CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE

RHODE ISLAND

JOURNAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

March 23, 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.

Nicholas Oliver, 100 Hartford Avenue (02915) discusses the separation of powers of the elected mayor and an expanded city council form of government.  He would like to see an opportunity to veto a budget or ordinance as well as a line item veto in the budget for the mayor and to create a process for an appeal of a veto.   He would like to see the expansion of the number of seats and wards.  Regarding the number of at large positions and out of concern from the previous discussion that the possibility of 4 out of 7 could come from the from the same ward he is wondering if it would be possible to expand to 5 wards.  The City will see an increase in population from various developments.  This will increase the threshold of 12000 residents per representative council person.  He would have the 2 at large involved in a runoff with the top 2 being elected.  The top earner would be the elected council president and the second runner up would be the vice president.  This way all residents have the ability to elect the leaders.  There could be a sunrise provision that this takes place only until 2022 and then the city will have time to construct what the wards will look like based on the new census and can add a fifth ward.

 

Chairman Russo states that Article 3 as voted by the residents has a veto in it already, though not a line item veto. 

 

Following the oral public comment section, Chairman Russo instructed all members to review the written communication which was submitted by email.

 

Mr. Desrosiers reads the public comment and notes the 3 main points, term limits, recall provision and a change in the actual election process.

(the submitted comments included below for the record)

Constance A. Barber, 101 Frederick Street (02916)

 

These recommendations would be part of Article 1 of the charter.

1) term limits- members of the city council, school committee and mayor would be limited to three  four year terms which is 12 years.

2) establish a recall provision to remove these elected officials

3) implement ranked choice voting for all elected officials. This would ensure that all our elected officials received a majority of the votes cast. More information about this style of voting can be found at the website  fair vote.org

 

IV.             NEW BUSINESS

 

A.    Approval of Minutes:

1.      Charter Review Commission Meeting March 16, 2017

 

A motion to defer approving the minutes of March 16, 2017 is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Faria and it is unanimous.

 

B.     Announcements

 

Chairman Russo announces there is a link on the City webpage for the Charter Commission. If commissioners want to take a look, if they have any ideas as to what they would like to do with it he asks them to bring them up to the commission and they can then inform the City Clerk

 

C.    Update from the Law Department on Technical Amendment

 

Chairman Russo passes out information regarding conforming the dates in section 2-7 to the new amendment which the voters passed.  They are grammatical changes to the possessive and this approval is just out of an abundance of caution.

 

A motion to approve the amendment to the Technical Amendment is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Scienzo and it is unanimous.

The Chair reports he asked Assistant Solicitor Conley to look at the general election section and Mr. Conley did a lot of work and did find items in the State law.  The Chairman passed out Mr. Conley’s memo noting the amendments to section 11.  The memo is quite detailed and his thought is that the Commission members can read it over during the ensuing week as it does more than just change dates and suggest they defer the item to next week for discussion.

 

A motion to defer the discussion on the memo from Assistant Solicitor Dylan Conley regarding the RI Public Laws is made by Mr. Faria, seconded by Mr. Scienzo and it is unanimous. 

 

D.    Update on Google Doc

 

The Chairman reports the technical amendment are transferred to Google drive and in that transfer there have been some things the Commission really needs to nail down to ensure the same items which were approved by the Commission are what is listed in the document.  He notes Assistant Solicitor Conley and he will be meeting to match up with what was voted on and that this item can also be further considered next week as well.

 

E.     Review and Discussion regarding the number of Council members and the number of Wards

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

 

Mr. Desrosiers states knowing there is not a strong feeling in favor of a 5th ward due to the expense his suggestion is they could create the ward and not have it take effect until the next census.  He asks if might be amenable to all as he still feels strongly that this is the way to go.   He refers to Mr. Oliver’s public comments and notes another alternative would be to have the two at large positions and create a district or a super ward, where wards 1 and 2 have one new seat as one district and wards 3 and 4 have a new seat as a second district.  In this manner, they still only have one at large city wide seat and it is a more even distribution.   Everyone would elect three council people at the ballot.  This helps with representation and a wider scope for the new members and it alleviates the concerns of the possibility that all the at large could come from the same ward.

