MONEY TALKS: Campaign Finance Round Up 2018
- Mike Clifford
- Oct 26, 2018
- 3 min read
Let’s take a closer look at the reported donations discussed in the Valley Breeze article. Too bad Rhode Island doesn’t have anti-Pay-to-Play laws like many other states.
Points to ponder:
• It appears that donations to Council President #Beauregard’s re-election #campaign were from 11 attorneys, 10 who are NOT town residents and 4 who did legal work for the town in FY 2018.
• One contribution was from the current Town Solicitor, David #Igliozzi, who earned $62,000 from the Town in FY2018 and has earned significant income from the Town since his appointment several years ago.
• Three contributions came from other attorneys who received payments from the town for legal work done in FY2018. The attorney with the lowest earnings received roughly $900 and the highest paid of the three had earnings of roughly $36,000.
• Two of the donations appear to be from family members of the current Town #Solicitor since they have the same last name.
• One contribution appears to be from the Town Solicitor’s law partner and one contribution came from an attorney whose office is located next to the Town Solicitor’s office in Cranston.
• Town Solicitors are appointed by the Town Council in North Smithfield.
My first observation is: Town Council members vote to approve payment of bills once a month. Each council member receives a bill payment report which lists the name of every person or company that will receive a payment. Given the bill payment process which the town follows, I fail to understand how any #council member could be unaware of the names of attorneys who have done legal work for the town.
My opinion is: Weak excuses for poor decisions are unacceptable; it’s time for change on the Town Council and time for a new Town Solicitor.
Make no mistake about it; the Town Solicitor’s clients are the elected officials of the town who appoint him. Residents and taxpayers are NOT his clients. The only scenario I can think of that could be worse would be to have an appointed town solicitor AND an unqualified appointed town administrator who would also answer to, and take orders from, our elected officials.
At the July 23rd Town Council meeting a motion was made to include a question on the November 6th ballot asking residents to approve a change in our form of government from an elected town administrator to a town administrator hired and appointed by the town council. The motion failed on a 3 to 2 vote when Council members #OHara, #Zwolenski and McGee voted “No” and Council members #Beauregard and #Bartomioli voted in favor of placing the question on the ballot. Three days later on July 26th the Council reconsidered and voted 4 to 1 to place the question on the ballot. Councilman #McGee voted against putting the question on the ballot both times due largely to his belief that it puts too much power in the hands of the council and eliminates checks and balances.
On July 26th the Town Council also approved a new set of desired qualifications for the appointed town manager. It was stated that broadening the qualifications and including the statement “...or any combination of education and experience that is substantially equivalent” would enable more candidates to apply. There’s no doubt in my mind it will do just that; enable a slew of unqualified political cronies to apply, and even worse, be appointed. It was also mentioned on July 26th that lawyers would be well suited to hold such a position. If anyone doubts the accuracy of what transpired at the meetings held in July I suggest you watch the YouTube videos of the Town Council meeting for yourself.
The language in Question 5 has no minimum required qualifications for an appointed Town #Administrator. Please vote “No” on question 5!
Please consider sharing this post on your Facebook page if you believe friends and family should be informed.
(g) No person subject to this Code of Ethics or spouse (if not estranged) or dependent child or business associate of the person or any business by which the person is employed or which the person represents, shall solicit or accept any gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the person would be influenced thereby.
(i) No person shall give or offer to any person covered by this Code of Ethics, or to any candidate for public office, or to any person within his or her family or business associate of any such person, or to any business by which said person is employed or which the person represents, any gift, loan, political contribution, reward or promise of future employment based on any understanding or expectation that the vote, official action or judgment of said person would be influenced thereby.
Commentaires