Current News and Information You Need To Read!
Contact Us
Scituate Republican Town Committee
Scituate, Rhode Island
Our town is soon to face an important decision as the Town Council majority is preparing to embark on the construction of a new police station to be funded with proceeds raised outside of the normal (voter approved) budgetary process. I’m proposing that these funds be used in a more appropriate way. Let’s make a meaningful contribution to our underfunded police pension obligation.
As you likely already know, the four recently elected “Independent Men” have decided that our town is in critical need of a new police station. Being in the majority on the Scituate Town Council, they have pursued a strategy of raising funds for the construction of the new station. The funds being earmarked have come from several sources including the reallocation of capital accounts set aside by previous town councils for various maintenance projects in town. Additionally, the Town Council majority is in the process of negotiating a new long-term lease for the use of a town-owned cell tower, the proceeds of which will also be designated for the construction of the new station.
As an aside, it should be noted that the proposed cell tower transaction will eliminate a much needed future income stream. If successful, the council may raise as much as $1 million towards their desired project. All of these actions are being undertaken without the approval of the voters in Scituate.
While the Town Council majority has committed to bringing the project to a vote before construction-related commitments are made, many of the funding actions are likely to have been completed ahead of a vote.
In my view, this project is being rushed through to the detriment of our town. While I agree that we should consider the need for a new police station, I don’t believe that we should be deferring needed maintenance on existing town facilities and entering into potentially unfavorable cell-tower leases to fund the project. Significant projects such as the construction of a new municipal building should be done with the approval of the voters and funded appropriately with low-cost (less than 3 percent) long term municipal debt (bonds).
We should consider a project like this with a methodical, well thought-out and responsible plan, not with the sense of urgency as is currently contemplated.
All that said, the Town Council majority is in the process of raising funds and while I don’t agree with their misguided strategy, we might as well put these funds to the best possible use. I’m proposing that all available funds being designated to the new police station be used to make a meaningful contribution to the underfunded police pension plan. We currently have a $14 million pension obligation with $4.8 million of assets in the plan. That leaves us with a $9.2 million shortfall.
We could lower our obligation significantly while at the same time honoring our commitment to the men and women that serve and protect our community. Let’s support our police by working to ensure they have a secure retirement, which most people would agree is more important than the immediate construction of a new station.
A decision on a new police station can then be considered in a more responsible fashion in accordance with a long term plan.Let’s make a sound decision for both our police and the citizens of Scituate.
- Tim McCormick, Scituate
New Scituate police station?
There are better uses of funds
Voters Need To Watch.
Voters need to watch the Scituate council actions
I invite the citizens of Scituate, especially registered voters, to attend the Town Council meetings so that you can see your new majority members in action. According to town ordinance, the Town Council is supposed to hold regular work sessions. They have not been doing this. If they followed the ordinance, they might not have to delay or strike agenda items as has happened several times.
And council approved minutes are not being posted in the time frame required by the Open Meetings Law.
They are draining every account they can to put into the designated new police station account. When it was brought up that they were losing a $25,000 yearly stream of income by taking the one-time payout on the tower lease, they said that the tickets the police were issuing would make up that difference. After the police chief gave figures regarding the tickets issued, they immediately moved to designate those funds to the police station account. They are also expending funds that are outside of the budget approved at the town financial meeting. They have repeatedly approved expenditures for recreation-related items such as $20,000 for exercise equipment at Tasca Field and now money for lights and a well at Gorham Field that is specified to come out of open space funds that were not included in the budget, even though the Recreation account has over $78,000 budgeted for such things.
They have stated that the town is running fine and employees are happy. I disagree with this. The public works office is not open on weekdays. If the administrative person in the building inspector’s office is out, the office is locked. I have also had several employees tell me that they are not happy the way things are going.
Also, if you have a discussion with the chair or vice-chair of the council in the town hall, your conversation may be taped without your prior knowledge. They are trying to replace people on committees who are in the middle of their appointed terms because they voice concerns at Town Council meetings. These committee members are people who have volunteered their time and energies because they want to contribute to making Scituate the best it can be and often are trying to follow the mandates of their positions, not the whims of the new council members.
The new members of the council are often nasty to those attending meetings. The new council members say they want to do what is best for the town, but many in attendance also want what is best, they just have different ideas of what is best. I have witnessed the chair of the council berate the other carryover council members and particularly the town treasurer, also an elected figure.So I invite you to come and watch the gang of four bullies (or team of Trumps as they billed themselves) and decide how you want to vote in the next election.
Better yet, start speaking out now.
