| | CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND JOURNAL OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 15, 2005 | |
The City Council meets in the Council Chamber on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, and is called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Mayor Joseph Larisa.
| Present: | Mayor Joseph S. Larisa, Jr. | ) | |
| | Patrick T. Caine | ) | Council Members |
| | Peter F. Midgley | ) | |
| | Norman J. Miranda | ) | |
| | Valerie A. Perry | ) | |
| | | | |
| | William J. Fazioli | | City Manager |
| | William J. Conley | | City Solicitor |
| | Dana L. Toy | | City Clerk |
The Invocation is read by Councilman Caine and the Salute to the Flag is led by Councilwoman Perry.
Lori Merolla, Merandi Reporting, is present to record the proceedings of the public hearing.
I. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL JOURNALS
March 1, 2005 – Regular Meeting
B. CANCELLATION/ABATEMENTS (Requested by Tax Assessor)
YEAR AMOUNT
2004 $19,066.07
1998 $ 16.18
1997 $ 136.26
TOTAL $19,218.51
C. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW
Requested adjustments for hardships and residential Tax Board of Review
YEAR AMOUNT
2004 (3 approved, 4 denied, total of 7) $1,368.21
D. 1) RESOLUTION – Town of Hopkinton, RI – Resolution in support of Senate Bill 2005S-0064 an act relating to education.
2) RESOLUTION – City of Providence, RI – Requesting the General Assembly of the State of RI thoroughly investigate and enact appropriate legislation to provide all purchasers of health insurance options, which take advantage of a statewide or region wide economy of scale.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve the Consent Calendar.
II. APPOINTMENTS
Conservation Commission (by Mayor Larisa)
Lorraine Nik
238 Terrace Avenue (02915)
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.
Historic Properties Designation & Study Commission (by Councilman Midgley)
David Kelleher (reappointment)
36 Riverside Drive (02915)
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.
Library Board of Trustees (by Councilman Midgley)
Barbara McGovern
125 Holland Avenue (02915)
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.
Juvenile Hearing Board (by Councilwoman Perry)
George Furtado (reappointment)
61 Ravena Avenue (02915)
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Midgley, and on a roll call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve.
III. CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS LICENSING COMMISSIONERS
LICENSES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING
Victualing/Not Over 25
Paul Rodrigues, Rodrigues Wholesale & Retail Meats, Inc., d/b/a Rodrigues Wholesale & Retail Meats, 1024 South Broadway
Paul Rodrigues, 26 Broad Street, Rehobeth, MA, is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Midgley, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve, subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
Victualing/Not Over 50
Gina Costa, Vanzac, Inc. d/b/a Best Eatin’ Family Restaurant, 1175 Warren Avenue
Gina Costa, 131 Roma Street, East Providence, RI, is present and sworn in by the City Solicitor. Councilman Miranda asks if this is the location of Theo’s Restaurant and Ms. Costa states it was previously Theo’s now is Two Brothers. They will serve a full menu, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. She states that due to a conflict with Tim Horton’s with the name, they will be changing the name to Cousin’s Family Restaurant. Approved without objection. Councilwoman Perry states that the previous businesses had alcoholic beverage licenses and is she going to be requesting one. Ms. Costa states that at the moment, no, she will not be requesting one.
On motion of Councilman Midgley, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve, subject to approvals from the Chief of Police, Building Inspector, Health Inspector and Fire Marshall.
LICENSING COMMISSIONERS RESUME SITTING AS CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORDINANCES - FINAL PASSAGE (Given first passage February 15, 2005. Advertised – Providence Journal - February 18, 2005).
1. This ordinance establishes the fines for false alarms.
SECTION I. Subsection (b) of Sec. 8-337 entitled “False alarms.” of Article XII entitled “Police and Fire Alarms” of Chapter 8 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Licenses and Business Regulations” is amended to read as follows:
(b) A uniform false alarm fee shall be established by the city council. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be penalized as follows:
(1) First 3 offenses within one year – No charge.
(2) 4th offense within one year - $100.00.
