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.