- Marti Bower, Scituate
A long simmering debate in town has finally come to a head with the Town Council’s recent decision to evacuate the Scituate Police station. While the need for a new police station has been the subject of debate for several years, recently completed structural and environmental reviews of the current facility would suggest that the time has come to have a serious and conclusive discussion of the merits of constructing a new police station. As I stated in my letter in August, I agree that we should consider the need for a new police station. My support for addressing the issues at the current police station increased meaningfully after learning of the risks to the health, safety and welfare of the members of our police department and anyone else spending time at the station. That said, the recent actions taken by the Town Council are concerning and have exposed the citizens of Scituate to tens of thousands of unnecessary expenditures and potential legal actions, as has been routinely mentioned in public by members of the Town Council majority. While we may end up with a new police station; it’s the means to the end that concern me.
Leadership of the Town Council held a Special Town Council meeting on September 14th where they presented the results of several structural and environmental reviews conducted at the Scituate Police station. There was (and continues to be) a clear emphasis on the serious health hazards facing anyone in the building from exposures to high levels of mold. While the reports also highlighted the existence of building materials containing asbestos, the consultants made no mention of the exposure being a current health risk for building occupants or visitors. Furthermore, there was no mention in the reports of any air quality testing for asbestos levels, which would suggest that there was no serious concern regarding asbestos exposures. Finally, the reports do address lead paint on the exterior of the building as well as a faulty existing radon remediation system, both of which can be remedied without vacating the building. In fact, the radon levels were noted as being at safe levels (per federal standards). The crux of the decision to vacate the building certainly appears to have rested on excessive mold, primarily in the basement of this historic building. This is further supported by the fact that the letter from the police union made no mention of environmental concerns beyond that of mold levels in the building and possible high levels of radon. Finally, John Carbone of VORTEX clearly stated in his presentation that “mold is the priority”. In the end, the underlying question is whether, or not, these conditions compromise the health and well-being of building occupants and visitors to the extent that the building needed to be evacuated.
Notwithstanding several obvious unanswered questions, the current Scituate Town Council, led by the “Independent Men” in the majority decided to vacate the existing police station over structural and environmental concerns. On several occasions during and after the Sept. 14th meeting, our Town Council leadership has expressed profound concern over the safety and welfare of personnel working at the station as well as citizens visiting the facility. Additionally, several members of the Town Council majority have also suggested on multiple occasions that the conditions in the building expose the town to significant lawsuits. The conditions as presented at the meeting were alarming and warranted more research and investigation.
Now, I’m not going to represent that I have in-depth knowledge in the environmental and/or remediation business, which is why I decided to contact several companies in the industry in order to obtain an independent, professional and objective opinion as the severity of the situation at our police department building. They had some reassuring observations after a review of the reports provided to the Town Council. For starters, nothing in any of the reports suggests that the air quality in the primary workspace is compromised to an extent that necessitates closing the station. In fact, the first page of the report from OHI clearly states that: “There is no evidence of water damage, no visible mold growth and no olfactory evidence of mold in any of the first floor rooms” (where almost all of the daily activity occurs). Clearly there’s an issue in the basement but use of this space is limited and is certainly off limits to the general public.
Yes, there are some air circulation issues with the heating and air conditioning systems being located in the basement but the professionals have told me that these are relatively easily remediated with some basic mechanical repairs.They also noted that there is no evidence in the reports to suggest that the asbestos at the site poses an immediate threat to the safety and health of our employees or the public. As previously mentioned, they sited that there was no mention of asbestos-related air quality test having been completed. Finally, it’s worth reiterating that there was no mention in any of the reports that the air quality in the primary workspace is compromised or dangerous and there was no suggestion in the reports that the building needed to be evacuated.
So now we’re back to the mold issue. Each of the industry professionals I spoke to suggested that there are three common themes related to mold: 1) there are no strict standards on acceptable mold levels in a building, 2) testing should be conducted under varied weather conditions as mold counts can be influenced by recent rains, humidity levels and general seasonality (note that the testing in Scituate was completed in the notoriously humid summer months) and 3) excess mold levels almost never pose a threat to the extent that a building has to be vacated. I have been told that there are several techniques for handling mold issues and almost all involve minimal disruption in the adjacent spaces.
