| | CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND JOURNAL OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2007 | |
The City Council meets in the Council Chambers on Thursday, July 12, 2007 and Mayor Isadore S. Ramos calls the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
The invocation is read by Councilwoman Perry and the Salute to the Flag is led by Councilman Cusack.
Kimberly Bourque from Merandi Reporting is present to record the proceedings of the public hearing.
| Present: | Mayor Isadore S. Ramos | | |
| | Robert E. Cusack | ) | Council Members |
| | Bruce DiTraglia | ) | |
| | Valerie A. Perry | ) | |
| | Bryan P. Silva | ) | |
| | | | |
| | Richard M. Brown | ) | City Manager |
| | William J. Conley, Jr. | ) | City Solicitor |
| | Virginia B. Nunes | ) | City Clerk |
Mayor Ramos stated this is a special meeting for the sole purpose of conducting a hearing pursuant to City Ordinance Section 11-46 to determine what discipline action if any should be taken by the City Council against Thomas C. Riley a member of the East Providence Canvassing Authority as a receipt of a complaint from Dorothy M. O’Gara, Chairperson of the East Providence Canvassing Authority. Mr. Riley has received written notice of the meeting; we have a copy of written notice and receipt signed by Mr. Riley. At this time I would like a motion to except this as Exhibit A.
On motion of Councilwoman Perry, seconded by Councilman Silva, and it is unanimously voted to accept exhibit A.
Mayor Ramos stated he needed a motion to accept the complaint filed by Mrs. O’Gara as Exhibit B.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and it is unanimously voted to accept exhibit B.
Mayor Ramos stated the reason this pre-disciplinary hearing is taking place because of the content sent in emails to Mrs. O’Gara. The presentation to the City Council will be limited to just that. Mr. Riley has the right to be represented by Council and present any evidence including witnesses. Members of the City Council as fact finds will conduct all the inquiries at the conclusion of Mr. Riley’s presentation. Mrs. O’Gara can address the Council on the complaint and present evidence and witnesses. Council as fact finding will conduct all inquiries at the conclusion of the presentation I will ask for a motion to close that stage of the hearing. Then Council begins its discussion. Once the Council begins its deliberation there’s no further participation by the parties or witnesses.
Joseph Larisa, 44 Don Avenue (02916) was sworn in by City Solicitor.
Mr. Larisa stated he would be representing Mr. Riley and wanted to clarify that only the emails could be presented and Mrs. O’Gara had to follow that.
Mr. Conley stated that was correct only what relates to the emails.
Mr. Larisa stated the City Solicitor stated in the letter to Mr. Riley that this was a pre-disciplinary hearing which could be different from a disciplinary hearing. Am I correct in assuming there is a difference?
Mr. Conley stated I guess not. I’ll explain the process. A claim was filed by Mrs. O’Gara, as City Solicitor I advised that the City Council could not take any disciplinary action without hearing the facts and giving Mr. Riley the opportunity to be heard. As Mayor Ramos stated first we will listen to the facts as a pre-disciplinary hearing, then discuss and deliberate, then discipline if any discipline should be imposed.
Mr. Larisa stated the City Council has no jurisdiction under the City Ordinance. The Council has no power to remove anyone from a State Board. Mr. Riley has not been provided notice of any of the provisions of Section 11-46 which has nine, and he wasn’t provided any penalty that the Council is wishing to impose. It’s his due process so that’s why I thought this was a pre-disciplinary hearing. At the conclusion of this, if the Council want to find for instance #2 Theft or destruction of city property, or #4 Insubordination, malfeasance or misfeasance it would give Mr. Riley notice of that charge and further give him thirty day suspension or public censure or termination of his position it would give him notice and then have a disciplinary hearing on that notice and of that proposed penalty. I take it with your explanation that’s not your understanding.
Mr. Conley stated that’s correct. There is a Rhode Superior court case very similar which they had a pre-disciplinary and after hearing the facts the Town Council made a decision. It would be very difficult for the Council to propose penalties without knowing all the facts. As for the notice of June 20, 2007 it showed a specific conduct it followed the City Ordinance pursuant to Section 11-46.
Mr. Larisa stated note our objection for the record on that.
Mr. Conley stated absolutely.
Mr. Larisa stated I have even a larger objection to that and I apologize for not getting this to you sooner and you haven’t had time to study it, but the Supreme Court case I mention states that elections are a State matter and the Board of Elections are creatures of the State. The Mayor and the Council get to elect members it is long standing that the State Board is the function of the State Law. Which that means the City Ordinance has no right to remove anybody from the board. It’s impermissible, there is no legal basis. There was a case Cf. Molloy v. Collins, 18 A.2d 639 (R.I. 1941) giving the mayor of Providence power to remove canvassing board members during 1939 for malfeasance or nonfeasance declared valid and constitutional against attack by board members. We are going to continue to present our entire case but under protest because we believe this is a matter of state law and not a town ordinance.
Mr. Conley stated Mr. Larisa is right I have not had the opportunity to review the legal referendum I’ll be happy to review it perhaps we could take a break later.
Mr. Larisa stated he would like to introduce the next exhibit a letter dated July 12, 2007 on behalf of Mr. Riley from me with attachments.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilwoman Perry, and it is unanimously voted to accept exhibit C.
Mr. Larisa stated we are here tonight because of Section 11-46 with the request of the Council to determine whether it is violated and as I mentioned earlier there are nine separate grounds. 1. Failure to meet prescribed standards of work, morality and ethics to an extent that makes an employee unsuitable for any kind of employment in the City service. 2. Theft or destruction of city property. 3. Incompetency, inefficiency or negligence in the performance of duties. 4. Insubordination, malfeasance or misfeasance. 5. Conviction of a criminal offense. 6. Disgraceful personal conduct. 7. Unauthorized absences or abuse of leave privileges. 8. Acceptance of any valuable consideration which was given with the expectation of influencing the employee in the performance of his duties. 9. Falsification of records or use of official position for personal advantage. We don’t believe as Mr. Riley will testify is close to the situation. What’s happened here is an attempt to take out the one member of the canvassing board who has stood up for investigating voter fraud, the only one standing up for regular scheduled public meetings and importantly after business hours.
Councilman Silva calls for point of order. We are here to hear about this case not to hear about all this other stuff.
Mayor Ramos stated Mr. Larisa we are only addressing the content of the emails.
Mr. Larisa stated to check with your solicitor because we’re going to present full case in defense and due process dictates we can talk about whatever we see relevant for the reasons for those emails.
Mayor Ramos stated we are only going to talk about the emails I will check with our solicitor.
Mr. Larisa stated you deny us our due process you can do so at your peril.
Mr. Conley stated due process gives him an opportunity to respond to the part of the email based on Mrs. O’Gara’s complaint. Whether or not misbehavior or harassment the conduct is not subject to justification for example independent of the respondent’s behavior if there were legitimate reasons to complain about or to seek regress for activities in that office, one is not allowed to engage in misbehavior or harassment conduct in order to regress that behavior. They have to follow proper channels. The legitimacy of somebody’s complaints about a fellow worker does not allow somebody to engage in what would otherwise be harassing conduct. It doesn’t violate due process to require the respondent to address the behavior addressed in Mrs. O’Gara’s complaint.
Mayor Ramos stated we are only addressing the content of the emails they can’t go into what’s going on in that office.
Mr. Conley stated let me give you an analogy in the law department there are a couple of secretaries. The City Manager and the law department share space. If the City Manager feels the secretaries in the law department are not doing their job, he wouldn’t have any right to harass them. He would have to go through proper channels to regress. If anyone of those secretaries filed a complaint against him, the fact that their not doing a good job does not give justification for not following proper avenues of regress for poor performance. You’re simply not allowed to harass.
Mr. Larisa stated at this time he would like to introduce evidence of the conduct of the parties before the emails.
Mayor Ramos stated no just the content of the emails.
Mr. Larisa stated note our objection for the record.
Mr. Larisa asked Mr. Riley if he was aware of a letter Mrs. O’Gara wrote to the East Providence Post regarding the decision of the Attorney General’s office.
Mr. Riley stated yes it was March 16, 2007.
Mr. Larisa asked did you write an email in response to that letter.
Mr. Riley stated yes I did.
Mr. Larisa asked what the date of that email was.
Mr. Riley stated March 17, 2007.
Mr. Larisa asked what the content of that email was.
Mr. Riley stated Dot your lips must be really chapped.
Mr. Larisa asked did she respond to that email.
Mr. Riley stated yes she did on the same day.
Mr. Larisa what did she say.
Mr. Riley read Mrs. O’Gara’s email.
Mr. Larisa stated a sentence I’m old enough to recognize sarcasm and bright enough to ignore it. Do you understand that to be a response to your chapped lips comment?
Mr. Riley stated yes.
Mr. Larisa asked what did you mean by your lips must be really chapped.
Mr. Riley stated I considered a letter she had written to the East Providence Post to be patronizing, brown nosing, to use the vernacular, butt kissing was where the chapped lips came in.
Mr. Larisa asked so you related chapped lips with butt kissing.
Mr. Riley stated yes.
Mr. Larisa did you consider that very harassing.
Mr. Riley stated no.
Mr. Larisa stated after you read her email did you believe she consider that very harassing.
Mr. Riley stated no she referred to it as sarcasm.
Mr. Larisa stated the next email was June 12, 2007 from you to Mr. Conley and June 5, 2007 Mrs. O’Gara had sent an email to Mr. Conley.
Mr. Riley stated yes I sent the June 12, 2007 email to Mr. Conley after Mrs. O’Gara sent Mr. Conley the June 5, 2007. Mr. Riley read the email regarding times and dates of meeting. The two paragraphs in question were.
My protests over the previous afternoon meeting set by Calahan was met with the response, “If it’s not good time for you, don’t come. You can have your alternate attend.” I view this as a defector attempt to exclude me, as direct appointee, from the meetings using timing as a ploy. Calahan is in the building and Ms. O’Gara and Mr. Barilla are retired. Too bad that you work, Tom. Calahan is no longer an EPCA Member so scheduling a meeting during her work day on “Calahan Time” so she gets paid twice and doesn’t have to cut into her Davenports time should not be an issue.
Ms. O’Gara needs to spend less time swapping spit and holding hands with her new “best friend” Calahan and more time reading Title 17 to see what she can do as the brand new, inexperienced member of the EPCA to forward the interests of the LEGITIMATE voters of this City in enforcing not only the letter but also the SPIRT of the law. If I have to involve Operation Clean Government, the Office of the Attorney General and the RI State Police to forward this end, I will do so. You may want to suggest to her that she knock off this crap with playing position and concentrate on making these meetings accessible to the people of this City.
Mr. Larisa asked would you agree that letter was wrongly worded.
Mr. Riley stated yes I would.
Mr. Larisa stated colorful.
Mr. Riley stated yes.
Mr. Larisa asked did you intend to harass anyone with the content of that letter.
Mr. Riley stated no, I did not.
Mr. Larisa stated the sentence that states Ms. O’Gara spend less time swapping spit and holding hands with her new “best friend” Calahan and more time reading Title 17 and it goes on. What did you mean by swapping spit and holding hands?
Mr. Riley stated I was referring to the childhood practice on the playground when you came to a deal you would spit on your hands and shake hands. That’s what I meant there was no sexual condensation in this.
Mr. Larisa asked what about the chapped lips.
Mr. Riley stated no that was brown nosing, butt kissing.
Mr. Larisa stated there was another email from you to Mrs. O’Gara.
Mr. Riley stated yes Fasten your seatbelt, return your chair to its upright position, close and lock your beverage tray. You are about to experience the Law of Unintended Consequences. Enjoy your flight.
Mr. Larisa stated this was after the complaint was filed.
Mr. Riley stated I heard there was a complaint being filed I hadn’t received anything. When I did find out it was 11:46 a.m.
