CCA
Party-backed Charlestown officials violate state ethics law
By
Will Collette
 |
| For more cartoons by P.S. Mueller, click here |
Those three are
Council members Denise Rhodes and Bonnita Van Slyke and Planning Commission
member Barbara Heavers.
In
addition to filing campaign finance reports with the Board of Elections,
candidates for elected office must also file FS-1 ethics disclosure
forms with the state Ethics Commission to avoid real or perceived conflicts
of interests and to give the public the right to see details about public
officials’ public, business and private interests.
While some might think their finances are nobody's business, it is the price you must pay if you seek
a position of political power.
The Ethics Commission Form FS-1 is pretty simple and unambiguous. Certainly any person who wants to serve on the Town Council or Planning Commission will have to deal with documents that are far more complicated and challenging. Most officials who are required to submit FS-1 forms seem to do so with relative ease.
The Ethics Commission Form FS-1 is pretty simple and unambiguous. Certainly any person who wants to serve on the Town Council or Planning Commission will have to deal with documents that are far more complicated and challenging. Most officials who are required to submit FS-1 forms seem to do so with relative ease.
But
not three of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance sponsored candidates in the 2014
election.
I
filed complaints against three of them. I alleged that new CCA Party Town
Councilor Denise Rhodes never filed a report at all. And I alleged that her
fellow CCAers Councilor Bonnie Van Slyke and Planning Commission Barbara
Heavers failed to report properties they own other than their primary residences and didn't
disclose what is in their trust funds.
There
was no response from Ms. Rhodes but I did get a copy of the Ethics Commission’s finding that
there was probable cause that Ms. Rhodes violated the state Ethics Law which is the step the Commission takes before prosecuting an errant politician. After I
filed a similar complaint after the 2012 election against Republican candidate
for House District 36, Tina Jackson, I received a similar
finding from the Ethics Commission.
In that finding, the Commission
noted that Ms. Jackson had finally submitted an FS-1 and had paid a $100 fine.
However, there was no such detail in the finding on Ms. Rhodes, so I figure she
still hasn’t filed. Usually, that leads to formal legal action by the Ethics Commission.
Ms.
Heavers was the quickest of the three to respond and make the necessary
corrections. In her response, she claimed she
misunderstood the requirements so her omissions were inadvertent. She asked
that either the complaint be dropped or that no fines be levied.
I
notified the Commission that I accepted her explanation and was OK with letting
the matter go without a fine. However, it did concern me that she had trouble
understanding the FS-1 form, given the kind of paperwork she will have to read
and comprehend as a member of the Planning Commission.
Plus,
it bothered me that the more experienced members of the CCA Party didn’t guide
her and her rookie colleagues through the thicket of filing requirements for
candidates for elected office. CCA Party leaders like Boss Tom Gentz, Planning Commissar Ruth Platner and CCA Party Treasurer Dan Slattery have filed these reports every year for quite a number of years.
Ms.
Van Slyke, through her lawyer, made a similar argument. The form
is complicated, the instructions ambiguous, her omissions were inadvertent and
she has filed an amended FS-1. But then she took a step too far and insisted
that my complaint be dismissed out of hand because of her “good faith”
compliance.
In
this instance, I filed an objection with the
Commission to Ms. Van Slyke’s request that my complaint be dismissed. I noted that doing the right thing after
you’ve been caught does not equal “good faith.” Apparently, the Commission
also isn’t satisfied with Ms. Van Slyke’s response, based on this finding I received from the
Commission.
OK, so
what?
It’s
a reasonable question to ask why any of this matters. After all, the CCA Party
swept into office in 2014, taking every open elected office, and giving the CCA
Party the right to run Charlestown for the fourth straight term.
Well,
the first reason why these ethics breaches matter is that the CCA Party is not
above the law, even though they may think so.
CCA
Party Town Council member Denise Rhodes has flouted the law completely and
could be hit with a misdemeanor charge carrying a $1000 and one-year jail
sentence.
Then
there’s the question of the two others who say they couldn’t understand these
instructions:
 |
| If they can't understand this, how will they cope with the documents they will routine have to handle in their new town positions? |
Second,
while the main
source of their money is the truckload of out-of-state campaign money they
get, at least part of the reason for the CCA Party’s success at the polls is
the image it has created for itself. Despite actions to the contrary, they
claim the moral and ethical high ground. These ethics breaches simply provide
more evidence of the gulf between what the CCA says and what the CCA actually does.
Among
the CCA Party’s “stars” is Ron Areglado
who claims to be our local guru on the subject of ethics and morality, even to
the point of claiming he is “president” of a non-existent organization, the
“Center for Ethical and Moral Leadership.”
Incidentally,
if this “Center” actually did do what he claims it does on his official CCA
Party resume, then he violated the state ethics law by
failing to disclose it on his own ethics disclosure report.
That raises this ethical dilemma: did Areglado lie on his CCA Party resume or did he lie on his Ethics Disclosure report?
That raises this ethical dilemma: did Areglado lie on his CCA Party resume or did he lie on his Ethics Disclosure report?
 |
| This is what Ron Areglado listed on his official CCA Party resume. If this "Center" actually exists and does what Areglado says it does, he would have to disclose it to the Ethics Commission. He did NOT list it on his disclosure report. So which is the lie? His CCA resume? Or his Ethics report? They can't both be true. |
Third,
the CCA Party claims it believes in competent, transparent government yet it
ran candidates who claim they couldn’t understand some pretty simple forms and
who violated state laws on transparency.
