Culture war divides Town Council
 |
| Town Council, left to right: William Aiello, Michael Niemeyer, Alexandra Healy, Council President Christopher Duhamel, Council Vice President Mary Scialabba, Dylan LaPietra, and Rose Van Dover. |
During a one-on-one interview for her reappointment to Westerly’s Multicultural Committee, April Dinwoodie was asked inappropriate questions about her race, and then referred to “using a term rooted in slavery and racial classification” by Town Councilor Rose Van Dover. (The Town Council established the Multicultural Committee to promote diversity and link the many different cultures in the town.) Though there is apparently no recording of the conversation, Dinwoodie and Van Dover agree that this happened, and Councilor Van Dover apologized.
But the exchange exposed the deep rifts in Westerly on
issues of race, DEI, and the current polarized political climate rooted in
Christian Nationalism. People on both sides of the issue packed the Town
Council chamber to express their support for Dinwoodie and/or Van Dover. This
raises the question: Why are there two sides to this issue?
The issue above was not the only thing occupying the town
council’s attention on Monday. They were also dealing with shoreline access,
Westerly Police assisting ICE, and the possibility that short-term rentals are
making home ownership increasingly impossible. The Town Council took no action
on any of these issues.
The transcript has been edited for clarity:
April Dinwoodie: I recently served as the Chair of the Multicultural Committee. A couple of weeks ago, I was interviewed for reappointment to the Multicultural Committee. At the beginning of that conversation, I was asked about my racial identity and referred to using a term rooted in slavery and racial classification. It had no place in an interview for public service.
Questions about the actual work of the committee
came only after I had to explain why the term used was problematic and after
unsolicited reflections about the racial identities of students this councilor
grew up with, as well as her family structure and Christian values. I felt this
was disconnected from the role and responsibilities of serving with the
Multicultural Committee, and it raised concerns about what interviews are
conducted, who gets asked what, and the power of elected officials.
After sharing what occurred in the interview with the Town
Council, I received a message from Councilor Rose Van Dover that
read, in part, “I did not know the word I used was offensive, and I appreciate
you bringing it to my attention. Your explanation made me think about my
grandchildren who are multiracial. I will do better in the future.” I
appreciate that Town Councilor Van Dover responded, but from apology must also
come accountability, and from accountability, action.
Putting the word aside, it was about the interview’s
structure, tone, and content. Only after Councillor Van Dover repeatedly asked
or said, “I don’t want any of that..."
Councilor William Aiello: Point of order, Mr.
President. The only thing listed on the agenda is a review of appointments, not
the content of one-on-one conversations or emails about the appointments. I
think this is a bridge too far. This could align with the second citizen
comments, but not the first, for agenda items only.
Council President Christopher Duhamel: I’ll
defer to our solicitor. The Item concerns the liaison appointments and how they
are conducted.
Attorney William Connelly: It’s up to the chair
to rule on the point of order, and it can be challenged, as always, and put to
a vote.
Council President Duhamel: The chair votes that
this is part of the agenda. The agenda set the meeting to allow this incident
to be discussed, so the chair votes not in favor of the point.
Councillor Aiello: I appeal that decision
because what you discussed in the agenda-setting meeting is not what’s on the
agenda. The agenda is a review of liaison appointments. I’m not saying Ms.
Dinwoodie can’t speak, or anybody else can’t speak, but at the second citizen’s
comments section, where it’s open to more things.
Council President Duhamel: Understood. I already
ruled on this. Did you want to appeal it?
Councilor Aiello: Yeah.
Councilor Dylan LaPietra: I second it, and I
want to discuss it. As usual, you don’t have a clue how to write an agenda, but
putting your incompetence aside, why don’t we get this out of the way, rather
than have everybody sit around and wait for the second citizen’s comment
section?
Council President Duhamel: Mr. LaPietra, you
don’t have to be insulting. I know you’re good at it, but you don’t have to be
insulting.
Councilor LaPietra: Well, get back to my point. I think it would be easier to do this now, Bill. Everybody’s here for this tonight. If we have everybody sit around, waiting for the second citizen’s comments, it doesn’t belong in the first citizen’s comments, but I say we waive it and let everybody speak. That’s my opinion.
Council Vice President Mary Scialabba: The
letter is under section nine, town council reports, because it was asked to be
sent to all the councillors to be put on the agenda. I understand that anything
under town council and town manager reports can be discussed in the first
citizen’s comment.