Mr. Larisa stated Mr. Conley’s letter of June 20, 2007 stated additionally, after the filing of the complaint by Mrs. O’Gara, you sent her another email communication dated June 19, 2007 at 8:47 a.m. which has also been provided to the City Council, a copy which is enclosed herein and will be considered at the schedule hearing. So does that give you information as to when the email was sent?
Mr. Riley stated I didn’t know the complaint was filed it had been rumored that a complaint was going to be filed and in fact that night of the 19th at the City Council meeting. When I wrote this email the complaint had not been brought forward by Councilman DiTraglia.
Mr. Larisa asked what did you know when you wrote that email.
Mr. Riley stated what I was referring to with unintended consequences was that looking through 11-46 it’s a whole tool kit to enforce the enforcement of the voting laws where I’ve been powerless for the last three years and walking around begging for meetings. Now I have something to work with.
Mr. Larisa asked did you intend to harass through that email.
Mr. Riley stated no.
Mr. Larisa stated with your earlier comments on the swapping spit would you agree that many people would believe that you had sexual condensation.
Mr. Riley stated if they wanted to, yes.
Mr. Larisa stated under oath on the record that was not your intent.
Mr. Riley stated no, that was not my intent.
Mr. Larisa asked at this time before we present any kind of closing I understand it’s time to let the other side speak and then the council will ask questions and then we could present a closing.
Mr. Conley stated the Council could ask questions.
Mr. DiTraglia stated that if the emails occurred in the private sector it would not be tolerated there would be a suspension. If these letters were sent to my mother, my aunt or my sister I would be outraged and these people are outraged. Now you’re taking these comments out of context and say I didn’t mean that.
I never heard of a game where you spit on your hand and shake hands. I don’t believe that. Section 11-46 give the City Council the responsible to handle this. It’s nothing to do with Democrat and Republican because if you leave another Republican will take your place. This is not a vindictive thing against the Republicans. This is about the emails, the language of the emails. You don’t deny it you respond in the newspaper.
Mayor Ramos stated letter that were written and that goes to creditability.
Mr. Larisa asked if Mr. Riley could respond.
Mr. Conley stated as you indicated in the opening of this meeting that the Council had inquires at this time and not go back and forth. At this time Mr. Riley wanted to respond and give the fact the Mr. DiTraglia engaged in a discursive dialogue let him respond now and then go back to the procedure as you had outlined in the beginning and that Council discussion and deliberation at the that stage.
Mr. Riley stated the letter I wrote was in response to a letter submitted by John Conley, Chairman of the Democrat party referring to my comments as anti gay and homophobic and in that letter I mentioned the handling of a complaint by the campaign manager of a candidate where a poll worker referred to him as a fagot. I had to go to the max to get a hearing. The clerk didn’t want to hear it. I made a motion Mr. Solomon seconded it the complainant came forward and the complaint was substantiated by a long time City employee. I voted that the poll worker be removed from the list of workers. I mentioned that Bill Conley, John’s nephew is the City Solicitor in fact he is.
Mr. Conley stated that’s simply not true. You ought to know the truth before you publish it in the paper and before you get at public meeting and say it for yourself.
Mr. Riley apologized to Mr. Conley and stated he was misinformed on that information but the rest of the letter holds true.
Mayor Ramos stated that in another letter you claim Mr. Conley gets paid extra when he takes things to Federal Court.
Mr. Riley stated what I meant was, we only have so many hours in a day and if Mr. Conley is working on the buy backs.
Councilman Silva called for a point of order because of noise in the audience and he stated lets get back to the email that’s why we are here.
Councilwoman Perry asked Mr. Riley when you made the comment about swapping spit, did you at any time think that could have been misinterpreted.
Mr. Riley stated no, I didn’t. I never thought that Ms. Calahan and Dot were gay.
Dorothy O’Gara, 23 Bridgham Farm Road, (02916) was sworn in by City Solicitor.
