Chariho MAGAs use health issue to make another MAGA point

Chariho School Committee Policy Subcommittee votes to rescind its masking policy

Steve Ahlquist

A slight majority of Chariho School Committee members are members of, affiliated with, or sympathetic to the ideas promulgated by Moms for Liberty. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Moms for Liberty was “originally established to combat what it considered controversial COVID-19 safety measures in schools, mostly centered around masking.”

Will ICE agents be required to unmask if they raid Chariho? 
Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA/AP Photo

Still, it was surprising to see the Policy Subcommittee decide to recommend the rescission of the masking policy adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The policy, adopted to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to secure ESSER funds, lies dormant now that the pandemic is more or less under control thanks to the wide availability of COVID-19 vaccines.

Here’s the video: Chariho School Committee Policy Subcommittee votes to rescind COVID masking policy

Here’s the transcription. “Audience members” refers to the roughly 25 people in attendance who are there to follow the Policy Subcommittee meeting.

Committee Chair Polly Hopkins: Policy for masks and masking. I requested to delete it.

Committee member Donna Chambers: Delete it?

Polly Hopkins: Yep. The COVID, I don’t know what the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE)’s recommendation is on this. COVID’s long passed. Face masks. There was a lawsuit brought against the Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) by a group of parents, and it was against the face masks because a lot of parents did not believe that they, according to Dr. Fauci himself, don’t work. So we - the lawsuit settled - I can’t say “we” because I was not in that first tier group - but the Rhode Island Department of Health settled after discovery and was never able to produce any information that face masks work.

So the Rhode Island Department of Health told everyone in the state that they must and should [wear masks] - and then they backed down and said, in their wording, “it was mandated.” Well, it was really just a suggestion, but they kind of made everybody believe that it was mandated. It was quite a beautiful thing to see.

This is titled Policy for Face Masks and Face Coverings - COVID-19. COVID-19 is gone, and the thing that I worry about the most is the safety of the students. You have people coming in [to schools] with face coverings, and you can’t see who they are. You can’t identify them. You can probably only identify them by their height, but there are no height marks here at the doorway.

It’s not a safe situation for kids.

Committee member Linda Lyall: But we can’t deny [entry to] a person wearing a face mask if they want to wear one.

Polly Hopkins: If it’s a safety issue, they should. Somebody’s covering their face and coming into a school with underage children is a safety issue.

Audience Members: But people are doing it for health reasons.

Linda Lyall: People wear them in Walmart

School Committee Attorney Jon Anderson: There are people who are doing it for health reasons.

Polly Hopkins: I know.

Jon Anderson: And there are people who do it for religious reasons. I think the last thing the school committee would want to do is adopt a policy that contravenes a person’s religion.

Polly Hopkins: We’re not talking about adopting any policies. COVID is over. We don’t need this policy. We don’t need to have it sitting in the list of policies. And to be honest, if somebody is wearing a mask because they’re worried about being in a crowd, the mask isn’t going to help.

Audience Members: [About to speak and cut off]

Polly Hopkins [exasperated]: I know! I’ve had this conversation with my dad all the time. He’s 83.

Audience Members: I’ve been 40 years in healthcare. You’re wrong.

Polly Hopkins: Healthcare is different. Healthcare, honestly, we can get down to the nits and everything about that, and why they’re used in healthcare. That’s a different story. We’re in a school and we need to think about the safety of the students above everything else. There’s no policy where we’re going to say you can’t come into the school if you have a mask on, obviously, but we don’t need this.

Linda Lyall: Okay, so I’m confused.

Jon Anderson: So am I.

Linda Lyall: Yeah, I was just going to say, okay, so this policy covers, I believe, the students and the teachers when they’re in school,

Polly Hopkins: COVID-19.

Linda Lyall: COVID 19 in school. And I agree with you. There’s no more COVID-19. Well, there’s still COVID-19, but yeah. I agree with the second thing you just said, that we can’t stop people from coming into the schools with masks on if they need it for health reasons.

Polly Hopkins: It’s not - I’m on the school committee. That’s up to the admin and whoever’s running the building.

Linda Lyall: Could you reiterate, then? The purpose of getting rid of this policy is to what? You started saying, “because people come into the building, they have face masks on, and it could be scary and whatnot.” Now I’m confused. You want to get rid of it only because you don’t think we need it anymore?

Polly Hopkins: Absolutely.

Donna Chambers: That’s what I’m hearing.

Polly Hopkins: We don’t need it. First of all, because COVID…

Linda Lyall: I understand.

Polly Hopkins: My second justification was that the Rhode Island Department of Health couldn’t, and I wrote here, “cannot provide peer-reviewed data even suggesting that masks work.” So if our own health department can’t provide that data, and it’s been years, then I think maybe we should take this policy out of the mix. Let people decide for themselves. Personal liberty. Do you want to wear a mask? Go ahead. But then the administration has to say, I can’t see half of that person’s face. I’m going to have to stay at an angle where I can see them better. There are other precautions you’re going to take.

