Johnston officials intentionally prevented the public from attending a town council meeting

“They’re coming in ... when someone leaves. We shouldn’t let anyone leave until this is done.”

Jairson Ascenção

Testifying before the House Committee on Housing and Municipal Government on an unrelated issue, Jairson Ascenção spoke about being the only person to testify at the Johnston Town Council meeting that approved a plan to take land intended for affordable housing (by eminent domain) and instead build a new public safety complex.

Because of the venue’s size, dozens of people were prevented from attending the Johnston Town Council meeting. As I wrote here, this is a common tactic in Johnston. The Attorney General oversees the Open Meetings Act and has ruled that keeping people out of a public meeting is not a violation of the Open Meetings Act if it is a response to fire codes.

But to my knowledge, the Attorney General has never ruled about using the police to intentionally prevent the public from attending.

During his testimony, Ascenção revealed that he overheard police admit that they were intentionally keeping people out of the meeting. Here’s the video:

Here’s Jairson Ascenção’s testimony, edited for clarity:

“I recently visited the Johnston Town Hall. The 252-unit project was supposed to be for low-income or affordable housing, but now it will be a Public Safety Complex. Although it was supposedly an open discussion, it had been in development for almost six weeks.

“This country and Rhode Island know that we have a real crisis regarding housing and the concept that your community doesn’t care about you when you lose your home. We live in conditions where we all know, every winter, you will die if you live outside, and we still don’t have a sense of compassion to make sure someone isn’t going to be in that. To me, it just does not make sense. It doesn’t matter if someone isn’t ready to work or ready to move forward in their life - that [shouldn’t] consign them to death.

“I’m a young person trying to understand why our community isn’t interested in ensuring that if you lose your home, you have a place to go - a starting point. It’s not just students that deserve university campuses that educate them and bring them to a better place. All of us - up until the point that we exit this world - if we need it, we deserve a chance to learn and be around positive energy. The idea that our government doesn’t understand that doesn’t make sense to me.

“I was the only person in Johnston who testified. When I walked in - I don’t know if I can say this - but they weren’t letting us in, and they excited the space in the building. I heard they would let one person in when someone left, and I was the last person they let in. On my way, I [heard] a policeman say to his chief, “They’re coming in ... when someone leaves. We shouldn’t let anyone leave until this is done.” I [heard] a cop say that, and I was like, “He did that in front of me?” He ignored me.

“Then, I was the only person who spoke. I was in the newspaper. It was crazy.”

Given this new information, I have sent an Open Meetings Act complaint to the Rhode Island Attorney General. Here it is:

This is an Open Meetings Act complaint against the Johnston Town Council for a meeting on Tuesday, January 29, 2025.

There are three areas of concern:

1. The agenda was not specific about what the meeting was about, noting only that the meeting was about a discussion of a numbered parcel of land. No mention of affordable housing, eminent domain, a new public safety complex, or diversion of school building funds was on the agenda.

2. Another issue was a sign seen through the building’s window stating that cameras were prohibited in the room. That sign might be appropriate and lawful in a courtroom’s everyday use. However, the courtroom was being used for a town council meeting, and under the Open Meetings Act, cameras and recording devices are legal.

3. I initially thought that not rescheduling the hearing until a larger venue could be found would violate the Open Meetings Act. Unfortunately, the Rhode Island Attorney General disagreed. In the 2017 Brunetti et al. v. Town of Johnston case, the attorney general found that Johnston could hold public meetings in small public spaces.

However, I don’t think Brunetti applies when the Police and the Mayor intentionally use venue size and crowd restrictions to prevent entry to an open meeting. According to Jairson Ascenção, the only person who managed to get into the meeting:

"I was the only person in Johnston who testified. When I walked in - I don’t know if I can say this - but they weren’t letting us in, and they excited the space in the building. I heard they would let one person in when someone left, and I was the last person they let in. On my way, I [heard] a policeman say to his chief, “They’re coming in ... when someone leaves. We shouldn’t let anyone leave until this is done.” I [heard] a cop say that, and I was like, “He did that in front of me?” He ignored me."

Ascenção gave this testimony before the Rhode Island House of Representatives Committee on Housing and Municipal Government on Tuesday, February 5, 2025. I showed in my piece here - https://steveahlquist.substack.com/p/johnston-elected-oficials-hide-behind - that the Johnston Mayor is following a script established by the previous Mayor in an incident that precipitated the 2017 Brunetti et al. v. Town of Johnston case.

I would like to see the Attorney General rule that the meeting was improper and that the vote taken was illegal.