Here is a letter reprinted with permission from former Town Council member Greg Laboissonniere in support of Chris Piasczyk .
Voters of Coventry District 5;
I am asking for your support to elect Chris Piasczyk as your Council representative. Chris understands that being part of a cohesive team is imperative to achieving positive results. As head coach of a college women’s basketball team, Chris works each day to instill his players with qualities they will need for success; qualities like integrity, honesty and an outstanding work ethic to name a few! He applies these same principles as a supervisor for UPS, an ultimate group of team players! Being a great team player is how you get the job done! This is something that Chris’ opponent has yet to understand.
In my personal experience on the council with Ted Jendzejec, he was certainly not a team player and I found he didn’t work well with people of differing opinions, even those from within his own party.
In Mr Jendzejec’s first year as a Coventry Councilman, he conspired with two of his Democrat council colleagues to overthrow fellow Democrat Frank Hyde as president in an embarrassing public display of the ugliest kind of politics that included his co-conspirator’s resignation immediately following the ouster and resulted in a costly special election and a divided council unable to resolve even the most basic business issues under Mr. Jendzejec’s leadership!
Now his issue is that the “self insured” fund is depleted. The truth is Ted would have you believe the current council is responsible when in fact the fund had approximately $7.2 million when Ted took office in 2004 and only about $4.7 million when he was voted out of office in 2006. That’s a $2.5 million drop in two years. We are no longer self insured because the asset value is too low to sustain a catastrophic loss. We now have to pay insurance premiums from that fund.
Our Town Council is a five man body and once elected need to work as a team for all of Coventry. The voters recognized Ted was not a good teammate and DID NOT re-elect him!
Can the voters of District 5 and all of Coventry expect different results in the future?
Yes we can, by electing Chris Piasczyk to the Coventry Town Council District 5 seat.
Greg Laboissonniere
Coventry, RI
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Home Rule Charter Proposed Amendments
There was a size restriction on what could be submitted to the KC Times so I wasn't able to write at length about all seven of the proposed amendments to our Town Home Rule Charter, so here is the full summary.
There will be 11 referendum items on the ballot next Tuesday. Question numbers 1 through 4 are state of RI issues, questions 5 through 11 concern the Charter.
BTW - Here is a link that can be used to print a sample ballot - https://sos.ri.gov/vic/
I was a member of the Coventry Charter Review Commission that met from November 2009 to May 2010. We had a lot of discussion about many possible changes to our Home Rule Charter. In the end, the Town Council approved seven recommended changes that will be put before you, the voters, on November 2nd. There hasn’t been much information available about these proposed amendments, so here is a summary of them along with my recommendations:
QUESTION #5 TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article III, Section 3.14 of the Town Charter be amended to provide that no collective bargaining agreement between the Town, including the School Committee, and any labor organization shall become effective unless and until ratified by the majority vote of the Town Council?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would require Town Council approval of all collective bargaining agreements, including those negotiated by the School Committee. Over 60% of the Town budget is allocated to paying for collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the School Committee. Presently, the Council approves all collective bargaining agreements, except those negotiated by the School Committee. The Council sets the tax rate necessary, however, to support all contracts and Town spending. A vote to APPROVE would provide the Council with authority to ratify School Committee collective bargaining agreements. A vote to REJECT would deny that power.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The Town Council would not be involved in negotiations with any School collective bargaining unit. The School Committee would have the sole power to negotiate, but with the knowledge that any labor agreement would have to accommodate budget constraints as set by the Council.
** 10/27/10 Additional comment in response to a question - Article 16-2 of RI general laws gives the sole power to negotiate school contracts to school committees. The TC can't legally negotiate; what this amendment would do is give the power to approve or not appove a tentative labor agreement to the Council, they would have the final say. This has been the law in East Providence for several years and so far it has worked there.
QUESTION #6 ALL DAY REFERENDUM / CONCURRENT BUDGET APPROVAL
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article VIII, Section 8.18 of the Town Charter be amended to provide that an all day referendum shall be required when any changes to the capital improvement or operating budget at the financial town meeting exceed $180,000; and Section 8.10 be amended to provide that the capital improvement program and capital budget be approved by the Town Council concurrent with the operating budget?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would make any change to the capital improvement or operating budgets that total $180,000 or more subject to an all day referendum. Presently, only additions or subtractions alone or that net to this amount are subject to referendum. The amendment would also allow the capital improvement program and budget to be approved adopted at the same time as the Town operating budget, not thirty (30) days prior as presently provided. A vote to APPROVE, would make these changes. A vote to REJECT, would not.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. It is proposed to change the amount from $180,000 “net” to $180,000 “sum”, the total of all additions and reductions approved at the Financial Town Meeting, as the trigger for a referendum. Approving the capital budget at the same time as the operating is logical from a budget planning standpoint, and is something that is long overdue.
