Big questions on the ballot in Johnston

EDITOR'S NOTE: The version of this story that appeared in print mistakenly attributed quotes by Town Council President Robert Russo to Johnston Mayor Joseph Polisena Jr. Those attributions have been fixed in this version of the story. The Johnston SunRise regrets the error.

Johnston voters will answer several major questions on this year’s ballot, which may substantially alter local government.

Six questions were ultimately approved at a Special Meeting of Johnston Town Council on July 17. At that meeting, the culmination of more than a dozen Johnston Charter Review Commission meetings were strained and concentrated into six ballot questions.

“All 39 cities and towns have local questions on the November ballot, and Johnston stands out for proposing some of the most fundamental changes to the structure of local government,” said John Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island.

The Big Q

Questions 7-12 on Johnston’s 2024 General Election ballots will ask voters to approve or reject six amendments to the Johnston Town Charter.

The first proposed amendment, No. 7, could radically alter the composition of the School Committee.

“The most dramatic proposed change is the expansion of the school committee from five to nine seats, with two of the new members appointed by the mayor, and the other two appointed by the city council,” Marion said earlier this week. “This is a dramatic departure from the current structure which has been in place since the 1960s and gives significant control to the other elected parts of town government. If this passes, Johnston would become only the second municipality to have such a hybrid board following Providence which is moving to that model in 2025.”

Johnston School Board member Susan Mansolillo served on the Charter Review Commission. She urged the commission to reject the amendment.

“I was not in favor of four appointed members to the school committee,” Mansolillo reaffirmed last week. “It takes away the citizens right to elect who represents them on the school committee. We spend time going out and talking to our constituents. We are always available to them. Appointed members will be loyal to the town not the children and the families in our districts. Voters should reject question 7 and protect their right to elect their school committee representation.”

Johnston Mayor Joseph M. Polisena Jr., however, said he is “in support of all the ballot questions.”

“Specifically, I’m in strong support of the town representation on the school committee,” Polisena argued last week. “I think having voting members of the school committee representing the town would help foster a greater discussion and balance taxpayer priorities along with school department priorities.”

Since taking office, Polisena has locked horns with the School Committee over budget increases and what he called growing regular structural deficits.

“I would love to give the school department one to two million dollar increases every budget cycle, as we have for the past two years since I’ve been mayor, however, at some point I will not be able to continue doing that without a major tax increase,” Polisena said. “Moreover, since the school department is a separate government entity from the town, yet they are half of the town’s budget, I think it’s only fair to have town representation on that board.”

Town Councilman Robert J. Civetti (District 5) argued against approving “Ballot Question 7” which would increase the Johnston School Committee to nine total members (from five; adding two new members appointed by the Mayor, and two appointed by Town Council).

“I am not in favor of this question to amend the Town Charter and hope that the taxpayers vote NO to this question,” Civetti wrote earlier this week. “The taxpayers currently vote for individuals to represent their District on the School Committee. Anyone wishing to run for the position of School Committee has the right to register and submit paperwork to represent their District. I have heard that adding these positions will help diversify the composition of the School Committee, but I am not optimistic that this would actually occur.”

Civetti worries the town’s power of appointment could sever the district’s autonomy and weaken voters’ power to effect change.

“I do not believe that the Mayor or the Town Council should have the ability to appoint someone to the School Committee who would have the same powers and authority of the members that ran for this political position and were voted to serve in the capacity of School Committee Member by the taxpayers,” Civetti argues. “The taxpayers should vote on who they want representing them and doing what is in the best interest of the children of OUR Town of Johnston.”

An accountant by trade, Civetti said he’s sensitive to the district’s budgeting problems.

“I understand that more than 50% of the Town’s budget goes to the School Department and that the School Department has been running deficits over the past several years,” Civetti explained. “However, I do not believe that appointing members to the School Committee is the right way to try to resolve these deficits. The current administration has done a good job in increasing funding to the School Department after years of level funding by the prior administration. The Administration and Town Council has spent well over $100,000 to have studies done on the finances and educational programs of the School Department. The Town needs to work with the School Department to implement many of the recommendations that were noted in these reports. The development and consolidation of the elementary school should result in considerable savings for the School Department.”

