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.

Can you trust the CCA in Charlestown?

After you look at their record, no, you can't

Frank Glista, Charlestown 

When voting in Charlestown, most residents look at which candidates have participated in our local government, whether by volunteering for a board or commission or by elected office.

The candidates that are supported by Charlestown Residents United (CRU) have done just that. All nine of their candidates have had extensive experience in our local government. 

In comparison, the candidates from Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) fall short of this basic achievement. 

Three of their five candidates running for Town Council and one of their four running for the Planning Commission have never been involved with any volunteer or elected position that Charlestown offers. 

So who do you trust to run our town government? Dedicated residents who have given decades of service, or citizens that have been asked to serve to fill up the CCA ballot card?

Speaking of trust, here are a couple of interesting tidbits for you to review:

■ Did you know that the CCA Town Council attempted to giveaway YOUR town-owned property by giving a conservation easement to an outside agency? (You, the voters rejected this idea by a margin of 618 to 548 during the all-day financial referendum on June 1, 2015.)

■ Did you know that the CCA knew about the Federal RailroadAdministration attempt to create the Old Saybrook /Kenyon bypass a year before the CCA revealed it to the residents of Charlestown? (Town Council Minutes of January 10, 2017, or watch the video at the 49:30 min. mark.)

■ Did you know that in 2019 the town of Charlestown had an excess surplus of $3.1 million? The CCA members of the Town Council tried to include that amount in the municipal budget that went before the voters, instead of making it a warrant question. They wanted the money to construct a building in Ninigret Park without a plan or cost estimates even though a majority of residents spoke against this plan. Only Town Council Vice President Deb Carney listened and agreed with the voters. (The CCA didn’t adhere to the will of the voters and the budget was soundly defeated by a vote of 739 to 265 at the all-day financial referendum on June 3, 2019.)

The CCA won’t tell you these things, but instead spin the truth to benefit their own agenda ... so much for transparency. Don’t fall for their propaganda. Do the research and find out for yourselves. After all, the only thing transparent about the CCA is their lack of transparency.

Please support the CRU candidates:

Deb Carney, Craig Marr, Rippy Serra, Peter Slom and Stephen Stokes for Town Council; Glenn Babcock and Laura Rom for the Planning Commission; and Ray Dreczko for town moderator and Laura Chapman for School Committee. 

A version of this article appeared as a Letter To the Editor in The Westerly Sun on October 30, 2024.

Early voting, mail-in ballots start this week amid confusing ballots for Charlestown voters

Mixed up Council listings and 11 Charter revision questions make it hard to make informed choices

By Will Collette

If you are a Charlestown voter, you face a daunting challenge of figuring out how to make intelligent decisions in the face of a ballot that doesn’t really tell you what you need to know.

Two sections of the ballot are especially cumbersome: (1) the Town Council race and (2) the 11 proposed revisions to the Charlestown Town Charter. Today, we’ll deal with the Council.

The Town Council

Who’s who among the ten candidates for Town Council? The 10 are evenly split between five Charlestown Residents United (CRU) candidates and five Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) candidates.

Several factors make your choice harder. First, you won’t see the CRU or CCA labels on any of the candidates. The CRU and CCA are both PACs with radically different visions for Charlestown.

After losing power in 2022, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) broke its longstanding promise to run its candidates strictly as independents. All their newcomers are running either as Republicans or Democrats even though none of them have any actual connection to either party’s town committee.

Neither the Republican nor Democratic Town Committees made candidate endorsements in time to affect ballot placement, leaving the individual placement to a lottery.

In other words, a mishmash. Sometimes well-placed campaign signs can help with such confusion. This year, I’m afraid both the CRU and CCA wasted their money. Their signs are similar in appearance and crowded-with lists of names that are almost unreadable to passing motorists.

The mailers are somewhat more helpful because at least you can see the names of the officially endorsed candidates though the effect is diminished by the excruciating amount of detail crammed into each mailer.

In Charlestown, party labels (i.e. D versus R) matter less than CRU versus CCA. There are sharp differences on important issues between the two political committees that should guide your choice.

The Big Issues

Let’s review.

The tax rates from 2011 to 2023 show a steady rise
under the CCA. Source: Charlestown Tax Assessor.

