CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE
RHODE ISLAND
JOURNAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA
April 6, 2017
7:00P.M.
Room 306, City Hall, 145 Taunton Avenue, East Providence, RI 02914
7:00P.M. Open Session
*Note Rob Rock is absent
A. Communications. Members of the public are encouraged to submit their comments relative to the Charter Commission to the City Clerk or Solicitor’s office and all such communications will be forwarded to the entire commission in advance of each meeting.
a. East Providence City Hall
| Attn: | Kim Casci |
| | City Clerk |
145 Taunton Ave
East Providence, RI 02914
kcasci@cityofeastprov.com
B. Members of the public are also welcome to directly address the commission during meetings subject to the following rules:
a. No person shall speak for more than five (5) minutes;
b. No person shall address any topic not listed on this agenda.
Appearing as an in-person communication:
Nicholas Oliver – Mr. Oliver stated the transition from city manager to mayor and section 2-13 in its current form and article 3 sections 4, 5 and 6 are related to department heads. At the last meeting the Commission talked about how the mayor would be able to appoint department heads with advice and consent of the council. In terms of the transition, what does that mean to the current department heads? Will they be asked by the new mayor to resign? What is the legal risk for those that have been with the city, some for decades? Is this something to think about ahead of time or something the law department can look into? What is the legal risk? We have gone through a number of employee related law suits as a city and are we heading into this as a legal risk or scandal on day one? Are we putting the mayor in a bad position? The mayor may want to put in their own person. He closes by stating that he will leave that to the commission’s consideration as he feels changes are needed in those sections of the charter.
Mr. Lawson arrives.
Mr. Briden arrives.
Mr. Faria arrives.
A. Approval of Minutes:
1. Charter Review Commission Meeting March 16, 2017
2. Charter Review Commission Meeting March 23, 2017
A motion to approve the minutes from the March 16, 2017 and March 23, 2017 meetings is made by Mr. Scienzo, seconded by Mr. Kennedy and it is unanimous.
Chairman Russo requests from the commissioners that they call City Clerk Kim Casci-Palangio to the podium so that she may leave when done with her testimony.
A motion is made to call the City Clerk to the podium to hear testimony by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Scienzo to move this item to this location on the agenda and it is unanimous.
Chairman Russo reports at the last meeting the commission discussed the role of city clerk and that Valerie Perry who served for many years both as the City Clerk and as a Council member gave an outstanding presentation on her role.
Chairman Russo asks the City Clerk how many employees there are now in the clerk’s office and what their and current functions are.
The City Clerk lists the two unions in the office EPPMTEA and Steelworker, she then lists the positions, City Clerk, Deputy City Clerk, Municipal Court Administrator, Probate Court Administrator, Vitals Clerk, Licensing Clerk, and Recording Clerk. She notes the roles of the city clerk’s office are much the same as they were when Valerie was there. The Municipal Court was put under the umbrella of the city clerk’s office. Probate Court is a little busier as East Providence has one of the highest elderly populations and as baby boomers pass a new estate opens, estates can last 3 months or if heavily contests 5 years or more. The economy has picked up as well as the housing market and this has increased recordings. Some items have been added for example, with the changes in open meetings and open records laws the clerk’s office does receive a number of APRA requests specific to our office which need to be handled. There are postings and minutes required as well as an effort make various items and functions available on line. While an effort is made to go electronic, state law for archival purposes dictates that only micro film, micro fiche and paper are recognized and therefore paper copies still have to be maintained. For example, while the city council is electronic a paper packet containing all the documentation from each council meeting must be maintained forever and stored in a manner to ensure they will last. Municipal Court has its own records retention schedule as do vital records and licensing and so on.
Chairman Russo asked the city clerk if she had an opinion regarding the position being appointed by the mayor or by the mayor with council approval.
