My mooring is not in a field with a waiting list. Therefore, the fee is not authorized by the law it is supposedly based on.”

David Clark

The waiting list has nothing to do with it.”

Chip Hawkins, harbor commission chairman

...nothing in the Town’s Charter or Code of Ordinances sets forth a right of appeal.”

Amy Goins, assistant town solicitor

It is not about the money. David Clark said his months-long dispute with the town over a boat mooring fee is about accountability, due process and fairness, and not about the $100 fee Barrington officials are imposing. 

Clark, a longtime Barrington resident, has a boat mooring located about 100 feet off Annawamscutt Beach. This season, Clark allowed a friend to use the mooring and, shortly thereafter, discovered that the Barrington harbormaster had levied a second fee for the mooring — a $100 charge. Clark immediately questioned the fee, calling it unauthorized in a recent letter to the editor in the Barrington Times. 

“The relevant ordinance, 148-15 (B), is perfectly clear: this fee is only authorized for moorings located in a mooring field that has a waiting list as of April 1,” Clark wrote in the letter. “My mooring is not in a field with a waiting list. Therefore, the fee is not authorized by the law it is supposedly based on.”

Clark’s questioning has led to an appeal hearing with the Barrington Harbor Commission, a subsequent ruling by the commission, and a further challenge by Clark to appeal the commission’s decision to the Barrington Town Council. When the council refused to hear that appeal, Clark again shared his anguish in writing. 

“This process has, almost from the outset, not been about the $100 fee nor about the fact that I pay a lot of property taxes and deserve some sort of special treatment,” Clark wrote in a separate letter. “This is now about a fundamental question of governance: Do we, the citizens of Barrington, have a right to a fair and impartial hearing from our elected officials? Or is our only path to justice a costly lawsuit against the very government we fund?”

Town officials, including Barrington Harbor Commission Chairman Chip Hawkins, disagree with Clark’s assessment of the mooring ordinance.

“Everybody is subject to a fee,” Hawkins said during an interview last week. “This isn’t something new. I can understand a little of David’s interpretation (of the ordinance), but it’s incorrect.”

Mooring without a boat

Clark lives a few feet from the edge of Narragansett Bay. A few years back he applied for, and was granted, a mooring off the beach at the end of Annawamscutt Road. Clark can see the mooring from his property on Appian Way. 

Clark said he had plans to teach his grandchildren how to sail, but after a few tries it became clear that they were not interested. So he eventually decided to sell his sailboat, and, a short time later, heard from a friend who was interested in using his mooring. Clark was happy to oblige, and went to notify Barrington Harbormaster Brian Hunt.

“He says you have to pay another fee,” Clark said. “I already paid $100.”

Clark took a closer look at the town ordinances regarding boat moorings and said the provision of the law requiring the additional fee pertains only to mooring fields that have a waiting list, such as Barrington Harbor. Clark said there is no waiting list for the mooring field off Annawamscutt Beach. 

Hawkins does not agree with Clark’s interpretation of the ordinance.

“The waiting list has nothing to do with it,” Hawkins said. “It’s a matter of him letting someone else use his mooring.”

Hawkins said the fee is applicable if the mooring is being used by someone other than the registered owner, and only if it is for an extended period of time. Hawkins said it is very important that the guest using the mooring file the necessary paperwork and pay the fee. 

“We want to know who the owner (of the boat) is. We need that paperwork if something goes wrong,” Hawkins said, adding that the fee is intended to cover the work needed to process the additional paperwork. 

Clark’s friend who used the mooring dropped off a check to cover the fee, but town officials paused the transaction as Clark filed an appeal with the Barrington Harbor Commission. 

“Should our town officials be able to enforce rules that don’t exist, or apply fees is situations where the law explicitly says they do not apply?” Clark wrote. “When residents point out a clear discrepancy, should they be met with a runaround instead of a simple correction?”

Appeal hearing

In September, the harbor commission heard Clark’s appeal. The board voted 6-0 to uphold the harbormaster’s earlier decision requiring the additional fee be paid for use of Clark’s mooring.

Clark said he was not pleased with the outcome of the hearing, or the process used to reach that decision, or the actions of the commission during the appeal. 