(3) 5th offense within one year - $250.00.
(4) 6th offense within one year - $500.00
(c) Upon the occurrence of a false alarm, if remedial action is taken to correct the cause of the false alarm, the next false alarm thereafter shall constitute a first offense.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon its second passage and all ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Caine, it is unanimously voted to dispense with the reading of the ordinance.
There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for Final Passage.
2. This ordinance amendment increases the building permit fee by $1.00 per thousand for work valued over $50,000; $2.00 per thousand for work valued over $100,000; $3.00 per thousand for work valued over $1,000,000; and establishes a plan review fee equal to 1/3 of the permit fee for work valued at $200,000 or more.
SECTION I. Section 4-16 entitled “Building permits.” of Article II entitled “Permits” of Chapter 4 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of East Providence, Rhode Island, 1998, as amended, entitled “Buildings and Building Regulations” is hereby amended to read as follows:
The valuation of the estimated cost of any new structure shall be established in accordance with the schedule set out in this section.
(1) All building permits, whether for new structures, repairs or alterations, and the fees for such permits are hereby fixed as follows. A $500.00 late charge shall be added for starting work before obtaining a permit.
(a) Estimated cost $100.00 to $5,000.00 .................................................................... $50.00
(b) Estimated cost $5,001.00 to $10,000.00................................................................ $75.00
(c) For each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to $50,000.00............................... $7.00
(d) $50,000.00.......................................................................................................... $353.00
For each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to $100,000.00…….…....$6.007.00
(e) $100,000.00........................................................................................................ $653.00
For each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to $1,000,000.00……......$5.007.00
(f) $1,000,000.00................................................................................................... $5,153.00
Plus $4.00 7.00 per thousand or fraction thereof, no maximum.
(g) Oiled-fired burners, boilers and furnaces and/or gas-fired burners, boilers and furnaces with a rating less than 200,000 BTU’s each.................................................................................................... $50.00
(h) Boilers, furnaces or heating systems over 200,000 BTU’s or other mechanical permits, such as pumping and piping systems, air-conditioning, elevators, etc. shall be charged the building permit fee schedule rate as outlined in this section.
(i) Demolition:
Residential........................................................................................................ $50.00
Commercial.................................................................................................... $100.00
(j) Moving building..................................................................................................... $200.00
(k) Tanks: install, relocate or remove each................................................................. $125.00
(l) Pumps: install, relocate or remove each.................................................................. $125.00
(m) Certificate of Occupancy:
Residential: $25.00 for initial inspection and $25.00 for each additional inspection.
Commercial: $100.00 for initial inspection and $100.00 for each additional inspection.
(n) Garage: $15.00 per square foot for attached and $20.00 per square foot for unattached.
(o) Basement: $12.00 per square foot for unfinished and $20.00 per square for finished.
(p) Shed.............................................................................................. $10.00 per square foot
(q) Deck............................................................................................. $10.00 per square foot
(r) Interior renovations......................................................................... $25.00 per square foot
(s) Wood stoves and fireplaces.................................................................................... $25.00
(t) Tents over 120 square feet...................................................................................... $20.00
(u) Swimming pools......................................................... cost of construction per fee schedule
(v) Building Code Board of Standards & Appeals...................................................... $100.00
(w) Minimum Property Standards Board of Review Appeal........................................ $100.00
(x) Temporary structures, storage containers, mobile houses
or any other temporary structure............................................................................. $50.00
(y) A fee of $25.00 per inspection will be charged for change of occupancy, rooming houses, laundry and dry cleaners, school inspections other than public schools.
(2) Fees will be computed as follows:
a. Compute gross square footage.
b. Locate square foot construction cost in those current charts on file in the city clerk’s office. The charts are referred to as Table 1 and/or 2 and adjust for height as per the notation set forth in the tables.
c. Compute construction cost: Gross square footage x square foot construction cost x $1.25 1.50.