Councilor Rose Van Dover: I say let’s discuss
it.
Council President Duhamel: We’ve had a
discussion.
Note: Only Councilors Aiello and LaPietra voted to
prevent the discussion of the incident during the first public comment period.
All other council members, including Van Dover, voted to allow it. Oddly,
Councilor LaPietra had argued to allow the discussion, then voted to disallow
it.
April Dinwoodie: I will continue.
Putting the word aside, it was about the interview’s
structure, tone, and content. After Councillor Van Dover repeatedly said, “I
don’t want any of that DEI [Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion] as part of the committee,” she asked me about the committee’s
work and what the committee hoped to achieve. For someone so vocal about how
awful DEI is, I left wondering why my racial identity and her experiences of
diversity growing up were a major part of the conversation.
Councilor Van Dover admitted what she said, but neither she
nor the council has addressed the deeper issues: What is the process for
interviewing candidates for town committees? Is there a protocol? Are all
candidates interviewed and treated equally, and if not, why not?
What I’m asking for is simple and necessary: First-time
councillors should adopt a clear and consistent process for committee
appointment interviews. There should be no more one-on-one interviews and no
more improv. Next, the town should invest in personal and professional
development for all council members—training on lawful, respectful, and
effective public engagement, especially in official capacities.
I thank Town Councilor Niemeyer for your swift attention as
a multicultural committee liaison. That mattered to me. Councilor Healey,
thank you for your support. Councilor Scialabba, thank you for your note. I
appreciated it. I thank my Multicultural Committee colleagues. Our dedication
and work are meaningful to me, and their presence here means a lot. I hope this
moment is about how we can move from an apology to accountability and action,
and put measures in place to ensure that this kind of incident does not happen
again to community members willing to serve the town.
Jeff, Westerly Resident: I, too, am speaking to express deep concern and outrage regarding the unacceptable conduct of a councilor during a recent committee renewal interview. Councilor Van Dover’s use of a racial slur during that interview was inappropriate. It was profoundly offensive and damaging. The term she used recalls a long and painful legacy of demonization of Black people.
The U.S. census abandoned the term over a century ago, reflecting its deeply rooted offensiveness and unsuitability in any modern context. That a sitting councilor, in an official capacity, used such a word while interviewing a community volunteer is both ethically and legally alarming. The language reflects an abuse of authority. It created an environment that personally distressed the volunteer and potentially exposed the town to legal liability.
While Councilor Van Dover has issued an apology,
it falls short of addressing the broader transgression: a violation of public
trust, a misuse of official authority, and an act that undermines the values of
equity and dignity.
Westerly citizens deserve better. I urge the council to
respond seriously by taking the following actions: Censure Councilor Van Dover
for her conduct. Permanently remove her from the appointments committee.
Suspend her liaison appointments until she successfully completes the mandatory
professional training in cultural sensitivity and ethical governance. Issue a
formal apology to the injured party, acknowledging the harm done and affirming
the town’s commitment to respect and inclusivity.
This moment presents a chance for the council to demonstrate leadership and to commit to systemic improvements. I urge you to establish mandatory professional training for all council members in cultural competency, anti-discrimination practices, and appropriate conduct when engaging as a government official with the public.
Develop a clear, legally solid, and
respectful interview policy for all community volunteer interviews, crafted in
consultation with legal counsel to ensure the consistent treatment of all
volunteer applicants for committee appointments. Councilor Van Dover’s
behavior has compromised the public trust. In this moment, your decisive,
transparent action can begin to restore that trust. I urge you to hold
yourselves and one another to the highest standards of public service.
Councilor Aiello: I appreciate everybody’s
applause, but let’s remind everybody that this is a council meeting.
Tim Flanagan, Westerly Resident: I’m speaking
tonight as a member of the Multicultural Committee. I’m going to read the
following statement on behalf of the committee:
“It has been an honor for the members of this committee to
serve our town and promote the full cultural richness of Westerly. To
accomplish this work, we are committed to deepening our understanding of the
perspectives of our neighbors. We come from a wide range of cultural
traditions. At our monthly meetings, we learn from one another during frank,
open, and sometimes difficult conversations, and we extend this work through
events such as the recent Neighbor
Day Celebration, which engaged several hundred neighbors from across
Westerly.
