Newport City Council voted down a resolution Wednesday night that would have instructed the city manager to arrange a public forum on offshore wind development.
The resolution, introduced by Councilor David R. Carlin III, failed in a 4-3 vote after nearly 25 minutes of debate during the council’s regular meeting. Councilor’s Lima, Ceglie, Holder, and Napolitano voted against the resolution.
Carlin’s amended resolution called for the city manager to “arrange a public forum facilitated by appropriate city staff” to give proponents and opponents of offshore wind development an opportunity to share their perspectives.
The councilor said his intent was not for the city manager to personally conduct the forum, but rather to arrange for it to happen with appropriate staff.
City Manager Colin Kennedy expressed discomfort with the original wording, saying he lacked the expertise to guide an academic discussion on the topic. After Carlin clarified and amended the language, Kennedy said he would comply if the resolution passed.
Councilor Angela Lima opposed the resolution, stating, “I don’t agree that our city council should be taking a position for or against anything. The objective of our government is to be able to make as objective decisions as possible.”
Ceglie questioned the purpose of such a forum, noting the city has no jurisdiction over offshore wind development.
“Usually when we have a workshop, it’s because we have a decision to make. There is no decision to make,” she said.
A Middletown resident spoke in favor of the forum, arguing it would provide needed education on the issue.
“I am starving for information,” she said. “Please vote to have this open for us.”
Councilor Mark Aramli supported the resolution, calling it a “viewpoint neutral request” that was reasonable, though not necessarily the best use of city resources.
However, Councilor Charlie Holder strongly opposed city involvement, stating, “The city of Newport and the administration has no business conducting these forums or these workshops.”
The resolution’s failure marks the second time it has been rejected by the council, having previously failed in a 5-1 vote at the Aug. 28 meeting.