Taxes. Everyone’s favorite. The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) claims to be the party of low taxes. Their record shows the contrary. Under ten years of CCA rule, Charlestown’s tax rate grew steadily and the actual tax paid by households increased as the CCA siphoned off town money to make shady land deals, allowed town municipal costs to climb to the highest in the state, and strangled small business growth.

In the two years since Charlestown Residents United (CRU) ousted the CCA from power, the tax rate is down. So is the actual tax residents have had to pay.

NOTE: To get much more detailed analysis of Charlestown taxes, financial management and the differences between the CRU and the CCA on these subjects, CLICK HERE. I include links backing up each detail as well as to the state Auditor General who supported my assertations that the CCA messed up the money and the CRU has been effectively fixing it. 

Town Financial Management. This was the major factor that led to the CCA’s defeat in 2022. They messed up the money. They misplaced $3 million for almost two years, ran up a huge deficit, and, instead of fixing the problems, they spent the past two years denying the problems existed, blaming the messenger and mourning the departure of the individual town officials most responsible for the problems.

According to the Rhode Island Auditor General, the CRU wiped out the CCA deficit, reduced town debt by 25%, reduced expenses by $1.5 million, increased town savings by 17% and improved pension funding. These are hard, documented facts showing a remarkable turnaround in town finances under the CRU’s leadership.

Charlestown Economy. The CCA covers its fanatical devotion to expanding open space by claiming this is good for tourism and, by extension, the town economy. They’re fine with Charlestown perking up on Memorial Day and then dying on Labor Day.

No matter how tasty, burgers are not
the key to Charlestown's prosperity

While tourism does boost seasonal businesses, it forces Charlestown to pay for a bloated infrastructure designed to handle a summer population that triples the town’s size. What jobs are created are low wage with no benefits and held by folks who can’t afford to live here. That’s really all the CCA’s got on the economy. If you don’t believe me, check the town Comprehensive Plan, hand-crafted by CCA leader Ruth Platner.

The CCA still uses Planning and Zoning to torture small businesses. Because of CCA restrictions, Route One still remains our Boulevard of Broken Dreams with its array of empty businesses.

For a preview of what a new CCA term of power would do to small business, check out their new “Design Standards.” If the CCA regains power, these micro-managed minutiae will become law and further destroy small business. The CRU by contrast, blocked Planning Commissar Ruth Platner (now a Town Council candidate) from making these “standards” an ordinance.

The Environment. The CCA claims supremacy on all matters environmental, but do their claims pan out? They claim they are responsible for Charlestown’s dark sky, yet they diddled for years on a draconian but unenforceable anti-light ordinance when they could have gotten much better lighting compliance by helping businesses and residences convert to low-impact lighting.

They added some more open space even though more than 60% of Charlestown land is a protected from development. Many of the CCA’s land deals were with insiders, mainly CCA supporters, and nearly all at way over assessed value and even land that was already classified as open space. Despite their open space zeal, the CCA bitterly opposed, and tried to block Frank Glista from selling 20 acres to the state Water Resources Board as a protected water resource.

The CCA concocted multiple fake issues about Ninigret Park conflating plans to provide temporary portable lights at the field behind Town Hall to allow Peewee Football to go a couple more hours in the fall into a major crisis. The CCA forecast such lights would shut down the Frosty Drew Observatory and trigger the federal government to take back Ninigret Park. Utter nonsense.

For more examples of the way the CCA fakes some issues and generally pumps up issues beyond recognition, read “Fear and Loathing in Charlestown Politics” by clicking HERE.

The CCA has shown little interest in any other environmental issue other than open space. They routinely ignored hazardous waste problems, especially at Ninigret Park dating back to the decommissioned Ninigret Naval Air Field. They effectively banned all wind power, even small residential units. They botched the fight against the Copar Quarry and even allowed the mob-connected owners to acquire a second quarry in Charlestown.

They claim they are leaders in the climate change fight, even though they have done nothing, other than to claim credit. Real credit goes to our state Senator, Victoria Gu, and state Representative, Tina Spears, both Democrats, for getting legislative passed and funding for climate resilience.

Charlestown Residents United (CRU) in its two years in office has not caused the environmental disaster predicted by the CCA and, in fact, kept a steady, even hand on environmental matters and clearly states it intends to protect our rural community.

Housing. The CCA has opposed all forms of new housing. Period. They have been tolerant toward some building by rich people in their voter strongholds along the shoreline, but remain adamantly opposed to affordable housing, workforce housing, family housing or senior citizens housing.