Superintendent Gina Picard: I think the only reason we had to do this policy was to get our ESSER funds (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund), which was a requirement as part of the federal law. I mean, now it doesn’t exist. So I think what you’re asking is that the policy be deleted from the school committee policies. I would have to double-check. I don’t think, because all our ESSER funds are spent, that there’s any other thing I’m not thinking of...

Linda Lyall: ...that it’s not required.

Jon Anderson: I just want to make sure that if there’s a person, for example, who is of a Muslim background and they wear a veil...

Gina Picard: But you could do that without this policy...

Jon Anderson: Well, I share Linda’s confusion in that Ms. Hopkins has indicated that wearing a face mask at all is dangerous. And that...

Polly Hopkins: I did not say that at all.

Audience Members: Yes, you did. She said it is dangerous.

Polly Hopkins: It is a safety issue…

Jon Anderson: Right.

Polly Hopkins: ...and it is a factor for safety. I didn’t say it was dangerous.

Jon Anderson: That’s exactly what you said. And I’m saying that there are people who, for sincerely held religious beliefs, will wear a covering on their face. There are also people who disagree with you regarding the health concerns. For example, when Superintendent Michael Ricci was doing chemo, he wore a mask. If there is a student doing chemo and wants to wear a mask, I want to make very sure that our policy allows them to wear a mask

Gina Picard: Or even an employee.

Committee member Patricia Pouliot: This policy is just obsolete.

Polly Hopkins: Yeah, it’s obsolete. It’s for COVID-19. It specifically says that at the top, and whatever we might feel about how masks work or don’t work, the policy is moot. We don’t need this. Get this out. If somebody is a Muslim and wearing face coverings or somebody is wearing a mask for health reasons, the staff and the administration can handle it. I have no doubt about that. But for us, as a school committee, we don’t need this.

Linda Lyall: To be sure, you’re saying this is irrelevant now and moot, and that’s why you want to get rid of it. Not about the safety stuff.

Donna Chambers: Can I get acknowledged, please? I don’t see any reason to remove it. Yes, it does say COVID-19. No one in this room can assure us that that won’t happen again. If you read the latest news, it’s possible. But the policy can be changed when it needs to be changed. It’s about how we handle and respond to pandemics in the schools. This is one of the policies. I do not see any reason to remove a policy that already exists, even though it’s dormant right now, or could be dormant. That’s my feeling.

Audience Members: Change the title.

Donna Chambers: We’ve never removed policies, have we?

Linda Lyall: Oh, sure, you can get rid of a policy.

Gina Picard: Yeah, you can.

Polly Hopkins: This one was about COVID.

Donna Chambers: Then cross out COVID-19

Polly Hopkins: Is the governor still working off the emergency? [laugh] I don’t know...

Audience Members: I view the news regularly, and I honestly cannot say that I have read or heard anything about COVID and its variants being eradicated.

Laura Chapman: I haven’t heard that either.

Audience Members: So don’t say it’s not. It is. And if you want to get into an argument about whether masks are an effective way of [preventing the spread], that’s another discussion. But either way, we’re still talking about COVID.

Donna Chambers: Well, I will say I’ll not vote to remove this from our policy. It’s dormant, but it’s no big deal to leave it there as far as I’m concerned.

Laura Chapman: But Gina, were you saying that if somebody wants to wear a mask, then you don’t need the policy in particular? Could they still do it if they want to?

Gina Picard: The policy had to be created because, to request ESSER funds, we had to comply with the federal mandate.

Laura Chapman: And we don’t have ESSER funds anymore, so...

Gina Picard: I don’t want to speak out of turn. I want to double-check, but my understanding is that we’ve expended all our funds, so this policy would no longer be required. I want to just double-check.

Donna Chambers: But it was required because of the health and safety of the children. Nobody in this room can guarantee that that will never happen again. Removing a policy that already exists - these policies take a lot of work to put together, and to take it out and throw it in the trash - that is not the right thing to do. Let it sit dormant. People don’t recognize it right now, but I can’t see removing it.

So, do we take a vote or what?

Polly Hopkins: I’ll make a motion to delete the policy.

Linda Lyall: We’ll have to send it to the [full] school committee.

Polly Hopkins: Yeah.

Linda Lyall: Can I just ask another question? Are there any policies in our health and safety policy or any other policy that address things of this nature that are not as specific as COVID?

Gina Picard: I have to check.

Jon Anderson: Our 504 policy. [Note: 504 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive federal funding, including public schools.]

Gina Picard: We do have some medically fragile children sometimes who have different treatments, or even their parents.

Linda Lyall: And then, to this gentleman’s point, we don’t know. We hope that we don’t go back to pandemic whatevers, but it would be easy enough to reinstate the policy, correct?

Audience Members: Not if you make it go away. You’d have to rewrite it. It’s easier to leave it and change the words.

Laura Chapman: Well, wouldn’t that guidance come down from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and all that stuff, then you have to be…

Polly Hopkins: Well, this is a five-year-old policy too, so we should review it, update it, or make a decision... I mean, all the writing will be there, should we need another one to, I don’t know, Policy for Face Masks and Face Coverings - Bird Flu. We’d have to go through the rigmarole of changing the wording anyway.

