Who is an Elected Official in Hopkinton?

There is considerable confusion in the interpretation of the Hopkinton Town Charter, in regards to Mr. Felkner’s bid for a seat on the Town Council and the School Committee.  The relevent Charter passages follow:

1301:  School District: The Town of Hopkinton reserves the right to establish its own school district as per Chapter 16 of the Rhode Island General Laws.

2130:  Elected Officials:  Town Council members, School Committee members, Town Clerk, School Moderator, Town Sergeant, Director of Public Welfare, District Moderators and District Clerks will be elected.

1240: No elected member of the Town government shall hold more than (1) elective or position in the Town Government at the same time.  [Material pertaining to appoints appears here followed by:]  Membership on boards or commissions that act as representation of the Town of Hopkinton in regards to the School District shall not disallow that elector from serving on another board, committee or commission in Town government.”

Question 1:  Are School Committee members elected officials?  Yes.

Question 2:  Are School Committee members of Town Government?  No.  This is the debatable issue of the facts and the piece upon which my argument hinges.  If School Committee members are not members of Town Government, people can hold positions on this and the School Committee.  I argue that the School Board is not a function of Town Government.  It is a separate entity that is completely independent of Town Governance.  The Town Council (the highest level of Town Government) has no control nor authority over it’s activities, appointment, rules, etc.  Although we pay taxes to the school system and we send our kids to it, it is not a part of Town Government.  That’s my argument.  You can like it or not but at some point a judge or the AG will make a ruling and I think they will rule the way I have indicated.  Section 1240 also makes the point of separating out School Committee members to guarantee that they can serve on UNELECTED posts in Town Government, a tacit admission that they ARE NOT members of Town Government.  And section 1301 provides additional proof of this fact, it is one of the only sections referring to the School Committee and it demonstrates that we have abdicated our responsibilities in educating our children  Read the Charter and you will find that references to the School District are few because it is not a part of Town Government.  Listen, we can’t tell people what to do in Charlestown and we can’t tell the School Committee what to do either.

Question 3:  Why does the Charter list School Committee members as elected officials if they are not a part of Town Government?  Because it is an unbelieveably sloppy document written by lay people with an unqualified Town Solicitor giving approval.  

Question 4:  What are the consequences of the this interpretation?  As far as the Town goes, there would be no prohibition on Felkner holding a post on the Town Council and on the School Committee.  Assuming there is no language in the Chariho Act or State Law prohibiting such a thing, he could theoretically hold both posts.  But that is a larger issue which needs to be examined and no one seems to have done that yet.

Question 5:  What does this mean for the Charter?  The Charter needs revision.  From what I have heard, there was a Charter Review Commission in place to address these issues but they pissed off the Town Council a couple years back and were disbanded by Vincenzo “the political hack” Cordone.  Specifically, School Committee members should be declared exempt from the multiple office holding clause or they should be held to it by being declared members of Town Government and/or section 1240 should be cleaned up to mean that an elected School Committee member can serve on an appointed board (as the language intended to mean) and is ineligible or eligible for Town Council also.

Question 6:  Why does Felkner need to be such an ass?  Clearly the man has more ego than is good for him.  In the end, he’s going to end up looking either foolish or like an intolerable ass and that is not going to do Hopkinton any good.  Technically, I think he is correct.  But that doesn’t mean that what he is doing is a good thing or a thing he should do.  Read my previous post for my feelings on the subject.  In any case, this thing is going to get ugly and nasty and Felkner’s attitude is not helpful.  I predict that Felker is going to end up costing Hopkinton more money than he ever saves us.  And I am absolutely sure that George Abbott would not have pulled this crap.

What to do about Felkner?

Frankly, I am not sure.  I’ve been mulling it over for a week and seem to have run into a philosophical quandry.

If you read the Hopkinton Charter, the letter of the law seems to allow him to sit on the School Board and the Town Council.  And The Chariho Act does not bar him from being on the Town Council.  But I am not sure the Hopkinton Charter was written with the intent of letting someone serve on the School Board and the Town Council.  If you read the language as written, I interpret it to mean that someone serving as an elected School Board member can serve on, say, the Hopkinton Conservation Commission.

 “Membership on boards or commissions that act as representation of the Town of Hopkinton in regards to the School District shall not disallow that elector from serving on another board, committee or commission in Town government.”