 

Mr. Lawson states that he does believe that 7 council members are a good number but regarding the earlier comments he doesn’t agree with 3 at large as they could come from the same ward.  He agrees with looking at the census.  He notes that moving to a mayor is a big change and maybe now is not the proper time to do this.

 

Mr. Rock states that after having a week to think about it he is wondering if keeping 5 council members is the best way for now as each person elects two plus the mayor and that is three positions that each are electing.

 

Mr. Faria notes at the last meeting he rescinded the motion based on the clarification and comments provided by Mr. Fazioli.   The change to mayor is a big move and to suggest at this time another big move is difficult.  He feels they should leave things the way they are and in the future, in 2022, if needed it can be added at that time.   He discusses the size of the state representative and senators and how this had been decreased to address representation.  Concluding that sometimes quality is better than quantity.

 

Mr. Kennedy states he agrees with Mr. Faria.  He notes they are already facing a major change and to do a second one at the same time will be difficult.   He adds they always have time to look at these after the census numbers are in and to let the voters decide if they want more members.  

 

Chairman Russo asks Mr. Rock about the census. 

 

Mr. Rock states the process starts in 2020 and by the spring of 2022 the new districts will be laid out for the general election.

 

Chairman Russo asks who would determine a 5th ward.  

 

Mr. Rock states it depends what the charter says.  Usually cities and towns hire a 3rd party vendor to come in and draw the lines based on the charter.  The State does theirs first and cities and towns design theirs around that.  

 

Mr. Lawson reads the charter section on how to handle looking at the wards following the census.  

 

Mr. Desrosiers states they would take office in December and it is his understanding, at that time, they would be voting on the charter changes.  If the council decides to place it on the docket, the extra council members would be after that election and they could put it out to 2022 and have the lines drawn with this in mind.   Comparing the council to the general assembly is much different, they are two very different animals..   This would expand the discussion as Mayor Briden suggested was needed.  Mr. Desrosiers notes he takes the Mayor’s comments seriously and it really would increase representation and increase the legislative body, almost like a triumvirate.   When he looked at other cities and towns East Providence’s representation is much smaller and he is still very much in favor.  

 

Mr. Faria states they are already making a move for mayor that will provide stability and accountability and they should give it a try.   He feels they should leave the council the way it is and they can always change it in the future.

 

Mr. Desrosiers states when he sees his council representative shoveling snow in driveways and helping people who hit a deer, it’s much more a home issue than a legislature is.   It’s much more grounded and it’s really a difficult accountability as a neighborhood representative.

 

Mr. Fazioli thinks 5 council members is a good number based on the size of the city.   It’s easier to achieve a consensus in American politics, which can be very factional.  He has lived in the city since 1991 and he has seen his share of uncontested races, there were at least two this past year and to go from 5 to 7 and see more uncontested races he’s not really sure if that helps a representative democracy.  He notes this happens around the state as well not just in East Providence. 

 

Mr. Rock notes going forward the council will not get involved in hiring the executive of the city and those issues will no longer be decided by them so the council will have more time legislatively.  

 

Mr. Desrosiers states yes but what he meant by that is the type of discourse.   Adding a couple of people would give a little more room to discuss, more people contributing to the amount of discourse, its proportional.

 

Chairman Russo notes he shares the concern of making two big changes at once.  The office of mayor is very different than the office of city manager and this is a huge change.   The council is now definitely a legislative body to represent people from their area, to represent their interests and the executive represents the whole.  He doesn’t see a need now to have two extra to representatives when the executive will now represent the whole.  He is very open to getting rid of the current at large and possibly going to a 5th ward but he doesn’t feel there is a need for a council person to represent the whole city because of the mayor. 