Donna Chambers: But the framework is here. It’s a four-year-old policy. It was revised four years ago.

Jessica Purcell: My suggestion would be to take out anything about mandates or requirements, and we could leave in things like we abide by the guidelines set forth by RIDE and RIDOH relating to public health. I don’t know.

Polly Hopkins: I think a lot of parents got annoyed with RIDOH telling us what to do and then, after years of court...

Jessica Purcell: But it is true that we would have to abide. That’s why this policy exists, because we had to abide by RIDOH and federal law to have kids in school and receive funding. So even if it bothers people, it’s true that the district has to do that. I’m just trying to find a common ground.

Audience Members: I would like to go back to one of your initial statements. You said it’s a safety concern if people are wearing masks in the buildings. Could you explain that a little bit to me?

Polly Hopkins: It’s a safety concern, and I’ve seen... kids don’t wear hoods. Why don’t kids wear hoods in schools?

Donna Chambers: Let her finish her question.

Audience Members: But they have to buzz in. We have to see who they are when they come into the building. And if someone’s coming in and they’re wearing a mask, I don’t think we should have the right to say, “You can’t come in because you have a mask on.”

Polly Hopkins: I never said that.

Audience Members: But how are you going to abide by the safety portion of it?

Polly Hopkins: That’s a kid, with an ID, getting buzzed in.

Audience Members: What about parents?

Polly Hopkins: What if we had something at the auditorium where people are all coming in? A couple of meetings ago, there were several people with masks. It’s a safety issue…

Audience Members: So you’re saying that they shouldn’t be allowed in there...

Polly Hopkins: No, of course they should be allowed to come in, but it’s a safety issue. So now it’s just like kids walking down the halls. Why can’t they keep their hoods pulled up? I think we - they’re walking down the hall. My son loves his hood on.

Donna Chambers: That’s another issue.

Polly Hopkins: I think it’s the same kind of thing.

Jessica Purcell: I know, when you started speaking and presented this issue, I think you looped that safety issue in, but we need to stick to this. This policy is not the issue. It’s okay if it’s a concern, but it’s not this agenda item.

Audience Members: My concern is that people be allowed to wear masks if they choose to or if they need to.

Polly Hopkins: Yes.

Audience Members: Okay.

Polly Hopkins: I’ll make a motion to send this to the school committee. I would like to remove it from our policies.

Patricia Pouliot: I’ll second.

Polly Hopkins: All those in favor. Opposed? Donna Chambers is opposed.

And Donna Chambers was the only one of the six to vote in opposition.

RIFuture.news is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Full-scale MAGA war on Chariho begins

Chariho School Committee's leadership prepares to go after libraries, face masks, Title IX, and trans kids

Steve Ahlquist

Steve’s editorial note: Chariho School Committee Member Donna Chambers [Charlestown—Charlestown Citizens Alliance] wrote to me:

“Although your latest reporting is accurate about the request for policy reviews by Polly Hopkins, it is not the Leadership of Chariho as your headlines suggest. I am on the policy review committee and when these policies come up to be reviewed, they will be looked at fairly, respectfully, and with the welfare and safety of all students in mind.”

At the February 11 meeting of the Chariho School Committee, right-wing Republicans aligned with Moms for Liberty announced their intention to go after seven policies, targeting face masks, libraries, Title IX, and the safety of trans and gender-diverse students.

Chariho is a regionalized school District with representatives from Charlestown, Richmond, and Hopkinton. The School Committee is made up of four persons from each town.

Richmond Republican Louise Dinsmore, who became Chair of the Committee after some legislative shenanigans, [See here and here] signed onto the Moms for Liberty Pledge while running for office. Dinsmore joins Hopkinton Republican and Moms for Liberty member Dianne Tefft, who was elected to the Committee last election. I wrote about the pledge ahead of the election here. Committee Member Polly Hopkins, a Hopkinton Republican, strongly supported Dinsmore becoming Chair. Committee Member Dianne Tefft [Hopkinton—R] also signed the Moms for Liberty Pledge.

Chariho MAGAs move quickly – maybe too quickly – to assert control over school district

In what appears to be a play to elect an incoming member as Chair of the Committee, Republicans held a possibly illegal vote. 

Steve Ahlquist

This is Steve's video of the meeting:

Thursday Tuesday evening, the Chariho School Committee held its first meeting under a new 7-5 Republican majority. Chariho is a regionalized school District with representatives from Charlestown, Richmond, and Hopkinton. The School Committee is made up of four persons from each town. The unexpected resignation of Richmond Republican Kathryn Colasante has complicated the current lineup of the Committee. 

Under the law, the next highest vote-getter in the most recent election is offered a spot on the Committee. That person is conservative Republican Louise Dinsmore, co-founder of the Forgotten Taxpayers PAC, former Chair of the Richmond Republican Town Committee, and a Chariho Rotary Club board member.

