Charlestown wants Mageau lawsuit tossed

Says Mageau is not entitled to reimbursement for criminal defense costs

By Will Collette

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) owes its very existence to Jim Mageau, whose controversial two-year term (2006-08) on the Charlestown Town Council gave the CCA meaning and purpose. The echoes of that period are still heard in Charlestown, but no more so than in the on-going dispute over the criminal case that was the acme of the battle between Mageau and the CCA Party.

During the summer of 2008, Mageau had assumed the Town Council Presidency. Every meeting was a near-riot. The two CCA-aligned Town Councilors, Kate Waterman and Harriet Allen, fought with Mageau over everything, and often simply boycotted Council meetings to deny Mageau a quorum.

July 14, 2008 was one such night when due to the absence of Waterman and Allen, Mageau could not convene the Council for lack of a quorum. As Mageau was exiting out into the hallway outside the Council chambers, he was confronted by CCA Party leader Cliff Vanover and Cliff’s ever-present video camera.

With the camera just inches from Mageau’s face, something happened that spurred Mageau to push the camera away.Vanover cried out “that’s assault…that’s assault.” Two days later, Mageau was brought up on a criminal charge of simple assault. Later, Mageau claimed it was self-defense.

For most of the next few months, the case was a legal circus. Mageau was initially found guilty of a misdemeanor in a bench trial and sentenced to anger management cases. Mageau appealed, asking for a jury trial. The jury in that trial could not reach a verdict so a mistrial was declared.

Before a third trial could commence, Mageau and the prosecutors agreed to allow Mageau to “file” a not guilty plea rather than start another trial. The plea was to be left on file for a year. If there were no further incidents, the case would then be dismissed, which is what happened. 

As part of the deal to “file” the plea, Mageau signed a waiver wherein he gave up all claims and rights to sue the state or the town over this prosecution.

But after the case was dismissed, Mageau filed a demand for payment of $20,000 with the town, claiming that the town was required to “indemnify” him for his actions, and that his actions in the Vanover altercation were part of his official duties.

That claim was denied. In August, 2011, Mageau filed suit against Charlestown for the money.

That case has sat in RI Superior Court fairly dormant until recently when Charlestown, through the attorney for the municipal insurance pool that covers towns in cases like this, filed a motion asking the court to throw Mageau’s case out.

Click here to read the court document.

Charlestown’s lawyer argues that Mageau’s lawsuit is without merit for three reasons.

First, Charlestown is not required to indemnify (i.e. cover the cost) for any town official’s criminal defense. The brief makes the detailed argument that under the language in state statute and town ordinance, based on RI Supreme Court precedents, the duty to cover a town official for problems arising for their official actions applies exclusively to civil matters, and excludes criminal matters.

Second, Mageau’s actions were not part of his “official duties.” The town brief describes how there was no Town Council meeting that night – not for lack of trying, but for lack of a quorum. Mageau was not in the Council Chambers, but in a hallway. Finally, Mageau’s actions were actions of his own choosing.

Third, Mageau signed a waiver of his right to sue for any costs related to his criminal prosecution. The town argues that this alone is enough to kick Mageau’s suit to the curb.

I experienced something similar to what Mageau experienced on July 14, 2008 and had to make the same decision about whether to push back or choose another option. Rather than give the provocateur what he wanted by pushing back, I grabbed my cell phone and dialed the police. My provocateur then fled the scene. 

One of my colleagues reports a similar incident which he handled by simply ignoring the provocation.

But, based on my own personal experience, I know what a close call and difficult decision it is whether to push back or choose a different approach.

Mageau’s snap judgment gave the CCA Party all it needed to oust him from office the following November. All five of the CCA’s endorsed candidates won election in November 2008. Mageau finished in last place.

Later, those same five CCA Council members were excommunicated by the CCA Party for failing to follow the CCA’s orders and replaced by the current CCA majority. Except Cliff Vanover, who ran in 2010 as a CCA candidate against Mageau and against the excommunicated former CCA incumbents, also failed to win.

Charlestown suffers on under the CCA yoke, enduring abuses by the CCA Party’s Council majority that far exceed any outrage attached to Mageau. And the question of closing this last chapter on Mageau’s long-running legal dispute over that July incident almost five years ago is still before us.