 

Mr. Scienzo notes he is still leaning to the seven council members.  He does like Mr. Desrosiers idea regarding the districts but going out to the census is ok however wouldn’t it make sense to put this on the 2018 ballot and let the people decide.

 

Chairman Russo notes the city could take a non binding poll like they did in 1994 just as a side note though when it was on the ballot it failed.  

 

Mr. Scienzo restates he feels they are debating but they should really be asking the people what they want.

 

Mr. Faria states they are  making a recommendation to the city council and the council will decide what goes on the ballot, however, the form of government to mayor is a big change and this is what made him back off.  He feels they should give it a chance to see where things are.

 

Mr. Desrosiers notes he understands there are two big changes but the council having more members has nothing to do with the mayor and how it is working.  He is intrigued by a nonbinding poll and being on the ballot in 2018 and if it passes in 2020 there could be draft language already prepared for that or they can have a charter commission at that time.   The Commission shouldn’t have to wait 15 years again like they did for the mayor there is no need to deprive the people of the choice.

 

Mayor Briden states that ultimately seven is the better number.  It may be wise for the charter review commission to debate this after there is the opportunity to see how the new government is working.  Sometimes it doesn’t have to happen right away.  Maybe there is less of a need for additional members or maybe the opposite is the case.  

 

Mr. Lawson states he personally hasn’t had anyone clamoring for more members.  He believes it’s best to see how it plays out and if the residents say they want more then the council can always put this on the ballot.  He agrees seven is ultimately where they want to be but at this point they can make clear to people that they can do this in the future and remain at five now. 

 

A motion to leave the makeup of the Council at 4 wards and 1 at-large is made by Mr. Faria, seconded by Mr. Rock and Mr. Kennedy and on a roll call vote the motion passes with Mr. Desrosiers and Mr. Scienzo voting Nay.

 

F.     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 reports last week they left off at salaries and if anyone wants to continue this discussion this topic is open for discussion.  This includes both the council salary provisions and the mayor salary provision. 

 

Mr. Desrosiers explains he was aligned with the Chairman’s way of thinking and that it doesn’t make sense to have this in the charter and it should be done by ordinance or they will always be chasing changes.  As far as benefits, he would like them to consider this in the same line as salary and he thought of what Mayor Briden had stated about this, about the need to attract candidates.  He is not a fan of the council having medical benefits.  The number one reason a person should run is for pro bono publico, for the public good, he understands that they don’t want to hurt someone’s financial standing.   He passes out a document for all regarding his thoughts on the topic.   This document provides strike outs and wording for changes and limitations for how much change can occur with each ordinance term.  Additionally he would like to make an ordinance recommendation to move the council salary to $5,000 to make it more in line with other cities and towns and to set mayors salary at $85,000.

 

Mr. Lawson states the council salary with benefits can afford one member more salary than another based on whether or not they take benefits and at what level.  There is no compensation for not taking them. 

 

Mr. Desrosiers notes he was and is still against benefits but didn’t feel there was a will to eliminate.  He came up with this was a compromise.  He feels having a cap in there is important because benefits are going to continue to increase over time. 

 

Mr. Lawson notes no other part time employees receive benefits.  If they opt for the benefits he is in favor of a monetary compensation at a higher level.

 

Mr. Faria notes many who serve on the council have a job and do not need the benefits maybe an ordinance by the council to make that determination is best.  The recent issue occurred when the city manager restored the benefits and didn’t inform the public.

 

Mr. Desrosiers notes if the commission is going to let the council decide everything then the commission has no purpose.  The commission is here to look at the process.   They need to make a recommendation one way or the other.   His recommendation would be to take these away.   The city does not provide benefits to part time employees.  But if they are to keep them the commission should at least control it.  He is fine with raising the salary but benefits are a tough question either get rid of them or restrict them. 

 

Mrs. Perry states in her 14 years of service as City Clerk she had to oversee the council budget.  She does not recall any year where the entire council took the benefits.  Each year maybe two or three and there was never a big expense to that. 