The City Clerk responded she felt as though if it were a mayoral appointment there should also be council approval. She noted the city clerk is also a department head and therefore answers to the city manager on departmental items and has union employees working under her in the office. The city clerk also works for council and the solicitor and it is a unique position in this respect. The mayor will have some role in the department but she feels as though the council should maintain giving their consent to the appointment as it is their clerk.
Mr. Desrosiers noted the clerk mentioned APRA requests and asked the clerk if she could define those for the audience.
The City Clerk explained that today there are more public records requests due to open records laws. The office is required to keep and maintain records to make them accessible to any APRA which is a public records request.
Mr. Desrosiers asked the Clerk if she could wave a magic wand and define the city clerk portion of the charter what changes would she make.
The City Clerk stated that she understands the clerk is the appointment of the legislative body and she feels as though this appointment would not be something that either the council or the mayor would want to lose and therefore she won't go so far as to say not to keep it as an appointment. She added though she would like to see a balance by having any city clerk appointment meet certain qualifications and have these placed in the charter. Currently, all that is needed is a high school diploma and a few years of work experience. This is not enough with the responsibilities the city clerk has as a department head. If qualifications were put in the charter then even if a clerk was switched out someone who was qualified would be put in who could handle the job. She also added she would like to see the appointment in the charter take place in the opposite year of an incoming council. In this manner, the clerk serves one year and is evaluated by the council before making a switch.
Mr. Desrosiers asked the clerk what she would like to see as minimal qualifications.
The City Clerk responded some formal education with a minimum of an associates degree though she would prefer to see a bachelors degree. Additionally, some experience working in municipal government or a public service position. She would also like to see their education or experience have a background in public administration with budgeting and business background either as direct experience or taken in college.
Mr. Fazioli asked the clerk how much of her time is allocated to the council vs the department.
The City Clerk explains that every other week, the week of the council meetings, council business receives more attention and estimates this at 60/40. However, in the opposite week she sees the shift 70-80/30-20 but notes that this depends on the council they serve.
Senator Conley asked about the state law regarding access to public records and asked if the city clerk is designated as the records officer.
The City Clerk responded she was not sure who is designated under the State APRA law but that in the City of East Providence, the request form for APRAs regardless of the department it pertains to is filled out in the city clerk’s office, the request itself is then sent to the law department and they manage it.
Senator Conley began to discuss the State statute and Assistant Solicitor Conley asked to speak and explained the city’s current policy.
Senator Conley asked who is the city records officer and if the city clerk kept all the city’s records in their office.
The City Clerk stated she was only responsible for the records generated by the city clerk’s office however they do try to assist the other offices by bringing in the State Archivist a couple of time a year to assist in record upkeep and culling.
Mr. Fazioli asked the city clerk if she was involved with the city and town clerks association and when do they meet.
The City Clerk stated she was and they meet quarterly. They communicate a lot with each other via email.
Mr. Fazioli asked the city clerk which community she worked most closely with.
The City Clerk stated she utilized Pawtucket a lot. They are most comparable with East Providence in size and other characteristics. Rick is their City Clerk and he is also the Associations Legislative Chair and is a great resource.
Mrs. Perry indicated that she would say the same thing too.
Mayor Briden noted having the position appointed in the opposite year that a council term begins is a very good idea. Having an appointment figured out prior to an inauguration and after an election does not work well. He added that occupations change over time so if they look at websites like ones which define various occupations and the required educational background and skills, one must be mindful that it's not merely a clerical position, it has become much more than that. It is a professional and a department head. It requires organizational abilities and they are managing a department so having some minimum qualifications might be good for the city. They don’t want someone appointed just because and not have them have any of those relevant skills and abilities.
Senator Conley noted in the city manager/council form of government the city manager acts as the chief executive officer and this is very different with a mayoral form of government. He has a couple of questions, the clerk noted that she allocated time between the office responsibility and those for the city council at 60/40 during meeting weeks and maybe the inverse or 80/20 when not a meeting week, what is the office interactions with the manager as the chief executive officer in the clerk's office and how do you envision that relationship with the mayor changing.
