McKee still opposes desperately needed reforms to Rhode Island's public records law

When the Charlestown Citizens Alliance ran the town, we were a case study for abusive use of open records loopholes

By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

When the CCA's guy Mark Stankiewicz
responded to open records, the town demanded
payment up front for the maximum charged
allowable by law. After you paid, you got
documents that looked like the above

Attempts to compromise haven’t appeared to reduce the state administration’s objections to reforming Rhode Island’s public records law.  

This year, advocates didn’t bother consulting with Gov. Dan McKee’s office for feedback prior to unveiling proposed changes to the Access to Public Records Act. 

Instead, they made the case directly to lawmakers, and the public, at a State House press conference Wednesday, one day before an initial Senate panel hearing on the legislation.

“Last year, we made a number of changes after dozens of meetings with the administration, and we still got opposition,” said John Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island. “We didn’t want to compromise against ourselves this year.”

Indeed, the companion bills introduced by Sen. Lou DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat, and Rep. Pat Serpa, a West Warwick Democrat, are nearly identical to the sweeping set of reforms pitched during the 2024 session. The bills failed to advance out of committee in either chamber last year, buried in a mountain of objections by state agencies.

Scott Pickering, publisher of East Bay Media Group and president of ACCESS/RI, called the administration’s past concerns “exaggerated” and “intended to create fear.”

“I don’t buy it,” Pickering said of arguments that the proposed reforms burdened state agencies and  jeopardized sensitive information. “Look at the groups supporting it. These are not radical groups hoping to undermine the government. These are groups devoted to the best interests of our democracy with noble intentions rooted in the public interest.”

Supporters also include the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, the New England First Amendment Coalition, the League of Women Voters of Rhode Island and the Rhode Island Press Association, of which Rhode Island Current is a member.

McKee’s office did not respond to inquiries for comment Wednesday.

CCA favorite, former Charlestown Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz leaves the second job he’s held since leaving Charlestown in 2023

After only two years, Stankiewicz leaves Pawtucket Finance Director position

By Will Collette

He manned the ramparts at Town Hall,
fending off all non-CCA interlopers

Remember Stanky? For 10 years, Mark Stankiewicz did the ruling Charlestown Citizens Alliance's bidding. He insured a place for himself in the CCA Hall of Fame by being a Town Administrator who actually told me that he “works for the CCA” and not the citizens of Charlestown.

Ex Town Administrator Stankiewicz served the CCA by covering up shady land deals, denying access to public records and rationalizing financial screw-ups such as the CCA’s infamous “$3 million Oopsie” where $3 million in Charlestown funds were, to use Stanky’s term “misallocated” for two years. The CCA is STILL talking about what a great job he did.

Under Stankiewicz, Charlestown racked up the state’s highest per capita administrative costs - $566 per capita. Compare that to Cumberland, the lowest at $106 or to our neighbors in South Kingstown ($175), Richmond ($199), Hopkinton ($234) or Westerly ($270). But to the CCA, he was worth every penny.

He left Charlestown February 2023 after the 2022 election that saw voters overturn the CCA's decade of control over the Town Council.

CCA spokes-troll Bonnita Van Slyke claimed Charlestown Residents United (CRU), winners of the 2022 and 2024 town elections, ousted Stankiewicz and denied there were ever any problems. The CCA Steering Committee stridently asserted: “Do not be fooled! This is a FORCED, not a voluntary, resignation. Mark has served the town masterfully for ten years and has no desire to leave.”

But the fools turned out to be the CCA because Stankiewicz had already lined up a new job to become Town Administrator in Berkley Massachusetts even before the first vote in November 2022 was counted. Clearly, the CCA was clueless about his secret plan and looked pretty stupid.

Stankiewicz played the game out to its end, squeezing more money out of the citizens of Charlestown by timing his departure to coincide with his February 13, 2023 first day at his new job.

He only lasted six weeks in Berkley. In his resignation letter, Stanky told the town "It's because I got a fine job offer, and after careful consideration, I am taking it. I was approached with this job offer. Another municipal position. I wasn't searching for another job. I wasn't looking. If not for this job offer, I'd still be here."

That “fine job offer” was a gig as Pawtucket Finance Director.