So where do we go from here? We could remediate the structural and environmental issues and move back into the police station. After all, the building is in a historical district and will likely have to be cleaned up regardless of its long-term use. But that’s not a permanent solution. We clearly need to have a discussion on the need for a new police station for the benefit of the dedicated members of our police department and the citizens of Scituate. As I’ve stated in the past, a project like this should be undertaken in a methodical, well thought-out and responsible manner, not with the sense of panic and alarm as is currently being portrayed by our Town Council leadership. Decisions made with a sense of urgency and crisis often end up leading to costly mistakes. Now some of the pushback on this approach will, no doubt, come from a legitimate concern that our police department personnel are currently operating out of temporary facilities, including a trailer located next to the now vacant old police station. This is truly unfortunate, unacceptable and disappointing because it didn’t have to go this way.
Experts in the field have told me that the structural and environmental issues at the station could have been dealt with in a less obtrusive and disruptive manner than we’ve been subjected to in Scituate. But thanks to the overreaction and overreach of our Town Council leadership, an atmosphere of panic, crisis and chaos have engulfed our town government with the members of our police department and the citizens of Scituate now paying a significant price. The actions of our Town Council leadership will cost us tens of thousand of precious tax dollars while at the same time unnecessarily exposing our town to potential lawsuits.Going forward, we should strongly encourage the leadership of our Town Council to consider all the alternatives including an in-depth analysis of the cost of remediation of the existing facility. The possibility that the building could be temporarily re-occupied would buy us some time, which could then be used to conduct a comprehensive review of all the long-term needs, location options and alternatives for a new police station without feeling like our collective backs are up against the wall. The citizens of Scituate would be best served with a thoughtful and measured approach to a project that will serve generations to come. Let’s take a step back and work together to achieve the best possible solution for our community.
Tim McCormick
Decision to Evacuate the Scituate Police Station
Was it necessary?
Scituate’s New Police Station
Let’s do it right the first time
The voters in Scituate face yet another referendum, this time for a new police station. Increasingly, there’s little debate in town regarding the need for a new station as many residents accept that our old station is outdated and inadequate. The debate now centers around one question: Can we realistically expect to build a modern police station for $1.4 million as is currently being proposed by the Town Council majority? In our opinion, the answer is clearly no.
On December 12th, Scituate voters are being asked to authorize the Town Council to spend $1.4 million from “any Town funds available” for the construction of a new station. We have several concerns over this proposal including the open-ended structure of this referendum, which would give the Town Council majority the ability to fund this project using unconventional sources as they’ve already exhibited. Thus far, they’ve cashed out of a cell tower lease, forgoing $28,000 of annual income to the town. They’ve also raided several reserve accounts in their misguided plan for project funding. They’ve clearly demonstrated a willingness to draw down town reserves, which could jeopardize the town’s credit rating. This referendum will permit them to finance the new police station in whatever manner they deem appropriate.
Another concern is the $1.4 million projected cost of the new station. That estimate is unrealistic and irresponsible. We have reports from two architectural firms who specialize in commercial and municipal buildings. The estimates in these reports are based on construction costs for comparable projects completed in our area. Their analyses clearly suggest that we need to consider spending closer to $3.0-$3.5
million for an up-to-date facility. The $1.4 million projected cost being proposed by the Town Council majority is woefully inadequate for this project. Their proposal has the potential to burden Scituate taxpayers with significant cost overruns or potentially worse, deficient construction, which can lead to significant excess spending.
It’s important to note that the Town Council majority’s estimated project cost incorporates the use of several unconventional, risky strategies for lowering the construction costs. Perhaps most noteworthy and concerning is knowing that our Town Council President, John Mahoney, intends to serve as the general contractor for the overall project. This presents a host of issues, not the least of which is the clear ethical conflict of interest.In closing, we need to seriously question their argument that the $1.4 million estimate is realistic and that the appropriate project funding is already in place.
We don’t need an extravagant new station but it should be built the right way and in the appropriate area in town. We urge you to vote NO on Dec. 12th. The Town Council majority needs to know the the citizens of Scituate want our leaders to propose a project that is financially responsible and prudent, while at the same time addressing the long-term needs of our community. Let’s do it the right way the first time.
David B Campbell
Scituate Republican Town Chairman
*Note that this article was printed in the The Observer prior to the decision to move the referendum to Jan. 23rd. Also, the projected cost of the project has, once again, increased and now stands at $1.7 million.
Table of Contents
The Scituate Republican Town Committee is proud to offer its full support for the Scituate School Bond, which is scheduled for a vote at a town-wide referendum on November 7th.
