The Gavle Goat is dead. Long live the Charlestown New Year's Eve bonfire!

After several safe Christmas seasons, world's favorite goat finds a new way to die

By Will Collette

I first started writing about Sweden's Gavle goat in 2011, the year Tom Ferrio and I launched Progressive Charlestown.

A proud holiday tradition in the Swedish town of Gavle since 1966, local resident build a giant goat (Gävlebocken) made of straw that stands in the town square through the Advent season.

Except when it doesn't.

While a majority of town residents love the goat, a sizeable minority don't. They make it their business every year to burn the goat down. It does make a pretty spectacular bonfire. There's a lively betting pool on whether the goat will survive and, if so, how long. And as the saying goes, a certain amount of alcohol is involved.

Vandals caught in the act usually do three months of jail time. Metro.UK reports "of the 58 Gävle goats in history, 42 have been destroyed."

Each year I wrote about the Gävlebocken, usually in the context of publicizing Charlestown's own New Year's Eve bonfire. Some year's, the goat made it; other years, it didn't.

Due largely to dramatically heightened security, the Gävlebocken made it through the past several years uncharred.

But this year, its luck ran out.

Yesterday, December 27, the Gävlebocken was busted up by high winds from Atlantic Storm Johannes.

Hopefully, the weather will be kind on Wednesday night for Charlestown's annual New Year's Eve bonfire at Ninigret Park. Currently, the National Weather Service is forecasting a cold (20 degrees) and cloudy for Charlestown.

Charlestown's bonfire was started as volunteer effort by Frank Glista who hustled up the lumber (usually from Arnold Lumber) and hand-crafted it himself. Frank carried on this work for years until recently handing it off to former Engineers union leader and current Charlestown Residents United chair Tim Quillen.

The Charlestown bonfire has had its own share of troubles. In 2013, an undisclosed complainant to DEM asked that the bonfire be banned because it created an illegal "municipal waste disposal site." DEM issued a "Notice of Intent to Enforce" which was promptly appealed by then Charlestown Treasurer Pat Anderson.

DEM rejected Pat's appeal and then former Charlestown state Representative Donna Walsh got to work, ultimately getting DEM to rescind its intended enforcement action.

There was a lot going on in Charlestown at that time. Bradford residents were hammering at DEM for its failure to enforce the law on the infamous Copar Quarry on the Charlestown-Westerly line. Town Councilor Deputy Dan Slattery was going on a tear about Ninigret Park, "phantom properties," state acquisition of properties to protect water resources after just completed his campaign to destroy former town administrator Bill DiLibero's career. Planning Commissar Ruth Platner was cranking up her effort to micromanage every business, residence and land parcel in town. 

Banning the bonfire was someone's bright idea, someone who has never stepped forward to take the "credit."  But if you study the history, you can make a pretty good guess.

New budget goes to Charlestown voters on June 2

CCA chimes in on Charlestown proposed budget

By Will Collette

Charlestown voters will have the final say on the town’s proposed $30 million+ budget. This new budget increases town expenditures by around 1.5%, compared to a 2.39% inflation rate for the past 12 months.

Under this budget, Charlestown’s tax rate is projected to increase from the current $5.78 per $1000 in assessed property value to $5.93. That’s an increase of 2.6%. Hopefully, this will be offset for permanent residents by a planned Homestead tax break if – fingers crossed – we get General Assembly approval and can swiftly pass a town ordinance. That might be overly optimistic, though.

Even at $5.93, Charlestown’s tax rate since the Charlestown Residents United won control of the Council continues to be lower than it was during any time in the past 50 years. Your actual tax is the tax rate times the assessed value of your property. Those assessments are also at an all-time high.

The all-day financial referendum will be held from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Monday, June 2, at Town Hall. Mail Ballot Applications are available on request at (401) 364-1200 or by e-mailing Town Clerk Amy Weinreich at arweinreich@charlestownri.gov.

I have been watching the reaction from the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA), Charlestown’s past rulers who were kicked to the curb by Charlestown Residents United in the last two elections. Their reaction was pretty muted compared to the kinds of rants we’ve seen from the CCA over the past 15 years.

They kvetched a little about plans to create a new home for the Parks and Recreation Department in Ninigret Park. What a concept! At its April 14 meeting, the Town Council set aside $75,000 as a contingency to pay for any needed design or engineering work. One plan is to convert the existing gatehouse into office space. If that is impractical (i.e. if repair work is too expensive), Plan B is to build a new building.

That plus improvements to existing facilities in the Park bother the CCA. Frankly, anything in the Park bothers the CCA who have fought against any and all projects, except of course, “Faith’s Folly,” their over-budget asphalt abomination of a bike path. If anyone other than CCA founding member Faith Labossiere had proposed laying down that much asphalt anywhere in town, CCA Leader and Planning Commissar Ruth Platner would light her hair on fire.

The CCA groused a little at the Town Council’s refusal to continue small grants to the Charlestown Land Trust and Community 2000. Both organizations are currently well-funded and well-endowed.