(3) Plan Review Fee. In addition to the fees listed in this subsection, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of application whenever any application for a building permit is made for work valued at $200,000.00 or more. This fee shall be equal to one third (1/3) of the permit fee calculated in accordance with the schedule of permit fees listed in this subsection.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect upon second passage and all ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Caine, it is unanimously voted to dispense with the reading of the ordinance.
There is no one from the public wishing to be heard.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Midgley, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to approve for Final Passage.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Public Safety Efforts
Mr. Fazioli discusses the capabilities of our public safety departments and how they service our community as well as neighboring communities. Asks Asst. Fire Chief Brassill and Police Chief Paquette to come forward to discuss some incidents that happened recently.
Asst. Fire Chief Brassill steps forward and states that last Friday, the Seekonk Fire Dept. called our department and asked if we had the ability to do a technical rescue. A man had fallen off of a ladder into a well. He had the ladder hanging by the top rung, the rung broke, and he fell 25 feet into a 55 foot deep well. We were able to facilitate the rescue. We have 41 members trained in confined space, high angle & technical rope rescue. It’s a specialized field, very dangerous performing these types of rescues. I did go to the scene and witnessed the rescue and if it were on tape, OSHA would use it today as the classic, perfect job. It was a great effort by the 8 members who performed the rescue. We are exceeding what we’ve done in the past. We now have people that are hazmat trained, confined space trained, and extricate people from cars in addition to putting fires out. Wanted again to congratulate the 8 members and will be getting something out to each one shortly.
Police Chief Paquette steps forward and states back in March 2004, Detective Clark received a call from a woman in the City asking for assistance in locating her boyfriend. Had received information that he was shot in Los Angeles. He and another man had gone to Los Angeles.
Both men were shot, one was killed and the other escaped. Thorough Detective Clark’s efforts, he was able to locate the individual that was shot. He had him come in and give a statement and was able to convince him to return to Los Angeles, where he was able to identify the shooter. The individual is presently being held and is awaiting trial. Demonstrates we can have agencies on the opposite sides of the United States and were able to solve this murder.
Another was a murder for hire case. Capt. Barlow, Lt. Kennedy, Sgt. Atwell, Detectives Clark, McGregor, Rossi, and Investigator Jacobson worked on this one. Providence Detective Al Lima received information from an acquaintance that this individual was approached and asked if he knew someone that would commit a homicide for him. He wanted his wife killed. He had taken out a one million dollar insurance policy on her. His intent was to purchase a car dealership. The Providence Detective advised the individual to contact our detectives. They set up a meeting with the individual. Had Investigator Brian Lundstrom play the part of the hit man. They met in a parking lot and agreed on a fee he would pay the investigator. Also had a plan on how the investigator could make it appear to be a botched burglary and he would tell him where she kept her valuables. Had video and audio tapes and when Investigator Lundstrom moved away, the detectives moved in and took him into custody. On February 21st, he pled guilty to the charge and received a six-year sentence. These are just a couple of cases that show the hard work that is done every day.
Mayor Larisa wants to covey Councils congratulations on jobs well done. Great expertise shown by both the Fire and Police Depts. of our City and they make us all very proud.
RFP ADA Ramp Construction – Request for pre-approval
Mr. Fazioli states he’s seeking approval to move the ADA ramp construction closer to reality. We’ve received a grant from RI DEM to help offset the cost of the ramp. They are willing to pay up to $50,000 for the construction of the ramp. Will cover about half the cost of the ramp. Have submitted design to CRMC that they will be acting on soon. Request for qualifications for construction of ramp are due on March 18th. An RFP will be issued pursuant to your approval early next week. Once RFQ’s are reviewed this Friday, we hope to have RFP awarded by mid April so we can start construction on ramp as soon as possible so we can finally resolve issue of handicap access to the beach from the park and reopen the stairway at end of park. Asking for pre-approval to issue an RFP as we look at the RFQ’s coming in Friday.
Mayor Larisa states he’s asking Council to expedite the process tonight. Had the timing worked out, we would have had the list of requirements for RFQ’s and Jeanne Boyle would say we’ve qualified however many people and the RFP would be approved. Because the RFQ is not back until Friday, asking the Council to give discretion to the City Manager with Planning Dept. to pre-qualify bidders and it will them immediately go out to bid and the Council will pick the ultimate winner of the RFP.
