Report Inappropriate Comments

Just the facts as itemized in the ethics complaint. COLANTUONO IS A BOLD FACE LIAR

The purpose of this complaint is to request that the Rhode Island State Ethics Commission investigate the actions taken by Warwick City Council members regarding legislation titled PCO-22-07.

Background History of the Ordinance

Ward 1 City Councilman Robert Cushman docketed this legislation which was titled PCO-22-07, for the May 14, 2007 Warwick City Council meeting.

The purpose of the legislation was to eliminate lifetime heath care benefits. ( PCO-22-07 ) – An Ordinance prohibiting lifetime health care or supplemental health coverage to any current or future city or school employee upon their retirement. New members to the Warwick City Council would also be denied this benefit.

This drafted legislation was heard in council chambers on or about Nov. 17, 2008. It is important to note that the legislation indicated an effective date of Jan.1 2009. (EXHIBIT 1)

Prior to the Nov. 17th council meeting, the general election was held for the Ward 1 council seat and Mr. Steven Colantuono defeated Mr.Cushman. It is important to note that Mr. Colantuono’s term was to begin on or about Jan. 2009.

During the ordinance committee meeting pertaining to the legislation and language introduced by Councilman Mr. Cushman, Councilman Delguidice requested a fiscal note. (11/17/2008) See meeting minutes. (EXHIBIT 2)

Note: A fiscal note, per rules of the council, is used to allow time for a study on any legislation, policy, or contract that will incur costs to the city, and or to the taxpayer. This parliamentary procedure was not applicable at the time due to the fact that the above noted legislation was a cost savings measure and did not incur costs to the city, but in fact saved the city and the taxpayer’s considerable financial obligations. (See EXHIBIT 3) pdf

It is the opinion of the complainants’ that the bogus parliamentary procedure “Fiscal Note”, requested by Councilman Delguidice, purposely delayed the legislation from being heard, and was implemented for the sole purpose of allowing Mr. Colantuono to have an opportunity to be sworn into office, and to be able to cast a vote to amend the legislation. More importantly, the delay allowed Mr. Colantuono to vote to remove the January 1, 2009 retroactive date. This vote by Mr. Colantuono personally benefited him and his family since he was now eligible for a lifetime health care benefit.

The complainants argue that this action is in direct conflict with R.I. Gen Laws 36-14-5, Prohibited Activities Paragraph (a).

It is important to note that at the end of Councilman Cushman’s term, (expiration Dec. 2008), Councilman Merolla continued to sponsor the legislation in its original drafted language which was initially brought forth by Mr. Cushman. (See EXHIBIT 4)

On Jan. 21. 2009 the legislation sponsored by Merolla was held before the council occupied by now, by the new Ward 1 Councilman, Mr. Colantuono.

During this meeting the legislation was amended to remove the retroactive date of Jan 1, 2009 and replaced with language without a retroactive date and to take effect upon passage. Due to this language change in the amendment, the lifetime heath care benefit would remain open, to benefit Councilman Colantuono and his family, and only Councilman Colantuono and his family. The result of this amendment was passed unanimously by the Warwick City Council, but more importantly, during this debate, Councilman Colantuono was allowed to argue during the debate on an issue that would effect Councilman Colantuono and his family, and only Councilman Colantuono and his family, and also allowed to vote on legislation and language which effected Councilman Colantuono and his family, and only Councilman Colantuono and his family. (See EXHIBIT 5 Meeting minutes, and EXIBIT 6 for amended legislation)

In effect, it is the opinion of the complainants, that because of the time line of events, and that the above noted legislation would effect Councilman Colantuano and only Councilman Colantuano in the future, that Councilman Colantuano had the inherent duty and responsibility to recues himself from not only the continued hearings on the ordinance, but more importantly, to recues himself from voting on any part or any portion of the ordinance. (See RI Code of Ethics RI Gen Laws 36-14-5 paragraph a, c, g, i, and also Regulation 36-14-5004 Prohibited Activities, Section 3a).

As a result of the above noted ordinance being heard by the City Council which affected Councilman Colantuano, and only Councilman Colantuano, it is the opinion of the complainants that not only did Councilman Colantuano participate knowingly in these activities, which that action is in direct conflict with several sections and sub paragraphs of The R.I. Code of Ethics, but that several members of the Warwick City Council in fact, did in fact knowingly conspire, to allow Councilman Colantuano to participate in said voting, which in fact stood to benefit Councilman Colantuano and his family, and only, Councilman Colantuano and his family.

The complainants of these documents respectfully request that the Rhode Island Ethics Commission review the attached exhibits, examine the activities as outlined, and issue a response to this complaint.

From: Recount validates Colantuono's win; councilman explains vote on benefits

Please explain the inappropriate content below.