According to the Charlestown Land Trust’s most recent federal IRS-990 filing, they hold more than $2.76 million in assets, although I believe the true value is far higher, given that their acreage includes lots of prime property. The Land Trust has long and deep ties to the CCA.

More relevant to whether the town should contribute to them is another fact included in their IRS filing. The CLT only spends about 65% of what it raises. They reported an income of ~$80,000 but only spent ~$52,000.

Community 2000, a scholarship fund, reports similar data in its IRS filing. It has an endowment of $2.3 million. They only spend 60% of what they raise. In their most recent tax filing, they raised ~$228,000 but spent only ~$137,000.

While I have no quarrel with the mission of either of these two organizations, I think their own tax data show they don’t need Charlestown taxpayer money.

But here’s the kicker: The CCA makes the claim that “The Council also eliminated funds designated for the Charlestown Land Trust ($1,500) and for Community 2000 ($1,000).”

In fact, there was NO MONEY designated to be removed. Like so many of the CCA’s fiscal complaints, this is imaginary. While this is small potatoes compared to the CCA’s many other fiscal gaffs, it shows that the CCA just doesn’t seem to learn that you can’t make this shit up and get away with it.

The CCA’s sharpest critique was aimed at the Town Council’s decision to fund this year’s budget increase from the town’s bloated unrestricted fund balance.

During the CCA’s reign, increasing the size of the town’s fund balance became an obsession to the point where it seemed as if no amount of “rainy day” reserves was enough. The old Budget Commission Chair and controversial former town administrator Richard Sartor continually pushed to put more cash into reserves. Among other things, Sartor pushed for Charlestown to pay cash for capital projects, as if using bonds to fund capital projects was a mortal sin. Maybe Sartor never had a mortgage.

The CCA concedes that even after taking out this year’s budget increases, the unrestricted fund balance still meets the minimum levels (23-33%) they themselves forced on the town. Their complaint: if the town continues to tap the fund balance in the future, this might reduce the fund balance below their comfort level.

They also think the current Town Council doesn’t have adequate plans for future capital projects.

Deputy Dan Slattery

Again with the irony. Since at least 2012, the town Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has been a CCA obsession, especially when their former President Deputy Dan Slattery served on the Town Council. I wrote about that obsession in detail HERE.

If you don’t want to read it, here are the Cliff Notes: State law and the Town Charter both mandate municipalities to have five-year capital improvement plans. For some reason in 2012, Deputy Dan wasn’t satisfied with the result and tried to make this a big deal even though CCA leader and Planning Commissar Ruth Platner denied the Planning Commission had no role to play. Her Planning posse only dealt with birds and bushes, not buildings and bridges.

After Deputy Dan left, the CCA seemed to lose all interest in the capital improvement plan. If anything, they seemed to see it as an impediment to spending money on shady land deals or any of a number of other crackpot schemes they came up with, often on the spur of the moment.

Prime among them is the 2019 CCA-controlled Council decision to spend a $3 million surplus on a a “community center” in Ninigret Park. This scheme came out of the blue with no plan, design or actual budget for a new building that no one either asked for or wanted. It wasn’t in the approved Ninigret Park Master Plan nor the existing town Capital Improvement Plan. For good reason, taxpayers voted it down.

The CCA makes no mention of the September 2024 Rhode Island Auditor General’s report that shows in hard numbers that the new CRU controlled Town Council has cleaned up the fiscal mess left behind by the CCA.

The contradictions and hypocritical comments from the CCA are par for the course, but I still wonder why they chose to make them. They had to know they would be fact-checked.

One thing did surprise me in the CCA’s remarks on the budget. This year’s town budget reflects a 2% drop in Charlestown’s share of the cost to run the Chariho School District. That’s a savings of ~$287,000.

The saving is entirely due to a drop in the number of students going to Chariho from Charlestown. Why doesn’t the CCA take credit for this? After all, the drop in students is due to the relentless 15-year campaign by the CCA and its founder and leader Ruth Platner to drive families with kids out of Charlestown while ensuring that new families don’t come in.

Van Slyke ignores more than a decade of CCA’s corrupt and unethical political appointments

Slyke of Hand returns with another fact-challenged gripe from Bonnie Van Slyke

By Will Collette

The CCA's 2024 campaign slogan

Sometimes I feel sorry for the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA). For the first time since 2008 when the CCA won every Charlestown Town Council seat, they have NO CCA-endorsed candidates on the Council. Last November, Charlestown voters elected all five candidates endorsed by Charlestown Residents United (CRU) and rejected all five CCA candidates.

Even though I admit to being biased for CRU and against the CCA, I think the record shows that the Council under Deb Carney’s and Rippy Serra’s leadership has been doing a good job. A major example: the most recent report from the Rhode Island Auditor General shows huge improvements in Charlestown’s finances and fiscal management under the CRU’s leadership.

So I feel sorry the CCA has to twist facts and history like pretzels to come up with some issue that will help them recover their lost political mojo.

The latest is CCA mouthpiece Bonnie Van Slyke’s effort to turn a routine appointment to fill a vacancy on the Planning Commission into a crime against humanity. I've covered a number of previous Van Slyke tomes in the on-going "Slyke of Hand" series.