Civetti voiced support, however, for a new taxation approach that has also been proposed by Polisena.

“Currently under RI State Law the Mayor and the Town Council have no control in how the School Committee spends the funding which they receive to support their annual budget,” Civetti argued. “I believe that since the Mayor and Town Council have no control over their spending then the State should pass legislation which would allow the members of School Committees throughout the State of Rhode Island to set their own tax rate. The Town could simply incorporate the School Committee approved rate for education with the Town Councils approved tax rate when sending out annual tax bills. Having the School Committee responsible for setting their own tax rate may increase accountability to the taxpayers and will avoid any claims for lack of funding from local municipalities.”

Johnston Town Council President Robert V. Russo said that those who “oppose this question are trying to make it a political power play issue.”

“Elected and appointed positions are political by their very nature — they have always been that way since the beginning of civilization and will always be that way going forward regardless of rhetoric from the sidelines,” Russo said last week. “The school department is the largest budget driver in the town and involves one of the most important roles to citizens of the town — education of our children so that they can flourish in our complex world. I strongly believe there are extremely knowledgeable people in the community that can bring a positive dynamic and real-world solutions to issues confronting our school department. However, these same people do not get involved because they cannot afford or have the skills to run a political campaign. Appointments would solve this problem and bring a new dimension to creating solutions to school department challenges.”

Polisena supports Question 7: “I am in support of town representation on the school committee.”

“I think it’s fundamentally unfair the school department is roughly half of the town’s budget, yet the town has no say in how the money is spent,” Polisena explained. “This is money we are bound by state law to provide annually, with no ability to reduce funds (maintenance of effort mandates the town provide the same funding or more funding each year). Town representation on the school committee (two by the mayor and two by the council) allows municipal representatives to have a voice, albeit not the majority, on how the school department is spending funds. The present situation is like funding a subsidiary organization yet having no say on how your money is spent. If they sent out their own tax bill, this wouldn’t be an issue but that’s only possible through a state law at the state house, and there’s no appetite to lower municipal tax bills and send out a separate school tax bill.”

Stormwater Bond (Q6)

Question 6 on the “Local Questions” portion of the ballot asks voters to approve a $40 million bond for the “renovation, repair, and improvement for the stormwater management and sewer facilities throughout the town.”

The bond was recommended by Polisena and Town Planner Thomas Deller in response to major flooding concerns in Johnston over the past few years.

“I am in support of the financing to allow storm water management throughout the town,” Russo said last week. “With the recent weather cycles, it is clear we have serious flooding issues, and we need to obtain funding to formulate a plan to prevent further harm and expense to Johnston citizens due to destructive rain and flooding.”

Civetti questioned the ultimate plan, if the bond is approved.

“Although I agree that the town does have a number of problems and deficiencies with the Stormwater Management and Sewer Facilities I also feel that the Town has not provided sufficient information as of this date for the taxpayers to approve a $40 million bond,” Civetti said on Tuesday, Oct. 22. “I would have liked to see the Town be fully transparent and hold several workshops to discuss the proposed projects and plan for utilizing this $40 million, along with the impact this bond would have on the tax rate.”

In 2022, voters also approved a $215 million bond to build new schools (Polisena promised those bond payments would be covered by the tax agreement with Amazon, which has yet to open its facility on Hartford Avenue but has already started making annual payments to the town).

“Many of the issues with the stormwater drainage system in the town (were) created years ago when the town allowed developers to build where they should not be building and where the town did not properly monitor these projects,” Civetti said. “If you go back and look at some of these areas where the town is looking to utilize these bond funds you will see how these areas once contained brooks, ponds, and streams yet they were filled in and the property developed. If the town would have held contractors responsible and properly managed the development years ago the taxpayers would not be asked to now pay $40 million to help rectify the situation. Let’s hold some public workshops where the plan can be fully vetted and discussed with the taxpayers before we ask them to approve this bond.”