Confidential sources in Pawtucket city government told me Stanky’s 2023 appointment was made by Pawtucket Mayor Donald Grebien over the objections of top city officials. Shortly after taking the job, Stankiewicz told subordinates that he "isn't a finance guy" clearly indicating that he didn’t think he was qualified for the job he was holding. His record in Charlestown certainly supports that admission.

Stankiewicz brought Irina Gorman, Charlestown’s ex-treasurer who was directly involved in the $3 million “oopsie,” with him and she became Pawtucket Treasurer.

Upped the Mayor’s salary by almost double

One of Stankiewicz’s first major projects was to engineer a huge pay increase for his patron, Mayor Grebien – raising the Mayor’s base salary from $80,000 to $150,000. No doubt Grabien appreciated the value of such an unquestioning soldier as Stanky.

Mistakes led to big money trouble for Pawtucket Schools

An on-going problem that was apparently due to Stankiewicz’s inattention was last year’s revelations that money had run out to continue construction of two new schools. Pawtucket voters had approved $570 million in borrowing.

Here’s how the Providence Journal described what happened:

The situation became obvious in mid-March when city Finance Director Mark Stankiewicz alerted public schools Superintendent Patricia Royal in a memo that money for key payments was running out. Stankiewicz warned in the memo that without additional funds for ongoing projects, come April 15, "we will no longer be able to make substantial contractor payments in order to reserve sufficient funds for normal operating expenses, including payroll."

Stankiewicz said records show that of the $220 million approved, just $30 million in bonds were issued last May. In the meantime, roughly $50 million has been spent on the school projects. From the state, $40 million has been paid out for the projects, and Stankiewicz said in his mid-March memo that there's no money left, and there were no requests for further funding from the Rhode Island Health and Educational Building Corporation, the "quasi-public" agency that helps health care and educational institutions access financing for construction and renovation projects.

This looks remarkably like how Stanky handled Charlestown’s $3 million “Oopsie.” 

While it’s a good thing that Stankiewicz brought this issue to the School Superintendent’s attention, the crucial mistakes that led to this financial crisis happened on his watch during the ten months after he became Finance Director.

Here’s how the Pawtucket City Council President described it:

[City Council President Terrence] Mercer said it was his sense the problem is "a whole host of things that don't seem to be getting done," including crucially important reimbursement requests that need to be sent to the state's education department if the city is to get more money for its projects.

Part of the issue, Mercer suspects, is some recent turnover in the finance department, which caused the city to lose institutional knowledge.

Council President Mercer is talking about Stankiewicz. As Finance Director, it was his job to not only make sure city bills got paid but also that city collected the reimbursements that it was due. He does not get any points for finally warning the School Superintendent that the money had run out when he should have attended to it from Day One.

It's deja vu all over again and a much bigger screw-up than the CCA's $3 million oopsie.

This will cost every Rhode Island household at least $302

Stankiewicz has also been a major player in the controversial minor league soccer stadium being built in Pawtucket. It’s first home game was just held ending in a zero-zero tie. 

The stadium is receiving a massive amount of corporate welfare from city and state funds. Rhode Island taxpayers are on the hook for $132 million in bond payments. When the bonds are paid off on this nice stadium, neither the state nor the city will have any ownership stake in the venue. According to GoLocal, that will cost the average Rhode Island household $302 each.

The project ended up 50% over budget and years late. The City of Pawtucket’s lead financial advisors resigned after concerns about the long-term financial future of the stadium were unheeded.

In a letter to the City, three executives of Hilltop Securities wrote:

“As you know we have detailed concerns about the proposed stadium transaction and bond offering. As a fiduciary to the City of Pawtucket and its development agency…we must do what we believe is in the City’s and PRA’s best interest…Therefore, please let this serve as Hilltop’s notice to the city and the PRA of our withdrawal as municipal advisor on this bond offering”

The letter was dated August 16, 2023, a couple of months after Stankiewicz took over as Pawtucket Finance Director. Despite this protest resignation, Stankiewicz soldiered on with this project while cancelling numerous other city projects – and neglecting to pay attention to the city schools finances.

So what? Why should Charlestown voters care?

The life and times of Mark Stankiewicz continue to be relevant to Charlestown residents and not just because every Rhode Island household is on the hook for $302 to pay for the Pawtucket soccer stadium.

The CCA’s determined deification of Stankiewicz speaks to the CCA’s lack of judgment on financial and governance matters, something voters need to remember. As recently as last July, the CCA is still defending Stankiewicz and denying that the thoroughly documented financial screw-ups ever happened.

