NORTH SMITHFIELD – Sarah LaFontaine and Elizabeth Hammond say it’s a love of their town that’s inspired a podcast focused on educating others about North Smithfield government, from the basic structure and function, to its major projects and controversies.
Their new series, “Public Comment” premiered on Monday, March 23 with a first episode introducing the program – and featuring plenty of solid, fact-based information on the town itself.
“We have five mill villages. We’ve got the Branch River and the Blackstone River,” said LaFontaine in Episode 1: Welcome to North Smithfield. “Our very first census that was ever recorded, we had a population of a little over 3,000 people.”
The latest census, LaFontaine notes, puts the population around 12,500.
Later in the episode, Hammond lays out information on local decision makers.
“One thing that is not unique about North Smithfield, but is different from other cities, is that all of our counselors are ‘at large,'” she said. “Unlike places where you might run to represent a district that’s a subset of your area, every counselor represents all of North Smithfield.”
With its more casual tone and occasional personal sidebars, the show aims to offer those with limited knowledge of their local government an accessible way to get involved.
“We really wanted something neighbor to neighbor,” Hammond told NRI NOW. “I think Sarah and I are both really into local politics. But part of what we were talking about was: what if you weren’t really into it?”
To understand local happenings, she noted, the pair may find themselves digging through news articles, meeting minutes and more looking for information.
“The average voter is not going to do that,” she said. “They don’t have the time.”
The town’s new podcasters are both parents and small business owners, and note they bring a dynamic to the conversation that’s sometimes missing from local political discussions, which tend to be dominated by older retirees. Hammond lived mostly in the suburbs of major cities including Denver, Washington, DC and Philadelphia, before settling down in North Smithfield, while LaFontaine is a Providence native whose husband’s family has lived in North Smithfield for generations.
Both work professionally as therapists and met through the North Smithfield Democratic Town Committee.
They note that modern day North Smithfield is a diverse mix of such families – with some that have lived here for generations mixing with a newer dynamic of young professionals attracted to the town as way to escape the high price of city living.
Hammond majored in political science in college and was once more right-leaning, even volunteering one year for the Conservative Political Action Conference. She notes that the meaning of such political labels changes on the local level.
“One of the things I love about local politics is that it really does break partisanship,” she said.
On Public Comment, she added, the focus will be providing factual information in a way that’s digestible.
“We are going to do our best to be fair,” Hammond said. “We are really trying not to put our opinions in there.”
For future episodes, “all are welcome,” Hammond added. “If you have an issue in town that you want to talk about, come on.”
And while they met through the NSDTC, the podcast, both women note, is an entirely independent endeavor – aimed simply at getting more people engaged – and that they hope the show will have broader appeal.
“I kind of want them to take away that politics doesn’t have to be scary,” said LaFontaine of her audience.
Hammond added that politics also don’t have to be boring, noting the goal is to tackle the topics with “connecting mom energy.”
Too often, they note, such focus is only on national issues.
“There’s not a lot of understanding of how the roads get paved and how the schools get funded,” Hammond said, adding that it’s local government that has the greatest impact on day to day life.
LaFontaine said she became aware of the need for such a program after she found herself digging through Facebook comments to try to understand what was going on in town.
“A podcast seemed like a really fun way to help people get involved,” she said.
Future episodes of Public Comment, they said, will tackle subjects including environmental regulations, capital projects and more, with new episodes set to come out once a month. In May, and episode dubbed “Guns and Groundwater,” will look at water protection issues in North Smithfield and also include an interview with a local gun advocate.
And as elections draw nearer, the women hope to feature many local candidates for office.
Feedback so far on the project, they say, has been very positive.
“Everyone has said it sounds professional,” said LaFontaine. “We’re really hoping to get some conversations started.”
Hammond said she hopes to help dispel the myth that the varying political factions in town hate each other, comparing the conflicts to a loving family that might bicker behind closed doors.
“It’s actually a really generous, compassionate town,” Hammond said. “People are just really passionate. I think that’s the face of North Smithfield that we really want to show. The people who live in North Smithfield just love their town so much, and I think that’s what makes it special.”
“Sarah and I love North Smithfield,” she added. “This is our forever home. We’re committed to this town and we’re committed to the people here. In the end of the day, we all just want the best for our town.”
Episode 1 of Public Comment is now available on Spotify, YouTube and Apple Podcasts, and those who hope to keep up with the conversation can also follow the podcast on Facebook here.
Please go back and read all the comments. How did this discussion devolve into an argument about bathrooms at the school field? I agree with Bryan but many procedures in town are less than ideal, if not outright unethical. The deeper I personally think the more intense that feeling.
