I.                   OPEN SESSION

II.                CALL TO ORDER

III.             PUBLIC COMMENT & COMMUNICATIONS

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

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.

IV.             NEW BUSINESS

A.    Approval of Minutes:

1.      Charter Review Commission Meeting April 6, 2017

A motion to defer the minutes of the April 6, 2017 meeting is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Scienzo and it is unanimous. 

B.     Announcements

The Chair announces copies of the completed technical amendment were distributed following the last meeting.   All council members are now in receipt of the final copy.  It will also be located on the city website.  The City Clerk has forwarded the information to Clerkbase to upload to the webpage.  Also, after speaking with the City Clerk regarding the various handouts/amendments approved along the way, it was decided she would also forward these to Clerkbase for upload to the webpage and these will be listed with the corresponding meeting/date of when the amendment was passed.  

He announced the Commission was now in the substantive portion of the charter.  He has heard from a couple members who have asked about items they would like to see up for discussion.  What he has decided to do is whenever a member of public or commission would like to see something on an agenda he will list them on the second page under new provisions and list these as discussions.  What he would like everyone to do is if they have a topic they like to see on the agenda to email it to him and he will list it with that subject.  As things move along, each subject/topic will be discussed on an agenda.  Today he would like to have motions on the last three topics so they can get this done and move on.  They have had a thorough discussion regarding vacancies and absences and the commission can vote on these.  Also, there has been a thorough discussion on the city clerk appointment and he would like to get motions on that as well.  There has been a thorough discussion regarding the city solicitor appointment however Senator Conley is here today and he served many years in that position so he would like to hear Senator Conley’s opinion on the subject tonight.  

The Chair reminded the Commission that an amendment doesn't have to be a drafted for a motion to take place Assistant Solicitor Conley can work on that if the motion passes.

C.    Review and Discussion regarding Vacancies and Absences

1.      Review and Discussion of these issues may include the proposal and or passage of amendments

Mr. Desrosiers stated at the previous meeting there was a general sense from the Commission that there is a value to the person filling the vacancy of Mayor to be an elected official.  He notes that while he may not agree with this he drafted a motion which states in the case of a temporary vacancy it will allow the council president to become acting mayor however all the appointments thereafter are only temporary and must be confirmed by the council and this person can only terminate staff for cause.  Additionally, when the council president becomes acting mayor their role as a council person is suspended however they may return to it when they are no longer acting mayor.  Mr. Desrosiers requests this in the form of a motion and this is seconded by Mr. Scienzo and under discussion Senator Conley requests that Mr. Desrosiers repeat the motion and asked about the second component. 

Mr. Desrosiers notes at the previous meeting Mr. Lawson brought up the idea that the mayor could only terminate staff for cause instead of at the pleasure of and that when the council president becomes acting mayor all appointments made are only temporary and require council approval.  He notes that is the language which is already there.

Senator Conley states he is clear now within the context in which it was explained. 

Assistant Solicitor Conley states he will be able to take these principles and put the amendment together regarding the vacancy and agrees that for now this will be termed Motion Number 1.

Mr. Desrosiers asks to have the Assistant Solicitor combine the language of 3-8 and 3-9 into one section.

Chairman Russo agrees this makes sense otherwise it would be redundant.

Mr. Desrosiers adds this as part of the motion.

Mr. Fazioli asks for Mr. Desrosiers to explain the rationale behind the motion. 

Mr. Desrosiers explains the council president would serve as acting mayor in the event of a vacancy and he has added language that employees would only be terminated for cause as a protection.  This was something which Mr. Lawson brought up at the previous meeting which makes sense to him as well.  If the acting mayor is there only one month they wouldn’t want them to clean house per se.  As far as the council seat, in a mayoral vacancy he would hate to see a special election and to have the council president have run again.  There is the process of an election and the cost to the council president and it is unfair to them to have to do that for doing their civic duty and putting their personal life and career aside for this duty. 

Mr. Fazioli states his only question would be how is this cause defined?  Is there a standard which can be referred to?

Assistant Solicitor Conley states the standard is generally known as just cause which includes progressive discipline unless there is a violation to the extent that it goes to core values i.e. committing a felony.

Mr. Fazioli asked if this was standard in a court.

Assistant Solicitor Conley stated removal for cause on an appointment could have a description added such as “at will appointments are temporary” but the question would be does that inherently make the removal temporary?

