Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Executive Session Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cranston City Council votes 7-2 to enter executive session on Patton litigation, seals minutes
Summary
The Cranston City Council on Aug. 27 voted 7-2 to go into executive session under Rhode Island law for litigation related to Patton v. Cranston City Council, then voted to seal the session minutes.
Get email alerts on the Executive Session Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Cranston City Council voted 7-2 on Aug. 27 to meet in executive session under Rhode Island law to discuss litigation and then voted to seal the minutes of that closed session.
Council President Jessica Marino moved to take up item 4, an executive session “pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws, section 42-46-5(a)(2), for litigation or prospective litigation regarding Patton versus Cranston City Council,” and the council approved the motion by roll call. The clerk recorded votes: Councilmen Bonanno, Graziano, Heroyan, Andujar, Traficante, Vice President Wall and President Marino voted yes; Councilmen Campobiano and Ritz voted no. After the closed session, the council reported that votes were taken in executive session and then voted to seal the minutes; the seal motion passed by the same roll-call split (7 yes, 2 no).
The council discussed whether the matter should be handled in open session before voting. Councilman Ritz and Councilman Campobiano said residents had urged greater transparency and that, as far as possible, matters should be discussed publicly. Councilman Ritz said he would vote no and wanted to “explain” his no vote. Councilman Campobiano said he was “against going exec session” and urged openness. City Solicitor Malay told the council the open-meetings statute provides an exception allowing—but not requiring—executive session for attorney–client discussions and litigation matters.
No details of the litigation were discussed in public during the meeting beyond the case name recorded by the clerk, Patton v. Cranston City Council, and an OMA (open meetings act) complaint dated Aug. 21 related to this special meeting. Council President Marino said attorney–client discussions should “absolutely remain between the attorney and the client,” asserting that public discussion could put the city “in jeopardy.”
Motion and vote records from the meeting indicate: (1) a motion to go into executive session under R.I. Gen. Laws §42-46-5(a)(2) passed by roll call (7–2); (2) after returning from executive session the council reported votes had been taken in executive session; and (3) a motion to seal the executive-session minutes passed by roll call (7–2). The meeting minutes to be sealed were not made public at the meeting and no further public details were disclosed.
The council had earlier approved a motion to take the agenda out of order at the start of the session; that procedural motion passed unanimously by roll call.