Mrs. O’Gara stated when letters were sent with cc with a name; it meant they got a copy of the letter, with emails you see who all the people are that the email was sent to. When I got the first email from Mr. Riley saying my lips must be chapped, I was extremely upset. I knew what he meant. I wasn’t brought up that way. I was taught to respect. I can’t imagine anyone talking to my mother or my children that way. I bit my tongue hard and I wrote him this friendly email overlooking that insulting vulgar remark. I was throwing out an olive branch because I knew we had to work together. I never said I wouldn’t have evening meetings. The January meeting we had was at 5:30 p.m. Most of the Canvassing meetings are during the daytime while the City Halls are open. Pawtucket had one at 7:45 a.m. Mr. Riley stated that swapping spit and holding hands was a childhood game. I googled swapping spit and holding hands there were 193,000 references I when through several hundred and every single one of them pertained to open mouth kissing between to humans whether they be male/female, female/female, male/male, and also even worse human and animal. There was no mention of any game that people do with their hands. Also you stated that Mary Ann Calahan got paid twice. That is untrue. Mr. Riley makes statements that are not true. The email that starts with to fasten your seatbelt, I viewed the contents was threatening and the fact he sent it three times threatening. He sent this to all of his friends including Mr. Larisa. Mr. Larisa never called me to say gee Dot what’s going on what’s the problem here. No they all ignored him which condoned his behavior. This could have all been taken care of if anyone of these gentlemen including our Councilman Cusack who received the emails. I view this as harassing as to trouble someone by repeated questioning or attack. If you don’t think chapped lips, or swapping spit and holding hands, think about the last email that he sent to me three times. That’s harassing. I personally feel very nervous to be in the attendance of Mr. Riley. I feel he’s unstable and capable of flying into an uncontrollable rage and provoking a potentially dangerous situation.
Councilman DiTraglia stated to Mrs. O’Gara you came to my home with this complaint and I reacted right away and we’ve follow this through.
Mrs. O’Gara stated I do expect the Council to provide a safe environment.
Mr. Larisa stated it’s unfortunate there we’re here tonight. We talk about harassment, we just heard a claim here tonight that Mr. Riley is unstable and could go into a rage. He’s never gone into a rage or unstable to anyone if you want to talk about unfounded comments if you want to talk about harassment I think you might want to start right there.
Mrs. O’Gara stated this could have all been taken care of. What you don’t read is all the nicey, the polite Mr. Riley asking for meeting after meeting. Mr. Riley disputes that he sent that email three times.
Mr. Conley suggested that we close this section and recess and he could review the memo submitted by Mr. Larisa.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman DiTraglia, it is unanimously voted to close this section.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman DiTraglia, it is unanimously voted to recess for 6 minutes and 30 seconds.
Mayor Ramos calls the meeting to order at 8:40 p.m. and stated the Council will begin its discussion and once the Council begins its deliberation there is no further participation of parties or witnesses.
Mr. Conley addresses Exhibit 3 motion challenging the jurisdiction to hold this hearing. The memo addresses that issue and others but I direct my remarks to that issue of jurisdiction. I will read the portion then respond.
First and foremost, the City Council has no jurisdiction to remove and /or discipline a member of the Canvassing Board under the cited City ordinance – or any other ordinance. That is because local “[b]oards of canvassers and registration are state officers, not municipal officers.” Nixon v. Malloy, 161 A. 135, 136 (R.I. 1032). As the Supreme Court likewise made clear in Gainer v. Dunn:
While its members are elected [by the City Council], the board is in no sense a department of municipal government. It’s a tenure of office, powers, duties and liabilities and all its functions are created, imposed, and defined by the Constitution and laws of the United Stated and the Constitution and laws of this state, and no municipal ordinance can enlarge or diminish them, inasmuch as the exercise of the elective franchise is not the subject of municipal control or regulation. While their jurisdiction and duties and territorially limited…they constitute a board of state officers exercising a state function, rather than a board of municipal officers exercising a municipal function.