Mr. Fazioli states it might be something to look at further, perhaps something more definitive as to what that means.

Senator Conley states both he and Mayor Briden have extensive experience with this and he would be concerned about trying to define cause within the scope of the charter because there has been so much case law involved over the years, and wording which has been kind of adopted.  Cause or just cause regardless of what statute it is in contains seven elements which are well defined and are accepted by the courts.  As soon as cause is put in a contract, ordinance or charter etc… they have essentially adopted this well defined cause.

Chairman Russo asks Mr. Desrosiers if this would only affect the times where there is a temporary Mayor. 

Mr. Desrosiers indicates that is correct.

Mr. Lawson notes it is a 6 month maximum time frame so they don't want someone there temporarily to have the ability to completely clean house and hire all their own people.   

A motion is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Scienzo, to add language to the Vacancy Amendment “can only be terminated for cause; and when council president becomes acting mayor, his role a council president is suspended; however he may return to it after he no longer serves as acting mayor,” this also combines Sections 3-8 and 3-9 into one section and on a roll call vote it is unanimous. 

D.    Review and Discussion Regarding Appointments

1.      Review and Discussion of these issues may include the proposal and or passage of amendments

Mr. Lawson discusses the issue of vacancies as listed in 2-6 and 3-6 and that in one is states the City Clerk shall call for a special election and in the other it states the City Council shall call for a special election and asks if these should match. 

Mr. Desrosiers states that in the case of City Council the City Clerk would be the officer involved but he has no objection if the commission wishes to sync these two items.

The Chair moves the topic to the next subject with is the appointment of the City Clerk. 

Mr. Desrosiers states that the City Clerk is essentially two roles operating in one person. There is the legislative role in supporting the city council and the other duties by law which are legislative in nature and then there is the executive role as a department head under the chief executive officer.  He notes that to him the solution is to split the role between a council secretary and a city clerk who would be the head of public records or keep the title city clerk.

Mrs. Perry states that when she came to city in 1986 as the city manager’s secretary she would write letters for the council and keep their mail and the city clerk would handle the agenda items.  When she became city clerk the job followed her though it was separate at the time.

Mr. Lawson states that the school committee just hired an assistant to the superintendent and part of the job duties are to handle school committee items.  Perhaps the mayor’s assistant could do this.  Managing the records in a big job and the department head should handle this and the council should have a person just a dedicated to that. 

Mr. Kennedy asks for an explanation from Mrs. Perry regarding the duties of secretary work to the council. 

Mrs. Perry states she was not the council’s secretary she was the city manager’s assistant however she did the council's secretarial work as well.

Mr. Kennedy if someone in the city clerk’s office could do this work.

Mrs. Perry states that the City Clerk had mentioned this and she knows too that the other staff in the office have other full job duties.

Mr. Lawson asks if any other cities or towns have a split job. 

Mr. Desrosiers states that Providence does.  Noting they have a whole big staff for council issues.  The city clerk has a similar split to what is being discussed just a different breakdown of that split.  

Mr. Luba asks if there are enough jobs for two assistants.

Mrs. Perry states that as the assistant to the city manager she did very little work for the council.  If they wrote one a letter, which wasn't very often and that all the proclamations etc… were done in the city clerk's office.  She notes she would get their weekly mail packets ready and keep those items and files in order.

Senator Conley states that the discussion about the tasks the city clerk performs for the council is a misdirection of what they are talking about in regards to the charter.  The charter is about the legal responsibilities and he feels as though they are getting into the weeds on the clerical staff.  It was confirmed by the current clerk that although these items are done for the council they are in his observations legal duties and this was confirmed by clerk.  Although they are viewed as tasks specific to the council they are really executive tasks.  What she really described is their implementation and then it is her job to administer them.  Descriptively those tasks are being associated with the council but what she describes is an executive function. The city clerk is far more part of the executive branch and the rest of it is determined by clerk with direction from the mayor or the council.  The city clerk is looked at as a department head and is expected to administer a department under the responsibility on of the mayor and he is to make sure it gets done like any other department.  He feels the city clerk is really an arm of the executive branch and should be appointed by the mayor and that is his reasoning for it.

