Mediaboss Marketing

To the Editor:

Every citizen has a right to support local candidates for public office. Owning a business or having business dealings with candidates does not prohibit one from exercising their First Amendment rights. Campaign finance laws require full disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures to allow the public to see where the money flows around campaigns a very good thing. And the public has the First Amendment right to challenge what is disclosed. Most of us share the desire for clean, honest governance and this letter is written with that goal.

While watching the Narragansett Town Council meeting on August 17, one agenda item came out of the blue. Councilor Lema sponsored a change to an Ordinance which would extend the minimum distance between liquor stores from 200 feet to one mile. The second reading for this change to the laws of Narragansett was this past Monday evening, September 21. The change was passed unanimously on a 5-0 vote.

The campaign finance reports filed by the items sponsor, Councilor Richard Lema, disclose that on August 17, the very same day that the Town Council held a first reading of the change, a $500 check from the owner of ONeils Liquor, Martin ONeil, was deposited into his campaign account. On August 25, just eight days after the first reading, another check for $500 from Mr. ONeil was deposited; this time into the campaign finance account of Councilor Jill Lawler. A tad earlier, on August 07, a $200 check made its way again into Ms. Lawlers campaign account, this time from the owner of Bonnet Liquors, Mr. Sahagian.

Whereas accepting campaign contributions from people who own businesses in Narragansett is clearly not out of the ordinary, receiving a relatively large contribution from owners of the businesses --in this case, liquor stores -- who would directly benefit from a tailored Ordinance change is questionable, at best.

At Mondays meeting, we had hoped we would have the opportunity to ask the sponsor, Mr. Lema, to withdraw his Ordinance change or that both councilors who accepted these donations recuse themselves from voting on it. We did not have that opportunity as no public comment was allowed by Council President Matthew Mannix.

After passage of the Ordinance change and during the Open Forum portion of the meeting, both of us expressed our dismay and disappointment in these elected officials. Their defense is that accepting these donations is perfectly legal. Whereas they or we are not in a position to judge the legality of these donations, we can say that these transactions raise serious questions as to the judgment of these councilors placing themselves in a situation where there may be a perception of impropriety. As we often told our children just because you can, doesnt mean you should.

The Narragansett Town Charter specifically requires that public servants should treat their office as a public trust. Sec. 16-1-2: In treating their office as a public trust, public servants should act so as to ensure the reality and perception that government is conducted according to the highest principles of democracy with honesty, integrity and a concern for justice and is, therefore, worthy of respect, trust and support.

The inability of these elected officials to acknowledge their obligation to avoid even the perception of impropriety, demonstrates that they may not have the judgement or maturity required of their positions. Respectfully, we ask our fellow resident voters to keep all this in mind and choose wisely when you select the people who will serve us in the Town Council.

Meg Rogers

Phil Cote, M.D.

Follow this link:
Choose wisely when selecting the people who will serve us - Ricentral.com