The City Clerk stated she thinks from the department standpoint the mayor is going to be very similar to the city manager regarding day to day activities. She understands it will be different but they are still the managing the city. No matter how they received their job or what the title is they will still have the same interactions as now. For the city clerk, currently they serve more than one boss anyway, so she notes for her or anyone serving in her position is it a balancing act because those positions under the clerk are union positions. She then asks if she answered his question and Senator Conley responds that he didn't ask the question well.
Senator Conley asks about the various bosses.
The city clerk states she does have a number of bosses and still has to answer to the city manager that she has to switch hats and has to be able to keep the responsibilities separate because if not it would be impossible to run the office and she would run into problems.
Senator Conley stated the reality is that the council is the appointing authority for that position and asked the City Clerk if that was correct. To which the City Clerk responded it was.
Senator Conley asked the City Clerk to define the responsibilities jurisdictionally.
The City Clerk notes that she has have two duties, the city council and the department responsibility, also a responsibility both to myself and what the right thing to do is regardless of where I am sitting at that moment.
Senator Conely asks if the appointing authority would like to do “A” and the non elected city manager says no do “B” what do you do.
The City Clerk asks if he was referring to the Council and he said yes as the appointing authority.
The City Clerk states it would depend on what the council is asking. If it is asking about union staff then no, if it is personnel for example then no, if it is a letter to their constituent then yes, or yes if it is an item for their council docket and that would be whether or not the city manager likes the item. There is a process.
Senator Conley states that the City Clerk was posing a hypothetical and that no one should violate the charter as that was not his question. His question is if the appointing authority is the mayor, you have one boss.
The City Clerk stated that would be correct if he were the only appointing authority he would then be one and the same.
Senator Conley continued then they mayor is both and instead of responding to five bosses which may have different requests you would be responsible to one boss, as the mayor and department head. He adds he is suggesting that, as really every department head in the city has that responsibility to be answerable to more than one.
Mrs. Perry states that these types of positions walk a fine line.
The City Clerk adds that currently there is a delineation of who does what and going forward she is not sure if that is what the commission is designing.
Mr. Lawson asks what are the specific council duties besides the ordinances and resolutions, which go through the law department generally?
The City Clerk states that sometimes the request begins with the City Clerk, this request may go back and forth with various drafts, the city clerk has to keep track of the individual items to make sure it all gets done for the deadline. They also work on the minutes of the previous meeting, they handle the electronic docket, the postings, they track what items the department heads have and those come in after being reviewed by the city manager, background information is collected, and general follow through.
Mr. Lawson asks about the function of the records office and if this requires a lot of interaction with the City Manager.
The City Clerk states only if she is going to expend funds.
Mr. Lawson asks or personnel?
The City Clerk states yes and that a lot of what the clerk does is governed by state law, how they handle records or do specific tasks, no matter what function of the office it is, they operate in a bubble of sorts following the various laws governing those areas, recordings, vitals, court, licensing how we do it is very specific.
Mr. Faria notes that the City Clerk indicated earlier a 60/40 split, he asks her to describe what it is she does for meetings. He asks her to clarify what she does in those weeks for the Council.
The City Clerk explaines that during the meeting she tries to take as many minutes as she can because watching, rewinding and typing during the work day with interruptions is very time consuming. Additionally, she notes that a good deal of time is chasing down the items for the docket, meetings or getting drafts to the city manager, the law department and the mayor also, managing the various requests from council, emails and phone calls. In addition, she notes managing any written correspondence they may want done. The opposite week can depend on the council and how much they are asking of you, some handle requests by email others are more hands on and in person. The off week is a 70-80/30-20 split, if a good week.
Mr. Faria asks how many employees there are and if she could provide job descriptions.