Again, as I’ve previously stated, the staircases will not be shut down again this year and that we will have a formal opening or cutting of ribbon on Memorial Day Weekend. Will happen whether or not the ramp is completed by Memorial Day.
Councilman Caine asks if ramp was part of original bid. Mayor Larisa states it was not, but should have been. Councilman Caine asks if this is the only ADA correction needed. Mayor Larisa states no other ADA corrections are necessary. The grading issue has already been resolved and a parking issue, striping of lines, has also been resolved. Also pushing for an amphitheatre and long overdue concession stand.
Councilman Caine asks was the amphitheatre and concession stand part of original plan. Mayor Larisa states there wasn’t enough money for the amphitheatre to do as part of original plan. Working on getting money for that now, have been working with Carousel Park Commission and the Rose Larisa Memorial Park Committee to get a proposal to the Council. This proposal is subject to Council approval. The concession stand we have now is very old. Original plan called for building a concession stand between the beach and the carousel in a nice, modern building.
Another item will also be bringing before the Council that there are several hundred thousand dollars in bond money available that will be used to renovate the entire across the street area. The Carousel Park Commission and the City are working on getting an architect for that right now. The consensus of the Carousel Park Commission and the Rose Larisa Memorial Park Committee is that the concession stand would be better built on a plat that is already set for it across the street, and that $300,000 + is already allocated to a bunch of improvements across the street, none of which include the $200,000 + concession stand. We also have $140,000 in the Rose Larisa Memorial Park budget which should have paid for the entire concession stand, but didn’t, and this money will go toward the new concession stand and amphitheatre. The Mayor asks for a motion to give the City Manager discretion to turn RFQ qualifiers into RFP applicants.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, it is unanimously voted to give the City Manager discretion to turn RFQ qualifiers into RFP applicants.
Wastewater Study
Mr. Fazioli states we have reps. from CDM who have spent time studying our wastewater system. Steve Coutu will be supervising this study along with CDM.
Steve Coutu steps forward. States CDM did a very comprehensive study of our wastewater facility. Includes planning and pumping and flushing system. CDM brought in a team of technicians to look at all electrical and mechanical equipment, our processes, structures, buildings, and address a number of regulatory mandates that we have to comply with now, which are sewer overflow and upcoming permit requirements by DEM. DEM has a new initiative to decrease the amount of nutrient loading into Narragansett Bay. Also looking at its capacity for long term, taking into account the development of out cities waterfront. They will show the findings of their assessment in the powerpoint presentation we will be seeing next.
Project Engineer from CDM discusses facilities assessment, the age of water pollution control facility, it’s condition, future effluent permit compliance, building code compliance, & it’s capacity. Discussed the pumping stations and collection system’s capacity, condition, and building code compliance. A field audit was done on the site in the following areas: wastewater processes, operations and maintenance, mechanical equipment, electrical systems, instrumentation, structural, and HVAC. The audit study states the water pollution control facility and pumping station have been in service for over 30 years and is showing its age. Facilities have been very well maintained, but expected wear and tear was observed. Many industry and building codes have been made more stringent since original construction, and many existing facilities don’t comply. Electrical system & I&C systems need upgrading. Also headworks upgrade needed, the grit system exposed, ventilation, redundancy, odor control, and aeration basins in need of repair. Digester building systems need upgrading as well as the administration building. Watchemoket pump station and other pumping stations should be replaced due to their condition and age, code compliance, and insufficient capacity for future needs.
The conclusion of process evaluation: existing tankage and equipment not capable of meeting total nitrogen limit of 8 mg/l, upgrades process plus replacement equipment needed.