QUESTION #7 NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article II of the Charter be amended to provide nonpartisan elections for all local offices?
EXPLANATION: This proposed amendment would, commencing in 2012, establish nonpartisan elections, where all candidates on the ballot for local offices appear without party designation. Presently, local elections are partisan -- meaning that party designation accompanies all candidates on the local ballot. Parties remain free to endorse candidates and candidates may use party labels. A vote to APPROVE means you support nonpartisan election of local officeholders. A vote to REJECT means you oppose this change.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. Four other communities in Rhode Island, and hundreds of cities and town across the country have nonpartisan elections. There is no Democratic way to pick up trash, no Republican way to plow snow. At the local level elections should be about voting for the most qualified candidates, period. Without the need to get approval from any political town committee, this may expand the pool of citizens who would consider running for elected office.
QUESTION #8 FOUR YEAR TOWN COUNCIL TERMS / LIMIT ON APPOINTMENT POWER
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article III, Section 3.01 of the Charter be amended to provide for staggered four (4) year terms for Council members, as presently served by School Committee members; and Article XVIII amended to eliminate Town Council appointments between general election day and the seating of new Council members commencing a new term?
EXPLANATION: This proposed amendment would provide staggered four (4) years terms for Council members commencing in 2012. The staggered four (4) year terms for Council members would complement the present staggered four (4) year terms for School Committee members. The amendment would also eliminate Council appointments in the period between the general election and the seating of newly-elected members of the Council. Presently, each Council member is elected for a two (2) year term, and there are no limits on the timing of Council appointments.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The office of Council member is as important as the office of School Committee member. Lengthening the term of Town Council members puts them on a par with the School Committee, whose members currently serve four year terms. Running for office is a lot of work; making Council terms longer may expand the pool of citizens who would consider running for elected office. Eliminating “lame duck” Council appointments is common sense.
QUESTION #9 TOWN MANAGER QUALIFICATIONS / ACTING TOWN MANAGER
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article V of the Charter be amended to raise the minimum qualifications for serving as Town Manager to a master's degree in certain fields, five (5) years of actual experience as manager or assistant manager of a municipality, and residence within the Town within six (6) months of appointment; and shall any person serving as an interim Town Manager not meeting these requirements be eligible to serve no more than one hundred and eighty (180) days?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would increase the minimum qualifications necessary for an individual to be eligible for appointment as Town Manager by the Council. It would also prohibit an appointment of an interim Town Manager not meeting these requirements from exceeding one hundred and eighty (180) days. Presently, the Charter contains lesser qualifications for Town Manager and does not deal with the length of time an interim Town Manager may serve. A vote to APPROVE means that you support the proposed changes to the Charter. A vote to REJECT means you do not support these changes.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The Charter Review Commission and the Town Council believe that the requirements for the Town Manager position were watered down two years ago. The higher standards have served our town well in the past, and have not kept the town from finding qualified candidates for the position. Limiting an interim Town Manager term to 180 days would give the Town Council some incentive to find a permanent person for the position.
QUESTION #10 DEPARTMENTAL FUNCTIONS / TECHNICAL CHANGES / VOTING DISTRICTS
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article XII of the Charter be amended to update titles and functions; Article XIII amended to provide for consistency review of the capital improvement program; Article II be amended to delete local district apportionment by voters rather than population; and should the charter be amended with punctuation and grammar corrections and to achieve gender neutral terminology?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would update the titles and functions within the Department of Safety and Welfare; provide the Planning Commission with responsibility for ensuring consistency of the Town's capital improvement program with the comprehensive community plan; delete apportionment of voting districts for Council and School Committee by the number of voters in favor of apportionment based upon population. The amendment would also make technical, punctuation and grammatical changes throughout the Charter as well as employ gender neutral terminology. A vote to APPROVE means you support the proposed changes. A vote to REJECT means you oppose them.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The charter change would formalize what the Planning Commission has already been doing for years. The change in apportionment of voting districts is something that must be done to comply with Federal law. Antiquated title names/terms/phraseology would be replaced with modern language that would be gender-neutral.