“Who am I really?” asked Dinsmore at a fundraiser for Chariho Forgotten Taxpayers PAC featuring South Kingstown mother and anti-trans activist Nicole Solas, “I’m a vocal taxpayer and Richmond resident concerned about how my tax dollars are being spent by the town and the school District.” Dinsmore also signed onto the Moms for Liberty Pledge while running for office. Dinsmore joins Hopkinton Republican and Moms for Liberty member Dianne Tefft, who was also elected to the Committee last election. I wrote about the pledge ahead of the election here.

A new committee chair must be elected per the State Chariho Regional School District Act, which governs the Chariho Regional School District. Instead of electing a new chair, the seven Republicans blocked the vote for reasons unknown but easily guessed. They are saving the Chair for Dinsmore, who was not sworn in as a member of the Committee as of last night’s meeting. 

As Chariho Superintendent Gina Picard noted, not electing a chair at the first meeting is breaking State law, and “if you choose to break the State law, you would no longer be indemnified as school committee members and have to get your own attorneys.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: Westerly Sun reporter Jason Vallee also covered the meeting. His article HERE largely confirms Steve Ahlquist's account.   - Will Collette

CCA complains about policy they had established

Robert’s revenge?

By Will Collette

Robert Malin, a gentle soul who showed
very little interest in revenge. RIP.

It’s an election year, so, of course, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) is seething with anger over a host of grievances and threats that they hope voters will believe and return them to power on November 5.

Among the CCA’s grievances, the CCA is angry at the Town Council majority, all of whom won under the Charlestown Residents United (CRU) banner, for not automatically filling a recent Council vacancy with their guy, the one who finished in 6th place on the ballot.

The midterm vacancy occurred due to the sad death of Council member Grace Klinger. Grace had not planned to run for reelection, but died before she could finish her term.

The CCA insisted the seat then belonged to the CCA’s Peter Gardner, the 2022 6th place finisher who got 1,655 votes (compared to Council President Deb Carney’s 2,106 votes).

Although the CCA admits on its website that Charlestown’s Town Charter does not require vacancies to be filled by the next highest vote-getter, nonetheless they were outraged the seat didn’t go to Gardner (or the 7th place finisher, another CCAer Ann Owen).

Instead, the Council exercised its prerogative to make the appointment to pick Grace’s replacement will pick from applicants who filed an application by March 1. This is the procedure for filling vacancies on boards, committees and commissions as outlined in C-168 of the Town Charter.

That triggered CCA acolyte Mikey Chambers to offer this angry commentary:

Unless I miss my guess, and I don’t believe so, the appointment will go to the highest vote getter who did not run as an Independent (CCA), but as a CRU (Democrat?) candidate. So much for the wishes of the people! This will go the way of the wishes of the people in the town-wide survey. The preference of the people will again be ignored. If you can’t see this, you haven’t been paying attention.

Mikey, it’s not just your guess that you’re missing.

First, what makes you think it will go to the “highest vote getter who did not run as an Independent (CCA)?” If the Council follows the CCA’s precedent, they might pick someone who wasn’t a candidate at all in the 2022 election.

Second, what do you mean by labelling CCA candidates as “independent” when they must all swear allegiance to the CCA platform AND if they are elected but fail to follow CCA orders, they are severely punished? CCA politicians are about as independent as members of Vladimir Putin’s government.

Third, what makes you think a putative choice of a CRU member means appointing a Democrat? In fact, the four-member CRU majority that swept the 2022 election consisted of one Democrat and three Republicans. The 5^th candidate on the CRU slate ran as unaffiliated with either party.

And fourth, Mikey, how is it that you claim a 2021 town survey, larded with push-poll questions and followed by cherry-picked CCA interpretation somehow trumps the 2022 General Election as the “wishes of the people?” Maybe you should ask someone for help in understanding how the democratic process works.

The most recent precedent for Charlestown’s current situation occurred in 2018.

After the 2016 election brought in an all-CCA Council, a vacancy opened up when Steve Williams resigned in January of 2018. The 6th place finisher was Democrat Robert Malin. In fact, Robert was the only candidate among the six running for Council who was not CCA-endorsed.

The argument was made that Robert should be chosen since he actually ran for the office.

CCA President Leo Mainelli disagreed, stating at the February 12, 2018 Council meeting that George Tremblay should be appointed even though he was not on the ballot. Those so-called independent remaining four CCA Councilors dutifully followed Leo's command.

As it turns out, had Robert been appointed to the vacancy, he would not have fulfilled his term, dying of cancer in June 2018. George Tremblay suffered a stroke one year into his appointed term but did finish it out but did not run for re-election in November of 2018.

How a municipality fills vacancies to elected office is a matter of law. Some towns, such as Richmond, say in their Town Charters that vacancies are filled by the next highest vote getter.

However, remember that the MAGA majority running Richmond decided not to follow that clear legal mandate when it selected a right-wing nut who didn’t even run to fill a Richmond vacancy on the Chariho School Committee. The state Supreme Court ruled the town had to follow its own Charter and booted the MAGA choice.

Charlestown leaves the decision on how to fill vacancies to the Council. That’s what the CCA said in 2018 when it chose Tremblay over Malin and that’s what the current CRU majority is saying now.

How you feel about that has everything to do with how you feel about who is running the Town Council.

