01:00 AM EDT on Friday, May 11, 2007

By Maria Armental

Journal Staff Writer

MAGEAU

CHARLESTOWN — Town Councilmen James M. Mageau, John O. Craig Jr. and Bruce W. Picard will file a Superior Court suit today challenging a finding by the attorney general’s office that they violated the Open Meetings Law, their lawyer said yesterday.

At issue is a meeting they held in a Wakefield restaurant, only days after the November election in which they won their council seats, to discuss electing the council president and vice president and the appointing Edward M. Barrett, who was at the meeting, as town administrator.

Mageau, Craig and Picard contend the law did not apply because the meeting was held two days before the election results were certified.

The attorney general’s office concluded in March that the three, although still councilmen-elect at the time, had violated the law by meeting “outside the public purview to discuss and plan public business.”

“Indeed, if the council members-elect did not believe that the election results were final, albeit not certified, there would have been little reason for the council members-elect to meet with Mr. Barrett on November 12, 2006 and plan a course of action,” the attorney general found.

The councilmen’s lawyer is Robert E. Craven, who is the town solicitor but is not representing them in that capacity.

He said he would file the legal challenge in either Washington County or Providence County.

“It’s done a lot of damage to me, personally,” Mageau said of the attorney general’s finding, noting it was cited by a group of residents who are trying to remove him from office.

“I’m not going to go around with it hanging over my head,” Mageau said.

The council is expected to finalize the budget proposal and warrant items Monday for the Financial Town Meeting. Among the warrant items before the council is a request to set aside $20,000 for a special election to remove and replace Mageau on the council.

The attorney general’s office has found the same three council members violated the meetings law by holding a discussion or series of discussions that led to the appointment of Craven, who practices in Providence, as town solicitor.

The three councilmen submitted affidavits to the attorney general yesterday addressing that finding. They had retained Craven to represent them on the first Open Meeting Law complaint. In the course of those discussions, they offered Craven the town solicitor position.

Mageau said that if the attorney general doesn’t retract that finding, the three intend to bring that matter to court as well.

“I’m a little bit concerned and I might say [upset] because of [the attorney general’s] infringement on our First Amendment rights,” Mageau said, questioning how the attorney general could prohibit a private individual from meeting with a private attorney to discuss a private legal matter.

“I suspect they are legislating. They are using previous decisions to make law.”

“The allegation that Attorney General (Patrick C.) Lynch is using his findings to legislate is a thousand percent absurd,” said Michael J. Healey, spokesman for the attorney general.

“This position is not something that Attorney General Lynch has just arrived at,” Healey said, referring to previous decisions dating back to 1995 and a 1973 Florida court case on which those decisions were based.

“It’s been the longstanding position of the Department of Attorney General for the last 12 years and it’s based in case law that is basically 35 years old.”

Charlestown

marmenta@projo.com