QUESTION #11 MUNICIPAL COURT
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall the Charter be amended to provide for a Municipal Court, with its jurisdiction and operation governed by ordinance; provided, however, that if Court revenue does not sustain operation of the Court; the Council shall possess the power to abolish the Court.
EXPLANATION: This amendment would place the existence of the Municipal Court in the Charter. It would allow the Council to abolish the Court only if the Court was not self-sustaining. Presently, the Court is established by only by ordinance. This amendment would not place the jurisdiction and operation of the Court in the Charter. Those matters are presently governed by ordinance and this amendment would not change that. A vote to APPROVE would adopt this change. A vote to REJECT would not.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. There was no Municipal Court when our Home Rule Charter was implemented in the 1970s; had there been one at that time it certainly would have been included in the Charter. Bringing the Court within the Charter would also make it more difficult to remove this office for political reasons.
I hope this information will help you make an informed decision on Election Day.
There will be 11 referendum items on the ballot next Tuesday. Question numbers 1 through 4 are state of RI issues, questions 5 through 11 concern the Charter.
BTW - Here is a link that can be used to print a sample ballot - https://sos.ri.gov/vic/
I was a member of the Coventry Charter Review Commission that met from November 2009 to May 2010. We had a lot of discussion about many possible changes to our Home Rule Charter. In the end, the Town Council approved seven recommended changes that will be put before you, the voters, on November 2nd. There hasn’t been much information available about these proposed amendments, so here is a summary of them along with my recommendations:
QUESTION #5 TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article III, Section 3.14 of the Town Charter be amended to provide that no collective bargaining agreement between the Town, including the School Committee, and any labor organization shall become effective unless and until ratified by the majority vote of the Town Council?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would require Town Council approval of all collective bargaining agreements, including those negotiated by the School Committee. Over 60% of the Town budget is allocated to paying for collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the School Committee. Presently, the Council approves all collective bargaining agreements, except those negotiated by the School Committee. The Council sets the tax rate necessary, however, to support all contracts and Town spending. A vote to APPROVE would provide the Council with authority to ratify School Committee collective bargaining agreements. A vote to REJECT would deny that power.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The Town Council would not be involved in negotiations with any School collective bargaining unit. The School Committee would have the sole power to negotiate, but with the knowledge that any labor agreement would have to accommodate budget constraints as set by the Council.
** 10/27/10 Additional comment in response to a question - Article 16-2 of RI general laws gives the sole power to negotiate school contracts to school committees. The TC can't legally negotiate; what this amendment would do is give the power to approve or not appove a tentative labor agreement to the Council, they would have the final say. This has been the law in East Providence for several years and so far it has worked there.
QUESTION #6 ALL DAY REFERENDUM / CONCURRENT BUDGET APPROVAL
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article VIII, Section 8.18 of the Town Charter be amended to provide that an all day referendum shall be required when any changes to the capital improvement or operating budget at the financial town meeting exceed $180,000; and Section 8.10 be amended to provide that the capital improvement program and capital budget be approved by the Town Council concurrent with the operating budget?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would make any change to the capital improvement or operating budgets that total $180,000 or more subject to an all day referendum. Presently, only additions or subtractions alone or that net to this amount are subject to referendum. The amendment would also allow the capital improvement program and budget to be approved adopted at the same time as the Town operating budget, not thirty (30) days prior as presently provided. A vote to APPROVE, would make these changes. A vote to REJECT, would not.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. It is proposed to change the amount from $180,000 “net” to $180,000 “sum”, the total of all additions and reductions approved at the Financial Town Meeting, as the trigger for a referendum. Approving the capital budget at the same time as the operating is logical from a budget planning standpoint, and is something that is long overdue.
QUESTION #7 NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article II of the Charter be amended to provide nonpartisan elections for all local offices?
EXPLANATION: This proposed amendment would, commencing in 2012, establish nonpartisan elections, where all candidates on the ballot for local offices appear without party designation. Presently, local elections are partisan -- meaning that party designation accompanies all candidates on the local ballot. Parties remain free to endorse candidates and candidates may use party labels. A vote to APPROVE means you support nonpartisan election of local officeholders. A vote to REJECT means you oppose this change.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. Four other communities in Rhode Island, and hundreds of cities and town across the country have nonpartisan elections. There is no Democratic way to pick up trash, no Republican way to plow snow. At the local level elections should be about voting for the most qualified candidates, period. Without the need to get approval from any political town committee, this may expand the pool of citizens who would consider running for elected office.
