Click 
to view the meeting video.
CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE
RHODE ISLAND
JOURNAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA
April 20, 2017
7:00P.M.
Room 306, City Hall, 145 Taunton Avenue, East Providence, RI 02914
7:00P.M. Open Session
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
| 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.
Thomas Riley, 3620 Pawtucket Avenue (02915) – Mr. Riley states the language for 17-8-1 regarding appointments for the canvassing board is addressed as the canvassing authority and the board actually oversees the authority. They do not turn over every 6 years. They are employees. They serve at the pleasure of the board. Secondly, he was previously asked by the commission for a good answer regarding how long it would take for an election. The answer is 60-90 days depending on the Board of Elections who needs at least 50 days prior to the election. It must go before the Board of Elections. Mr. Riley stated the third item is regarding a recall, there needs to be this provision because if the residents elect someone who is off the wall, for whatever reason, the residents need to be able to replace them whether they serve on the council or as the mayor. In the past this provision could have addressed issues. Lastly, he addressed the issue of a super majority on the council to override the mayor with a line item veto.
Nicholas Oliver, 100 Harford Avenue (02915) notes he would like to bring two items to the commission’s attention. The first is on Section B on the agenda and speaks to veto powers and the second issue which he feels needs to be addressed is executive orders.
He begins with veto powers and notes he agrees with the previous member of the public as it relates to line item vetoes. He feels it places the mayor on the record for specific disagreements with budget items passed by the council. He disagrees with the super majority. He feels three out of five is 60% and if looking at the United States Congress this is the same.
Executive Orders are important to address. They relate to perimeters of issues in case of emergencies and are what other elected mayors use for purposes of direction of personnel for weather emergencies for example. These things can be issued as executive orders without council consent. He is asking they consider veto power, line item veto and executive order issues.
Chairman Russo announces he will be passing out something regarding sections 3-56 and 3-59 which is where they would place executive orders if so desired.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes:
1. Charter Review Commission Meeting April 6, 2017
2. Charter Review Commission Meeting April 13, 2017
A Motion to approve the minutes from April 6th is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Lawson and the motion passes unanimously with one abstention from Mr. Rock who notes he was not present at the meeting for which the vote is being taken.
The Chairman notes for the record Mr. Faria and Mr. Fazioli will not be present for tonight’s meeting.
B. Announcements
Chairman Russo announces he reviewed a suggestion from Clerkbase as to where to place the technical amendments and responded to them today so hopefully these will be put on line fairly soon.
Also, he notes he is passing something out to commission members this is not an agenda but a guide for them and this guide will be constantly updated so that items flow better.
The plan with the other articles is to talk about what members would like and are listed there based on communications received and the name is listed next to the topic. These are on the agenda tonight and will continue to be placed there.
C. Law Department Update
1. Amendments
2. Research
Assistant Solicitor Conley passes out amendments to members. He discusses the differences between vacancies to bring them into conformance and his lists these.
A motion to approve this amendment regarding vacancies is made by Mr. Desrosiers and seconded by Mr. Lawson and on a roll call vote is it unanimous.
The next two sections are probate court and municipal court. He notes he did not give separate sections however he added municipal court to the charter and mirrored it with the wording of probate court. He doesn’t believe a motion is needed at this time.
Mr. Desrosiers notes probate court states the solicitor serves for conflicts or absences if the solicitor is the prosecutor in municipal court can they serve for conflicts or absences.
Senator Conley agrees the solicitor should not sit as the municipal court judge due to its role as prosecutor. A common practice among the cities and towns is to appoint an associate judge to sit in the absence.
Chairman Russo asks for a motion to approve the amendment with that amendment added to it.
Mr. Desrosiers makes a motion to approve the amendment with the addition to redraft section 4 of the municipal court to remove the solicitor to serve as acting municipal court judge and replace that with an associate judge and give the mayor the authority to appoint that associate judge, seconded by Mr. Scienzo and it is unanimous.
Canvassing authority amendments as discussed in section 2-15.
Mr. Desrosiers makes a motion to approve the amendments to 2-15 regarding the canvassing authority, seconded by Mr. Kennedy and it is unanimous.
