Council has been construed. So it’s certainly evidence of the Council’s authority.

Council President Weber proceeded to Item 3 b and asked Mr. Gamache if he wished the hearing to be held in Executive Session as provided by law.

Attorney Margaret Hogan, representing Mr. Gamache, responded that at this time her client is waiving his right to Executive Session. She stated that the hearing before the Board of Pension and Retirement was held in open session and that it is Mr. Gamache’s feeling to continue in open before the Council. Discussion with the Solicitor as to whether the Council has the right to convene into Executive Session before or after they hear the testimony.  The Solicitor explained that since Mr. Gamache waived his right to Executive Session the Council’s deliberations must remain in open session and on the record.

Council President Weber recessed for five minutes.  Meeting reconvened at 4:52 p.m.

Council President Weber, before proceeding, made a statement pertaining to the letter from the Board of Pensions and Retirement and although he recognizes the job they were assigned he also recognized that the Council is entrusted in making the final decision. He said that the Council answers to the voters, the firemen, the police officers and the city workers in both way and the Council has to do the right thing.  He stated that he’s heard the opinion of the Solicitor and he’s not sure or necessarily comfortable with that recommendation. He said that he’s glad that all parties are present to provide the Council with all the information necessary to make a decision. He said that the Council might not be trained but that they are answerable to the voters and are prepared to move forward with a full hearing on this issue.

The Council President then proceeded to hear testimony. (Refer to transcripts)

Rules and Procedures were established. It was agreed by both Mr. Rogosta and Ms. Hogan to present joint exhibits identified as (#1) Transcript of Pension Board Hearing (#2) Occupational Health report (#2 A) Firefighter Physical Examination (#3) Orthopedic Group Report (#4) West Bay Orthopedics Report (#5) Liberty Physical Therapy Inc. Report (#6) Kent Occupation Health Report (#7) Thomas F. Morgan independent medical examination and (#*8) Curriculum Vitae Dr. Morgan.  Also filed were Applicant’s (Gamache) Exhibits (#1) Employer’s First Report of Injury (#2) Employer’s First Report of Injury (#3) Firefighter’s picture folio (#4) Central Falls Fire Department Incident Report  8/17/00 and (#5) Incident Report 3/26/01.  The Clerk also placed in the “File” a letter dated 8/12/02 from Bradford Southworth, Personnel Consultant to Dr. Thomas Morgan, An overview of time events presented by Mr. Rogosta at closing statements. The letter from Board of Pension & Retirement to the City Council recommendation for non-work related disability pension dated 12/16/02. Copy of Chapter 16 Board of Pension & Retirement City Charter. A letter dated 1/21/03 from the City Clerk to Bradford Southworth granting a work-related disability pension by City Council. Also made part of this file are the transcripts of the 2 days of testimony for the above referenced retirement transcribed by Allied Court Reporters-115 Phenix Ave. Cranston, RI dated 1/13/03 and 1/14/03. Transcript of Friday January 17, 2003 taken by the City Clerk was also made part of this file individually.

Council President Weber continued the meeting to Tuesday, January 14^th 2003 at 8:00 p.m.

Meeting recessed at 10:50 p.m.

The Meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. Council President Weber noted for the record that Councilman Noury, Councilman Leger and Councilman Patino were present constituting a quorum.  Doctor Thomas Morgan was called to give testimony.

The meeting recessed at 9:25 pm and reconvened at 9:30pm.

Council President Weber asked the members of the Council if they had any questions of Dr. Morgan.

Council Members questioned Dr. Morgan. (refer to transcript)

Attorney Ragosta gave his closing statements. (refer to transcript)

Attorney Hogan gave her closing statement. (refer to transcript)

Hearing Closed.

Councilman Noury asked for a five-minute recess time-11: 35 p.m.

Meeting reconvened 11:40 p.m.

Council President Weber asked Council members how they wished to proceed.

Council Members expressed the need to have time to review all the documents and to review their notes relative to the testimony.

Council President Weber recessed the meeting to Friday, January 17, 2003 at 4:00 p.m.

4. Correspondences

a) Moreau Family note of thanks.

b) Colombian American Cultural Society-Card- Extending Holiday Greetings.

c) Central Falls Detention Facility Corp. 2003 Meeting Schedule.

5. City Officers Reports

a) City Clerk’s Office-year end report 2002

b) Personnel Consultant-October-November-December

c) Fire Department-July- December 2002

d) Recreation Department-January 2003

e) Code Enforcement-December 2002

f) Municipal Court Report-December 2002

g) Police Report-December 2002

Council President Weber added item (H) Finance Report for July 2002.

Councilman Leger commented that the Council received from every department reports from December 2002 and January 2003 but that the Finance Department submits a report dated July 31, 2002. He stated that the previous Finance Director Joseph Bolton gave the Council every report within 30 days of the closing of the books and he stated that it was easily done with a touch of a button. Now, he said, we’re back to receiving reports like two years ago where were reports were received 9-months later. Councilman Leger said that this will definitely impact his decisions when budget time comes especially when it comes to department raises.

Council President Weber stated that Councilman Leger is absolutely right and he agrees. He said that he requested from the very first Council meetings that this Council wanted monthly reports from every Department and for the most part the Council receives them in a timely fashion. He stated that the Finance Department, although short staffed in the past, has been woefully behind relative to these reports and that is not the way to handle this and the Council needs this information to do its job.

He stated that he appreciate Councilman Leger’s comments and understands his frustration as Finance Committee Chair. He stated that he would continue to stress to Department Heads to continue submitting their reports on a monthly basis.

