1. IN SUPPORT OF LISA TOMASSO
I am writing to endorse independent candidate Lisa Tomasso for School Committee in District 5. Lisa is an effective and tireless advocate for our schools, having served as a PTA president, sixth grade liaison, and on the School Capital Improvement Study Team.
In addition to her unwavering support of our schools, Lisa was also the former Program Director of the Literacy Volunteers of Kent County. She has worked and interacted with the Superintendent of Schools, School Committee members, teachers, parents, and most importantly, our children.
What makes Lisa such a unique candidate is that she has also been a volunteer in Coventry classrooms for over seven years. She has worked alongside teachers, other school staff, and other parent volunteers to improve the quality of education for our children. She knows our schools from the inside-out; and she knows what works and what needs to be improved. This is the unique perspective that Lisa will bring to the School Committee.
Having served on the Coventry Town Council, I know what skills and abilities are needed to make a difference. In my opinion, Lisa has the experience, dedication and vision to successfully serve on the School Committee. Please consider supporting Lisa with your vote on November 4th.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Thibeault Jr.
Former Town Councilman, District 4
My comments - Lisa has my full support as well. She is confident and knowledgeable of school issues. I saw her at one of the public meetings held by two Town Council members about the failed bond issues in 2006 which included a bond to fix roofs of several schools and bring some buildings into compliance with current fire codes. Lisa asked several well thought out questions. More recently, she attended the TC public meeting about the proposed Town Charter changes. Again, she asked pointed questions of the Charter Review chairman and she kept asking until she got answers. Lisa will bring a different perspective to the School Committee; she will ask the hard questions, she will listen to our own tough questions. I believe Lisa will be the agent of change the SC needs right now. I ask the voters of District 5 to support her on November 4th.
2. IN SUPPORT OF JOEL JOHNSON
A few months ago I was very happy to learn that Joel Johnson was running for the Town Council seat in District 3. I can’t think of anyone more suited to being on the Council. He is someone of character, is well qualified and doesn’t have a personal agenda. I have known Joel for about 30 years and can attest to his character. Much of his career has been in municipal government. He started out as an Administrative Aide to former Coventry Town Manager Ron Owens in the late 1970s. Then he spent 18 years working for the City of Newport as an Administrative Assistant, Research & Budget Analyst, City Treasurer and Director of Finance. He even served as that city’s acting City Manager for a short time in the mid-1990s. Joel doesn’t have any plans to help himself, his friends or special interests; he is committed to serving the people of District 3 and the entire town. Joel’s temperament, municipal experience and willingness to put the town first make him well qualified for public office. He is the obvious choice for Town Council. I ask the voters in District 3 to show their support for Joel by voting for him on November 4th. Feel free to visit Joel's website:
http://johnson4council.weebly.com/
3. SAMPLE BALLOT SHOWING THE TWO STATE BOND QUESTIONS AND 5 PROPOSED TOWN CHARTER AMENDMENTS.
Thanks to the town for putting up this link to the sample ballot:
http://www.town.coventry.ri.us/Charterchange.pdf
Here are my recommendations on these proposed Charter changes.
Ballot questions #1 and #2 are State of RI items.
Ballot question #3 Board of Canvassers and Registration/Redistricting - APPROVE
Ballot question #4 School Committee – Filling Vacancy - REJECT
Ballot question #5 Town Manager – Qualifications - REJECT
Ballot question #6 Probate Court – Substitution - REJECT
Ballot question #7 Financial Provision – Referendum Amount - REJECT
Ballot question #8, Dept. of Finance – Qualifications - REJECT
Here are some of my notes from the Sept. 10th TC meeting relating to the charter questions, along with my additional comments.
“#3. Redistricting – relating to Article II, Section 2.05 At the request of the Coventry Board of Canvassers, the Charter Review Commission recommended a charter change to provide for redrawing of district boundary lines every four years —within a year of the gubernatorial election — instead of every two years, as it currently stands. “The board of canvassers’ chairman [Francis J. Perry Jr.] said it was a real difficult thing to do it every two years,” Capaldi said. “A lot of times it doesn’t change a lot in two years; in every four years there may be a change.”
My notes – Per Mr. Perry of the Board of Canvassers, the current time requirement for boundary changes is every two years. Mr. P said that this creates problems for certain voters who live near district boundaries, since each election many people are moved to a different district and then back again the following election. It appears that by approving this amendment, voters would remain in a given district for at least four consecutive years. If approved by the voters, this amendment would take effect on 01/01/2009.
10/31/08 Comments -- this makes sense; it would provide a little more certainty where to vote for residents who reside on district borders. APPROVE.
“#4. School Committee – relating to Article IV, Section 4.03The commission recommended the charter be changed such that, if a vacancy occurs on the school committee 12 or fewer months before the next regular election, the vacancy will be filled for the unexpired term by the town council. The current limit for the council to appoint to fill a vacancy on the school committee is six or fewer months before the next election.” The board of canvassers said this would make more sense to have a long period of time instead of a short period of time,” Capaldi said. “It’s less costly than running another election.”
My notes – Some reasons given for this proposed amendment were to lessen confusion among the voters, to give candidates more time to run for office and this move might also lessen the need and hence the cost of a special election.
10/31/08 Comments -- Expanding the time to allow an appointment to an otherwise elected position infringes on my right to vote, and is unacceptable. REJECT.
“#5. Town Manager – relating to Article V, Section 5.01 The current charter requires a candidate for town manager to hold, at minimum, a master’s degree in business administration from an accredited college or university and to have spent at least three years as the manager of some city, town, or county; or, that the candidate have a minimum degree in public administration from an accredited college or university with special preference to actual experience in respect to the duties of the office. The commission recommended allowing consideration of town manager candidates who have Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degrees and at least three years experience in administration, not specifically management, in some city, town, or county.” I cannot remember who suggested it,” Capaldi said. “But I personally am in favor of changing — not lessening — the standards, but giving the council more leeway in selection. It’s wise to have a degree [requirement] that is more open — [a candidate] still needs the experience in town government, but it gives the council more freedom.”