According to Van Slyke, the Council violated all that is sacred by appointing Laura Rom to fill Lisa St. Godard’s seat after St. Godard resigned just days after winning re-election.  Van Slyke said the appointment was the “reverse the will of the voters.”

Here is the CRU’s crime as presented by Van Slyke:

“For at least 30 years, and likely for the entire existence of the Planning Commission since 1982, resignations have been filled by moving up the elected members and then creating an empty spot at the bottom, in the position of the 2nd alternate. The 2nd-Alternate position is where all previous unelected appointments have been made.”

That's Ruth Platner on the left and her BFF
Bonnita Van Slyke on the right

Except this isn't true. We need to look back no further than 2018, when Van Slyke’s boss and soulmate Charlestown Planning Commissar Ruth Platner finished dead last in her re-election bid and by some miracle, she jumped the line from 2^nd alternate to retaining her position as Commission chair.

Van slyke says appointing Laura Rom to fill the vacancy violated the “will of the voters” especially because she finished last. So, Bonnie, please explain in non-weasel terms, Platner’s rise in 2018 from her last place finish at the polls to being given the top leadership spot.

Also false is Van Slyke’s claim that the CRU “Town Council ignored over 30 years of precedent in how to fill such a vacancy, ignored other language in the Charter that makes clear the intent for such appointments, and chose to reverse the will of the voters…”

In fact, there is no such provision in the Charter. When the Charlestown Charter Review Commission was working on proposals for changes to the Charter, they ASKED the Planning Commission and other town commissions what Charter changes they wanted on the 2024 ballot. Here was the opportunity for Platner and the Planning Commission to codify this sacred order of succession in the Charter. Instead, Platner and her minions responded with crickets.

Why did Platner take a pass? Simple: if this principle was in the Charter in 2018, Platner’s last-place finish at the polls would have cost her the Chair because she would be legally prohibited from jumping the line.

In fairness to Bonnie, just about all of the crazy stuff she claims originated in Ruth Platner’s letter to the Town Council (which was appended to Van Slyke’s article). As usual, Van Slyke did no fact-checking of her own and just went with Boss Platner’s polemic. 

Do as we say, not as we do: a history of CCA political patronage

Patronage has been a hallmark of the CCA since its inception. They enthusiastically apply the spoils system of awarding positions based on political loyalty instead of merit while purging and punishing anyone – even their own people – for insufficient fealty to the CCA’s core principle of doing whatever Ruth Platner tells them.

2008-2010

At the top of this article, I noted that the newborn CCA swept the 2008 Council election and installed the first all-CCA Council.

By 2010, the CCA decided they needed to purge their own Council and ran a true-blue CCA slate to take them out. They succeeded in knocking out three of their own 2008 nominees and gave us the dynastic and spectacularly incompetent leadership of Boss Tom Gentz and his Deputy Dan Slattery.

Here's Deputy Dan Slattery out hustling the
secret anti-wind deal

Why did the CCA purge its own 2008 Council? Because the 2008 all-CCA Council failed to keep up with the CCA’s 180-degree flip-flop on the issue of wind energy. They thought the CCA was pro-wind, based on a November 2009 Council presentation by none other than Tom Gentz showing popular support for wind energy.

Gentz was also an enthusiastic supporter of a test facility called the “Met Tower that operated in Ninigret Park to explore the efficacy of land-based wind energy in Charlestown.

Little did the CCA Council know that CCA leaders Gentz and Deputy Dan had been secretly schmoozing the Sachem Passage Association to line up their financial and political support in return for the CCA declaring its unabashed opposition to the proposed Whalerock industrial wind project. The 2008 Council didn’t know about the secret deal-making and paid the price.

2013-2014

The next big purge also involved the Whalerock wind project and was done as a political favor to the Sachem Passage Association. The CCA targets were Zoning Board of Review members who were insufficiently willing to ignore zoning law to block Whalerock. So in 2014, in an incredible display of nastiness, the CCA dumped ZBR members Dick Frank and William Myers.

They were replaced with CCA stalwarts Cliff Vanover (Ruth Platner’s husband) and Mikey Chambers in a process that violated the Town Charter as well as the CCA’s own policy on appointments. Shortly after that, the CCA made another patronage appointment, naming the Sachem Passage Treasurer Joe Quadrato to the ZBR.

Having the Treasurers of both the CCA and Sachem Passage serving together on the Zoning board looks a lot like an aligning of political and financial interests.

These zoning board maneuvers followed the blatantly political patronage appointment in 2013 of Mikey’s wife Donna Chambers to represent the Chariho School Committee, a position she still holds.

2017-2019

Life-long Charlestown public servant
Frank Glista

Frank Glista wrote a letter to the Westerly Sun in July 2017, describing in detail how the CCA Town Council passed over eminently qualified candidates to bring in a group of CCA loyalists without proper qualifications.