A motion is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Scienzo, to have the City Clerk appointed by the Mayor with confirmation by the Council, and that a provision be made in the Charter for a Council Secretary by means of an ordinance

Under Discussion:

Chairman Russo states his own personal feeling is that he is going to be voting nay because of the second half of the motion.  He agrees with Senator Conley that this is not something the commission should take on.  It is a decision which should be made by the city clerk in conjunction with the city council and/or the mayor or whomever the city clerk will have to be dealing with.

Mr. Faria notes he feels the same way and that the city clerk should be appointed by the mayor and without consent of the city council for reasons Senator Conley has listed. 

On a roll call vote and the motion fails 9-1 with Mr. Desrosiers voting Aye. 

Mr. Scienzo states he wants to be on record as the city clerk not being an appointment.   Just like all the other department heads they should be hired.   The mayor still has the right to pick whomever they choose.

Mr. Fazioli states going forward all department heads will be appointed by the mayor so he wouldn’t single out the city clerk as varying from that and they hope that all appointees meet certain qualifications but he doesn't think they can make a special qualification for the city clerk.

Senator Conley makes a motion that the city clerk appointment be by the mayor, Mr. Faria seconds the motion

Under Discussion:

Mr. Lawson asks if this is an appointment by the mayor with no council approval and Senator Conley states it is.

Mr. Rock notes he did mention two meetings ago, in the town where he was manager, the council appoints the clerk and he feel they should be appointed by the council as they do more for the council.  Where he worked his experience indicates this. 

Mr. Desrosiers states that he is not trying to single out the city clerk and that all the department heads should be confirmed by the council as a check and balance between both branches of government and for this reason he will be voting no.

On a roll call vote the motion passes 6-3 with Mr. Desrosiers, Mr. Rock and Mr. Scienzo voting Nay.

Chairman Russo states he would like to hear from Senator Conley who was not present at the previous meeting, regarding his thoughts on the appointment of city solicitor. 

Senator Conley states he served as assistant solicitor in East Providence from 1982 and then as solicitor from 1994 until 2008 when Mayor Briden came in.  He has been the solicitor for the Town of Johnston since 2007 and has had the opportunity to serve in the capacity as special counsel to solicitors in a number of other cities and towns.  He notes that Mayor Briden has also had as much experience in other places as he has.  He adds that he has worked in municipalities with a strong mayor, without a strong mayor and with a city manager form of government.   He has not worked in the type of legislative government Mr. Rock did where a lot of functions happen at the council level.  He feels the appointment should be done reflecting what the charter established as the form of government that is where there is a chief executive elected by the people the solicitor should be selected by the chief executive officer.  While they supply support to the council, the core duties are executive in nature.  If they are going to hold the mayor accountable they need to provide him with the team to execute the job and he thinks that the solicitor is critical to that.  It is important the mayor be able to select the legal counsel.

Chairman Russo asks if Senator Conley had experienced any conflicts between the city council and the mayor’s office. 

Senator Conley states yes right now as he does legal work for a community where there is a controversy going on regarding political differences between the mayor and the majority of the council and this has led to the question of whether or not the council can appoint their own legal counsel.  It has always been his opinion that if the council wants to approve it in their budget to spend its own money on its own legal counsels it does not need the charter to allow it. Language can be put in the charter restricting it but if it is silent it doesn't prohibit it.

Assistant Solicitor Conley states that a solicitor has a legal duty and saying they would only do what the mayor wants is a misconception and it would be against their legal oath. The law is what the law says and it can only be read one way, it depends on the law not so much the attorney.

Mr. Desrosiers agrees with Senator Conley that most of the role is executive however, he would again feel that council consent should be there as a check and balance.  He notes it is also what the voters decided on last year.  He lists communities with mayor that have a mayoral appointment with council approval, Providence,  Cranston, Warwick, Pawtucket, Central Falls which also has council approval on all department heads and Cumberland which also has council approval on all department heads.   

Mr. Faria states that the chief executive should have the power to appoint the solicitor.  He add that looking at what happens in East Providence it is just like hiring a city manager,  there is the conflict and the friction among the hiring and the same thing happens with solicitor.  To prevent the friction and to avoid violating the open meetings laws the mayor should appoint.  This happened in the last appointment process.  This is a cleaner process.   The job description of the city clerk being like a dept head is true and it should be an appointment by the mayor. It makes sense that their loyalty and confidentiality should be to the chief executive officer.  He asks for clarification regarding the line about preference given to someone who lives in the city.  