Councilman Patino motioned that the Finance Director appear at the next meeting of the Council. Councilman Leger seconded.  All Agreed. So Voted.

The City Clerk stated for the record that the Finance Director was presently in the building and the he related to her that he would be available if the Council had any questions.

6. Public Comments on Agenda Items

None

7. Abatements

See List

8. Claim

Madeleine C. Carriere-96 White Parkway-No. Smithfield, R.I.

Damage to Front tires due to pot hole located in vicinity of 305 Hunt St. $ 195.96

9. Licenses

1. Constable License (renewals)

see list

2. Constable License (new)

Wendell W. Wilkie, City Assessor

39 Red Gate Road

Cumberland, R.I.

3. Retail Sale License (new)

Idalina Martins

D/b/a Lisbon Flowers & Gifts

635 Roosevelt Ave.

Motion to approve was made by Councilman Noury and seconded by Councilman Patino.

Motion carried 4 yes 0 no 1 absent.

4. Personal Services (new)

H & R Block Eastern Tax Services

D/b/a H & R Block

712 Broad St.

Councilman Noury asked the applicant if there is a lease.

Applicant responded that there is an 18- month lease.

Motion to approve was made by Councilman Leger and seconded by Councilman Patino.

Motion carried 4 yes 0 no 1 absent.

5. Class C License (renewal)

Central Fruit Inc.

D/b/a Central Fruit

693 Dexter St.

Motion to approve to November 30, 2003 was made by Councilman Leger and seconded by Councilman Patino.

Motion carried 4 yes 0 no 1 absent.

6. Automotive Repair (renewal)

Gerry’s Auto

91 Washington St.

Motion to table was made by Councilman Noury and seconded by Councilman Leger. All Agreed. So Voted.

7. Second Hand (renewal)

Krikor Bedrosian

KB Motors Inc.

257 Hunt St.

Motion to approve to June 30, 2003 was made by Councilman Leger and seconded by Councilman Patino.

Motion carried 4 yes 0 no 1 absent.

8. General Service (new)

Waterfalls Carwash Inc.

1325 Broad St.

Motion to extend old license to February 11, 2003 was made by Councilman Leger and seconded by Councilman Noury with the provision that Mr. Shabo comes to an agreement regarding the tangible taxes.

Motion carried 4 yes 0 no 1 absent. Motion to table new license was made by Councilman Leger and seconded by Councilman Noury. All Agreed. So Voted.

9. Class B victualling (renewal)

      RCM Corp.

      D/b/a Acuarius Night Club

      768 Broad St.

Motion to table was made by Councilman Leger and seconded by Councilman Noury.  All Agreed. So Voted.

10. Public Comments

Council President Weber asked if there were any comments from the Public.

Gladys Burns of 93 Rand St.-“I believe Monday evening a letter was read that one of my sons wrote to the Mayor.  Okay. Now, this was in regard to my termination as a Commissioner with the Housing Authority. Okay. What happened was we had a meeting on December 20^th and the meeting was scheduled for 10 O’clock. I got a call from the Mayor about 8:30 and he was saying that he knew what the agenda was, and well, how I know, he was mentioning Jonathan Kelly was coming up for a position as a maintenance person with the Housing Authority. So, he had said that he didn’t think it was a good idea for Jonathan Kelly to be hired for that position. Because it would mean that he would probably be talking to the residents about politics, you know, well the last election that we had there was because Mr. Moreau was running against the Mayor. And he thought that with the two of them there it wouldn’t be good. So I said, well, you know I said, he has the qualifications and it was the recommendation that he and another young man be hired.  So, he said, but he preferred that he did not be hired. So we had the meeting and we voted 3-2 to hire Jonathan Kelly. So, needless to say, that meeting probably ended about, 1 O’clock in that area.  And it was the next day, Saturday, I got a letter, and the letter was dated the 20^th of December.  So it was just a matter of hours and I was terminated.  And I was a hold over since 1999 but the thing was, because of the way I voted. I mean I was terminated immediately.  So I just wanted to say that I don’t feel that I was justly terminated, you know, but, anyway, I’ve lived in the City, well I came here when I was 4 so that’s almost most of my life which for all purposes makes me a life long resident. And, you know I worked for the City for 17 years and, actually, ironically, I worked 13 years in the Mayor’s Office.  That was the strange part, but I truly believe that because I didn’t vote the way the Mayor wanted me to that that was why I was terminated.  So I just wanted to make that known, and I thank you for your time.”

Council President Weber thanked Mrs. Burns and asked if there were any other comments.

Councilman Leger stated that on Monday a Mr. Benjamin Pytka of 75 Emmett St. was here and he wanted to address the Council but he couldn’t stay. He asked that when the Council issues permits for Higginson Avenue and the use of amplification how much it affects the surrounding neighborhood.

He requested that in the future that the Council ask the Police Department to monitor the area to see how loud the amplification gets and to try and control it in some manner. Councilman Leger also mentioned the little league sign ups coming up.

Council President Weber addressed Mrs. Burns and stated that the Council would address her circumstance a little later in the meeting.

11. Resolutions

a) Resolution extending the Condolence of the City Council to the Family of the late Norman Boisclair. (Councilman Leger)

12. Ordinances

First Passage

a) An Ordinance Amending Article II, Section 26-36 through 26-39, pertaining to “Graffiti”

Public Hearing/Final Passage

a) An Ordinance establishing a permit for the use of Recreational Facilities.