However, just now and scrolling through the comments I almost forgot this article was about two women and a podcast, two women whom I feel are the wrong persons to be attempting such a fraudcast. That is just my opinion based on direct personal experience with both women and the North Smithfield Democrats Facebook group.
The thread definitely got derailed from the original article. I only brought up the bathrooms and the grant writer to showcase some of the worst examples of the process we are dealing with because jp wanted to say that their side didn’t do that.
Richard I agree but all you have to do is scroll through the comments to see who brought up what. And he refuses to thank me for getting the bathrooms and concession stand built for our kids when he’s the one who brought up the issue. Now that’s gratitude for you.
Isn’t that what you were elected to do? How much lavish thanks do you require?
Read the whole thread. It’s sarcasm.
This is a farce. Nothing but an extension of the North Smithfield Democrat machine that silences any dissent, question of thought or opposing views. Both of these persons are members of the NSDTC and have donated to such. They don’t want any public comment. They want to lecture you, let you know they are smarter than you and impose progressive views on the community. Don’t take the bait!!
It’s interesting to hear about silencing dissent from someone defending an official who tracked down a constituent’s commander to try and jeopardize their career for asking questions.
If you’re looking for a machine that stifles views, look at their habit of using personal attacks and outsider labels to avoid answering for their own record. I’m focused on North Smithfield stakeholders and professional conduct, you seem focused on partisan labels. Residents deserve better than the gatekeeping they are currently professing.
Big difference between asking questions as a concerned resident and stalking and making libel accusations; unbecoming conduct. But hey, you do you…
It isn’t stalking to remember the public actions of an elected official, and it isn’t libel to discuss facts that are part of the public record.
If the history were untrue, a career law enforcement person would certainly have pursued legal action to clear their name years ago. The fact that the record stands today speaks for itself, as did the follow-up from my commander, who, after looking into the matter, contacted them to state clearly that I had done nothing wrong.
I was simply exercising the 1st Amendment rights that I actively fight for. I’m focused on professional standards for North Smithfield stakeholders, you can keep focusing on the labels.
Over and over again you were insinuating backroom deals and that someone did something unethical without any proof. That doesn’t sound like facts that are part of a public record now does it ? The good news is your historical posts are in text for all to see. Also, being a commentary commando and chat warrior is far from someone who is focused on what’s best for residents. Those who are usually work for the town or are elected to serve. If you want to believe you are serving a purpose; by all means, again, you do you. But we all know what you are, and aren’t…
Over and over again, the point is proven. You want to talk about insinuations? Let’s talk about the concession stand and that original grant writer deal. Those weren’t rumors, those were backroom negotiations that only hit the public eye after it happened.
How can someone not on the council make a deal with a company on behalf of the council, instead of the council themselves?
The council president wanted to clear their name of the grant writer debacle, that’s when we found out about the text messages. It was so bad the candidate had to withdraw before finally deciding to follow a legitimate hiring process a couple of years later.
Go ahead and move the goalposts, but the public records from nri now and the valley breeze are right there. I don’t need to insinuate when the history is documented.
You can try to label the messenger, but you can’t erase the receipts.
Donnie Darko, thank you for pointing out two of my more notable accomplishments. We have Lisa Andosia as our grant writer today who has been a huge success for the town and we have an awesome bathroom/concession stand with clean running water that has already been used by hundreds of students and literally thousands of spectators. It sounds like you have an issue with both of these, so which one would you get rid of if you could? Or maybe both?
If you think those accomplishments, you might want to have a better understanding of the word accomplishments. I’m not willing to lower my standards for what has been done, and neither should the town. I guess we have a different definition of how management works, sorry yours has a low bar.
That’s a classic pivot by yourself again, but you’re answering a question I didn’t ask. No one is against bathrooms or against grants. I am against backroom processes, and I’m willing to bet most of the town is, too.
You can’t use a finished bathroom to justify a private citizen making unauthorized deals for the council. That’s a liability nightmare for the taxpayers.
The grant writer is a success now because you were forced to follow a legitimate hiring process after the text-message debacle blew up. The fact that they had to withdraw proves the original deal was indefensible.
I wouldn’t get rid of the results, I’d get rid of the grievance culture and the reputation tax that comes from skipping transparency, which I thought you said wasn’t just a buzzword. Why does North Smithfield have to get caught before it does things the right way?
Hey BM (and isn’t that just perfect?): that “backroom process/unauthorized deal” you refer to was simply a discussion between a private citizen (at the time) – John Beauregard – and the developer of the Iron Mine Hill Road solar farm. John and I then brought the project to both the NS Town Council and the School Committee (while I was serving as Chairman of NS Parks and Rec and John served on the committee), and the construction of the concession stand and bathrooms was supported by the School Department, the Superintendent of Schools, the NSYSA, Express Football, the NSAA and more. The approval to move forward came from a majority vote by the Town Council and School Committee, as supported by the Town Administrator.
How do I know all this? I was part of the process and advocated for this construction project since the Middle School was built now nearly 20 years ago. But you apparently believe “a private citizen making unauthorized deals for the council. That’s a liability nightmare for the taxpayers” is accurate and credible – in fact, nothing could be further from the truth and reality. Well done.
Perhaps it would serve you well if you actually knew the facts of the matter (or any matter) prior to putting fingers to keyboard, but you keep doing you, and we’ll keep reading with incredulity.
I think I have finally figured it out. Apparently anybody that has a conversation outside their own home, in person or not through the keys of a keyboard is considered a back room deal or shady. I think we cracked the code!
jp, are you trying to pass it off as just a casual conversation outside the home? In municipal government, a private citizen negotiating a town project with a developer is called bypassing procurement laws. Thanks for playing.
Someday when your children are playing at the field and they get to go to a nice clean restroom then wash their hands with clean warm water you’re going to want to call me and say thank you Mr. Beauregard. Thank you for getting these bathrooms built. Maybe you’ll even be at the fire works when that happens. Please don’t feel obligated to call me to say how wrong you were. I just want you to know one thing…you’re welcome.
The only one who has a grievance is you and less than a handful of others my friend. No matter what happens, you have a grievance. The keyboard commando unit led by NS blogger #1 are never satisfied, never happy, and are always insinuating back room deals, payoffs and bribes. The only reputation tax that’s being levied is when your group looks in the mirror. Again, keep doing you B. Looks like it’s working well for ya.
I really appreciate tiny stepping in to clarify this for everyone. By admitting that a private citizen was having discussions with a developer about town infrastructure before it ever went to the council, you just perfectly defined an unauthorized backroom deal. jp calls it an insinuation, but tiny just put the confession in writing. The retroactive rubber-stamp doesn’t make the front-end legal. Thank you for confirming the exact liability I was talking about.
The taxpayers funded that project, not your personal checkbook. Expecting residents to say thank you, for spending our money after bypassing standard operating procedure is exactly the kind of ego-driven management this town can no longer afford.
Since none of you can actually answer for the data, I’ll leave you guys to your backroom deals and grievance culture. If anything it’s thank you for showing me what not to do.
Hey BM (and there it is again): one significant fly in your ointment – John wasn’t serving on the TC at the time of the TC and SC votes to approve. Where exactly is the “exact liability”? Please be specific.
And by your (lack of) logic, should no private citizen bring anything beyond an idea to the TC? John was serving on NS P&R at the time – should NS boards and commissions representatives abstain from pursuing any potential opportunities to improve, or are your (deep-seated) issues only with John Beauregard trying to better NS?
Thanks in advance for your convoluted word salad response.
Donnie Darko or whatever other name you are using these days, anyway I will just say thank you again for pointing out these great accomplishments on behalf of the town. We were able to get the bathrooms and concession stand at a fraction of what it would have cost the town had we tried to do it ourselves. And because of what it would have cost we never would have even tried and the kids would still be using dirty Porta Jons and so would have grandma. If you give me your email address I will forward you some of my other accomplishments you can trumpet for me in your next post. Thank you so much.
Tiny asked for the exact liability without the word salad, but salads are healthy for you, maybe get some literate fiber in you, so I’ll keep this strictly to municipal governance facts for both of you.
A private citizen, even while on a board/commission has zero statutory authority to privately negotiate town infrastructure deals with a commercial developer. A retroactive vote doesn’t erase the front-end legal risk.
And jb just publicly admitted the project was done for a fraction of the cost of what the town would have paid. The reason municipal projects cost more is because towns are legally bound by competitive bidding, prevailing wage, and public procurement statutes. Using a private developer to bypass those laws to save money isn’t an accomplishment. It’s a circumvention of the town charter.
You’re still hiding behind not having my email address? Yeesh, it’s only been in your inbox since 2017, talk about grievance culture.
Public servants don’t get a thank you for bypassing standard operating procedures to build them. The fact that you demand gratitude for skipping the legal process proves exactly what I meant by the grievance culture.
I know for the next three days you’ll argue about the four major violations that the two of you actually said out loud, which is hilarious, so I won’t say which ones. But maybe you can do some of that own research and get familiar with the charter a bit more, as to prevent future incidents.
Well said JP.
Very well said.
How can I get a rooster?
Buy one then tell animal control to get a warrant before entering your property. Not hard.