Cranston City Council has voted to launch an independent investigation into Mayor Kenneth J. Hopkins, following the filing of a lawsuit alleging he stole a classic car from a constituent and used city employees to further the alleged misdeed.

City attorney Ryan D. Stys, of the Providence firm DeSisto Law, approached the Cranston City Council during public comment and issued a warning near the beginning of Monday night’s meeting.

“I am the counsel and attorney representing the city in the lawsuit,” Stys told the city council, informing the governing body he was there to discuss “the resolution for the independent investigation into Mayor Hopkins.”

“I came up here to address the Council because there is a pending suit in Superior Court,” Stys warned, reminding the council that the “city of Cranston” is named in the suit. “So the city is a defendant in the suit. So if I were advising my client in this suit, I would advise that the subject matter of this suit only be discussed in executive or closed session, not open session.”

Cranston City Council President Jessica Marino did not discuss the resolution in open session but did reply to requests for comment Tuesday afternoon.

“I’m open-minded on what the investigation will look like,” Marino said Tuesday. “What I want it to be is independent.”

So be it, resolved

The resolution to launch the investigation against the incumbent Republican mayor was sponsored by Marino and referred to the Finance Committee following a 6-2 vote (two of the council’s three Republican city councilors voted against it; the council’s six Democratic city councilors voted in favor of the resolution). The Finance Committee is scheduled to discuss the matter further on Oct. 7.

Stys reminded city councilors of “an exception to the open meetings act,” which allows them to discuss pending litigation in closed session.

“Members of this council have a fiduciary duty to its constituents and discussing the pending suit in Superior Court” could jeopardize the case,” Stys told the council. “With that said, again, I’ve advised the city that any matters that are pending litigation are only discussed in executive session.”

After the meeting, Cranston City-Wide City Councilor and Republican Minority Leader Nicole Renzulli replied to a request for comment.

“Let’s be clear — this resolution is not about accountability,” Renzulli said. “If this council or its President cared about accountability then people would have spoken up with me when Council President Marino allegedly blackmailed our own colleague, Councilwoman Aniece Germain, into resigning.”

“That’s malarkey,” Marino responded to Renzulli’s comments. “I have done absolutely nothing inappropriate; nothing wrong. The fact that that word — ‘blackmail’ — is even being used is beyond offensive and borders on slander and libel.”

Hopkins is currently locked in battle with one of the Democratic city councilors, Robert J. Ferri (Ferri voted for the resolution but did not speak on the matter in open session or respond to requests for comment after the meeting).

“The timing alone raises serious ethical concerns,” Renzulli said. “This resolution is a transparent attempt to use the powers of this council to interfere with an ongoing political race and I believe it would be unethical for Councilman Ferri, as a candidate for mayor, to even participate in a vote that directly benefits his campaign by tarnishing his opponent this close to an election.”

Ward 5 City Councilor Christopher G. Paplauskas, a Republican, was at the meeting, but disappeared prior to the evening’s agenda items. He missed the vote (which ultimately passed 6-2).

“Furthermore, launching this investigation and having public discussion while there is pending litigation puts the city at serious risk,” Renzulli said, echoing Stys’s concerns. “This was confirmed by the City’s defense attorney in public comment last night. Are we as a council truly prepared to expose our city and its taxpayers to liability by diving into the murky waters of ongoing litigation? We have a fiduciary responsibility and it would simply be irresponsible to do so.”

Lawsuit & Resolution

Marino’s resolution: to “Call for an Independent Investigation” of the Aug. 29, 2024, complaint filed by “David Broccoli, et al,” against “Hopkins, The City of Cranston, Anthony Moretti, Paul McCauley, David Rodio and Christopher Millea.”

In the resolution, Marino references the “lawsuit against Kenneth Hopkins (the Mayor), and other employees of the City of Cranston” alleges “fraud, unjust enrichment, wrongful conversion of property, removal and destruction of property, slander of title, and violation of procedural due process and seeks replevin, damages and punitive damages.”

The “lawsuit and its exhibits” were attached to the resolution.

“Allegations in this lawsuit include the use of city resources and city employees facilitating Mayor Kenneth Hopkins’s unlawful taking of a private antique car, 1975 Morris Garage MGB Anniversary Edition coupe (referred to as 'MG') owned by the Plaintiff,” according to the resolution, which further alleges “there are photographs showing the use of city-issued license plate ‘30000’ on the MG and the Mayor has publicly admitted to his possession of the MG, lack of registration, and refusal by plaintiff to accept the Mayor’s offers of money for the sale of the MG as presented by him and other people on the Mayor’s behalf.”