Former CCA leader George Tremblay even claimed that building elderly housing will only attract rich senior citizen speculators who will buy affordable senior housing and then flip it as market-rate housing. He based this on a debunked story out of New York City.

The CCA’s primary weapon to block housing has been exclusionary zoning accompanied by nitpicking and delay to drive up costs. Planning Commissar Ruth Platner, now running for Town Council, was the master of exclusionary zoning. She covered her practices by claiming that families with children were a plague because they would cost taxpayers beaucoup cash when the kids attend Chariho, even concocting a mathematical formula to “prove” her thesis.

Charlestown Residents United (CRU) has not been able to overcome Platner’s roadblocks, though a lot hinges on the November election. The CRU’s stated position is to support affordable housing for Charlestown’s “workforce, seniors and adult children.” Getting this done will require the CRU to hold the Council majority and change the majority on the Planning Commission.

Secrecy and cover-ups, panic and alarm. Under the CCA, we saw one shady land deal after another, often overshadowed by fake alarms and outside threats, whether from the Tribe, Amtrak or “others.” Often the truth behind these deals and bogus alarms was uncovered by diligent investigation through the town’s public records.

Stonewall Stankiewicz

The CCA figured out they might get less grief if they had their stooge, ex-Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz “weaponize” the Access to Public Records Act,” RI’s open records law. Starting with “SPAgate,” Stanwiewicz slowed responses to records request to the maximum allowed by the law, used every exemption to withhold records, blacked out vast amounts of text in whatever records were finally released, and charged the maximum fees they could get away with.

The CCA says it is pledged to “provide open, honest, responsible leadership. Their track record says otherwise.

The candidates

Both the CRU and the CCA are running full slates of five candidates for Town Council. Both are a mix of Democrats and Republicans. The only two “independents” are hardline CCA people, the aforementioned Ruth Platner and her puppet, former town Council member Bonnita Van Slyke.

Four of the CRU slate – Deb Carney, Rippy Serra, Steve Stokes and Peter Slom – are already on the Council and have a commendable record as previously discussed. The fifth CRU candidate is well known Breachway Grill restauranteur Craig Marr.

Based on their records, characters and the strength of the CRU’s performance in its first term, they’ve got my vote.

I’ve already given you ample reasons why Ruth Platner is not qualified to serve on the Town Council. Her pal Bonnie Van Slyke holds all the same beliefs, but with an added deficit of consistently making goofy arguments that are filled with lies and nonsense.

I wrote an entire series labeled “Slyke of Hand” devoted to fact-checking and rebutting Van Slyke’s nonsense. CLICK HERE for the final installment.

About the remaining three CCA candidates, to paraphrase Donold Trump, some might be “very fine people,” but all I really know about them is that they were willing to run as CCA candidates while appearing on the ballot under their registered parties, despite having no actual ties to the local Democratic or Republican committees.

I can say this about them: if you run under the CCA label, you are not a free-thinking individual. You must toe the CCA party line, meaning strict obedience to Ruth Platner, or you will be punished.

The CCA set their Politburo style right from the start by purging their first elected Town Council. They won a clear majority but turned on their own people. Why? The CCA Councilors supported wind power development in Charlestown largely because at that time, the CCA was pro-wind, especially their leader Tom Gentz.

But after the Sachem Passage Association made a political deal with Gentz’s partner in crime Dan Slattery to do a 180-degree turn to oppose wind power in the form of the Whalerock wind development, the CCA Council majority couldn’t keep up with the shift. The CCA excommunicated them.

In its second run for power, the CCA ran a brand new slate, led by former wind-supporter but now opponent Tom Gentz and Dan Slattery and ousted all but two of the former CCA apostates.

On those rare occasions when a CCA Council member has failed to obey Platner, they usually come to the next meeting to push for an opposite position. For example, CCA’s Susan Cooper initially voted her common sense to end anti-Indian Joe Larisa’s contract, but at the next meeting, after a trip to the woodshed, Cooper pushed a “Motion to Reconsider” to reverse her own vote and rehire Larisa.

The CCA truly seems to still believe in absolute obedience. When I named names in reporting on the CCA’s financial screw-ups, Van Slyke took to the letters to the editor column of the Westerly Sun to blast me for defaming the reputations of ex-Budget Commission chair Dick Sartor and ex-Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz. By telling the truth.

