Warwick Ward 2 Council Race Q&A: Rix

Warwickpost.com invited all Warwick City Council candidates to answer the same seven questions, giving them four days to respond. Candidates were urged to answer the questions directly, and invited to elaborate on each topic after answering the initial question. The answers have been edited for style and spelling, to ensure responses remain on-topic, and to avoid introducing misinformation into the debate.

All the candidates’ answers to the questionnaire have been posted within the same  10-minute window, with a digital dice roll assigning the order each set of answers run on the site, and thus, their order in  the daily newsletter.

Here are Warwick Post’s questions, and Rix’s answers:

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: –  1a) Should the policy require documentation of receipt and understanding, and/or reminders?

RIX: Yes!  More than that: There should be more than a checkbox and signature; the training should also test the person’s knowledge with true/false and multiple-choice questions. When I worked at a large law firm starting in 2016, all employees in any type of supervisory capacity, myself included, were required to complete an annual training and take an interactive test.  That is just one step to prevent sexual harassment: Make it clear to everyone what is and is not acceptable in the workplace.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: – 1b) Warwick Post received information on the policy and its distribution to managers –  public information – after a public records request following unanswered requests to the mayor’s office, weeks later. Mayor Picozzi has declined comment on the issue, citing legal concerns. Does Warwick’s mayor have a responsibility to comment to the public generally about the sexual harassment policy, and the communication of it to staff? How would you handle such situations?

RIX:  It is important for a city administration to be transparent.  That includes promptly providing documents that would be available through requests for public information.  However, commenting on a personnel matter is a different story.  When there is a claim or potential claim against a city, its mayor shouldn’t be expected to comment on it.  It might be better for the politics and public perception to comment publicly, but, it would not be responsible for someone in the position of mayor to go down a path that could expose that city to liability.

Every city’s administration must do what is necessary to set clear boundaries in the workplace to prevent sexual harassment.  If someone is not apparently willing or able to comply with those boundaries, that person needs to be removed.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A:- 1c) Please share any other thoughts you have on this.

RIX: There must be severe consequences whenever a supervisor sexually harasses an employee.  The allegations in this matter are very serious and any allegations of this nature should be taken seriously.

The Plaintiff has filed claims in Court.  As the Parties are in litigation regarding this personnel matter and as I do not have firsthand knowledge of the alleged events, I should not comment on the specifics of this situation.  That’s different from talking in general about policies.

In general, I think that one part of a solution is City Charter Reform.  Similar to the federal and state governments, and the cities of Providence and Cranston among many others, appointments of most Directors or Department Heads should be subject to “advice and consent” of the legislative branch.  This creates more accountability and transparency in the appointment process.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: – 2) What is the most important thing you intend to do to aid small businesses in the city?

RIX: The biggest complaint I hear from new small businesses is that it takes too long to get some basic permits that are necessary for them to open.  Most of these processes are mandated by the State and there are legitimate reasons for most of those requirements, which are usually not that burdensome in concept.  So, it’s not so much a matter of “cutting red tape” (most of which are State mandates or otherwise requirements that are there for very good reasons) so much as user-friendliness, clarity, and promptness.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: – 3) In 2022, the RIAG’s office ruled the original digital records detailing WFD sick time taken by firefighters between 2013 and 2018 that cost the city up to $368,000, produced for the city by Marcum, belonged to Marcum and not the public, and therefore were not subject to the RI Access to Public Records Act, leaving the public to enter the information manually from the printed report for digital analysis:https://warwickpost.com/city-doesnt-have-to-produce-fire-sick-time-file-says-ag/

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: –  3b) What is your opinion of how this information was released to the public?

RIX:  It’s the 21^st century.  Digital copies, complete with their spreadsheets intact and in a searchable format (without potential for errors to sneak in as can happen when a paper copy is scanned back in) should be included as part of these types of contracts.  Similarly, if it’s in the City’s possession in that format, the City should make it available to the public in that more useful format.  Otherwise, it’s just a waste of time for everyone involved.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: – 3c) Please share any other thoughts you have on this topic.

RIX:  One has to wonder exactly why the City didn’t receive the digital copy.  Or insist on receiving it.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A:- 4) Warwick School Committee Chairman Shaun Galligan reports the new high schools project will outstrip the $350M bond.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: – 4a) Would you support a second bond to make up the difference? Why or Why Not?

RIX: Yes, if the costs for the most recent design may exceed $350 million with a Guaranteed Maximum Price term, then, the best option is to request additional bond authority from the voters.  I’m not happy about this but it’s better than the other possibilities.

