The Projo is reporting today that Cranston city council member Paula McFarland is considering running for school committee. From the Projo:
CRANSTON –– Forced out of office by term limits at the end of the year, City Council Vice President Paula B. McFarland says she is weighing a run for the School Committee.
McFarland, who is hosting a fundraiser next week, said she hopes to reshape a school district budget she characterized as often maligned as confusing and bloated.
“I really feel strongly that someone needs to take the bull by the horns,� said McFarland, a Democrat.
But if she wins a seat on the school board, McFarland said, she may not be there for long.
An occasionally sharp critic of Mayor Michael T. Napolitano, she said she is already considering a run for the city’s top office in 2010.
In an interview yesterday, she said she doesn’t believe in “the philosophy� espoused by the mayor, also a Democrat.
McFarland suggested the mayor was not being “honest and straightforward� when he proposed an election-year budget that avoids a tax increase but dips into the city’s reserves to the tune of $2.7 million.
If Napolitano’s 2008-09 budget passes, she said, the city will have to seek a large tax increase in the 2009-10 fiscal year, given the fiscal crisis facing the city and state.
McFarland, who backs a modest property tax hike for the year that begins July 1, also criticized the mayor for accepting campaign contributions from city employees.
Ernest J. Carlucci, the mayor’s director of administration, said Napolitano does not solicit the contributions and argued that employees have a “First Amendment right to donate.�
He also defended the mayor’s budget, arguing that the city must find ways to trim and restructure government, rather than seek more money from the taxpayers.
McFarland, who is caring for her mother, who has cancer, said she considered sitting out the elections this fall.
But she said a continuing concern about the direction of the city will probably keep her in the public arena.
And while she is leaning toward a School Committee race, she said she might test the limits of the city ordinance that requires council members to step aside after five consecutive two-year terms.
The council includes one member from each of the city’s six wards and three at-large members.
McFarland, 42, has represented Ward 3 for the past 10 years. And she says the term limits may not apply if she leaves her ward seat and runs for an at-large seat.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Paula for considering running for school committee. Someone with her experience and abilities could help clarify and improve the budget process for the schools. The results could be better communication and cooperation with the city and less money spent on adversarial litigation.
Also, our thoughts and prayers will be with Paula as she cares for her mother who has cancer. Having gone through the experience of losing my father to cancer 10 years ago, I know how difficult this can be.
Kmareka.com 
I wasn’t expecting Paula to run for School Committee, that would be an interesting transition considering that the Council and School Committee are currently at odds.
I was surprised to see her open criticisms of the Mayor, considering they are in the same party and if he is reelected and she’s elected to the School Committee, they will still have to “work” together.
I join Kiersten in offering my best wishes and thoughts as Paula cares for her mother. Paula is a great public servant, and will serve with distinction in whatever office she seeks.
Still, I think it’s an open question as to whether she could fight the bureaucracy and bring about the real change needed to prevent more divisiveness like what we’ve seen lately.
—
This is (not-so-serious) fair warning… *gratuitous self-aggrandizement ahead*
Saith the ProJo:
“And while she is leaning toward a School Committee race, she said she might test the limits of the city ordinance that requires council members to step aside after five consecutive two-year terms…”
On Nov. 30, 2007 (Comment 37 here: https://kmareka.com/?p=1585#comments), saith I:
“According to the City Charter, council members are term limited to 5 2-year terms (Sec. 2.03). Paula’s last election was her fifth. However, the Charter is silent on whether that means a 5-term ward councilor can then run for citywide since they could be considered different seats — and there’s the potential loophole.”
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Quite frankly, any City position that Paula dedicates her time to is a plus for all Cranston residents. I started my journey 6 years ago in dealing with my elected officials and Paula McFarland is unique in that her ability to Listen, Process quickly and/or research, and get back to you in a timely manner with how to resolve your issue. Something I couldn’t ever get from my Ward 6 representative. I think she is a visionary and an outstanding soul.
I am not surprised to hear her candid remarks about the Mayor. I recall how the first year went at council meetings – while her words might not be as stong as the open words in the article today, her facial expressions and body language always spoke volumes to me. I am glad she stays true to mold. Bravo Paula, continue to be a mentor to people like me.
Gosh Jesse, I totally forgot about some of these posts until you pasted that one in. In re-reading some of the post…I got my blood boiling again…grrrr
Regarding the ward vs. at-large council seats as they relate to term limits, after reading the relevant Charter provision, I would suggest that on its face the Charter doesn’t differentiate between ward and at-large seats. They are treated the same – ” … be elected at each general city election for a term of two years a council of nine members, one from each of six wards, and three council members city-wide.” Additionally, “No person who has been duly sworn as a member of the city council effective with the election of November, 1994 shall be elected to said office for more than five consecutive two year terms.”
Based on the language and syntax, I would assert that a court, looking at the Charter provision would conclude that the Charter provides for a city council made up of nine members, with each member elected for two years, up to five terms. The language treats all council offices the same, whether they be from a ward or at-large.
Paula could argue intent, but then a court would look at the process by which the Charter provision was drafted and attempt to determine intent. Absent any clear record that ward offices were to be treated differently from at-large offices, a court would revert to the plain language of the Charter provision. It would then probably conclude that the authors had the opportunity to differentiate the two types of offices and didn’t. Therefore, because the authors decided not to state any different treatment between the offices, they must have intended that the offices be treated the same relative to terms and limits.
I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, but I think it would torture the plain language of the Charter, Section 2.03, to assert at least on this topic that there exists and was always intended to exist a differentiation of the ward and at-large seats. Now, if someone wants to argue the merits/constitutionality of term limits, that would be a different conversation. But on this issue, Paula’s “loophole” looks more like a pinhole.
