Should Charlestown voters amend the town’s “constitution?”

Depends on who you ask

By Will Collette

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance doesn't think
residents have a "right" to emergency medical service

In the complex ballot Charlestown voters face this year, there are 11 proposals for changes to the Charlestown Town Charter. The Charter is basically our town Constitution.

Charter questions are very much an “inside baseball” deal that few other than local political junkies like me even bother to read. But they do shape town policies for better or worse.

Fortunately, the town has published a non-partisan, unbiased voter guide that not only lists the ballot questions but also shows how these changes affect the Charter. You may already have a printed copy that was mailed to every Charlestown household. If you have already pitched it, CLICK HERE to read it.

Four Charter questions – Questions 11,12, 13 and 16 – have no known opposition and are largely procedural. Frankly, after a close review, I didn’t see any problems with any of the 11 Charter proposals.

Then of course the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) weighs in, strongly opposed to five proposed Charter changes and calling two others “toss-ups,” though their tone is decidedly negative. They take a jaundiced view toward any changes that might affect the CCA’s power.

Let’s look at the seven Charter questions the CCA finds problematic. Their critique gives you some insight into how the CCA’s principles play out in practice. Again, refer to the Town Guide to see the official language and how the proposals affect the Charter.

Make emergency rescue service a basic town service

We begin with Question #14, an important change that would amend the Charter to guarantee the town provides emergency medical services, either directly or through a vendor such as the Charlestown Ambulance and Rescue Service.

The CCA wants you to vote NO. I find the CCA’s position to be disgusting, especially after a year where Cathy and I have had the benefit of Charlestown Rescue staff on multiple occasions. I commend all the men and women who provide life-saving services, quickly, courteously and professionally.

They've saved the lives of hundreds of residents. An essential part of our community, they need the best state-of-the-art equipment and training. It's a smart investment for Charlestown voters to guarantee ambulance and rescue services under our Town Charter.

The CCA professes to not understand why this Charter change is needed considering the recent 3-year contract the Charlestown Residents United (CRU) Council leadership negotiated with Ambulance and Rescue.

Duh. 

The Charter change would make emergency medical services an essential town service like all other services codified in the Charter. Contracts are a way to provide the services.

The Charter change protects citizens against future Councils, such as a CCA-controlled Council, that might decide emergency medical services are NOT essential. I strongly urge you to vote YES.

End mass turnover on the Town Council

The CCA opposes Question 7 that would change the terms of office of Town Council members from the present two years to four with staggered terms of two and three members per election cycle.

The case for this change is that it improves continuity on the Council rather than the periodic spasms of mass turnover we’ve seen during the CCA’s reign. Ironically, the CCA made exactly the same argument for the election of Planning Commission members to six-year staggered terms. Yet, they take the opposite position when it comes to the Town Council.

I am sick to death of the CCA’s two-faced contradictions and suggest you vote YES to Question 7.

End the mandate for search committees

The CCA opposes Question 10 which would drop the requirement for an appointment of a Search Committee when picking a new Town Administrator. They say the Search Committee prevents cronyism, even though the search committee is appointed by the Town Council.

In my view, ten years of having CCA toady Mark Stankiewicz shows how Charlestown needs to re-stablish the principle that the Town Administrator must be a professional public employee who works for the good of ALL the people of Charlestown. Stankiewicz told me to my face that he “works for the CCA” and serves at their pleasure. His terrible record shows just how true that is.

The town needs to do whatever is necessary to hire staff that are dedicated to people, not politics. One of the best things the new Charlestown Residents United (CRU) did at the beginning of its term is hiring former Charlestown Chief of Police Jeff Allen as Town Administrator who has been an effective, no-drama manager. 

Further, the proposed Charter change does NOT prohibit the Council from appointing a Search Committee. The Council has used its discretion to appoint search committees in the past when it seemed like a good idea. Under this proposal, they still can. Vote YES on Question 10.

Put the Council and Planning Commission on the same election cycle

The CCA is really pissed about Question 15 that cuts the terms of office for Planning Commission members from 6 years to 4 with staggered terms. On Question 7 (above), the CCA also opposes a proposed change to town council members’ terms of office that would also make town council terms 4 years in length and staggered.