We have to get this done right.  Making the type of “value engineering” cuts to get the schools down to $350 million with the Guaranteed Maximum Price term would give us the opposite of value.  It doesn’t make sense to make certain severe cuts when investing in a new building that is expected to serve us for generations to come.  The City can’t just come up with additional tens of millions of dollars outside of a bond.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: – 4b) Please share any other thoughts you have on this topic.

RIX:  For a dozen different reasons, we have to move forward and get this done.  Delay will keep costing more and more money, between rising costs and deadlines for State matching funds.  RIDE will not allow us to build one mega-school (which was explored and is a bad idea for several reasons) or build two schools one-at-a-time.  Doing nothing or slapping band-aids on deteriorating buildings is a plan to fail.  Failure is not an option.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: – 5) ACLU of Rhode Island has filed a free speech suit against the Warwick City Council  in federal court for stifling the free speech rights of Rob Cote, barred from speaking at a July 17 Council meeting about allegations of ethical misconduct aimed at Councilwoman Donna Travis.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: – 5a) Are you prepared to honor the public’s right to speak at Council meetings, even if the speech criticizes you personally, or someone you know?

RIX:  Yes, under RI law, the public has a right to comment on items that are being heard by the City Council within certain restrictions on time and topic, and I have always honored that.  However, “Rule 41 Public Comment,” is not required by RI or U.S. law.  Many cities and towns in RI do not have any analog to Rule 41 because it is not required.  I think that Rule 41 can be useful because it allows the public to comment in-person on issues that aren’t on the City Council agenda.  However, Rule 41 is subject to several restrictions, some of which restrictions are necessary to avoid violating RI law and otherwise prevent the public from filibustering.  Rule 41 has never been intended to be an open mic free-for-all where the City Council gives access to a podium, mic, and YouTube livestream with hosting, to broadcast anything and everything without any conditions.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: – 5b) Why do you think Mr. Cote’s speech was so easily squelched? What would you propose to avoid a repeat of this behavior from the Council?

RIX: Rule 41(b) states that “The topics for comment shall be issues directly affecting City government.”  This had often been enforced by many Council Presidents as including “no personal attacks” on anyone, whether the person being personally attacked is a member of the Council, a City employee, or another member of the public.

The City Council has to be able to maintain decorum.  I think that we can all imagine, without me spelling it out, things that a person could say that would cause the entire City Council livestream to be shut down on YouTube and the video of the entire meeting to be removed from that platform.  How would that serve the public interest?

Much like the Warwick Public Library is not violating peoples’ First Amendment Rights when placing certain reasonable restrictions on what is broadcast on Warwick Radio, the City Council has the authority to set certain conditions on Rule 41 Public Comment if it chooses to have it at all.  Rule 41 is not an open discussion of ideas:  That’s prohibited by the RI “Open Meetings Act.”

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: –  5c) Please share any other thoughts you have on this topic.

RIX: I should not comment further than these general statements as there is pending litigation.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: – 6) In 2023, members of the public unsuccessfully proposed reforms to the public speaking segment rules, including preventing Council members’ filibustering from counting against the public speaker’s time, and allowing responses from the Council.

6a) Will you support those changes when the rules are scheduled to be reconsidered in 2025? Why?

RIX: Two “proposals” are mentioned.  These have been and continue to be in effect during regular public comment (topics on the agenda), or, are illegal under RI law, depending on what the question is referring to.

1) For comment during items on the agenda, members of the public receive their full 10 minutes if they choose to use it, regardless of how long members of the City Council respond to them.  Is this intended to be a trick question?

2)  Members of City Council often respond to public comment during topics on the agenda.  However, RI law (the “Open Meetings Act”) prohibits members of the City Council from responding to public comments made during Rule 41 public comment.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: –  6b) What other changes would you like to see?

RIX: I’d like to bring back public comment via Zoom so that members of the public can weigh in during the discussion without having to be present in-person.

WARWICK  WARD 2 COUNCIL Q&A: –  6c) Please share any other thoughts you have on this topic.

There is an existing method to give comments on any topic without any time limitations and to request responses: Send an email to all 9 members of the City Council.  All of our email addresses are on the City Council web site.  Or, give us a phone call.  Members of the public have more freedom of speech than members of the City Council, as members of the City Council would be violating RI law if a quorum of us talked to each other about City Council business outside of the specific period of time that a particular item is being heard during a City Council meeting.

I do appreciate the Warwick Post asking these questions because, due to the Open Meetings Act, these questionnaires are basically the only way that I can see colleagues’ thoughts on topics that are “City Council business” but not actively being heard by the City Council right now.