13. Unfinished Business

Councilman Noury: “ Mr. President the other night I read a letter I received regarding a couple of issues of the Central Falls Housing Authority.  Let me start off by saying that when I was first informed about this I informed the reporter I would have an opportunity and do an investigation and check out some of the facts. Which I have initiated and started and certainly haven’t completed yet after reading today’s newspaper I don’t think the issue is over.  But let me say this in all sincerity, that if there is anybody in the City of Central Falls that believes Mayor Matthews and Jim Briden that this was not politics at all, please come and see me I have a bridge in Brooklyn that’s for sale at a really good price.  Please come and see me.  But some of the quoted that are in the paper are even more disturbing.  When I hear the Mayor (quote) “ I was not going to allow residents to be intimidated or forced into a decision by appointing this particular individual.” Let me say that there are rules in place that prevent this from happening.  What’s really got to be insulting to the people of Forand Manor is that that quote is like saying those people can’t make up their mind on their own. I think that that’s a direct insult to the people in that Manor.  Those people have been around long enough and have had enough hard knocks that they don’t need anyone to tell them how to make up their mind on who their going to support in a particular election.  It just shows me he doesn’t believe in those people, that they can indeed make up their own mind. And when he talks about he did this, and I quote, “in the best interest of the Board.” I’m sorry to say that I totally disagree with that. It was in what he thinks his best political interest is, and that’s why he took the actions that he did. I don’t know what’s going on with Mr. Matthews, but to me lately, he seems to be acting in a paranoid state. It’s truly disappointing as to what happened to Mrs. Burns and Mr. Kelly. It’s just plain wrong. To me it shows just how mean spirited this individual can be. To take away, to remove somebody, that’s contributed so much time of public service to this community some 73 years and has been in the City 69 years according to her testimony, just to remove that person out of political spite is just wrong, its mean. And I think this is the first time, Mr. President, that I can ever remember in 28 years that I’ve been involved in State and Local government that any administration would embroil the Housing Authority into a political fiasco. And that’s what happened. Those actions committed by that Board has turned, you know what? Into another piece of litigation for the City of Central Falls has got to handle whether its through the Housing Authority or through our own Legal Department.

And some of the facts that I’ve come up with in my research are equally disturbing. I was informed that the legal counsel to the Housing Authority, someone that was hired independently informed the Executive Director to inform the Housing Board not to hold that second meeting when that newest member was appointed. But I further found out that Mr. Briden got up, who is a Commissioner, not the Legal Counsel to that Board and said to the rest of the Board well I don’t agree with that legal opinion I think we’ve got a right to go ahead.” 

“This is the same man who sent a memo to all City Employees for them not to co-operate when the City Council, when it was doing a financial investigation of the Administration. He is not the Legal Counsel, he should not be giving legal advice and, quite frankly, I think it'’ a bit unethical that he would attempt to do that. And another concern I’ve got regarding Mr. Briden. We were handed a list the other night at the beginning of the Council meeting, of all the Officials and all the Board members. Of all the volunteer Boards, and I call them voluntary even though they receive a $200 a year stipend, the Pension Board, the Personnel Board, the Zoning Board, the Juvenile Hearing Board there’s only one person on those Boards that’s not from the City of Central Falls and guess who that is?  It’s Mr. Briden who lives in the City of Rumford. Mr. Briden, unfortunately has become a hatchet man for Mayor Matthews. I think he should immediately resign from his position. Because his actions and his unethical legal advice to the Board has created another piece of litigation that we have to go out and defend.  I also read with great interest some of the comments made by Mr. Andrade today, and I don’t want to get into to much of responding to his comments at this time because of the fact that after I had received the initial call from a reporter, I told him that I would indeed call Mr. Andrade because I know him, and I know him. But let me tell you this that some of the comments made by Mr. Andrade are sad in some of the things that he said. I don’t really want to get into it too much at this point in case I do indeed have to be asked to testify at a future legal hearing.  I guess it’s fair to say that Mayor Matthews and Mr. Briden were the Grinches that stole Mrs. Burns and Mr. Kelly’s Christmas. But remember this folks, Christmas comes once a year and it’s going to be coming again this year.  Thank-you Mr. President.”

Councilman Leger: “ Mr. President, just a couple of things. On Monday, a notice dated January 10^th that came out of the Finance Office. On a request that you had, on the amount of legal fees that have been paid from July 1 –December 30 to the law firm of Blais, Cunningham & Crowe Chester, which is the law firm that Mr. Briden works from, ending June 26, 2002 through November 30, 2002, which is 5 months the City paid $15,860.22 for that law firm.  Every invoice that was paid on came with a personal letter from James Briden to Mayor Matthews regarding his $125 per hour rate that he was charging the City.  And, also on June 17, 2002 four weeks of unused vacation time was paid out as well to Mr. Briden.  So that’s the answer to your question on that.  Just, if I could continue on something Mr. Noury brought up regarding the Boards.  I have a concern is that we, you all know that recently we appointed a new Police Chief and the Board of Personnel only currently has two members because on of the members was removed from that Board to be put on the Housing Authority Board. And I have a concern that being on Housing Authority Board to block someone from getting a maintenance job was more important than, voting on, being the third member to vote for the Chief of Police. That’s the only comment I have about the Board.  The only other thing is that it’s my understanding that Mr. Sheridan still has not been paid. Even thought this Council, sitting as a Claims Committee awarded a payment, in a previous meeting, and I think that’s irresponsible. Again it’s just totally an insult to this Board and the actions of this Board to not pay on a vote of the Claims Committee. A couple of weeks ago Councilman Weber and myself met with the Madeira Club regarding the Landing. They were suppose to forward a letter to us which I haven’t seen yet regarding their concerns on the proposal, mostly involving their abutting property parking lot and their concerns on how it affects them. So I would anticipate that coming before us pretty soon. Thank-You.”

