Council OKs New Voting Districts

Facing a looming deadline to finalize the town's voting districts, the Johnston Town Council on May 7 approved new boundaries recommended by Electronic Data Services.

The Board of Canvassers is scheduled to meet at 3 p.m. today at to review and approve the town's new districts.

During the 35-minute session at Monday night, councilors approved the measure 4-0, with Councilman Ernest Pitochelli (I-Dist. 2) abstaining because he said he disagreed with the process that gave EDS the town contract for this year's redistricting.

"It's better than voting 'No,'" Pitochelli explained of his vote after he had asked several questions of Ryan Taylor from EDS about the cost of the company's work.

During the meeting, Town Solicitor William Conley explained to Pitochelli that the town was allowed under state law to award the contract without issuing Requests for Proposals (RFPs); Pitochelli said he felt the town still should have bid out for the work.

And when Pitochelli asked Taylor about the $36,990 maximum cost for the work done by EDS, as provided in the contract, Taylor replied that the town wouldn't be facing that kind of bill.

"Johnston won't have an invoice anywhere near $36,000 because the hours required for the project are somewhat minimal," Taylor explained.

After the session, Pitochelli said he still had an issue with the process.

"This thing was all cut-and-dry," Pitochelli stated. "When I asked whether it had gone out to bid, that was a foolish answer — when we spend $5,000 or more, it's got to be put out to bid."

Other councilors explained that they didn't feel they had enough time to review the proposed changes before having to vote on them — a problem they said was caused by the Rhode Island General Assembly .

"This council didn't have much input at all — actually, we had no input," Councilman David Santilli (D-Dist. 3) said. "Something has to be done in the future so that the council is involved in the process."

Council Vice President Stephanie Manzi (D-Dist. 5) explained that she felt the board of canvassers' decision to hold three meetings over the past few months, with individual councilors attending, also posed an issue.

"If we had had more time, we could have had multiple meetings," Manzi said. "It would have been nicer to have a large meeting — and we probably would have needed two of them, because we would have had to see it once and then come back and have another discussion."

Based on the 2010 federal census — which recorded a population increase of about 900 people since 2000 — the new voting boundaries are slightly different from the existing district lines, with District 1 (represented by Councilwoman Eilieen Fuoco) getting back an area along Plainfield Street that had previously been removed.

"What I lost, I gained back," Fuoco said of the redrawn map that moves about 120 people back to District 1. "If I gained 20 voters, then it's good — it basically evens out everything."

Council President Robet V. Russo found that his ward has also expanded in the area near Greenville and Atwood Avenues — by seven people.

The biggest changes happened between District 5, Manzi's ward, and Santilli's District 3, which run alongside each other on the western end of Johnston.

"Census-wise, I lost about 200 people — so, not a significant piece," explained Manzi, who added that it was the geographic changes that were more profound.

Because they were limited to moving so-called census blocks — areas of town marked off by population so that blocks of equal population can be created — councilors had to approve a switch of two large parts of the two districts to conform with state law.

"Originally, what had happened was we thought maybe we could move a piece to District 3, but the census block [was too big to allow it]," Manzi explained. "The presentation they made here, I think, was a little different than when we were in that original meeting. I asked, 'Can we just move it by street?' [And the reply was] 'Yes, yes, yes' — and then when we got to that meeting, it wasn't the case."

Correction: This article was edited after first publication to remove a reference to the board of canvassers deciding on polling places. That decision will be held at a future meeting to be scheduled.