Since joining the Westerly Town Council in August, Robert Lombardo has made his positions on shoreline access cases involving the town abundantly clear. Anyone who wants proof doesn’t need to look any further than his exchanges in council meetings with proponents of shoreline access, when he responds to speakers with dismissive replies like “You have no idea what you’re talking about”, “You don’t understand anything”, and “Put up or shut up.”
At one point during a meeting on Sept. 11, he referred to shoreline access proponents as “just a group of zealots that get up here all the time and complain about the rights-of-way [to the shore].”
“They’re zealots and they’re uneducated,” Lombardo said. “Okay?”
Before last year’s election, Lombardo went on a coastal access Facebook page and called the forum where advocates talk and share research a “sewer of ignorance.” He challenged one access advocate to debate him “anytime, anywhere.”
As Lombardo has found himself in the middle of legal discussions on critical and closely-watched shoreline access cases in recent weeks, questions about his actions and motives on the issue have become more relevant.
Lombardo was sworn in after the former town council president resigned, because Lombardo was the top unelected vote-getter in last year’s election, coming in eighth place in the race with 8.5% of the total votes.
A few weeks ago, he proposed the town council consider instructing the town solicitor to enter into discussions with Watch Hill representatives that could lead to a settlement in a case where the Watch Hill Fire District and Watch Hill Conservancy are challenging the public’s right to access the popular Napatree Point beach and conservation area.
Access advocates worry that could result in a deal that hurts the public, and they’re concerned about what they say is a possible conflict of interest: Lombardo is being represented in a contentious civil matter involving his family by an attorney who is also named as a defendant in the Napatree Point lawsuit. That attorney, Louis B. Cappuccio, Jr., is also listed on the fire district’s website as a member-at-large of the Watch Hill Fire District Council.
The living trust Cappuccio oversees as trustee owns land on Napatree Point, as well as a home in Watch Hill assessed by the town at more than $3.6 million. According to voter registration records from the Rhode Island Secretary of State’s Office, Cappuccio resides at a separate property in Watch Hill that was owned by the living trust until it was transferred to a real estate LLC he is a manager of. That property is assessed at nearly $5 million. The LLC also owns another Watch Hill property previously held by Cappuccio’s living trust that’s assessed at $1.5 million.
Cappuccio has represented Lombardo at least as early as 2015, when he was Lombardo’s attorney in a misdemeanor assault case that a judge dismissed, according to court records.
The Rhode Island Ethics Commission has said the attorney-client relationship is a business relationship. But in order for that business association to pose a conflict, a personal attorney of a government official would also have to stand to incur a monetary gain or loss based on the official’s actions.
When reached by phone, Councilor Lombardo wouldn’t agree to a recorded interview. He told a reporter: “You’re making stuff up” and “I’m not gonna play that game.”
In a follow-up email, he said he doesn’t think his attorney would benefit or lose out monetarily as a result of his actions on the council.
In a past shoreline right-of-way case involving a Westerly Planning Board member from the Weekapaug Fire District, the Rhode Island Ethics Commission said the planning board member’s property values could be affected by whether or not a blocked-off path to the shore in Weekapaug was deemed public, precluding him from discussions on the right-of-way.
In that case, the ethics commission said a determining factor that can eliminate a conflict when the person is part of a group whose members will benefit equally from a decision – called the “class exception” – did not apply.
The advisory opinion said, “The Ethics Commission has previously noted the general difficulty of applying the class exception to matters involving actions that impact real property, given the unique nature of each discrete piece of real estate and the fact that actions affecting real property and its value will likely create a dissimilar impact on each property owner.”
For that and other reasons, fellow Westerly Town Councilor Joy Cordio says the public has a right to be asking questions about Lombardo’s involvement in the Watch Hill shoreline access case.
“My first thought is conflict of interest – first thought,” Cordio said. “There’s an ethical concern here.”