Fourth,
the voting public has the right to know what’s on the ethics disclosure forms
because they give you an insight into what they truly believe in. So many
issues Charlestown government has and will continue to face could involve the
financial interests of the officials who will have to make those decisions.
 |
| BP, one of Boss Gentz's many interesting investments |
For
example, as Charlestown is about to go into a protracted battle over water
rights, a look at Town Council Boss Tom Gentz’s disclosure
report shows that he holds shares in American Water Works, one of
America’s largest private water companies. While that may not trigger a recusal
by Boss Gentz to avoid a conflict of interest, the fact that he has invested
his money in a company that privatizes public water systems raises some
questions about his motivation in dealing with Charlestown’s water issues.
Boss
Gentz’s trust fund also is chock full of stocks in petro-chemical companies,
mining companies and Wall Street predators. He even holds stock in Waste
Management Inc., one of the most notorious waste disposal companies in the US[1].
What
do the Ethics reports show?
The
Ethics Commission doesn’t ask for much. They want disclosure of employment and
business holdings of the public official and close family members, board and
leadership positions, debts, real estate other than a home and trust funds.
That last one is what tripped up Ms. Heavers and Van Slyke.
The
Commission doesn’t ask about direct investments or bank accounts or IRAs – just
trust funds that generate $1,000 or more in income. Trust funds are typically
set up by high income or assets individuals to protect their money and reduce inheritance taxes for their heirs.
These
are not the same as the “blind trusts” you often hear connected to some elected
officials[2]
where the trust is set up to avoid conflicts of interests in a more comprehensive way. The trusts held by
CCA Party town officials are more of the estate-planning, tax-avoidance
variety.
As
such, the contents of these trusts show us some of the character of the person
who made the investments. As noted, Town Council Boss Tom Gentz invests in
private water and sewer treatment, petrochemicals, mining and predator banking
which may explain some of the positions he has taken as a town leader.
Both
Barbara Heavers and Bonnie Van Slyke have now disclosed investment holdings
that also raise questions about whether their investments match their values.
 |
| Dupont - part of Barbara Heavers trust fund portfolio |
For
example, new Planning Commission member Barbara Heavers owns shares in lots
of tech and banking companies, but also a number of petrochemical[3],
Big Box and mass retailers[4]
and construction companies[5].
As a Planning Commission, she may have to act on matters that relate to these
types of activities, if not these exact companies. If McDonalds wanted to set
up in Charlestown, she would have to recuse herself because she holds their
stock.
Ms.
Van Slyke and her husband own a share of a “stripper” oil well in
Kansas as well as natural gas stock. At the height of the debate over the
proposed Whalerock wind turbine farm, John Van Slyke wrote a letter to
Progressive Charlestown, which we published here, blasting me for advocating
that the town end the Whalerock crisis by buying the land where the
controversial project was to be built.
 |
| A typical stripper oil well like the one owned by the Van Slykes |
Yes,
this was one of those instances where Planning Commissioner Ruth Platner and I
were on the same side – buy the land for open space and end the angst on the
moraine. This ultimately became the CCA Party’s position and it was what Charlestown did to end the Whalerock flap.
So
why was John Van Slyke so dead set against it? I wish I had known at the time
about the Van Slyke’s investments in fossil fuels. And actually, I wish the
voters did too before they elected Bonita Van Slyke to the Town Council.
The
CCA Party has yet to learn that despite their total control of Charlestown
government, there are still some rules they must follow, at least until they
secede from the rest of the state.
Although
the voters have yet to hold the CCA Party accountable for the vast gulf between
their election rhetoric and their actual performance, that day will certainly
come. In the meantime, we’ll keep digging and we’ll continue to provide you
with the facts and perhaps this will hasten the CCA’s Day of Reckoning.
FOOTNOTES
[1]
American Water Works is one of the biggest private water companies, and they
are also in the waste water treatment business.
Boss Gentz holds shares in
petrochemical companies including Northeast Utilities (former owner of the
controversial Millstone Nuclear power plant), Total (Europe’s largest oil
company), Xcel Energy, Dupont, British Petroleum (BP, of the Gulf of Mexico oil
spill fame), General Electric (largest polluter of the Hudson River) and Merck.
He owns shares in foreign mining companies – Kenmare Resources, PPL Group and
West Wits Mining. And he holds lots of bankster stock. Some examples: Goldman
Sachs, Citibank, Bank of America, GE Capital, HSBC, Prudential.
[2]
For example, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has a “blind trust” set up precisely to
wall himself off from even the appearance of conflict of interest. GoLocalProv
jumped on Whitehouse’s trust as containing investments in companies that
contribute to climate change. Whitehouse responded that he doesn’t even know
what’s in his blind trust, thus the term “blind.” The trusts held by CCA
members are more of the tax-avoidance, estate-planning variety.
[3]
These include Abbott, Dupont, Exxon Mobil, GE, Spectra Energy, 3-M and Xcel
Energy.
[4]
Home Depot, Target and McDonald’s
[5]
These include Caterpillar and Nucor.