 

Chairman Russo notes he doesn’t believe salaries and benefits should be in the governing document.  They cannot take budgetary power from the elected officials and that is what they are doing here.  They are restricting their ability to handle it.  Every budget he has worked on at the state and federal level, the governing body is where these determinations are made.  The people elect them to do a job.   He can support half the motion which his to get rid of the numbers and state they are determined by ordinance.  If the public feels strongly enough they can go to the ballot box and vote against those in office.   That is the system.  The point made regarding people getting different salaries with regards to benefits this happens all the time both in the public and private sector.

 

Mr. Desrosiers asks if there would be a will among commission members to pass a motion that all compensation changes voted on by the council affect the next council not theirs. 

 

Mr. Lawson states City Manager Lemont reinstated the benefits and the council did not vote on the item. 

 

Solicitor Dias notes there is an ethics opinion that the council cannot vote themselves an increase during their own term.  

 

Mr. Luba states it’s just salary.  The council passed a resolution to allow the city manager to restore any budget commission items and he restored the health benefits. 

 

Chairman Russo notes even if the ethics doesn’t cover this item the commission can go beyond this and do more by including benefit changes in their term.  Suggesting if that is the will of the commission they can have Dylan Conley draft something. 

 

A motion is made by Mr. Desrosiers, seconded by Mr. Scienzo, to have Dylan Conley draft language to change the word “salaries” to compensation and that it shall be determined by ordinance and to bring back to the Commission for a vote and on a roll call vote the motion passes unanimously. 

 

Mr. Fazioli states Providence has a salary review committee as an arm of the city council and they meet to determine salary for mayor and council.  It might be worth exploring this. 

 

Chairman Russo asks Mr. Fazioli if he could look into this under appointments of boards and commissions.

 

Chairman Russo moves on to vacancies and absences which are covered by section 2-6 and in the new amendment by sections 3-7, 3-8 and 3-9.  He notes he would refer people to Assistant Solicitor Conley’s memo, at the very end, and explains that at the following week’s meeting they can ask him what can be done there. 

 

Mr. Desrosiers states on the mayor’s side, as a language point of view, the president of the council serves as mayor in the absence of mayor.  He understands Providence and some other communities do this but East Providence is smaller and most have full time jobs and can’t just abandon their day jobs.  He asks if it would be more prudent to have an appointment of someone from the executive branch to serve ie: a department head.

 

Mr. Lawson notes his agreement adding the council is a part time position and the mayor is full time position and it would be more prudent to have a department head fill in as opposed to the council president.  

 

Mr. Scienzo notes his agreement as well indicating the mayor may have an administrator or right hand person and if the mayor is absent and the council president is in place they could give total control back to the council thereby defeating the purpose of the separate branches.

 

Chairman Russo states it is not clear if the council president would step down from the council or continue to serve in both positions.

 

Mr. Desrosiers states he believes the council president has to step down in Providence.  He also notes the speaker of the house is required to do the same thing.

 

Chairman Russo states in a mayoral form of government the idea is to keep an elected official in the seat, in a city manager form of government no one has an issue with an appointed person.

 

Mayor Briden states the mayor’s director of administration could be a person which isn’t necessarily well qualified to govern a city.   It is a tricky issue, if the council president has to step in as they may have a full time job.  The council president can decline and someone else on the council can serve.  With a city manager, there are minimum qualifications a director of administration can be grossly under qualified. 

 

Chairman Russo notes the mayor and the chief of staff are two very different jobs.

 

Mr. Scienzo comments there are no qualifications for mayor and they certainly hope they will hire someone as director of administration with the qualifications of city manager.   There are no qualifications for city council.  There needs to be some kind of safety net and at least with a department head there will be someone who is at least semi qualified to run the city in a temporary situation.

 

Mr. Faria also notes the chief of staff could live in another city.  They need to spend a little more time considering this question.  However, he still feels the president of the council should be the person.

 

Mr. Rock agrees with the idea that an elected official takes over as they have the will of the voters.  The department head would be removed from their director positions as they are taken out of their primary job to fill in.

