Click 
to view the meeting video.
CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE
RHODE ISLAND
JOURNAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
March 16, 2017
7:00P.M.
Room 306, City Hall, 145 Taunton Avenue, East Providence, RI 02914
7:00P.M. Open Session
*all members are present
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.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes:
1. Charter Review Commission Meeting March 2, 2017
2. Charter Review Commission Meeting March 9, 2017
A motion to amend the minutes of March 2, 2017 – page 2, 9th and 10th paragraphs to read “roving” instead of “rolling” and to approve the minutes of March 9th with no changes is made by Senator Conley, seconded by Mr. Scienzo and the motion passes 9-0 with 2 abstentions, Mrs. Perry and Mr. Rock.
B. Announcements
Chairman Russo reported to the Commission that he communicated with the City Manager who in turn communicated with the various department heads and invited them to attend the Charter Review Commission meeting when their department review was being discussed and for them to offer any suggestions. In addition, he sent an email to department heads to follow up on the City Managers communication.
Assistant Solicitor Conley reported he is uploading into a public Google word folder the collections of research for the public to view as well as the functioning copy of the Charter as it stands. This will be adjusted as changes are made. Once the Technical Amendment passes the public will be informed of the link.
C. Technical Amendment to Update the Charter of the City of East Providence for Review and Passage
Chairman Russo passes out some items he indicates are housecleaning items. There is a grammatical amendment to the technical amendment where the gender usage is updated. This was not done as part of the new Article 3 which is now part of the Charter and there were a number of incidences of this and he requests this adjustment be passed.
A motion to approve the Grammatical Amendment to the Technical Amendment is made by Mr. Dias, seconded by Mr. Faria and Mr. Kennedy and it is unanimous.
The Chairman reports the Commission had discussed Section 9-2 and eliminated the second sentence. The only issue remaining is the last part of RIGL 3-5-8 which states except where otherwise provided by charter or state law. In response to Mr. Kennedy’s question regarding the City Clerk, who is also running a department, the Commission decided it could not update that portion as part of the technical amendment. Chairman Russo asked the Assistant Solicitor for further clarification just in case it was needed.
Assistant Solicitor Conley stated it is an important distinction regarding how the Commission applies the question of City Clerk as it is specifically outlined in the Council powers and to make a change to a Council power would not be a technical amendment. However, the Commission did discuss how Article 3 impacts the Council’s ability both directly or indirectly through the City Manager to negotiate collective bargaining agreements and to enter into collective bargaining agreements. This is not in the Council powers section but in the section regarding recognition of unions and allowing for unions. Except as otherwise provided, in one section the Mayor has the power to negotiate and in another section the Council does. He adds he still believes this is well within the realm of the technical amendment to clean this up. The other proposal discussed is to just to take the language and instead of a full strike out switch it out from council to mayor with council approval. This language exists in Title 3 anyway but it can reiterated here. The Council powers are not limited or changed at all as a result of this strike as they are listed elsewhere.
Chairman Russo asks Senator Conley to explain the historical sense just to be clear to the public.
Senator Conley explains that it is unnecessary. Today the Labor Relations Act supersedes this. Many years ago this was passed and in much greater detail and that would now govern the City’s relationship with the bargaining unit.
Article 3-1 of the new amendment provides for the date that the mayor’s term begins as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in December following the general election. In 11-23 the technical amendment that is exactly the language the Commission substituted, however in 2-7 of the current Charter the first line reads the first meeting of the newly elected Council is noon the first Monday in December.
Mrs. Perry indicates that for 14 years every 2 years they had to deal with the conflicting language.
Chairman Russo asks for the Commission’s input on this item.
Mr. Desrosiers believes that the right course of action would be to reconcile Article 2 with Article 3. He adds it is more in line with the actual practice currently being used by evening inaugurations and that they Commission should make the one conform to the other two.
A motion to amend Section 2-7 to comply with section 11-23 and Article III by changing it to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in December is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Faria and it is unanimous.