“At our July 9th meeting, we learned the details of the
reappointment interview and reached out to the town councilor who conducted
the interview, questioned the race of one of our committee members, and used a
racial slur to label them. After discussing the situation, the Multicultural
Committee unanimously passed a motion to condemn questions about racial
identity as part of any formal interview for membership on this or any other
town committee.
“We recognize the harm caused to both a committee member and
our town. Committee membership must represent a diverse range of perspectives.
Attracting candidates for the work of town committees will be even more
challenging, depending on your response to this issue. We appreciate that the
council has decided to discuss this matter further. As a committee, we are
focused on the steps you can take to avoid another situation like this and
ensure that all citizens in Westerly, regardless of their identity, any aspect
of their identity, feel welcomed, valued, and maybe even inspired to volunteer
on a town committee.
“To that end, we request that you consider the following
three points as you move forward:
- First,
at least two appointment committee members should be present during all
interviews.
- Second,
some members of the Multicultural Committee have served for two terms and
have never been interviewed. While others have been interviewed, we ask
that a consistent policy be put in place for all town committee membership
interviews. And,
- Third,
the appointments committee and council solicitor should approve interview
questions. Your discussions on this topic will not be easy or comfortable,
but they’re necessary. We hope that our committee can serve as a model of
respectful conversation, sincere interest in understanding multiple
perspectives, and an increasing awareness of the social and economic
benefits of multiculturalism.
Lori Wycall, Westerly School Committee: In the
letter from Ms. Dinwoodie to you all, she references a racial slur Councilor
Van Dover used in their conversation, and I want everybody to think honestly -
When you heard that, if you thought, “Oh gee, I didn’t know or I wasn’t sure if
that was a racist term” because honestly, that’s what I thought.
Maybe I’m not up on all the lingo, but Ms. Van Dover
acknowledged that she had used inappropriate language. She apologized, and
that’s just not enough. This group of kindness, inclusion, and compassion is
here only to punish and make her pay, and it’s very hypocritical. On July 7th,
Councilor Healy went to Facebook and apologized for using the term "bottom
of the totem pole." She said, "I haven’t been able to stop replaying
it in my head."
When did totem pole become offensive? I mean, at some point,
all of this language policing and all of these terminologies, we have to get
past it. She also says that every day is an opportunity to reflect, unlearn,
and grow, but she won’t allow Ms. Van Dover that same opportunity. She wants
her punished so there’s an opportunity for them to get rid of someone with a
different political view, and they’re jumping all over it. This is nothing but,
to use one of their favorite phrases, an intentional and orchestrated attempt
at taking down a political opponent.
Also, let’s keep in mind that this conversation was an
interview for the multicultural committee. Anybody who knows Ms. Dinwoodie,
honestly, knows her history, identity, and career history have been based on
the fact that she’s biracial and comes from a "transracial adopted
family" situation. So when asked about her multicultural background, which
was everywhere in her application for the committee, suddenly, everybody is so
offended by this. I mean, it’s kind of ridiculous.
As I said in my letter, I wish we had actionists from the
council, not activists. As many others have stated tonight, if Ms. Healy sees a
problem with the interview process, take some action to fix it. There’s no need
for this witch hunt. You’re a town councilor who can make the changes to make
a difference. Instead, you’re invoking this activism to bring all these people
out, protest and clap, and make a circus of our local town politics.
Enough is enough. Many of us in the town have had enough of
this, and it’s time to stop it. I want to close by stating that in my opinion,
Ms. Van Dover is an excellent town councilor. She’s always prepared and
knowledgeable about agenda items. She sticks to her guns, stands for what she
believes in, and represents a large contingent of the Westerly community. I
thank her for that. She deserves not to be censured. She deserves to keep her
appointments on the subcommittees.
Tiverton Resident: Rose Van Dover, what little I
know of you is that you are a hard fighter for the rest of us, and I appreciate
it. I can’t imagine you intentionally offended anybody. People need to realize
that we all make mistakes, and if you used a word that offended somebody, I’m
sure it wasn’t intentional. People should recognize that. That’s all I want to
say.
Morris Devine, Tiverton Resident: For most of my
62 years, I have lived here in Westerly. I was born and raised here in
Westerly, a great-grandson of the people who came here from Sicily, Denmark,
and Canada. I’m proud to say that my grandfather’s father was a half-breed,
half Irish, half Lakota Sioux. We all grew up with that. And you know what?