Van Slyke actually said “One would hope that the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee might put an end to the telling of whoppers such as this one spouted by someone who is a CDTC member.”

That may be the way the CCA operates, but that’s not how it works in a democracy. And that’s the last reason I offer for voting to keep the Charlestown Residents United (CRU) majority.

How the Charlestown Citizens Alliance used fake enemies and bogus emergencies to gain and keep power

Fear and loathing in Charlestown politics

By Will Collette

Just substitute "CCA" for "GOP" and
you get the gist

One of the most despicable things a politician can do is to use lies to create fear and panic among the people to win their votes. 

Donald Trump has used that technique for years, but this year, has brought it to new heights, as the residents of Springfield, OH can testify. 

Trump’s running mate JD Vance admitted he spread phony stories about legal Haitian immigrants eating pets because "If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention..., then that’s what I’m going to do,”

Long before Trump, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) has used that technique, starting in 2008 by portraying Charlestown’s resident curmudgeon Jim Mageau as the devil incarnate. 

While Jim was a terrible Town Council President, his wacky behavior made him an ineffective threat to anyone other than himself. But as a "threat," Mageau helped catapult the CCA into power.

Since that initial success at seizing power through fear and loathing, the CCA has come up with some enemy – real or imagined – to stay in power. They create one or more villains and then claim that only they can defend the town. The CCA is as phony as Trump and Vance claiming Haitians are coming to eat your pets.

The CCA's list of threats and enemies is long

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance threat list includes:

The Narragansett Indian Tribe for their long-abandoned plan for an Indian casino. The CCA hired attorney Joe Larisa, called a "racist by tribal leaders" specifically to harass the Tribe and block any effort the tribe makes to improve the lives of its people.

“People from Providence” who will swarm in with all their kids if we build any family housing and overrun the Chariho schools. Another example of the CCA's use of racist code words.

Developers and Democrats – the CCA has worked hard to create the myth that they are one and the same even though it's demonstrably false.

Wind power, spurred by Larry LeBlanc’s proposed Whalerock wind power project, became one of the CCA’s most successful phony campaigns. Ironically, in 2011, the CCA leader Tom Gentz was a staunch supporter of wind power, even making a presentation to the Council about how good wind energy is. Of course, that was before anti-wind NIMBYs started to contribute heavily to the CCA. Charlestown now has an effective town ban on ANY wind-to-energy device, even small residential units.

AMTRAK made another good boogeyman when a half-baked, improbable idea surfaced to run new track through northern Charlestown, scaring the shit out of half the town. CCA leader and Charlestown’s Planning Commissar Ruth Platner has been trying to revive the Charlestown Choo-choo hoax since the furor died down. Her 2021 headline for a story that attempted to revive the Amtrak boogeyman read They’re Back: Northeast Corridor Commission Sets Out Plan To Implement NEC Future.

Lights. In 2012, the CCA went nuts when a town staffer explored funding for temporary lights to facilitate autumn kids' football practice. This innocent inquiry mushroomed into a full-blown crisis - The Battle for Ninigret Park. The CCA confabulated this lighting inquiry into a direct threat that the Interior Department would take back Ninigret Park because the lights during autumn twilight would disturb the birds and bunnies in the Wildlife Refuge. It was all bullshit - the Interior's regional director Elyse LaForest had to come in to debunk the CCA lies - but it cost then Town Administrator Bill Delibero his job.

The Narragansett Indian Tribe became a CCA target again when one official made an ill- advised and broadly rejected deal to sell water to a nonexistent power plant in Burrillville.

Frank Glista was trashed for selling open, undeveloped land to the state Water Resources Board to preserve water resources. The CCA normally worships permanently protected open space, but not when the land comes from Frank.

Tons of asphalt were laid for "Faith's Folly" despite the CCA's
hatred for asphalt. Faith sold this project, telling the
Town Council it would cost less than $7,000.
The final bill was at $266,927.

Asphalt is a hated substance except when used in a scandalous patronage deal for CCA founding member Faith LaBossiere to build “Faith’s Folly,” an over-priced, under-used bike track in Ninigret Park.

Progressive Charlestown and me in particular made the CCA enemies’ list early on for writing articles like this. I’m fine with that.

The CCA also hates Deb Carney despite her years of effective leadership on the Council and the Chariho School Committee.

You can add a lot of others to the list. For example, CCA Town Council President Tom “Uncle Fluffy” Gentz frequently mocked and belittled Janice Falcone when she would rise to support a measure the CCA didn’t like.

