Ruling
says town may refuse to disclose files on complaints that Sen. Elaine Morgan
impersonated police officer
By
Will Collette
The complaints charged that Morgan used her town uniform to pretend
she was a police officer when, in fact, she had no police powers.
Those
complaints were filed with Hopkinton Police and with the Hopkinton Manager but
were never formally investigated and no charges were ever filed.
The existence of those complaints is a fact. It’s also a fact that the town of Hopkinton never
actually investigated those complaints. We know this because the Town of Hopkinton admitted it.
But
that leaves us with some glaring questions:
- What did Morgan actually do that drew those complaints?
- How did the town handle these serious charges against an elected town official who now happens to be the state Senator not just for Hopkinton, but also Richmond, Exeter and the northern half of Charlestown?
Unfortunately,
you’ll probably never know.
I
knew I was going to have to walk a careful line in the request because under
the RI Access to Public Records Act (APRA), there are many types of records
that are exempt from public disclosure, such as the actual investigation files
themselves.
The
Town promptly refused my request, citing privacy provisions of the APRA. The
Town Manager promptly denied my appeal of that refusal.
So, following the steps
laid out in the APRA, I filed an appeal with state Attorney General Peter
Kilmartin’s special open government unit. That appeal was filed on December 17,
2014.
You
can read the details of how I went from filing a request for records from
Hopkinton to filing an appeal with the AG’s Office here
and here.
It
took more than a year to get a final answer from the Attorney General’s Office.
On February 2, I
received a letter from Special
Assistant Attorney General Malena Lopez Mora telling me my appeal was denied.
Reading
the nine-page decision, it is clear that the reason the case took so long
to decide is that the Town of Hopkinton also stonewalled the AG’s Office, which
wanted to see all of the records in dispute so they could review them “in camera” (in secret) to determine
whether they should be released.
In
my request and when I filed a rebuttal to Hopkinton’s arguments against my
appeal, I recognized that there may be a conflict between the right of privacy
and the right of the public to know about the conduct of elected officials such
as now Senator Morgan.
I argued the public’s right to know trumped the privacy
rights of an elected official accused of abusing her office.
The
AG’s Office ruled that after secretly reviewing the documents Hopkinton
reluctantly provided to them, they came down on the side of privacy, not just
for Morgan but also for other persons. For reasons of privacy, the AG’s
office cannot and will not name who those other individuals are.
Since
the Town of Hopkinton already admitted that it never conducted any sort of
formal investigation or review of the complaints against Morgan – a stunning
admission in itself – it wasn’t hugely surprising that the AG’s office ruled
the way it did.
Not
investigating citizens’ complaints and apparently being careful not to create a
paper trail doesn't violate the Access to Public Records Act
(APRA), even though it may leave you shaking your head in wonderment at the betrayal of public trust.
I’ve
since asked the RI Chapter of the Americans for Civil Liberties Union to review
the matter and advise me on whether there are any legal options to try to shine
a light on this matter.
Whether
there is any legal recourse doesn’t change the fact that citizens’ complaints
were filed against Sen. Elaine Morgan for abusing her office and that the Town
of Hopkinton never actually investigated those complaints.
Those facts on their
own leave Morgan with some explaining to do if she wants the voters of
Charlestown, Exeter, Hopkinton and Richmond to re-elect her this November.