According to the resolution, “there is question of the existence of a legal title, registration, bill of sale, and insurance of the MG while in the possession of the mayor … the extent of the use of the city issued license plate ‘30000’ on the MG … the use of city employees and other city resources and the extent of liability that the city is exposed to based on the allegations in this Complaint.”

According to Marino’s resolution, “the City Council takes these allegations seriously and it seeks to initiate the appropriate independent investigation into these allegations, including but not limited to the inappropriate use of city employees and city resources for the Mayor’s private taking of a vehicle having exposed the city to liability.”

One of those named in the suit, Millea, is also a city lawyer.

Via the resolution, the “City Council seeks independence from the legal opinions of the Solicitor Christopher Millea and from the opinions of all other named defendants in this lawsuit, as to this City Council’s request for an independent investigation and as to any legal advice in a matter that these same Defendants are alleged to be directly involved in.”

“I did not want to be in the position of having to address this,” Marino explained Tuesday. “However, given what the mayor has stated publicly and the photographs, the mayor used a city license plate on a vehicle that he knew was not registered and that he did not have a bill of sale for at a minimum. Those are city resources, and now it becomes an issue that we must address.”

The Mayor’s Response

On Tuesday morning, Hopkins criticized Marino for her proposed resolution. His campaign provided a statement in response to the now-approved investigation. Marino grouped the resolution together with all other pending new business at the end of the meeting, and city council approved all new business as a block.

“The Council President has introduced a resolution to the city council which is nothing more than a political prop for my opponent’s mayoral campaign,” Hopkins said. “As a civil litigation attorney, she should know better and as an elected official she should not be interfering with the city’s defense of this matter.”

According to Hopkins, “the allegations in the Broccoli lawsuit are groundless and she has accepted them as gospel … it is reckless for her to try and inject herself in this case for political purposes.”

The suit became public knowledge a week before the Sept. 10 Primary Election. Hopkins was in a heated Primary race against state Rep. Barbara Ann Fenton-Fung (District 15), the wife of former Cranston Mayor Allan Fung.

“It is evident the suit which was filed just prior to September 10th to try and impact the mayoral primary was a political hit job,” Hopkins said.

According to the mayor’s campaign, the defendants named in the suit “were just served last Thursday, and defense attorneys will be filing appropriate pleadings in court.”

Hopkins has “retained a lawyer to oversee the claims involving himself personally and the other city defendants will be represented by city-hired legal counsel.”

“Those claims involving city officials have been largely rejected in three different courts already,” Hopkins said.

Hopkins alleges that Marino “has purposely proposed a hearing on the resolution” for Oct. 7, “the night of a mayoral debate sponsored by the Cranston Herald.”

The debate will run from 6 to 7 p.m. The meeting will start at 7 p.m.

“Is it a mere coincidence that she makes it difficult for my advocates to attend the hearing?” Hopkins asked, concluding “this political resolution should be withdrawn, and the Council President should allow the matter to move forward, and the real truth be revealed in the court process free from political interference.”

“That’s absolutely false,” Marino said of the planned continuation of the discussion on Oct. 7. “It’s a regularly scheduled finance committee meeting. I had no knowledge of the debate. Frankly, that’s insulting.”

Marino was joined by fellow Democrats Ferri, Council Vice President Lammis J. Vargas (Ward 1), Kristen E. Haroian (Ward 2), Majority Leader John P. Donegan (Ward 3), and Daniel Wall (Ward 6) in voting to approve the block which included the resolution. Republican Richard D. Campopiano (Ward 4) and Renzulli voted against it. Paplauskas did not vote.

Cranston resident Karen Rosenberg stood to speak to offer public comment on docketed items, which included the resolution.

“A lot of people have focused on the concern about a person in an official capacity flagrantly violating the law by driving an unregistered vehicle around the city,” Rosenberg told Cranston City Council. “To me, that’s the least of it. What is really concerning to me, is that the mayor has not been able to adequately explain why he’s in possession of a car that he’s never paid for, that he can’t register because he doesn’t have a bill of sale or a title for it.”