The CCA viciously attacked Janice when she attempted to get the town to buy the historic General Stanton Inn that Janice and her beloved late husband Sonny labored to keep in tiptop condition. The CCA fought hard to block a town referendum to buy the Inn as an anchor for the Cross Mills historic district even though the CCA was otherwise willing to pay any price to preserve the “historic village district.”

* NOTE the contradictions. The CCA wants to do whatever it takes for the Cross Mills Historic Village but killed the plan to buy and preserve the General Stanton Inn. The CCA is willing to pay any price to add more protected open space but attacked Frank Glista for trying to do just that with his land sale to the state Water Resources Board. The CCA hates asphalt but is willing to lay down tons of it for "Faith's Folly." Go figure.

They viciously attacked my colleague Steve Hoff, a retired CPA, for doing the research to expose the CCA’s fiscal irresponsibility, especially the “$3 million Oopsie.”

In their big 3-page flyer, the CCA sums up their position, stating “What is at risk in this election?” Note they use the negative instead of “what is our plan for improving people’s lives” or some other positive theme. At risk, according to the CCA are “low taxes,” “dark skies” and “clean water.”

First, the town tax rate has dropped since the CCA was booted from control in 2022. They left behind a tax rate of $8.17 per thousand. Under the CRU's first year, the tax rate dropped to $5.74. It’s currently $5.78. 

They claim there’s a $39.5 million plan for “commercial development” in Ninigret. There isn’t.

They claim this imaginary threat will thwart “the Ninigret Wildlife Refuge and our children’s ability to learn about the universe.” This is a total crock of horse manure, as stupid as the "Battle for Ninigret Park" described above.

The CCA flyer also raises the specter of the need for “a sewage treatment plant and miles of sewer lines that would cost at least $1 billion.” Yup, that’s the claim. They say this will happen unless there is a “delicate balance” between well-planned residential development and what the land can support.

Here’s the key question: WHO is proposing otherwise? Who? If the CCA is going to create a boogeyman, at least give it a name.

Early on in the CCA’s history, one of their resident geniuses, Mike Chambers, liked to brag about the CCA's effectiveness at. They used Hitler’s Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels’ formula: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”

Creating fear and hate through lies kept the CCA in office for over a decade. They have also gotten very good at covering up their lies by blocking access to public records that would unveil their deception. CLICK HERE for an example.

In 2022, Charlestown voters saw through the CCA’s blue smoke and mirrors and voted them out of office. The CCA wants to take back power using the same old Goebbels’ formula. Don’t let them.

Will the CCA ever tell the truth?

That's not a rhetorical question

By Frank Glista

End the CCA spin cycle

This article first appeared as a letter to the Westerly Sun. It is reprinted here with the permission of the author.

In his June 22 Letter to the Editor "Let's not politicize drinking water in Charlestown", Mr. Mainelli takes the reader of [the Westerly Sun] newspaper through the typical Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) spin cycle where the truth is nowhere to be found.

He starts out by saying that I was politicizing the water situation in Charlestown (The Real Monkey in the Room in Charlestown) but fails to disclose that he is not only a supporter of the CCA but also its President.

Then he tries to convince you that the CCA worked hard to find water sources in Charlestown (other than my families' property) that was put into the "capable leadership" of former Town Council President, Tom Gentz. 

The Potable Water Working Group, which Mr. Mainelli wrote about, dealt mostly with the Quonochontaug area and provided little relief in solving their water issues.  However, they did put out some nice Aquifer Protection signs.

If Mainelli is doubtful that my family, Mr. Ken Burke (former Manager of the Water Resources Board) and I were attacked, as he stated, he should go back and read some of the Letters to the Editor that his CCA cult members wrote. 

He then suggests that the Town of Charlestown made an effort to buy my families' property but didn't have the funding.  That's an outright lie.  No one from the town ever approached anyone in my family about buying our property.....EVER!!!

He continues by saying that the state paid my family $2.3 million for our Cross Mills property.  They did not. 

This purchase had 3 components to it starting with my family receiving $1,282,500.00 for 7 lots and $555,500.00 for my 3 lots which totals $1,838.000.00.  The balance of $520,000.00 went to the former owner of the Ocean Aire Motel. 