You can bet that if the CCA somehow regains control over the Charlestown Town Council, they’ll be looking to replace our steady, drama-free Town Administrator Jeff Allen with some toady like Stanky. We don’t need to go backwards.

If you are interested in applying for Stankiewicz’s Pawtucket job, the city wants to hire ASAP.

Here is the job posting:

Sam's latest bad idea

Westerly Democrat sponsors bill that would increase cost of public records requests

By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current

When the CCA ran Charlestown, Town Administrator
Mark Stankiewicz demanded large sums to process open
records requests, citing many hours of work. Apparently,
many of those billable hours were spent blacking out
records before they were released. The result was
you got useless records like the one above with
a big price tag.  - Will Collette

The cost of public records requests in Rhode Island could rise under a bill being considered in the state’s House of Representatives.

Legislation introduced last month by Rep. Samuel Azzinaro, a Westerly Democrat, would increase the hourly fee from $15 to $25 for public bodies to search and retrieve public documents under the Access to Public Records Act (APRA), Rhode Island’s public records law. Documents would remain free for the first hour of a search.

Officials would also be allowed to refuse future requests if someone hasn’t paid for prior ones.

Azzinaro said he introduced the bill at the request of Westerly’s town clerk, who he said has spent a lot of time gathering records, only for the person who requested them not to show up.

“Now they won’t get a second one until they pay for the first one,” Azzinaro said Monday during Sunshine Week, which continues through Saturday, March 22. “That’s a lot of wasted time.”

The third week in March is a time when journalists and open records advocates call attention to the right of the public to access government records.

Similar legislation was filed by Azzinaro in 2024, but did not make it out of committee.

Azzinaro’s bill is at odds with many fellow Democrats who want to reduce costs for records requests made in the name of public interest, but their proposals have been shot down by Gov. Dan McKee and other state department leaders.

House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi has also expressed reservations over Azzinaro’s proposal.

“I have real concerns about charging additional money for public records’ requests,” Shekarchi said in a statement. “This bill will go through the normal legislative process and a public committee hearing will be scheduled.”

Azzinaro said he understands concerns over raising fees, but reiterated that public employees put in a lot of effort to collect documents that may go unused. Fees could still be waived at the discretion of a town clerk or state APRA team, he added.

Azzinaro’s bill was referred to the House Committee on State Government & Elections where it has yet to be scheduled for a hearing.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com.

Charlestown new leadership gets top marks from the RI ACLU for transparency in government

Charlestown is one of only four municipalities to get a perfect score

By Will Collette

Of all the phony claims made by Charlestown’s former rulers, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA), transparency in government was among the most outrageous. They claim in their campaign platform that they support:

Accountable Government
To provide open, honest, responsible leadership that listens to concerns and acts in the best interests of all our residents.

However, during much of their decade of control, the CCA was anything but what they claim. 

Using CCA stooge, ex-Town Administrator (now Pawtucket Finance Director) Mark Stankiewicz, the CCA made it nearly impossible to get public records. Using loopholes in Rhode Island’s Access to Public Records Act, CCA leadership imposed outlandish demands for fees to receive records, especially those related to shady land deals.

Those foolhardy enough to pay exorbitant fees then received documents often mostly or wholly blacked out (see example, left). I finally figured out the reason for the incredible number of hours the town billed for public records. It was to pay staff time to black out just about everything in those records. Cover-ups are often labor-intensive.

But there’s more. The Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union just released a survey of Rhode Island’s municipalities and school district boards to determine which of them met the highest standards of transparency and public access to their proceedings.

Read their report HERE.

Charlestown is now one of only four municipalities with a perfect score – and the ACLU notes that Charlestown attained this status through changes made in 2023 after the Charlestown Residents United (CRU) defeated the CCA and took a 4-1 majority on the Town Council.

The ACLU looked at four criteria:

• Did they livestream their meetings?

• Did they record their meetings and provide a video archive of them for future reference?

• Did they provide links to agenda item documents online?

• Did they allow remote participation by the public?

Here’s the top line scores:

In Charlestown, people on the agenda can link in and participate remotely. If you aren't on the agenda and wish to speak, you must be present.

NOTE: According to the ACLU report, the Chariho School District only complies with three of the four criteria used for scoring because, the report says, it does not provide for remote participation.