What people say about us and how it affects us is our choice. People can say
things. It’s how we listen. Are we hearing or just listening, waiting for our
chance to throw the outcome out there ... and everybody is ready to head for
the block, ready to head for the gallows. No inquiry, discussion, judicial
review, nothing - and over what largely seems to be a misunderstanding blown
out of proportion.
I have conducted personnel interviews for small businesses
in the public sector and at the national level for large organizations and
the Department of Defense. If an application came to me with
terminology that I might not understand, I would give somebody the benefit of
the doubt and ask, “What is a transracially adopted person?”
I’m the interviewer, and I’m going to ask questions. Because
of my background, I ask something common to me because of where I grew up. I
had many friends, I’ll say it - mulattos - in high school, college, and even
where I went to school to be a minister. Does that surprise you?
Council President Duhamel: Point of order. We’re
not going to use racial slurs. That’s a racial slur.
Morris Devine: Not to me.
When I see some of the things that led to tonight, it is a
little disturbing. Emails trying to coerce people into action, to say things. I
don’t have to read you some of this because some of you already spoke these
same words, largely without change. Perhaps the author believes she has
qualified immunity for putting something like that out. Maybe not. I don’t know
if it’s part of the system, but having been subject to it, in part, when I
tried to serve here in town, I can understand a little bit.
I hope there are brakes to be applied before there is a rush
to judgment, and we follow some modicum of decorum for someone who possibly
misstepped, using words she did not understand. I wouldn’t have understood it
as offensive to another person. Do we have to have ethics training? Yeah. Here
it says they don’t get any, but we know that the elected officials here in town
do have some, so I’m a little confused about a lot of stuff here, but I’ll
leave that where it is for now.
Kevin Boulder, Tiverton Resident: I’m here today
because we have a basic disagreement. A council member interviewed the
chairperson of the Multicultural Committee, and I have concerns about how it
was conducted.
The first reason is that it was insulting. Now, this council
has a history of insulting behavior towards members of the public, especially
members of our boards and commissions. It’s the kind of thing that drives me
crazy—without mentioning any of the other pieces of what we’re talking about
here—it drives me crazy that we can treat people who volunteer badly, even if
unintentional.
Second, this is potentially illegal. You open up the town to
potential legal action. When you use race as a descriptor during an interview,
and you will be voting on this appointment at some time in the future,
everything that happens at this meeting, everything that’s going to be put in
email and text, everybody is going to see that and have their own opinions
about what it means, about whether or not you are biased towards this candidate
orif you’re using some racial qualification when you eventually make that vote.
That makes it untenable because people do not know what
influenced you. If the vote happens and she is not confirmed for some reason,
then there are areas for potential action.
We need to ensure, and many people have spoken very
eloquently about the need for process, that we understand why questions are
asked and are asked evenly across all the candidates.
To the third point: I don’t think this interview should have
happened this way. I was formerly chair of the appointments committee. We never
conducted interviews that were not conducted in front of the full council or
the appointments committee as a body. That’s the best way to do business
because otherwise you leave too much to chance. It keeps it professional, and
it also keeps it in the public eye. I think there are potential Open Meetings
Act violations and ramifications for having one-on-one interviews that are not
public. You need to take care of yourselves as councillors, and that’s not the
way to do it.
There will be a lot said at this meeting. We just heard from
a gentleman who said everything he wanted to say and let us know exactly who he
was. I don’t want this to be a forum for us to come and attack each other over
this issue. We want to have education. We want people to understand that the
language was not acceptable. We all know that by now, but we also want to
understand how to move forward, with education for the council. We need to
figure out how we can get past this without turning it into something bigger
than it is.
Please work with us to make this a learning moment because
there are so many people in this town who are still trying to fight for our
place in it. Many people have never experienced racialized language. Some
people can shrug it off; some people cannot. We are not in a place where all of
us can dictate what is offensive. We’re trying to do the will of the
government. Please consider having these interviews happen in person.
Jonathan Daly-Labelle, Westerly Resident: Some
people are looking for grace for people who don’t know the lingo and use
inappropriate terms. But again, the people who are talking about grace are
supporting a man and a party who is the most offensive, derogatory person, and
is looking to destroy everybody personally, through policy, and everything. So
they’re for him, but then, when it’s convenient, “Oh, this person misspoke.
Can’t we have some grace? Can’t we be nice?”
Meanwhile, they’re supporting a convicted felon...