Voters can decide this question if a Charter amendment question is put on the ballot. Maybe it’s time to settle that question, and I don’t mean by running some self-serving survey.

What's behind your new Charlestown property tax bill?

Higher assessments and lower tax rate and other important tax issues 

By Will Collette

A Connecticut couple bought this Charlestown property in
May of last year for $9,500,000. It is
currently assessed at $9,187,800

Like other Charlestown homeowners, I just received our new property tax bill containing an anticipated modest hike that covers increased town expenses.

That bill comes due tomorrow, August 1.

This year’s town budget passed with almost no drama, unlike previous years where voters had to contend with financial improprieties (e.g., the $2 million “oopsie”), audit flags for budget mismanagement, shady land deals and false claims from the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) that the only thing that matters is the town’s low tax rate.

This year, the tax rate plummeted largely due to mega-million real estate buys by rich people from out of state that pushed up nearly everyone’s property assessments. Yes, homes went up in valuation, though that hardly translates into money in your pocket though it does mean added tax costs out of your pocket.

$1,000,000+ purchases in Charlestown since the first of the year

Rhode Island IS one of the states but municipalities
have to apply. Providence does. So does Newport. And
Narragansett, North and South Kingstown.
But NOT Charlestown, thanks to the CCA.

This phenomenon of rising home assessments, not to mention higher infrastructure costs, caused by non-resident homeowners, is common along the shoreline. 

It has led many of our neighbors (e.g. South Kingstown, Narragansett, North Kingstown and even Newport) to institute “Homestead” tax breaks to compensate full-time residents for this cost.

Not Charlestown, though – the CCA bitterly opposed a proposal from town Democrats for a Homestead Tax Credit. I think it’s an idea that should be revisited.

Central Quonnie's 4+ acre tennis club, assessed at $130,100

Other than Charlestown’s two fake fire districts – Central Quonochontaug and Shady Harbor, who pay little or no tax on the tens of millions of dollars of real estate they own – the rest of us received assessment revaluations averaging around 50%.

Neither “fire district” actually fights fires. They use their property like a homeowners’ association with private beaches, water systems, recreational facilities including a tennis club and more. If they paid tax on their properties at fair market value, it would further reduce everyone’s taxes. But under this outrageous system, it’s the taxpayers who are subsidizing these fake fire districts.

I have a proposal: strip fire districts that have no capacity to fight fires of their tax-favored status. Make them pay like the rest of us. 

Use the new revenue to address Charlestown’s chronic shortage of volunteer firefighters by offering a generous annual tax break. There may even be enough money gained to jumpstart a Homestead tax credit.

I know some families have more than one firefighter in the household. No problem. Let the family accumulate the credits. Under our existing tax policies, veterans are allowed to accumulate more than one tax credit, and no one seems to have a problem with that. If a firefighter doesn’t own a home, let the credit be applied to car tax, or be rebated directly.

So, now back to property values and finances….

The assessment of our North of One house and land increased by 65%. But, despite that huge jump in assessment, our total tax went up by only $793 due to the new tax rate. 

You can run the numbers for your own property using Tax Assessor Ken Swain’s handy new data page HERE. Ken and his staff did a great job of presenting the new tax data in a user-friendly way.

In keeping with its obligation to present a balanced budget, the big rise in the total value of taxable property was largely offset by dropping the tax rate from $8.17 per $1000 last year to $5.74 this year, almost 30%.

To get to this point, Charlestown had to go through a painful audit with a new firm, Marcum LLP. They replaced our old auditors who resigned rather than be fired after large scale financial mismanagement came to light. The Marcum LLP audit spotlighted significant defects in the way the CCA-run town government managed our money.

After that audit, Marcum LLP tried to pile on an outrageous extra charge of $55,992 even though they knew going in that the audit was going to be complicated by the mess left behind by the old CCA Town Council majority and ex-Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz.

The new Town Council majority (CRU) refused to pay and negotiated the bill down to a fraction of what it was ($18,000) and then fired Marcum LLP.

Shortly after that, the federal Securities and Exchange Commission released a statement noting that Marcum LLP had committed “systemic quality control failures” and agreed to pay a $10 million fine. From the SEC’s June 21, 2023 news release:

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged audit firm Marcum LLP with systemic quality control failures and violations of audit standards in connection with audit work for hundreds of special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) clients beginning at the latest in 2020. The SEC’s order also found that Marcum’s deficiencies were not limited to SPAC clients, but they reflected systemic quality control failures throughout the firm. Marcum agreed to pay a $10 million penalty to settle the charges.

I am not privy to Charlestown’s internal legal strategy, but I would hope they are considering moves to recover the $18,000 we paid Marcum to settle their $55,992 bill for extra work.

Based on Charlestown’s bad experience with Marcum LLP plus the SEC charges, the Chariho School Committee voted 11-0 to terminate their contract with James Wilkinson of Marcum LLP.

There was one abstention: CCA-sponsored School Committee member Donna Chambers who has yet to publicly explain why she abstained on such a no-brainer.

Maybe she had not received her instructions on how to vote from the CCA Steering Committee (or forgot what they were).

