Attorney Larisa literally covers up what he did with our tax dollars
Recently,
the CCA started
drumming up paranoia
about their favorite hobgoblin, the Narragansett Indian tribe, playing on Charlestown’s
primal fear of an Indian casino in town. True to form, they sent in the town’s
paid Injun fighter, town “Special Counsel for Indian
Affairs” Joe Larisa, as
their front man
to make the case that the Tribe just can’t be trusted.
But
this time, rather than just let Larisa spew, the Tribe fired back. Two of their
leaders even went so far as to call Larisa and the CCA out for racism and propaganda. To read
their remarks to the Westerly Sun, click here, here and here.
I
was curious about what kind of money we were paying Larisa to fight what has
become a nonexistent threat and even an embarrassment. I had an earlier figure
that Charlestown had paid Larisa $169,000 for a job that essentially ended
when the state of Rhode Island took over the Carcieri v. Salazar US Supreme
Court case in 2008. I wanted to get a more complete and recent figure.
So
I did what I usually do and on August 8, I filed a request for Larisa’s bills
and records of the town’s payments to Larisa from 2007 to the present under the
state “Access to Public
Records Act (APRA).”
 |
| Larisa fights against all things Narragansett - and we pay for it |
We pay Larisa a regular retainer of $2050 a month ($24,600) just to be there, plus $130 an hour and costs if he actually does anything.
Since 2008, Larisa has pretty much acted against Charlestown’s interests, as he did when he worked to block negotiations between the Tribe and Governor Chafee to discuss the Tribe taking over the troubled Twin River slot parlor in Lincoln.
Indeed, Town Council Boss Tom Gentz reported at tonight's (September 10) Town Council meeting that he and Larisa recently went to see Governor Lincoln Chafee to try to undo any progress the Tribe might have made in its own discussions with the Governor. For some in Charlestown, the King Phillip's War will never end.
That meeting, by the way, will show up on the town's tab with Larisa at $130 an hour.
Since 2008, Larisa has pretty much acted against Charlestown’s interests, as he did when he worked to block negotiations between the Tribe and Governor Chafee to discuss the Tribe taking over the troubled Twin River slot parlor in Lincoln.
Indeed, Town Council Boss Tom Gentz reported at tonight's (September 10) Town Council meeting that he and Larisa recently went to see Governor Lincoln Chafee to try to undo any progress the Tribe might have made in its own discussions with the Governor. For some in Charlestown, the King Phillip's War will never end.
That meeting, by the way, will show up on the town's tab with Larisa at $130 an hour.
It was a struggle getting Larisa's billing records from the town. Larisa insisted on reviewing all of his invoices so he could black out any information he didn't want revealed. Bear in mind that these are his invoices - his bills for services rendered. A town attorney should not be putting confidential information on his invoices, thus rendering them inaccessible to the kind of routine public scrutiny that any town expense should be subject to.
Larisa's censorship meant the records were held up for an entire month, rather than the maximum of 10 business days provided under the APRA. The records came after I initiated the formal appeal process to challenge the denial of records.
I received all of Larisa's bills from 2007 through the first half of 2012. Click here to read them for yourself.
While the bottom line amounts are intact, and from that, I can report that from 2007 through June 2012, Charlestown paid Larisa $290,047.50, you'll be amazed at what Larisa blacked out about how he "earned" that money.
At the top of this page, you'll see one of three pages from a Larisa invoice from 2008. Like all of his invoices for the five and a half year period, Larisa blacked out ALL of the activities we paid him to conduct. All of them. There was no attempt to selectively black out an item here or there that might, for whatever reason, compromise client confidentiality, but just line after line after line of black-outs.
Larisa will probably charge Charlestown for a box of Magic Markers for all his redactions.
Larisa made a lot of money from Charlestown in 2007 and 2008 on the Carcieri case against the Narragansett Indian Tribe until the state's attorneys finally took the case over.
All told, Charlestown paid Larisa $201,307.50 for those two years alone. But you are not allowed to see what he actually did with our money. He could tell us, but then he'd have to kill us. Instead, we get treated to the CIA-style version of open and transparent government.
Larisa has been collecting his monthly retainer. But even though he seemed to be doing little or nothing but send us his bills, we still can't see any details. Redacted.