Mr. Conley stated I think the statement by Gainer is that the Council must acknowledge that members of the board of canvassers are as they appear not a part of the municipal government but really state officers. There are local canvassing authorities performing a state function pertaining to election matters. The election laws are a state governed matter. The memo also sites another case Cf. Malloy v. Collins, 18 A.2d 639 (R.I. 1941) Mr. Conley stated this is an important case because Malloy explains the Gainer languish means. The issue with Malloy was a mayor removal. A local removal couldn’t be done but the language in that opinion is relied on was to no avail to them. The decision relies on several cases in the state. The case of Gainer v. Dunn upholding that the board of canvassers in the city of Providence is a board of state officers exercising a state function rather than a board of municipal officers exercising a municipal function was considering the powers and jurisdiction of the board under an elaborate special act creating the board defining powers and duties in its relation to elections. It had no relation to the removal of any board any member from office. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in this contention. Title 17 Chapter 8 Legislator chose not to regulate how members of the canvassing authority would be discipline. Overriding concern, Title 7 of the Federal Civil Rights Law and Title 28 Chapter 5 of the Rhode Island Fair employment act both impose on the City Council to protect its appointees from harassment. Title 7 stated and affirmative obligations to protect its employees from harassment under those Federal Statues and Title 28 Chapter 5 imposes and obligation on a state level for you to do so. This Council Title 7 and Title 28 will not exclude you from liability if you fail to meet your obligation. You need to respect the state law, but not been occupied by state law. Given that the Molly explanation weight against the public policy of Title 7 and Federal Civil Rights Act Title 28 of Rhode Island General Laws and lack of preemptive legislation by the state in this area allow the Council to proceed with this hearing and exercise the pursuant of its own ordinance 11-46.
Mayor Ramos stated we will go forward with discussion and deliberation by this Council.
Councilman DiTraglia had concerns and asked Mr. Conley for clarification.
Mr. Conley stated fail to meet your obligations, the Council wouldn’t be insulated. It doesn’t mean which way you vote you have to provide a means for somebody to bring the complaint, to provide a means to investigate, which you have done. You are fact finding to make a judgment. The liability would be imposed for fail to provide a legal means to provide for a complaint, to provide an inquiry into a complaint. By holding this hearing you are complying with Title 28 & Title 7.
Councilman Cusack stated I read all the emails I didn’t like this language, I know it’s harsh and strong. I don’t find it threatening or harassing. Mrs. O’Gara made accusation. She has chosen to accuse me tonight because I was copied on the emails. I found it distasteful however I did speak to Mr. Riley and I suggested it was not tasteful. I would support the idea of verbal guidance to Mr. Riley as to the bounds of good taste and communication with the general public and other board members and anyone else formal capacity in the city however not under this ordinance because I don’t think the behavior rises to the level of a verbal reprimand or formal written reprimand or anything under this ordinance.
Councilman Perry stated unfortunately this is why good people don’t run for politics. We’re seeing the worst of it tonight. Mr. Riley I understand your frustrations trying to get meetings and voter lists taking care of but it’s the way you deliver your message that’s the problem. It’s incredible that you think you have to use vulgarity to get your message across. I don’t believe, I have a hard time believing you didn’t know what you were doing. I don’t think you were sending a message of sexual harassment but as you said swapping spit playground stuff but you knew when you sent that it could be interpreted differently. What better way to get your issues out in the open than having a full hearing on harassment and everything. This is the results. You got your hearing to get the message across for quite awhile. I’ve got an education tonight I didn’t know what brown nosing meant, now I do. That’s even worst than chapped lips from kissing. I also have to ask if vulgarity is a reason for disposal. Someone who’s trying to get to issues, but I believe you owe a public apology to the people who were sent those emails. I think he should be reprimanded and he should be censured for it and put on notice that it won’t be tolerated again.