“Now knowing that there’s a conflict, potential ethical violations, it should at least be tabled and held until the [Rhode Island] Ethics Commission weighs in on this,” Cordio, who has regularly butted heads with Lombardo in the short time he’s been on the council, said of Lombardo’s proposal to enter into discussions with the Watch Hill plaintiffs suing the town.
According to a spokesperson for the Rhode Island Ethics Commission, Lombardo has not requested an advisory opinion and no one has filed an ethics complaint against him.
John Marion, executive director of the good government group Common Cause Rhode Island, says Lombardo should “absolutely” seek an advisory opinion before he continues to involve himself in the Napatree Point lawsuit over the access path known as Fort Road.
“It’s not clear cut one way or the other, so that means there’s a question,” Marion said. “And when there’s a question, public officials should be careful and tread lightly and should seek legal advice, so they don’t break the law.”
Marion said, “Public officials who think that they don’t need to seek advice about their conduct, ethically, do it at their own peril.”
Marion said Lombardo does have a business relationship with Cappuccio, but whether or not Lombardo is deemed to have a conflict would depend on whether or not the Ethics Commission determines the class exception applies to Cappuccio.
“The Ethics Commission has to look at: How affected is Mr. Cappuccio, Jr.’s property values by the decisions made by the town council,” Marion said. “And, if he is sort of affected more than other people in the fire district, then maybe the class exception doesn’t apply, and Mr. Lombardo would have to recuse.”
Property values in Watch Hill could also be affected as a result of another matter where the town is seeking clarity on whether or not public rights exist to use a road to the Watch Hill Lighthouse that’s for years been presumed to be private. The town began pursuing the issue after outcry from the public about the impending transfer of the federal land to the Watch Hill Lighthouse Keepers Association, a private non-profit. Lombardo was involved in a meeting with federal officials on the subject, and it’s another issue where he has been highly critical of shoreline access advocates and combative in his public comments.
In the Napatree Point case, minutes from an Aug. 10 meeting of the Watch Hill Fire District Council show Cappuccio, as a fire district member-at-large, recused himself from executive session discussions about the Napatree Point lawsuit, suggesting Cappuccio sees a reason why he shouldn’t be involved in the lawsuit from the fire district’s side.
In their court filing, the fire district and conservancy say Cuppuccio and his brother, as trustees of separate living trusts that own Napatree Point land, are “interested parties” in the lawsuit.
According to a letter an attorney for the Watch Hill Fire District, or WHFD, and Watch Hill Conservancy, or WHC, sent to the Westerly Town Council this past March, a declaration about public access rights to Napatree Point previously made by town councilors “directly harms the property interests of the WHFD, the WHC and others.”
Louis Cappuccio did not respond to a voicemail requesting to speak with him.
In addition to proposing talks that could end in a settlement in the case, Lombardo has already been involved in a confidential executive session on the litigation.
The ethics question comes as the lawsuit continues to fuel tensions between the affluent fire district and year-round Westerly residents who live away from the beach and want the guaranteed ability to reach shoreline areas like Napatree Point.
The Watch Hill Fire District and Watch Hill Conservancy say they don’t want to stop the public from continuing to use the access path being disputed. But they say the land is private property, and public access policies could change in the future if they need to for conservation reasons.
Ultimately, the state may play an important role in the outcome of this dispute. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha’s Office is representing the state in the lawsuit – the Department of Environmental Management also owns land on Napatree Point – and Neronha has signaled he won’t let a bad deal go forward in a Westerly shoreline access case he’s involved in.
“I am not going to let the town lead on an issue that matters to Rhode Islanders all across the state. Any settlement would have to involve us,” Neronha said in a recent interview. “I wouldn’t agree to anything that I didn’t think was the right thing for Rhode Islanders.”
The proposal on settlement talks could come up for consideration as early as the Westerly Town Council’s next meeting on Nov. 6.
Alex Nunes can be reached at anunes@thepublicsradio.org