Our backing of the Bond builds on the strong support from the prior (all-Republican) Town Council who established a committee to review options for school-related fields with the clear intent to support the Scituate schools in their pursuit of adequate facilities for both gym classes and athletic teams. At the same time, the Scituate School Department was in the early stages of receiving feedback and recommendations from a statewide assessment of school facilities. This assessment (known as the Jacobs Report) detailed several recommended upgrades and necessary renovations to our school facilities. The prior Town Council enthusiastically supported the initial application process for a construction bond to address both the recommendations outlined in the Jacobs Report as well as needed renovations for our athletic fields.
Scituate Republican Town Committee Supports School Bond
Proud To Offer Full Support
Yankee Fiber Control Inc.
Document 18236-17 Re: Synopsis of Scituate Police Station, Environmental Reports. Letter To Tim McCormick
Dear Tim: Following up on your request for Yankee to provide a synopsis of the environmental reports provided by your request for public records regarding the Scituate Police Station. This synopsis is provided without the benefit of a site visit. The building in question is a 3,496 SF, wood frame construction on brick and rubble foundation, with crawl space and basement. Extensive testing has been performed on the building.
Yankee was founded by the under signed in 1984 and has performed in excess of 14,000 environmental projects. We hold asbestos and lead licenses in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Asbestos, mold and lead will be addressed individually.
Mold: Mold is naturally occurring in nature, causing biodegradation of natural materials such as food, leaves, compost and wood. Mold spores are in the air we breathe and food we eat, require moisture, lack of sunlight and food to grow. OHI Report Dated August 29,217 notes gaps in the foundation, which can allow for water to enter the building, several wall panels have water marks, mold and rot. There was a distinct “musty” odor and no de-humidification in the basement. All the conditions for mold to grow in a building are identified in this statement.
Buildings with excessive moisture enable these airborne mold spores to grow on materials such as wood, cardboard, drywall and paper, which are considered “food” for mold. Water infiltration issues such as gaps in the foundation and installation of de-humidification must be resolved prior to mold cleaning for long term success.
There are no Rhode Island or Federal regulations pertaining to mold exposure or mold abatement. US EPA does have guidelines for mold abatement which should be considered best or Recommended Practices. Air testing for mold will vary on a daily basis and should be viewed as a snap shot at the time of testing. Based on absence of mold regulation and standards, this building can be described having a musty odor that some people may find offensive and others may have allergic reaction to the mold. Based on Best Practices of risk management and responsible employer, consider enacting a plan to lower inside mold levels.
The higher mold counts are in the two Evidence Rooms, consider placing these rooms under HEPA filtered negative pressure, vented to outside to control the migration of mold from these rooms to other areas of the building. Or move the contents of these rooms to vented storage outside of the building while a long term plan can be established. EPA Best Practices for mold remediation entail, trained labor, HEPA filtered negative pressure and disposal of mold impacted material. If the evidence rooms contain mold impacted paper, cleaning these of mold can be very labor intensive and challenging.
Long term, consider de-humidification of the building, fixing the source of water leaks then perform mold remediation per EPA recommended practices.
Asbestos: Asbestos is a mineral extensively used for over 100 years in building materials until outlawed in most applications in the 1970’s.
Asbestos is still used in limited applications today. Rhode Island Analytical report identified 180 SF of asbestos floor tile and mastic ( glue that holds the tile to the floor ) Assumed asbestos material that was not tested include 50 SF, pipe insulation, 2 LF / 4SF of debris in a basement cubby hole, 3,500 SF vermiculite ( insulation ) in the attic, roof sealer and door caulk.
Asbestos removal is extensively regulated on the state and federal level with well defined non occupational exposure limits which are determined by air testing. I do not see any asbestos air testing in the reports provided to document the extent of airborne asbestos. Consider performing this testing and cleaning the debris in the basement cubby hole.
In general terms, the presence of asbestos does not necessarily constitute a risk or a regulatory mandate to remove. Intact material such as asbestos floor tile in good visual condition is not necessarily a health hazard. Disturb this material by demolition, sanding, grinding etc. and a substantial health risk can be produced. Under asbestos regulations, the presence of intact asbestos containing building materials does not require the removal of these materials unless they will be disturbed by renovation, demolition, curious children of failure of the material.
Lead: Lead paint was the preferred product until outlawed in the 1970’s and now regulated on the state and federal level. Rhode Island regulates building containing lead paint which are occupied by children less than 6 years of age. Non child occupied buildings are subject to much less federal regulation. I cannot determine the use of this building from the reports and therefore determine if regulated by federal law only or both federal and Rhode Island. One sample of paint from the exterior siding was tested and documented the presence of lead in this paint. I cannot find air tests for lead from the interior of the building. In general terms, the presence of lead paint does not necessarily constitute a risk or a regulatory mandate to remove. Intact lead paint in good visual condition is not necessarily a health hazard. Disturb this material by demolition, sanding, grinding etc. and a substantial health risk can be produced.