They also blatantly ignored proper procedure. As Frank described it, Council member Steve Williams set the stage:

“He stated, and I quote, "Somebody's going to yell out, real quick, a name to be nominated and that will be the nomination.... I'd like to do a ballot."  Of course, at the council meeting, a name was yelled out, seconded and nominated.... done.  Douglas Randall IV was the new Parks and Recreation Commission appointee without any discussion or debate, no ballot and not one breath of consideration toward any of the other applicants.”

Frank continued, describing the unethical conduct of none other than Bonnie Van Slyke:

“We also learned that Town Council Member Bonnie Van Slyke had a conversation with Mr. Randall, a privilege that was provided only to him.  Again, in fairness all applicants should have been "interviewed" for a position, especially if you are not going to debate their application in public.”

He offered another example the CCA spoils system:

“Th[e] council had a past two term Town Council President apply for a position on the Parks and Recreation Commission and waited 5 months only to have that position filled by a CCA founding member who had applied one week before the appointment was made.”

Finally, Frank described how he himself had been blacklisted by the CCA.

In January 2018, Councilor Steve Williams, noted above, resigned from the Town Council. The all-CCA Town Council did not follow the sacred principle of succession. Instead of appointing the next highest 2016 vote getter, the late Robert Malin (D), to fill the vacancy, they installed CCA personality George Tremblay even though Tremblay didn’t even run in 2016.

2021

Freud knew what was going on

In 2021, the CCA gave us a reprise of their patronage abuse of the Zoning Board of Review, putting CCA loyalist Jim Abbott on the ZBR to fill a vacancy instead of moving up alternate Steve Stokes (now a Town Council member) who was next in line. Abbott was not on the ZBR. 

Bonnie Van Slyke also sought to purge Stokes by replacing him with Joe Pangborn even though Pangborn was not a ZBR member while Steve was. On a 3-2 vote, the Council kept Stokes in place.

I could go on and on to discuss how non-CCA commission members were purged on Parks & Recreation, Economic Improvement, Budget, Affordable Housing, and Conservation and replaced with often unqualified CCA loyalists.

Suffice to say that as usual, Van Slyke, Ruth Platner and the CCA are trying to win political capital by accusing others of offenses they themselves blatantly commit. Sigmund Freud called this “projection.”

Why raise issues that only spotlight your own malfeasance?

I don’t understand why Van Slyke brings up issues that call for a review of the CCA’s own conduct (including her's), other than she was told to by Platner. I understand the CCA needs something to kvetch about, but please quit making stuff up, especially when the facts are so overwhelming.

There’s a reason why Charlestown voters rejected Van Slyke’s 2024 bid to return to the Town Council, giving her a last-place finish – tenth in a field of ten. Platner scarcely did better, failing in her attempt to transition from Planning to the Town Council, finishing in ninth place. Take the hint, ladies.

What GoFundMe conceals: The campaigns that fail

Making people beg is a terrible way to help those in need

Martin Lukk, University of Toronto and Erik Schneiderhan, University of Toronto

 

The ‘Queen for a Day’ show obliged contestants to air their needs publicly.

Long before the advent of reality television, the popular game show “Queen for a Day” thrilled American audiences by giving women who told heartbreaking tales of financial struggles a chance at winning expensive items that could help solve their problems.

Throughout its 1956-1964 run, each episode featured contestants describing a misfortune that had struck them or their families, such as polio, rheumatic fever or hunting accidents. They asked for everything from bunk beds to beauty school tuition to improve their lot.

Eventually, a clap-o-meter would appear, superimposed over each woman’s face. The winner would be chosen based on the volume of the audience’s applause. She was crowned Queen for a Day and lavished with dishwashers, sewing machines and sofas, while the losers – and the millions of Americans who had tuned in on their TV sets – watched.

Today, something like that black-and-white TV show plays out nonstop, but on different devices. It’s the plot of GoFundMe, the world’s largest crowdfunding website for personal causes.

The privately owned company says it helped people raise over US$30 billion in donations between 2010 and early 2024. While that total sounds impressive, GoFundMe’s success leaves behind a trail of failed campaigns and disappointed users – a reality that the platform is designed to hide.

EDITOR'S NOTE: In 2012, The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) controlled Town Council approved a program called “Resident Home Owner Tax Assistance Program” (RHOTAP). This was the CCA's counter to a Democratic proposal for a Homestead Tax Credit for permanent resident. Under RHOTAP, created by Deputy Dan Slattery, a family in need of tax relief would fill out a long form stating their need, provide all necessary documentation, give the town access to their financial records and then go before a volunteer tribunal. 

The Charlestown supplicant would then explain - in public - to this panel how the need wasn't their fault and answer the overseers' questions. They would also have to demonstrate that their need wasn't too overwhelming - you were disqualified if the panel thought you wouldn't be able to make it, despite town tax relief.

The vote at the April 9, 2012, Council meeting was unanimous to direct Town Solicitor Peter Ruggiero to write an ordinance to implement this program. He never did and the CCA never mentioned this cruel and idiotic program again.     - Will Collette

Council President Carney debunks Ninigret Park misstatements.

Presents a run-down of the issues before Council meeting

By Deb Carney

The purpose of tonight’s [April 15] meeting is for the Town Council to discuss and take any potential action on the Ninigret Park Master Plan as drafted by VHB.

