Council talk reignites potential of four-year terms in East Providence

Urges for 2012 election results to be codified in charter

By Mike Rego
Posted 3/9/18

EAST PROVIDENCE — Should elected officials in city be serving four year terms?

That enduring question, one that has seemingly lacked a definitive answer for some six years now, was broached at …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Register to post events


If you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here.

Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content.

Day pass subscribers

Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.


Council talk reignites potential of four-year terms in East Providence

Urges for 2012 election results to be codified in charter

Posted

EAST PROVIDENCE — Should elected officials in city be serving four year terms?

That enduring question, one that has seemingly lacked a definitive answer for some six years now, was broached at recent council meetings, including its forum March 6.

Former school committee and council member Chrissy Rossi has raised the subject at the last two council gatherings, reiterating her call for final conclusion on the matter during the public comment section of last Tuesday’s meeting.

The change in term lengths was posed to the electorate in November 2012, a referenda item residents passed in a 54.8% (9,337) to 45.2% (7,692) majority.

Taking the lead in response to Mrs. Rossi’s latest inquiries, Ward 3 Councilor Joe Botelho referenced a significant amount of research he purported to have done on the issue. According to Mr. Botelho, an opinion backed openly by council peers Brian Faria and Anna Sousa, East Providence’s Home Rule Charter gave its citizens the right to make the change upon the results of the 2012 election.

Previous councils, however, as well as the existing body earlier this session, have either willfully or subliminally backed the opinion consistently presented to them over the years by the city solicitor’s office, formerly led by now City Manager Tim Chapman and currently by Greg Dias, an assistant solicitor at the time the initial reading of state law was proffered.

Last week, Mr. Dias reiterated the stance of his office. The matter, he asserted most recently and Mr. Chapman did then, was one of “elections” as described in Rhode Island General Law not one of home rule governance. Under that interpretation, the results of the 2012 election needed to be affirmed by both chambers of the General Assembly for the change to become enacted and be formally granted upon signature of the governor. Another, de facto way for it to become law would be for the governor to simply allow the assembly’s approval take hold without acknowledgement.

Of note, Mr. Chapman was neither asked, nor did he offer any comments during what was the rather lengthy discussion last week.

As well from Mr. Dias, he noted a previous move in city in 1998 to initiate a carveout of Rhode Island General Law for the term length of the school committee (Section 16-2-5), which in part reads members shall serve in four-year, staggered increments, gained assembly approval. The act allowed those in East Providence to serve in two-year cycles.

Mr. Botelho countered by saying although the process of assembly affirmation was set in place, it never came to ultimate fruition. The Ward 3 member said the House of Representatives passed a bill including the affirmation of the East Providence term limit change in February of 2013, sending it to the Senate for reconciliation. None occurred. Instead, the upper chamber later passed its own version of a bill in the final days of the 2013 session in late June. While it, too, passed there, it was never transmitted to the House for consideration, essentially “killing” the bill in Mr. Botelho’s view.

“(The senate) robbed the people of this city of their vote,” Mr. Botelho said last week, adding, “The senate gave a big middle finger to the city.”

Mr. Botelho also charged some in the city worked behind the scenes to dissuade locally elected state officials to nullify the electorate.

“I know backroom power brokers killed the bill. They just used the senate to do it,” Mr. Botelho said.

Attempting to once and for all to bring the vote to bear, Mr. Botelho and Mr. Faria both urged City Clerk Kim Casci-Palangio to abide by her “ministerial duties” and to immediately revise the charter to reflect the referenda item results of the 2012 election.

When quizzed about the reason for her apparent inaction on the matter, Mrs. Casci-Palangio said, “A legal opinion was given to that council and they accepted it.”

Mr. Botelho wasn’t accepting of that response. He offered a torrent of observations on the situation, calling the attempt to nullify the result “disgusting.” He reiterated his belief the item did not require assembly/gubernatorial approval, saying, “I believe it never needed to go there in the first place.” He repeatedly quoted the concluding text of the referendum, “effective upon passage without further action.”

He continued, “Everybody in this city should be upset…Quite frankly, in my opinion, it’s close to a crime, a con...It’s all BS…This council has a duty to clean this mess up once and for all…The people’s will will be done…We got robbed and it’s a shame.”

In attempting to quell the discussion, At-Large member and Council President Jim Briden said the matter should be sent back to the city’s legal department for a further opinion and to do more research on the topic.

His comments were disregarded by Messrs. Botelho and Faria and Ms. Sousa.

Mr. Faria said, “We’re going to put this down for a vote and I think we have the three votes to codify the charter.”

Added Ms. Sousa, “We currently don’t believe or take the advice of our counsel, of our solicitor because it is a home rule charter and I feel again it’s just another way of pushing the buck down the line…Unfortunately, our legal team, they’re not voted in by the people. They don’t have the same stake in the game.”

What will come of the discussion is still to be determined as are potential unintended consequences such as: Should the 2014 council be returned to office?; Does the 2016 council need to face election in November?; Will the council seek a judicial solution? How is the school committee affected?

When asked after the meeting what exactly the next step in the process would be, Mr. Botelho said, “The remedy for this situation might be beyond the council, I think, at this point.”

School Committee Chairman Charlie Tsonos was asked subsequently what, if any, impact the change could have on his body.

He said the current committee has not had any internal discussions on the subject and it has not sought an advisory opinion from its legal representatives.

He did say, however, considering what occurred at the council meeting it was likely the committee would broach the topic in the near future.

2024 by East Bay Media Group

Barrington · Bristol · East Providence · Little Compton · Portsmouth · Tiverton · Warren · Westport
Meet our staff
MIKE REGO

Mike Rego has worked at East Bay Newspapers since 2001, helping the company launch The Westport Shorelines. He soon after became a Sports Editor, spending the next 10-plus years in that role before taking over as editor of The East Providence Post in February of 2012. To contact Mike about The Post or to submit information, suggest story ideas or photo opportunities, etc. in East Providence, email mrego@eastbaymediagroup.com.