City Clerk appointment by Mayor.
Mr. Kennedy makes a motion to approve the amendment, seconded by Mr. Lawson
Under Discussion:
Mr. Desrosiers states that he will be voting no not because of the draftsmanship but because of how the commission decided to make the appointment.
and the motion passes 6-3 with Mr. Desrosiers, Mr. Dias, and Mr. Scienzo voting Nay.
Chairman Russo notes the next one is to remove the Sinking Board from the Charter as it no longer is in existence.
A motion to approve this amendment is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Scienzo and it is unanimous.
Assistant Solicitor Conley provided research regarding just cause. He noted some topics are important for them to discuss. After reviewing the state law requirements for the board of assessment review and personnel hearing board where the city is the authority, the common practice is mayoral appointment with approval of city council.
He passes out an additional handout which is regarding the state law provisions for the zoning board and planning board and specific language on how the state law would govern however it is important to note there is an exemption for home rule charters which is what East Providence is, so this means the charter can address some issues. He discusses length of time. There is no specific language on alternates and appointments other than no more than 1/3 members can expire each year. They will need to reach the 1/3 level and this is impacted by how many members are on the board.
D. Review and Discussion of Article I, Article II, Article III and Article IV of the Charter of the City of East Providence
1. Appointments to Boards
a. Planning Board
b. Zoning Board
c. Board of Assessment Review
d. Personnel Hearing Board
Chairman Russo states the next topic will be the Planning Board.
Mr. Desrosiers states he is proposing a 7 member board as a split board, 3 appointments by the mayor and 4 appointments by the city council with and the planning director as an ex officio non-voting member. He is looking at experience being preferred in areas such as planning, zoning and public works etc… He feels this split and these ideas reflect a fairly good balance.
Mr. Rock asks if the council has authority to make decisions regarding planning and zoning and do those decisions go through the council as the final decision maker.
Mayor Briden notes the council approves zone changes with a recommendation from the planning board.
Assistant Solicitor Conley states yes there are different applications for each of the boards, planning and zoning. Large items such as the comprehensive plan amendments and zoning map amendments in these cases the board issues advisory opinions with the council serving as the final voting authority. However, not all decisions are subject to the council’s review.
Senator Conley states that a use variance is different than a zone change. A zone change is an ordinance approved by council and they receive an advisory opinion but a use variance or a dimensional variance is zoning relief and this goes in front of the zoning board. Those appeals go directly to superior court. The council would have to go to superior court to challenge those.
Chairman Russo notes other cities and towns in relation to planning board appointment are 4 with council approval and 4 just mayoral and one with a split board.
Mr. Desrosiers is asked about his reasoning regarding the split board. He notes bringing different people in from different backgrounds and appointing authorities helps to bring in different discussion and that this may be a better model for East Providence.
Senator Conley states he is in favor of the planning board appointments by the executive. He is open to listening to discussion with the consent of council but he feels they need to look at the planning board as the heart of economic development policy for the community. When developers come into a city or town they look for continuity, stability and predictability and that the decisions are not subject to a divided executive and legislative branch because they could end up discouraging development if it’s subject to political whims. Also, as a part of economic development, the chief executive gets elected based on a platform and a vision of the city's future and that message ought to be consistent.
Mr. Lawson notes the appointments are staggered with a minimum of 3 years so it is not as if a new mayor would appoint a whole new board.
Mrs. Perry states she wouldn’t have any problem with mayoral appointments but she would like to see some provision created for appointments to come from each ward so there would be representation from the entire city.
Mr. Desrosiers states he doesn't disagree with Mr. Conley’s premise but having the council appointments doesn’t necessarily defeat this. They can get stable and energetic appointments and it's not as if they switch them out each election. There is a lot of discussion about the mayor’s vision but council is duly elected also and should have a seat at the table.
Senator Conley makes a motion that the planning board consists of 7 members appointed by the mayor and that 4 of those members must be appointed from each ward, this is seconded by Mr. Rock
Under discussion: Mr. Lawson asks about alternates.