Johnston and Cranston are about to cooperate with the federal government in a major home buyout and demolition program aimed at tearing down more than 100 structures and building flood remediation features in their place. That program is separate and apart from the local $40 million bond question in Johnston.

Longer Terms

Question 8 proposes doubling town council terms.

“Another proposed change lengthens the terms of office for council members from two to four years,” Marion said. “This means councilors will have to run for office less frequently, but they'll also be less accountable to voters.”

Polisena said he is “in support of 4 year terms for town council member.”

“I think it’s right as a question of fairness, as both the mayor and school committee members are on four year terms,” Polisena said. “The council is the only municipal government position that runs every two years, which I also believe fatigues voters too. I think having a four year term allows a council member to focus on governing, rather than taking office, governing for 14 months, then going right into reelection mode. This four year term is common in other municipalities across Rhode Island.”

The Charter Review Commission recommended this change, although current elected officials questioned the need.

“I spoke out on this proposal several months ago and stand by my position that a two-year term is sufficient and provides the most flexibility to voters in keeping their elected officials on their toes,” Russo said.

Civetti supports the change.

“I hope that the taxpayers approve this ballot question to increase the term of office from 2 years to 4 years,” Civetti said. “All other elected offices in the town (Mayor and School Committee members) currently serve 4 year terms and I do not see a reason why Town Council should be any different … It takes some time for a newly elected Town Council member to get situated in the position and therefore I believe that a 4 year term is more appropriate than a 2 year term.”

Budget Calendar

Polisena and Civetti have been repeatedly at odds over the town budget, and its introduction to Town Council and the public.

Question 11 will ask voters to amend the Town Charter to allow the mayor to present the town’s proposed budget to Town Council on or before the first day in June each year (and the Town Council “shall enact the budget no later than the last day of June in each year”).

“I am in support of this as much of our budget is based on the state’s budget,” Polisena wrote last week. “This would allow us to submit a budget on the same timeline as the state rather than going back and amending it based on last-minute changes they make, which unfortunately, happens every year.”

Polisena and Town Council have already been following that schedule for years, in blatant violation of Town Charter. Civetti cries foul every year.

“A proposed change to the dates for introducing and passing the town budget could give less time for scrutiny by the council and public input by moving by shortening the window between the budget's introduction and adoption,” Marion said.

Russo said he supports the “presentment of budget by June 1 instead of April 1.”

“Having a town budget ready by April 1 is not in the best interests of the taxpayer as it is not accurate at such an early stage,” Russo explained last week. “I believe the budget should be fine tuned over the longest period possible as we do not know what our state funding level is often until June each year. Passing a budget without such revenue figures would be negligent.”

Civetti first turned to the budget schedule language in the current Town Charter.

“Currently the Charter requires the Mayor to present the proposed budget to the Town Council on or before the first day of April each year,” Civetti said. “In addition, the Charter states that the Town Council shall hold one or more public hearings on the proposed budget and shall enact the budget ordinance on or before the first day of May in each year. If you look over the past decade or so the Mayor has never submitted the proposed budget to the Town Council by April 1st and the Town Council has never held multiple public meetings on the budget.”

The budgeting process in Johnston is late and opaque; the budget is dropped and Town Council votes almost immediately after, sometimes just hours before the start of the new fiscal year (sometimes after).

“Usually the budget is presented to the members of the Council separately in a closed meeting with the Mayor, the Chief of Staff, and the Finance Director and then one public meeting is held to discuss and vote on the budget,” Civetti explained. “I do not believe that this current process is transparent or consistent with the Town Charter. I believe that the Town Council should hold several public meetings to vet the proposed budget prepared by the Mayor. The Council should ask individual Directors and members of the School Department to discuss their budget at these meetings so that the Council has a full understanding of the budget. Therefore, I believe that waiting until June 1st for the Mayor to submit the budget for review does not provide adequate time for the Town Council to do their proper due diligence on the annual budget, which now exceeds $134 million. I recommend that taxpayers vote No on this question and require the Mayor and Town Council to comply with the current Charter requirements. I am willing to bet that most of the RI Municipalities have their budgets submitted to the Town Council, hold public hearings, and approve the annual budget prior to the proposed June 1st date being suggested for the initial submission of the Mayor’s proposed budget.”

