Town solicitor says legal work on Whitehill Lighthouse transfer stayed with council; some councilors demand more transparency

The Westerly Town Council heard a public explanation from its legal team on how the town handled an administrative appeal and related research tied to the transfer of the Whitehill Lighthouse property.

At a special meeting called by the council president, the town solicitor (name not specified) described a Sept. 15, 2023 remote meeting with the National Park Service in which the NPS told the town that its review was complete and the General Services Administration (GSA) would prepare the transactional conveyance documents. The solicitor said the GSA’s role was to finalize recording documents, not to revisit the NPS recommendation.

The solicitor said the town’s legal team — including an associate identified in the meeting as Mr. Garcia and outside counsel Justin Shea — compiled historical research on rights-of-way and public access, some going back to the 1800s. He said his office communicated with GSA staff but that ‘‘no legal research, no opinions, no memorandum was sent in a form of written communication to or received from the US General Services Administration,’’ language he read from a sworn affidavit and the council record.

That statement drew repeated questions from Councilor Cordio, who said he had received emails from Mr. Garcia but not any written legal memorandum or clear updates before a deed was conveyed. ‘‘That’s wrong, period,’’ Cordio told the solicitor, arguing the public and the council lacked timely notice and access to documents related to the APRA appeal and an Attorney General complaint.

The solicitor countered that his office provided repeated status updates and that it was intentional to protect attorney-client work product from third parties, while sharing less-sensitive email updates. He told the council the office had sought to keep the GSA transactional documents ‘‘neutral’’ on the question of public access and that GSA had not been prepared to share its Department of Justice title work.

Councilor Lombardo criticized the effort as misguided and costly, saying the town ‘‘found no easements’’ and calling the earlier resolution and further work ‘‘an absolute waste’’ that has cost taxpayers ‘‘tens of thousands of dollars.’’ Several councilors and the solicitor acknowledged a tension between transparency and protecting the town from potential litigation if the underlying research were released; the solicitor said releasing the work could ‘‘open up the town to litigation.’’

Councilor Shalala pressed whether the solicitor’s office was awaiting direction from the council before sending any material to GSA, or whether an oversight left GSA without the town’s research. The solicitor and his associate, Mr. Garcia, replied that any substantive submission would have been cleared with the council and reiterated that GSA said it would ‘‘take input under consideration’’ but gave no guarantees it would amend the proposed deed.

The council then voted to enter an executive session to discuss multiple items exempt from open meetings law under Rhode Island General Laws §42-46-4; the roll call on that motion was recorded as 6–0 in favor. After reconvening, the council reported that items N and O had been handled in open session and that the council unanimously agreed to seal minutes for the litigation item referenced in the report.

Votes at a glance: the council approved a motion to go into executive session for the listed agenda items by a recorded 6–0 vote and subsequently voted unanimously to seal the minutes for the referenced litigation item.

What happens next: the solicitor’s office and councilors said they will follow existing records and minutes; the sealed minutes and executive-session actions are now part of the town’s restricted recordkeeping until law or motion permits release.