Chairman Russo brings up Section 11-4 Line 6 where the Commission changed March to September but didn’t add the after the first Monday language.
A motion to amend Section 11-4 Line 6 by adding language “after the first Monday” after the language second Tuesday and before in September is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Rock and it is unanimous.
Chairman Russo asks Assistant Solicitor Conley to discuss the work regarding Article 11.
Assistant Solicitor Conley states the discussion they had regarding the public laws and general laws which may usurp the Charter such as the case in point, which provides for the exact hierarchy (Mr. Conley passes out a case regarding general law usurping a charter). He explains that this takes place unless there are specific legislation items ie: public laws enacted. The Law Department is about ¾ of the way through reviewing all the public laws which pertain to East Providence. They will be updating all dates as they apply to elections so the Charter will conform to the general law requirements for things such as Declaration of Candidacy etc…They will comb through all these and the most updated version of the wards. He passed out the current version of wards. A recommendation of a vote to pass the technical amendment should be subject to any public laws which require any further adjustments. The public laws are a sizable chunk and are taking time to review.
Mr. Desrosiers asks if it is it possible to pass a technical amendment up to Article 10 and leave the rest as a working document or do everything but Article 11 or pass and leave this open to revisions by the Law Department.
Senator Conley suggests it would be better to pass the technical amendment and go forward. There is a concern of disconnect and he is comfortable with the suggestion that the Commission pass it with the requirement that those simple date changes are adjusted to comply. They will all see if there is something else out of order. He is prepared to make this motion.
Assistant Solicitor Conley states that each of the edits will be highlighted out and can be noted as subject to this motion.
Mr. Faria states that he is prepared to make a motion to accept the technical amendment subject to the Law Department reviewing the General Laws and changing the dates where applicable this motion is seconded by Senator Conley and under discussion:
The Chairman adds they could have a separate motion to adopt the current wards right now and that would take care of Article 12 unless the Law Department considers this part of the laws they are updating.
A motion to adopt the current wards in Article 12 is made by John Faria, seconded by Michael Kennedy and it is unanimous.
Chairman Russo asks the Assistant Solicitor to look at 13-4 and 13-5 as they might be conflicted in part or whole with state law.
Sen Conley explains that Section 13-4 is inconsistent with a specific RI General Law but the actual number he can’t recall except for the notary public, national guard or military exception that entire section of the Charter is inconsistent with General Law.
The Assistant Solicitor reports that RIGL 17-5-1.1 is the law the Senator is referring to.
Senator Conley states that is correct and there was a federal case which actually regarding another municipality where the charter was upheld regarding the ability of an employee of the municipality not being allowed to sit on a governing body.
Chairman Russo asked if it would be the prudent thing to strike 13-4 but leave 13-5
Senator Conley replies it would.
Assistant Solicitor Conley explains there is an opinion via the House of Representatives 100-RI-345 which addresses this. He would agree that they can strike 13-4 as violating RI General Laws.
Mr. Lawson asks for clarification regarding if someone can hold elective office in the City and the State.
Senator Conley states they could have for example the public works director of the City serving in the Gen Assembly.
A motion to strike section 13-4 as being inconsistent and superseded by RI General Law 17-1-5-1.1 is made by Senator Conley, seconded by Jason Desrosiers and it is unanimous.
At this point Chairman Russo goes back to Mr. Faria’s motion.
A motion to adopt the Technical Amendment as amended and subject to updating by the Law Department with dates to comply with the RI General Laws pertaining to elections is made by John Faria, seconded by Senator Conley and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
Chairman Russo relays to Mayor Briden he is very happy to report the Commission has passed a Technical Amendment to the Charter.
Senator Conley requests as a point of order a consideration that a motion to transmit the Technical Amendment to the City Council be made
A motion that the East Providence Charter Commission transmit to the East Providence City Council the completed Technical Amendment to the East Providence City Charter by letter which will include a cover letter including all the names of the members of the commission is made by Senator Conley, seconded by Michael Kennedy and on a roll call vote it is unanimous.
