Westerly Town Solicitor William Conley Monday night defended himself against criticism from the public and some members of the Westerly Town Council over his office’s failure to submit legal research and analysis to the federal government prior to the transfer of the Watch Hill Lighthouse to a private non-profit earlier this year.
Conley also denied accusations from one councilor that the town council was not adequately updated on the status of his research and communications with the GSA. He said he and the attorneys in his office did “what excellent lawyers do.”
Conley’s hour-long presentation and discussion with councilors came in response to an article published Friday by The Public’s Radio reporting the failure publicly for the first time. The town council had scheduled a special meeting solely to review ongoing legal cases in “possible” executive session but moved one agenda item on a related public records appeal by The Public’s Radio to open session for what became Conley’s defense of his actions.
Monday night was the third time under the current town council Conley was given meeting time to respond to continued public criticism.
The Watch Hill Lighthouse controversy began more than a year ago when the federal government announced it intended to transfer the property to the Watch Hill Lighthouse Keepers Association. The news prompted pushback from fishermen and public access advocates who worried the change of ownership could jeopardize access to the property.
The town council instructed Conley’s office to research the legal status of the access road leading to the property, Conley made contact with the agency transferring the deed, and his office vowed to share a report and legal analysis with the U.S. General Services Administration, or GSA.
But documents released to The Public’s Radio through federal and state public records requests show Conley’s office never shared the documents, to the frustration of the GSA.
On Monday, Conley said he didn’t provide his research findings and analysis to the GSA because he wouldn’t share information with a third party before he gave it to his client first, and was mindful of other legal obligations to the town. Conley’s written findings on Lighthouse Road were presented to the council in a January executive session, a few days after the property was officially transferred.
“We never represented, and could not and would not represent, that any of our legal analysis and findings would be provided to a third party before they would be provided to our client, this town council,” Conley said, forcefully emphasizing his words.
“Why would any lawyer present its work product for its client, its legal analysis, to a third party before providing it to his own client?” Conley said. “It was clear to us that the GSA was … working with the Lighthouse Keepers Association as well, and any research information that would be provided [to] them would be provided to that third party as well.”
Conley’s narrative of events skirted around clear commitments his office made in writing to the town council and the GSA before ownership of the property was transferred to the Lighthouse Keepers.
In one update letter sent to the town council months before the transfer was complete, Conley’s associate Diony Garcia said Conley’s office spoke with the GSA and “stated that within the next few weeks we would be able to share a preliminary report of findings derived from primary and secondary sources, accompanied by some legal analysis. Ultimately, we were expressly assured that no transaction of the subject property will take place prior to our office having the opportunity to further discuss/provide input to the GSA about said transaction.”
In one email sent to a GSA attorney, Garcia said, “We are working on a preliminary report to provide you with some of our findings, and will share after it is completed … Once we share it, and you have a chance to review it, then we would like to circle back and meet again to assess.”
That never happened. In explaining the challenges faced by his office in compiling and completing the report, Conley said attorneys were still examining all of the research relevant to the complex case as the GSA was nearing completion of the property transfer.
Conley, who said he was speaking about the issue in open session to give the public “the truth,” did not respond to a request to be interviewed for Friday’s story and has not contacted The Public’s Radio to say any information in the report should be corrected.
Conley did not respond to an interview request about Monday night’s meeting.
Conley told council members the town needed to be cautious about releasing information involving shoreline access matters because lawyers representing their opponents are “playing three dimensional chess.” He went so far as to say colleagues in his office joke that people pursuing the release of information “must be the secret agents of the other side.”
After his presentation, Conley and Councilor Joy Cordio engaged in a testy back and forth in which Conley accused Cordio of misrepresenting his statements.
“I am not having another telephone conversation or one-on-one conversation with you again,” Conley said sternly to Cordio. “I will have somebody present every time.”
Cordio called out Conley for dedicating most of his discussion to his handling of the Lighthouse Road legal research when the agenda item was for discussion of a public records complaint pending before the Attorney General, although related to Lighthouse Road communications.
“This whole thing is supposed to be about an APRA request and then appeal, and then an AG complaint, which the public knows nothing about,” Cordio said, referring to the state’s Access to Public Records Act.
Earlier Monday, Cordio’s deposition in a public access case between the town and Watch Hill Fire District was called off after she said she didn’t have confidence in Conley being present as her lawyer and requested a different attorney, Cordio said. An attorney for the fire district requested to reschedule, according to Cordio.
Other members of the town council expressed support for Conley on Monday. Robert Lombardo, who regularly criticizes shoreline access advocates in public meetings, praised the work done by Conley’s law firm as “beyond reproach.”
Because the special meeting was advertised as dedicated to possible executive session matters without any opportunity for public comment, members of the public expressed surprise and outrage about the last minute change and not having an opportunity to weigh in.
“This was basically an ‘infomercial’ for Solicitor Conley, not an ‘open meeting discussion’ for the benefit of the public,” Westerly resident and Harbor Management Commission member Ellen Kane posted on a coastal access Facebook page.
“Well, this is a surprise,” shoreline access advocate Dan Davidson wrote on the town of Westerly Facebook page. “I didn’t see anything on the agenda regarding the lighthouse road title search and the solicitors submission to the GSA, but here is the Westerly solicitor talking about this matter and it was not advertised.”
Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he found the town’s handling of the meeting “troubling.”
“If they regularly hold public comment periods during regular town council meetings and they used this as a ruse to prevent public comment, it’s very disturbing,” Brown said.