So here again, Mainelli refuses to do simple research but instead, relies on past false statements from the CCA.  He further misrepresents the truth by telling you that the sale was, "...the highest price paid for open space ever in Charlestown." 

Our property had been sub-divided, a road constructed and septic systems designed making its value much greater then open-space.  Hence the Real Estate term, "Highest and Best Value."  Any improvements made on a piece of property, always increases its value.

It may please the reader to know that Mainelli and I had a conversation about the political environment in Charlestown years ago.  He approached me at a Town Council Meeting and asked, "How can we stop the rancor in our town?" 

I told him about how the CCA tried to prevent me from selling my land to the State of Rhode Island.  I asked him how he would feel if someone tried to stop him from selling his home, his response, "I'd be pissed."

Finally, he closes his letter with this statement, "Mr. Glista included in his letter a meaningless line about people drinking sewerage...a line of no useful purpose, since all of Charlestown is on well and septic."  

First, the line "You’re drinking recycled waste water." came from Lorraine Joubert, who at the time represented the Department of Natural Resources at URI.  Second, I thought Quonnie had 2 public water systems and Shady Harbor had another?  Again, he misrepresents the truth.

Google Maps screenshot

Do you really think Mainelli cares about the water you're drinking in Charlestown? Maybe he's more concerned about maintaining the value of his $1,852,000.00 million dollar waterfront estate.  

What do you think would happen to property values in Quonnie or Charlestown in general, if word got out about some of our water issues?

An interesting side note; "Capable leader" Tom Gentz recently sold both of his Quonnie homes ($2,259,500 million) and left Charlestown.....maybe he didn't like the taste of the water.

Leo Mainelli thinks others shouldn’t politicize Charlestown water issues – that’s his job

CCA leader should stop clutching his pearls and tell the truth 

By Will Collette

I wrote this as a letter tlo the editor of the Sun. They ran it Thursday morning.

While I don't have a lot of patience with playing LTE serve-and-volley, I felt that CCA Prez Leo Mainelli's letter was so hypocritical that it demanded a response. And here it is.

In his June 15 letter to the Sun, Charlestown Citizens Alliance President Leo Mainelli is mad at people who “politicize drinking water” since that’s his job and that of the CCA. 

He attacks Frank Glista for reminding Charlestown voters of theCCA’s epic fight to block the state Water Resource Board from buying his family’s land to protect potable drinking water. CCA Council leaders Tom Gentz and Dan Slattery were so crude in their attacks on that plan that they were eventually forced to apologize. 

Leo doesn’t remember it that way. Instead, he lionizes that same Tom Gentz for setting up some committee that, according to Leo’s own re-telling, turned out to be an exercise in futility. He says they couldn’t get the money; well-drilling was too expensive; piping water crosstown was impractical and they couldn’t strike a favorable deal with South Kingstown or Westerly. 

Then he complains the state had the money to buy the Glista family land, but the town didn’t have the money to do the same. But please, let’s not politicize. 

In the end, according to Mainelli, the town settled for enforcing the state law and town ordinance banning cesspools and substandard wastewater treatment systems. A good thing, but nothing to do with Gentz or the CCA since both the state law and town ordinance pre-dated Gentz and the CCA. 

But yeah, let’s not politicize.

END NOTE: Let's also recognize that drinking water has ALWAYS been a political issue. In fact, just yesterday, the US Supreme Court threw out the Navajo Nation's suit in which the tribe sought a fair share of Colorado River water. Wars were fought millennia ago over the waters of the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Virtually every year it was in power, the CCA found some issue they could portray as a fight over water, whether that was true or a stretch of their imaginations. Where Leo goes off the rails is to assert that none other than the CCA can deal with water issues.

So, Leo, if you guys want to win back power and rebuild the CCA's shattered credibility, then try telling the truth at least once in a while.

Some honesty about protecting water in Charlestown

The real ‘monkey in the room’

By Frank Glista

Source: RI Water Resources Board

This article first appeared as a Letter To the Editor in The Westerly Sun on June 5. Note: Former Town Council President James Mageau also wrote a letter in response to Mr. Jacobsen. It can be read here.

In a recently published letter by Roy Jacobsen entitled, “Charlestown should be worried about water” (May 27), Mr. Jacobsen questions when the new Town Council will address the need for property that will serve as a source for fresh water. As a supporter of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance, one would wonder why he didn’t approach the CCA Town Council regarding this matter during their 12-year reign of power?

