By ALEX MALM

In May residents, legislators, and lobbyists spoke before the City Council it opposition to Automatic License Plate Cameras in Warwick.

The proposed measure was held until August and those in attendance didn’t have a chance to speak on the agenda item.

Legislation that was pitched by resident Roger Durand and sponsored by Majority Leader Michael McCaffrey in the Senate and State Rep. Joe McNamara to allow the public to speak on agenda items even though they would be held by the council.

For the second straight year the legislation passed the Senate, and for the second straight year a vote wasn’t taken in the House Committee on State Government & Elections to send it to the full House for a vote.

In a letter of support the legislation from the ACLU of Rhode Island said “we believe that there is no compelling reason why a member of the public should be prevented from speaking on a matter simply because the public body has decided to remove it from the agenda.”

“Members of the body could benefit from hearing those public comments, as it may help them decide whether to restore the agenda item to a future meeting or revise it in the meantime based on the feedback provided at the public forum,” the letter reads. “It would also prevent situations where residents find their opportunity to offer input on a controversial proposal derailed when the public body pulls an agenda item at the last minute precisely to stifle expected public participation. For all these reasons, the ACLU supports this legislation.”

Council President Steve McAllister is opposed to the bill saying in a letter to the Committee, “I do not support this legislation. At Warwick City Council meetings if an item is held there is usually a reason, more information needed, presenter is not ready to move forward ect.  Holding an item means it will be discussed at another time.  All members of the public will have an opportunity to speak on any bill once it is formally presented.”

“Speaking on an item that is going to be held is not the best practice.  There could be changes to the bill before it is formally presented, so speaking on a bill that is not going to be voted on that night is not productive,” said McAllister. “Once a bill is formally introduced debate starts and the public can weigh in.  Members of the public will always have an opportunity to speak once an item is formally presented by the sponsor.  (Additionally)  in Warwick, once a month the city council has public comments on the agenda, where members of the public can speak on any Warwick issue.  That includes any item that is being held or is not even docketed.”

In an email to McCaffrey, Ward 1 Councilman Bill Foley backs McAllister’s stance.

“I support his thoughts on this bill wholeheartedly and hope you will not support its passage,” said Foley. 

McAllister in his letter used the meeting on the Automatic License Plate Cameras as an example of why items shouldn’t be discussed by the public that are being held.

“Monday night’s council meeting is a great example.  We had the issue of the Flock cameras.  The police chief asked me to hold the item until August,” the letter reads. “He said there are a few bills in the General Assembly on this subject and he wanted to wait to see if the state is going to act.  There were around 15 people there just for that topic.  I let everyone know the item would not be heard because it is being held at this time.  Most of the people left and appreciated that I gave them a heads up before they waited two hours and then we held it.  I let them know if this item comes back to the council in August and the chief wants to move forward we would take public comment then.”

McAllister added, “At Warwick City Council meetings, if an item is held there is usually a reason;  more information needed, presenter is not ready to move forward ect.”

“Holding an item means it will be discussed at another time,” said McAllister. “All members of the public and council members will have an opportunity to speak on any bill once it is formally presented.”

Shekarchi said a concern that he heard was that it wouldn’t just affect Warwick City Council meetings but public bodies across the State.

“This bill does not just affect the City of Warwick. This affects every single board as written,” said Shekarchi.

Asked if he thinks the bill will get a vote next year or in the future, Shekarchi said he is willing to listen and keep an open mind but said he doesn’t know what the proponents are trying to accomplish.

“I still don’t know what they’re trying to accomplish, it seems like they have a bone to pick with the Warwick City Council,” said Shekarchi.

It was also noted by Shekarchi that he doesn’t think the solution is to go to the state when it comes to being able to speak more at meetings.

“If you can’t get the Council to let you speak I don’t necessarily think you run to the state and get a law that forces them to let you speak,” said Shekarchi.

Ward 5 Councilman Ed Ladouceur supports the legislation. He noted one example a few years ago when he was Finance Committee Chairman and a resident wanted to speak on an item that was held.

After back and forth debate, Ladouceur decided to allow her to speak. He said that the amount of time she spent speaking was a lot less than the debate on whether or not she should be permitted to speak or not. He said that it got him thinking about the issue more.

For Ladouceur his decision to support the legislation comes down to the fact it would make it less difficult for constituents to speak on agenda items without having to go to a future meeting. 

It was pointed out by Durand that the Secretary of State Office which originally had opposed the legislation has since changed its position after offering an amendment to the legislation.