Recommend implementation plan of project in 8 packages to meet priorities and minimize financial impact. 1) Biological Nutrient Removal Upgrade, 2) Headworks Area, 3) Digestion Building and Sludge Storage, 4) Administration and Operations Buildings Upgrade, 5) Watchemoket Pumping Station Replacement, 6) Major Pumping Station Upgrades, 7) Minor Pumping Station Upgrades, 8) Collection System Upgrade. End result of assessment is to develop a capital improvement plan over the next 20 years to allow the City a plan with what needs to be done during this period. Given cost summary of implementing plan.
B. REPORTS OF OTHER CITY OFFICIALS
1) CLAIMS COMMITTEE (By William J. Conley, Jr. City Solicitor)
Geico (Insured: Paul Silva), Claim # 05-19 Refer to insurance carrier
Tara-Jean Parsons, Claim # 05-09 Refer to Law Dept.
Romeo Pisaturo, Claim # 05-24 Refer to RIDOT
Susete Sousa, Claim # 05-020 Refer to RIDOT
Jupesi Gonzalez, Claim # 05-08 Deny
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to accept as presented.
2) DEED OF EASEMENT (By William J. Conley, Jr. City Solicitor)
File #2004 – 011 Proposed 3 - Lot Minor Subdivision
2799 Pawtucket Avenue (at Robinson Avenue)
Applicant and Owner – Deborah & Mel Hirschon
Assessors Map 308/ Block 21/ Lot 12 Area: 25,000 s.f.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to accept as presented.
C. RESOLUTIONS
The following resolution implements the abandonment of Oregon Avenue previously approved by the City Council on March 1, 2005:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of East Providence deemed it necessary to abandon Oregon Avenue from the corner of Miles Avenue to the end of Oregon Avenue ending at Plat 305, Block 9, Lot 34 as shown on a recorded plat of land entitled “North Broadway Park, East Providence, R.I. owned by J.W. Wilbur, June 1st 1900” which said plat is recorded in the Records of Land Evidence of the City of East Providence on Plat Card 203 and on Tax Assessor’s Map 305, Block 9 and Map 405, Block 3 dated December 31, 2003.
WHEREAS, said petition, having been duly advertised and all interested parties duly notified in accordance with law, and after public hearing held on March 1, 2005:
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Oregon Avenue from the corner of Miles Avenue to the end of Oregon Avenue ending at Plat 305, Block 9, Lot 34 as shown on a recorded plat of land entitled “North Broadway Park, East Providence, R.I. owned by J.W. Wilbur, June 1st 1900” which said plat is recorded in the Records of Land Evidence of the City of East Providence on Plat Card 203 and on Tax Assessor’s Map 305, Block 9 and Map 405, Block 3 dated December 31, 2003 described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of AP 305, Lot 1 owned by Steven Najas located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue in the city of East Providence is the point and place of beginning for the proposed portion of Oregon Avenue, a paper street located in the city of East Providence.
Thence southerly along a line which is the westerly property line of lot 1 owned by Steven Najas a distance of 180.00 feet more or less to a point.
Thence easterly along a line bounded northerly by Oregon Avenue and southerly by AP 305, Lot 34 owned by R. Tilliman, and turning an interior angle of 90˚ 00’ 00” a distance of 40.00 feet more or less to a point.
Thence northerly along a line bounded westerly by Oregon Avenue and easterly by Appollo Realty and turning an interior angle of 90˚ 00’ 00” a distance of 192.31 feet more or less.
Thence westerly along a line bounded northerly by Oregon Avenue and turning an interior angle of 72˚ 53’ 50” a distance of 41.86 feet more or less to the point and place of beginning.
Said abandon road parcel containing 7,446 square feet of land and is shown on a plan entitled, “North Broadway Park, East Providence, R.I. owned by J.W. Wilbur, June 1st 1900” which said plat is recorded in the Records of Land Evidence of the City of East Providence on Plat Card 203 and on Tax Assessor’s Map 305, Block 9 and Map 405, Block 3 dated December 31, 2003 situated in East Providence, County of Providence, State of Rhode Island as hereinabove described has ceased to become useful to the public.