Summary: Without the benefit of a site visit, based only on review of the reports and 33 years of industry experience, mold is likely creating an unpleasant place to work. Air testing for lead and asbestos should be performed to establish the exposure levels which are likely low.
Short Term Recommendations and Approximate Costs:Assuming air testing for asbestos and lead is completed and results are below the regulatory limits, mold can be resolve in the following manor:
1) Place basement and egress to outside under HEPA filtered negative pressure per EPA Recommended Practices for Mold Remediation. Transfer contents of these rooms to vented ocean freight containers for storage. Remove visible mold impacted building materials and disinfect with a biocide such as Microbar or Shockwave. Install several self draining dehumidifiers available at appliance stores or Home Depot. Prior to re occupancy, test area for airborne mold. Vortex report dated September 8, 2017, estimated mold abatement cost at $30,000, unable to confirm this cost without a site visit.
2) Clean up suspect asbestos debris in basement cubby hole and perform asbestos air testing to document exposure is below the Rhode Island, Non-Occupation Exposure Levels.
- Estimated Cost, Including Air Testing: $3,000- $6,000.003)
3) Perform airborne lead testing to document exposure is below federal levels (assuming non child occupied building )
- Estimated Cost : $1,000-$5,000.00
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at anytime.
Sincerely, Jim Hutzler President
YANKEE INGENUITY AT WORK
50 Industrial Way, Seekonk, MA 02771
(p) 800.729.5559 (f) 508.557.0229 www.yankeefiber.com
Asbestos, Lead & PCB Abatement · Mold Remediation · Industrial Cleaning · Air Duct Cleaning Polished Concrete · Epoxy & Industrial Coatings · Surface Preparation · Ultra High Pressure Water Jetting (40,000 psi) Shot Blasting · Sand Blasting · Dry Ice (CO2) Blasting · Wet Pumice Blasting · Concrete Moisture Testing
Saccoccio & Associates Letter
RE: Scituate Police Station – Probable Construction Costs
Dear Mr. McCormick,
Pursuant to our meeting and subsequent discussions I have prepared a statement of probable construction costs for a new 8,000 square foot police station to be located in Scituate, RI.
Based on our experience and research we have estimated the total project costs for the new station to be $3,234,175.00. This estimate includes all of the necessary components for both design and execution of the construction of the project. The attached breakdown details of all the costs included in our estimate. We have assumed a spring of 2018 as a start date. Further we have assumed that the site would not have any unusual site conditions such as ledge, hazardous materials etc.
The costs are based on our professional experience working in the public safety design and construction field. We did conduct research into some of the more recent Police station construction projects.
Several recently completed project examples are provided as back up to our estimate. The city and towns include Smithfield, Hopkinton, Coventry, Burrillville in Rhode Island and Millis MA. We also used a national cost estimating service RS Means. All of this information supports the final project cost data.
Saccoccio & Assoc. Inc. is a second-generation firm with 45 years’ experience in institutional design. Our work has been recognized and awarded for both our design and technical talents. Our public safety experience is extensive as we have completed multiple police and fire stations in both RI and MA. Our success over the years can be attributed to establishing realistic goals at the start to insure the project’s success.
Very truly yours,
Mark Saccoccio, NCARB/AIA
We Don't Need To Rush The New Scituate Police Station
Scituate residents will go to polls on Jan. 23rd to vote on a proposed new police station. While we strongly support the need for a new station, the project being promoted by the Town Council majority isn’t in the best interest of Scituate residents. We urge voters to avoid feeling as though “we have no choice but to support our police with THIS new station”. We want to you to know that there are alternatives that will better serve the needs of our police department, while at the same time creating a long-term solution for our community.
We should take a step back and establish a comprehensive plan for a new police station that considers all of the alternatives, including the best possible physical location for the station. We should immediately establish a new non-partisan committee (not dominated by the Town Council) to consider all alternatives in a fully transparent process with full community involvement throughout the process.
As is customary in most communities, we should also engage a consultant to assess the current and potential future needs of our town and to assist in the analysis of suitable locations for a new station. We have to plan for the long term, which should take into consideration the potential for future expansion into a full public safety complex to include our police, fire and rescue services. While the current needs can be met with a standalone police station, future generations will likely be faced with different challenges and the rash decision to
locate a new station in Chopmist Hill significantly limits future options. A nationally recognized consultant prepared a study for the town and advised that newly built facilities should be located on sites that allow for future expansion of services. The consultant noted, “The importance of a quality location is shown to be an investment far beyond construction costs.” Why tie the hands of our children and grandchildren with a hastily made poorly planned project that has been orchestrated by the Town Council majority?
