Mayor vetoes ordinance to alert council on employees


An ordinance that would require the city’s administration to alert the Warwick City Council about the firing or hiring of all city department heads within 24 hours that was unanimously passed by the council was, in turn, vetoed by Mayor Scott Avedisian as what he viewed to be a breach of the council’s powers.

“Notice shall be given to all members of the City Council within twenty four (24) hours of when a Department Director, Department Deputy Director, acting Director, acting Deputy Director, Division Chief or other person in charge of a City agency or Authority separates from the service of the City, whether said separation occurs by retirement, resignation or other type of termination of service,” the ordinance reads. “Notice shall also be given to all members of the City Council within twenty-four hours of when a person is appointed or contracted to serve in any of the above positions.”

The ordinance passed its second reading unanimously and without discussion from any on the council during their meeting last Monday on March 5.

On March 8, Mayor Avedisian sent a letter to the council explaining that he was vetoing the ordinance, as he felt the mandate was above and beyond the city council’s power as the legislative body of the city.

“My objections to each of the ordinance amendments is based on my assertion that this action by the City Council exceeds its authority as set forth in the Warwick Charter and the Code of Ordinances whereby the City Council has no authority to direct and/or intrude into the executive or administrative branch of Warwick’s government,” Avedisian stated in the letter. “All administrative and executive authority in the city’s government is reserved in the office of the Mayor.”

Avedisian said in his letter that he found the demand to be “unrealistic and unduly burdensome,” and gave an example of a city department head being hired or let go on a Saturday, which would require city staff to work on Sunday in order to alert the council to fulfill the notification requirement.

“Respectfully, I urge the City council not to override this veto,” the letter continued. “This ordinance amendment unreasonably and unnecessarily intrudes into and interferes with the role and duties of the Mayor.”

Council president Joseph Solomon said on Monday that the catalyst for the ordinance was when the council went to perform abatements in early January only to find out that tax assessor Christopher Celeste had resigned following a dispute prior to Christmas – a development that the council was not made privy to.

“I think whether it be the city council or the general public, when you have to deal with a department or a department head, if you pick up the phone you expect to speak to that department head or an acting head,” Solomon said. “To find out they’re no longer there, it's a surprise.”

While Solomon didn’t comment on whether or not the council would override the veto or not – as that would be a decision for the whole council to decide – he said he would be open to an amendment that would address the mayor’s concerns regarding the possibility of city staff having to work on the weekend, he stood by the merits of the ordinance.

“I know my opinion is that I think the legislation is good legislation,” he said. “I am open to an amendment for a reasonable timeframe.”


8 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment

The ordinance the City Council UNANIMOUSLY voted in favor of should be labeled the "Open Government Ordinance" because that's exactly what it is. Keeping the Council updated of major decisions like firings are what good government is all about. It's called working as a team, as opposed to working behind the back of the City Council.

Avedisian stated that keeping the Council updated this way was "unrealistic and burdensome". He' wrong. It's "respectful and open". If the Mayor isn't hiding his intentions he shouldn't be hiding his actions. That's not "Open Government". That's "Government-behind-closed-doors". I believe Mayor Avedisians intentions were personal. Chris Celeste, according to several of his co-workers, did an excellent job.

I won't allow "government-behind-closed-doors". This city doesn't belong to the Mayor. It belongs to the taxpayers represented by the nine members of the City Council AND the Mayor, as a team.

When the Council learned of the demise of Chris Celeste WEEKS after it happened, that was a sign of total disrespect on the part of the Mayor. Was it "unrealistic and burdensome" to let your partners know of that "resignation" and the details surrounding it? I don't think so, and as Mayor I won't EVER keep decisions secret, especially from the City Council. They have a right to know everything that's going on in City hall so they can represent the taxpayers best interests.

Congratulations City Council, for once again protecting the 80,000 taxpayers that are paying the tab.

Happy Spring everyone.

Rick Corrente

The Taxpayers Mayor

Tuesday, March 13

And Richard,

As Mayor of the Munchkins in Lollipop Land, you will have the authority to do anything you wish. You can have executive meetings with Glinda (the good witch) and discuss the safety measures you will institute to protect the Munchkins from the Wicked Witch of the West. You can get together with the former mayor of the Munchkins and figure out if he, much like yourself, was a tax cheat and burden to the rest of his neighbors.

And finally, you can organize that parade that you want so badly. You can have it on an annual basis when Dorothy, the TinMan, an the Cowardly Lion take their walk down the Yellow Brick Road.

Tuesday, March 13


You hit the nail right on the head. The fake "mayor" is so delusional that he clearly lives in the Land of Oz.

Here are a few more examples that he so willingly provides to prove your point:

- "It's called working as a team..."

To reasonable people, passing a budget based on a 99-percent tax collection rate, over the objections of the city treasurer, is not a sign of teamwork. Stalling needed repairs and upgrades to city equipment is not a sign of teamwork.

But the fake "mayor" is not a reasonable person. He continues to claim there are 80,000 taxpayers in Warwick; make other statements that have been proven objectively false; and refuse to answer for the ethically questionable and potentially illegal campaign activities that are exposed here:

- "I won't EVER keep decisions secret..."

Except, as the first article proves, he did not report campaign spending on a political advertisement or his campaign office, for which he paid $4,000 in 2016 to the same person who previously paid the delinquent tax bill on the fake "mayor's" residence.

So, by refusing to report the ad spending and putting the former campaign office under his business, the fake "mayor" is, indeed, trying to keep secrets from Warwick voters.

Tuesday, March 13
Warwick Man

Always the same three clowns commenting. Get a life boys. It’s out there.

Tuesday, March 13

Warwick Man I am disappointed not to be included. And I guarantee you I don't have a life.

Wednesday, March 14

Don't let WM get you down, Justanidiot. You're one of us, along with Thecaptain, Kammy, and Scal. I may be forgetting others, but that seems to be the group of readers who are tired of the mayer posting his false information.

Maybe Warwick Man likes being lied to, or maybe he doesn't think other readers should do research and challenge the fake "mayor," whose entire goal seems to be calling attention to himself -- and then whining when others DO pay attention to him and prove him to be a liar.

Clearly, he doesn't think exposing a candidate for the liar that he is represents "having a life" -- but dropping into a comment board to scold other readers does. In the end, it won't matter. The fake "mayor" will continue making his pathetic and delusional statements -- and we will continue proving them false -- as long as the Beacon lets him use their website as a free campaign platform.

Wednesday, March 14

Warwick Man, when you say "always the same 3 people" and "get a life" that implies that you're reading all the comments from people you seem to be bashing. I'd ask you...which is more pathetic...the people who seem to care, and comment for the better of the city? Or some random creeper who clearly spends his time reading all the comments he bashes, yet contributes NOTHING to the dialogue or this page?

Riiiiighhhtttt. Move along...

Wednesday, March 14

I think this ordinance is ok as long as it has a reasonable timeframe of like 5 days. The mayor (Avediasian, the actual, real mayor) has a point on that 2 days being too short.

5 hours ago