PROVIDENCE — Is it better to ask forgiveness from state agencies, or permission?

That’s the question facing coastal regulators this summer as they weigh a request from the Quidnessett Country Club, an exclusive social club and 18-hole golf course along North Kingstown’s shoreline, to change the regulations of the Coastal Resources Management Council to legitimize an illegally erected seawall.

The seawall, located and designed to protect the country club’s 14th hole from coastal erosion, has been the center of a tug of war between coastal regulators and the Quidnessett Country Club. The club erected the seawall — knowingly without required state and federal permits — in 2023, and shortly after CRMC issued the club a notice of violation (NOV) and told the club to take it down.

The club didn’t comply, and instead filed a petition to change the water type — similar to municipal zoning, but for state waters — to one that would make the seawall permissible under CRMC regulations.

CRMC’s executive council agreed to kick-start an advance notice of rule-making, essentially exploring the idea of making a change to the rules, rather than actually starting the process of changing agency regulation.

It’s an issue that has caused a stir among town residents, country club members, and environmental groups, with dozens of people filling a large conference room inside the Rhode Island Department of Administration on Aug. 23 as CRMC subcommittee members heard public testimony regarding the petition.

CRMC had already fulfilled its duty by collecting written public comments for several weeks in May and June, but the agency also received dozens of comments asking for a public hearing, in person, on the petition.

Mike Jarbeau, baykeeper for Save The Bay, warned subcommittee members that granting the petition would set a “dangerous precedent” for future applicants to flaunt state law.

“Between the ongoing violations and the current harm to coastal resources from the seawall, it’s inappropriate for the council to even begin considering the petition at this time,” Jarbeau said.

For opponents of the club’s petition, the matter is a good government issue. CRMC’s enforcement division is already anemic and inadequate for its current needs, consisting of only two full-time staff members. As a result, much of the agency’s enforcement mechanisms are reactive, and it does not have the staffing power or budget to proactively patrol its coastline jurisdiction looking for violations.

It’s also an agency that already has a reputation for bending, or even breaking, the rules for wealthy and powerful interests. Unlike DEM, which empowers its director to make final decisions on applications, state law empowers a 10-member politically appointed volunteer council to make CRMC decisions.

The result, to put it mildly, has not been in the best interest of the state’s coastal resources. The executive board has also been known to go rogue, circumvent legislative authority and make backroom deals that are friendly to applicants.

Last year it came under fire for cutting out the General Assembly’s role in negotiating submerged land leases when it came to the Revolution Wind project. In 2021 the board approved a backroom deal to expand Champlin’s Marina on Block Island, and cut out the town and other intervenors in the process.

Efforts to reform CRMC and abolish the council as an empowered decision-making body have stalled in the General Assembly in recent years.

James Boyd, a retired CRMC staff member who was once the agency’s deputy director, testified the country club knew it was breaking the law by failing to get the permits. Boyd pointed to a prior application, in 2012, from Quidnessett Country Club to build a less intrusively designed sheet-pile seawall, set back 25 feet from the bluff.

That application was denied, and the agency later wrote regulations for seawall structures on Type 1 shorelines.

“The revetment is not necessary,” Boyd said. “It should be removed, and the shoreline restored. There are alternatives for erosion protection available to the country club.”

Supporters of Quidnessett Country Club’s petition were the largest group present at the public hearing, and included the club’s members, and various staff members of the Jan Companies — also known as JanCo — the company that owns the club, as well as Newport Creamery and a number of Burger King franchises.

For much of the two-hour meeting, the two sides were almost talking past each other. Members testified to the club’s importance in the greater golf community and its history as a popular venue for weddings and other events.

Staff of the club, and others who only identified themselves as employees of JanCo, told subcommittee members the club was an important economic driver for staff. No one in support of the petition testified to the legality of the seawall.

“I believe what they’re trying to do is a good thing for members and employees of the club,” said Joanne West, an employee of the country club.

Evan Kenney, an employee of the club, asked subcommittee members for discretion when it came to any penalties from the agency regarding violations from the illegal seawall.

“It’s important to protect the club,” Kenney said. “And that any penalty is financially reasonable.”

Jeff Gladstone, a 30-year member of the Quidnessett Country Club, said the seawall was vital to maintain the coastline under threat from climate change and sea level rise. There was not enough land to redesign the golf course, according to Gladstone.

For the club’s opponents, the petition represents a more existential threat than climate change. It threatens the ability of the state to make and enforce its own laws.

“It says if you build it, if you change the waterfront, no one will stop you,” said Scott Travers, executive director of the Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association.

CRMC is expected to make a decision on the petition later this year.