Senator Conley states that 7 members, as a practical matter they would need 4 members to make a quorum. He would like to see at least a quorum of 4 because of the important decisions they make this would be instead of having the alternates.
Mr. Kennedy asks if there will be council approval.
Senator Conley states there will not.
On a roll call vote Mr. Desrosiers – Nay, Mr. Dias – Nay, Mr. Kennedy – Nay, Mr. Lawson – Nay, Mr. Rock – Aye, Mr. Scienzo – Nay, Mrs. Perry – Aye and Mr. Russo – Aye, the motion fails 4-5.
Sen Conley makes a motion that the planning board consist of 7 members appointed by the mayor with at least one from each of the 4 wards and subject to council approval, this is seconded by Mr. Dias and on a roll call the motion passes 8-1 with Mr. Rock voting Nay.
Chairman Russo states the next topic is the Zoning Board of Review.
Assistant Solicitor Conley notes by state law this board must consist of 5 members with a first and second alternate.
Chairman Russo lets members know in other cities and towns the breakdown is an even split between either all council or mayor with council consent and then one with a split board.
Mr. Desrosiers states his suggestion is similar to what he suggested for planning which is a split board, two mayoral appointments, three council appointments and a split for the two alternates.
He is asked for his reasoning on the split board and he responds that it would be for more diversity around the table which promotes a better discussion. He notes Mr. Conley’s point and adds that the council is equally invested in things like economic development.
Mr. Desrosiers states he would like to make a motion to have a split board, two mayoral appointments three council appointments and a split among the two for the two alternates
Discussion continues.
Mr. Lawson asks if it is possible to have four seats be ward seats and can they have 3 mayor seats with a 7 member board.
The Assistant Solicitor states the board numbers are controlled by state law its 5 members and two alternates.
Mr. Desrosiers notes he would be open to the mayor appointing both alternates.
Chairman Russo asks if the entire council approves each appointment now.
Mayor Briden states they do.
Senator Conley states the reasons he outlined earlier change a little with the zoning board. The executive should have these appointments subject to council approval. For diversity, one member from each ward should be selected.
Chairman Russo notes his agreement.
Mr. Desrosiers makes a motion to do a split board containing 2 mayor appointments and 3 council appointments with the mayor having the first alternate and the council having the second alternate appointments, Mr. Scienzo for purposes of discussion seconds the motion
Under Discussion:
Mr. Scienzo would like to know how they are going to set the ward picks.
Mr. Desrosiers notes if it is something the commission wants to do he is open to amending to motion to allow the mayor to have both alternate positions and the council have the 4 ward appointments.
Mr. Desrosiers amends the motion and Mr. Scienzo amends his second, on a roll call vote Senator Conley – Nay, Mr. Desrosiers - Aye, Mr. Dias – Aye, Mr. Kennedy – Nay, Mr. Lawson – Nay, Mr. Rock – Nay, Mr. Scienzo – Aye, Mrs. Perry - Nay and Mr. Russo - Nay and the motion fails 3-6.
Sen Conley makes a motion that the members of the zoning board be appointed by the mayor subject to consent of the council and that among the 5 seats at least 4 seats are by ward, this is seconded by Mr. Lawson second Lawson and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
Chairman Russo states the next topic is the Board of Assessment and Review. In other cities and towns 4 are mayoral appointments, and 5 are mayoral appointments with council approval.
Mr. Desrosiers states that he was going to suggest another split but will instead move a motion for appointments by mayor with council approval and expand the board from 3 members to 7 members and move the term from 6 years to 5 years, this is seconded by Mr. Scienzo
Under Discussion:
Mr. Desrosiers is asked if he will amend the motion to stagger the terms as that is already in the law. Mr. Desrosiers and Mr. Scienzo agree to amend.
Mr. Desrosiers is asked about his reasoning for the change in members from 3 to 7.
Mr. Desrosiers states he feels as though 3 is just too few and that to properly adjudicate matters he felt 7 was a better number and was good for various viewpoints and this would make the quorum 4 like Senator Conley had suggested with the planning board. He notes he is not opposed to 5 members but prefers 7 members.
