
That’s what Whalerock’s lawyer Nick Gorham claims in papers filed yesterday in RI Superior Court. Just in time for the Town Council meeting (tomorrow) where, once again, his
client’s offer to sell his land to the town will be discussed..
Gorham filed a Memorandum of Law accompanied by around 300 pages of attachments in the consolidated lawsuits filed by neighbors of Larry LeBlanc’s property on Route One, site of LeBlanc’s proposed Whalerock commercial wind turbine project.
In this filing, Gorham asks the court to rule
“that the Charlestown Planning Commission’s only role in the Whalerock application for an LWES [commercial wind turbine] is to advise the zoning board of review (Count I) and that the Planning Commission is illegally constituted because it is elected rather than appointed (Count II).”
Gorham raised this issue at the
Planning Commission’s April 27th meeting and effectively closed the meeting. If Gorham is right and the Court agrees to issue the ruling he requests, the actions by the Planning Commission in taking primacy over the Whalerock application last year could be tossed out.
Gorham’s case in a nutshell: state law requires municipal boards, like
Charlestown’s Planning Commission, to be appointed, not elected, to prevent taint of political bias. Gorham says
Charlestown is the
only town in Rhode Island that still elects its Planning Commission, in violation of state law. He also cites prejudicial remarks made by Planning Commission member Kate Waterman as evidence of political taint.
Personally, I doubt an appointed commission would be any less biased and tainted, but I found Gorham’s arguments about what
Rhode Island law requires to be well argued. Rather than take my word for it, read his argument yourself. I have cut-and-pasted the core of his brief to the end of this article, below the fold.
BONUS: I learned a great new word from Gorham’s brief. I plan to use it often. The word is “nugatory.”
The last time the Planning Commission’s legitimacy was challenged was in 2007, when attorney Margaret Hogan questioned whether the elected commission complied with
Rhode Island law. In January 2008, then town solicitor
Bob Craven wrote a legal opinion to the Town Council telling them he said he saw nothing wrong with the practice and recommended no further action be taken.
At that time, no one seemed to want to press the issue any further and accepted Craven’s opinion as the final legal authority. But is it a surprise that the town lawyer would tell the town that what it is doing is OK? Lawyers are supposed to warn you away from doing something stupid. But generally you expect the lawyer to give you a legal justification for what you want to do. A judge may disagree. And I don't remember Craven being considered a great legal scholar.
Unless the Whalerock dispute is settled, most likely by the purchase of LeBlanc’s land by the town, RI Superior Court Justice Jeffrey Lanphear will get to decide whose version of legal reality is correct.