After the Council has had the opportunity to discuss the plan and ask questions of the VHB representatives, I will open the floor up to public comment. 

The Council will not take a vote on the plan until after those that wish to speak on the plan have had the opportunity to do so.

I am taking a few moments to remind everyone of proper decorum for Council meetings.  There will be no name calling, no yelling out, no booing, no jeering, no applauding. Tonight’s meeting will not be a free-for-all.  Everyone will be given the opportunity to speak without fear of being heckled or booed. 

Please be respectful of those sitting around you.  If you wish to carry on a conversation, please take it out to the hallway. 

To have a productive discussion this evening, everyone needs to be on the same page as to what the Master Plan Update is, and what it is not. 

Over the past several months, there has been much misinformation about the Ninigret Park Master Plan update posted on social media.  This misinformation campaign has created division in our town, which is unfortunate.  The Park is being used as a political tool to create confusion, concern, hostility, and discontent.

The park is supposed to be a place for all to enjoy. A place to come together as a community. Not a weapon used to divide us.

To get everyone on the same page, I need to correct some statements made online.

Contrary to what was written on social media, this is the Council’s first discussion regarding the draft plan.  The Council has not approved this plan, nor has the Council discussed implementing any of the recommendations, let alone spending over $30 million or $40 million of tax-payers money, as we have been accused of doing.

Contrary to what has been repeatedly posted online, the Council has not proposed constructing a concert/ event stadium.  We are not constructing one for 12,000 people. We are not constructing one for 14,000 people.  We are not proposing constructing any concert/ event stadium.

Contrary to what was written on social media, the Council did not remove proposed cost estimates from the plan. VHB was working on updating the cost estimates which they did, and then emailed to the town last week. 

Contrary to what was written online, the Council did not remove the letters from the end of the report, as we were accused of doing. The Council had nothing to do with the letters.  I know that not all communications were included. For example, the Chariho Cowboys Football and Cheerleading Organization submitted an online petition in support of improvements to Ninigret Park with over 59 signatures. Their petition was not included at the end of the report. The Town Council had no role in determining what was included, and what was not included.

To further clarify non-factual information posted online, I offer the following answers to questions I have been asked based on social media posts:

1.  Why is the Town Council updating the Master Plan?

The Town is required to update the Ninigret Park Master Plan every ten years, The last plan was adopted in 2008. That was sixteen years ago.  The Town is past due.

Page 77 of the draft Master Plan, which is packet page 79 this evening, includes meeting notes from July 13, 1994, with Mr. John T. Kelly, who at the time administrated the Federal Lands to Parks Program for the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.  Mr. Kelly attended a meeting with town officials.

This document from this meeting states, “The application to acquire surplus government land included a ten-year plan of Utilization.  This plan must be updated by the end of each ten-year period.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: also see minutes of a follow-up meeting on October 17, 2002 HERE. To read the original deed that conveyed Ninigret Park to Charlestown from the federal government, CLICK HERE.

I stress this, because I have been asked by multiple people, why is the Council updating the plan.  The answer is because the Town is required to do so.

2.  What happened to the 2014 Master Plan? 

A Master Plan update was drafted in 2014 but it was never approved by the Town Council.  I was not on the Town Council in 2014. I don’t know why it wasn’t approved.  But as of today, the town is not current with our obligation to update the plan.

3.  Why is the Council only looking at the 2008 and 2014 Master Plans? 

We aren’t.  We are looking at numerous factors. This accusation is false.

On January 23, 2023, the Town Council first discussed updating the Master Plan, as the Town is required to do.

The Town Council unanimously approved the following motion: “Motion to direct the Parks and Recreation Commission with the assistance of the Parks and Recreation Department to compile a draft Master Plan detailing the steps necessary to implement improvements to Ninigret Park utilizing the 2008 Ninigret Park Master Plan and the 2014 Ninigret Park Master Plan Update draft, the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the 2021 Townwide Survey documents.

The information should include, but not be limited to, the following objectives, with no preference given to the order listed:

a.  Using as a guide, the 2008 Ninigret Park Master Plan and the 2014 Ninigret Park Master Plan Update draft, specifically the Master Plan Project Areas Map found on page 46 of that plan, compile the report so as to have separate project areas and the details of each individually identified so they may or may not be implemented as stand-alone projects, in groups, or as a whole.

b.  Within the Project Areas, make updates and recommendations taking into account existing infrastructure and any physical changes that have occurred from 2014 to current.

c.  Identify and recommend the order of priority in which each project area may be implemented if done individually.

d.  Analyze, update where needed, and combine the information from the 2008 and 2014 plans, respectively and include such in the draft Master Plan.

e.  Seek input and include participation from the National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Frosty Drew Observatory and Science Center, the Charlestown Senior Center, Police, Fire and Rescue agencies, the sports groups that utilize the current fields, the Chariho Cowboys, the Public, and additional interested parties.

f.  Compile a list of all steps needed to take project areas from current to completion for each project. The Parks and Recreation Commission Chair and the Director of Parks and Recreation, or their designees, shall appear at the April 2023 Town Council meeting with a preliminary update. Any additional resources needed for the Commission to accomplish its report can be addressed at that time. The Commission shall have one-hundred and twenty (120) days to complete this report or request additional time from the Town Council.”