My notes – I asked if the standards were being lowered, and the answer was yes. Current standard is a master’s degree in public administration is required; the new standard is a Bachelor of Arts degree plus at least 3 years experience in city, town or county government or a minimum degree in public administration. The reasoning here is that lowering the standards would enlarge the pool of possible candidates for the Town Manager position. I was surprised that the proposed new requirements did not state 3 years experience in city, town or county government AS A MANAGER OR ADMINISTRATOR.
Here is a link to 11/01/08 projo article on this subject:
http://www.projo.com/ri/coventry/content/COVENTRY_TOWN_MANAGER_11-01-08_FKC4HNB_v12.3b9497c.html
From the article: "...voters will be asked to change the charter to allow hiring someone with ANY type of bachelor’s degree and at least three years of ANY municipal job experience." That's exactly my problem with this proposed amendment.
10/31/08 Comments -- This amendment is unacceptable in its present form. There may be a need to amend qualifications for the Town Manager position to enlarge the pool of candidates, but there needs to be some requirement of experience as a municipal TM or Administrator. Suggest that the next TC start a new Charter Review board to revisit this area. REJECT.
“#6. Probate court – relating to Article VI, Section 6.04This change would allow the probate judge to be represented in his absence by the municipal court judge as well as the town solicitor, Capaldi said. The charter currently limits the duties to the town solicitor.”
My notes – there weren’t many questions about this proposed amendment. The handout I obtained at the meeting states “Shall Article VI Section 6.04 of the Town Charter be amended to state that in the absence, disability or disqualification of the judge, the duties of the judge shall be performed by the Town Solicitor or Municipal Court Judge?” I should have asked why it this amendment was necessary. If the judge can’t make a meeting, couldn’t the item on that day’s agenda just be move to the next meeting when the judge was in attendance? If the judge were to be absent for a long period of time, couldn’t the Town Council just appoint a replacement? Couldn’t the TC appoint two persons to act as probate court judges concurrently to address the absence issue?
10/31/08 Comments -- I'm not sure this amendment is necessary. There are too many unanswered questions and not enough information for the public to make an informed decision. REJECT.
“#7. Financial Provision – relating to Article VIII, Section 8.18The commission suggested a change to the charter such that amendments to the capital or operating budgets that raise them by $175,000 would require all-day referendums. Currently, amendments that raise or lower the budgets by $100,000 require a referendum — an amount that is not as large as it was in 1972 when the charter was passed, Capaldi said. The recommended change also includes a clause that would adjust the amount requiring a referendum yearly according to the change in the Consumer Price Index.”
My notes – I asked why the amount that would require an all-day referendum is being tied to an automatic index like the Consumer Price Index. Mr. C said that the $100,000 is a low amount by today’s standards (I agree) and that a higher amount makes sense (I agree). The Charter Commission thought that a COLA adjustment for automatically increasing the referendum threshold would make sense. I don’t favor any automatic increases; this should be an item that should be reviewed and conscious deliberation taken by future charter review boards.
10/31/08 Comments -- I agree that the $100K should be increased, but I am against any automatic increase/annual COLA adjustment. Local government should not be on automatic pilot. Suggest that the next TC start a new Charter Review board to revisit this area, perhaps amend the charter to allow for an increase now with provision that the TC review every 5 years and adjust via ordinance. REJECT.
"#8. Director of Finance Qualifications – relating to Article X, Section 10.02 and Section 10.11 The recommended changes in this section were put forth by Moffitt, Capaldi said. One relates to the director of finance and the other to the town treasurer. Under the proposed change, the director of finance shall have knowledge of municipal accounting, finance, taxation, budgeting, financial control and investments and shall have a minimum of a bachelor of arts or science degree in a financial area of study. The charter does not currently mention knowledge of investments or state a degree requirement.” Since the town manager depends on the finance director, the finance director should have some experience in that area — the position should require knowledge in investments,” Capaldi said. “These requirements [are] a little stricter.” The treasurer, under the proposed change, must have a minimum of a bachelor of arts or science degree in the financial area of study. The charter does not currently state a degree requirement for the position of town treasurer, saying only “The town treasurer shall have knowledge of accounting and shall have had experience in budgeting and financial control.”
My notes -- I asked if the current employees in these positions would be grandfathered. Neither the Charter Review Commission chairman, nor the Town Manager nor the Town Solicitor could give a definitive answer.
10/31/08 Comments -- There was no assurance at the public meeting that current employees would be grandfathered, would keep their positions. For that reason I find this amendment to be unacceptable. REJECT.
3. Go to this website before you vote (kudos to Duck for the link)http://www.readbeforevoting.com/
You may not agree with everything that's on the site but there is a lot of information to mull over. We definitely need wholesale change in RI.
.
4. Please continue to check the Duck's blog this week: http://twopartysystem.blogspot.com/
5. FROM MY POST OF OCT. 22:
Before you vote on Nov. 4, please ask yourself these questions (borrowed from President Reagan) "Are you better off than you were two years ago?" and "Is our state better off then it was two years ago?" If the answer to either of these is "no", then please vote for all new people at the Federal, State and Local level to represent you. We need some new faces and fresh ideas in the US Senate, US Congress, State government and on our Town Council & School Committee. Remember, in a democracy the people get the government they deserve. I think we deserve better, so vote for change.
Will continue to update this post until 11/04 post so please check in again soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment