Fire District Accused Of Violating Open Meetings, Campaign Finance Laws

Three East Greenwich residents – all members of the EG Republican Town Committee – have filed a complaints with the state Attorney General and the state Board of Elections claiming the EG Fire District commissioners acted unlawfully when they voted to spend up to $2,000 on a mailing to residents listing five reasions why the EGFD should not merge with the town.

The postcard was mailed to residents in advance of the election Nov. 6 that featured a ballot question asking voters if they thought the EGFD should be merged with the Town of East Greenwich. Currently, they are two separate governmental entities. 

The Town Council had voted to place that question on the ballot.

The postcard (a copy is attached, right) listed five reasons "why the EG Fire District should remain autonomous":

• Strong governance open and transparent.
• No debt through proper planning. 
• On average lower tax increases than the town.
• State of the art equipment and training.
• Singular focus on fire and rescue services.

The complaint sent to the Attorney General, filed by Chuck Newton, Elizabeth Smith, and Edward Field, argued the Fire District meeting Oct. 25 was in violation of the open meetings law because of an “absence of prior notice regarding consideration of political involvement by the Fire District in a campaign to promote rejection of the referendum question.” 

The complaint also cited "the absense of prior notice of plans to vote on an expenditure of public funds for a political mailing." (A copy of the complaint is attached as a pdf, right.)

The agenda for that meeting Oct. 25 included the item: “Discuss non-binding
referendum public meeting forum.”

To Commission Chair Bill Daly, that language covered both the postcard and the expenditure vote.

“In no way does it say we’re urging people to vote against it,” he said. “We just gave reasons why we should remain autonomous.”

EGFD lawyer Scott Spear was not at the meeting Oct. 25, but Daly said Spear had been apprised of the board's intent and did not raise objections. 

Spear, through an assistant, said he had no comment. 

The Fire Commissioners voted 4-1 in favor of sending the postcard, with Mark Gee the only dissenting vote.

Gee said Tuesday he objected to the postcard for two reasons. 

“I voted against the funds and the whole idea of sending out the card,” said Gee. “I felt that it should not be an ocassion where we took sides.”

Gee said he also questioned the legitimacy of the vote "because we weren't registered as a PAC [political action committee]."

Newton, Smith, and Field's complaint to the state Board of Elections echoes Gee's statement.

"By injecting itself in a local political issue campaign, and expending funds in excess of $100 therefor, the Fire District rendered itself subject to the Rhode Island Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reporting Act which requires the District to register under the act, and report expenditures made in an effort to influence voters on a public issue," the complaint reads. (A copy of that complaint is also attached as a pdf, right.)