4.  Why did the Town hire an outside company to draft the plan?

The Parks & Recreation Department requested assistance with the task of updating the plan. In part, the memo from the Parks and Recreation Director [Vicki Hilton] reads:

"As the director of the Parks and Recreation Department, I do not feel that the volunteer Parks and Recreation Commission members have the time nor expertise for this task. I feel an impartial and professional assessing of the information would be the best path for this major endeavor. We would like to seek proposals from a consulting firm in Park and Recreation Master Planning and community engagement. The Commission Chairman and I feel an outside qualified professional agency would create the most effective master plan that will reflect the unique environmental and community interests of Ninigret Park for years to come. We do not feel that we are able to meet the necessary design standards, editorial skills, environmental expertise nor are we equipped for the graphic capabilities that a full-time firm would provide.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is not the first Ninigret rodeo for VHB, Charlestown's contractor. For example, they were heavily involved in the town's planning for the Park in 2002. CLICK HERE.

5. Where is the money coming from to pay for this plan? 

The funding is coming from the American Rescue Plan Act funds that the federal government awarded to Charlestown in 2021. On February 13, 2023, after receiving the memo from the Parks & Recreation Director, the Town Council discussed this matter during the Town Council meeting and approved the following motion: 

“Motion to authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to seek proposals from a consulting firm in Park and Recreation Master Planning and community engagement for the creation of a 2023 Master Plan for Ninigret Park and the potential appropriation of $35,000 in budgetary funding for this purpose, to be taken from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds, Budget Line Item 43.000.5100 (ARPA FUND Expenses), and to authorize the Acting Town Administrator and Town Treasurer, each, to take any and all such actions, and to execute and deliver such certificates, receipts or other documents as may be necessary to carry out the foregoing.”

On July 10, 2023 the Town Council unanimously approved the following motion: 

"Motion to award the Ninigret Park Master Plan Update 2023 Bid to Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) in the Amount of $31,300.00 as Budgeted in Line Item 43.000.51400 (ARPA Fund Expenses) and Authorization of the Acting Town Administrator and Town Treasurer, Each, to Take Any and All Such Actions, and Execute and Deliver Such Certificates, Receipts or Other Documents as May be Necessary to Carry into Effect the Foregoing."

6.  What is the Master Plan?

As written in the report, “The Master plan is a wholistic long-term strategy or blueprint that outlines potential opportunities for development, growth, or revitalization.”

The Master Plan is not a construction plan. 

In 1994, the Town Council approved the Ninigret Park Ten Year Utilization Plan.  That plan from 30 years ago included, among other items, a bandshell and a football field.  Even though both were in the plan, they were not built.  I point this out, because based on comments posted online, some people think that everything in this plan is somehow going to be built in the next few years. 

It’s not.

The approved 2008 plan also included a list of items that were never implemented.  For example, removing invasive species of plants, reducing the amount of paved areas and replacing them with grassed fields, clearing an area of the park for the festivals so as not to impact other areas of the park.  This is a short list.  

My point is none of these things were done over the past sixteen years, even though they were in the plan.

During the November 30th  meeting of the Master Plan Update Subcommittee, the consultants from VHB showed a new community center in their plan.  Contrary to what was printed online, this is not something the Town Council asked them to include.  

If a new community center were to be built, the cost would likely be over ten million dollars.  The new community center that South Kingstown built a few years ago cost over seven million dollars, and they have public water and public sewer.  Charlestown does not.  

That alone would increase our costs.  Also, Ninigret Park is in the hurricane zone, which has stricter, and more expensive building requirements.  This Town Council never expressed an interest in constructing a community center.  

The consultants included it so that if in the future the town decided this is something the town wants to build, then the location in the plan would be a logical place to put it, but not required.  

Also, if in the future the residents of Charlestown decide this is something we want to construct, then there would need to be a construction plan, along with associated costs, which would ultimately be voted on by the voters of Charlestown.

To put things in perspective, in 2019, the majority members on the Town Council proposed taking $3 million of the town’s surplus money and transferring it within the budget for a new “community/recreation /senior center”.  There was no plan for this “center”.  I was on the Town Council in 2019 and was the only Councilor that opposed this “plan”. 

For the record, none of my fellow Councilors this evening were on the Council in 2019, and none of them were involved with that $3 million proposed transfer of money.

In 2019 the voters came out in force to oppose this transfer of funds and voted down the entire budget that year. 

If a community center is ever seriously proposed, then an actual plan with associated costs would need to be developed.  Any proposal of that magnitude should be voted on as a separate warrant item question as was done in 2015 when the voters overwhelmingly approved the citizen petition for $1 million for improvements to Ninigret park as outlined in the 2008 Master Plan.

7.  If something is not in the plan, can it still be built? 

Yes. Just because something is not in the plan, that does not mean it can't be built.  For example, two years ago the town put in an outdoor exercise area.  That was not in the plan, but it was added.  