D. 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.
Chairman Russo explains it is now time to move to the substantive part of the discussion which is listed as Review and Discussion of Article I, Article II, Article III of the Charter of the City of East Providence. He notes in an effort to try to keep a focus as they go along with these amendments, trying to decide the relationship between the executive the legislative branches, he has tried to match up the sections where that relationship intertwines for example department head sections. He would suggest they do these together then focus on everything and at the end of the process have a catch all. He suggests they go to the beginning 2-1 and 3-1 the election and term of office of the Mayor.
The Chairman opens the discussion.
Mr. Lawson asks about 2-1 regarding council size. He notes he has looked at other comparable cities where there is a mayor/council form of governemnt and they all have more council members. He provides stats and their representation in various cities and towns and adds that he likes the idea as it gives people better representation.
Mr. Desrosiers notes that he too has done research similar to Mr. Lawson’s. He also provides a breakdown to members agreeing with Mr. Lawson’s comments. He adds it would seem that 7 is a number more in line w a city of our size. He is hoping to add a 5th ward and one other at large. However, there is the variation of 3 at large as well.
Mayor Briden notes that he feels 7 would be a benefit to the Council and the City. After serving on the Council he believes it would be better from decision making processes adding two members.
Mr. Desrosiers states that adding the at-large now and then after the next census perhaps adding another ward instead.
Mr. Rock indicates the City is not bound to wait for the census.
Mr. Desrosiers feels this change is important to the culture and it is necessary and that after all these years things need to change up a bit.
Mr. Rock reports that Cranston had an issue with this as it related to the prison inmates and redistricting and the courts sided with the City.
Senator Conley states that looking at Mr. Lawson’s breakdown 5 is at the high end and it’s not necessarily out of whack. When one looks at 7 members it is at 67 which is low compared to the others. If the City is going to be at the low end what is the advantage of the 3 structures? What are they talking about from a representative point of view and from a decision making perspective?
Mr. Scienzo states he would like to see a 7 member council with 5 wards. His reasoning is that looking forward with what is being built along the Parkway, an anticipation of at least 10,000 people all in one ward, would cause the wards to be lopsided. That would need to be broken up or the ward 3 representative would have much more than the others. He agrees with 7 members. They need more decision makers on the Council especially with the mayoral form of government and he feels they should prepare for that now and not wait.
Mr. Desrosiers expresses agreement with Mr. Scienzo, definitely a 7 member Council. By dividing an additional ward it helps bring the members closer to the community. It makes their role more ombudsman-like. It is easier and more efficient and allows them to be more in touch. Sometimes things need to break out of the status quo.
Mr. Dias agrees noting he just walked the 4th ward this last election and it will get members closer to their constituents
Mr. Kennedy notes this is a second fundamental change that has to go before the voters.
Chairman Russo states this change would go before them.
Senator Conley notes he is just trying to get all perspectives out there. When you go to the 5th ward there are now 5 pockets of interest instead of 4. They will see that each section has different issues and could risk creating further factions.
Mr. Fazioli notes that he works with smaller communities which have 13 member boards and in New Haven, CT which is a large community they have a 32 member board. They do need to reach a consensus and sometimes the larger the council the harder that is. A larger council leads to longer meeting and less consensus.
Mr. Desrosiers states that what the Senator was saying makes sense. However he does feel that what the council’s role becomes is more of an ombudsman which makes the ward system more necessary. As far as the ballot question he would like to know if all these changes will go as one package or individually.
Mr. Russo said the Commission would make the recommendation to the Council and the Council would decide.
Mr. Desrosiers states it would have been better served if the first ballot change had gone through this process first but with that being said, people will have a say at the ballot on these changes.
Mr. Faria asked the Mayor to explain his thoughts regarding 7 council members.
Mayor Briden states he doesn’t want someone going against the technical amendment because they don’t want to add more members. He would like to see them separate on the ballot. Some questions could be for two years from now and some could be done at the special election. If they have 2 addition members there are some issues where it would be beneficial such as synchronizing the tax year and some other very challenging issues. Additional members would benefit that decision making process given the complexity of these issues.