Observe that the word “elector” refers to the phrase “School District”.  To my mind, the language means that an elected School Board member shall not be ineligible to serve as an UNELECTED member of town government.   No where in the language do you see the word “council”.  The words “board”, “commission” and “committee” are all present.  But not “council”.  The language allows a School Board member to serve on the Charter Commission or the Planning and Zoning Board or the Police Commission.  It was not intended to allow some one to serve on the Town Council and the School Board.  So if that was the true intent (as I suggest it is), the language is certainly sloppy.  But the whole damn Charter is sloppy.  If one really wishes to know what the intent was, I would suggest Georgia Ure as a first stop.  And she will likely agree with me.

There is no explicit language allowing Felkner to do what he wants to do (serve on two boards).  Conversely, there is no explicit language prohibiting Felkner from what he wants to do.  The Charter does state in section 1240 that “no elected member of the Town government shall hold more than one (1) elective or position in the Town Government at the same time”.  But is the School Board part of Town Government?  I think not.   And so here is the real conundrum.  Felkner can probably legally do what he wants to do. But the fact is, he should not do it.   There is a very good reason why heretofore, Town Councilors have not served on the School Board.  Obviously, many people thought they simply could not.  And the reason they thought this was that they knew that they should not and assumed the law would prohibit them from doing so.  Up until 2000, there was no Charter.  There was no law to look to.  It was simply common sense that you only served one elected post. Separation of powers is a phrase that has gotten a lot of play in Rhode Island over the past few years and for good reason.  Too much power in the hands of too few is a recipe for disaster.  American democracy is built on checks and balances.  Despite the fact that I am a Democrat, I fear the filibuster-proof Democratic Senate.  And I fear Town Councilors serving on the School Board.  While Felkner’s intentions maybe to help Chariho, to fix Chariho or somehow improve Chariho, serving two elected posts is not the way to do it.  The ends simply do not justify the means.

Mr. Felker: as a constituent, I implore you pick your post.  Yes, the law may allow you to do what you are about to do.  And while it may not be “unethical” in the eyes of the state, it is undemocratic and smacks of all the Rhode Island corruption you purport to despise.  Using the poor construction of the Charter to justify your position is certainly unethical.  Especially in the face of 50 years of Chariho precedent.

Credibility is a precious commodity.  Are you willing to squander yours for a little more power?

As ye reap, so shall ye sow

I laughed so hard when I heard the proposal to build a truck stop at Exit 1 I actually fell off my chair.  Really.  I wish I had thought of it first. It’s just what we need in Hopkinton.  I would name it the “Vincenzo Cordone Memorial Truck Stop and Brothel”.  I guess the Gilman PAC was right, we do need development at Exit 1.  What better way to increase our tax dollars?  The sex trade is EXTREMELY lucrative and since prostitution is legal in Rhode Island, why not use what we got?  Why should Providence get all massage parlor business?  Hopkinton deserves our cut!  What better way to welcome people to the Ocean State than with a “full service” truck stop.  Gosh, I do slay me.  I just can’t stop laughing – or are those tears?

In other news, the black hole known as the Hopkinton Golf Pavilion is reopening.  I guess Target, Walmart and Home Depot just were not interested in opening new outlets in a contracting and potentially deflationary economy.  Go figure?  Maybe this time around the owners of the Golf Pavilion will serve something edible at a reasonable price.  Maybe deflation will force it on them?  I guess the taxes on the place must be putting them into the poor house?  I feel no pity for them, they would have paid fewer taxes and made just the same amount of money had they left it in farm and forest.  Ha ha! Eat that with your overpriced hamburgers.

Small Victories

All things considered, this election season seems to be the most successful I’ve experienced in a while.  Most of the victories were small but a few were sizable.  

1.  Mageau is out on his ass.  In the Westerly Sun he is quoted as saying, “it doesn’t hurt my feelings [that I lost]” and “I’m actually happy.  I don’t have to put up with it anymore”.  Well if that is the case, why bother running?  Waterman and Allen made a noble decision.  Right or wrong, they knew that their presence would always taint the Council because of their running battles with not only Mageau, but that fool Carcieri.  Mageau is apparently so full of himself he actually thought he had a chance!  Hopefully he has been taken down a few notches.  But I suspect his ego will prevent that from happening.