Mr. Desrosiers notes that residency requirements are not allowed but preference is allowed.

Assistant Solicitor Conley states that a preference is not a requirement but  more of a sentiment 

Mayor Briden notes that he thinks this is a good provision.  If there are two comparable candidates and one is a city resident then the city is better off with that person as a solicitor because part of that person’s identity is part of the community.  Solicitors put in more hours than an attorney typically gives.  It is a very giving position and more identifies in the community in that role.

A motion is made by Senator Conley, seconded by Mr. Faria, to have the City Solicitor appointed by the Mayor

Under Discussion:

Mr. Desrosiers notes that the voters in their wisdom passed Article 3 last year and the wording of the question for solicitor can assistant solicitor is by mayor with council approval and he is sticking with that and voting no, preference in hiring for a resident he agrees with.   

Mr. Scienzo agreed that the wording on the ballot states mayor with council approval for solicitor.

Chairman Russo reads the ballot question which does state this.

Mr. Lawson states that the commission is here to make suggestions and changes and he understands the question read with council approval but they are here to make suggestions and he doesn’t feel like they are going around the will of the people as it still has to go back to the city council and to the ballot for approval. 

Senator Conley states that if the charter commission approves the motion that it still has to go back for a vote.   The technical amendment is done and at this point they are going beyond that.  He would agree that is what the voters voted on but the change still has to go back to them.

Mr. Faria notes it is a recommendation to the city council and it still has to go back to them and then to the voters.

Mr. Desrosiers notes he understands the process that is clear but he thinks the voters got it right the first time and it was clear what they were voting on in this case he feels their intention was clear.

Mr. Lawson states a lot of people felt this process should have come first so it’s important that the commission goes over it.

Mr. Fazioli states that it is a good practice to have the process of review and it is important to have a person appointed to work with both branches of government.

Chairman Russo states the voters were not given a choice it was just up or down so that anyone supporting a mayor form of government would not be deterred by how the solicitor is appointed and he agrees with Mr. Lawson’s original point.

and on a roll call vote the motion as a tie fails 5-5 with Mr. Desrosiers, Mr. Fazioli, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Rock and Mr. Scienzo voting Nay.

Chairman Russo announces the item reverts back to being approved by mayor with council approval unless the motion is brought back up again.  He also notes under announcements he refers to the section of the charter to be covered.  The Assistant Solicitors office did research on the next topic.

Assistant Solicitor Conley notes both the two judgeships have examples across the state for mayor or city council appointment. 

Mr. Desrosiers states his first inclination is that these appointments should be in their own judiciary article with appointment by the mayor and confirmation by the council and with longer terms than the council so that there would be no doubts.

Mayor Briden states unlike state and federal judicial appointments which have a heavy vetting process the municipal process does not.  If someone is not the best qualified candidate having a long term can be detrimental. 

Mr. Faria agrees with the Mayor’s statements. 

Chairman Russo notes he would support the appointment by mayor with council approval but cannot support the longer term because of the vetting issue. 

Mr. Lawson would agree with the appointment being mayor and council approval. 

Mr. Kennedy sees no reason to change the length of appointment. 

Chairman Russo notes that he will support half of this because the judicial part of it should have the influence of the mayor and council.

It is requested the language be looked at by the law department to include the mayor alongside the council term. 

A motion is made by Mr. Rock, seconded by Mr. Desrosiers, to have the Mayor appoint the Probate and Municipal Court Judges with Council approval and on a roll call vote it is unanimous. 

Chairman Russo announces the rest are miscellaneous appointments. 

Mr. Lawson makes motion the harbormaster be appointed by the Mayor, seconded by Mr. Faria

Under Discussion:

Mr. Desrosiers wants to know if they are adding those to the charter or making an ordinance recommendation.  He feels the harbormaster reports to the police chief and should go through the normal hiring practice and notes that the budget commission amended this quite a bit already. 

Mr. Scienzo asks what the reasoning is behind the harbor master appointment.

Mr. Lawson because he reports to the chief and the chief reports to the mayor.

Mr. Scienzo notes he does not agree with all the appointments and he feels they should go through the normal hiring process to ensure they are qualified and that it is not political. 

Mr. Lawson withdraws the motion as the harbor master is not in the charter. 

Chairman Russo moves onto the board appointments. 

Assistant Solicitor Conley states they can go beyond the minimum standards as required in state law but that his recommendation is not to do so because they would risk the future proof of the charter. 