The ACLU’s footnote about the changes in Charlestown’s transparency practices changing after 2023 is another example of an outside, well-respected source showing advances Charlestown made by ousting the CCA from power.

Another example was last year’s report by the Rhode Island Auditor General that detailed the remarkable progress the CRU-controlled Council made in Charlestown’s finances and fiscal management. Read HERE for a description of the Charlestown section in that report and HERE for the full, original report.

Here's the Auditor General's summary for Charlestown:

And if that’s not enough, check this third source, the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC) 2022 report on municipal costs under the CCA. The most glaring issue was that Charlestown’s administrative costs are double the state average and six times higher than Cumberland which has the lowest administrative cost in the state. Fortunately, according to the Auditor General, Charlestown new CRU leadership turned these problems around as you can see for yourself in the summary findings above.

Here's RIPEC's summary table - scoot your eye to the bottom to see how Charlestown under the CCA fared:

The CCA’s de facto leader, Planning Commissar Ruth Platner, and CCA spokes troll Bonnita Van Slyke continue to claim, without evidence, that the CCA provided Charlestown with impeccable, error-free leadership. They say their critics whom they call “apologists for the current Town Council” cherry-pick facts and lie and distort the truth to put the CCA in a bad light. Tough talk but nothing to back it up.

Read the actual reports. The ACLU, Auditor General and RIPEC have no reason to favor the CRU over the CCA. Yet their reports and data draw a bright line showing that once the CCA was ousted, Charlestown was more open and its finances were better managed.

So who are you going to believe? Ruth Platner and the CCA? Or the RI ACLU, RI state Auditor General and the RI Public Expenditure Council?

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 finances and taxes – Your choice on November 5

Do not let the crowd that messed up, lied and then covered up get back into office

By Will Collette

The CCA's 2024 campaign slogan

There are many reasons why Charlestown voters should reject the effort by the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) to regain control of Charlestown. I hope to cover them all before election day.

But for starters, let’s talk about the biggie: Can you trust the CCA to manage your money?

In 2020, the CCA proved it can’t be trusted with taxpayer funds. The lead evidence was the “$3 million Oopsie.” This was a grave problem that the CCA called a “misallocation.” 

$3 million in town funds went walkabout, unnoticed by the CCA financial brain trust of ex-Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz and ex-Budget Commission chair Richard Sartor for almost two years. The error was finally spotted by the town’s ex-auditor and duly reported.

This sparked panic within the CCA as they first tried to find a word other than “lost” to describe the screw-up. They settled on "misallocation." Their word, not mine.

Next, they searched for someone to blame since as we all know, the CCA is always right. They ended up scapegoating the auditors who found the problem. 

Then they tried to distract and minimize the problem using laughable analogies. Ruth Platner compared it to parking your car in the wrong place. Bonnie Van Slyke came up with some story about a ladder that I've never quite understood.

Finally they fell back on that old “Hey, how about that low tax rate?” tripe.

During all these machinations, they had their pet Town Administrator Stankiewicz use every trick in the book to avoid disclosing town financial records that would have brought some disinfecting sunshine to this issue. The CCA also blocked even a public discussion of the need for an outside financial review and instead let Sartor and Stanky review themselves.

Two years later, the CCA and especially their mouthpiece Council candidate Bonnita Van Slyke are now denying there was ever any problem, claiming their political opponents made it up. I wish I was that clever.

Van Slyke personally attacked me for even raising the issue, saying my reporting hurts the reputation of such a stellar personality as Stankiewicz.

The $3 million oopsie was and is a flashpoint in 10 years of CCA financial shenanigans. Before the “oopsie” went public, the worst abuses were questionable land deals promoted by Planning Commissar Ruth Platner who is now running for Council. Ruth never met a piece of undeveloped land she didn’t want to buy, regardless of price, using your money of course.

Time and again, she pushed deals where owners (often CCA affiliates like the Sachem Passage Association) would be paid far more than the land’s assessed values, often based on appraisals that relied on fictitious conditions. Stankiewicz helped by clamping down on the release of public records on these corrupt deals.

“But the tax rate!”

The CCA ran Charlestown from 2011 to 2023.
 Source: Charlestown Tax Assessor

To hear the CCA tell it, the only thing that matters to taxpayers is the property tax rate which they claimed was ultra-low, due to their genius. That, plus providing virtually no municipal services and relying on rising property values to buttress the tax base.