Rick Provost, Westerly Resident: I’m here
regarding Rose Van Dover. I got to know Rose incredibly well. I’m here as
essentially a character reference and to speak on her behalf. We were running
mates in the last town council race, and I’m a member of the Republican
Town Committee. I got to know Rose very well. She was incredibly
sweet, kind, and loving; she loves this town and its people. I’ve seen her love
my daughter and act like she’s known her whole life. Same with my wife. She
acts like she’s known her her whole life. By the way, my wife is multiracial,
and I didn’t see any hate or prejudice whatsoever from Rose. I’m here to stand
up for her and say there was no ill intent.
There was no harm in her statement. I believe it was a basic
oversight. I spoke with Rose at length today, and Rose shared that she grew up
in public housing in the inner city. I know we’re ultra sensitive about words
in the town council and the workplace, although I was shocked by some of the
people who came to roaring applause and called my colleague a POS and racist,
and told him to f off.
I wonder. The word that she used, I am very clear, she meant
no harm. That’s the word she was brought up with. Also, I would say that Ms.
Dinwoodie has quite a resume. She has quite the experience, yet I would imagine
90% of these people in town have never heard the term “transracially adopted
person.” I’m one of the 90% that never heard it before tonight, and many people
back here have never heard the term until tonight. Is it possible that Ms
Dinwoodie comes in here, ultra-sensitive to the words used regarding her? Where
do we draw a line about what we call people, what we don’t, when we call them
something, when we don’t, when we act inappropriately, not online, when they’re
not on a public forum, and when - it can go on and on.
I’m concerned. I suggest we work together to find common
ground, not be ultra-sensitive and ultra-dramatized to every word used.
My former colleague, Ms. Van Dover, said a word, and she
apologized to Ms. Dinwoodie for using the word. She did what she did. At the
same time, we’re not expected to apologize for everything we do and say because
someone’s ultra-sensitive about it. How do we keep up with the labels? Every
week, there’s a new label.
Is it possible she’s offended that Rose is a white,
heterosexual, faith-filled Christian woman? As far as I know, the white
heterosexual faithful person is not usually included in the DEI agenda. From my
understanding, that’s what we’re talking about.
I believe that, on the whole, there needs to be more people
involved in the interview process. This is a first-term councillor who means no
harm to anyone, and I vouch for her in that regard. One of the reasons she
defeated me in the election is that she outworked me. She studies the issues
unlike anyone I’ve ever seen. This person is equipped for this job and should
do a fantastic job for this town. We must stand up for a woman of courage,
faith, dignity, love, and kindness.
Leslie Dunn, School Committee Member: I’m on the
school committee, but here as a private citizen. Much like everybody else has
said, there needs to be a protocol in place, but we also need to talk about how
this should never have happened and the damage being done by having this conversation.
There will not be the appropriate follow-up for people who feel differently
about the conversation. That is part of the issue that we have in this
community. Everybody keeps saying we have to work together. But these
conversations aren’t a part of working together. If somebody gets offended,
stop for a minute, have the conversation, commit to doing better, and learn
from it.
What happened is unacceptable. It should not have happened.
However, now we’re here, and you still have people arguing back and forth,
saying, “I don’t know what the big deal is. It doesn’t seem offensive to me. It
doesn’t directly impact me.” It’s hurtful, and somebody in this community will
get seriously hurt if we continue down this path.
We not only have to make a commitment that we’re going to
change policy and protocol; we have to commit to future generations that we
will do better and be better. It’s not fair for them. It’s not fair for the
kids who are growing up in this community that they’re watching the way the
adults and role models are behaving. The way people hurl insults back and forth
in this world, how dare we ask our kids to be any better when that’s what we’re
showing them. This goes for everyone. Be conscious of our conversations and how
many people are listening, whether in this room or at home. It has impact.
I strongly urge this council to commit that this current
council will review its policies and practices and ensure that no councilor is
set up in this situation again. Make sure that no volunteer who is looking to
join a committee is put in a position like this again, and make sure something
is there for future committees so we do not keep coming back to this, because
every time we come to this, everybody gets activated and shows up,
relationships are severed, and people don’t know how to move forward.
We were sitting in the back of this room, and people acted
like children. These are people on both sides of the issue, but then we keep
saying, “We just have to learn to respect each other.” That’s not respecting
each other. We’ve got to have higher standards. That’s my ask, and I hope you
can all commit to one another and this town.