 

Mr. Desrosiers states if a provision for a department head were put in place they would already have an overview of the city, they would have been chosen by the mayor and if there were a hostile council they could essentially have a complete change in government for that period of time.

 

Chairman Russo notes however there is value in being an elected official.

 

Mr. Lawson asks the commission to consider that council president could be the at large member so if they are next in line at least that person represents the entire city.

 

Mr. Desrosiers disagrees and notes in dealing with both public and private boards, a legislative body should have the ability to elect their leader.  It is the wrong move to tell the body who presides over it.

 

Mr. Fazioli asks Mr. Luba to explain what Woonsocket does. 

 

Mr. Luba states there is no director of administration in Woonsocket.  Adding that there is currently a contentious situation with the council and if they were next in line it could change the nature of the administration.  

 

Mr. Fazioli acknowledges it is a difficult question but that he understands the need to place an elected official in the seat.

 

Mr. Desrosiers acknowledges a permanent absence would require a special election and that this question is for a temporary absence only.  The city would need to have continuity in place and it would be almost going backwards if a council members was allowed to step into an executive role.

 

Chairman Russo notes the new amendment passed by the voters has a provision for temporary absence, for a 30 day period, the president of the council cannot make any changes and then only with the consent of the city council if it exceeds 90 days.  The city council may declare the office vacant and section 9 provides for what happens.   

 

It is agreed that the commission will do more research on how other communities handle vacancies. 

 

Chairman Russo moves to the section concerning the meetings of the city council and notes that it’s pretty clear cut and in sections 2-6 and 2-7 changes have already been addressed.  He moves onto the next topic which is appointment powers of the executive and legislative branches.  The city clerk and city solicitor are currently council appointments and these are areas which the commission may want to discuss.  

 

Mr. Desrosiers voices that what he would like to do is to take the boards and commissions and probate court listed in article 2 and make a separate article for the courts and add municipal court to this and also add an article that is just for boards and commission.  He notes in other cities and towns they have articles that are just devoted to the courts and boards and commissions.  The city clerk is a full time department head for the mayor but plays a huge role in the council functions and in essence serves two masters.  His suggestion is to split the role and have a part time appointed city clerk and a full time director of public records as a department head. The second option is to set it up the way the school committee is set up where the clerk is supported as the superintendent’s secretary but their actual legal clerk is a member of the body.   Simply having the mayor appoint with council consent is not enough because of the role they play in council business.

 

Mr. Rock states he would like to see it as a city council appointment because they work hand and hand with the city council.  In Richmond, where he served as town manager, it was completely separated from the executive branch. 

 

Mr. Fazioli asks if they also have responsibility over public records.

 

Mr. Rock states they do as well as all the licenses, which then went through the council and they were still a department head.  When he first started the city clerk was elected where now they are appointed by the town council.

 

Chairman Russo provided some statistics, of the 39 cities and towns, 11 are elected, 8 are appointed by council, one with recommendation from the chief executive, 20 are appointed by the chief executive of which 12 have council approval.    In the 8 strong mayor cities and towns 3 are appointed by mayor with council approval and 5 are appointed by council.

 

Mrs. Perry notes of all her years as clerk, she also served as president of the RI Town and City Clerks Association and she believes she was the only one who actually had to face reappointment every two years.  Most clerks just served at the pleasure of the council and were either appointed by the mayor or the council but not reappointed every two years.  Mrs. Perry lists the duties of the city clerk noting the clerk has to do all the council items and everything through the city manager’s office and assists with budgets and other items.  She was always told that the clerk’s position was like the local secretary of state.  In East Providence’s case the only thing they don’t handle is elections.  She notes it is a very big job.

 

Mr. Desrosiers asks Mrs. Perry what her recommendation would be.

 

Mrs. Perry states she thinks it should be appointed by the mayor with the same duties.  She adds that a lot of the clerk’s job is governed by general laws and it is very important to have that continuity.  There were a number of years after her where the city had a number of clerks and this causes chaos.