The Rest

Four final ballot questions ask voters to hold elected and appointed town officials to the state’s Code of Ethics, create an Auxiliary Probate Judge position, amend the town’s budget calendar, and a Town Council-led (School Committee-aided) audit of school district finances.

Polisena also voiced support for the new auditing mandate.

“I am in support of the auditing standards,” Polisena said. “It’s very important the town and school adhere to strict auditing requirements. Passage of this question mandates the town comply with state law in regard to auditing practices and deadlines.”

Neutral parties questioned the affect these four questions would have in the daily lives of voters.

“Other changes will have little practical effect,” Marion argued. “One proposed change specifies that all elected school department employees and officials will be subject to the state and local ethics codes. All elected and appointed municipal officials and employees in Rhode Island are already subject to the state's Code of Ethics. This is largely a feel good measure with little or no actual impact.”

Polisena, Russo and Civetti all support the code of ethics amendment.

“I am in support of codifying the code of ethics in the town charter,” Polisena said. “This is more procedural, as we are bound by state ethics laws which supersede town ethics laws. Approving this question allows the town to codify state ethics laws into municipal government.”

All three also support the creation of an “Auxiliary Probate” position.

“I think the courts need flexibility in scheduling and having an auxiliary probate judge will guarantee that court sessions do not get rescheduled due to the unavailability of a single judge,” Russo said. “Local judges are practicing attorneys and there are many times their schedule conflict with the town probate court date. The expense of an auxiliary probate judge is minimal, and the benefit far outweighs the minimum cost.”

Civetti said he understands that the “position is not a fully paid position rather the position is only paid whenever the auxiliary judge fills in for the probate judge.”

“I believe this position is something that is needed to ensure that the Town continues to serve the residents of our community,” Civetti said. “The Town had an unfortunate incident occur this past year where we had a vacancy in the position of Probate Judge. Probate is somewhat of a specialty and we should have had an Auxiliary Judge available that could have stepped in to fill the vacancy. Voting to approve this question will ensure that we have someone qualified to fill in for the Probate Judge so that all probate matters are heard in a timely and efficient manner.”

The sitting Probate Judge faced criminal charges; and under the old Town Charter, the town’s solicitor was to temporarily fill the position. This ballot measure should prevent that in the future.

“I am in support of this,” Polisena argued. “As it currently stands, if our probate judge is unavailable the way our charter is now, the town solicitor is forced to cover for them. Probate work is very specific in nature and not a lot of attorneys know how to do it. Allowing a backup probate judge would ensure our probate court keeps running smoothly by a qualified professional in case of emergency.”

Public Messaging

Civetti raised concerns with the presentation of the ballot questions to the public.

“Let me start by saying that I believe that the Town of Johnston did not do a sufficient job in providing information to the taxpayers about these questions which appear on the 2024 Ballot,” Civetti argued. He shared a story about “taxpayers” with whom he has spoken “who have already voted said they were surprised and caught off guard by the local questions which appeared on the back of their ballot.”

“They indicated that they had no idea what the questions were about and wished that the Town of Johnston had sent out some notice ahead of the election to provide information about the local questions which they were going to be asked to vote on,” Civetti said. “The State of Rhode Island did a mailing to all taxpayers about the State questions. Why didn’t the Town of Johnston do the same for the Town questions?”

Polisena disagreed with Civetti’s assessment.

“Overall, these ballot questions are about moving Johnston into the future so we aren’t governing in the 2020s from a charter last amended in the 1970s,” the mayor said last week.