WARWICK, RI — The City Council approved updates to language governing composition of and titles assigned to the Warwick Fire Department and approved an updated version of a General Assembly resolution granting Rhode Islanders the right to defend their RI Civil Rights Monday night.
A resolution adopting amendments to Warwick public records law mirroring those proposed by RI House Bil H 5457, increasing the hourly rate charged from $15 to $25 and prohibiting compliance with new requests if the requester has not paid the charge from the previous request, was held until April 21, at the request of the sponsor, Councilman Bryan Nappa.
The resolution was the subject of a letter to council members Monday morning by ACCESSRI, a coalition of pro-public records access organizations including Common Cause RI, the ACLU of RI, the RI Press Association, the New England First Amendment Coalition, and the League of Women Voters of RI. In the letter, members urged councillors to because it weakens the standards contained in the state Access to Public Records Act (APRA).
“We do not believe the residents of Warwick are looking to the City Council to support efforts to make access to the public’s business more difficult and more expensive to obtain rather than less so,” the letter read.
During public comment at the meeting, Barry Cook also spoke against the resolution.
“That resolution should be tabled and put away. That does not enable the public in Warwick to get the information that they need. They want to cross us out by not responding at the council meeting. And now you want to charge us $25 a page or research. That’s nonsense,” Cook said.
In other business, WFD Chief Peter McMichael explained the requested changes to the fire department bylaws would change references to the superintendent of fire alarms to Deputy Chief of Communications, update the reference to Bureau of Fire to the Board of Public Safety and expand the eligible age of new WFD recruits rom 21 to 18 years of age, and update the upper age limit from 30 to 35, which still allows enough time for a new recruit to earn a full pension, he said.
The age of the recruits change is a policy change, he said, aimed at increasing the pool of eligible recruits and putting the city in line with other towns and cities. He said he was not aware of another city or town that didn’t accept 18-year-olds.
The updated language also removed a requirement that employees be residents of the city, which McMichael said is no longer legal.
The changes passed unanimously with 8 votes.
RI Civil Rights enforcement bill wins council support
The Council also unanimously approved expressing support for a General Assembly resolution amending state law so that Rhode Islanders are allowed to sue to defend their RI civil rights as described in the state constitution.
The resolution to support the General Assembly RI Civil Rights effort, sponsored by Council President Anthony Sinapi, is making its second trip through the state legislature after falling short last year, dying in the RI Senate Judiciary Committee.
In expressing support of the original RI civil rights bill, the ACLU of Rhode Island wrote, “The R.I. Supreme Court has held that, without legislative authorization, the state Constitution’s Declaration of Rights is not enforceable. We therefore strongly supported this bill which would provide long-overdue mechanisms to enforce that document, which “guarantees” the State’s residents critically important civil liberties, like the federal Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, due process, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and equal protection of the laws.”
The current bill has been updated to provide citizens similar agency regarding state laws.
Sinapi noted that while it’s possible to sue to defend yourself against violations of your civil rights at the federal level, there is no similar recourse for Rhode Islanders.
“I don’t think it occurs anywhere else in the country, I hope not, where you can’t enforce your rights under your state constitution. That is absurd. And hopefully we are the only one like that although it’s also shameful we’re the only one,” Sinapi said.
“It’s really bad,” he continued, “Especially now with the changing federal landscape where people have different ideas as to what your federal rights mean. And then, that percolates in to the courts. So, what your right means at the federal level given that it’s now a rather amorphous … your federal rights may not be enough. The fact that you can enforce them? That might not actually help you, depending on how the country goes. Unfortunately its going in a very interesting way currently.”
Author: Rob Borkowski
Rob has worked as reporter and editor for several publications, including The Kent County Daily Times and Coventry Courier, before working for Gatehouse in MA then moving home with Patch Media. Now he's publisher and editor of WarwickPost.com. Contact him at editor@warwickpost.com with tips, press releases, advertising inquiries, and concerns.
This is a test