A deeper dive into taxes and property values

Real estate data firm Stacker currently rates Charlestown as the 12^th most expensive area in the metro area with a “typical” home value of $604,442. Over the past five years, home prices in Charlestown grew by 54.8%, up $213,959.

A couple months ago, the Providence Journal published an article listing the top 30 taxpayers in Charlestown. Spoiler alert: neither the Quonnie or Shelter Harbor fake fire districts made the list.

All but one are multi-million dollar seaside estates.

Here’s is the Journal’s list of top Charlestown taxpayers:

1. Joseph N. Walsh III & Barbara Walsh, 21 Dowd Drive — $55,540. Besides its seven bedrooms and seven bathrooms, this estate has a separate one-bedroom, 1,600 house on its 2.78 acres. The property was assessed at $6.8 million.

2. 264 East Beach Holdings, 264 East Beach Rd. — $47,644. This seven-bedroom, seven-bathroom house has an inground pool on 4.57 acres. The property was assessed at $5.8 million.

3. H. David & Tracy L. Overbeeke, 648A West Beach Rd. — $41,671. This four-bedroom, three-bathroom house has an 816-square-foot detached garage on 2.12 acres. The property was assessed at $5.1 million.

4. Dowd Drive Realty Trust, 27 Dowd Drive — $37,656. This three-bedroom, two-bathroom house sits on 0.72 acres. The property was assessed at $4.9 million.

5. Stephen H. Long Revocable Trust, 38 Ninigret Ave. — $35,664. This four-bedroom, four-bathroom house sits on 0.89 acres. The property was assessed at $4.4 million.

6. Dolores Cusson Qualified Personal Trust, 93 Surfside Ave. — $34,746.

7. Brooke N. Muggia Revocable Trust, 75 Surfside Ave. — $32,361. 85

8. Surfside Avenue LLC, 85 Surfside Ave. — $31,879.

9. Kelly Hickey Crawford Revocable Trust, 165 Surfside Ave. — $31,060.10.

10. Gregory B. Howey Surfside Qualified Personal Trust, 109 Surfside Ave. — $30,956.11.

11. Joan B. Gurney Life Use, 25 Dowd Drive — $30,728.12.

12. Timothy A. & Beverly C. Holt, 175 Surfside Ave. — $30,590.13.

13. Sean H. Reynolds, 159 Surfside Ave. — $30,433.14.

14. Jeffrey W. & Kathryne A. Gardner, 89B South Arnolda Rd. — $30,262.15.

15. 2016 Rhode Island Trust, 179 Surfside Ave. — $30,181.16.

16. Denis G. & Nancy A. Gagnon, 3 Wells Lane — $29,033.17.

17. Charles A. Glew, 5790B Post Rd. — $28,602.18.

18. Thomas C. Uger, 75 Ocean View Ave. — $28,062.19.

19. 101 Surfside LLC, 101 Surfside Ave. — $27,880.20.

20. Laura A. More Revocable Trust, 34 Ninigret Ave. — $27,83421.

21. Alexander S. Ehrlich Revocable Trust, 187 Warren Rd. — $27,616.22.

22. Robert K Miller III Revocable Living Trust, 182 Surfside Ave. — $27,365.23.

23. Keith W. & Catherine A. Swaby, 137 Southern Way — $27,118.24.

24. Roberta Peet, 57 Surfside Ave. — $26,854.25.

25. Brian J. & Tiffany S. Van Elsander, 89 Surfside Ave. — $26,588.26.

26. DLM Ninigret Cove Trust, 209 Cove Point West — $26,491.27.

27. Kimberly G.F. & Robert P. Anderson, 335 West Beach Rd. — $26,427.28.

28. Martha G. Kellogg Personal Residence Trust, 153 Surfside Ave. — $26,378.29.

29. James P. & Lisa M. McConnell, 359 West Beach Rd. — $25,974.30.

30. ChurchWoods LLC, 4110 Old Post Rd. — $25,936

ChurchWoods. Their assessment is thirty times higher than
Quonnie's tennis club. Both properties are just above 4 acres

I cannot fathom how ChurchWoods got on the list. They are a small, affordable housing complex for low to moderate income senior citizens. 

It was built on land from the Episcopal Diocese of Rhode Island. Their assessed value for Charlestown tax purposes is $3,964,200. Compare that to Central Quonnie's  tennis club (see above) appraised at only $130,100.

That they should be on the list and not the Central Quonnie or Shady Harbor (fake) Fire Districts is disgusting.

I don’t mind paying taxes, but I am outraged at unfair taxation. I’ve written about numerous instances of CCA-driven tax inequities. The CCA leadership knew about them, but over their decade of power over Charlestown’s affairs, they not only did nothing but made the inequities worse. I suggest this is a subject our new town leadership should examine closely and then take action.

After Charlestown, can Stankiewicz hold a job?

Leaves Berkley MA gig after only six weeks

By Will Collette

Stonewall Stankiewicz

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) raised former Charlestown town administrator Mark Stankiewicz to the status of demi-god, almost running out of adjectives to describe what a wonderful guy he is.