“The commission’s lack of preparation was stunning,” Clark wrote in a letter to the editor. “After I explained that I understood the purpose of the law in crowded areas, a member asked where my mooring was — the single most important fact of the entire case. This revealed they had not done their homework and confirmed the outcome was predetermined.”

Hawkins rejected that accusation. 

“First and foremost, I totally disagree with that assessment,” Hawkins said, adding that the state’s Open Meetings Act does not allow commission members to discuss the case ahead of time. 

Hawkins, who has served on the harbor commission for more than three decades, said no one had predetermined the outcome of the appeal. Hawkins also voiced frustrations with Clark’s decision to take the issue public before the hearing, sharing a letter to the editor with the Barrington Times. 

“He did that before we had the appeal,” Hawkins said. “I did let him know that I didn’t appreciate that. That was from me to him. That had nothing to do with the commission.”

Hawkins said he emailed Clark about the issue. Hawkins also said Clark brought the issue to town officials. 

“Him going to the town, that’s elevated things for us,” Hawkins said. “I met with Phil (Hervey), the town manager. Brian and I both had to meet with Phil. I’m a volunteer. We had to bring in the town solicitor with this. Everybody wanted to be on the same page. I remember Phil saying ‘Why are we still talking about this?’

“Everybody’s kind of going against David. Nobody said ‘I have a different thought on this.’”

Clark said he never spoke with any town officials about his mooring situation. He said it was more likely that the liaison to the harbor commission or the harbormaster mentioned it to the town manager. 

Clark said the appeal hearing wandered into other unrelated issues — the mooring tackle and its inspection report and the size of the boats moored. 

“… my appeal has been met with deflections about separate administrative issues,” Clark wrote. 

He also questioned the professionalism exhibited in the hearing itself. He said two commission members sat with their backs to him while he spoke on behalf of his appeal, and the commission would not allow him to sit at the main table while discussing his appeal.

A short time after the harbor commission’s hearing, Clark decided to appeal the decision to the Barrington Town Council.

Council refusal

In late September, Clark formally requested the Barrington Town Council listen to his appeal of the harbor commission’s ruling. On Oct. 1, Clark received a letter from the assistant town solicitor, Amy Goins.

“After researching this issue, it is our opinion that state law does not provide a right of appeal to the Town Council from a decision of the Harbor Commission,” Goins wrote. “Further, nothing in the Town’s Charter or Code of Ordinances sets forth a right of appeal. Therefore, please be advised that the Town Council is not legally empowered to overturn the Harbor Commission’s decision. 

Clark, in a statement to the council during its Oct. 6 meeting, challenged Goins’ letter. 

“Section 2-1-6, subsection h, of your charter explicitly grants this council the ultimate power and authority to regulate all moorings and fees in the waters of Barrington,” Clark said to the council during the public comment portion of the meeting. “The harbor commission is your subordinate body. To suggest that you, as the ultimate authority, are powerless to correct a clear injustice committed by your own commission is a complete abdication of your duty under that charter.”

A short time after the council meeting, Clark wrote his fourth letter to the editor. 

It stated, in part, “I have tried every reasonable step. I spoke at a town council meeting. I submitted official, documented evidence to the town clerk, including legal precedent from the RI Supreme Court showing the harbor commission's actions were arbitrary, and emails proving the chairman had pre-judged my case. I have written three previous letters to this paper. In response, I have been met with silence. Therefore, on Oct. 21, I sent a formal letter to the town council withdrawing my request for an appeal. Instead, I am asking them to do the job the town charter unambiguously assigns them: Exercise governance and supervisory oversight of a commission that has clearly failed, not only to follow the law, but has also shown disrespect to a citizen who has followed the rules every step of the way. 

“I have asked the town council to mandate training and to request that the harbor commission rehear the case fairly and according to the proper rules for a quasi-judicial hearing. This is no longer about my case. It is about whether we have a local government that is accountable to the people it is sworn to serve, the people who pay the bills. The question is: Will the town council address these documented failures of due process and respect, or will they affirm that a resident's only path to justice in Barrington is through a costly court battle?”

Hawkins said the numerous letters and challenges can have a chilling effect on town volunteers.

“I think in instances like this, I think this is why it’s so hard to get people to volunteer, because of this,” he said. “Nobody wants to go through this week after week after week.”