The City Clerk again lists 6 positions and provides the descriptions of each. The City Clerk explains the two unions and lists the positions and their job descriptions, she also explains the deputy clerk and lists those duties and notes that while it is a deputy they generally don’t or haven’t had time to really focus on the cross training of the city clerk. However, cross training at the office level exists fully, all staff can’t be cross trained for all functions for one reason there are two different unions then there is the issue that not all can know everything at once, so all staff help with different jobs. For example, all are trained in basic functions of municipal court, the Clerk is the licensing backup the Deputy Clerk is the Probate backup, there people in the office can record and all can do vital records.
Mr. Scienzo states that what he is hearing is that the city clerk is a department head and in talking about qualifications it sounds like this position should not be an appointed position but should be a hire though HR, the DPW or Planning Directors are not appointments. He feels as though it should be taken out of appointments and made more of a hire like the other department heads. He does not like it being beholden to the council like the city manager. He asked the clerk how she feels about this.
The City Clerk responds in a perfect world that would be nice but she is not sure that any council or mayor would not want to have that appointment and she is not sure any city or town in RI has this as a hire, while other cities and towns have not had the issue East Providence did when they when through the switching out period she notes she doesn’t see how they could get around being appointed.
Mr. Scienzo states the mayor may appoint themselves an administrative assistant and asked the city clerk if she could see a conflict in that.
The City Clerk asks for clarification regarding the administrative assistant and asked if he meant a director of administration and Mr. Scienzo indicated he did.
The City Clerk responds she did not see a conflict and referred again to state law which sets up what responsibilities are specific to the city clerk and that the state law would need to be changed to change those functions. She added she felt as though this person would have a lot more other items to handle, as they would be like a junior city manager, than to be so concerned about one office and that she doesn’t see a conflict.
Mr. Desrosiers noted that to him it sounds like a full time job of just helping the council. It sounds like a lot of responsibility to put the assistant of the council in the hands of a mayoral appointment and he feels this would raise questions. He adds that Mr. Conley touched on this, there seems to be two roles i.e. hats as the clerk described them and a lot of what they do is covered by state law and city charter. He asks the clerk if she has ever experienced such a situation and what was the resolution.
The City Clerk notes that if it is something which is clearly in conflict she just says no sorry that cannot be done and that is just the way it is.
Mr. Desrosier notes that the clerk stated in her case, it would be to operate the department unbiased she would do what the city manager instructs and would think that would be the same with the mayor.
The City Clerk responds yes and added they would do this not only because it was the right thing to do but also because they would have a hard time managing their staff properly if they were taking directives from the council, not the city manager, who is manager of the union employees. When talking about the mayoral appointment not having the council consent there would be potential issues, for example it is the council docket, they are the legislative body and if the mayor says no to putting an item on their docket that is going to be an issue.
Mr. Desrosiers states that this is exactly what he sees with the mayor appointment. It is a position of the legislative branch take a look at licensing for example.
The City Clerk adds yes by law the Council is the licensing authority.
Mr. Desrosiers concluded that Pawtucket was mentioned and that is a good model as they consider the clerk’s office part of the legislative branch.
Chairman Russo thanks the City Clerk for her attendance and testimony and notes the commission will come back to this item later.
B. Announcements
Chairman Russo moves onto the next item on the agenda.
Under announcements, if the technical amendment is passed tonight in its entirety that document will be available tonight to email to commission members and Assistant Solicitor Conley has offered to stay tonight and print them out for anyone who wants a hard copy. The Commission will be asking the City Clerk to post these on the webpage.
Another announcement is from the State House and Senator Conley will provide this. The Charter amendment approved by the voters is out of the senate committee and on to the senate floor and he expects it to come to the floor before the legislative break in April. He made sure to work with Representative Amore on the House side so that they match up exactly and there will be no need to reconcile the language when they pass out of Senate and all that will be needed is for the Governor to sign it.
C. Update from the Law Department on Technical Amendment
The Chair announced an update from the law department on the technical amendment and passed out the first amendment. He noted they were all very minor small wording and grammatical changes sync as adding the word and or the etc...