QUESTION #8 FOUR YEAR TOWN COUNCIL TERMS / LIMIT ON APPOINTMENT POWER
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article III, Section 3.01 of the Charter be amended to provide for staggered four (4) year terms for Council members, as presently served by School Committee members; and Article XVIII amended to eliminate Town Council appointments between general election day and the seating of new Council members commencing a new term?
EXPLANATION: This proposed amendment would provide staggered four (4) years terms for Council members commencing in 2012. The staggered four (4) year terms for Council members would complement the present staggered four (4) year terms for School Committee members. The amendment would also eliminate Council appointments in the period between the general election and the seating of newly-elected members of the Council. Presently, each Council member is elected for a two (2) year term, and there are no limits on the timing of Council appointments.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The office of Council member is as important as the office of School Committee member. Lengthening the term of Town Council members puts them on a par with the School Committee, whose members currently serve four year terms. Running for office is a lot of work; making Council terms longer may expand the pool of citizens who would consider running for elected office. Eliminating “lame duck” Council appointments is common sense.
QUESTION #9 TOWN MANAGER QUALIFICATIONS / ACTING TOWN MANAGER
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article V of the Charter be amended to raise the minimum qualifications for serving as Town Manager to a master's degree in certain fields, five (5) years of actual experience as manager or assistant manager of a municipality, and residence within the Town within six (6) months of appointment; and shall any person serving as an interim Town Manager not meeting these requirements be eligible to serve no more than one hundred and eighty (180) days?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would increase the minimum qualifications necessary for an individual to be eligible for appointment as Town Manager by the Council. It would also prohibit an appointment of an interim Town Manager not meeting these requirements from exceeding one hundred and eighty (180) days. Presently, the Charter contains lesser qualifications for Town Manager and does not deal with the length of time an interim Town Manager may serve. A vote to APPROVE means that you support the proposed changes to the Charter. A vote to REJECT means you do not support these changes.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The Charter Review Commission and the Town Council believe that the requirements for the Town Manager position were watered down two years ago. The higher standards have served our town well in the past, and have not kept the town from finding qualified candidates for the position. Limiting an interim Town Manager term to 180 days would give the Town Council some incentive to find a permanent person for the position.
QUESTION #10 DEPARTMENTAL FUNCTIONS / TECHNICAL CHANGES / VOTING DISTRICTS
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall Article XII of the Charter be amended to update titles and functions; Article XIII amended to provide for consistency review of the capital improvement program; Article II be amended to delete local district apportionment by voters rather than population; and should the charter be amended with punctuation and grammar corrections and to achieve gender neutral terminology?
EXPLANATION: This amendment would update the titles and functions within the Department of Safety and Welfare; provide the Planning Commission with responsibility for ensuring consistency of the Town's capital improvement program with the comprehensive community plan; delete apportionment of voting districts for Council and School Committee by the number of voters in favor of apportionment based upon population. The amendment would also make technical, punctuation and grammatical changes throughout the Charter as well as employ gender neutral terminology. A vote to APPROVE means you support the proposed changes. A vote to REJECT means you oppose them.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. The charter change would formalize what the Planning Commission has already been doing for years. The change in apportionment of voting districts is something that must be done to comply with Federal law. Antiquated title names/terms/phraseology would be replaced with modern language that would be gender-neutral.
QUESTION #11 MUNICIPAL COURT
Here is how the question will appear on the ballot - Shall the Charter be amended to provide for a Municipal Court, with its jurisdiction and operation governed by ordinance; provided, however, that if Court revenue does not sustain operation of the Court; the Council shall possess the power to abolish the Court.
EXPLANATION: This amendment would place the existence of the Municipal Court in the Charter. It would allow the Council to abolish the Court only if the Court was not self-sustaining. Presently, the Court is established by only by ordinance. This amendment would not place the jurisdiction and operation of the Court in the Charter. Those matters are presently governed by ordinance and this amendment would not change that. A vote to APPROVE would adopt this change. A vote to REJECT would not.
I recommend that this amendment be approved. There was no Municipal Court when our Home Rule Charter was implemented in the 1970s; had there been one at that time it certainly would have been included in the Charter. Bringing the Court within the Charter would also make it more difficult to remove this office for political reasons.
I hope this information will help you make an informed decision on Election Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)