Councilman Patino: “Mr. President when I was reading the list of members to every single Board, I saw Mr. Briden’s name, and although I have a lot of respect for him, but I would prefer to have a City resident and I will research the law because in my mind every single person on every single Board should live in the City of Central Falls.  I don’t want to see people living in Providence or Woonsocket making decisions for the taxpayers of the City of Central Falls. Most important part when I was looking at the Board was there are suppose to have forty-eight individuals or persons and 33 of these positions have terms that have expired.  So basically, those positions are expired and the Mayor hasn’t taken the time to re-appoint them. If you don’t like anyone, they serve at the pleasure of the Mayor, you remove him or her immediately or that’s the process that should have been done. I see individuals here whose terms expired in 1998, 1999. I’m very unhappy with that because basically what it is telling us is that he’s creating the impression that if he doesn’t like the decisions the Board makes he replaces them. That is not right, if he wants his own people that’s fine. But, I don’t wait three years to remove them.  You have to do things right. I also would like to see a better way of hiring the workers for the Housing Authority.  I want to see more development. I hear there were 42 applications for the job and 9 people were the finalists. I don’t know because the Executive Director was on vacation, how many people got the final interview, but I would like to get to the bottom of this. I really think that the jobs in the City shouldn’t have anything to do with the political affiliation of who you like or don’t like, but if you are a good worker and have a good resume you should get those jobs and obviously I would prefer those jobs to go to City residents, thank-you.”

Councilman Issa: “ I wasn’t here the past couple of days of this meeting. I don’t know if the issue has come up. I received some phone calls from some pretty upset citizens as far as the trash trucks if they actually had some City Employees operating and running those trash trucks. I was just wondering if it was true and I’ve been told that it was. If we’re getting some kind of compensation for this from NEED? There is no reason for us to have our men on these trucks while we’re paying them.”

Council President Weber: “ If you will, I’ll explain what happened and if you will I’ll ask you to look into it further. It appears that Friday after Christmas, I know Christmas for sure, I’m not sure about New Year, NEED picks up Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Wednesday was the Holiday. They picked up on Thursday. Some people didn’t put their trash out until Thursday Night and Friday. I understand NEED had trucks available but no people. So, therefore our people were put on their trucks. Do I agree with it? Absolutely not. Do I know if we were compensated? I don’t know. I would ask you to dig into that further and report back.”

Councilman Leger: “ I would just ask that Councilman Issa, when you’re looking into that, if one of our employees was hurt, were they going to be placed on our workers compensation of their workers compensation?

Councilman Issa: “ That was a concern I had also.”

Council President Weber: “ As it pertains to the Housing Authority, I had an opportunity to speak with the Mayor regarding Mrs. Burns. I had an opportunity to speak when Mr. Briden called me. I spoke with the Mayor at length, I told the Mayor I thought he had made a terrible mistake. I told the Mayor I thought it 100% without question politics and that it was an absolutely rotten thing to do that to an individual who’s given so much of herself to the City of Central Falls. I told him that I was really displeased with the way it all was handled. We had tried or I have tried to foster an air of communications between the City Council and the Mayor’s Office.

Basically I was told it wasn’t the Council’s business. He’s right, we don’t approve all the Boards, and we don’t approve the Housing Authority members that’s governed by State law. State law does not say that members have to be City residents. Although, I think that it’s an unwritten rule that they should be, and or, residents of the Housing Authority itself. Mr. Briden, being put on that Board, as soon as the Council, as soon as the Mayor realized back in March that he was probably not going to have the votes for Mr. Briden to be confirmed as City Solicitor. Mr. Briden, immediately, the Mayor actually removed his name from being presented for that position then Mr. Briden resigned. The Council thought it was in April, it turns out we ended up getting a letter saying it was in May. Councilman Noury has been questioning this issue for quite some time. Truth be told, I was letting the issue ride. Now, Mr. Briden is working, or is on the housing board.  The law states you can’t be a city employee if you’re on that Housing Board. State Laws says that. Mr. Briden technically is not a city employee, but his firm continues to receive or be on retainer and receives money from the City of Central Falls each and every month to the tune of what Councilman Leger has stated $15,000 since June.  And, Mr. Briden is the sole attorney from Blais, Cunningham & Crowe, Chester who works for the City. I smell a rat. I don’t like it. I don’t know if there’s anything we can do about it, but obviously Mr. Briden is still technically an employee of this City.  And sitting on that Board I think, given the legal facts, not that we can prove it that he’s a city employee because of the way they skirted the system.  The fact of the matter is he should not be on that Board. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Briden as a lawyer, I’m not sure that I quite agree with his political ambitions. Mrs. Burns, I apologize from the City Council for what has happened to you. I apologize to Mayor Garvey for what he has had to do in wake of this situation. My sympathies go to Mr. Kelly. He was a City employee, I asked the Mayor. Mayor what did you have, did you have anything against Mr. Kelly when he worked for the City? I said, I thought he was one of your best workers and he agreed with me. So, if anyone thinks this isn’t political it is. It surly is. I know. I ran for Mayor. Jon Kelly and I are very good friends. Jon Kelly and his wife were forced. I don’t want to say forced, walked a tight line when I ran for Mayor because he was working for the City and therefor had to have an allegiance to the Mayor, and I don’t blame him. I never blamed him for that; he was a City employee. But, two months later he lost his job. He was told that wouldn’t happen and it did happen. Now, he has an opportunity to get back to work in this City, where he wants to work and that opportunity is taken away from him by somebody who didn’t have the authority to do that. Councilman Patino has mentioned a list, which reflects a number of personnel, which have not been re-appointed to positions on Boards. That he’s holding these hostage. He’s holding them hostage. If they don’t do what he tells them to do they are going to find a termination notice in their mailbox. Wrong, it’s absolutely wrong. Councilman Noury has been an advocate about the amount of money that is spent by this administration fighting lawsuits and here we go again. Councilman, all I can say, is stay on top of it because the City residents need to know the amount of money expended by this administration because his attitude is if you don’t like what I do sue me, take me to court. He’s got the resources of the 14 million-dollar city budget to back himself up. We don’t and I say that we don’t because the Claims Committee approved the payment to the lawyer Kelly Sheridan and his law firm back in September and I want to say September 31 to be exact 30^th? That bill is still not paid and it’s not going to be paid because the Mayor says he’s not paying it. Now, Mr. Sheridan and his law firm have to decide whether they want to sue the City to get their money.

Mr. Sheridan served diligently for the City Council. The City Council questioned him at length as to what was on that bill, so I included what was on those bills and we were satisfied that what was represented on those bills are what the actions that his law firm took on behalf of the Central Falls City Council.

The Mayor’s not going to pay the bill. I don’t know the answer. I covered a few things; actually there are a few more things that I need to cover. Councilman Leger and Councilman Patino I understand you will be meeting with some members of the Detention Facility to look at the situation down there. Please report back to the Council with your findings.  Councilman Patino you have some housing issues that you bring back up under new business please relay that to the Council.

Councilman Noury: “ Mr. President, If I just may for one second, on the issue of Mr. Briden, as it relates to consultation fees. To me this is no more than an attempt by Mayor Matthews to circumvent the City Charter. He’s in violation of the City Charter according to his own lawyer, Mr. Oliverio; his own legal department that said the Mayor has to submit a name for the City Solicitor’s position. He’s denying the Council its right to have an opportunity and a say on this position, in the meantime we’re short staffed. Why are we paying, for example, a high exorbitant outside legal expense on this case here, I’ll get into some of the details when we get into that issue, when it should be handled in house? Over a million dollars in outside legal fees has gone under the Matthews Administration. I’ve never seen a Mayor in the 28 years that I’ve been involved in State and Local government has such a callous disregard for the checks and balances of a democratic society. This can no longer continue and it’s incumbent upon us to keep his feet to the fire.  And there are many other issues.  In the beginning of this term the Mayor took us on a bus tour, some of the City projects, and he promised the people and he promised us co-operation. That co-operation has not existed. If for some reason you don’t agree with Mayor Matthews’ thinking or decisions. It’s either his way or as the President of the Council has stated take met to court. It’s an insatiable appetite. And I think some type of fixation that Mayor Matthews has with these outside attorneys. And as you so aptly put it Mr. President, he’s got the back up of a $14million dollar city budget to take on any comers that want to take him on.  But there are many other issues that I want to go into but I’ll hold them for another meeting but I did wait to address that issue of the City Solicitor. Mayor Matthews you’ve been told your in violation of the City Charter. You said to me the other night to do the right thing. Well, you do the right thing. Submit a name for consideration and let’s stop all the outside legal fees. Thank-you Mr. President.”

Council President Weber: “On to new business.”

14. New Business

Councilman Leger stated he was asked to bring this up regarding the Detention Center.

He submitted and read a petition supporting the expansion of the Central Falls Detention Facility.

He read the names of the businesses showing support for the expansion and he stated that these are night fly by night businesses who are only in the City for six months and move away. He stated that these are businesses that have been in the City for many years and he stated that this petition, in his opinion speaks pretty loud.

Councilman Noury stated that the Council at the next Council meeting should perhaps reconsider the Its position of that issue. He stated that he might have a change of heart on that issue.

Councilman Patino spoke on the housing issues regarding the high cost of housing. He related that he has been in touch with Representative Faria and they are focusing on some type of tax credit to property owners who keep their rents at a certain level. He spoke of legislation and the need for General Assembly action.

Councilman Leger spoke of obtaining an independent appraisal regarding the landing project.

Council President Weber asked the Clerk if a copy of the appraisal for the landing project has been filed with the Clerk’s Office.

City Clerk Crowley responded no.

Council President Weber asked if there was any other new business. Since there was no other business the Council President returned the meeting to the Gamache Hearing.

City of Central Falls

January 13, 2003

Addendum

Class C License (new)

Evaristo Medina

D/b/a Antillas Market III

69 Washington St.

Central Falls, R.I. 02863

Motion to approve was made by Councilman Leger and seconded by Councilman Noury.

Motion carried 4 yes 0 no 1 absent

The Central Falls City Council Meeting reconvened on January 17, 2003 at 4:00 p.m.  Council President Weber noted for the record that all members are present.  Council President Weber, without objection, moved to the remainder of the Agenda before continuing with the Gamache hearing.

City Clerk Crowley informed the President that the Council left off with item #8 on page 5. 

Councilman Leger stated that he doesn’t believe that the Council did item #6 on page 5.

Council President Weber proceeded to Public Comments item #10 on 7.

City of Central Falls

City Council

Central Falls City Council

Appeal of Pension Denial Of Firefighter Private Thomas Gamache

Date:  Friday, January 17, 2003

City Hall City Council Chambers

580 Broad St.

Central Falls, R.I. 02863

Council Members Present:

Robert F. Weber, Jr., City Council President

Councilman Gene R. Noury

Councilman Jason R. Leger

Councilman Ricardo Patino

Councilman Jonathan D. Issa

Margaret Hogan, Esq. – representing Private Thomas Gamache

Elizabeth A. Crowley, CMC

City Clerk

The City Council President called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. The Council proceeded with the remainder of the Regular City Council Meeting.  Discussion relative to the hearing for the Retirement of Private Gamache is as follows:

Council President Weber:    

“If the Council wishes to do discuss anything they will do so first and then I will be looking for a motion.  The Council’s abilities here are to number one approve the recommendations of the Pension and Retirement Board, reject the recommendations of the Pension and Retirement Board or to modify it and I say modify because the word in the Ordinances the Pension Board is charged with recommending to the Council individuals to be placed on the Pension & Retirement List.  That List, the responsibility of placing people on that list lies solely with the Council. Therefore, it is my belief, and I believe legal gave it to us, kind of in a murky way the other day, that we have the authority to do as we see fit since we are the final authority for that, having said that under discussion: any discussion you wish to have at this time?”

Councilman Leger:   

“First, I just want to commend the Council President for…”

Councilman Noury:   

“Excuse me Mr. President. I hate to interrupt. But do you know if Mr. Rogosta is going to be here or not?”

Council President Weber:    

“They knew what time the meeting was, so I’m not holding for them. It says 4 o’clock. We didn’t say anything other than that.”

Councilman Leger:   

“What I was going to say, I just want to commend the Council President for not rushing this process and giving each member or, at least myself, the opportunity to take the time to read every document that we were given. And we were given a lot, and I will say that I have read every single page of every document we were given.  And I say that because I feel the decision of the Pension Board was rushed. They admit and it read in the transcript that they were confused and I just want to point out a few things and why I think that the Council needs to totally eliminate what they’ve said and make our own decisions either way.  But I don’t think they took the time to really look into the matter.

And some of the comments included from the transcript on December 13^th – “Mr. Ryzkiewicz says based on the evidence that was mentioned tonight and what we’re talking about, I don’t think if we let this go any further we’re going to get any more information than we’ve already heard. And the attorneys are here and they agree.” “They agree!” I sat there eleven hours and I don’t think they agree. I don’t know where that came from.”

Councilman Patino:

“They agree to disagree.”

Councilman Leger:

“And then it says I would go under the recommendation of the Counselor. Which Counselor? The next comment comes from Mr. Robichaud that says, “Okay” and then Mr. Ryzkiewicz responds who is representing the City? This is on page 101 of the transcript and he’s asking who is representing the City?” Another quote is from Mr. Robichaud “I’m very disappointed in the fire department and their record keeping of the event that happened.” “In my eyes, I think the Officer in charge should be talking to the person who was injured so he can make the report. Hearsay, I don’t like that.”  Councilman Leger: “ I agree with him on the report and the way they’ve been handled but we’re here for a hearing for Mr. Gamache not for Chief Coutu or Battalion Chief Aissis who admitted that they were the ones involved with the reporting and we’re not here to put them on trial.  Mr. Minicozzi is asked if has any questions and he responds No, parts of this thing are very confusing. I think we better make a decision tonight and eliminate the problem of getting even more confused as it goes on with terminology and so for the, it gets to the point where, did it or didn’t it? But earlier in the transcript Chairman Robichaud complained of not getting information in advance and the Chief testified and Dr. Morgan testified that they were not even at that hearing. So, how can that Board say that they had all the information they needed?” “They were confused, but they made an educated, and I quote Mr. Rogosta “intelligent” decision?” therefore I also want to state that I have a concern when someone uses the Council forum to reach the people at home and to mislead them when it comes to the finances.  And Mr. Rogosta did that the other night when he told the people that the taxpayers in this decision was going to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.”

Council President Weber:

“He corrected himself and said well maybe a million.”

Councilman Leger:

“Okay, a millions dollars.  The average base salary for a firefighter is $35,000 and fifty percent of that is $17,500 and sixty-six and two thirds is $23, 333, that’s a difference, according to my math, of $5,833. That is not even close to a million dollars as far as what school I went to.  So, I take exception to that comment and I think it was misleading, saying that. I’ve read every word of every document and I believe there are some common facts on both sides. I believe every doctor acknowledged that there was an injury that took place on March 26^th 2001 including Dr. Morgan who said that, in that chair. I also believe that there is a case of degenerative disease. Four doctors gave an opinion that work injuries played a role. Each time a doctor stated that opinion the City asked for another opinion. The fifth opinion, Dr. Morgan, says it’s not related. At that point why didn’t we ask for another opinion?  I also know that the first four doctors conducted a much more involved and intensive physical exam and I have a concern with that as well. So, I’m still asking is it a coincidence or are they related and that’s the decision that we must decide.”

Council President Weber:

“Thank you, are there any other discussion?”

Councilman Patino:

“Mr. President, I appreciate the job that the City workers do for the City. I really know that every single job has a risk involved. I was reading every single paper too and I spent a lot of time but I heard the testimony of four doctors and they’re saying that Mr. Gamache suffers from something that is not really related to his work. And it will happen and it’s going to happen.  And I have to be, and I’m probably going to be the only one that is going to be on the other side. But, I really think that if he suffers sickness and our pension system allows that to happen and to take it. It’s okay with me and I believe the rights of a firefighter. I regret many things in the City, one of those things are we don’t have light duty. For example, in this case we don’t send our people back down to their home. We can offer a job, light duty, like dispatchers, and I know, we need one in the Fire Department.”