A motion to approve the amendment to the technical amendment is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
The second amendment is handed out. The first technical amendment is concerning the canvassing authority section 2-15. Mr. Desrosiers had pointed this out. State law references a different date when the appointment is made and when it takes affect and this would need to be reconciled.
Assistant Solicitor Conley states that striking here removes anything that could be theoretically in direct conflict with the State.
The Chairman notes in addition to what Mr. Desrosiers had pointed out Mr. Rock had pointed out the next change where an insert of language was needed which reflected the mayoral election. They also eliminated superfluous language in both these changes.
Tom Riley asks to address this portion as a member of the Canvassing Authority regarding the reasoning for the staggered terms which he notes is similar to the US Senate.
Chairman Russo states they cannot allow this at this time noting that the public comment period was at the beginning of the meeting and that perhaps at the end of the meeting they can request unanimous consent.
A motion to approve the technical amendment to section 2-15, 11-3 and 11-4 regarding elections to comply with state law is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Faria and Mr. Kennedy and on roll call vote it is unanimous.
The Chairman states as a point of clarification this puts the charter line with state law and also adds that portion relative to the election of mayor.
Chairman Russo states the next amendment reflects Assistant Solicitor Conley's response to the commission requesting to have him update the dates in the charter to reflect current election law. The Chairman notes Mr. Conley went above and beyond the call as he looked at all of section 11 and did research as to state laws relation to this section. He instructs the commission this is different than the document the commission was given last week as it has been updated.
Assistant Solicitor Conley reports that public law, general law and then charter law were the hierarchy when the charter was originally adopted. It actually included a subjugated clause and now its general law, public law and charter law. Any time the legislature makes a law it has precedence over charter law. All dates are subject to change by the General Assembly at will. The City would have to amend again so he took that hierarchy and eliminated all the provisions which could be changed by the General Assembly so that it fully complies and is future proof.
Mr. Desrosiers notes there are a lot of details in the charter that are very subject to change that the City would be chasing constantly.
Assistant Solicitor Conley states the only single new language is the legal reality of our history with public laws and he reads out loud article 13 of the RI State Constitution for home rule for cities and towns regarding power of elections.
A motion to approve the technical amendment to article 11 by adding language to comply with state law is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Scienzo and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
Chairman Russo notes in the amendment the language on the canvassing board was the old language and it is now stricken.
A motion to approve the technical amendment as amended and inclusive of all amendments including those tonight and to move passage in it's entirely and have those amendments be transmitted to the city council is made by Senator Conley, seconded by Mr. Desrosiers and Mr. Faria and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
Chairman Russo states this completes the technical amendment.
Mr. Lawson asks for the Chair to explain the next step in the process for those who may not know.
Assistant Solicitor Conley explains that at this point under the RI Constitution the legislative body of every city and town are solely responsible to amend their charters after the initial adoption and the council has to approve any amendments. If the amendments deal with elections these are subject to approval from the General Assembly but there is an advantage to doing it with regard to special legislation. There is one remaining question does the technical amendment represent a change to the legislative intent of the ballot question does this amendment constitute something beyond the ballot question or if it requires a second referendum question.
Chairman Russo states he and Mr. Conley will be staying after the meeting and running hard copies and any member of the public who would like one tonight may have one. They are sending members emailed copies and hard copies will be available at the Solicitor's office during business hours. He drafted a letter which he will sign which the commission will receive a copy of and it will be referred to the city council. The Chairman reads the letter.
Senator Conley thanks the Chairman for the expression of what they have done as a technical amendment.
D. Review and Discussion regarding Compensation
1. Review and Discussion of this issue may include the proposal and or passage of amendments
Chairman Russo states that the next item was the compensation item which they asked the law department to come up with an amendment which would change the salary to compensation so that it included benefits. The purpose of this was to change it so that benefits would come under the provision regarding changing the salary during a council term of office. This changed the salary to compensation in the titles it unified the language so that all the language which governs benefits or salaries shall be determined by ordinance in all 3 sections.