As an example, here's his most recent bill where what he did on May 16 and May 24 are deemed not fit for public disclosure:
Joe Larisa is the darling of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance because of his anti-Narragansett zeal. They have fought to keep him on board despite past criticisms of him, as well as his checkered ethical history that has gotten him into trouble with the RI Ethics Commission (click here and here).
So I suppose Larisa thinks he can get away with not only ignoring the APRA's deadlines, but more importantly, place his activities above public review.
His wholesale black-outs of his billable activities are arrogant and outrageous, and I have already filed a challenge to it.
What responsible attorney would put privileged information on his bills to a municipality? As former mayor of East Providence, Larisa should know that the public’s right to see financial records like his invoices is clearly covered under APRA.
Larisa's censorship meant the records were held up for an entire month, rather than the maximum of 10 business days provided under the APRA. The records came after I initiated the formal appeal process to challenge the denial of records.
I received all of Larisa's bills from 2007 through the first half of 2012. Click here to read them for yourself.
While the bottom line amounts are intact, and from that, I can report that from 2007 through June 2012, Charlestown paid Larisa $290,047.50, you'll be amazed at what Larisa blacked out about how he "earned" that money.
At the top of this page, you'll see one of three pages from a Larisa invoice from 2008. Like all of his invoices for the five and a half year period, Larisa blacked out ALL of the activities we paid him to conduct. All of them. There was no attempt to selectively black out an item here or there that might, for whatever reason, compromise client confidentiality, but just line after line after line of black-outs.
Larisa will probably charge Charlestown for a box of Magic Markers for all his redactions.
Larisa made a lot of money from Charlestown in 2007 and 2008 on the Carcieri case against the Narragansett Indian Tribe until the state's attorneys finally took the case over.
All told, Charlestown paid Larisa $201,307.50 for those two years alone. But you are not allowed to see what he actually did with our money. He could tell us, but then he'd have to kill us. Instead, we get treated to the CIA-style version of open and transparent government.
Larisa has been collecting his monthly retainer. But even though he seemed to be doing little or nothing but send us his bills, we still can't see any details. Redacted.
As an example, here's his most recent bill where what he did on May 16 and May 24 are deemed not fit for public disclosure:
Joe Larisa is the darling of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance because of his anti-Narragansett zeal. They have fought to keep him on board despite past criticisms of him, as well as his checkered ethical history that has gotten him into trouble with the RI Ethics Commission (click here and here).
So I suppose Larisa thinks he can get away with not only ignoring the APRA's deadlines, but more importantly, place his activities above public review.
His wholesale black-outs of his billable activities are arrogant and outrageous, and I have already filed a challenge to it.
What responsible attorney would put privileged information on his bills to a municipality? As former mayor of East Providence, Larisa should know that the public’s right to see financial records like his invoices is clearly covered under APRA.
Larisa is the CCA's guy and he works under and at the pleasure of the CCA-controlled Town Council majority. His arrogant response to a basic open records request is not just on Larisa, but on the CCA Council majority, too.
In
2010, when the current CCA Council majority ran against the former CCA Council
majority, their platform pledged open and transparent government. The 2008 CCA
Council slate ran on the same pledge.
The
2012 CCA slate is also running on that same unkept promise. Their exact words: “open,
professional and ethical government that is transparent.” Compared to what? Their recent past performance, or
that of their 2008-2010 Council members?
Three election cycles and the same broken promises every
time. Our current CCA-controlled town government has already been caught violating the state Open Meetings Act and failing to disclose public records –
in some instances, acting
as if they never existed.
Joe Larisa’s blatant cover-up is but the most recent example of a continuing pattern of the CCA-controlled town government's violation of the public's right to know. Among the things we have the right to know is exactly what Larisa did in return for $290,047.50.
The voters have the right to judge the CCA by its performance on its promises, not just to operate an “open, professional and ethical government that is transparent” but to also be good stewards of the town’s money. After all, one of their other platform planks is fiscal responsibility.
The voters have the right to judge the CCA by its performance on its promises, not just to operate an “open, professional and ethical government that is transparent” but to also be good stewards of the town’s money. After all, one of their other platform planks is fiscal responsibility.
This time around, forget the rhetoric they put in their
“platform.” Look at their secretive, inept and unethical practices in complying
with the minimal requirements of state law on open government.