Mackenzie Avedisian: I’m a resident of
Hopkinton. I happen to be here by happenstance and wanted to say that language
is language. The language that we’re talking about here tonight is the first
step in violence towards the Black and brown community. One thing leads to
another. If we’re okay with the way we’re speaking to each other, we’re okay
with actual acts of violence, and I think everybody needs to do better.
You can’t decide if you’ve offended somebody - that’s up to
the other person to decide. Although people need grace for making mistakes,
there needs to be action to follow up; otherwise, it will be two years from
now, and somebody will say something that offends somebody else. Intention
doesn’t always matter. It’s the outcome that matters. That’s what we should
focus on.
Adele Laudone, Westerly Resident: I don’t have a
prepared speech. I came to listen. I’ll tell you that I have known my sister
Rose for 59 years. We grew up in Hartford, dead smack in the middle of the
city. We had friends who were, and excuse me if I’m not politically correct,
Black, Puerto Rican, Spanish - the works, everything. We come from a family of
11 children. To walk through my house on any given day was like coming into a
mini United Nations.
We’re a Christian family. We were raised to love and accept
everyone for who they are, and Rose has certainly followed through. She has
worked very hard here on the town council. She’s new to it; she’s learning. It
seems like “I’m sorry” doesn’t have a lot of weight anymore. Rose is sincerely
sorry for what she said. She can be reprimanded, but I don’t think she deserves
cruel and unusual punishment. She loves the Town of Westerly. Like I said, we
lived in Hartford and have been coming here for 59 years. Rose is now a
resident. Of course, we love this town. We love the people in it. Rose is
dedicated to being a town councillor and has everybody’s best interests at
heart. She’s a hard worker. She is not into hearing gossip or deciding by
hearsay. She digs into the facts. She puts a lot of time and energy into this
job. I’ve seen her come home with binders of information. She does her homework
and she does her job well. So I want to put in a good word for Rose. Rose, I
love you. Keep up the good work.
Allison, Westerly Resident: We had three rookies
running the nominating committee, and Councilmembers Niemeyer and Healy stated
that they chose not to interview Ms. Dinwoodie because they knew her. That was
wrong, leading to a phone interview with Councillor Van Dover.
Words matter. I’m a snowflake. I believe DEI is a political
issue. Whether a person believes government should be involved in that or not,
it’s not a racist issue; it’s a governmental issue across the board. I
understand Councillor Van Dover’s position. I disagree. I’ve worked with her.
She does not have a mean bone in her body, and I would ask for what everybody
else is asking for: accountability. Get your committee in order. And number
two, a little bit of grace.
Councillor Michael Niemeyer: I appreciate the
wide variety of opinions we’ve heard and the wide number of topics people have
spoken to. Seeing this level of judgment speak to the issue that most people
have spoken to tonight was encouraging. I want to offer my apology to April.
This was the committee I was running, and this should never have happened. It
shouldn’t have happened under my watch. It shouldn’t have happened under any
circumstances. It was crass, inappropriate, and unbecoming of a councillor.
There’s no reason to ask about race during an interview. It’s irrelevant to
qualifications. It opens us up to legal liability. It’s just not something that
we should be doing.
As for the accountability part, I have asked the solicitor
to gather a list of suggestions on how to improve this committee. The most
obvious one, everyone has already said, is no more solo interviews or phone
interviews. All interviews should be done in person, in front of a panel,
because that’s the best way to work regarding personal accountability.
Later in this meeting, I will refer two councillors for
formal censure by this council. The first is Councillor Van Dover for her
conduct during the interview. The second is myself for promulgating the
policies that allowed this to happen in the first place. This is on us. It’s on
us to fix this. I recognize that, and you have my word. I’m going to do my best
to do so. But again, I’m sorry that it happened in the first place.
Council Vice President Scialabba: I’m sorry to
Ms. Dinwoodie that she felt Councillor Van Dover’s words were hurtful. I was
not privy to the conversation on either side. I don’t know how the conversation
went. I appreciate Ms. Van Dover’s apology and taking ownership of saying something
that hurt somebody.
Like Councillor Neimeyer said, we have to do better. I was
part of the appointments committee during the last session, and we always had
meetings together. Councillor Neimeyer suggests that a face-to-face meeting is
always a step in the right direction. It’s a learning curve for all of us.
Words matter. Just because one person’s opinion is “It doesn’t mean anything,”
doesn’t mean it doesn’t hurt somebody else. You cannot take that away from
somebody’s feelings. It’s just plain and simple. You could call me names, and
maybe it hurts or doesn’t. The point is, that’s my feelings, and you can’t
discard my feelings. I’m not going to let you discard my feelings. I appreciate
that we have to learn from this. I hope we can put this to rest by doing the
right things.