Mr. Lawson states that 2-4 notes that if a vacancy occurs it shall become mayor.
Chairman Russo notes that this was a good catch and that it should read president not mayor.
Mr. Lawson makes a motion to approve the technical amendment section 2-4 line 7 and to replace the word “Mayor” with the word “President”, this is seconded by Mr. Desrosiers and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
A motion to amend the entire substantive amendment is made by Mr. Lawson, seconded by Mr. Desrosiers and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
The discussion of Council benefits continues.
Chairman Russo states they just made a few changes to what Mr. Desrosiers had previously prescribed to make it all uniform. He asks Senator Conley to weigh in on ethics commission rulings on the subject of changing the salary during a council person’s term.
Senator Conley states that there are a series of advisory opinions in this area and on more than one occasion despite whatever kind of process that it is a violation of a council to modify its salary during a term even if a majority of the council is unopposed in their next election they still can't do it. The crafting of this as compensation addresses a lot of the issues and applying those ethics advisory opinions to this language would clearly cover the benefits issue. Going forward there is one addressing benefits as well and there is also under advisory that it prevents a council during their term to increase their own benefits.
Mayor Briden asks about the definition of the word compensation and if it was in state law anywhere.
Assistant Solicitor Conley states that because it otherwise was not defined in the charter it would be its ordinary meaning.
Mayor Briden asks if that ordinary meaning is defined somewhere and is there a risk of differing interpretations of the word benefits.
Assistant Solicitor Conley states that he would be referring to the dictionary definition of compensation i.e.: any re-numeration reflecting work done something.
Senator Conley states he is not sure if there is a standard definition for compensation in general laws but he does know that within the state classification system when looking at the budget that benefits are compensation. When the city posts for a position it is identifying benefits and spells them out. It's a good point but he feels really comfortable.
Assistant Solicitor Conley states that he also believes in this instance the legislative intent is incredibly clear within these videos and the discussions.
Mr. Desrosiers states that as someone who works in HR and they also work in payroll and in every instance it is defined this way.
Mr. Kennedy notes that in his past life his background was in administration benefits this is what this means.
A motion is made to approve the amendment to the compensation amendment by replacing the word “salary” with the word “compensation” by Mr. Scienzo, seconded by Mr. Desrosiers and this is unanimous on a roll call vote.
E. Review and Discussion regarding Vacancies and Absences
1. Review and Discussion of these issues may include the proposal and or passage of amendments
Chairman Russo states that even on the city's website, on the commission's page this will not be part of the technical amendment this is separate from that. These will be presented to the council separately and this will be true for all substantive amendments. He announces the next topic has to do with vacancies and absences the law department did some research on this and he passes out this amendment. This handout is a summary of what the 9 cities and towns do which have mayors regarding a mayoral vacancy.
Assistant Solicitor Conley notes there are several different approaches some have a time period of 180 days to an election. Generally speaking the length of the vacancy regulates the likelihood of a special election is otherwise there would be an appointment.
Chairman Russo notes that in 6 of the 9 the council president succeeds and given that information we can continue the discussion or someone can make a motion and continue the discussion off the motion.
Senator Conley thinks it's important that in the event of a vacancy, an elected official should fill the vacancy. In large part, the whole change in the form of government was driven by a need for accountability in the Executive Branch and the idea that the people of East Providence will finally have the opportunity to have an executive branch at the ballot box. He really believes that the voters spoke who they want their chief executive to be and the commission should do all it can to keep that.
Mrs. Perry asks what would happen if they have 5 council people which are all employed and they wouldn't be able to take on a full time position.