First, a few facts: under the CCA, the tax rate went up pretty consistently as the table to the right shows. 

After the voters gave the CCA the boot in 2020, the tax rate has plummeted to its lowest level in decades, going from $8.17 when the CCA was booted to the current $5.78.

But the tax rate is only half the equation. What you actually pay in taxes is the tax rate multiplied by your property assessment. 

Assessments have skyrocketed due to shorefront purchases by rich New York and Connecticut folks who discovered Charlestown is way cheaper than the Hamptons.

Their multi-million-dollar purchases drove up property assessments generally to the point where Charlestown has become even more unaffordable and we all pay taxes based on property values that we are unlikely to ever appreciate when we eventually sell our homes. 

The most recent reassessment increased the taxable value of our home by 65% to a level I can't imagine in my wildest dreams ever getting should we sell. Unless you’ve got a shoreline property, your assessment probably does not reflect market reality.

Even Van Slyke found that out when she tried to sell her waterfront Arnolda estate for $3 million but ended up having to settle for $2 million.

An economy out of balance

This East Beach Road property was assessed at
$1,967,700 and just sold for $3.65 million.

The CCA left the current Council majority from Charlestown Residents United (CRU) a large and complicated mess to clean up.

Actions have consequences. The CCA’s decade of reliance on rich people buying beach property and tourists flocking in during the summer has skewed our economy. 

While those beachfront owners pay a large portion of town taxes, they plus tourists triple the town’s population during the summer.

We have to provide – and pay for – a town infrastructure needed to accommodate them. Other seaside towns have the same problem and have chosen to resolve this tax inequity through homestead tax credits. 

These credits cut the property taxes of permanent residents to offset the cost imposed by visitors and temporary residents. While Homestead credits are working well in Narragansett, South Kingstown, Newport and North Kingstown, the CCA adamantly opposed a Democratic proposal for a Charlestown Homestead Tax Credit.

The CCA also turned a blind eye to tax rip-offs by Charlestown’s two “fake” fire districts – Shady Harbor and Central Quonnie. Between them, these homeowner associations (HOAs) in disguise own hundreds of millions of dollars in prime beach property and pay little or no property taxes.

We are long past the time to strip the fire district designation from these associations that do not provide actual fire protection. It’s insulting to real fire fighters and a tax rip-off. While state legislation may be needed to completely resolve this embarrassment, Charlestown should immediately begin taxing their properties at real value.

They’ll sue of course. As The Public’s Radio South County Bureau Chief Alex Nunes has chronicled, fake fire districts from Bonnet Shores to Watch Hill file lawsuits anytime anybody challenges them on any issue. I believe this is a battle worth fighting and one I believe we can win.

We could easily fund a Homestead Tax Credit by making the fake fire districts pay their fair share of taxes.

We could also fund a special tax credit for fire fighters who nol only deserve our praise and thanks, but might also help alleviate the shortage of volunteers. Rep. Teresa Tanzi (D) got the General Assembly to pass legislation authorizing a fire fighter tax credit in South Kingstown.

Some other problems in the Charlestown economy

The real tax question is tax fairness, not the tax rate. Affluent Charlestown property owners can use fake fire districts and loopholes in conservation law to cut their taxes while the CCA blocks tax credits for working families.

Charlestown needs to diversify its economy and not simply rely on minimum and sub-minimum wage jobs servicing tourists and part-time residents. The people needed to provide those services can’t afford to live in Charlestown. The CCA has made it even harder by making Charlestown the only mainland Rhode Island town without RIPTA service.

Contrary to CCA claims, Charlestown does not need an overly large budget surplus. Paying cash for capital investments, including the CCA’s shady land deals, just jacks up taxes.

For years, the CCA has known about mis-zoning – properties undeservedly designated for uses that lower taxes. Planning Commissar Ruth Platner promised to fix this problem in 2012. Twelve years later and she hasn’t done it. Yet she wants you to elect her to the Town Council.

Choose wisely in November. The CCA candidates are no longer simply listed as "independents" (as if they ever were). Most CCA candidates are co-mingled with the CRU slate as either Democrats or Republicans although none of them carry town party endorsements. 

Watch your mailboxes for campaign flyers. If you want to prevent a return financial mismanagement, DON'T vote for the CCA candidates and instead cast your votes for the CRU slate.

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance Listens, but only to itself.

Can you trust the CCA to manage Charlestown's money?