Mr. Kennedy asks for his reasoning in going from a 6 year term to a 5 year term.
Mr. Desrosiers states he feels a 6 year term is just too long.
Chairman Russo notes they would also have to change the staggering to match the year change.
Assistant Solicitor Conley notes he can draft these changes accordingly.
Mr. Rock asks if the city has ever had issues with getting people to serve on boards as he notes that other communities have and if this is the case this would be his concern with adding members.
Mr. Scienzo states getting people to serve on boards has not been a problem what has been a problem is having the same people serve on multiple boards and that these vacancies are not published so residents don’t know they are available.
Mr. Desrosiers states they don't know if they would have people to serve because they are not advertised. He feels that if these appointments are put out there in media and on social media people would know.
Mrs. Perry states she once had a council who requested she put them in The Post and letters of interest were received for the positions.
Mr. Lawson states this is one board where he wouldn’t mind seeing a preference for real estate knowledge or taxation knowledge.
Senator Conley states he can't support the motion though while he agrees these are important issues he does not support the expansion of the board. The issues they hear are very narrow as there are only two reasons to appeal, based on valuation or an illegal tax. It is not a policy board and a more compact board would serve it better. It is much more akin to a quasi judicial proceeding and better serviced by a compact board. The background issue he understands but to have members on the board that live in the community and understand the values of properties street to street is better than an outside professional as they may not have that local knowledge.
Mr. Desrosiers asks Senator Conley if he would support a 5 member board.
Mr. Conley states he still thinks it is large for a quasi judicial board however he would like to see the community knowledge reflected in the board. He just worries about it being unwieldy.
Mr. Lawson agrees and states if each ward had a representative that would balance it.
Mr. Scienzo states what would be correct is to make sure that on all these boards all the wards are represented and this is not happening right now.
Senator Conley notes he likes Mr. Lawson’s suggestion and that it strikes that balance of compact and community value.
Mr. Desrosiers amends the motion from 3 members to 5 members with one member from each ward and one at large, Mr. Scienzo accepts that amendment
Under Discussion:
Chairman Russo notes he feels this is a good compromise and reminds them that the terms will need to be staggered using the number 5 and that these appointments are mayor with council approval.
Mr. Lawson notes that planning and zoning has wording which lists qualified electors and this does not and asks if it should.
Mr. Desrosiers amends the motion again by adding the term qualified electors.
Chairman Russo asks for a show of hands regarding the length of the term. The poll of the commission shows that 8 prefer the term remain 6 years and 3 prefer it be changed to 5 years.
Mr. Desrosiers amends the motion to release the terms to 6 years and to keep the terms staggered.
Mayor Briden asks if it would make sense to have the assessor give his opinions on this as perhaps there is a rationale as to why there were 3 members and input from the assessor could be valuable as well.
Chairman Russo states because they have spent so much time on it he would like to take the vote and then they can ask him to come and give his input and this can always be reconsidered.
The final motion after all amendments: the board of assessment review shall contain 5 members, one from each ward and one at large who shall serve a 6 year staggered term and the appointments shall be mayoral with council approval by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Scienzo and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
Chairman Russo states the next topic is the personnel hearing board. In other cities and towns the hearing board ranges from 3-5 people and 7 have mayoral appointments and 5 have mayoral with council approval.
Mr. Desrosiers states that regarding Mr. Conley’s previous comments and this board also being a quasi judicial type of board, he will make a motion setting the board members at 5 from the current 3 members and these be mayoral appointments with council approval and there will be one from each ward and one at large, this motion is seconded by Mr. Scienzo
Under Discussion:
Chairman Russo notes that since he didn't list article 9 in the language he would like to request unanimous consent to hear discussion on article 9 and unanimous consent is granted.
Mayor Briden asks for the rationale of going from 3 to 5 members and he is wondering what was the underlying rationale for having 3 members was.
Mr. Desrosiers states he does not know why it was originally set at 3 members and he is not sure any current employees would know why. His feedback on why to change from 3 members to 5 members would be similar to his feedback regarding the board of assessment and review to have a representative from each ward and he feels that 3 members is too cloistered for real discussion. It’s just like the discussion of council size and it also makes the quorum larger if not it is only a 2 person quorum.