Having the Council and the Planning Commission on the same election cycle strikes me as fair and simpler for the average voter to follow.

The CCA raises their concern that state approval for such a change may take a long time. For some unspecified reason, in their humble opinion, this might jeopardize the anomaly of Charlestown being the only municipality in Rhode Island that still elects its planning body. 

I don’t care. In my opinion, Charlestown SHOULD stop electing the planning commission to take politics out of planning. Run by current CCA Council candidate Ruth Platner, the Planning Commission has been weaponized to torture small businesses and enforce exclusionary zoning.

Please vote YES to Question 15.

Allow service on more than one board or commission

The CCA thinks you should reject Question 17, which would allow individuals to serve on more than one town board or commission. They say this would limit opportunities for more citizens to serve on such boards.

Rubbish. For years, including during the CCA’s long reign, Charlestown has been desperate to get more volunteers for everything ranging from the Charlestown Fire District to said boards and commissions. Our population is very small and becoming more elderly. Younger people must work harder to make ends meet. Vacancies go unfilled.

The only times a commission or board gets more applicants than it has vacancies are when the CCA targets a commission for takeover and wants to pack it with their loyalists. Examples go from A to Z, from the Affordable Housing Commission to the Zoning Board.

This question simply expands the recruitment pool and contains the safeguard that any such dual service must receive unanimous Town Council approval.

Please vote YES on Question 17.

Let’s look at the two questions the CCA rates as “toss-ups” though their language indicates their opposition.

Don't allow Council majorities to censor Council minority members

The CCA is conflicted about Question 8 regarding the conduct of the Town Council because it says, “no rule may be implemented that prevents any councilor from placing an item on an agenda for discussion and/or action to be effective upon passage”.

The CCA says this would make town council meetings too long, but that’s not the real reason they oppose. This Charter amendment proposal would end the undemocratic CCA practice of blocking agenda items from non-CCA Council members.

For example, they refused to put Deb Carney’s motion for an outside review of the CCA’s financial screw-ups on the agenda. This wasn’t about meeting length – it was about the CCA’s on-going cover-up of its financial management failures.

The CCA says Question 8 is a “toss-up.” I say it’s a no-brainer. Please vote YES.

Make posting town notices in print newspapers optional

Finally, the CCA has reservations about Question 9 to lift the requirement to publish town notices in a print newspaper. They say this is essential to public transparency (as if this was still 1970) and a sign of support for the struggling Westerly Sun.

I have a lifelong love of print newspapers. One of the best things about the 25 years Cathy and I lived in Washington was reading the Washington Post every day. The Westerly Sun has had some good days in the past – for example, the Sun’s Dale Faulkner did a great job of covering the Copar quarry scandal.

But print newspapers have largely been bought up by conglomerates who are bleeding them dry – dropping news staff, coverage, editorials, features, raising prices and making themselves almost useless. The last time I checked, Progressive Charlestown had more Charlestown readers than the Sun.

Printing our ordinances in the Sun is not going to offset the predations of vulture capitalists.

The Charter question doesn’t say we can’t continue to run material in the Sun. It simply says we no longer must. Vote YES, please.

Charlestown vigilantes?

A new twist on the endless battle over shoreline access

By Will Collette

Signs warning of ticket penalties posted by Nope’s Island Conservation Association. 
Credit: Courtesy of Stephen Cersosimo

The Public’s Radio South County bureau chief Alex Nunes has probably done more in-depth coverage of the on-going battle between beachgoers and shoreline property owners than anyone. 

Even though the right of beach access is written into the RI Constitution and a new state law was passed last year to define those rights, the issue is far from resolved.

Along the way, Alex has written about fences, signage, walls, nose-to-nose conflicts, legislative fights and a conveyor belt of lawsuits filed for and against beach access. We’ve learned about “fake fire districts,” glorified homeowner associations that actually don’t fight fires but serve as a tax dodge and beach bulwark.

In a separate article, we’ll cover a brand-new problem – a federal judge’s rulingthat calls RI’s shoreline access right into question, but for now, let’s look at the issue of privacy and vigilantism.