Assistant Solicitor Conley states for the sake of clarity and the issue raised earlier regarding an unbalanced ward, the census would adjust those accordingly.
Senator Conley notes when they talk about the 5th ward that is something that they can actually do without the census but this doesn’t excuse us from needing to bring in the experts at 6 figure expenses in order to put those wards together. There is more than one way to do that and the council is presented with alternatives to look at. There are complicated constitutional mandates it’s not an easy process.
Mr. Lawson notes that when he compared East Providence with other cities it puts them right in the middle sometimes making it harder to find a consensus is not a bad thing. Seven makes a more robust council.
Senator Conley notes that if they are going to do that then the 3 at large creates the greater accountability. In this manner they would have expanded the decision making process and enhanced the representation. They are making sure that within the micro contrast of these they are not creating more factions and that they are looking at striking a balance and reaching a consensus but not too easily. The 3 at large seem to fit that more.
Mr. Rock notes that as a voter he agrees with the 3 at large and provides an example of Providence splitting a precinct which took a lot of work and a long time.
Mr. Desrosiers notes that in light of this discussion it seems right now the 3 at large is best way to go. The City Council can again examine the issue at the next census
Mr. Faria notes he has no problem supporting adding the at large and makes a motion to add 2 at large seats, Mr. Desrosiers seconds and under discussion:
Mr. Scienzo states the City is not in a position for a 5th ward right now but hopes in the future they will look at the addition and he is ok with the at large positions to the council. He would like to see in the 2018 election the at large elected at the same time as the mayor.
Chairman Russo states the motion at hand is on the concept of the idea and if approved then the law department would draft the amendment and that wording would come back for a final vote.
Mr. Fazioli adds they should consider the possibility that all 3 at large seats could come from the same ward and the Commission might want to look at this more closely as it is complicated.
Chairman Russo states they do have the option to take the suggestion and think about it.
Senator Conley notes he is pretty sure that is the situation in Cranston and it is in Pawtucket as well. The Commission should be cautious and he has reservations about moving on it tonight but if the law department would draft something then they could look at it and that would give them time to think about it more.
Mr. Russo notes he is not prepared tonight to make a final decision on it because he has not thought about it enough. According to the data the 8 communities which have a mayor, all read very differently. He would like to really think about this and they could ask the law department to draft something and look at the language and then vote at another time.
Mr. Faria states he has no problem withdrawing the motion if there are issues they need to address and he rescinds his motion.
Mr. Russo states that if they do wait a week they could put this specific amendment on the agenda so the public knows this vote is happening because it is a significant change and the public could specifically comment on it.
Mayor Briden states Mr. Fazioli makes an excellent point and it is an issue that should be evaluated. After they have had the opportunity to see how this elected strong mayor form of government would be they may be in a better position to evaluate it as a Council.
Mr. Faria formally rescinds the motion and Mr. Desrosiers rescinds the second.
Mr. Kennedy notes he would like to make a motion to put this on the next agenda and have the public come and have the law department draft the specific language.
Mr. Russo states that they can add it to the agenda without the motion and the Assistant Solicitor Conley confirms this.
Mr. Luba brings up the issue of two year and four year terms as well as staggering terms.
Mr. Faria does not feel a change is necessary.
Mr. Desrosiers is in agreement with Mr. Faria.
Mr. Lawson notes his agreement as well.
Mr. Russo brings up the qualifications in Sections 2-2, 2-5 and 3-2 and there are no additional comments on these.
Mr. Desrosiers states the handout he had given was just a demo of the changes he is interested in and is just a suggestion.
Mr. Russo addresses salaries.
Mr. Scienzo brings up a question regarding the wording in the Charter “moral surpetude”
Senator Conley explains that there is case law regarding the definition. There is a distinction in the law. In the 1920s the courts used this as common language there is specific intent to commit a felony, not a misdemeanor, a specific intent to commit a felony not just a felony. While it is old language it now has a body of law to support it.