I am sorry that people have been hurt by the words that have
been spoken. I don’t think it was with malicious intent, but again, I wasn’t
there, I wasn’t witnessing it, and I can’t speak on any of that.
Councillor Alexandra Healy: Thank you for coming
out today and sharing your words and wisdom. I respectfully disagree with
Councillor Scialabba. We do know what happened. We heard from both parties what
happened. Before I get into policy and procedure, I want to acknowledge the
impact this had on the individual involved and the entire community.
I also want to extend an additional apology to April for
another unfortunate moment you had to live through: the attempt to silence you
or imply that you’re a burden. I’m very happy that we were able to continue
listening to you. I apologize for the moment when discriminatory or racially
charged language was used by anyone, but especially someone in a position of
public trust.
It causes real harm. It erodes confidence in our government
and sends the wrong message about who’s welcome here. As councillors, we are
responsible for creating an environment where everyone feels safe, respected,
and heard, including our volunteers who are stepping up. It’s not enough to say
that we value fairness. We have to show it through our actions and the
standards that we set.
I want to take a moment to step back and list what happened.
A volunteer’s term on the Multicultural Committee expired. When that happens,
they can apply to be reappointed. That application is then sent to the Town
Council Appointment Subcommittee, which includes three councillors. In this
case, two councillors already knew the applicant and both had a working and
personal environment. They supported her reappointment. One councillor had not
met her, so all three agreed that it would be okay for a one-on-one interview.
During that interview, the councillor used a racial slur when asking about the
applicant’s race. That councillor later responded to the applicant with an
email framed as an apology, admitting to the use of the word. I want to
acknowledge that Ms Van Dover could have denied it, minimized it, or worse, but
she didn’t. That is commendable.
As a councillor, I deeply wish that our legal counsel had
been contacted immediately, given the seriousness of the situation. But as a
resident and a human being, I can recognize that taking that responsibility,
even if imperfectly, matters. However, I may feel about how the apology was
written, the fact remains it was sent, which means something, regardless of
intent.
This line of questioning was inappropriate. It crossed a
possibly illegal but definitely ethical line. What happened was wrong, plain
and simple, and I again want to extend my apology to Ms. Dinwoodie. This should
have never happened. It must never happen again. How can we prevent that from
happening again?
I started by drafting a simple training ordinance, a first
step toward improving the structure. I shared it with our town council
president and our town solicitor. Why? Because right now, there is no training
for councillors on ethics and professional conduct. I think the lack of
structure is a gap. We have ethics training yearly, but it is not mandatory. At
the last one, I believe only two councillors were present. Now we’re seeing a
real-world consequence of that. Then there’s the protocol for the appointment
subcommittee, which has worked hard to raise the bar from where things stood
before.
We’ve been intentional about scheduling the interviews.
We’ve ensured everyone who wants to serve gets a fair shot. Even when it was
difficult, we stuck to that principle. Sometimes, we were not all on the same
page, but we worked through it, disappointments and all. We looked at the
applicants as people, never as party affiliation, and for a subcommittee, as
mentioned, made up of three newcomers, I honestly believe that we did a good
job bringing in fresh ideas and structure.
Councillor LaPietra: I’m just going to make this
point: The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent, okay? We heard
Rose’s sister come up here tonight and talk about how it was a mini United
Nations when she went through her house going up. Rose is my friend. She
doesn’t have a racist bone in her body. If she had a racist bone in her body,
she wouldn’t be my friend. But she does not, I know it.
We must remember that she did not intend to hurt anybody and
apologized. I agree with some of the changes. We may need to have everybody
interview, or three people should interview. But please don’t sit here and try
to paint Rose Van Dover as a racist. It’s bullshit.
I’m going to say one more thing. April Dinwoodie, I wanted
to know who she was. I’ve often said that most of these meetings don’t interest
me. I don’t think I cared who was appointed to the Multicultural Committee or
what they do. But because of all this, I took a bit of an interest, read her
application, and found out that her address is New York City. She said, “I
currently live in New York City. I work in New York City.” The only thing tying
her to this town is a property she bought. I guess she comes here every couple
of months. I don’t know how many days she spends here. I guarantee it’s not
183. And she’s a staunch Democrat. I’m starting to understand why Democrats win
all these elections. How many people from New York use an address in Westerly
to vote in our town? I don’t know.