They bitterly attacked the new Charlestown Town Council majority that swept the CCA out of power last November for forcing such a nice man out of his job.

Here’s what the CCA wrote:

Do not be fooled! This is a FORCED, not a voluntary, resignation. Mark has served the town masterfully for ten years and has no desire to leave.

 He is being forced out to avoid being fired because of ongoing difficulties with the Council President unrelated to his outstanding performance as Town Administrator.

The CCA’s own Mikey Chambers took his invective to Biblical heights:

“The people responsible for forcing Mark out of his job will be judged on their humanity and character and cannot be absolved from this heinous act unless they publicly come clean. It is not my place to forgive them this sin, they sinned in public and need to seek redemption in public."

Even though Stankiewicz told everyone who asked (including me) that “I work for the CCA,” - not the town, not the people - his party loyalty to the CCA only ran so deep.

Unbeknownst to the CCA, he actually DID have a desire to leave. He worked out a deal to become Berkley MA town administrator months before the November election. 

He was not, as the CCA and Mikey Chambers claim, forced out, although I felt he should be bounced for reasons I detailed HERE.

He began the Berkley job immediately on the SAME DAY as his last official day in Charlestown on February 13. 

As I wrote HERE, not only did Stankiewicz make the CCA look stupid, but he also seemed to be jumping into a pretty messed up town where most of its top staff had quit during the summer of 2022.

After the initial fanfare over his hiring in Berkley, it didn’t take long for Stankiewicz to bail. The Berkley Board of Selectmen’s agenda shows his resignation on March 29, effective April 22.

He lasted six weeks. Two members of the Board of Selectmen resigned at the same time. Berkley records don’t show any detail and apparently the town waits until the end of the year to publish its minutes. 

The Taunton Gazette loosely follows town news and did not report any detail about Stankiewicz’s recent departure or the numerous other resignations.

We don’t know whether Berkley asked for his resignation or whether he found yet another job.

Berkley held a special election on May 6 to replace their governing board. They named Stankiewicz’s predecessor as his successor, at least on an interim basis.

The Taunton Gazette interviewed the new Selectmen, but none of them wanted to talk about what happened to cause Stankiewicz’s departure and all the other resignations. Joseph Freitas’s remarks were classic:

"You hear stories about how Berkley is run. But it still has its rural charm, and I like that charm. And I would like it to be maintained to the best of my ability. What happened was all based on individual decisions.”

Sounds like the kind of answer you give if you’re worried about a lawsuit or are party to a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

In several ways, the legacy of Stankiewicz’s 10-year run in Charlestown remain. Our new auditors issued findings of substantial flaws in Charlestown’s financial management, all of which occurred on Stanky’s watch. 

And his pick for Town Treasurer, Irina Gorman, just handed in her notice.

New CCA temper tantrum

Failed March 13 attempt to “flood the zone” sparks slander from CCA leadership

By Will Collette

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) was soundly rejected by voters in the 2022 election. But, not surprisingly, they still have some tricks up their sleeves to take back power.

One such attempt was made – and failed – at the March 13 Town Council meeting where the CCA attempted to “flood the zone” with a large number of their stalwarts trying to get onto key town commissions and committees.

Such long-time CCA hardcore players as Bonnita Van Slyke, Mikey Chambers, Ron Areglado, Pete Mahoney and Dick Sartor made bids for seats on the Charter Revision Committee, Ordinance Revision Ad Hoc Committee, Town Administrator Search Ad Hoc Committee and Parks & Recreation Commission.

None were approved although several applicants with CCA ties, such as veterinarian Dr. Lew Johnson did win appointment.

Fortunately, there was a large field of experienced and thoughtful non-CCA candidates to fill the ranks of these important town bodies. You can see the full list of people who applied, who was chosen and who was not by CLICKING HERE.

I also encourage you to read their applications and career highlights by CLICKING HERE.

You really should take a close look because the CCA has decided to use their failed blitz as “evidence” that the “Town Council Puts Developers In Charge,” according to the headline in their blog.

Only one appointee, Tim Stasiunas, is an active developer. Evelyn Smith, who was appointed to the Charter Revision Committee, was a developer decades ago. However, Evelyn has put in more than 20 years on the town’s Affordable Housing Commission. Evelyn does own an inactive sand pit.

According to the CCA, any person who owns a business is suspect, as are all attorneys (except the CCA’s last remaining Council member Susan Cooper of course). By the way, contrary to CCA's claim, Cooper voted to approve Evelyn Smith's appointment.

For some inscrutable reason, about half of the CCA’s screed rehashes their own tragic handling of the COPAR Quarry crisis, re-writing history by casting themselves as the heroes rather than chumps. 

Mar. 13rd Charlestown Town Council Meeting Report

Lots of cheers and jeers on commission and committee appointments, plus cleaning up the financial management mess

Left to right: Susan Cooper, Rippy Serra Deb Carney, Grace Klinger and Stephen Stokes

Content from Charlestown Residents United

Main topics:

• ·       Committee and Commission appointments.
• ·       Food trucks in Ninigret Park.
• ·       No action on controversial proposed Chariho Schools tri-town subcommittee
• ·       Unexplained bill from our auditing firm.

