Attachments

20180502-131035-Order to Show Cause Entered.pdf

20180502-131049-AG's Response to Show Cause Order.pdf

PROVIDENCE — In response to a show cause order from the State Supreme Court, a filing by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin put the onus squarely on three city councilors in regard to the brewing storm surrounding term lengths of East Providence’s elected officials and the potential of not holding an election in 2018.
The attorney general states Councilor Joe Botelho, Brian Faria and Anna Sousa each expressed an opinion because the vote-approved change in term lengths from two to four years in 2012 was only codified into the City Charter recently, they have been duly elected to serve four years and there is no need to hold an election this fall.
AG Kilmartin wrote to the Supreme Court on Monday, April 30, “three of the five members of the City Council have taken the position that in November 2016 - when the ballot indicated City Council members were subject to two year terms - they were in fact elected to four year terms. As such, the legality of the assertion (by three City Council members) that their City Council terms extend into and beyond 2019 is squarely at issue.”
AG Kilmartin initially filed a petition for a “writ of quo warranto” on the matter with the Supreme Court Tuesday, April 24, seeking a ruling regarding the length of term for the current-serving members of the East Providence City Council and East Providence School Committee.
In it, the AG wrote after reviewing the issues, he invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve the irreconcilable difference between the four-year terms the East Providence Charter provides and the two-year terms that was “explicitly before voters in 2014 and 2016.”
He continued, “Public confidence in our elections is paramount to our democracy, and uncertainty of this nature must be resolved quickly and in a manner which maintains public confidence in our elections and government. The voters of East Providence have a right to have this resolved, as do those who may consider running for public office.”
In its request for a show cause response, the court asked the general why, according to its ruling in the case of Fargnoli v. Cianci, 121 RI. 153, 397 A.2d 68 (1979). Fargnoli, 121 R.I. at 162, 397 A.2d at 73 (The relief available in any proceeding upon a writ of quo warranto or by way of an information in the nature of quo warranto “is limited to the ouster of the incumbent from office”), should his petition not be dismissed.
AG Kilmartin’s response to the court also noted his petition clearly indicates that “no member of the City Council is presently holding office illegally and the Attorney General does not seek the immediate ouster of any City Council member. “The Attorney General does, however, seek to oust certain members who have already publicly declared their intention to hold a four year term and the Attorney General does seek to oust these certain members from the last two years of their self-declared extended term.”
The AG reserved his most scathing rebuke to the final paragraph of his response, saying leaving the matter unresolved for any lengthy period of time would create “chaos.”
He continued, “Because the Attorney General seeks to oust the three Council members (Councilors Faria, Sousa, and Botelho) who seek to serve for longer than the two year terms upon which they were elected by voters in 2016, quo warranto is appropriate and this Court need not wait until the Council members actually begin to sit for a third year. The Attorney General has no information that other members of the City Council - besides Councilors Faria, Sousa, and Botelho - seek to serve a third year, nor does the Attorney General have any information that any member of the School Committee seeks to serve a third year.”
The pending litigation served as the backdrop for the May 1 council meeting, where the board was at odds over filling two vacant position on the canvassing board, an issue the AG also alluded to in his Supreme Court filing.
Following some heated rhetoric and at times comical attempts to bring the matter to a vote, the appointments of Peter G. Barilla Sr. and Nicholas Oliver passed on a 2-0 line with three abstentions. Councilors Jim Briden and Bobby Britto voted for the appointees while Councilors Botelho, Faria and Sousa refrained.
Because the council had a quorum, the determination of whether or not the vote to appoint was affirmed by the 2-0 count was rendered to City Solicitor Greg Dias.
In addition, the State Board of Elections the previous day, April 30, issued a meeting notice for Monday, May 13, at 6:30 p.m. at its headquarters on Branch Avenue in Providence to discuss the East Providence election matter.
The stated purpose of the meeting according to the notice is to “conduct a public hearing to determine whether persons elected on November 8, 2016 to the offices of East Providence City Council and School Committee were to serve two (2) or four (4) year terms.”