NORTH SMITHFIELD – Voters have rejected the idea in the past, but the wording and circumstances have since changed, at least according to one councilor who hopes to put the question of whether or not North Smithfield should convert to a town manager form of government back on the ballot this November.
Councilor Douglas Osier presented the plan at a public hearing Monday night, also pulling for a second question to be asked of North Smithfield voters that would change the election cycle for future council members to staggered four year terms.
According to the proposed language, the change would take effect in December of 2028, when members of the council would appoint a new town manager to replace the position of what is currently an elected town administrator. A draft of the resolution put together with help from Town Solicitor David Igliozzi outlines the proposed qualifications and duties of the new town manager, who would serve at discretion of the council.
A second question would determine if the top three vote getters among council candidates in the 2028 election cycle would serve four year terms, with the remaining two members to serve for two years. Staggered election cycles for the seats, with all those elected in the future to serve for four years, would go in to effect in 2030.
On Monday, the plan’s two biggest opponents were uncommon allies: Councilor John Beauregard and resident Michael Clifford.
Beauregard noted that the issue went before North Smithfield voters in both 2010 and 2018.
“It was defeated overwhelmingly,” said Beauregard. “The people have spoken. Are we going to just keep doing it until it passes?”
Beauregard also noted under the proposed qualifications neither of the town’s current candidates for the administrator position, Scott Gibbs and Elizabeth Newberry, would qualify.
“The people that support these people are very enthusiastic about each of their candidates,” he said. “Let the people decide.”
Osier responded to the objections stating that the wording in the 2018 ballot question was confusing.
“This is different,” Osier said. “This is not about anybody who’s running now.”
“This model works. It works in a lot of cities and towns,” he added. “Town government is becoming more and more complex. We should be looking at skilled professionals to come in and manage the town.”
Clifford said that while he’s in favor of the idea of the town manager form of government, he felt it was too soon to put the question back before voters.
“What’s the rush?” Clifford asked. “Every time you rush into something it gets screwed up. Why can’t this wait until the next election?”
“I don’t believe in kicking the can down the road to the next council,” replied Osier.
Resident Steve Biron told the council that voters approved a ballot question the should have created staggered terms in 1998, but the town lost a lawsuit in Superior Court challenging the change.
Text of that decision, found here, cites the absence of a explicit voter mandate that would have been needed to approve lengthened terms for town council and school committee members to enact the charter change. At the time, the judge noted that if the amendments contained language with respect to the lengthened terms, “this case would not have seen the light of day.”
Some on the council did seem open to Osier’s plan.
“I don’t have a problem putting it on the ballot,” said Councilor Paulette Hamilton. Of the question regarding council terms she added, “It makes sense to have some continuity.”
She noted, however, that residents should have more time to look at the proposed language, found here.
“I’d love to hear from people,” Hamilton said.
Councilors tabled the initiative this week to Monday, August 6 in hopes to allow more residents to weigh in before they decide if the ballot questions will move forward. The delay means that if they ultimately do hope to have voters weigh in this year, the initiative will come down to the wire. The questions will also need approval of the Board of Canvassers with a deadline to transmit the language to the Secretary of State by August 7.
Nothing like putting something into the workings of N.S. that could make someone running now, with an impeccable resume, and who may serve more than one term, decide not to run after all! Knowing they could be terminated if they do not fit the new TM mold in the making in 2028.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
The effort to “put the question of whether or not North Smithfield should convert to a town manager form of government back on the ballot this November” is ill-conceived at best. Defeated by NS voters resoundingly (twice in the past 14 years, by what I believe was approximately 2 to 1 margins both times), we are now to look at a referendum that had “confusing wording” (actually somewhat insulting to the electorate) for a third time, considered only months before the 2024 general election? Why? I agree with Mr. Clifford – what’s the rush?
I served as Vice-Chairman on the NS Charter Review Commission when the referendums were put to voters in 2018. The question of an appointed Town Manager was the only one of 9 that was rejected – I’d say we did our job pretty well. If we are to once again make changes to the NS Town Charter, we should again convene a CRC and let them consider, hold hearings, vet and propose accordingly to the TC for review, and then go back to the voters. This can happen in 2026; there is no valid reason to hastily push this agenda. And to at this time potentially turn a new Town Administrator into a four-year lame duck from the day he or she is inaugurated is a very bad idea. How about we put together another CRC and do it right – once again?
Agree, how many times do we need to say NO ?
I believe that changes are in order to benefit the residents and taxpayers in the Town of North Smithfield. Professionalism, respect and the ability to lead this town have been lacking, certainly during the tenure of the current TA. I do disagree with Mr. Beauregard’s assertion that neither individual currently running would meet the requirements. I believe that Mr. Gibbs exceeds the educational requirements and has the requisite skills to easily administer, leverage and negotiate professional contracts on behalf of town residents should he choose to run again in 2028.
The duties of this new position will not take effect until 2028 and I believe until that time, Scott Gibbs is the man for the job.
Agree. Gibbs certainly does have an outstanding record. Is connected. Optimistic.
One does not need to be certified to be a town manager either, just loads of experience, determination, and know-how. Kinda makes me anxious to see how he will organize this town! Turn it into a fine-tuned team. Make ppl happy to go to work. No more baloney.