Charlestown police accused of empowering ‘vigilantes’ to help patrol local beach

Under a new policy, the Charlestown Police Department is using video surveillance captured by private individuals to help enforce a town driving ordinance on a barrier beach.

By Alex Nunes July 12, 2024, The Public's Radio

Shoreline access and civil liberties advocates are crying foul over a new policy in Charlestown welcoming private individuals to collect surveillance evidence for police to use in enforcing a vehicle ordinance on a barrier beach at the center of multiple beach access legal fights.

Under the new policy rolled out by the Charlestown Police Department this summer season, people who believe they see someone violating a seasonal restriction on driving on the beach face at the Quonochontaug Barrier Beach can record video to send to the police department for officers to investigate and possibly act on, according to Charlestown Town Administrator Jeffrey Allen.

“The police department has been accepting time-stamped videos of potential violators, and they research it, and they obtain a written statement from the person who was responsible for taking the video, and they will look into it and potentially write summonses,” Allen said. “We’re basically getting the information from a private property owner.” 

In explaining the policy, he said the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management also accepts evidence from individuals “in these types of situations where there’s not a lot of active enforcement for whatever reason – right, lack of manpower, or situations where this is hard to get to.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: For many years, law enforcement has not only accepted, but often solicited photos and video to help catch criminals. The Boston Marathon bombing is a famous example. Private cellphone video of the police murder of George Floyd was crucial in convicting the officers involved. Few would question the value or legitimacy of those uses. – Will Collette

Charlestown police have already issued two tickets using the new system, Allen said. While it’s not clear what fine the tickets levy, the municipal ordinance they are issued under provides for penalties up to a $500 fine or 30 days imprisonment.

Allen, who previously served as chief of the Charlestown Police Department during a 32-year law enforcement career, said the new policy was “a first for me.” 

“I never really heard of it,” Allen said. “But times are changing, right?”

Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, had a stronger reaction to the new policy. 

“It sounds very disturbing,” Brown said. “The idea of delegating private citizens to engage in this type of law enforcement activity seems quite inappropriate.”

“That’s something that we might very well look into once we get more information about what’s going on,” he added. “If the town is essentially deputizing private residents to enforce a local ordinance, it’s problematic.” 

Scott Keeley, a shoreline access advocate and Charlestown resident, said the policy has created “vigilantes” gathering information for law enforcement. 

“It doesn’t sound right to me at all,” Keeley said. “I didn’t even know that was possible.” 

EDITOR’S NOTE: Weaponizing video or photo taking as a tool for harassment is, in my opinion, way over the line. Charlestown Citizens Alliance leader Cliff Vanover used to use his camera to provoke opponents or bait them into a fight. He did that to me. He succeeded in provoking then Town Council President Jim Mageau to push away Vanover’s camera. That led to an assault charge by Vanover against Mageau that ended up in a circus trial. But the actual legality of Cliff’s actions has never been judged in court. – Will Collette

The new policy comes as the town continues to navigate a fraught situation on the Charlestown side of the Quonochontaug Barrier Beach, which begins in Westerly and stretches 1.7 miles east before ending at a state breachway. 

The Nope’s Island Conservation Association, which owns the majority of the land on the barrier beach in Charlestown, has been pressuring the town to more strictly enforce a town ordinance that prevents vehicles from traveling on the beach face in Charlestown during the summer months. Nope’s Island members say four-wheel-drive vehicles are damaging the dunes.

Allen said the evidence that led to the two tickets was submitted to the police department by the conservation group.

Shoreline access advocates and fishermen who use the area have accused the conservation association of overstating the threat of vehicles as part of a “ruse” aimed at making the area less accessible to visitors. The Nope’s Island Conservation Association is associated with the Weekapaug Fire District, which is fighting two costly legal battles to prevent public access to the barrier beach shores. The two organizations share the same address, the fire district headquarters, and belong to a membership group that sets policies on the barrier beach.

