Cranston council debates mayoral absence, splits over Charter notification practice

Council President Marino and Mayor Hopkins sparred at the Feb. 24 Cranston City Council meeting over whether the mayor properly notified the council when he was out of state for roughly 11 days in early February.

The dispute centered on Section 5.07 of the City Charter, which the council president read aloud and cited to argue that she should have been told the mayor would be out of state more than 10 days. The mayor, in remarks to the council, said he performed his duties remotely and that he had designated his chief of staff in writing to act if needed.

The debate drew repeated legal and policy clarifications from the city solicitor and Administration Director Tony Moretti. The city solicitor told council members the charter’s 10‑day language applies when the mayor is “temporarily unable to perform the duties” and said the charter text contains no express notice requirement to the council. Moretti said he had received and sent messages during the mayor’s absence and that the mayor remained in contact with department heads.

Council President Marino said she visited City Hall after learning staff and residents were asking where the mayor was and said she had not been told the mayor’s return date: “It is completely unacceptable that I have not been informed this by you and your staff.” The mayor responded, “I stand by my credentials as your mayor. The city is in great shape,” and argued he remained available and performed duties during the trip.

Several council members urged that the charter language be reviewed to reflect modern communications such as email and cell phones; others said the incident amounted to a miscommunication that could be fixed by simple courtesy emails. Council members also debated whether both the council president’s letter and the mayor’s response should be entered into the public record. Council President Marino said she would not pursue a formal vote to enter the letters into the record that evening.

No formal action altering the mayor’s authority or the charter was taken. The solicitor advised the council that any change to notice or succession procedures would require a charter amendment and, therefore, action by voters. Several councilors asked staff to circulate the written material they referenced and suggested placing a charter‑review item on a future agenda.

The session included repeated references to internal communications, the effect of modern devices on continuity of government, and concern from members who said city employees had been reluctant to raise questions about operations while the mayor was away. The council president said the item was intended to ensure clarity for city staff and residents going forward.