Senator Conley states that when someone accepts the responsibility of being president of the council one of the things they must accept is the remote possibility that they could be called on for some limited period of time. Part of that citizen council service is understanding that responsibility and being willing to accept it. If declined it would go to the council vice president. He understands it is as practical matter but as Mayor Briden had stated at an initial meeting, when you accept these positions it’s a 24/7 job there is no such thing as being a part time member of a city council. The voter’s intent cannot be undermined by a happenstance event.
Mr. Desrosiers notes his agreement in principal but his interpretation is different. What the voters chose was separate and equal branches of government. An argument could be made that it would reflect the voter’s intent more not to have a member of the council who could be elected by just one ward. It could change the executive agenda for the time they are covering the position. The answer in his mind would be for the mayor at the beginning of the term to appoint a deputy mayor that is that emergency person. This would be someone who would continue the agenda that the people voted for. This provide be more continuity for the people's will. The elected person and the appointed person are really a carrier of a set of beliefs and principles.
Chairman Russo states that his own opinion on the matter and with all due respect is that in a mayoral form of government an elected official has to be the chief executive at all times. If the president passes away on the job an elected official takes over. That does not mean that the same exact policies are followed, one may be more to the left or right. Sometimes to enhance the ticket a running mate is selected to get votes. A deputy mayor has not been elected and it brings the city back to an unelected official being a chief executive of our government. That is against the voted change. I am also completely against it. A person choosing to put their name on the ballot is a very difficult process to go through. Someone from the council is elected by the people and that deputy mayor or a chief of staff, a position which he notes he has held twice, or a director of administration or a department head does not have that same connection that they were elected by the people. Some of those in these positions listed to serve could be in violation of the charter because the charter requires the executive to be a 4 year resident. An administrative position does not have this requirement. He firmly believes that greater accountability, as Senator Conley has said, has to be an elected official.
Mr. Faria notes his agreement with this position. When the city council elects its president if they cannot assume that responsibility, in the event that the mayor is out, well then they can't take the job of council president. They will have to be honest and tell the city council they cannot assume that responsibility and they will need to discuss among themselves who should be the president of the council. He agrees it should be someone who is elected.
Mr. Lawson agrees as it has to be an elected official. If it is more than 6 months they would have a special election. Realistically the council president would be there a maximum of 6 months. The language states that if the council president can't serve the rest of the council would elect someone with a majority vote of the council. He would lean towards the council president being designated to take charge.
Mr. Dias states that to Mr. Desrosiers point deputy mayor or chief of staff it is the person the people voted, the mayor, who is picking a person who has a similar philosophy. If not it can be a totally different platform from the council, they could even be of different parties. He is still up in the air debating where he stands on it.
Mr. Lawson states that the language in the amendment would be that a temporary for 30 days could not make any appointments or removals other than temporarily. He notes maybe the commission could look at language reflective of the first 3 months.
Mr. Desrosiers states that he just wants to add another thought on the matter. It doesn't really specify the council president while serving in this office vacates the seat on the council. If the intent is to continue with the president of the council filling in then the commission needs to answer that question.
Senator Conley states that Mr. Lawson makes the very practical point that this is not someone who is going to be serving for a long time in that capacity and it’s pretty easy to put appropriate checks and balances in place. History is ripe with instances where a vice president has not followed the path of the president before them, it is very typical. He can't accept the insight that even the deputy will do exactly the same, if having the opportunity they will do their own program. Accountability was the sole driving force behind the amendment but also a rejection of the council in total charge of the city. It made the people supreme. This is consistent with your point. Although the council president is not directly elected by the entire city, it is still the best expression of the people's will they are also chosen by the entire body as opposed to someone who has never had to go in front of the people or been in the arena. While the points are well taken he simply can't agree with them for these reasons.
Mr. Scienzo states it looks like everyone is kind of leaning towards the elected official taking over. Though he does not agree he will say ok but his biggest concern is what Mr. Desrosier has said, what happens to the president who assumes the acting as mayor position? Does he stay on the council? If it's temporary what happens to the council? Do they need language for this? The council could be deadlocked on decisions. Not as the president of the council but as a member.