By Will Collette

Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) candidate Bonnita Van Slyke continues to try to change the history of the CCA’s financial mismanagement that led to its ouster by Charlestown voters in 2022.

It’s like trying to argue with Donald Trump over crowd size – no matter how much evidence you present, Van Slyke will continue to deny the fact that CCA malfeasance “misallocated” or misplaced or lost $3 million dollars and that this fact only came to light after almost two years.

The CCA’s immediate reactions included:

·       > Checking the thesaurus to find a word other than “lost” to describe the missing money.

·       > Directing their revered former Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz to use every trick in the book to prevent public disclosure of town financial records.

·       > Looking for a scapegoat to blame, anyone other than themselves.

·       > Thwarting all efforts to get an outside independent review including blocking inclusion of the issue on the Town Council agenda for discussion.

·       > When all these measures failed, Bonnie and her colleagues now pretend the problems never existed.

So Bonnie keeps writing letters to the Sun to try to sell the CCA platform of lies. Maybe Van Slyke thinks if you repeat the same lies often enough, you can make the public believe them.

Her most recent letter repeats most of the “whoppers” (her favorite word) from her earlier letters, focusing this time on her claim there were multiple outside reviews.

There weren’t.

The error was found, and reported, by the town’s former auditor. Rather than an outside review, Town Administrator Stankiewicz and recently ousted Budget Commission chair Richard Sartor reviewed themselves and found themselves blameless. Instead, they blamed the auditor who found the $3 million “misallocation.”

The CCA hired another auditing firm, Marcum LLP, just before the new majority took office.

Marcum’s review confirmed the serious systemic problems that Sartor and Stankiewicz overlooked. Unfortunately, the CCA’s pick overcharged the town and was also nailed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission that fined Marcum LLP $10,000,000 because, the SEC charged, "Marcum prioritized increased revenue over audit quality."

Here's what Marcum found:

The new Charlestown Residents United Council majority was left to clean up the mess.

The CCA took control of Charlestown in 2010. Their last year
of control was 2022. Tax rates only tell half the story because
your actual tax is based on the rate as well as your property's
assessment. Chart created by the Charlestown Tax Assessor.

But hey, says Bonnie, it’s all good because the tax rate is low – not acknowledging how the rate dropped from $8.17 when voters booted the CCA to its current 2024 $5.78 rate under the new Council leadership.

Apropos of nothing, Van Slyke cites a 2021 community survey where most residents said they were happy with Charlestown. Of course they are.

But Van Slyke and the CCA don’t get that in the only community survey that matters – the 2022 General Election – Charlestown voters ended the CCA’s decade of control.

Thank you, Bonnie, for reminding voters about the most important question in the November 5 election: Who can best manage Charlestown’s money?

The CCA was responsible for Charlestown's 2022 financial crisis

CCA Council candidate Van Slyke wants you to forget what they did

By Will Collette

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance, for reasons known only to themselves, are trying to boost Ruth Platner's favorite puppet, ex-Town Counciler Bonnita Van Slyke, candidacy to return to the Council.

She and I are dueling in the Letter to the Editor pages of the Westerly Sun, something I'd rather not do. Generally, I'm content to watch the cranks bang away at each other. 

But Van Slyke's recent efforts to re-write history to canonize ex-Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz and now ex-Budget Commission chair Richard Sartor as well as erase the financial screw-ups that cost the CCA the 2022 election demanded a response.

Tenacious deep-digging by Steve Hoff and Council President Deb Carney uncovered years of financial mismanagement by Sartor, Stankiewicz and the CCA Council majority. 

Van Slyke's position was that both Stankiewicz and Sartor deserved to continue in their jobs because they were there a long time and, hey, how 'bout that tax rate? Bonnie says everything was fine and nothing happened because...low tax rate.

How do you argue with Charlestown Citizen Alliance Council candidate Bonnita Van Slyke when she just makes stuff up?

My rebuttal letter to Van Slyke's rebuttal appears below. No doubt, there will be another Van Slyke letter, then another and another as we find ourselves in an Escher's Loop. Unless someone else wants to get into this game of ping-pong. 

At some point, I'm going to get bored with this and simply stop. But for now, if Van Slyke wants to keep reminding voters how badly the CCA screwed up the money, then fine. That really worked well in the 2022 election.

