This morning the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) held a secret, “pre-hearing conference regarding Docket No. SB-2015-06—Invenergy’s Clear River Energy Center.” The communication for this meeting was sent to the attorneys involved in the case, but not to the general public or reporters. Going in all I knew was that the scheduling of the case was to be discussed.
Minutes after the tables were set, Lucarelli left the room. Alan Shoer, an attorney with the law firm Adler, Pollock and Sheehan, representing Invenergy, the company wishing to build the $1 billion dollar fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in Burrillville, entered Hearing Room A, exchanged pleasantries with Jerry Elmer and left.
Minutes later, Lucarelli re-entered the room and asked this reporter to leave.
“This is not an open meeting,” said Lucarelli.
“Why is that?” I asked.
“Because only attorneys were invited.” Lucarelli said that attorneys may need to bring something up in the process of the meeting that would be protected information.
“There are already processes for dealing with such disclosures in open meetings,” I reminded Attorney Lucarelli.
Lucarelli stuck to her guns. “This is not an open meeting and I have to ask you to leave.”
“Could you ask the attorneys if they object to my being here? If no one minds me being here, then what’s the problem?” I asked this because I suspected that Lucarelli had been asked by Shoer, outside of Hearing Room A, to kick me out. She had given no indication, when in the room re-arranging chairs and tables, that my presence was a concern, it was only after Shoer’s arrival that my presence became problematic.
“No,” said Lucarelli. “This is not an open meeting.”
I nodded and began to pack my cameras.
With Attorney Shoer was his assistant, Attorney Nicole Verdi, and a young woman who was revealed to be a student at Bristol High School, interning, for free, with Shoer’s law firm.
“Wait a minute,” I said, “You’re going to let a high school student attend a meeting where potentially confidential, valuable and/or private information might be exposed, and you’re kicking me out?”
This led to some confused looks from Lucarelli to the lawyers around the room.
“She’s an intern,” said Verdi.
“Is she an intern on this case?” asked Elmer.
More confused looks.
“Yes,” said Verdi.
More confused looks. Lucarelli looked at Elmer, almost daring him to say something.
“I just don’t see any legal reason to ask [the reporter] to leave,” said Elmer.
Lucarelli stood firm.
As I left I ran into Todd Bianco in the hallway. Bianco is a coordinator with the PUC. “I will be registering an objection with the Attorney General’s office,” I said.
The issue, said RI ACLU director Steve Brown, is whether the “pre-hearing conference” constitutes a meeting as defined in the Open Meetings Act. This is an issue that requires some legal expertise do decide.
In a phone call after the meeting Jerry Elmer confirmed that, “no confidential information of any kind was discussed at the scheduling conference.
“More importantly however,” continued Elmer, “everyone knew in advance that no confidential information would be discussed because the purpose of the meeting was to set a schedule for the case, that is, what events would occur on what dates. In fact, nothing confidential was discussed.”
I’ll be researching this further and I welcome any expertise on the Open Meeting Act to clarify the situation. Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment