LETTERS

Council should rescind judicial appointment

Posted 2/14/23

To the Editor,

Thank you to the Cranston Herald and Rory Schuler for what, so far, has been the best coverage of a truly scandalous story unfolding in the City of Cranston, namely, the City …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
LETTERS

Council should rescind judicial appointment

Posted

To the Editor,


Thank you to the Cranston Herald and Rory Schuler for what, so far, has been the best coverage of a truly scandalous story unfolding in the City of Cranston, namely, the City Council’s illegal action in appointing a new Probate Court judge. In choosing the judge, the slim majority of council Democrats blatantly violated provisions of the Open Meetings Act.

The council members hastily appointed Fred White Jr. to the Probate Judge Advisory Commission, a five-member board that advises the council on the merits of applicants for the judgeship. White, an honorable man, told the Herald that former City Councilwoman Cindy Fogarty recruited him to serve on the commission just days before the commission met to discuss the three candidates for the job of Probate Court Judge. By City Charter, the council appoints the members of this commission.

On or before Dec. 21, the council violated the Open Meetings Law. On Dec. 20, the Probate Judge Advisory Commission voted 4-1 to reappoint sitting Judge George Cappello to serve as judge of the Probate Court. Mr. White, recruited by Fogarty and installed on the commission without a public vote, cast his ballot for another applicant: Cindy Fogarty herself.

The next morning, a City Council member called Judge Cappello to give him the heads up: When the council next met on Jan. 2, it was going to ignore the Advisory Commission’s opinion, and install former council member Fogarty to the judgeship over Cappello. The councilor did offer this booby prize: Judge Cappello could stay on as Fogarty’s “auxiliary judge,” an insulting demotion for a man widely regarded as one of the most knowledgeable probate lawyers in the state.

On Jan. 2, the slim majority of Democrats on the council went ahead and chose Fogarty, their former council colleague, on a 5-4 vote, as a council member had said they would. That is evidence on its face of an Open Meetings violation. Obviously, the five members of the council collaborated among themselves outside the forum of a public meeting, reached a decision to ignore the advisory commission, told Judge Cappello of that decision, and only then came to the advertised public meeting to rubberstamp the decision they had illegally made in private.

Politics obviously plays a role in selecting judges, but this process went beyond the pale of politics as usual, and crossed the line into illegal behavior. The majority ignored the Open Meetings Law when they decided to talk among themselves, outside of an advertised open meeting, to appoint Fogarty to the post.

By way of disclosure, George Cappello has served as my lawyer in real estate transactions, including in Cranston, and in probating two estates, including one in Pawtucket. I happen to know the Pawtucket Probate Court judge personally, and she told me that Cappello, now Judge Cappello, is highly venerated for his knowledge of probate law. I have witnessed Judge Cappello in action, and can vouch for his calm judicial temperament, calm because he is secure in his knowledge of that branch of law. Probate law has not been a large part of Fogarty’s law practice, and the people of Cranston deserve better than a judge who would require on-the-job-training to serve their needs.

The remedy for illegal actions is to rescind them. The City Council must rescind its appointment of Fogarty as Probate Court judge, and properly go through the process, publicly and above board. If, after hearing testimony from the public, including from Mr. White himself (a man who now supports Judge Cappello) the Democrats still want to support the inexperienced Fogarty over Judge Cappello, they may do so – and answer to the voters next year. The City Council must act within the parameters of the law, it has no authority to meet in secret and to issue rulings by fiat. Process and public input is important to a transparent, free Democracy.


Gerald M. Carbone

Warwick

letter, letters

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here