Following the recent adoption of an ordinance amendment expanding the number of judgeships on the Municipal Court roster, the City Council during a brief special meeting on April 15 made appointments to fill the new seats.

Steven Moretti was confirmed as the court’s fifth associate judge after being nominated by Council Vice President Ed Brady. The 5-3 vote was along party lines, with Democratic Ward 1 Councilwoman Lammis Vargas absent from the Zoom meeting. Moretti, who was logged in for the meeting, was sworn in at its conclusion.

After the vote on Moretti’s appointment, Citywide Councilman Robert Ferri nominated Raymond Coia to serve as the court’s second auxiliary judge. Coia’s nomination was approved on an 8-0 vote. He was not present for the meeting.

The council in March approved an ordinance amendment sponsored by Council President Chris Paplauskas and Ward 6 Councilman Matthew Reilly, at the request of Municipal Court Chief Judge Matthew Smith, seeking to add one new associate judge and one additional auxiliary judge to the existing bench.

Prior to the amendment’s passage, the court was composed of the chief judge, a senior associate judge, four associate judges and one auxiliary judge. Now, there are five associate judges and two auxiliaries.

Smith told the council earlier this year that the new positions were being requested to help address a large caseload at the court as the pandemic eases and activity picks back up. He also said the new slate of judges appointed in January includes a number of attorneys with “thriving, active legal practices,” which “makes it a little more problematic” in terms of scheduling.

The ordinance amendment was approved in March on a 6-3 vote that fell largely along party lines, with Vargas joining the majority. The councilwoman asked at the time, however, that the council receive a future update whether the new positions had helped the court catch up on its caseload.

During the March meeting, Citywide Councilwoman Jessica Marino proposed an amendment that would have added only the new auxiliary judge. That amendment failed 5-4 on a party-line vote.

Marino in March said she opposed the expansion of the Municipal Court’s roster given how large it is compared with the benches in other Rhode Island communities, including neighboring Providence and Warwick. An attorney herself, she said while she is “sympathetic” to the demands the court faces, it would be more “responsible” to limit the size of the bench.

“We already are the only city that has as many judges as we do,” she said. “I think it sends the wrong message to add even more.”

Others, including Stephen Angell, the City Council’s legal counsel, defended the expansion of the court.

“Cranston has grown exponentially over the years, and the capacity of the court has not grown with it,” Angell said in March.

The brief special meeting last week included no discussion or debate on the nominees. It was markedly different from the January appointment of the rest of the court’s bench for the current term, which was held following the inauguration of the new council and included some contentious debate. Coia, during that meeting, was unsuccessfully nominated for chief judge.

Ultimately, the January meeting ended with the appointment of the most diverse bench in the Municipal Court’s history, including Angelyne Cooper as the first Black judge to serve in Cranston.

It also led to new calls for changes to the Municipal Court appointment process, which has typically been a formality on inauguration night. In the council’s last term, former Councilman Steve Stycos introduced an unsuccessful ordinance amendment that would have required a public hearing process for court appointments.

Third-party delivery systems ordinance continued

The City Council’s Ordinance Committee on April 15 voted to continue consideration of Ward 3 Councilman John Donegan’s proposed ordinance creating new requirements for third-party food delivery services in Cranston, based on questions over legal concerns and the similar legislation currently under consideration at the State House.

Donegan’s proposal is a revised version of a similar measure he introduced last year. It would third-party food delivery services – which are not named specifically, but include DoorDash, Grubhub and others – to obtain a $100 annual permit to operate in Cranston and obtain written consent from any restaurant whose menu is offered through the service. The proposal would establish fines for violators and allow dining establishments to seek damages in Municipal Court.

Donegan said he believes the new rules are necessary to protect Cranston food establishments due to the growth of third-party food delivery services during the pandemic. Some of the services, he said, charge fees of up to 30 percent for restaurants to be listed.