On a roll call vote it is unanimous.
2. Powers
a. Departments
i. Council
ii. Mayor
Chairman Russo opens the discussion regarding the powers the council and the mayor have with regard to the new amendment and with relation to the departments as listed in those sections.
Mr. Desrosiers states in his opinion they need to balance departments a little and set these up by ordinance defined by what their role is in the ordinance. Divisions and levels below that should be at the mayor’s discretion. They should look at article two for that.
Chairman Russo states there will be no motions at this time.
Senator Conley discusses what was brought up in public comment tonight regarding executive orders and having the right to do so and if an executive order is challenged. It is noted under the powers section there is a language issue which needs to be adjusted as to what was approved by the voters. If the mayor fails to sign an ordinance in 10 days after passage the council can reconsider, by at least 4 of its members, his only concern is the term “immediate reconsideration” and does this mean at the next regularly scheduled meeting and if so should it just state that so as not cause an issue where it needs to be interpreted by a court.
Chairman Russo states he has noticed this same issue and has seen it in other charters as well. He discusses the ability for the council to react and get an item on the agenda if it falls within 24 hours.
Senator Conley notes they would have at least until the next meeting.
Senator Conley makes a motion to delete the words “upon immediate consideration” to read “no later than its next regularly scheduled meeting,” this motion is seconded by Mr. Desrosiers
Under Discussion:
Mr. Scienzo asks if 10 consecutive days includes weekends and it is noted that days include all days.
On a roll call vote it is unanimous.
Assistant Solicitor Conley states it looks like there is an attempt in the first clause subsection to create a pocket veto which immediately contradicts.
Senator Conley notes what this means is that it gives the mayor 10 days to act however it can become law without their signature if they don’t exercise the veto power.
b. Ordinances
i. Council
ii. Mayor
c. Licensing
i. Council
Chairman Russo moves onto the next item which is licensing.
Mr. Lawson asks if the council is the licensing authority.
Assistant Solicitor Conley states they are the licensing authority. They can upon occasion grant this to the city manager and that change is a word for word change with mayor and this has been done already.
d. Council subpoena power (by Mr. Lawson and Mr. Desrosiers)
Chairman Russo moves onto council subpoena power.
Mr. Lawson asks if the ability to have subpoena power needs to be there like it is.
Chairman Russo notes when he looked at all the strong mayor cities most of them had council subpoena language similar to the federal congress.
Mr. Lawson makes a motion to add to section 2-97 and make investigations with the power to subpoena, giving the council the power to subpoena when dealing with issues in 2-97, this is seconded by Mr. Desrosiers
Under Discussion:
Senator Conley would yield under what circumstances in 2-97 a subpoena would be required as he is concerned about an unlimited subpoena power and concerned of misuse and leaving people no choice but to run to court to lift it. Council inquiring into the official business of those working for the city when they think there is misconduct etc… they would want to make it meaningful but he is concerned about unlimited subpoena powers.
Mr. Lawson notes what he was thinking was checks and balances and would the council have the authority if they needed to question someone working for the city.
Mr. Desrosiers notes perhaps the best course at this time would be to look to other cities and towns more closely and come back with that research.
Mr. Lawson withdraws his motion and Mr. Desrosiers, the seconder agrees to withdraw.
Mr. Lawson makes a motion to ask the city legal department to investigate this item and how it is handled in other cities and towns and to bring this information back to the commission for review, this is seconded by Mr. Desrosiers and it is unanimous.
Mayor Briden requests as part of that research he has always had a concern about that provision and whether there should be a resolution required and whether or not the reasons for that investigation should be listed in that resolution. He notes he has had some experience in court with this and it really had relevance to the power to investigate without articulating the reasons in the resolution because it could be used as a form of harassment and a fishing expedition.
Chairman Russo notes that is a very good point and states the motion does not need to be amended but requests the Assistant Solicitor to add that to his research on the matter.
3. Meetings
a. Council
Chairman Russo moves onto open meetings laws as requested by Mr. Lawson
Assistant Solicitor Conley asks for another week to review this question for Mr. Lawson.
