 |
| Don't forget our Peeps diorama contest! |
We read the Westerly Sun from front to back every day, despite some eye-rolling at some of the letters to the editors (just as some of you roll your eyes at some of the articles here - don't deny it!).
Last Friday they published an article by Cassidy Swanson on the lawsuit by John Donoghue. We give you a few tidbits and a link to the article below the break.
As we explained in previous articles (here and here), the lawsuit claims that 1) the YMCA land advisory panel was subject to state Open Meetings laws but didn't bother to follow them and 2) the wording of the Town Council meeting agenda item to approve the conservation easement purchase was inconsistent with the usual wording for items to authorize the expenditure of significant funds.
You can read the entire article here because it is provided free at The Westerly Sun website.
It seems clear that meetings of the panel were not announced so that the public could attend and agendas and minutes of meetings were not posted. I suppose the question is whether they are exempt from Open Meetings laws. While Town Solicitor Peter Ruggiero was not quoted for the article, Council member Gregg Avedisian indicated that (according to the Sun article) the panel had been established as advisory, rather than an ad hoc commission that falls under the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, to allow non-residents to be a part of the discussion process.
So we seem to have a difference of opinion on whether this panel was subject to the Open Meetings laws. The implication in Avedisian's comment is that it is not subject to that Act. When I joined a Commission I received a really nice booklet about the Open Meetings Act. It refers me to RIGL 42-46, where it says that "every meeting of all public bodies shall be open to the public unless closed pursuant to" some special cases where secrecy is demanded, like negotiations.
The phrase public bodies is defined as "any department, agency, commission, committee, board, council, bureau, or authority or any subdivision thereof of state or municipal government." The Town seems to be claiming that a Commission, Committee, or Ad Hoc Committee is a public body but that a Panel is not. The difference does not jump out at me in the words of the law. However, I'm sure there have been court cases around this to add some clarity.
But if calling a group created by the Town Council a Panel means it is not subject to the Open Meetings Act then we have big news, and a way for officials to game to system to get things they want done behind closed doors kept out of the public eye.
I think the most interesting part of the story is a comment in the TalkBack section (use my link or the tab at the top of the article). Nobody's fool asks who this Donoghue guy is, whether he's been living in a cave to not know events were leading up to a vote on buying the conservation easement, and what kind of nerve does he have to sue the town when he could have brought this up less dramatically earlier.
Those are good points, and here at Progressive Charlestown we often lament the sue-first attitude that seems to be common. However, I hope Nobody's fool isn't trying to claim that newspaper coverage is adequate to satisfy the Open Meetings Act requirements and removes the right to sue.
And Nobody's fool clearly implies that having any way to find out information eliminates the ability to complain about violations of the Open Meetings. That is obviously beside the point. What Donoghue knew and did not know about the Panel and the Town Council agenda is inconsequential. The question is whether the Town gave adequate legal information in general.
I agree that it would have been better to challenge the compliance to the Open Meetings Act before the funding vote was taken. Then the Town Council could have chosen to delay the vote or risk a lawsuit. But it was not his obligation to do something earlier. And his lawsuit claims the Town failed on its obligation.