Chairman Russo states that there would not automatically be a special election it would go by what the charter would state.
Mayor Briden states that he felt that on a temporary basis the council would function fine. Also with the council president becoming the acting mayor there would be an existing working relationship with the council.
Mr. Faria notes that when the mayor resigned in Providence, John Lombardi, who was the president of the council became the mayor and vacated his council president position.
Mr. Desrosiers states that his recollection was that Mr. Lombardi resigned his council seat but Providence has a council of 15 members. There could essentially be a special election then the council person is out of their seat and he is not sure if it would be legal for them to run.
Mr. Faria stated that Providence has 4 year terms. The Mayor resigned and it was because Mr. Lombardi became the permanent mayor, because of this resignation. In East Providence there are 2 year terms. He notes that he feels the commission is spending a lot of time on this and that the president of the council should be the one to take over in the event mayor is absent.
Mr. Fazioli states that the basic handout from the legal department notes that most other cities have provisions of 180 days typically before a special election. The East Providence ballot question states 90 days so it's only half of that time so it is a very temporary situation.
Mr. Kennedy states that he believes it should be an elected official. It's only a 90 day period and the council would be fine for 3 months.
Mayor Briden states that the succession federally is the president, vice president, speaker of the house and then cabinet member, the question is what if the president of the council declines then does it go to the vice president of the council?
Mr. Lawson states that the wording is that if the president of the council declines the council shall elect one of its members to serve. It is not automatically the vice president.
Mayor Briden notes that he likes that and maybe they want to prevent that temporary position from removing department heads without cause.
Mr. Lawson states that the language reads if the time period is for 6 months or more the city clerk shall call a special election.
Chairman Russo makes a suggestion that if anyone has a specific proposal then next week they could bring it forward they don't have to draft the amendment but if they put it forward as a proposal then it can be debated and sent to the law department for a draft to be voted on. He adds that rather than take up a new topic at this hour he would like to request unanimous consent to allow Mr. Riley to speak for 5 minutes.
A motion for unanimous constant to allow Mr. Riley to speak for 5 minutes is made by Mr. Dias, seconded by Mr. Kennedy and it is unanimous.
Thomas Riley:
Mr. Riley states that in the event that there is a mayor who is disabled the commission may want to consider the at large person fill in and just as in the House of Representatives where vice president only votes as a tie breaker that person could be called in to vote.
Mr. Lawson asks Mr. Riley how long it would take for a special election.
Mr. Riley indicates that one issue would be budgetary and the other issue would be public places which could serve as polling options.
Mr. Riley states that the canvassing board is set up like the senate so that appointments are staggered and are supposed to take place in March under state law. It was not specifically spelled out in the charter that every 2 years one of those comes up for reappointment or replacement. He feels that this is very important and needs to be included noting that from his experience in the last 6 years with the former Mayor there needs to be a recall provision. If a mayor gets off the rails they need something in there to be able to pull the plug. Right now there are no requirements for mayor but they can require that in a city manager, such as a masters degree etc… right now it is basically a popularity contest. The director of administration can end up in the same switching situation as the city manager. They should instead have insisted on a super majority of the council before the council could remove a city manager.
Mr. Faria makes an announcement that he had the opportunity to be on the senate floor when Senator Conley was appointed to his new position. He wants to thank Senator Conley for getting the bill to the floor.
Mr. Russo stated that next week’s agenda will continue with articles 1, 2 and 3.
(Items F. and G. are referred to the next meeting for discussion and/or action)
F. Review and Discussion Regarding Appointments
1. Review and Discussion of these issues may include the proposal and or passage of amendments
G. Review and Discussion of Article I, Article II, Article III of the Charter of the City of East Providence
a. Review and Discussion of these sections may include the proposal and or passage of amendments.
H. Meeting Agenda – 4/13/17
A motion to adjourn is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Kennedy and it is unanimous.