Opponents to Champlin’s Expansion Embrace Supreme Court Decision, Marina Looking for Resolution
Monday, March 29, 2021
The two sides in the Champlin’s Marina battle on Block Island will press forward with the battle over the marina’s effort to expand, in a dispute that started 18 years ago.
On Friday, the Rhode Island Supreme Court knocked down the mediated agreement between Champlin's Realty Associates [owners of the marina] and the Coastal Resources Management Council.
Attorney General Peter F. Neronha who intervened in the mediation issued a statement stating, “I am pleased with the Court’s decision to refuse to ratify and enter as an order of the Court an agreement resulting from a private mediation outside the view and without the participation of concerned stakeholders who had long been parties to the underlying litigation.”
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTThe coalition of opponents to stop a major expansion of Champlin’s Marina in the Great Salt Pond said in a statement issued by their Boston-public relations firm, “The Town of New Shoreham declined to participate, having won repeatedly before the CRMC and in court, but Champlin’s and the CRMC, with the participation of retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Williams, quietly engaged in an unsanctioned mediation process. That resulted in a proposed memorandum of understanding allowing marina expansion."
“Private deals, made in executive session without notice to opposing parties, are clearly and dramatically incompatible with the trust that was placed in the CRMC to be the guardian of the state’s resources charged by constitution and ancient common law with a public trust,” Attorney Prentiss wrote in answer to the motion filed by Champlin’s and the CRMC.
“This matter is not new to the Court,” the Supreme Court ruling on Friday said, citing an earlier ruling it made holding that “the intervenors are all aggrieved parties within the statute and, therefore, properly are before this court."
“The opponents went to court in February to register their strong opposition to what they called the Coastal Resources Management Council’s ‘backroom arrangement’ and ‘secretly contrived fix’ with the marina owner,” claims the PR firm in a press release issued on Sunday.
Marina Fires Back
Spokeswoman Dyana Koelsch said in a statement for Robert Goldberg, Champlin's Attorney."We are reviewing the RI Supreme Court's ruling in declining to enter a consent order that would have incorporated the elements of a MOU reached in mediation between Champlin's Marina and RI Coastal Resource Management Council.”
"While the court declined to issue the consent order, saying the Supreme Court was not the appropriate place for the requested action, it is important to note the Court did not dispute the legitimacy of the settlement and also validated the use of mediation as a means to settle disputes,” added Koelsch.
"This case has been languishing in litigation for 17 years, and Champlin's along with CRMC are committed to finally settling it. The mediated settlement involves significant concessions from Champlin's that resulted in an expansion plan that is one-third of what was originally proposed. It adds no new boats, and puts in place several new environmental protections,” she added.
"We remain troubled by the actions and vitriol of the Attorney for the Intervenors. His unhinged, irresponsible, anything goes behavior, clearly, the result of a failed poorly thought-out obstructionist legal strategy, runs contrary to the rules of attorney conduct and Professional Standards," Koelsch added referring to a GoLocal story.
Coastal Resources Management Council member Jerry Sahagian blistered Prentiss for de facto wearing two hats -- both serving as paid legal counsel for the agency in negotiating an agreement regarding Vineyard Winds proposed project and then criticizing the CRMC as it relates to the legal battle over Champlin's Marina. Sahagian has called for a complaint to be filed with the State's disciplinary council.
"Finally on the role and power of Intervenors to void or veto settlements - we continue to point out that mere intervention does not vest a party with the right to grant or deny a permit. No governmental authority is ceded or gained by granting intervention. Intervenors are not created by or limited in their mission by the general laws. Their motivations do not have to be disclosed. In fact, where the Intervenor is an association or corporate entity, even its members or owners need not be disclosed. Certainly, Intervenors’ true motivations are beyond reach. This is, of course, in contrast to a governmental entity whose very being and purpose is controlled by statute," she said.
Related Articles
- CRMC Board Wants Disciplinary Action Against Lawyer Hired By Chairwoman Cervenka
- UPDATED: Save The Bay Files Complaint Against Raimondo on CRMC Appointees
- Supreme Court Blocks Champlin’s Marina Agreement — 18 Year Battle Continues
- Battle Over Champlin’s Marina Heats Up - Attorney General’s Office Files With Supreme Court