There are also cases, he said, in which a restaurant has been listed without its consent, or where its menu or hours of operation are incorrect – all of which can result in a negative customer experience and a detrimental impact on the establishment involved.

Just like any other business that does operate in the city, it’s important that we have an idea who’s operating here, and to a certain degree, they are regulated,” Donegan said.

He added: “It’s important that we protect businesses here in Cranston. That’s what this will do.”

Others were skeptical of the proposed ordinance. During public comment, former councilman Michael Favicchio urged the council to exercise “caution,” suggesting the measure “targets” third-party services for restaurants when other businesses take a similar approach to delivery.

“I think it’s going to be very, very difficult to create an enforceable ordinance,” he said, adding: “I can see so many pitfalls if you do this.”

Attorney Robert Murray also spoke during public comment, saying he represents a number of local restaurants which were able to weather the pandemic due largely to the use of outside delivery.

“There were days that the only business my clients did was through these third-party services,” he said.

Murray said while Donegan’s proposal is “well intentioned,” he believes it would likely result in a legal challenge. He also questioned the use of Municipal Court as part of the ordinance’s enforcement mechanism, saying the court is not set up to handle such complaints.

Assistant City Solicitor John Verdecchia also expressed concern over “some of the provisions” in Donegan’s proposal, including the involvement of Municipal Court in enforcement. He additionally noted that the Rhode Island Senate is currently considering legislation to address the issue, with Cranston Sen. Frank Lombardi among the cosponsors.

Verdecchia suggested he could expand on his concerns during an executive session with council members. Citywide Councilwoman Nicole Renzulli asked Donegan if he would agree to delay further consideration until that closed session could be held.

“I absolutely love the concept of it,” she said of Donegan’s proposal.

Donegan agreed to the continuation, expressing appreciation for the “genuine desire to work together on this.”

Diversity Commission ordinance clears first hurdle

Cranston is on course to formally establish its Diversity Commission through a new ordinance.

On a 6-0 vote, the City Council’s Ordinance Committee on April 15 backed the proposal, which is cosponsored by Citywide Councilwoman Jessica Marino, Ward 1 Councilwoman Lammis Vargas and Ward 2 Councilwoman Aniece Germain. It goes before the full council for consideration on April 26.

The city’s most recent Diversity Commission was created through a resolution in 2019. That panel was charged with creating a report focused on making the city’s workforce more reflective of an increasingly diverse community. Its work led to a change in Fire Department hiring policies, under former Mayor Allan Fung, to make the EMT-C cardiac care certification a post-employment requirement in an effort to eliminate cost barriers.

The new commission established through ordinance would have a similar mission, charged with taking steps to “foster engagement, solicit feedback and testimony from residents, stakeholders and police makers from across the city in the context of reviewing the city’s services, programs, hiring and recruiting practices as well as diversity/inclusion policies in order to facilitate implementation of solutions that encourage diversity.”

The current language of the ordinance proposal would require the commission to submit reports every June and December to both the mayor and City Council.

The proposed composition of the new commission appears certain to change ahead of the council’s final vote. Currently, the language of the ordinance provides for 13 members, including two council members, two public safety personnel, multiple representatives of the mayor’s administration, a representative of the NAACP’s Providence branch, and a representative of the OneCranston Health Equity Zone. It would also include four members of the public – two appointed by the mayor, and one each by the council president and council minority leader.

Marino last week said there’s “been a lot of outreach and outcry from the community, across the city, about the need for this commission.” She also said she has received feedback from residents suggesting that the commission’s composition be altered to make it more reflective of the community at large, rather than city officials.

Germain agreed, saying: “I share the sentiment that we need to open it to more community leaders in this city.”

Ward 3 Councilman John Donegan also said changes to the composition of the commission “could make it stronger.”

“I think we all know it’s much needed, and it’s an important step toward bringing more equity,” he said.

Citywide Councilwoman Nicole Renzulli said she views incorporating youth representation on the commission – particularly from teenagers – as “super important.”

Council Vice President Ed Brady called diversity an “incredibly important discussion and issue.”

Added Citywide Councilman Robert Ferri: “I think we all want the same thing from this.”

There was consensus among council members that amendments regarding the commission’s composition would be brought before the full body on Monday.

Pepper Mill Lane zoning change withdrawn

A request to reclassify property on Pepper Mill Lane from A-80 to A-20 residential zoning has been withdrawn by the applicant.

An April 13 letter, attorney Robert Murray, representing the applicant, David DelFino, informed City Clerk Leanne Zarrella that his client “has chosen not to pursue this change of zone at this time” and wished to withdraw the petition. The City Council’s Ordinance Committee had been due to consider the zoning change at its April 15 meeting.

The Planning Commission on April 6 narrowly issued a negative recommendation on the zoning change. The 5-4 vote saw commissioners Fred Vincent, Joseph Morales, Robert DiStefano, Kathleen Lanphear and Ann Marie Maccarone in the majority, while Michael Smith, Robert Coupe, Ken Mason and Robert Strom dissented. Planning Department staff had issued a favorable recommendation on the zoning change, finding it consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and future land use map.

During last week’s Ordinance Committee meeting, Assistant City Solicitor John Verdecchia said the proposal would have to be resubmitted as a new application if the property owner wished to change course and seek approval for the zoning change. He said because the petition was withdrawn, he does not believe any waiting period would apply for resubmission.

The change from A-80 to A-20 zoning would have allowed for the creation of several more lots through the subdivision of the property. A-80 zones have a maximum lot size of 80,000 square feet, compared with 20,000 square feet in A-20 zoning.

This was not the first time the owner of the Pepper Mill Lane property sought a change to A-20 zoning. The City Council in 2014 rejected a similar request after neighbors in the area cited a host of concerns, including traffic and effects on home values.

Similar issues were raised by public speakers during the Planning Commission’s meeting earlier this month, which ran late into the night after discussion of the preliminary plan approval for the Natick Avenue solar installation.

ATV ordinance on track for approval

New rules strengthening the ability of police to crack down on the illegal use of ATVs, dirt bikes and similar vehicles on city roadways are on course for adoption by the City Council next week.

Without discussion, the council’s Ordinance Committee on April 15 gave its backing to an ordinance amendment sponsored by Council President Chris Paplauskas that he said “kind of mirrors what Providence has on their books.”

The amendment adds new language to Cranston’s existing ordinance on vehicles and traffic, establishing a new $500 fine for operators of illegal off-road vehicles and creating a new mechanism through which those vehicles can be subject to forfeiture after seizure by police.

One amendment was made at Paplauskas’s request last week, with language added prohibiting the use of off-road vehicles on “property, public roadways, or protected conversation areas, lands and trails within the city of Cranston.”

“We’ve been having issues with off-road vehicles destroying the trails,” he said.

The off-road vehicle issue has gained widespread attention, particularly in Cranston and Providence, as a result of several high-profile instances involving large groups of ATVs and dirt bikes.

During a joint press conference last month, Cranston Mayor Ken Hopkins, Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza and the police chiefs of both communities announced the creation of a new task force to address the issue.

Hopkins, who had issued executive orders regarding ATVs and dirt bikes earlier in March, also said at the time that his administration plans to ship seized ATVs and dirt bikes to the Dominican Republic for use by police in that nation’s capital city.

During a recent interview with the Herald, Cranston Police Chief Michael Winquist said the amount of illegal off-road vehicle activity had quieted after the initial series of incidents during the first months of the year.

“Honestly, what we’re hearing from residents and kind of on our own patrols, we’re not seeing close to the same level of activity … We have been working very hard and in concert with the Providence Police department,” he said.

He added: “We think maybe the message has been well received by the groups or individuals who are out there.”

-- Daniel Kittredge