It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that after due appraisal, it is determined that there is no damage sustained by the abutting property owners by reason of said abandonment, and, therefore, no award of damages shall be made; and
It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Director of Public Works be directed to cause signs to be placed at each end of said abandoned highway as hereinabove described, having thereon the words “Not a Public Highway”; and
It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that after entry of this decree the City Clerk shall cause notice thereof to be posted in a newspaper published in Providence County, and that further and personal notice be served by the City Sergeant upon every owner of land abutting upon said Oregon Avenue as hereinabove described who is known to reside within this state. (Adopted by the City Council)
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Caine, it is unanimously voted to dispense with the reading of the resolution.
On motion of Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Caine, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to adopt the resolution.
D. COMMUNICATIONS
Lloyd Monroe, 22 Haliburton Road, East Providence, RI, and Michael Robinson, Esq., 124 So. Blossom Street, East Providence, RI. Requesting to address the Council to discuss petition regarding lawsuit against The Board of Canvassers.
Lloyd Monroe and Michael Robinson are both present and sworn in by the City Solicitor.
Mr. Robinson states he is the attorney representing a number of plaintiffs who filed suit against the Board of Canvassers last year seeking to prevent the certifying by the Board the accuracy of the final voting list used in the general election on November 2nd on the basis of which we perceive were numerous irregularities. A number of allegations were raised. Evident that at least two individuals had voted in East Providence when they knew they were ineligible to do so and lived outside of the City, one lived outside of the State. Several candidates had numerous mailings returned undeliverable based on information from the Board of Canvassers. Others had difficulty getting information from the Board of Canvassers. The Board voted 2 to 1 to certify the accuracy of the final voting list used on November 2nd election prior to disclosing information that had been requested numerous times as to who participated in the September 14th primary. The election is over, but serious policy issues still remain. Asking for the Councils help. The major problem is the appearance of impropriety created when a City-paid Canvassing Clerk also serves as a voting member of the Board of Canvassers. RI General Law section 17-8-2 prohibits City employees from also serving as voting members of the Canvassing Authority. Legislative council has interpreted this statute to prohibit canvassing employees from also serving as voting members. The RI Supreme Court has upheld the statute saying the business of elections should be insulated from political influence. I believe the statute is clear. You can be a clerk and a voting member of the Board of Canvassers, but you cannot be paid for serving as the clerk. Believe there is a tremendous policy issue at stake here. An appearance of impropriety with respect to the sensitive business surrounding the conduct of elections must be ensured.
Would like to request the Council address the current makeup of the East Providence Board of Canvassers, bring it into line with the way we read State law, to prohibit someone from serving as a paid city employee and also simultaneously a voting member of the authority. Believe you have two options, the first would allow current clerk to serve as a voting member of the authority and remove them from the City payroll. The second is to remove them as a voting member of the authority and allow them to remain as a paid city employee. Believe this is an important step to ensure the citizens of East Providence have a fair election system and a great first step in restoring confidence in the system by removing a cloud of political influence that presently exists on the Board of Canvassers.
Lloyd Monroe steps forward and states Mr. Robinson has summed up their position very well. Says there is no need for us to establish there is any actual impropriety, the law is very clear. Not here asking that the Council deal with the city employee on grounds of cause. Not raising allegations about the propriety or impropriety of their conduct in the context of this petition; however, do think that in terms of the construction of the statute, it is certainly clear. If you refer to section 17-8-5, clause 1, this section refers to the issue of the Canvassing Authority appointing one of its members to act as its clerk. Confusion may be in reading 17-8-2, there is a clause there stating that provided that a member of the authority may act as its clerk may be where the confusion lies. The fact is a person may act as a clerk for the Canvassing Authority without being an employee of the City and that seems to be the construction that was placed upon the law by the General Assembly and the RI Supreme Court.
Mayor Larisa asks that it clearly states that a member of the authority can be a clerk, but when does a clerk become an illegal employee. Mr. Monroe states that section 17-8-2 says no person employed by the federal govt., state govt., or town or city, no public employee, may serve as a member of the Canvassing Authority. It’s not an open & shut case, others may disagree with me, but I believe your position legally a member of the authority becomes an illegal employee when the clerk is paid. The question is how does this statutory scheme operate. Think that the only entity would be the courts of the State of RI. Mr. Monroe states not saying she’s an illegal employee, is saying that legally, she cannot serve as a member of the Board of Canvassers because she’s employed by the City.