This is the so-called multi-use path - actually a bike path -
that the CCA pushed through based on the claim that it would
cost less than $7000. It actually cost $266,927, a 4000% overrun.
It was not in any master plan or list of priorities except
CCA founding member Faith Labossiere's. Photo by Will Collette

About seven years ago, the town installed a "multiuse" path, around the playground.  This also was not in the plan, but it was added to the park. [see photo, left]

To have a productive discussion this evening, it is crucial for everyone to understand what a Master Plan is. To that end, I will read from page 45 of the draft plan.

“The 2024 Master Plan is not promoting any specific type of development, but highly recommends any future development or park improvements need to be carefully limited to specific locations as depicted in this Master Plan and deemed appropriate through a typical town permitting process. It’s imperative for the Community, and anyone reading this report, to clearly understand the following:

• A master plan is a wholistic long-term strategy or blueprint that outlines potential opportunities for development, growth, or revitalization.

• It will serve as a guide for decision-making and future development.

• All decisions will have to go through standard permitting and approval processes, as determined by local, state, and federal governments.

• The result of the 2024 Master Plan is a culmination of master plan alternatives including the 2008 Approved Master Plan, the 2014 Draft Master Plan, as well as research and community input

• A thoughtful process incorporating “Placemaking Principles”.

• “Placemaking refers to a collaborative process by which we can shape our public realm in order to maximize shared value.” – www.pps.org

There is no way any plan is going to make everyone completely happy.  There will be some things some residents want, that others don’t.  This draft plan has a little bit of something for most people.  

I ask that as we discuss the plan this evening, we all keep an open mind.  While something in the plan might not be what you personally would use, it could be something others would use and enjoy.

Finally, nothing in this plan, or any plan, can be implemented without money.  It will ultimately be the 5000 plus registered voters of Charlestown that will vote on what improvements to fund, or not fund, in Ninigret Park.  

EDITOR'S POST SCRIPT. This is not the first, or probably the last, time citizens have almost come to blows over the use of Ninigret Park. 

In 2013-14, in a conflict Progressive Charlestown called "The Battle for Ninigret Park," Charlestown Citizen Alliance (CCA) Council members claimed that a proposal to install lighting so kids could conduct football practice after daylight standard kicked in would constitute a breach of our deed with the National Park Service. 

Photo by Will Collette

They claimed there was a nefarious conspiracy being carried out by then Town Administrator William DiLibero and Parks and Recreation Director Jay Primiano. 

They said they had heard from ex-US Fish and Wildlife Rhode Island director Charlie Vandemoer (left) that the Interior Department was just a hair away from taking back the Park. CCA Council members Tom Gentz and Dan Slattery even suggested Charlestown preemptively give the park back to the feds. [Charlie told me later, face-to-face, he never said that].

All of the CCA's claims turned out to be false and when pressed by the RI Attorney General, Councilor Dan Slattery was unable to produce the so-called definitive proof he claimed to possess. Regional National Parks  Director Elyse DeForest came to Charlestown to answer questions and debunk the CCA's false claims. 

Dan Slattery. Photo by Will Collette

In the end, a chastened Charlie Vandemoer got a piece of paper saying he and Charlestown would talk when needed, something already guaranteed. We got to keep Ninigret Park. Gentz, Slattery and the CCA went on to concoct other phony scandals to create panic among Charlestown's residents to win elections.

Both Bill DiLibero and Jay Primiano lost their jobs. 

Deb is too polite to bring up this sordid past. 

I'm not.

- Will Collette

Has the Charlestown Citizens Alliance run out of out-of-state donors?

CCA makes unusual pitch for early campaign cash

By Will Collette 

Since 2008, in every Charlestown municipal election, we’ve seen the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) raise huge amounts of cash from absentee property owners usually in the last few months before election day. 

It’s generally very quiet and last minute, often so late in the campaign that these cash gifts don’t get reported to the RI Board of Elections until after the election is over. 

During the campaign itself, the CCA blitzes the town and the letters to the editor page of the Westerly Sun with extraordinary claims about various threats (sometimes imaginary) as well as remarkable achievements unsubstantiated by evidence that testify to the joy and happiness the CCA bestows on Charlestown.  

And in contrast, the CCA casts all those who doubt their sacred mission as being in the pockets of developers. To try to forestall criticism of their smears against their opponents, CCA leader and Planning Commissar Ruth Platner penned a letter to the Westerly Sun to claim she had never, ever said town council members of “being on the take.” 

Like Tucker Carlson, says Platner, she’s just “questioning” Town Council decisions. So much for her non-apology apology. Further, she says she will not be bullied into letting up on her “questions.”  

Not that Ruth would ever bully anyone who crosses her, such as political opponents, town staff who don’t do her bidding, commission members who don’t toe the CCA line, applicants for zoning permits or even her own fellow CCAers who may, on occasion, vote their conscience, rather than the CCA party line, as current CCA councilor Susan Cooper did once (and only once).  