He added his memory on that the language in the charter previously was that it mirrored the language of the general assembly aside from the dates. 

Mr. Scienzo states that to get on the canvassing authority the person has to declare themselves a democrat or republican if they are unaffiliated are they excluded. 

Assistant Solicitor Conley states there has to be one democrat and one republican the third can be unaffiliated. 

Chairman Russo reads the law which states the mayor or president of the town council shall appoint the board. 

Mr. Rock responds he is not sure if that applies to strong mayor or if it is meant as the president. 

Mr. Luba indicates that in Woonsocket it is the mayor with council approval. 

Chairman Russo states the commission could shift the responsibility from the council to the strong mayor. 

Mr. Faria notes the state law is the submission of 5 names but it is the mayor’s appointment so as Chairman of the Party he can stated that the state law is partisan.  The mayor makes a determination if that name is going to go to the council. 

Mrs. Perry states but at the same time if the chairpersons submit 5 names the unaffiliated persons have no names submitted. 

Chairman Russo states that it would be state law which would need to be addressed on that matter. 

Mr. Desrosiers states he feels it should be the mayor with council approval and that the mayor should not be left out. 

A motion is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Faria and Mr. Lawson, to have the Mayor make the selection of the Canvassing Authority with approval of the Council and on a roll call vote it is unanimous. 

Chairman Russo announces the planning and zoning boards are next. 

Assistant Solicitor Conley states since there is state law involved but is an area which is not specifically reserved for general assembly authority future proofing is not the case with these boards. 

Chairman Russo reads the enabling state legislation.  

Assistant Solicitor Conley notes he would like to check the state law with the ordinances and charter. 

Chairman Russo notes he has information from 8 or 9 towns with strong mayors some have mayoral appointments and some don’t.   

Mr. Desrosiers states he likes a mix so that both branches are represented. 

Senator Conley notes the mayor would not have any appointments on the planning board but if that is going to be suggested that will need to be checked out first. 

Mr. Lawson notes they could suggest to the council that all boards and commissions should be reviewed and perhaps if the mayor is requested, as Senator Conley has stated, it cannot be by ordinance. 

Chairman Russo states they are changing the form of government and therefore the mayor should have some representation on these boards as they do in other cities and towns with mayors.  This should be changed in the charter not by ordinance which is passed just by the council. 

The Chairman reviews which towns have mayor appointments with and without council approval. 

Mr. Rock notes the mayor should have the appointment authority as it affects the functioning of the council.

Mr. Desrosiers notes if there is a split it doesn’t need council approval but if not then it should be balanced by council approval.  He asks if they can mull this over until the next meeting so they can study it first. 

Mr. Lawson notes he would be comfortable to remove the word by ordinance and then next agenda discuss numbers. 

Chairman Russo states if they are going to defer they would not do that and instead just defer the whole matter. 

Mayor Briden notes he would recommend allowing the solicitor’s office to research the state law that pertains to planning boards before deliberating further on the issue. 

Assistant Solicitor Conley states they did begin this but have not yet finished.  They will develop a memorandum to serve as an executive summary.

Chairman Russo notes the appointing authority for the zoning board of review is also in state law.

A motion is made by Mr. Lawson, seconded by Mr. Desrosiers, to defer the Planning and Zoning appointments to the next meeting and on a roll call vote it is unanimous. 

Mr. Desrosiers states he believes the section on the sinking fund board be stricken. 

Mr. Luba confirms this board does not exist currently. 

A motion is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Lawson, to strike Section 2-20 in its entirety as it relates to the sinking fund board which does not exist and on a roll call vote it is unanimous. 

Chairman Russo moves on to the Board of Assessment Review.

Mr. Desrosiers notes the term seems extraordinarily long and the board seems extraordinarily small.  He would like to delve into it some more and requests it be deferred. 

Mr. Lawson wants to know if they can make suggestions for preference regarding qualifications. 

Chairman Russo states they can recommend anything that they feel is appropriate. 

Mr. Desrosiers notes some of the boards created by ordinance are not in the charter and in those ordinances there is reference to certain expertise. 

A motion is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Scienzo to defer the Board of Assessment Review appointments to the next meeting and on a roll call vote it is unanimous. 

Chairman Russo moves onto the planning board and lists the various cities and towns with mayor and notes some have council approval. 

