City Council sued by AG’s office

Lawsuit seeks to collect fines for multiple open meeting violations

WOONSOCKET — After violating the Open Meetings Act three times since July in a manner virtually identical to two earlier offenses, the City Council has been sued for civil fines in Superior Court by Attorney General Peter Neronha’s office.

That’s the upshot of a decision released by state prosecutors Friday on a complaint filed by Richard Fagnant – a former member of the council. Citing earlier admonitions to the council about discussing matters at public meetings without ample advance notice on a published agenda, as the OMA requires, Special Asst. Atty. Gen. Sean Lyness concluded that the latest incidents, unlike the others, were “knowing and willful,” and therefore open to civil penalties of up to $5,000.

Although Lyness lumped the three transgressions into an administrative finding on a single complaint, he said he would seek monetary penalties for each of the three meetings during which the new violations of the OMA took place.

“Given the history of repeated violations, the patent inadequacy of the agenda item, and the multiple admonishments provided to the City on this exact issue...we conclude that the City Council’s violation of the OMA was willful and knowing,” Lyness wrote. “Based on our conclusion... this Office intends to file a lawsuit in Superior Court against the City Council seeking declaratory relief and civil fines for each of the three meeting that are the subject of this finding.”

Hours after the finding was released, Neronha

issued a statement announcing that the lawsuit had already been filed.

“Openness and transparency are critical for our government institutions and public bodies to function in a way that effectively serves the best interests of the public,” Neronha said. “We will take action to ensure compliance with the requirements of our open government laws.”

In addition to civil fines, Neronha said the suit also requests a court order preventing the council from using the “improper agenda item” known as “good and welfare.” Neronha’s office is arguing it’s just too vague as a basis for public discussion under the OMA.

A venerable City Council tradition, “Good and Welfare” has been a heading on the published agenda of every meeting of the council for decades. Despite having been warned in the past about discussing substantive, specific issues under such a general label, Lyness, citing more than 50 pages of documents filed by Fagnant,

determined that the council violated the OMA on July 1 and Aug. 5 by discussed matters introduced under good and welfare.

Moreover, Lyness said, even after Fagnant filed the initial complaint and he, Lyness, advised the council that it was pending, the panel committed another violation, on Oct. 7.

While the first two complaints were pending, Lyness asked the council, through its legal representatives, to offer “a discussion of whether the alleged violations were knowing or willful.” City Solicitor John DeSimone’s reply asserted that the “good and welfare” category allows “councilors to speak on any topic.” Further, Lyness said, DeSimone maintained that the “custom and usage of this section...is only for cursory announcements or activities within the City, various light topics of general information or congratulatory remarks.”

Lyness disagreed. During the meetings that were the subject of the complaint, councilors discussed various items of substantive city business, including the monthly “odor report” of nuisance smells wafting from the Woonsocket

Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, a citywide beautification initiative involving the planting of trees and a federal audit of the Woonsocket Housing Authority’s finances.

“Even assuming a distinction could be made between merely congratulatory, non-substantive remarks and substantive remarks, the meeting minutes reveal that the City Council utilized the “Good and Welfare” agenda item at each of these three meetings to discuss substantive matters of City business,” Lyness said. “Based upon undisputed evidence, we find that the agenda items “Good and Welfare” did not adequately inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed by the City Council at its July 1, 2019, Aug. 5, 2019, and October 7, 2019 meetings.”

This is the second time Fagnant has won an affirmative judgment from the attorney general’s office on an open meetings complaint. The council’s first warning against using “good and welfare” to discuss previously unadvertised issues came on a complaint filed by Fagnant in 2015, when he was a member of the Zoning Board of Review. He served on the council from 2016-2018.

In the 2015 complaint, Fagnant alleged that the council had violated the OMA by discussing possible punitive actions against him for certain content he had shared on social media – one of which drew a visit to Fagnant’s home from the Secret Service. Fagnant shared an image of a member of the U.S. armed forces holding a gun to President Barack Obama’s head.

Despite the clear warnings about bringing up matters for discussion at public meetings without ample warning af

ter Fagnant’s first comlaint, the City Council committed a very similar violation just a few months ago, Lyness’ latest decision observes. During a meeting in March, Council Vice President Jon Brien criticized State Sen. Melissa Murray (D-Dist. 24, Woonsocket, North Smithfield), for sponsoring a bill attacking a state law that requires everyone who casts a ballot on election day to show an acceptable form of identification. Brien, a former state representative, was a champion of the measure.

Although Murray’s complaint did not focus on council good and welfare, Brien brought up Murray, by name, under an agenda heading entitled, “Legislative Report.” Brien had argued he was merely providing constituents with a useful update on the activities of its representatives in the legislature, but Murray argued that the discussion ran afoul of the explicit intent of the OMA, which is to foster transparency in government and provide citizens with ample notice of what’s on the agenda of public meetings so that they can, if they so desire, participate.

The attorney general’s office upheld Murray’s complaint in June.

“Although a close call, we found that the violation was not willful or knowing,” Lyness said in the latest ruling. “We nonetheless unequivocally instructed the City Council that ‘should the City Council be found to have committed a similar OMA violation in the future, this Office will be mindful of this history and the multiple admonishments that the City Council has now received regarding OMA notice violations.’”