People pushing for increased police enforcement also contend the Sand Trail path that leads down  the barrier beach and onto the beach sand in Charlestown does not give the public the right to access the state property at the breachway. The path is currently before the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council for consideration as a state designated right-of-way to the shore, and the Weekapaug Fire District has taken the case to court to prevent a public designation.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Weekapaug is one of those fake fire districts that lacks the ability to fight fires, instead serving as a homeowners’ association. = Will Collette

Earlier this year, Charlestown Town Council member Stephen Stokes held a private meeting with Nope’s Island and officials from Charlestown, Westerly, the CRMC, DEM, and Rhode Island Mobile Sportfishermen, which also owns property on the barrier beach in Charlestown, to discuss concerns the conservation group has about vehicles on the barrier beach.

The town council later considered an ordinance change to expand the dates of the beach driving restrictions, but the plan was abandoned following outcry from beach access advocates and skepticism from some town council members.

People interested in the issue had considered it settled for the time being. Then photos surfaced this week of signs posted on Nope’s Island Conservation Association land implying visitors could face enforcement action.

Two signs photographed read:

“Sand Trail Ends…Private Property

No Vehicle Trespassing……Violators Will Be Ticketed By Camera”

Allen, Charlestown’s administrator, said the signs do not belong to the town or state and Nope’s Island Conservation Association President Michael Sands has acknowledged that he placed them on Nope’s Island property.

Allen said the town does not plan to remove the signs. When it was pointed out to him that the signs could be read to suggest enforcement of trespass law, while Nope’s Island is assisting the town with enforcing an ordinance about driving on the beach face, Allen said, “Well, fine, then it’s not legally valid then. So what’s the problem?”

“What do you want me to say?” Allen said regarding the signs. “You want me to go down there and throw them away? I’m not throwing them away. It’s on private property. It’s on Nope’s Island property.”

Allen said he forwarded the information to CRMC in case the signs violate state regulations and CRMC is investigating the situation.

In a statement sent to The Public’s Radio, Sands, the Nope’s Island president, said his organization has “photographic resources and evidence of vehicles illegally trespassing on our property that we share with respective law enforcement officials. Those same photos may contain violations of Charlestown, CRMC and DEM laws at the same time. That is for the respective agencies to determine.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s not illegal for a private group to take photos and videos and then forward them to law enforcement along with their allegations. Does it have a chilling effect on beachgoers? Sure it does.

The CRMC and DEM did not immediately respond when asked by email Friday morning if the agencies had received any video or other image evidence from Nope’s Island and acted on it.

Brown, of the ACLU, called the signs Nope’s Island put up on the barrier beach “completely inappropriate.”

“Private residents have no right to be putting up signs saying that people are going to be ticketed,” he said. 

EDITOR’S NOTE: Rhode Island General Laws 11-14-1 makes it a crime to impersonate a “public officer.” The law’s definition would apply to Charlestown Police, the Town of Charlestown, CRMC or DEM. The Nope’s Island signs that claim that “Violators will be ticketed by camera” looks to me like a fit. But hey, I’m not a lawyer. – Will Collette

Keeley, the shoreline access advocate, said the signs and video surveillance will have the effect of scaring away people who have a right to visit the shore, which he believes is the intent of Nope’s Island. 

“They’re getting a private beach for filming and turning people in,” Keeley said. “I’m surprised that the Charlestown police would support that. Maybe they just don’t understand its intent is to privatize the shore.”

Still time to vote on Charlestown’s budget

June 5 deadline

By Will Collette

You still have time to vote for Charlestown’s $16 million municipal budget. As a formality, the budget ballot – mailed to every voter in town – also lists the $14 million Chariho budget which has already been approved in a separate vote of voters in the three Chariho towns.

You can send in that ballot by mail – though do it now to make sure it arrives on time – or put it in the drop box at Town Hall, or you can vote in person next MONDAY. I sent in my “yes” vote over a week ago.

This is the first budget not written by the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) since 2010 when they took over Charlestown. As anyone who has been paying attention knows, the CCA was routed at the polls last November by Charlestown Residents United (CRU) who hold the Council with a 4-1 majority coalition.

Budget issues were a major factor in that election.

This year’s budget is strangely without drama but not without a high element of weirdness. The weird part is the extent to which sky-rocketing tax assessments (50% on average) jacked up the tax base. The practical effect is to lower Charlestown’s tax rate to an unprecedented level. The current estimate is a rate of $5.74. Calculate your estimated taxes HERE.

