01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, May 9, 2007

By Maria Armental

Journal Staff Writer

CHARLESTOWN — The Town Council violated the Open Meetings Law in discussing the appointment of the town solicitor, the state attorney general’s office has determined.

The finding relates to a discussion or series of discussions between Councilmen James M. Mageau, John O. Craig Jr., and Bruce W. Picard that led to the appointment of Town Solicitor Robert E. Craven, a Providence lawyer.

According to a letter from Adam J. Soles, the special assistant attorney general, his office awaits a response from the council members to determine whether it is a willful or knowing violation.

On Monday night, Craven said that Sholes was too quick to mail the letter. The attorney general’s office, Craven said, has yet to reach a decision as to whether there was an open-meetings violation.

“It’s signed by Adam Sholes, who is several notches down the lane of command,” Craven said of the April 26 letter Sholes wrote to resident Clifford Vanover, who filed the original complaint. “So, I spoke with his boss.”

“So, the fix is in,” Vanover replied.

It is the second time the Charlestown council has been found to have violated the Open Meetings Law.

In March, the attorney general’s office found that the three councilmen violated the law when they met, shortly after the election, to discuss the appointment of the council president and the election of the town administrator.

Craven said he had also discussed that violation with Sholes’ supervisor and his supervisor’s boss, and expected the office to clarify the decision.

In his defense of the three councilmen, Craven had argued that the Open Meetings Law did not apply when the three met to discuss town business, because the election results were yet to be certified.

Michael J. Healey, spokesman for the attorney general, said the office stands by its two findings, despite Craven’s characterization of his meeting last week with Deputy Attorney General Jerry Coyne and Assistant Attorney General Jim Lee, who heads the Civil Division.

“Our two findings stand,” Healey said in an e-mail yesterday. “They’re the products of much careful legal research by the attorneys of our Open Government Unit, they’re good solid legally defensible findings, and we’ve made no promises to the solicitor about changing a word of either of them.”

Healey said the council members have until tomorrow to file response affidavits or the department will move to classify the information as willful or knowing.

Craven told the attorney general’s office that during his discussions with the three council members related to the first open-meetings complaint, Mageau asked him if he would be interested in representing the town as solicitor “in light of the fact that he and Mr. Picard were unhappy with the representation of certain assistant town solicitors.”

In separate meetings with Craig and Picard, both councilmen discussed with Craig a possible appointment as town solicitor.

Prior to the Jan. 11 meeting, Mageau “told both Mr. Picard and Mr. Craig that he would place my name in nomination before the Town Council,” Craven told the attorney general’s office.

Craven was appointed town solicitor on a 3-to-2 vote on Jan. 11.

Councilmen Mageau, Craig and Picard voted in favor. Council President Katharine H. Waterman and Council Vice President Harriet A. Allen voted against.

At the time, Waterman and Allen raised concerns over the appointment, alleging the other three council members had previously arranged the appointment without informing or consulting the rest of the council.

Town Administrator Edward M. Barrett also admitted to having received a copy of Craven’s resumé, with the understanding he would be nominated for appointment, but said he destroyed it without forwarding it to the town clerk or the rest of the council.

In his finding, Sholes said the Open Meetings Law did not apply to the individual meetings between Craven and the council members.

“Nonetheless, upon review of the evidence before us, we have significant concerns as to how the three council members arrived at the same understanding with respect to the appointment of a new town solicitor without engaging in a collective discussion outside of a public meeting,” Sholes wrote.

Reviewing the information submitted to the office — though the council has yet to submit any affidavits, which were first requested on Feb. 1 — Sholes found that “the evidence conclusively establishes that the three Town Council members did either collectively or through a series of communications discuss a matter over which the public body had supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.”

“Specifically,” Sholes continued, “in Attorney Craven’s response, he relays that Mr. Mageau informed him that Mr. Mageau ‘told both Mr. Picard and Mr. Craig that he would place my name in nomination before the Council.’ ”

“Based upon this candid admission, as well as a lack of response to our March 21, 2007 letter, we must conclude that Mr. Mageau, Mr. Picard and Mr. Craig met or otherwise discussed outside of a properly noticed public meeting the appointment or nomination of a new town solicitor,” Sholes said.

Charlestown

marmenta@projo.com