Councilman Patino:

“So, those jobs have to be offered to the individuals who suffer or become sick in the line of duty.  Also, I really think that the City should have more firefighters and more Police officers so that way we have less overtime. I know everybody likes overtime and somebody needs it too.  And, its good some overtime but if you have to work more than twenty hours of overtime a week with a police officer or a firefighter or thirty hours when you have to start on Friday morning and finish on Sunday that is another story and I know we can...the city and I know we….in the summertime. I regret that I really think we have to have more firefighters. We have to have more Police Officers and less overtime.

But my decision based on what I hear here and what I read. I know many people is not going to like it but I have to be honest with myself. Is to recommend, even though that I know that they did a terrible job, the Board of Pensions to recommend, to follow the recommendations of the Board, even though that the Board didn’t take the time to make the recommendation.  Thank-you.”

Councilman Noury:

“Mr. President, the first thing I want to address regarding this issue. I received a lot of comments in the last couple of days about the actual hearing that occurred in front of us.  And how, what a huge production it was that some people in the community think that it was indeed a multi-million dollar decision that the City Council was contemplating. Considering the amount of dollars and time and valuable resources that both sides seem to put into their case.  That is not the case to the taxpayers of Central Falls as Mr. Leger has recently referenced. Both sides agree that the individual is disabled, that automatically gives him a fifty percent contract. The question the Council faces today is a difference between a service- related disability and a straight disability. That difference is sixteen and two thirds percent. So, let me show the taxpayers that the difference is not a multi-million dollar decision that we’re contemplating here even though it sure looked like it. I guess over the past couple of days.  Let’s get to the facts of the matter on the case.  First, we have conflicting testimony by a number of doctors. Having said that we had to independent certified medical examiners both disagreeing on the cause of the injury.

That’s been established. So, it’s now up to us to consider the parties involved in the dispute. I, too, believe what Councilman Leger said.  I do believe that the City went doctor shopping until they found an individual to agree with their position.  Going to four or five different doctors to finally get the answers you want is something that individual to me, should not have been put through.  The issue regarding stepped and slipped, I made some general references to it the other night and there seems to be so much emphasis from the legal perspective on the difference and I still have not been convinced even as I asked the question what is the significant difference? Because I think most slips, most of the time begins with a step. And, until someone can straighten me out from the legal perspective, fine. I do believe what Mr. Ragosta said that Private Gamache was not being totally frank with us when he told his doctors that he had fully recovered from previous injury. I believe that occurred, so, I tried to examine what I felt. What was the motivation? First I believe that the guy truly believed, I mean truly loved, being a firefighter. I truly believe that he spent nineteen and one half to nineteen and three quarter years of service. But, I also believe that his not being totally forthright with his position, with his desire to provide for his family. And I don’t think that motivation is illegal, yet.  As a matter of fact, some people might consider that admirable.  That he would want to be, to go back to work, because of the huge amount of overtime in that department, over half a million dollars a year.  He was able to double his salary.  Well if I was able to double my salary I may work in some pain so I’m able to provide for my family.  So, I don’t buy into Ragosta theory that he lost his credibility and that he’s only apply for this because it’s not service related. I just don’t buy into that argument.  The other argument would be that if the truly was just out just for the money then he would find a way to continue to work because you can double your salary compared to what he’s going to get on a pension program. 

So, now, we’ve got to consider what the facts were presented. I do believe, that after nineteen and a half years of service, in a public safety job, that’s a firefighter’s job is, that if you do indeed have injuries over a period of time, those injuries will, indeed, take a toll over the overall body, anatomy. 

But, I contemplated even further, what are we telling our public safety employees? What are we telling our policemen and our firemen? That goes in harms way to protect the citizens of Central Falls.  Who start to question that if they do what they’re suppose to do, if they start questioning, well, will I be taken care of, will my family be taken care of, if I get hurt in the line of duty?  That’s not something I want to go down at this point.  I believe, and it was confirmed by Mr. Rogosta, that the individual in question has done honorable and commendable service, those were Mr. Rogosta’s words.  I do not believe he’s doing this just to grab an extra sixteen and two-thirds percent.  And then I look at the other individual, the administration, in the history of this administration it has the most contemptuous record in its relationship with City employees since I can remember going back twenty-eight years ago when I first started as an elected official with this City.  This administration has had more grievances and more arbitrations than any other administrations since I can remember and that’s when Frank Garvey was Mayor.  That’s when I started.  Hundred, tens upon tens of thousands of dollars in outside legal fees have gone to fight the arbitrations and grievances. It’s a huge waste of our limited valuable resources.  Anybody that’s in a management position will tell you that your employees are your most important asset that you have no matter what type of organization that you run, whether it’s a private for profit, whether it’s a non-profit hospital, or whether it’s a government agency or institution. Your employees are the most valuable asset that you have. Putting up these contemptuous relationships does nothing to further their co-operation in getting the job done.  Regarding Mr. Rogosta’s closing statement, and let me dovetail on Mr. Leger’s comments, I found it somewhat ironic as well as repulsive when he attempted to grandstand in front of the cameras and appeal to the taxpayers directly that we needed to do the right thing. I’ve been involved for twenty-eight years. I don’t need somebody from a different town telling me what’s the responsible and right thing to do. Especially somebody that dresses in three –hundred dollar suits and drives a Mercedes. That’s not the make-up of our community. 