The Town Council majority has created an environment of panic and despair that has left many residents feeling as though there are no alternatives to their proposed police station in Chopmist Hill. Residents resent the fact that decisions made by current Town Council majority have left many to feel as though our backs are against a wall. Well, that doesn’t have to be the case. We can vote NO on Jan. 23rd and send the Town Council majority the message that we don’t want to be forced to accept a poorly conceived project that doesn’t best serve the long term interests of our town. Let’s demand that a more thorough and transparent process be established for the placement and design of our new police station. Please come out and vote NO on John Mahoney’s police station.
Dave Campbell | Chairman, Scituate Republican Town Committee
Scituate GOP councilors OK’d budget, not mailing
Last Tuesday evening, the Town of Scituate held its Financial Town Meeting. The three Republican council members supported the proposed budget as being good for the town.
However, we did not have an opportunity to comment on the council majority’s newspaper distribution, something that none of us were consulted on or even knew about until we received it in the mail.
On behalf of myself and my fellow Republican councilors, I wanted to take this opportunity to let the people of Scituate know that while we supported the budget as presented at the FTM, we do not support the comments that accompanied the budget brochure.
We support the Town Meeting process. We believe that the Financial Town Meeting is an essential function of our local government because it puts the critical financial decisions in the hands of the taxpayers who foot the bill.
To eliminate the FTM would be to put those spending decisions in the hands of elected officials, and thus relinquish the people’s control over important decisions to once every two years in the general election cycle.
By having these important financial decisions made where the electors of the town can come, speak, and deliberate the proposed expenditures, we continue the purest form of democracy and ensure that the people of this town continue to make every important decision.
This process has always been, and we hope that it continues to be, a proper check on our elected officials – one that we have a say in and a hand in every year...not having to wait every two years at the November election time.
David A. D’Agostino, Brenda Frederickson, Charles A. Collins, Jr. - Scituate
Appeared on (4/11/18) in the Observer
Support public safety in Scituate
Scituate will be holding a Special Financial Town Meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 15, to offer residents the opportunity to have a discussion and vote on a public safety bond. The financing is being sought to provide funds to complete the construction of our police station, purchase a new multi-functional fire truck and address public safety needs at Town Hall.
Scituate embarked on the construction of a new police station in mid-2018 and the project came to a standstill in the fall. We are now faced with the task of completing the project with much work yet to be done. Approximately $860,000 of bond financing is needed to finish the project. Several significant items were not provided for in the original financing including the septic system, parking lot paving, security/information systems and legal/financing costs. As a community, we need to set aside the natural inclination to assign blame and come together to finish the building and move our police officers into a well-deserved new station. To that end, the town has retained a respected local contractor to provide experienced professional oversight of the remaining work on the station.
We are also asking voters to support the purchase of a new fire truck at an estimated cost of $1,000,000. The new quintuple truck (“Quint”) will replace our existing Quint truck, which, at 25 years old, is past its expected useful life. The Quint truck provides unique critical firefighting functions acting as a combined pumper and ladder truck. Our current Quint truck has routinely been out of service for extended periods with equipment and structural failures and unavailable replacement parts. We need to replace this critical piece of equipment and restore complete firefighting protection to our community.
Finally, we are seeking to address two separate safety concerns at Town Hall, a failed emergency generator and the lack of adequate secondary egress from the second floor. The existing generator is in excess of 25 years old, is currently inoperable and is in need of some costly repairs. We’ve been advised that our tax dollars are much better spent on a new generator to provide needed backup power in an emergency. Funding is also being sought to build a corridor connecting the two separate second floors at Town Hall. The current vacant second floor above the Town Council Chambers has only one way to exit rendering the existing offices unusable from a fire safety perspective. Connecting this section to the adjacent second floor will provide a secondary exit for emergency egress, which will in turn allow us to reoccupy the office space. The combined cost of these safety improvements is estimated to be $140,000.
In closing, these investments will all have a long life and therefore should be funded through long-term debt at current low interest rates. Please come out to the Financial Town Meeting to learn more about the proposed expenditures and exercise your right to vote on these important safety needs for Scituate.