Geoff:
I was only trying to say that it’s no surprise Paula would “test the limits of the city ordinance.”
And I think the silence in the Charter language is more telling than the actual wording.
I’m not sure a state court would rule out Paula’s supposed plan. The issue, I think, is the timing. If the term limits were imposed after the citywide/ward structure (I’m going to look into this to confirm it — please let me know if you find something), that was the opportunity to make the statement that a council seat is a council seat, whether it’s citywide or ward. Without a clear distinction between citywide and ward seats, there’s room to argue that they are, in fact, different types of seats and that term limits only apply to each type of seat.
Whatever the case, I believe this would be the first time the issue is tested.
Jesse,
If memory serves, for the 36 years that I’ve lived in Cranston, the configuration of the City Council has remained constant (i.e. six wards, three at-large seats). Over that time, the configuration of the school committee has changed, the terms of mayor have changed and changed back with term limits imposed, but the configuration of the City Council has remained the same.
The importance of this is that the council configuration was extant when the charter revision was written and enacted in 1992 and implemented in 1994. Therefore, the drafters of the charter provision are presumed to have known about this issue when they drafted and proposed the charter revision. If so, I fear that a court would hold that their silence was deafening. In my opinion, a court is more likely than not to determine that a group of drafters who knew of the dichotomy in the offices for the council and did not address that dichotomy in the application of any term limits, did so deliberately and that their silence on the issue is in fact a statement that both offices were to be similarly treated.
So, here’s the problem that Paula or any other challenger would face – “ …when discerning the meaning of a statute, we consistently have stated that we give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meaning. Pastore v. Samson, 900 A.2d 1067, 1078 (R.I. 2006). However, when the language of a statute is not susceptible to literal interpretation, it is ambiguous, and we must look to give meaning to the intent of the General Assembly [or city council]. Retirement Board of Employees’ Retirement System of State v. DiPrete, 845 A.2d 270, 279 (R.I. 2004)â€?, cited in New England Development, LLC v. Noel Berg, 913 A.2d 363; 2007 R.I. LEXIS 3. My brackets.
In short, absent a perceived or real ambiguity, a court would look at the plain meaning of the ordinance to determine its meaning. Even finding an ambiguity, a court would look to see if one or another interpretation would yield an “absurd result.� From my reading of Section 2.03 of the Charter, I don’t find it to be ambiguous. However, reasonable minds can disagree. What I really don’t think likely is that a Superior Court judge is going to do anything other than follow the plain meaning of the ordinance. Thus, it’s on to the Supremes where anything can happen.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I think if Paula, or anyone else for that matter, believes that the Charter language is such that it permits her to pursue an at-large seat after serving ten years from the Ward 3 seat, then have at it. But there’s one other deal killer that might arise – the provision that states, “No person who has been duly sworn as a member of the city council effective with the election of November, 1994 shall be elected to said office for more than five consecutive two year terms.� Of course, this limitation would depend on the success of differentiating ward from at-large seats. However, here again was a place where the drafters could have distinguished the seats and did not do so.
What pains me is that the above discussion seemingly makes me appear to support term limits. I don’t. In fact, I have argued for years that term limits only serve as an artifice to “good government� all the while relieving citizens from their duty and responsibility to support good public officials and to throw the bums out. I think if good people want to run for office and serve effectively and honorably, then artificial limits ought not deprive the community of their services. Conversely, if someone is not performing in office as s/he should, then voters should show that official to the door. In my opinion, we do have term limits – they are called elections and they come around every two years (or for some offices four years).
So, while I still hold to the opinion that she has a mountain to climb, if she does undertake the journey, I wish her luck.
Geoff,
You’ve certainly been doing a lot of work on this matter. Fortunately, Paula is considering still staying involved in the public arena and contemplating a 2010 Mayoral run. Although I would like to see her as a city-wide council member for the next term, at least we know that she is planning on staying involved in Cranston politics and making a difference for all of us.
Geoff:
I’m glad we’re having this discussion, and I appreciate your contribution. Keep in mind, this conversation has been going on behind the scenes for almost 2 years.
Ultimately, it’s the phrase “said office” that’s the question mark. Only time will tell if Paula chooses to challenge the statute.
Also, I certainly didn’t take your previous comments as supporting term limits. In fact, I’m with you on the topic — it’s used as a superficial mechanism and often forces good people out of office.
That being said, Traf was mayor for 16 years. Ralph aRusso was mayor of Johnston for something like 24, and Sal Mancini was in North Providence for 26, I think. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to argue that those lengths of term were good for their respective communities. Of course, Paula deserves the distinction of being known for serving the city honorably — I won’t argue that point, nor would I allow anyone else to. She’s the exception rather than the rule, sadly.
Jesse,
Without making this sound too much like Woodstock redux, I think we’re on the same page here. I agree with your observation that the folks you mention stayed on well beyond their abilities to positively contribute. The politics of diminished utility.
The way to combat that is to change the political culture and make people understand and believe that collectively, they have the power. Term limits and other such schemes diminish that power, at least perceptually. And I’m opposed to anything that diminishes rather than enhances the power of people to take control of their communities. Of course, the process of empowering people to act for themselves will be long and messy given the cynicism prevalent today. But it’s got to start somewhere, sometime, so why not here and why not now?
Like you, I also appreciate the discussion and am happy to participate. Discussions about process, while not sexy, are vital to the operation of government, the formulation of policy and delivery of services, and the well-being of our community. Sometimes that gets lost in the knucklehead discussions about corkscrew landings and wacky preachers.
This is a great site for airing complimentary and opposing views. I look forward to future discussions on issues important to our community.