2. The big Chariho bond passed, as did the small bond.  The RYSE bond failed.  This was the least palatable of the 3 so it was nice to see Hopkinton squash it.  The end result will be higher Chariho taxes but the school district will likely remain intact.  This is cheaper than having to go it alone.  

3.  I was sorry to see that Abbott and Hirst did not make the Town Council.  I was also sorry to see that Kenney is still there.  But Felkner will likely rake her over the coals at every opportunity.  As she is a Chariho apologist and he is a Chariho hater, I doubt they will get along.  So the fireworks may be moving from Charlestown to Hopkinton.  Abbott and Hirst were the two Republicans and I think that in the current political environment, that did them more damage than anything else.  They may have had a chance as independents.   

4.  Brian Patrick Kennedy still has his raise and his State subsidized health care for being a part-time employee.  It is a travesty but Rhode Island is the most corrupt State in the Union, so what else would we expect.

Hypocrisy is Rhode Island’s Middle Name

Today’s Providence Journal includes an article with the title, “Consumer price index triggers 4.3% raise for legislators”.  

Rhode Island’s part-time lawmakers have gotten an automatic 4.3 percent raise.

Without announcement, fanfare or vote, the annual salaries of rank-and-file lawmakers went from $13,508 to $14,089 on July 1.

The House Speaker and Senate president get twice that.

The promise of automatic increases in keeping with increases in the prior year’s consumer price index was part of the same voter-approved 1994 amendment to the state Constitution that eliminated legislative pensions. [I should say that sneaking in an automatic pay raise was very clever of the bastards]

Last year, the lawmakers got a 3.2 percent raise, and the year before that, a 3.5 percent increase.

And speaking of raises … DeQuattro gets 2nd hat

The Carcieri administration has given its chief of legal services, Louis DeQuattro, a new title and a $33,183 raise.

In response to inquiries, the state personnel office acknowledged DeQuattro’s promotion to associate director of administration/purchasing agent, with a raise that takes his salary from $95,215 annually as chief of legal services to $128,398.

The hypocrisy arises when one considers that members of Council 94 are getting NOTHING in raises this year.  So the FULL-TIME State employees get squat and the PART-TIME legislative hacks who can’t even pass a balanced budget and didn’t have the foresight to see that tobacco settlement money didn’t grow on trees get a raise?  It is pretty clear that we reward stupidity in this State.

I advise all my fellow citizens to vote against whoever the hell is currently in their district.  I know that I will be voting against Brian Patrick Kennedy.  It’s time for some new blood in Providence.  And if you have been reading the Journal, you will also be surprised by the large number of legislators who get 100% of their health care subsidized by the state.  Why is the State paying for ANY of their health care?  They are PART-TIME employees.  No business on the planet would give any benefits to part-time employees, nevermind a $17,000 health insurance policy.  I guess I should have said “Corruption is Rhode Island’s Middle Name”.

Chariho looms

So I have read Thurman Silks letter about Chariho in the Journal and a number of other letters in both the Journal and the Sun.  And the quandary still remains, to vote for the bond or not?  Mr. Silks wants us to hold off, to vote against the bond and wait for the issue of Chariho as a whole to be resolved, whether this means dissolution or some other reorganization (including tax equity).  And while this is the most logical approach, it misses the point.  If you vote against the bond, you are voting to have Chariho taken apart.  If you vote for the bond, you are voting to keep Chariho intact.  

I don’t like Chariho.  I never have.  But I believe that Chariho is the cheapest option for Hopkinton.  And I believe it probably offers our students more opportunities than a separate school district.  Face it folks, we are not going to get tax equity.  If, by some miracle, we were able to achieve tax equity, Charlestown would leave the district and we would be no better off than if we did not have tax equity.

We can get mad and feel like we are being mistreated by Chariho.  We can be self-righteous and indignant, but voting against Chariho is cutting off our noses to spite our collective faces.

If we want to fix Chariho, it can be done.  But it needs to come from the School Committee and the Town Council.  They have made some inroads but there is a long haul ahead of them.  As the economy worsens and state aid drops, Chariho is going to be forced to cut expenses.  Westerly is closing an elementary school to save money.  The bond many seem counterintuitive, it may seem like we don’t have the money to spend, so why are we spending it?  In the long run it’s going to save us money.  It is unfortunate but true.

You Neighbor,

Ishmael