Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Opioid Litigation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Charlestown council withdraws consent to add PBMs in opioid litigation, seals executive-session minutes

3019133 · March 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a March 20 special meeting, the Charlestown Town Council voted unanimously to withdraw its consent to add pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to pending multi-jurisdictional opioid litigation and to seal the related executive-session minutes.

The Charlestown Town Council voted unanimously March 20 to withdraw the town's consent to add pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, to pending multi-jurisdictional opioid litigation and to seal the minutes of a related executive session.

The five-member council met in a special session at 6:30 p.m. and moved into executive session "pursuant to Rhode Island General Law 40 two-forty six-forty five(2), pending litigation, multi jurisdictional opioid litigation," as recorded in the meeting transcript. The presiding officer announced, "We are now going into executive session," before the council left open session.

The council recorded one formal vote inside the executive session: a motion to adjourn the executive session and return to open session. That motion was made by Councilor Maher and seconded by Councilor Sarah; the transcript records Councilors Stokes, Sloane, Sarah, Maher and Kearney voting in favor, and the motion carried 5-0. After returning to open session, Councilor Sarah moved to seal the executive-session minutes; Councilor Marr seconded, and the motion passed 5-0.

Back in open session the council considered a motion "for the town to withdraw our consent to add the PBMs, which are the pharmacy benefit managers, to the litigation." Councilor Sloane made the motion and Councilor Sarah seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0, according to the meeting record.

The transcript does not include statements explaining the council's rationale for withdrawing consent to add PBMs, nor does it record any public comment or additional debate on the matter. The meeting record also does not specify next steps or any changes to the town's participation in the broader multi-jurisdictional litigation.

The council then moved to adjourn; Councilor Stokes made the motion, Councilor Sarah seconded, and the meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m.