Tim McCormick
Scituate town councilman
Appeared on (10/2/19) in The Valley Breeze
Let’s respect the chief’s right to privacy
Over the weekend of July 20, Scituate Town Council leadership and our Police Chief Don Delaere faced some very challenging conditions, which ultimately resulted in the chief being placed on administrative leave.
Fortunately, Chief Delaere has since returned to duty as the Chief of the SPD. Per the recommendation of our town’s solicitor, the circumstances surrounding the decision to place the chief on administrative leave can’t be disclosed due to the town’s obligation to safeguard the chief’s right to privacy.
Unfortunately, a few very vocal residents in town are exploiting the situation for political gain. They’ve been asking for all related documents (un-redacted) and for the full disclosure of the conditions under which the decision was made to place the chief on administrative leave.
Unfortunately, doing so could expose the town to costly legal actions while simultaneously denying the chief of his basic right to privacy. I’m sure that everyone understands these basic principles, particularly those individuals involved with practicing law. The residents demanding full disclosure don’t have the chief’s best interest in mind when they’re also challenging his basic right to privacy.
Let’s not fool ourselves. The individuals demanding full disclosure of all the documents and details are doing so in their own self-interest. They want to portray the Town Council as having an agenda or a vendetta against the chief.
Stop playing political games with Chief Deleare and join us in welcoming him back to duty.
Appeared on (8/28/19) in the Breeze
In town-paid FTM mailer, citizen comes under attack
All individuals should feel free to express their opinion and advocate for causes without fear of being intimidated or attacked by our elected officials.
Scituate residents recently received a mailing ahead of this year’s Financial Town Meeting (FTM), which was held on April 3. Included in this mailing was a letter addressed from Council Chambers. It’s important to note that this letter clearly came from the Town Council majority (led by John Mahoney), as none of the Republican members of the Town Council were aware of the letter’s existence. You can find a copy of this letter on the town’s website.
While not mentioned by name, I was clearly the target in the Town Council majority’s letter for exercising my individual right to advocate for our schools at the 2017 FTM. Recall that the school district had been slated to run a $1 million operating deficit and there was a dire need for additional funding. While I happened to be the subject of reprisal in the Town Council majority’s letter, this isn’t about me. This is about individual citizens feeling empowered to express their opinion and advocate for causes without fear of retaliation from our elected officials. In their letter, the Town Council majority accused me of coming to the FTM armed with “special interest supporters” when, in fact, I was acting alone over concern for the schools. I just felt that I was doing the right thing by advocating for the education of our youth.
In addition to criticizing my individual actions, the Town Council majority used their letter to attack the basic concept of the FTM. They referred to the FTM as an “antiquated” and “archaic” process whereby a “few select individuals” can “take control of the town’s budget." It’s blatantly clear that the members of the Town Council majority are not fans of the FTM and they would apparently prefer that it be abolished. They are certainly entitled to their opinion. That said, it’s patently wrong to have used our taxpayer dollars to promote their individual position on our longstanding form of governing.We expect more from our elected officials. They should respect our individual right to publicly express our opinions and to do so without concern over being bullied or intimidated.
Additionally, while the Town Council majority has the right to advocate for their favored form of governing, they shouldn’t be using our hard-earned taxpayer dollars to fund their ambitions. Push your agenda all you want but do it on your own dime!
Tim McCormick - Scituate
Appeared on (4/11/18) in the Observer
Frequently Asked Questions & Responses from members of the former Home Rule Charter Commission
Q. Why does the HRC place so much authority in the Town Council?
A. The Town Council is elected by a majority vote by the citizens of Scituate to govern the town. In the absence of a Charter, all authority and power is vested in the Town Council. However, the provisions of the Home Rule Charter specifically delineate the responsibilities of the Town Council in Article 4, Section 401a: “The Town Council is vested with the power to adopt, amend, and repeal ordinances, regulations, and rules for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety, welfare, and for the protection of persons and property; and with the power to provide for their enforcement by the enactment of appropriate fines, forfeitures, imprisonment, and penalties for the violation thereof.”
Q. Can a simple majority of the Town Council hire and fire the Town Manager?
A. In a seven (7) person Town Council, a simple majority would be four (4) members. From Article 6, Section 601d of the proposed Home Rule Charter: “…The Town Council may appoint one(1) of the candidates as Town Manager by an affirmative vote of at least five (5) of its members.” And from Article 6, Section 606: “The Town Council may remove the Town Manager from office by an affirmative vote of at least five (5) of its members in accordance with the Charter.”