I further submit that its unethical in his attempt to politicize the process instead of trying the process on the merits of the case by itself.  And, quite frankly, I find that repulsive Mr. Rogosta, and if you were here I’d be telling you to your face. Especially, when Mr. Rogosta, himself has earned hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in outside legal fees under the Matthews Administration.  How ironic that is.  Telling me I’ve got to be careful when he’s the beneficiary of over two hundred thousand dollars in legal fees.  I stated this earlier under old business, but this Administration’s fixation, fascination, with outside lawyers is a huge waste of taxpayers dollars.  The charter makes it clear that, as much legal work as can be done, in house, as possible, should be done.  But Mayor Matthews is contributing to that problem by not submitting, Mr. President, a name for consideration to this City Council for that Solicitor’s position.  So, wrapping up my overall statement, we’ve got conflicting reports. I do believe that the individual has done honorable service, I do believe it is service related in his injuries and I intend to propose for a service related disability Mr. President, thank-you.”

Council President Weber:

“ Thank-you, well, I want everybody to remember out there how much experience I now have as serving on a bench, so if you want to recommend me for the position! There are a lot of openings out there right now! Anyway, I just wanted to break the air a little bit. I was duly impressed by both Attorneys. They did their jobs well for the clients that they served. I too was taken aback by Mr. Rogosta’s statements that it was going to cost a million dollars. I know the numbers, it’s not near a million and oh by the way the sixty-six and two thirds ends at age sixty-five and reverts back to fifty percent by contract, so it’s not, I want the public to know, this is not a life long decision, either, although it is a decision that we do not take lightly because it does truly effect Mr. Gamache’s life. 

The issue of the Retirement & Pension Board; I want to commend them for the work they did. They spent three plus hours hearing a case, unfortunately they did not have the opportunity to hear all of the information that we did. I’m not sure what they had for items or exhibits. How many of the doctor’s dissertations they had, obviously they did not have the exhibits we were given or the reports that were in the computer, that went out nationally, that appeared to be the main reporting mechanism after the first report of injury filled out by both the individual or the Chief of the Fire Department. I don’t think they had the information we had.  They’re comments as Councilman Leger alludes to as being confused concerns me greatly. If you are confused, that’s no time to make a decision. That is not the right time to make a decision. I know, Monday night, at quarter to eleven, after six hours, we were tired. We might not have been thinking clearly and then again on Tuesday night, after four more hours, it wasn’t the right thing to do at that point in time. I hated to have brought everybody back again. But I thought that the Council needed to do its homework on this issue and I’m glad they have.  On the disability, I asked the question to the doctor, I’m still not sure he ever answered me, on whether the injuries that occurred on August 2000 and March 2001 irritated or aggravated or caused problems as it pertained to the degenerative disk disease. Dr. Morgan, in his statement to, or under cross examination by the Ms. Hogan stated that a traumatic incident could cause a problem, but when I asked him, he said it wouldn’t, it couldn’t. There was no way possible. To even consider the fact that you will not hurt yourself if you fall from under five feet is ludicrous. There are a whole lot of factors that pertain to whether you will hurt yourself falling from any height; lets face it. But, he was adamant in saying that under six feet, I think was his testimony, that your not going to hurt yourself. Not true. I can’t buy that one. We have two clearly reported cases where Mr. Gamache hurt himself in the line of duty. There was more comments added to it, slip, fall, step, fell on his butt, went boom, a whole bunch of things, but the fact of the matter is that we have two documented statements that he hurt himself in the line of duty. We have four doctors who testified, basically, to the same thing, and, then we have a neurologist who told the City what it wanted to hear, unfortunately, and that neurologist is the only on that was presented before us so that we could question him.

I don’t know why they didn’t go back to Dr. Sparhawk and get a clarification, if that’s what they needed from him. He seemed to be quite the independent medical examiner. He left no stone unturned. I’m not sure the City got its money’s worth from Dr. Morgan. I’ve been, I’ve served in the military, myself for twenty-six years now. I’ve seen people get injured and I’ve seen the right thing be done. I don’t see the right thing being done here. Then, again, I don’t blame the Pension Board, I think they did what they could with what they had, remember, Pension Boards, and neither are we, trained to do what we do. But, we are answerable to the people, so that is why we have the final decision rests with the City Council. With that I have no further comments. At this time will entertain a motion.”

Councilman Issa:

“Mr. President?”

Council President Weber:

“I’m sorry, do you have comments?”

Councilman Issa:

“Yes, I just like to state.”

Council President Weber:

“ I’m sorry I didn’t realize you had comments proceed.”

Councilman Issa:

“I’d just like the record to reflect that I will not be voting on the subject because of my absence. I don’t think it’s fair to either party to be voting on this issue.”

Council President Weber:

“Mr. Noury”

Councilman Noury:

“Mr. President, Motion to place Private Gamache on a service connected disability pension.”

Council President Weber:

“ Can I ask you to consider modifying your words?”

Councilman Noury:

“Sure”

Council President Weber:

“ I would like to modify the recommendation of the Pension and Retirement Board to sixty-six and two thirds disability.”

Councilman Noury:

“ Mr. President, I move to modify the Pension Board’s recommendation from a non-service connected disability of fifty percent to a service connected disability of sixty-six and two thirds percent.”

Councilman Leger:

“ Second.”

Council President Weber:

“We have a motion by Councilman Noury seconded by Councilman Leger. Under discussion? Hearing none. Madam Clerk, a roll call vote.”

Elizabeth Crowley, City Clerk:

“Councilman Issa is abstaining?” Councilman Issa: “Yes”

Councilman Patino: “no”

Councilman Leger: “yes”

Councilman Noury: “yes”

Councilman Weber: “yes”

Elizabeth Crowley, City Clerk:

“Motion carries- three yes, one no, one abstention.”

Council President Weber:

“ I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.”

Councilman Noury:

“So moved.”

Council President Weber:

“ We’re adjourned at 5:12 p.m.

Elizabeth A. Crowley, CMC

City Clerk