Beware of Questions 3, l5, l9, 32

On Election Day, November 4, 2008, Smithfield voters will have the opportunity to vote on thirty-one proposed changes to the Smithfield Home Rule Charter. A sample ballot of the proposed changes was included in the October issue of Smithfield Magazine, which is sent to every local household.

Although most of the thirty-one changes pertain to housekeeping matters, which merely update the sixteen year old Home Rule Charter, nonetheless the following four changes are counter to sound government. These changes on the sample ballot include Number 3, changing the terms of council members from two years to four years; Number 15, replacing the current personnel system with a part-time three member personnel board; Number 19, increasing the operating budget reserve from five percent to eight percent of the operating budget; and Number 32, which is a new section that allows the town clerk, with the approval of the town solicitor, to make discretionary changes of a non-substantive nature to the charter.

With regard to the four previous changes, the following reasons are suggested for their rejection. For question Number 3, numerous Rhode Island communities elect council members at large for two year terms. Certainly, an obvious reason for this arrangement is the voter’s option to remove, if necessary, each and every incumbent every two years. Because of the staggered nature of the four year terms proposed in question Number 3, this preference will no longer be available to voters since either two or three incumbents instead of the usual five will be elected every two years. Although question Number 15 appears simply to replace the current personnel system with a part-time three member personnel board, the ramifications of this change are much more extensive. For example, in 1998, the town council by ordinance assigned the town manager or his designee the responsibility of directing all employee personnel policies, including job classification plans, pay plans, examinations, and all other conditions of one’s employment . Approval of question Number 15 would strip this responsibility from the town manager’s control and assign it to the part-time three member personnel board appointed by the town council. Besides stripping the town manager of his authority, one can question the wisdom of this change with regard to employment practices that would be free of personal and political considerations.

Question Number 19, which increases the operating budget reserve from five percent to eight percent over twelve years, is a good idea, but one that taxpayers cannot afford in today’s
economy. For example, to carry out Question Number 19, assuming that the operating budget grows at an annual rate of four percent, will cost taxpayers approximately three million dollars.

Finally, question Number 32, which allows the town clerk, with the approval of the town solicitor, to make discretionary changes of a non-substantive nature to the charter, is not only contrary to the Home Rule Amendment of the Rhode Island State Constitution, but also poor policy to give two individuals, who were possibly appointed by the same political majority,
discretionary power to make changes even of a non-substantive nature.

In conclusion, one should remember that the proposed changes listed on the sample ballot are, in many cases, summaries of the actual changes. To read the actual changes, one must resort to the town’s website www.SmithfieldRI.com. This suggestion applies to questions Number 15 and 19 of this article.

Sincerely yours,

Michael J. Flynn