Mr. Desrosiers asked if they need to strike Section 2-2 “shall hold no other public office in city or state or federal”.
Senator Conley notes that it is the inverse of what they had before and therefore yes it should be stricken.
Mr. Desrosiers adds that notary public is state and military is federal so the entire phase should be deleted .
A motion to amend section 2-2 by deleting the phrase on line 2 “or of the state or federal government except, that of notary public or member of the National Guard or military service” and add to the previous amended Technical Amendment approved by the Commission is made by Senator Conley, seconded by William Fazioli and it is unanimous.
Mr. Russo discusses Section 2-3 and section 2-4 and 3-3 of the new amendment the salaries or compensation in the technical amendment are updated to reflect current salary.
Mr. Desrosiers notes he is fine looking at different salaries as it has been in the charter since the start and has been in all the other cities and towns he has looked at. He would like to add language that no council member shall be entitled to medical or dental benefits unless specifically noted in the charter.
Mayor Briden states that the Council did make a determination not to terminate benefits though he doesn’t believe anyone is taking them.
Mr. Scienzo notes the council’s position is part time and should have to work even less with a mayor. No other part time employee receives health benefits. This is not cheap and the City is self funded. Most council members have other full time jobs.
Mayor Briden explained the value of having this issue reviewed by a charter review commission. Noting it is difficult to evaluate compensation when it involves yourself. Regardless of the form of government, getting good qualified people who have experience and a background in budgets and constitutional issues of that caliber, to decide to run for city council and for reelection, the economics of running needs to make sense. Although it is a part time job it is more consuming than one would think and sometimes more than a full time job.
Mr. Faria notes he doesn’t feel it is unreasonable and doesn’t disagree with the Mayor.
Mr. Luba explains the cost and the co shares.
Mr. Faria agrees with these and notes this goes back dozens of years, it was only a short period of time when the budget commission removed the benefits. He was against the way it was reinstated in April and that the public wasn’t informed until October.
Mr. Russo states that his thoughts as a drafter is that the salaries do not belong in the charter. They do not find the presidents salary in the constitution or the governors in the state constitution. The salary is based on the state of the city and if there is a fiscal crisis and want to cut all salaries the mayor would need to go to the voters. However, the council can only affect the future terms of salaries not their own salaries and he would have no problem removing the city council section on this. He would also have no problem removing the finance director’s salary which is the only director whose salary is listed. It is for the elected officials to decide the salaries.
Mr. Lawson notes the salary is already there can they just allow them to adjust it?
Mr. Russo states it is his personal opinion those numbers should be removed and put in wording to reflect the current law that they cannot affect their own salary in the year in which they are serving.
Mayor Briden states there shouldn’t be a provision that precludes the council from getting medical and dental. The concern is it doesn’t strike the right balance. The current system doesn’t allow a trade off for contributions to the plan. The economics of running for city council do not make sense. The salary of 3500 a year and the election costs and taking time off during the day from your job to devote to city business is costly. They need well qualified people who want to run but need a balance. He notes Pawtucket having that balance.
Mr. Desrosiers disagrees Pawtucket is at 8000 with benefits where Cranston is at 4000 without.
Mr. Faria notes the city council always had the benefits and it has always been done by an ordinance. There is a long history.
Mr. Desrosiers notes the Budget Commission took this away because of the financial cost which is only going to continue to rise. He would rather see a salary increase which remains flat.
Mayor Briden notes his opinion would be to leave this to the judgment of the council not a charter amendment. It doesn’t allow for any creativity.
Mr. Faria wanted it noted that when a council member forgoes their salary it really means they are paying the same 20% as any city employee.
Mr. Russo thanked all for passing the technical amendment and for a very good process.
E. Meeting Agenda – 3/23/17
V. ADJOURNMENT
A motion to Adjourn at 9:04PM is made by Scott Scienzo, seconded by Senator Conley Christopher Dias and it is unanimous.
Approved By Commission: 4/6/17
Attest: _______________
City Clerk