Mr. Robinson states they think this is a larger political issue here, that people may take different positions with its language. We think it is clear that the law defends our position. Think that the Council should examine the intent behind what the General Assembly was saying, which is that there is clearly an issue as to the appearance of impropriety when you have paid city public employees who also serve on politically-charged voting boards.
Councilman Caine states there are two separate issues. There is a lawsuit pending and the court will decide on that. Need to keep the issues separate. Everyone here discussing this and disagreeing on that one sentence. Also, you didn’t provide me with a site to refer to. Then today, I get a supplemental letter by e-mail late this afternoon on the day of the Council meeting and it’s very difficult to look at the issue adequately to address it from the Councils perspective. Could not find the original enactment of the legislation and need that to discuss this. You mention a cloud exists on the Board of Canvassers. I ran for office and found the Canvassing Office to be fine when I had returned mailings. Just want to state that I don’t want to have issues of allegations put into our records without some sort of basic response that to me, the cloud is a self imposed one. Until it goes to Superior Court, don’t want the public to think we have a Canvassing Office that doesn’t do what they’re supposed to be doing. Just want to keep the issues separate and if we’re going to discuss 17-8-2, then just keep it to that subject and don’t discuss the other piece because in my opinion, that’s just politics, it doesn’t belong here.
Mayor Larisa states that 17-8-2 dispute is not in Superior Court. All agree, regardless of anyone’s legal opinion, that we’re not going to move in any direction on that issue, the courts will have to give us direction on this because there are many different views on the effect of that, never mind that the City has operated under this structure for the entire length of the statute which may be over 40 years. Other point, what happened at the last election. I ran at large and there was a big problem. Don’t want to rehash the past, but it seems clear that many people voted in East Providence who were not registered voters. Think there was ample evidence that this happened. Without passing blame on why it happened or whether we should have used a new voter list or whether anyone did anything wrong. Would like to fix it without casting blame. This is not a political year, we just want to make sure we have the best possible voting list available for the 2006 election to protect the rights of the voters in East Providence. Lets forget the 17-8-2 issue, we can’t take any action on that, but how do we fix the system so it works well the next time. You also say there are 4 issues that the Canvassing Board wasn’t responsive on, but I’ve got a letter from the Canvassing Authority chief saying she’s responded to every request. Mr. Monroe states he doesn’t know, she hasn’t given him a copy of the letter. Again, this is pending in court. Understood that should be resolved by that particular court.
Mayor Larisa disagrees. This matter should be resolved by the City Council. Everyone agrees that only valid voters should be voting. How do we resolve this so we don’t need a court telling us what to do. Why are we being adversarial on a fundamental principal of democracy. Again, without casting blame on the past, I think everyone wants to make sure we get it right next time. We like to resolve lawsuits, if there is a way to resolve this to fix the problem, I’d like a proposal from you to do that. We’re not going to resolve the statutory issue, but on the issue to make sure we have the best list, if you could present some type of proposal as to what you’d like to see get accomplished, are you willing to make a proposal to the Council on whatever issues are outstanding in the lawsuit. Mr. Monroe states yes, but not tonight.
Councilman Caine states when you vote, you sign that you’re living at that address, whether you’re telling the truth or not. How much of an effort and how much do we want to spend in dealing with that list. Also, there are a number of pieces of legislation right now revising from an identity prospective, a mailing prospective, what canvassers have to do from a responsive prospective. If these are passed, will solve most of issues raised in your letter. Mr. Monroe states there are issues that weren’t raised in the letter.