For all the years the CCA ruled Charlestown, they touted Charlestown’s low tax rate as their crowning achievement, never mentioning that the rate is solely dependent on the tax base because your taxes equal the rate times your tax assessment.

This new tax rate is the lowest in historical data listed on Tax Assessor’s Ken Swain’s chart found HERE. I wonder how the CCA will spin that. 

I predict that CCA leader Ruth Platner will take the credit for her crafty use of taxpayer money to buy land the town didn’t need at criminally inflated prices.

See the whole budget HERE.

Finance shake-up

Last December, when the RI Public Expenditure Council released its annual report on municipal finance, Charlestown came off very badly, with administration costs the highest in the state.

When our last auditors revealed a “$3 million oopsie,” a misplacement of money that led to a string of budgeting errors, no one in the CCA administration wanted to take responsibility, though they were very willing to spin, distract, and lie as best they could. Other uncovered errors were given the same treatment.

The auditors resigned a step ahead of being fired and the new auditors reviewed the years of errors citing the town for three significant categories of financial mismanagement. All those CCA claims of being premier money managers went down the toilet and they paid for it at the polls.

The CCA lost its majority and their golden boy Mark Stankiewicz had already lined up a new town administrator job, unbeknownst to the CCA, in Berkley MA. Stankiewicz’s prodigy Town Treasurer Irina Gorman has since resigned.

Stankiewicz only lasted six weeks in Berkley before he either jumped off or was pushed. 

A confidential source told me he’s now Finance Director in Pawtucket, even though he’s already told co-workers that he’s “no finance guy,” as his Charlestown record confirms. The source also tells me Irina Gorman will be following him.

Obviously, we need new, better financial management.

This year’s budget creates a new position of Charlestown Finance Director. Hopefully, we’ll find someone actually qualified and motivated to do the job. The budget allocates $187,000 to get that going.

Ditto on finding a new Town Administrator, although I’d be fine if interim TA, former CPD Chief Jeffrey Allen, stayed on. And double ditto on finding a new town Treasurer.

It’s also well past time for Budget Commission chair Dick Sartor to resign. He shares blame for much of the financial mismanagement. His leadership after the slip-ups became public was more about image management than about problem solving. Dick – it’s not a lifetime position.

Charlestown has a new interim Town Administrator

And Berkley, Massachusetts has a new Town Administrator, too

By Will Collette 

The CCA treated Stankiewicz like he was a Marvel
superhero. As far as I can tell, his superpower is to
 cover up mistakes.

It’s going to be hard for former CPD Chief Jeffrey Allen to fill the shoes of St. Stanky of Stoughton, Charlestown’s recently departed town boss who has been sanctified by the Charlestown Citizens Alliance as “the best town administrator Charlestown has ever had.” 

Except Mark Stankiewicz wasn’t the best, not by a long shot, having failed the most fundamental responsibility of the job: the proper oversight of the town’s money. 

Interesting, Stankiewicz appeared to have little good to say about his time in Charlestown, telling the Taunton Gazette that storm emergency preparation and the use of drones were his most prominent achievements during his 10 years here. 

It also looks like Stankiewicz played the CCA for chumps. While they were singing his praises and trying to save his job after the CCA lost the election, he was already carrying out his exit strategy. He doesn’t say exactly when he decided to go for the Berkley Mass town administrator job saying, according to the Gazette: 

“He was advertising for a Charlestown vacancy in the Massachusetts Municipal Association job listing when he saw the Berkley position posted. ‘I said, “This could be a good fit for me', he recalled. " 

Most of the top managers in Berkley, MA suddenly resigned last summer, leaving them desperate to find new management. They posted the job vacancy last July with a November 9 deadline for applications. I am puzzled why Stankiewicz would think that, given the turmoil in Berkley, "it would be a good fit." But I guess he saw it as better than working another year for the CCA. 

Unless Stankiewicz filed his application the day after Election Day (application deadline was November 9), he was already looking to bail well before the CCA took its well-deserved thumping at the polls. 

You may recall that Charlestown has been roiled for months by revelations that somehow town managers had “misplaced” $3 million, had been overpaying town staff by failing to count the actual number of working days in a year and that Charlestown’s administrative costs are the highest in the state. 

The buck for all these issues stops with Stankiewicz. 

Through it all, the CCA denied there were any problems at all and, if there were, it wasn’t Stanky’s fault. Maybe space aliens. And if there were problems – and the CCA isn’t saying that there were – what’s the big deal because we have such a low tax rate. 

All the while, St. Mark was planning his big escape to Berkley. His daily commute from Stoughton to Charlestown was 72 miles and 90 minutes on a good day. Berkley is only 23 miles and a 20-minute run down I-495 from his house. 

Did his top apologist, ex-CCA Councilor and Charlestown demi-resident Bonnita Van Slyke know that Stankiewicz was looking to leave when she sent all those fact-challenged screeds to the Westerly Sun defending him? 

Here’s the kicker before we move on to Chief Allen. Stankiewicz pleaded with the Town Council to have his last day set as February 13, coinciding with his 10^th anniversary and making him fully vested in the state retirement system. But also, by coincidence, February 13 is his starting day in Berkley’s Town Hall. I wonder if he’s getting paid by both towns for that day. 

Anyway, the CCA, especially Bonnie and Mikey Chambers, should face reality and get over it. Yes, he played you for chumps, but for you guys, that's situation normal.... 

Chief Allen when he was sworn in as CPD Chief in 2012

Now, moving on to new Charlestown interim town administrator Jeffrey Allen. He’s well known to many of us as a long-time Charlestown resident and our former Chief of Police. He retired in 2018 after more than six years as Chief. 

Before his term in Charlestown, Allen was an up-from-the-ranks top official in the South Kingstown Police which he joined in 1986. 

During his time in Charlestown, Chief Allen worked at building the force and a good working relationship with the Narragansett Tribal Police. In fact, before he took the job, Tribal Police Chief Jay Montey told the Independent that 

“He and I started together, and I could tell early on that he was chief material. He’s a fair guy, and a guy who is full of integrity and good character, so it’s not a surprise at all.” 

Goodwill with the Tribe got Chief Allen and the town through a series of troubling problems caused by rogue CPD ex-cop Evan Speck. 

I first heard about Speck after an April 2014 incident where Speck, against orders, went onto Tribal land looking for suspects based on a report that someone in the woods might be discharging a firearm (duh – it’s surprising when you DON’T hear shots in the woods). He confronted a group of Tribal members at Schoolhouse Pond and picked out two of them as his suspects. 

Things got very ugly as Tribal members essentially told Speck to f**k off and Speck got more and more agitated. Fortunately, a more experienced CPD member and a Tribal cop arrived in time to prevent violence. 

This case turned into Charlestown v. Gonsalves and Barber which was heard in 2015. Speck should never should have arrested the two young men. Prosecutors never should have brought the case forward. 

But one of the issues raised by the Tribe was that its sovereignty was violated. This triggered Charlestown’s paid Indian fighter, lawyer Joe Larisa, who couldn’t help but come swooping in to combat any such claim. 

The facts in the case were pretty clear that Speck should have listened to orders to not cross into tribal land and certainly should not have made the arrests. To read the engrossing details of this case, CLICK HERE. That's how the judge ruled, dismissing the charges and blasting Charlestown for bringing such a ridiculous case.

Chief Allen did his best to calm things down and to bring Officer Speck under control. But Speck would have none of it. He sued Charlestown and the Chief for discriminating against him because he had ADHD. 

This all took a big turn on March 26, 2017, when the FBI, DEA and other federal and state agencies raided Speck’s home and found cash and a large quantity of steroids. Speck pleaded guilty to three federal charges for money laundering and drug dealing. He received a hybrid sentence that included some jail time, a long probation and community service. 

He also dropped his lawsuit and was ordered to send an apology to the town and the CPD. 

Getting the town through all this earned Chief Allen a lot of respect in my mind.

I don’t know if Chief Allen is interested in the town administrator job permanently, but I do wish him wish him a successful tenure, however long it may be.