Our preview of this meeting was published here.

The agenda packet for this meeting is here. The video for the meeting can be viewed here.

Of the 10 applicants for the Charter Revision Committee, the following 7 were appointed: Catherine E. Graziano, Margaret L. Hogan, Anne K. Mulhall, Lorna M. Persson, Laura A. Rom, Evelyn J. Smith, and Stephen C. Stolle. The Council appointed Catherine Graziano as the Chair. These 3 were not appointed: Walter B. (Peter) Mahony III, Craig T. Marr, and Bonnita B. Van Slyke.

Of the 5 applicants for the Ordinance Revision Ad Hoc Committee, the following 2 were appointed: William A. Coulter and Lewis E. Johnson. These 3 were not appointed: Michael J. Chambers, Brett C. Lill, and Bonnita B. Van Slyke.

Of the 5 applicants for the Parks and Recreation Commission, the following 2 were appointed: Frank D. Glista and Timothy E. Quillen. These 3 were not appointed: Melanie H. Champion, Sarah Ray Fletcher, and Walter B. (Peter) Mahony III.

Note that the Council has requested an updated Ninigret Park Master Plan, an important document for the Town's future, from the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Of the 16 applicants (Donna Green added after the agenda packet was compiled) for the Town Administrator Search Ad Hoc Committee, the following 9 were appointed: Paula A. Andersen, Thomas A. Cahir, Lisa A. DiBello, Colleen M. Dickson, Elizabeth A. Ennis, Louan B. Lyons, John F. Pacheco III, Ronald H. Russo, and Timothy A. Stasiunas. These 6 were not appointed: Ronald Areglado, Glenn A. Babcock, William A. Coulter, Donna Green, Michael Recht, Richard J. Sartor, and Stephen C. Stolle.

The new Town financial auditor, Marcum LLP, presented the audit for the year ending June 30, 2022. There was considerable discussion about the report, most notably developing actions to mitigate issues. The auditing firm also noted several areas of material weaknesses. 

There were also a significant number of restatements, changes made during the audit, in this year's audit. The complete audit report is available starting here. The Material Weaknesses section starts here. The statements are listed here.

The spring 2023 roadside litter pickup day was scheduled for April 22 from 8 am until 4 pm.

The Westerly Sun recently reported (here) on a "tri-town subcommittee" to discuss "unfunded mandates and other areas of mutual interest" regarding the Chariho School District. Council President Carney described to the Council, her opinions on this "subcommittee" - that if it is formed it be handled like other public meetings and that it cannot dictate things to the legally separate Chariho School District. Councilor Cooper gave her opinion that this is "not a good use of Town Council time." 

School Committee members Andrew McQuaid and Donna Chambers spoke to express concern about the motivations of some of the people organizing this subcommittee and urged our Town Council to be cautious in our participation. Our Town Council decided to take no action at this time, pending better definition of the group and the support of the Chariho School Committee. No vote was taken.

The Council approved two Ninigret Park Food Truck Nights for May 4 and June 29, 2023 from 5 pm until sunset. They will include live music and beer and wine. The location will be near the playground and gazebo near Little Nini Pond. They hope to have 10 to 18 food trucks on site for each event.

There was considerable discussion about the fee to be paid. The organizer stated that the trucks would be in one stated area of the park but he expected people to wander among other areas; so he listed four areas of the park. 

But according to Councilor Stokes, if the application claimed more than 500 people, one interpretation of the fee calculation would have it dropping from $800 to $350 for the larger event.

There were numerous other questions from those in attendance, that we don't normally see asked before the Town Council about other proposed events, such as insurance coverage, compliance with alcohol serving rules, whether an alcohol corral is needed, whether there will be proper handicapped parking, whether U.S. Fish and Wildlife have agreed to it, exactly where the live entertainment will be placed, ...

After this discussion, the Council approved the events unanimously.

The Council discussed a bill for an additional $30,410 from our financial auditors, Marcum LLP, at the February 13 Council meeting. That has now increased to a total of $55,992.07 in addition to the $69,500 originally quoted as the "all-inclusive maximum price" in the bid documentation. 

The Town has asked, several times, for information to substantiate the additional fees that are noted on the bill as "out of scope" and the Town has requested documentation for the authorization of those additional charges, as required in the contract, with little response. (The representative from Marcum LLP left the meeting before this agenda item.) 

A point was raised and discussed - that the contract, signed by the former Town Administrator, states that any litigation related to the contract will take place in New York.

The Council voted unanimously to direct the Town solicitor to attempt to receive more information and negotiate reduced fees for the outstanding bill with Marcum LLP. The Council also voted to continue this agenda item to the March 27, 2023 Town Council meeting.

The Council unanimously voted to continue not having agenda-setting meetings, judging the current procedure as working well. The Town Council 2023 meeting calendar was modified accordingly.

The second Town Council meeting in March will be on March 27 at 7 pm.

The Chariho School District Financial Referendum will be held on Tuesday, April 4, from 8 am until 8 pm. All voting will be in the Town Hall Council Chambers.