Last week’s Council meeting included a long discussion with multiple votes on which recommendations from the Charter Review Commission would go onto November’s ballot. During Wednesday’s Council meeting discussion and Tuesday’s workshop on the Commission’s report, we discussed some of the proposed amendments and the need for the Charter Commission to continue its work. Wednesday’s discussion was hard to follow at times; I want to ensure that everyone understands which items to expect on the ballot and what we need to focus on for the next Charter review.
The Charter Commission recommended a total of 37 amendments, a few of which could have significantly impacted how the City is governed. I broke down those proposed changes in my newsletter a few weeks ago. During Wednesday’s meeting, the discussion on the Charter began with amending the resolution placing Charter amendments on the ballot to consider only thirteen of the proposed amendments from the Commission. This decision was based on the memo sent from the City Solicitor regarding which items he and his staff recommended. The Newport Daily News has a good breakdown of those thirteen items and how we voted. I want to use this newsletter to explain which items will be on the ballot and what they mean.
The five amendments from the Charter Review Commission list below will be on November’s ballot.
Section 2-18 Quorum; Procedure, replace the line “All members of the Council present must vote on any question coming before it, unless they disclose a personal interest therein and are excused by vote of the remaining members or are barred by law.” With “All members of the Council present must vote on any question coming before it, unless they recuse themselves on the question before the Council on ethical or other legal grounds.”
This change clarifies the language on Council members recusing themselves from a vote; it does not change any of the current laws or procedures.
Section 3-2 Nomination Papers; Signatures, the Charter will be updated to require At-Large Councilors and School Committee members to collect one hundred signatures, rather than fifty, to be placed on the ballot.
This update will bring the Charter into compliance with Rhode Island general law. The Canvassing Clerk recommended this change. The State law takes precedence, so candidates have been required to collect 100 signatures already. It does not change any current laws or procedures.
Section 4-6 Canvassing Authority, the proposal would remove all of the Charter’s language and replace it with “There shall be a Canvassing Authority pursuant to General Laws of the State of Rhode Island.”
Rhode Island general law supersedes the City’s Charter, so the Canvassing Clerk requested this update to ensure that we remain in compliance. It does not change any current laws or procedures.
Section 4-7 Trust and Investment Commission, the proposal would update the language in this section to be clearer. The full proposed change can be found here and will be printed in full on the ballot.
This change was requested by the Chair of the Trust and Investment Commission to clarify the Commission’s role better. It was also recommended by the City Solicitor. It does not change any current laws or procedures.
Section 6-4 Oath of Office, Replace “Every officer, elected or appointed, shall take and subscribe the following” with “Any elected or appointed individual assuming a city role or job, may be required to take and subscribe to the following”. Additionally, in the language of the Oath of Office, “and Providence Plantations” was removed.
This change came out of discussion with the City Director of Human Resources. It will clarify who takes the Oath of Office and remove outdated language since the State changed its name. It does not change any current laws or procedures.
As you can see, the five items that will be on the ballot are all focused on updating and clarifying language in the Charter. While it is important to update the language in the Charter to ensure clarity, none of these changes will have any impact on how the City runs. The more substantial proposals from the Commission did not make it to the ballot and there was little to no discussion on them during the Council meeting. I was discouraged that some members of the Council did not engage with the Charter Commission’s report critically. Items such as term limits and codifying a code of ethics are not attacks on individual Councilors or this Council as a whole. We need to approach governing documents like the Charter and our ordinances with the understanding that they will be in use for years to come. They must hold up to scrutiny no matter who is holding office.
The need for a more thorough review of the City’s Charter was brought up consistently throughout the Charter Commission’s report. The Commission had only four months to conduct its review and noted inconsistencies, outdated language, and errors in the Charter. I agree with the Commission’s recommendation to bring in an outside consultant to conduct a technical review of the Charter. This review should be done with an equity lens to recommend any changes that would make the implementation of the Charter more equitable. The next Council can continue this work and ensure that Wednesday night’s meeting and the election in November is not the end of the work on the Charter for another ten years.