Residents press council over redacted law‑firm invoices and recent resignations; solicitor defends confidentiality, reports threat to police

A large group of Coventry residents used public comment at a town council meeting to press elected officials for transparency about redacted invoices from the town solicitor and to criticize the council after two council members resigned. Speakers called for resignations, accused the council of hiding documents and of charter violations, and demanded fiscal accountability.

The town’s solicitor, Stephen Angel of Angel Law LLC, addressed those concerns later in the meeting. Angel said the engagement letter approved by the council requires certain billing detail to remain privileged and confidential under Rule 1.6 of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct. He told the council the procedure for verification of time specifications had the council president review them, and that time specifications were archived in the town email account because the town lacks a vendor management program for confidential materials.

Angel said some litigation expenses (expert fees) in the Johnson’s Pond case, totaling more than $400,000, were billed directly to the town and are available through the finance office. He said his firm’s fees over two years in that litigation totaled roughly $170,000 and that the solicitor budget for the year was not equal to the $800,000 figure circulating on social media.

Angel also said he learned of a disciplinary complaint filed by former councilman Scott Copley on March 24 and that the state chief disciplinary counsel dismissed it quickly, concluding it did not allege a violation of the rules of professional conduct. “That complaint was dismissed,” Angel said; disciplinary counsel found no professional‑conduct violation, he told the council.

Separately, Angel told the council he became aware of an alleged threat made by Mr. Copley in a telephone call reported to him by Vice President Verducci. Angel quoted the language he was told: “I’m going to go to her house and I’m going to skull **** her.” Angel said he reported the threat to the Coventry Police Department on March 21 and that a police report and a no‑trespass request were subsequently filed and forwarded to the Rhode Island attorney general’s office for investigation. President Lima later told the meeting that a police report and a request for a no‑trespass order were filed on April 1 and that she found the threat “deeply disturbing.”

Residents who spoke in public comment included Britney Boyer, Shay Scott, Scott Guthrie (a former state representative), Tom Nichols, Kayla Amaral and others who criticized the council’s handling of invoices and said the departures of two council members—named in public comment—were the result of a lack of transparency and internal conflict. Multiple speakers said they are HIPAA and security professionals and disputed that HIPAA required the redactions; others argued executive‑session rules and attorney‑client privilege can limit what information is released in public minutes.

Council members and staff said the solicitor’s engagement letter and Rhode Island case law and statutes limit the town’s ability to publish unredacted time specifications for ongoing litigation. Several councilors said they had considered routing invoice review through the town manager or the finance office to reduce controversy, and some urged patience while they gathered facts.

Council action during the meeting included a 5‑0 vote to accept the public‑comment materials submitted into the record and several motions to continue or address docket items. The council moved into executive session later in the evening; council leaders said no votes were taken in executive session and then voted to seal the minutes.

Why it matters: Residents said the dispute over redacted invoices and two resignations has eroded public trust. The solicitor’s assertion that professional‑conduct rules and case law preempt parts of the town charter means the issue will center on legal privilege versus the council’s duty of oversight, and on whether the council’s internal procedures for reviewing privileged invoices should change.

Council next steps: Councilors said they are reviewing options to change the invoice‑review process (possible involvement of the town manager or finance director) and that they will follow legal advice on what documents can be provided without waiving privilege. The solicitor said records of expert costs are available through finance; residents asked the council to place clearer rules on the public record.

Ending: The episode produced an unusually large public turnout and extended discussion. Council President Lima and other members urged residents to let the legal process and police investigation proceed and to participate in future meetings and any charter review process that might follow.