Mr. Desrosiers states it is kind of small but understands it may be because of the judicial type of board that it is.  However, now it has morphed into other things such as list certification for hiring.  This board is much more now than the charter speaks to and is another one they may want to look at various models for.  Pawtucket’s seems to work well.  This would be someone appealing from the Mayor and therefore should act as a check and balance but he would like to look into it deeper. 

A motion is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Kennedy to defer the Personnel Hearing Board appointments to the next meeting and on a roll call vote it is unanimous. 

Chairman Russo states department heads under the new charter are now mayor only without council approval.  

Assistant Solicitor Conley states this was done in the technical amendment and an additional motion is not needed. 

Mr. Desrosiers states that without council approval every time the mayor changes they will lose a lot of institutional knowledge if they make it easy to do.  It is a key check and balance at the state and federal level and should be done in our charter as well.  They can’t stop a firing without cause as they serve at the mayor’s pleasure but the appointment should go before the council. 

Mr. Lawson notes the mayor is going to have a vision and if the council doesn’t want to change the status quo then the mayor is handcuffed. 

Mr. Faria agrees with Mr. Lawson. 

Chairman Russo supports what Mr. Rock said and what Mr. Faria and Mr. Lawson has said it is a very different role than city manager it is an at will appointment which has to serve that person’s vision.  Individuals are not the issue, the issue is can the mayor come in and assemble a team to follow through on what they were elected for.  They can’t give them the excuse that they have been saddled with someone.  He asks Assistant Solicitor Conley to confirm that they do not need extra language and would support Mr. Rock’s motion. 

Mr. Lawson notes there are city employees which know the city and if the head is going to be removed they still have people with that knowledge. 

Mr. Scienzo asks if as Mr. Oliver brought up and this goes though and the council approves the mayor picking department heads where does that leave the current department heads. 

Chairman Russo notes that at Mr. Oliver’s suggestion he listed that under agenda items and hopes that sums it up. 

Mr. Scienzo asks if this would this open up to lawsuits. 

Mr. Fazioli notes department heads will have no protection under the new form of government.  Sometimes there are some agreements but that no longer exists.  They have some protections as civil service employees but not much legal standing. 

Mr. Lawson asks Mr. Luba if there were contracts. 

Mr. Luba states there are some agreements but not contracts. 

Mr. Desrosiers notes he would not direct the charter based on individuals he was just citing them on institutional knowledge and employees ie: clerks do not always see what happens at the director’s level.  Again it is a check and balance question ultimately.  Rhode Island’s at will statutes go to anything in writing which might define a term and may be something for the law department to look at. 

Mr. Luba notes that he thought the charter might have something mentioned because Mr. Kirby did not follow through in a firing with the personnel hearing board. 

Senator Conley notes there is a process for every public employee whether or not have a contract they have certain due process rights.  The policy is that they serve at the discretion of the mayor.  They need to refresh themselves on those sections in the charter and civil service law.  Sometimes institutional knowledge can be that is the way it is done because it has always been that way and it doesn’t always stand as a flag for change or energy.  It is informative but shouldn’t be a guiding principal. 

Mr. Desrosiers agrees with Senator Conley but notes they can pick cases where they have been in place 25 years and have been good or bad.  He has found that when he goes home and thinks things over for a week his thoughts may change. Perhaps they should defer on this topic. 

Chairman Russo notes that he has no problem deferring and no problem looking into the law but he is not going to change his mind on who appoints. 

Senator Conley notes that to clarify his remarks when he talked about institutional knowledge it is that the Mayor ought to be able to bring in their own people.

A motion is made by Mr. Rock, seconded by Mr. Faria and Mr. Lawson, to have the Mayor appoint all Department Heads without Council approval with exception of those voted on earlier and that Assistant Solicitor Conley will look into whether or not we need new language on that and on a roll call vote the motion passes 9-1 with Mr. Desrosiers Nay.

Chairman Russo mentions at the next meeting they will discuss the powers of the council and the mayor and passes out information for members. 

Senator Conley reports the mayoral legislation was reported out of committee and they are going into a break week next week when they reconvene the following week it is on the agenda on the floor that next Tuesday. 

E.     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.

F.     Meeting Agenda – 4/20/17

V.                ADJOURNMENT

 A motion to adjourn is made by Mr. Scienzo, seconded by Mr. Faria and it is unanimous.