Until 2022, the CCA’s election routine was enough to keep the CCA in control of the entirety of Charlestown’s municipal government. In 2022, the CCA got its ass whupped by Charlestown Residents United (CRU). That apparently has caused the secretive CCA Steering Committee to change tactics. 

That seems to have changed based on a posting on the CCA blog where with 9 months left before the November 5 general election, the CCA has posted a broad appeal for money, seeking to add to their already formidable treasury of almost $12,000 according to their most recent campaign finance report.  

As usual, their pitch includes their usual casual treatment of the truth. To provide some truth in advertising, I have re-printed most of the CCA’s sales pitch but included some commentary and fact-checking in bold red. 

Here’s the CCA pitch: Your Donation Works To Protect Charlestown’s Rural Character, Environment, Economy, Tax Rate, and Future

SteeringCommittee /Charlestown Rhode Island, Mailbox 0 Comments 

This fall, Charlestown voters will elect the individuals who serve on Town Council and our Planning Commission. 

For 17 years the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) has been dedicated to electing individuals who will work to protect those assets that make Charlestown such a unique and treasured place to live.  

Actually, it’s only been 16 years since the CCA registered as a Political Action Committee on March 10, 2008. The CCA was formed to oust then Charlestown Town Council President Jim Mageau from office. 

Initially, they tried to operate as an unincorporated association, but a complaint to the RI Board of Elections forced them to register as a PAC, given their explicit political purpose. None of the CCA leaders who signed the registration form still live in Charlestown. 

The CCA's priorities: We ask for your help in electing leaders who will protect Charlestown’s rural character, environment, economy, tax rate, and future. 

There are a few problems with this list of priorities. 

First, there is no definition of “rural character” so it’s basically whatever CCA leader and Planning Commissar Platner says it is. That translates into minimal housing, minimal kids, minimal services, minimal roads, minimal growth.  

Second, the CCA is only interested in local conservation, not broader issues of the environment like climate change, hazardous waste, or renewable energy. CCA-style conservation is not the typical flora and fauna concerns of common folks. Rather, it is the “conservation” of wealthy donors’ financial assets by enacting policies that minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the need to fund public services requisite to a vibrant community. 

Third, the CCA has no interest in Charlestown’s economy except for tourism. They are hostile to small business and actually impeded tourism by making it hard for tourism workers to live or travel to Charlestown, determined we will remain the only Rhode Island municipality other than Block Island with no link to public transportation. 

Fourth, as usual, the CCA only wants to talk about the tax RATE, but not about taxes, especially fair taxation, as a whole. Charlestown taxes are far from fair due to a decade of corrupt favoritism practiced by the CCA during its 10 years of total control of town government. Details HERE. 

If they REALLY want to talk about tax rates, well try this fact on: Right after CRU kicked the CCA out of control of the Council, the tax RATE dropped from $8.17 to only $5.74. Of course, property assessments drove the rate, as is the case every year, but the CCA no longer can boast about rates without dealing with this fact.

Charlestown, circa 1914 (EBay)

Fifth, the CCA’s vision of the future, distilled in the Comprehensive Plan authored by Ruth Platner, is to try to freeze Charlestown in some imaginary past, a time without roads, before the Narragansetts won recognition as a Tribe, and new affordable housing meant some Swamp Yankee building a shack. 

The CCA continues: Good government depends on an informed electorate who want facts and detailed information. Through its website, newsletter, and social media, CCA notifies the public and explains in-depth the issues of importance to Charlestown. During the election period, CCA also prints and mails this essential information to voters. 

The CCA is not so dedicated to allowing that “informed electorate” to gain access to public records, using tricks like broad use of loopholes in disclosure laws, high fees and blacking out whole sections of key documents. 

They directed their longtime henchman, ex-Town Administrator Mark “Stonewall” Stankiewicz to enforce an information blackout, especially on shady CCA land deals. Prime example HERE. 

The CCA continues: Good government depends also on excellent leaders who will work hard. CCA supports individuals for office who will protect our environment and preserve our natural resources—the foundation of our tourist economy and critical to maintaining a low tax rate. 

They’re repeating themselves, perhaps lacking any other substantive points. Over the years, the CCA has gotten voters to elect such “excellent leaders” as Uncle Fluffy Tom Gentz, Deputy Dan Slattery, Bonnita Van Slyke, Ruth Platner and others from their inner circle. They’ve also given us a broad cast of characters who have their own agendas or whose main talent was following orders from the secretive CCA “Steering Committee.” 

The CCA continues: Charlestown Citizens Alliance is proud to be supported by the citizens of Charlestown and those who love our town. We are an all-volunteer organization entirely dependent on contributions from individuals. Please join those who have already given by making a contribution of any amount. 

If you would like to contribute to CCA, you have the choice of an online donation via PayPal, or you can send us a check using postal mail. 

Note the shifty language they add: “…and those who love our town.” That’s their cover for the CCA’s major reliance on money from non-residents to run the CCA’s campaigns. Through their payments to the CCA, these absentee property owners buy the CCA’s stance against things absentee property owners oppose such as Chariho school funding, affordable housing, a homestead tax credit for permanent residents and beach access.