City Council: Voters in July can decide on school officials

A vote to change City Charter would mean School Committee members elected, not appointed

WOONSOCKET — Despite a warning that the measure is legally flawed, the City Council granted final approval Monday to an ordinance establishing a citywide referendum this summer on whether members of the School Committee should be elected instead of appointed.

Passed on a 6-1 vote, the measure means voters will go to the polls on July 24 to vote on whether the City Charter should be changed to make the switch on how school officials are seated. If approved, candidates would have two days to file declaration papers with the Board of Canvassers – Aug. 22 and 23.

Although the candidates for School Committee would, technically, be running in a special election, their names would appear on the same ballot as every other local contender for elective office in the already-scheduled general election, on Nov. 6. Since there would be five available seats on the panel, if the election draws more than 10 contestants a primary would be necessary, in which case it would be held on Oct. 2.

The single question voters will face in the referendum is this:

“Shall the City of Woonsocket Home Rule Charter, Chapter XIV, entitled, “Department of Education,” be amended to provide for a five-person school committee of which members are to be elected by the qualified electors of the City for a term of two years or until a successor is duly elected of appointed?”

It’s a confusing twist in an election year that already has another scheduling track for normal candidates, with a declaration period of June 25-27. That includes candidates for council, plus those vying for seats in the House and Senate. Also, if those races are affected by a primary, it would be held on Sept. 12.

The timing of the special school committee election is all driven by a state law that says at least 50 days must pass between the final approval of a local ordinance calling for a referendum and the approval of a ballot by the Secretary of State’s Office. Councilors had wanted an earlier referendum, but their desire to undo the appointive system of seating school officials before another election cycle passes led to the now-approved schedule.

More broadly, the overhaul is the council’s response to a continuing stalemate with the executive branch over choosing members of the school committee, which has been operating with fewer members than it’s supposed to – four instead of five – for months as a result. In 2014, following an earlier referendum, the city abandoned school committee elections and became the only other community in the state besides Providence to appoint its school officials, a system in which members have been chosen by Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt – with the consent of a council majority.

Amid the enduring stalemate over appointees, councilors have been excoriating the appointive school committee as a broken system.

“I favor going back to the elective system,” retired manager of the Board of Canvassers Leno Brunetti told councilors in Harris Hall on Monday. “I could never understand why the voters deprived themselves of the right to vote for that position.”

But it was Brunetti who warned the council that its plan for the election is unlawful. He said the proposed change to the City Charter must be ratified by the General Assembly in order to candidates to lawfully appear on the ballot in November.

“Your problem is the special election calling for July 24,” said Brunetti. “If this is approved how could you go back to the General Assembly to get ratification when they may not even be in session? So you’ve got a dilemma as to what you’re going to do with regard to this legislation.”

Brunetti made his comments before the council actually voted. When they did, Council Vice President Jon Brien, a lawyer and the architect of the scheduling plan, basically said Brunetti is wrong. And City Solicitor John DeSimone said he was inclined to agree.

Because the issue at hand involves a change to the City Charter affecting matters of governance that are strictly local, state lawmakers do not have to ratify the results of the referendum for officials to lawfully act on the will of electors, they said.

“If you look back at other amendments that have not received ratification by the General Assembly, there is no reason we couldn’t go forward with an election only to have ratification – if necessary – when the General Assembly returns. I don’t believe it’s necessary, but could we do it? Sure. Does it have to be done on a local question like this? No, it doesn’t.”

Said DeSimone, “I don’t disagree with what you just said.”