Council Details Craven Investigation Timeline After Residents Demand Answers on Resignation Terms

The Narragansett Town Council on Monday appointed a new assistant town solicitor and confirmed that Robert Craven is off the town's payroll, closing out a workplace investigation that residents spent much of the meeting's open forum demanding answers about.

Before the appointment vote, the council heard roughly a half-hour of public criticism over how it handled a complaint filed in March against Craven, then an assistant town solicitor. Speakers pressed for a chronology, asked whether any nondisclosure agreement was attached to Craven's resignation, and questioned why the matter took until August to resolve. The council declined to take public comment on the agenda item itself, and instead had the town solicitor read a dated timeline into the record.

The account here is drawn from the Narragansett Town Council's published meeting recording of its August 3, 2026, session.

What the council said happened, and when

Town Solicitor Tom Callahan laid out the sequence at the council's request, prefacing it by saying the matter "involves a sensitive personnel matter, so the amount of information that can be disclosed is somewhat limited."

According to Callahan's account, an employee filed a complaint with Town Manager Jim Tierney on March 18, 2026, concerning an interaction at the conclusion of the March 17, 2026, Planning Board meeting. Tierney opened an investigation and assigned it to the town's labor attorney. The Town Council was informed of the substance of the allegations and the pending investigation at its April 6, 2026, meeting.

Interviews ran through April, May and part of June. The labor attorney notified the town manager's office on or about June 18 that the report was complete, and a standalone executive session — a closed-door meeting held apart from the regular agenda — was scheduled five days later, on June 23. That session ran roughly two and a half hours. One of the five council members could not attend, so the council agreed to reconvene on the matter later so that member could review the report.

Callahan said the council received a resignation letter from Craven on July 20, and accepted it that same evening in executive session "without conditions." The solicitor's office sent a letter accepting the resignation on July 23.

Two other points in Callahan's statement responded directly to claims made minutes earlier in open forum. He said that during the investigation, "by agreement between the town and" Craven, Craven was not involved in any activity through the town solicitor's office — and added, "as a point of clarity, during the investigation, no one, as far as I know, was banned from Town Hall." Two speakers had told the council that the town manager barred Craven from the building.

Callahan also drew a line around what the public can obtain. The resignation letter and the council's acceptance letter are public records, he said. The investigative report is not, citing the state Access to Public Records Act and attorney general opinions. He said the town informed the employee of both the investigation and its outcome.

The questions residents asked

A resident who identified himself by name and address opened the forum on the subject with a list of specific requests: a chronology of key dates, what steps were taken to expedite the investigation, whether the employee's report would be released with that employee's consent, and what the terms of the resignation were.

"What are the terms of Mr. Craven's resignation? Did you secure a release from potential future litigation? Did Mr. Craven pose any conditions or receive any consideration in return for his resignation?" he asked. He also asked whether the town had demanded an apology as a condition of allowing a resignation, whether the employee had been assured of protection from retaliation and legal defense at town expense, and whether a nondisclosure agreement existed. "If so, why?"

Given three additional minutes later in the forum when another speaker yielded time, the same resident argued the town should sever all business with Craven's firm and consider recovering funds paid to him after he stopped working. He also credited the town manager for what he described as immediate action to bar Craven from the building — an account Callahan later disputed.

Another resident framed it as a transparency failure rather than a legal one. She noted Craven had not appeared at a meeting since March and said residents learned of the incident during open forum from another resident rather than from the council. Solicitors serve at the council's pleasure, she said, and this council replaced the previous solicitors immediately upon taking office. "Why wasn't he fired?" she asked. She said the situation appeared to have been "nicely swept under the rug — the opposite of transparency."

A third speaker said the council took "almost six months" and "took no relative action," arguing the delay sent a message to town employees, particularly women. Another resident said Craven should have been dismissed earlier over unrelated conduct.

Of the specific questions posed, several went unanswered on the record. The council did not state whether any nondisclosure agreement exists, whether a litigation release was obtained, or whether an apology was required. Callahan's characterization of the resignation as "without conditions," stated twice, is the closest the recording comes to addressing the terms.

Why the delay, per the council

Council President Alexander Menzies attributed the gap between March and August to the structure of the case, describing it as a situation in which "a town council-hired employee and an employee of the town were both involved in an incident," producing what he described as extensive interviews and hundreds of pages of testimony.

"The council, if it was up to us, would have made a determination immediately," Menzies said, adding that the advice the council received was that a thorough investigation had to conclude first. He said a law protecting the employee's privacy limits what the council can disclose.

Callahan closed his statement by saying that at all points since March 18, the town manager, the solicitor, the labor attorney and the council "exercised all due diligence consistent with due process and expeditiously and appropriately addressed and resolved this serious matter."

That framing sits against the plain dates the council itself put on the record: a complaint on March 18, a completed report on or about June 18, a resignation letter on July 20, and a public accounting on August 3 — four and a half months after the complaint was filed.

The appointment

The council voted by voice vote to appoint an attorney as assistant town solicitor, filling the position for Planning Board and related matters. Callahan said the attorney had been interviewed by this council when it posted a request for proposals after the election, and had been covering Planning Board and Community Development work on an interim basis during the investigation, paid from funds already budgeted for the position.

Menzies said the council announced the appointment in part "to confirm that Mr. Craven is no longer on the town's payroll."

A resident had asked at the start of the forum whether public comment would be taken on the appointment item and noted it would break from prior practice. The council said it would not, because the appointment comes directly from the council, but promised an explanation. Two speakers separately questioned whether the position had been advertised, and one raised concerns about the new attorney's firm; the council did not respond to those points on the record.

What happens next

The resignation letter and the council's letter accepting it are public records and can be requested from the town. The investigative report, per the solicitor, is not subject to release. The council's next regularly scheduled meeting is the venue for any further action; the council has also scheduled a public hearing on unrelated zoning changes for September 21.