Cranston City Council Member Aniece Germain Addresses Boxing Controversy

At Thursday night’s committee meeting of the Safety Services Committee on May 27th, 2021, I voted yes to grant a license to CES company to organize a Boxing event at the Cranston Stadium on June 19th.

I am compelled to clarify the reasoning behind my vote.

I prefer not to go back and forth on social media to discuss my decisions. I have never done so, and I do not intend to start now.

First, I want to make clear that I respect my colleagues’ decisions against the approval of the Boxing application license. Second, I respect all those who spoke up against the license. We can agree to disagree. I am fine with disagreement.

I have always believed in the goodwill of people — unless proven otherwise.

While I do not feel that the issues are solely about financial concerns, I have disagreed with the decision to completely waive rental fees for the event. Thus, I requested that there be an allocation of funds to the city of Cranston, and as a result, the applicant has offered $500.

Let me add a little more context. My reasoning behind my support of the Boxing Application Event is as follows.

1. As I stated at the committee meetings on May 27th, 2021, I voted to approve the Boxing application because I believe the event will serve for the greater good of the people of Cranston. I maintain this position.
2. Although residents express disagreement about the license, the number of people in favor is far greater than those who oppose it.
3. As a body, we are to grant licenses based on the recommendations from our police officers, firefighters, and legal experts.  These recommendations were presented.
4. We follow policies and procedures to grant or deny projects in our city. And so, we have institutions who are charged with ensuring that our policies are appropriately, correctly and fairly, implemented.
5. Each one of us has their role. I certainly do not want to overstep my role vis-a-vis such as our police officers and our fire department.
6. When it comes to safety concerns raised, it is the task of the police department and fire department to reassure us. These officials indicated their approval of the safety plan. Given that, I am also in approval.
7. Although there are valid concerns about the policies, those who speak publicly to improve what needs improvement deserve consideration.  
8. It is not my purpose here to pre-judge the work of the police department, the economic development, and the city administration.
9. Granting a license does not imply a need to scrutinize the several institutions involved in the process.
10. I want to give these institutions the benefit of the doubt.
11. Perhaps, the time to question the judgment of those institutions overseeing this process (the licensing process) may come. However, that was not the purpose of the meeting on May 27th.
12. Having an event that will bring us together, that will offer hope to our residents as we emerge from a year of pandemic is, I believe, the right thing to do.
13. I voted yes.  I voted “Yes,” not because I was pressured, and not because I was afraid. I voted “Yes” and supported this application because the goal is bigger than being Democrat or Republican. As I have always said, I am committed to working together for the betterment of our city. For all of us, I intend to keep this promise even though my positions may not please everyone.