4. Miscellaneous Provisions
a. Council
b. Mayor
Chairman Russo moves to the catch all miscellaneous powers.
Mr. Lawson states regarding the requirement to keep journals/minutes and should this be extended to boards and commissions.
Senator Conley the city does not require this but the state does.
Assistant Solicitor Conley states there is a different requirement on whether or not they have to be published to the Secretary of State’s office.
Senator Conley states that is correct.
Chairman Russo notes he did defer three items, finance sections for council and mayor and prefers to discuss those at that time, the same with bonds and in article 5 when they discuss the budget and has scheduled the council and mayor sections on those topics there.
Chairman Russo states the next item reflects those provisions suggested by members of the commission and the public and the first was the term of mayor as requested by Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy states that he agrees with Mr. Riley’s public comments, there is a lot of interest from people and when people speak with him they speak about the mayoral term length that the two years is just not enough to really accomplish things and it may be better for a change at some point in the future. In the technical amendment is the commission able to change the terms?
Chairman Russo responds they can.
Mr. Kennedy asks if there is any interest in this.
Mr. Lawson states a 4 year term gives the mayor time to get things in place where a 2 year term is short and by the time they do this they are running for election again. He is in favor of a 4 year term.
Mr. Desrosiers states he is open to the idea as he doesn’t have a fixed opinion. The feedback he is getting however is much the opposite. He notes however there is sort of a perpetual campaign mode. However, he would want consistency and if the mayor has a 4 year term then the council should have a 4 year term.
Mr. Rock states he likes the 4 year terms as well. They have a better ability to attract staff because for someone to leave their job for potentially a 2 year term is risky a 4 year term is more doable.
Mr. Scienzo states people had responded to him that they could just vote them out in two years if they were bad but if they are going to go to 4 years then they need to have a recall and a term limit. These issues become intertwining.
Mr. Lawson agrees that with a 4 year term they would need a recall as not having the recall had the reasoning that it was just two years.
Chairman Russo agrees with Mr. Kennedy that a mayor’s term should be 4 years for a lot of the reasons stated. He is not in favor of a two year term and it is not a good government term. An executive should be 4 years. Statewide it is 5-4 in favor of 4 year terms. Yes, when anyone serves in a mayoral form of government their job could be short term that is part of the drill however they would attract better candidates for jobs with a longer term. He would keep the council at two as it is a legislative body and he doesn’t feel it should go to four. He notes he would support a four year term.
Senator Conley states he would also support a motion for a 4 year term for all the reasons stated.
Mr. Rock makes a motion for a four year term for mayor, seconded by Mr. Dias and Mr. Kennedy
Under Discussion:
Mr. Desrosiers states this is a big decision and they have only discussed it for 10 minutes and they have given other items much longer discussion time and he would ask that they have a little more time to think about it.
Chairman Russo notes he will defer to the body however this is an idea that anyone who has been into this will have been thinking about all along.
Senator Conley moves the question to a vote and this is seconded by Mr. Lawson and this is unanimous on a roll call.
The roll call on the motion for a 4 year term for the mayor is unanimous.
5. Provisions Suggested by Commission Members and/or the Public
a. Mayoral Term (by Mr. Kennedy)
b. Term Limits (by Mr. Lawson)
c. Impeachment Process (by Mr. Desrosiers)
d. Recall (by members of the public)
e. Miscellaneous Provisions
6. Review and Discussion of these issues may include the proposal and or passage of amendments.
E. Review and Discussion of Articles XI and XII of the Charter of the City of East Providence
1. Type of Elections
a. Non-Partisan – 11-5, 11-22
b. Ranked choice voting (by member of the public)
2. Wards
a. Necessity of Boundaries in the Charter (by Mr. Desrosiers)
3. Miscellaneous Provisions
4. Review and Discussion of these issues may include the proposal and or passage of amendments.
G. Meeting Agenda – 4/27/17
V. ADJOURNMENT
A motion to adjourn is made by Mr. Lawson, seconded by Mr. Scienzo and it is unanimous.