The Shared Logo and the Lawsuit Could Pose Problems for Portsmouth

Dear Members of the Portsmouth Town Council,

As was discussed in my previous communication regarding the 3 month investigation into the anti-toll effort, it is now time to discuss two areas where the Portsmouth Business Association and the Portsmouth Town Council overlap in a way not conducive to good public policy.

The first area of concern is the logo.  What is a not for profit corporation doing with the Town’s logo?  This creates all kinds of confusion and problems.  As a member of the Council, by not demanding that they cease, you are giving certain businesses in Portsmouth advantages over others.  This is a possible ethics violation.  It also represents a possible Open Meetings Act violation since Town “property” was leased without a recorded vote numerous years in a row.

An APRA request while try to determine how the logo was appropriated in the first place.  The same APRA request will also try to determine if other groups may use the logo at will.  If only the PBA can, this could result in some form of discrimination suit.

If that were not bad enough, the PBA often uses the logo to collect money under what could look like false pretenses.  Neither the West main Pizza effort, why is a not for profit collecting money as an agent for a for profit entity again, nor the scholarship effort are legitimate city functions.  Yet, thanks to the logo, they look like they are.

Hypothetically two different people have donated to both efforts thinking they were city led.  Hypothetically, these folks could return to declare that they were defrauded by the lack of city involvement.

The worst part of the logo confusion is this: because of the way the PBA has conducted itself, every individual member of the PBA is now facing illegal lobbying as well as illegal contribution complaints.  Because the logo is ever present, the city must be named in each complaint as well.

The second area of concern is the lawsuit concerning the tolls.  Folks at the Federal level anticipated the suit coming days after your original letter.  It was well known that they will try to dismiss the suit based on an issue of standing.  Based on suits of a like nature, they might just succeed.

Were you advised by the Solicitor at the time you filed the suit that the great likelihood to be dismissed existed?  If you were not, this is the time to speak up.  The town of Little Compton and Tiverton are getting a copy of this communication so they might review this issue.  Yes, you did have the political foresight to file the suit before the botched House Finance Committee Hearing.  However, did you have the foresight to understand the financial risks of following this path?

It is my understanding the Solicitor was lobbied by the PBA, possibly illegally, to file the suit.  Further, since the PBA is not the Solicitor’s client an APRA request can garner all emails between the PBA and the Solicitor, there may have been undue influence exerted.

You will continue to be appraised as events develop.  Soon, the Portsmouth Police Department will be receiving copies of planned telephone scripts to be used against the PBA and Ray Berberick.  Following that, you will receive a copy of the letter sent to a State Ethics Commission Investigator regarding the Berberick matter.  The APRA requests should follow that communication.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Robert T. Oliveira

401-924-3563