Councilman Caine says it still goes back to good people. If the voters move, they need to give us notice, they need to help the Canvassers. When I did mailings and they came back, I delivered them to the Canvassers so they could go out, send the notice and try to figure out if that person should be part of the voting list and if not, put them on the inactive list. My hope was they would take care of this and from my perspective, they did. It’s our obligation to assist in the process. If they weren’t registered to vote, I registered them. If they were at the wrong address, I made attempts to fix that. Hopefully everyone elected did the same thing. That’s how we keep the list clean and have to have a basic idea that the people voting are telling the truth. If not, they get prosecuted.
Mr. Robinson agrees inappropriate to sling blame around at this point. It is very difficult on us when a list is certified as accurate by appointed members of the Board of Canvassers at the same time that they are presented with information clearly suggesting that people are on the list that shouldn’t be. Then the list is never the less, certified as accurate. Had additional information that there were others on the list that shouldn’t be, but they certified it anyway. You can’t put the entire burden on the citizens, what do you do when government fails you. You turnaround and file a lawsuit, that was our option and that was what we did at the time. I think that at this point, we’re looking for a way to try to improve the system for everyone. Asking for the council’s assistance, would prefer not to litigate the issue on the applicability of 17-8-2, I think that paid city employees should not be sitting as voting members. Thinks that’s clearly the intent of the General Assembly. We’re not here on an adversarial role. We’re trying to bring light to what has been a problematic area of City government.
Councilman Midgley asks what are you here for, do you want to see Maryann Callahan fired, do you want to take money away from her for sitting on the Board? Mr. Robinson states no, he would like to see her given the option of whether or not she wants to retain her City salary or whether or not she wants to be seated & voted as a member of the Canvassing authority. They’re mutually exclusive and they should be for good government
Councilman Midgley asks if Maryann Callahan is an appointee or an employee. Mayor Larisa states she’s both, just like the City Manager, City Solicitor, and City Clerk. The question is when does a perfectly legal clerk become an illegal employee under the statute, that’s the legal question. The City Solicitor states it’s a matter of classified or non-classified employees. Appointees are not hired within the civil services of the merit system, they are considered non-classified employees.
Mr. Monroe states that their position is different that the legislature had legislated this particular issue. Don’t believe there is a statute that would indicate that a City Manager couldn’t serve as a City employee. That’s the distinction.
Mayor Larisa states he believes there are two issues with your interpretation of the statute. Amend the statute to provide a third member of the Canvassing Authority who is not Maryann Callahan because she is the paid position. Alternatively, your asking as a matter of policy, regardless what the statute says because we’re able to do that, it doesn’t matter what state law says, we can have a three person Canvassing Authority that doesn’t include the paid position, if the Council so chooses. I understand you’re asking for either of those two results, is that correct. Mr. Robinson states that is correct.
Mayor Larisa asks you’re unable to respond whether the Canvassing Authority has met the requirements of the access to public records act with respect to absentee voter, applicants, and the like. Have correspondence from Maryann Callahan indicating she has provided this information. Mr. Monroe states that the group has been meeting on a regular basis organizing these records that were given to us in a very disorganized manner. They were given to us in such a way that makes it impossible for us to determine whether or not records were missing. We’ve been looking at reorganizing them, putting them back into the same form they were in when they were sent from the Board of Canvassers to the State Board of Elections. That’s why we can’t answer your question regarding the specifics because we haven’t finished our examination of the records yet, unable to determine whether she’s complied with the request completely.
Councilman Miranda states he finds it strange that all of a sudden, we’re picking on Maryann Callahan. There were three former canvassing clerks that were paid and served on the Canvassing Authority and no one had a problem with that, no one was ever questioned. No problem straightening things out, but not ready to do anything tonight. I think it’s a group that’s after Maryann Callahan and I won’t vote on anything.
On motion of Councilman Caine, seconded by Councilman Miranda, and on a roll-call vote, it is unanimously voted to go into Executive Session in accordance with Section 42-46-5 of the “Exceptions” of Chapter 46 of the General Laws, pursuant to Section 42-46-5-(a)(2) [Collective Bargaining/Litigation], to discuss negotiations.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourns at 9:30 P.M.
Attest:
______________________________________
Dana L. Toy
City Clerk
Approved: April 5, 2005