| Court dismisses meetings law case |
01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 By Maria Armental Journal Staff Writer PROVIDENCE — A Superior Court judge yesterday dismissed an appeal of an advisory finding by the Rhode Island attorney general’s office that the Charlestown Town Council violated the state Open Meetings Law, saying the court has no jurisdiction. “The only way I can review something the attorney general’s office did is if it’s brought under the APA” — that is, the state Administrative Procedures Act — Judge Patricia Hurst said. For that to happen, she said, the council members filing the appeal would have had to prove that there was a controversy “within the meaning of the APA,” and that the decision being appealed was the agency’s final word on the subject. That was not the case in the Charlestown appeal, Hurst said. Michael J. Healey, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, called the court’s decision “a victory for open government.” The court action stemmed from the attorney general’s finding that the Town Council violated the Open Meetings Law on Nov. 12. That was when three men who had been elected to the council five days earlier — James M. Mageau, John O. Craig Jr. and Bruce W. Picard — met “outside the public purview to discuss and plan public business.” The three agreed to appoint former Town Administrator Edward M. Barrett again after they were sworn into office. The three made Barrett acting administrator in December, and administrator later that month, both times on a 3-to-2 vote. Mageau, Craig, and Picard appealed the attorney general’s finding in May, arguing the Open Meetings Law did not apply to them before the election results were certified. The attorney general’s office asked the court to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the matter fell outside the court’s purview because the three were “seeking a review of an administrative ‘decision’ that does not fall within the ambit of the Administrative Procedures Act,” and that they lacked legal standing since the decision was issued against the full body, not individual members. Hurst granted the state’s motion, agreeing that because the attorney general took no further action after issuing his opinion, his decision did not fall under the act. But she acknowledged concerns about the lack of a complaint mechanism in this case. “You are right. There is a dead end here,” Hurst told Robert E. Craven, Charlestown’s town solicitor, who represented the three councilmen privately on the matter, and who complained that there was no way to adjudicate disputes for those who want to challenge the attorney general’s advisory opinions. “In the world of politics, [and] in the Westerly Sun, the Chariho Times, and The Providence Journal’s South County edition, this is big news,” Craven told Hurst, “and I don’t believe the voting population … understands that the attorney general is issuing an advisory opinion.” “Where do you go to right a wrong?” Craven asked outside court. “The answer to that is, nowhere other than the legislature or to sue the attorney general for damages.” Craven and Mageau — who attended the court hearing yesterday — said they will probably ask state legislators to amend the statute that governs open meetings. Mageau added a criticism of the advisory opinion’s author, Special Assistant Attorney General Michael W. Field. “I really resent that [expletive] saying that I violated the Open Meetings Act,” he said. “I’ve led the fight in Charlestown. … “I probably have filed more Open Meetings Act complaints than any single resident in the state.” While the three could turn to the state legislature for redress, Healey said, “in this instance, they should just accept the finding and do a better job at keeping open government in Charlestown.” “Some of what has gone on in Charlestown over the last six to eight months has damaged the credibility of not only the Charlestown Town Council but, unfortunately, Charlestown,” Healey said. “The actions … and the track record of some members of the council on keeping government open and accountable has unfortunately given the whole town a black eye,” Healey added. The attorney general’s office has issued three Open Meetings Law violation notices against the Charlestown Town Council. All are based on alleged wrongdoing of the same three members. “…The track record of some members of the council on keeping government open and accountable has unfortunately given the whole town a black eye.” Charlestown marmenta@projo.com |