April Dinwoodie, I looked at your Facebook page. Your
current city is New York City. So only one or two things can happen here: She’s
either committing election or tax fraud…
Audience: Order! Who is this guy?
Council President Duhamel: I understand, but...
Councillor LaPietra: Why does she list New York
City…?
Council President Duhamel: Point of order! Point
of order! You’re out of order questioning the...
Councillo LaPietra: Give me my 30 seconds
back...
Council President Duhamel: No, Mr. LaPietra is
over.
Councillor LaPietra: Listen, one of two things
is happening, and I know the Democrats are stealing the election [garbled],
okay?
Councillor Aiello: Many people spoke tonight,
but I will discuss a few things. The appointments committee made a mistake,
which the chair admitted. Another option is to abolish the appointments
committee and make applicants come before the council. I think that’s the way it
used to be years ago. Then somebody created the appointments committee. So
that’s an option.
We all make mistakes. I’m not making light of anything
whatsoever. I think we’ve all said or done things that have been a mistake,
offended, irritated, or annoyed somebody in some way or fashion. I think
Councillor Van Dover apologized sincerely.
I think there was a better way for people to handle this. If
someone is being interviewed and feels offended by questions or conversation, I
wasn’t privy to it. Hopefully, the person speaks up and addresses it so both
people can leave understanding each other. That’s working together, not
cyberattacking somebody. I think this whole process could have been handled
much better.
I’ve known Rose long enough, not a mean bone in her body
that I’ve seen or heard. I think she was sincere in the apology. And I have to
say that the hypocrisy from Councillor Healy is unbelievable. I’ll share an
email I was drafting on a message she sent to a committee member when she was a
Town Committee member. In my mind, it was ageism and vulgarity, so I’ll share
that, to show that people who pretend to live on a high horse, maybe take it
down a notch, and let’s truly work together. Let’s resolve some issues. Let’s
not agitate or create issues or cyberattack people.
I hope that’s the end of this discussion tonight. I’m sure
we’re going to talk about it, and I’m sure there’s a process that can be done
for the committee.
Councillor Van Dover: All our meetings, whether
the subcommittee meeting or any other meeting, should be recorded. Every single
meeting should be recorded. That way, there will be no questions about what
happened, so this never happens again to anyone on either side. That is my
suggestion.
Council President Duhamel: The issue at hand
tonight, the most telling issue, is how we treat and how we judge people.
Councillors have an aura about us that we have some authority, which, if you’ve
ever served the council, is all a show. It’s not real. That being said, if you’re
interviewing someone for a job and you start talking about race, I don’t know
where that comes from. I don’t know where that emanates from. We can have more
classes on that, but I don’t know where it would ever be thought to be
acceptable. I want to apologize to Ms. Dinwoodie for what she had to go through
and commend her for bringing this issue to the podium tonight. And I want to
apologize for the antics of this council towards Ms. Dinwoodie, as well as the
antics of some of the podium speakers who tried to diminish the offense. I want
to thank Ms. Van Dover for her apology. I think that was appropriate and she
did it quickly, without reservation, but we also heard about consequences and
how to move on. Certainly, an apology is first and foremost, but her liaison
position on the appointments committee must be evaluated, and she may be
removed.
I would also like to examine the appointments committee and
its operation. As Councillors Niemeyer and Healy have proposed, some
fundamental changes must be made to the appointments committee and all the
committees’ conduct so that none of these issues arise.
Again, we’re all in the same town. We used to all work
together, and now it’s who can insult the other person to their advantage at
any time and play these games. The town council is here to do the town’s
business. We’re not doing any town business. We’re just sparring at each other,
not serving the public. It’s not serving ourselves. I don’t know one
professional organization I’m part of where these types of antics are
tolerated, and this type goes on.
I’ve never served on a town council like this. It’s an
embarrassment to the town and not warranted in any way. You can disagree with
someone and their views, but you have to be professional. You have to be civil
about it. You can’t constantly make cheap shots trying to run for the next
election. We’re here to serve the people. We’re here to help the town. Nothing
that we’re doing tonight is helping the town. The most we can do is apologize
to Ms. Dinwoodie for what she had to go through at that interview, and for what
she had to go through tonight.
It’s just not right. It’s not right for Westerly.
RIFuture.news is a reader-supported publication. To receive
new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