He also fails to acknowledge that the CCA attempted to deny a property owner’s right to sell their family’s land to the state of Rhode Island’s Water Resources Board back in 2015. This purchase eliminated the development of eight residential and two commercial buildings while providing 20 acres of open space, a wildlife habitat and a protected a water source for future generations.

Keep in mind that the CCA Town Council majority and Planning Commission Chairwoman Ruth Platner worked tirelessly to undermine this private sale. Not only were attacks levied against me and my family, but also against former Water Resources Board General Manager Ken Burke. But now, thanks to the Water Resources Board, this property is protected in Charlestown in spite of the efforts of the CCA.

In 2016, there was a meeting at the Quonnie Grange which was attended by a number of residents from Quonochontaug, where Mr. Jacobsen lives.

One of the speakers at this meeting was Lorraine Joubert, who at the time represented the Department of Natural Resources at URI. After answering a number of concerned citizens’ questions, she finally summed it up by telling the Quonnie crowd, “You are all drinking recycled wastewater.” Or, to put it bluntly, you’re drinking your neighbors’ sewage.

So “yes,” there is a water problem in Charlestown.

In his letter, Mr. Jacobsen asks, “What will it take?” Well, as long as he and others continue to support CCA candidates like Platner, you will never have potable water in Quonnie ... or anywhere else in Charlestown.

He also asks, “Would it not be prudent for the Town Council to reserve land for future fresh water access?” He continues, “This is the ‘monkey in the room’ that is being ignored.” As I see it, the only “monkey in the room” is the CCA, and fortunately, they were ignored during the last election. 

EDITOR’S END NOTE

By Will Collette

I covered the jaw-dropping 2014-15 story of the CCA Council majority and Planning Commissar Ruth Platner’s battle to BLOCK the state Water Resources Board from purchasing land from Frank Glista to be set aside as open space to protect groundwater resources.

Given the CCA’s endless claims that it is the champion of open space and clean water, their desperate struggle to block this deal went beyond hypocrisy and into the Twilight Zone.

Their personal assault on Water Resource Board’s Ken Burke shredded the CCA claims to “civility” to the point where they actually had to apologize.

Now Frank, good man that he is, won’t say this but I will: the only reason the CCA dug in against this transaction was because they hated Frank. 

This is the budget presented by LaBossiere
to the Council in 2015. 

Now to be fair - kind of - the CCA has also been willing to throw out its sacred beliefs, such as its hatred of asphalt, to do favors for patrons, like CCA-cofounder Faith LaBossiere, when they poured tons of asphalt on Ninigret Park for a bike path no one uses. Faith promised the Council it would only cost $7,000. The final cost was $266,927 plus interest on the bond leading to a cost over-run of 4,000%.

The Slattery Doctrine in a nutshell

Deputy Dan Slattery tried to rationalize the CCA’s irrational position by making up a new policy: he claimed that no state or federal agency had any right to do anything in Charlestown without the Town Council’s expressed prior approval. I dubbed this invention “The Slattery Doctrine.”

In fact, in August 2016, the CCA Council majority authorized this:

“CA” L. Authorization of the Town Administrator to Send a Communication to All State Agencies and Regulatory Boards, to Specifically Include the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health, the Department of Environmental Management and the Water Resources Board, and Any Other Pertinent Agencies, Requesting Notification of Any State Projects Scheduled to Occur Within the Town of Charlestown

Incidentally, the mandate of the state Water Resources Board is to acquire and protect lands to preserve clean water supplies. They don’t need Charlestown’s permission to conduct a private transaction to advance that mandate.

For that matter, the federal Departments of Interior, Justice, Labor, Forest Service, EPA, Mine Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, IRS etc. do not need Charlestown’s permission to enter Charlestown to conduct their lawful duties.

Neither do the state Departments of Transportation, Health, Environmental Management, Children and Youth Services, State Police, etc.

I am so sick of the CCA insulting the people of Charlestown by assuming there are no records or institutional memory of all the crazy crap they did when they ruled Charlestown.

Here’s some of the articles I wrote about anti-water CCA crusade back in the day:

Progressive Charlestown: Charlestown’s new water war (progressive-charlestown.com) 

Progressive Charlestown: VIDEO: New border regulations for Charlestown (progressive-charlestown.com)

Progressive Charlestown: Ruth Platner leaves fingerprints (progressive-charlestown.com)