Ethics opinion bars Anderson from vineyard matters

Risk of liability in SLAPP countersuit creates conflict

By Tom Killin Dalglish
Posted 1/17/19

LITTLE COMPTON — A January 8 advisory opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission precludes newly elected Little Compton Town Councilor Larry Anderson from participating in town council deliberations, and voting dealing with the licensing and regulating of activities at Carolyn's Sakonnet Vineyard.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Register to post events


If you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here.

Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content.

Day pass subscribers

Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.


Ethics opinion bars Anderson from vineyard matters

Risk of liability in SLAPP countersuit creates conflict

Posted

LITTLE COMPTON — A January 8 advisory opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission precludes newly elected Little Compton Town Councilor Larry Anderson from participating in town council deliberations, and voting dealing with the licensing and regulating of activities at Carolyn's Sakonnet Vineyard.
The advisory opinion, requested from the commission by Mr. Anderson (referred to as "the Petitioner") was reported at last Thursday's town council meeting.
After distributing a copy of the three-page advisory (Advisory Opinion No. 2019-4) to his fellow councilors, Mr. Anderson said there there were only a few sentences that he wanted to bring to the other councilors' attention. Councilor Gary Mataronas was absent.
Mr. Anderson then briefed his council colleagues, and a handful of people in the audience, about what the commission had decided. No action, vote, or discussion took place afterwards regarding the matter.
Other than the fact that the meeting was the second attended by newly appointed Town Administrator Tony Teixeira (who'd only been officially appointed on December 6), the council meeting was routine and brief (see separate story).
"It is the opinion of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission," Councilor Anderson read from the opinion, "that the Petitioner [Larry Anderson], a member of the Little Compton Town Council, a municipal elected position, is prohibited by the Code of Ethics from participating in the Town Council's discussions and decision-making relative to a pending litigation matter, given that it is reasonably foreseeable that he could be financially impacted by it even though he is currently neither a party nor participant to the litigation."
"Under the Code of Ethics," stated the opinion, "a public official may not participate in any matter in which he has an interest, financial or otherwise, that is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties or employment in the public interest."
The opinion recites that Mr. Anderson had informed the commission that "there had been a degree of public controversy surrounding certain activities at the vineyard — "summer musical concerts, weddings, and wedding receptions."
The opinion says that some town residents, including Mr. Anderson, "have expressed their concerns and objections before various town and state officials regarding whether the intensified entertainment activities at the Vineyard comply with municipal and state law and any conservation restrictions on portions of the Vineyard's property."
Mr. Anderson, it states, became acquainted with neighbors and abutters of the Vineyard, who in 2016 hired lawyers to assist them "in seeking relief and remedies from the effects of the Vineyard activities on their property and everyday lives."
In June 2017 three of the neighbors and abutters filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island Superior court against the town council itself, the town councilors in their official capacities, and its members in their official capacities, and against the owners of the Vineyard.
Generally, the lawsuit sought in part a declaratory judgment regarding the legality of certain of the vineyard activities — including outdoor concerts, weddings, and wedding parties — under town zoning and licensing requirements, and their conformity with conservation restrictions applicable to portions of the Vineyard property.
The ethics commission opinion states that in the ramp-up to the filing of the lawsuit, from "2016 until his declaration of candidacy for Town Council," the petitioner, Mr. Anderson, "supported and worked closely with" the neighbors and abutters and their attorneys.
"The Petitioner explains that his support included financial contributions, organization and administration of public fundraising, and research and other assistance to the attorneys."
On October 20, 2017, about four months after the June filing of the original lawsuit, the owners of the vineyard (Dionysus Acquisition, LLC and Sakonnet Vineyards, LLC) filed a counterclaim against three of the neighbors.
The counterclaim, opponents say, amounts to a "strategic lawsuit against public participation" or SLAPP suit. It is the existence of the counterclaim, not yet proven nor even yet personally identifying Mr. Anderson as a person against whom the claim might be asserted (the counterclaim refers only to "John Does 1 through 10") that creates the potential conflict.
The underlying litigation, of which the pending counterclaim is potentially a part, is still ongoing, and has been in mediation for about a year, with no end in sight.
The opinion makes clear that "the counter-claimants have reserved the right to amend the counterclaim to add to the action as third-party-defendants, persons who have provided financial support and funding to the litigation, designating those persons as "John Does 1 through 10."
The counterclaim also asserts, though the ethics advisory opinion does not recite, that the plaintiffs and "John Does 1 through 10" have committed intentional acts to "interfere with" the Vineyard's business relationship and income expectancy, and have caused the Vineyard "great harm," and that the Vineyard has "been greatly damaged."
Though not detailed in the advisory opinion, the counterclaim asserts a claim for damages against the plaintiffs and "John Does 1 through 10" in "an amount to be determined at trial, plus "interests, costs, and attorneys' fees, and punitive damages in the amount of $1 million".
"The Petitioner believes," states the opinion, "that due to his financial and public support" of the neighbors and abutters, "as well as his individual public commentary and advocacy, he may well be considered among the 'John Does 1 through 10' described but not named in the counterclaim."
The advisory opinion states that Mr. Anderson represented to the ethics commission that "to the extent he might be one of the potential unnamed John Does included in the counterclaim, it is possible that the outcome of the litigation could result in a direct financial impact upon him."
It is the possibility that Mr. Anderson might be personally named by the counterclaimants, with the looming threat of being liable for monetary damages, and not just be a "John Doe" counterclaim defendant, that creates the potential conflict.
Footnote: the Providence law firm — Cameron and Mittleman — that represents Dionysus and the Vineyard in asserting the counterclaim against the plaintiffs and "John Does 1-10," is the same law firm that has just been named by the Tiverton Town Council to serve as its town solicitor,

2024 by East Bay Media Group

Barrington · Bristol · East Providence · Little Compton · Portsmouth · Tiverton · Warren · Westport
Meet our staff
MIKE REGO

Mike Rego has worked at East Bay Newspapers since 2001, helping the company launch The Westport Shorelines. He soon after became a Sports Editor, spending the next 10-plus years in that role before taking over as editor of The East Providence Post in February of 2012. To contact Mike about The Post or to submit information, suggest story ideas or photo opportunities, etc. in East Providence, email mrego@eastbaymediagroup.com.