 

Mr. Desrosiers states it is a department head and to have it change every two years is wrong.  He asks what the body would think of a mayoral appointment with council consent and with an elected member secretary for the council as a balance.

 

Mr. Lawson notes this is an important position and continuity has to take place.  It is a very big job.  Perhaps a department of records and the clerk just handles the council stuff.   Legally there is a lot to make sure is done right.  He doesn’t think IT supports records at least not at this point.

 

Mrs. Perry states it is a very big job to put all records on line.

 

Mr. Faria states he feels it should be appointed by the mayor but also should work with the council.

 

Mrs. Perry notes it would have to be with the approval of the council also.  She would rather not see this appointment needed every 2 years as it needs that continuity.

 

Mr. Rock asked if it wouldn’t run into the same issue if a mayor appoints every two years and that it’s actually more likely that the mayor will switch than that a majority of the council will.

 

Mr. Desrosiers states he would like to hear from the city clerk as she has been in the role for a while and perhaps the commission could ask her to attend the next meeting.

 

Chairman Russo states he will ask her to attend or submit something if she can’t make it.

 

Mr. Faria noted there was a lot of continuity from Jim Beeley to Valerie Perry.   Following that there were several and now Kim Casci has been there since 2008 adding that if they do a great job they get reappointed.   

 

Chairman Russo notes he will contact Ms. Casci and CC Mayor Briden.  He moves on to the next appointment which is the solicitor.   The current status is a council appointment every two years.  The amendment changed that to a mayoral appointment with an approval of the council.  The old section is 2-17 the new is in the preamble and in section 3-10.

 

Mr. Scienzo notes they work at the pleasure of the council.   Residents have seen that a clash with the city manager can happen because they serve as the pleasure of the council and this can happen with the solicitors.  Perhaps there should be two solicitors one for the council and one for the mayor and the city.

 

Mr. Desrosiers explains in Pawtucket they just went through this and it should be the mayor’s appointment with council confirmation.  He would not want another solicitor just serving the council.   What Pawtucket did was to allow, in cases where the council interest conflicts, the hiring of an independent legal council.   They had a charter change to do this as the mayor would not grant it.  The legal department would still advise the council on most matters.   He reads the charter change from Pawtucket.  

 

Mayor Briden notes he served as solicitor in both forms of government and he feels it’s better to have a mayor appoint both solicitor and assistant solicitor.   He is not sure he agrees with the provision in Pawtucket to hire an independent outside counsel.  He adds that over the years he has seen an abuse with this provision as someone on the council who really wants to be mayor uses that outside attorney as a hired gun.  He is concerned with the cost as well.  When he has served in this capacity, he would give opinions to the council and then after the meetings sit with the mayor and the mayor may say he didn’t like the opinion but that is the opinion.  The solicitor has to call it as they see it.

 

Chairman Russo asks Solicitor Dias what he thinks about this.

 

Solicitor Dias states maybe some research on how other cities and towns handle this would be a good start. 

 

Mayor Briden states he would not recommend council approval because he has seen that abused as well and he feels a mayor should be able to appoint though he is not opposed to further discussion on the matter. 

 

Mr. Lawson asks Solicitor Dias what the day to day work is like, is it more city related or more council related. 

 

Solicitor Dias explains the day to day work is more assistant solicitor work.  For example, one assistant solicitor does all prosecution which has nothing to do with council.  While the solicitor does a good portion of day to day work, the solicitor also works directly with the council. 

 

Chairman Russo notes at the next meeting they will continue the discussion as it relates to the city clerk and city solicitor.   They are going to look at how other councils handle vacancies and request the law department to submit language on compensation for mayor and council.

 

G.    Meeting Agenda – 3/30/17

 

V.                ADJOURNMENT

 

A motion to Adjourn at 9:00PM is made by Mr. Scienzo, seconded by Mr. Faria and it is unanimous.               

 

 

Approved By Commission:  4/6/17

 

 

 

Attest:  _______________

                  City Clerk