Q. Why not have an elected Town Manager or Town Clerk?
A. Anyone who is eighteen (18) years of age and a resident of Scituate can run for any town office. Qualifications cannot be required for any elected position. It was determined by the Commission that any town position for which qualifications are desired and which receives a salary and benefits should be an appointed position to guarantee that a qualified candidate is given that position. Individuals who are appointed can be held to a higher level of accountability in the performance of their duties than an elected individual.
Q. Can Town Council members serve on the search committee for the Town Manager?
A. Article 6, Section 601b speaks to this question: “The Town Council shall appoint a committee of five (5) members to recommend candidates for the position of Town Manager. All five members of the committee shall be qualified voters and residents of the Town. The committee shall not include any Town Council members.”
Q. Does the Charter allow the Town Council to hire a Clerk without any credentials?
A. Article 7, Section 702 states: “The Town Clerk must have achieved the designation of a Certified Municipal Clerk at the time of his/her appointment or within two (2) years of being appointed or be otherwise qualified. The Town Council may extend the certification deadline for one year if the Town Clerk is actively working toward certification.”
Q. Does the Charter allow the Town Council to hire a Town Manager without any credentials?
A. Article 6, Section 602b addresses Town Manager credentials: “The Manager shall be chosen on the basis of executive and administrative knowledge and experience. At a minimum he/she shall hold a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university. Additionally, consideration shall be given to government experience in, or knowledge of, accepted professional standards in respect to the duties of Town Manager as set forth herein.”
Q. Why doesn’t the HRC include a recall provision for elected officials?
A. For a short term of office such as two (2) years for Town Council members such a provision is impractical. That said, Article 4, Section 403 addresses forfeiture of office for Town Council: “A Town Council member shall forfeit office if the member lacks, at any time during the term of office, any qualifications for the office prescribed by this Charter or by General Law of the State, or if the member intentionally violates any express provision of the Charter on three (3) or more occasions after receiving two (2) written warnings for the violation by the Town Council. Any forfeiture or removal shall be upon public hearing with due notice hereon.”
Article 9, Section 905c addresses the issue for members of the School Committee. “The oath of office shall not be administered to a member-elect nor shall any person continue to serve as a member of the School Committee if the person has entered a plea other than not guilty or is found guilty or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a felony or crime of moral turpitude.”
Q. Is it accurate to suggest that the committee that prepared the proposed HRC didn’t provide for any public input?
A. The Home Rule Charter Commission held 36 meetings according to the provisions of the Open Meetings Act. Public Comment was an agenda item and encouraged at all meetings but one. At no cost to the town, there has always been a phone line (401-474-3848) and email account (scituatehomerule@gmail.com) dedicated to facilitate communication by residents to the Chairperson of the Commission. This contact information was published in the Valley Breeze and is still available through the Town Clerk’s office.
Q. Why wasn’t there a presentation to the public that allowed for Q&A?
A. Members of the Home Rule Charter Commission had hoped to begin public presentations in March of 2020. Due to the unprecedented pandemic and restrictions on social gatherings, this has not been possible. At a spring Town Council meeting the Chairperson of the Home Rule Charter Commission offered to spearhead educational outreach which honored government Covid-19 restrictions. Following concerns of bias expressed by a few residents during public comment, her request was not approved.
Q. In the event that the HRC is approved, will the elected office holders for Town Clerk and Town Treasurer be forced out of office or will they be able to serve their full terms?
A. The elected office holders for Town Clerk and Town Treasurer will be able to serve their full terms. Article 21, Section 2102a speaks to this question: “At the Town general election in November 2020, offices previously filled by election, and which under the terms of this Charter are to be filled by appointment, shall become appointed upon the expiration of the term of that office or at such time as a vacancy in the office occurs. Offices previously filled by appointment shall continue to be appointed offices as provided in this Charter.”
Q. Why is there no provision for district voting for a least some of the Town Council members?
A. This was a topic strongly debated by the members of the Home Rule Charter Commission. Serious consideration was given to public comment. It was agreed that now was not the time to implement such a change in our town election procedures.
Q. Does the HRC require that three Town Council members must ask to have an item placed on an agenda for it to be required to be included on the agenda?
A. Article 4, Section 407c provides a process that guarantees that an item must appear on an agenda: “Any three (3) Town Council members shall have the right to require that an item be placed on any agenda of the Town Council in accordance with the notice requirements of the Rhode Island Open Meetings Act and the requirements of this Charter …”. Currently there is no provision requiring an item be on an agenda. With or without this HRC, any member of the Town Council can independently request that an item be placed on an agenda, but an affirmative response to this request is not guaranteed.
10/16/20