Councilman Silva stated our job here tonight is if Mr. Riley harassed, insulted or threaten two ladies on the canvassing board. You stated people could take it that way. You did exactly what you tried to do. We have an obligation to our employees and to our board members that they don’t have to take this kind of language in a work environment. I believe it very insulting for a grandmother, mother or any woman to have these emails sent to 10, 15, 20 people. If he wanted to do something privately he would have sent it to one person. He wanted his message public and he made derogatory statements and I believe it comes to the gray line of sexual harassment. If I’m swapping spit with another man. I’ll stop myself right there, but that’s what I take this email as a sexual thing as I would be gay or open. I would hate to have my son or daughter read that in the newspaper and ask why Daddy is swapping spit with another man. The one that bothers me more is the fasten your seatbelt email. After he knows there is going to be some controversy over it, fasten your seatbelt get ready because I’m going to harass you all the way, is what he basically said it might have been different words, that not intimidation? I don’t think it’s a political thing or a party thing I don’t want anyone’s mother disrespected like this and I think that’s our obligation. No wonder why we have a hard time to get people appointed.
Mayor Ramos stated Mrs. O’Gara’s complaint was clear she felt it was vulgar and a hostel situation for her in addition to that Mr. Riley sent those comments to the public to non board members and non council members. There would be no reason to send out those vulgar and insulting remarks to the public unless his intent was to intimate and harass her. The first memo with his sexual innuendos after Mrs. O’Gara’s letter on Mrs. Calahan was published in the Journal on March 17, 2007 Mr. Riley’s only comment to Mrs. O’Gara is your lips must really be chapped. On June 12, 2007 an email to Mr. Conley and seventeen other people and not to Mrs. O’Gara, Mr. Riley’s remark in this email that Mrs. O’Gara should spend less time swapping spit and holding hands with her new best friend Calahan. Mr. Riley put best friend in quotes so his readers knew he was giving it a special meaning. Combine that with chapped lips, swapping spit and holding hands and he meant best friends as a derogatory sexual term. Mrs. O’Gara’s complaint is dated June 16, 2007 and received June 18, 2007. Mrs. O’Gara had a right to complain about this harassing conduct and she filed through the proper channels by bringing it to the City Council, because we are the appointing authority. In response to properly filed complaint on June 19, 2007 Mr. Riley sent another email fasten your seatbelt, return your chair to its upright position, close and lock your beverage tray. You are about to experience the Law of Unintended Consequences. Enjoy your flight. His first course of action was to continue his harassment and intimidation by threatening retaliation. Who know what kind of retaliation those words represent. What kind of serious harm Mr. Riley meant with those words. I listened to Mr. Riley’s explanation and I don’t except them. Mr. Riley’s explanations are not credible. This is not the kind of conduct in the City of East Providence to engage in. We want appointees to have respect. It was not only a personal attack on Mrs. O’Gara and Ms. Calahan it was an assault on the dignity of his public office. I believe nothing less than dismissal is warranted. I concluded his conduct was harassing and intimidating and I am prepared to accept a motion pursuant to 11-46 of the ordinance and I’d like to make that motion. That he fails to meet the prescribed standards of work morality and ethics and section (a) (6) his disgraceful personal conduct. I can’t make the motion, but that’s the kind of motion I’m looking for.
Councilman DiTraglia stated he wanted to make that motion and Councilman Silva seconded it, however they wanted the Mayor to read it again.
Mayor Ramos state the motion is pursuant to 11-46 of the ordinances, that he fails to meet the prescribed standards of work morality and ethics of section (a) (6) his disgraceful personal conduct.
On motion of Councilman DiTraglia, seconded by Councilman Silva, and on a roll-call vote, it is denied 2-3.
Councilman DiTraglia, Councilman Silva and Mayor Ramos voted aye.
Councilman Cusack, Councilwoman Perry voted nay.
Councilman Silva stated he wanted to make another motion that he is reprimanded in writing and a strong warning that none of this will be tolerated and should be placed into his file.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman DiTraglia, and on a roll-call vote, it passes 4-1.
Councilman DiTraglia, Councilwoman Perry, Councilman Silva and Mayor Ramos voted aye.
Councilman Cusack voted nay.
On motion of Councilman Silva, seconded by Councilman DiTraglia, it is voted to adjourn.
Mayor Ramos adjourns the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Attest:
_________________________________
Virginia B. Nunes
City Clerk
Approved: August 21, 2007