Here's my letter to the Sun:

I challenged Van Slyke’s glorification of former Budget Commission Chair Richard Sartor and former Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz. I argued both should have resigned after facts revealed they mismanaged Charlestown’s money for years.

Van Slyke says there was no mismanagement. She ignores the expansive cover-up where Stankiewicz used every trick in the state open records law to delay, deny and black out public records showing the extent of that mismanagement.

Here’s how that worked. You ask for public records. You are stalled until the last possible hour when you receive an astounding price quote for the cost of retrieval and review. Nothing happens unless you agree to pay. If you pay, you get page after page of documents almost completely blacked out. You can appeal but that takes adds more delay.

After a struggle, the truth did come out – at least enough to verify the “misallocation” of $3 million, as Stankiewicz called it and some of the underlying problems.

But not all. That’s why many Charlestown residents called for an outside review, including a forensic audit, to get to the heart of the matter.

Van Slyke and her CCA Council colleagues refused to even placean outside review on the agenda for discussion and had Sartor and Stankiewicz conduct a self-audit that of course found them blameless. Later reviews found serious systemic financial management issues. Van Slyke says they came out clean every time only showing she didn’t read them.

Van Slyke repeats her lie that poor Mark Stankiewicz was “forced out” by the new Council majority when records show Stankiewicz had lined up a new job in Berkley, MA months before the 2022 election while Van Slyke and her CCA colleagues still assumed they were invincible at the polls.

Bonnita declares I have no right to raise these issues because it hurts Sartor’s and Stankiewicz’s feelings so the Democratic Town Committee should silence me. Maybe the CCA can control what its followers say, but not the rest of us.

For a decade, Sartor, Stankiewicz and the CCA Council majority failed their primary responsibility: properly manage the taxpayers’ money. They claimed – Van Slyke still does – that everything was fine because Charlestown has a low tax rate.

Van Slyke wants to return to the Council. The CCA wants to regain the majority on a campaign crafted from a tissue of lies. They will say or do whatever they can to win.

In 2022, Charlestown voters pierced the CCA’s fog of deception and voted them out. On November 5, I hope they will do it again.

Slyke of hand, again

Van Slyke defends Budget Chair who helped mess up town finances

By Will Collette

Sartor is outta here

On July 8, the Charlestown Town Council appointed two applicants to fill the two vacancies on the Budget Commission; returning Commission member, Gregory Plunkett and Michael Marcylenas, who holds a bachelors degree in Actuarial Mathematics.

This has mightily angered long-time Budget Chair Richard Sartor’s patrons, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA PAC). Their leading scribe Bonnita Van Slyke penned another one of her fact-challenged missives praising Sartor to the heavens and condemning the CCA’s archenemies, Charlestown Residents United (CRU), which holds a 4 to 1 majority on the Council.

When Van Slyke was still on the Council (she’s hoping to make a comeback), I wrote a series of “Slyke of Hand” articles taking apart Van Slyke’s numerous false or ridiculous claims, mostly about town finances. Here we go again.

She wrote the broadside reprinted below. The parts in blue are the exact words attributed to her (I don’t know if she actually wrote it). The parts in bold red are my fact-checking and rebuttal. Here we go.

Silencing A Voice Of Experience On The Charlestown Budget Commission

Bonnie Van Slyke 

On July 8, the current Charlestown Town Council majority got rid of a highly qualified and experienced member of the Budget Commission, Dick Sartor. Mr. Sartor had applied to be reappointed, and he was not. This sacking of Mr. Sartor was carried out by a Town Council majority that says institutional knowledge, and qualifications, are of utmost importance in government.

Sartor’s institutional knowledge and experience is that of screwing up. That does’t entitle him to another term. Read on for specifics.

Mr. Sartor was, until July 8, the chair of the Commission. He had served admirably on the Commission for almost 20 years. He has a bachelor’s degree in business administration and a master’s degree in public administration. He has over 40 years of experience in town and city management, and he served as Charlestown’s Town Administrator in the early 2000s. He is skilled in budgetary preparation, planning, and evaluation of fiscal proposals.

The Budget Commission advises the Town Council on budgetary matters. The reason the Council’s action is so completely mind boggling is that our town has seen its Town Administrator of 10 years forced out by this Council majority, has had two Town Treasurers leave, and is now on its third auditing firm—all since November 2022.

Van Slyke (CCA photo)

WHOA! What an incredible pack of lies. Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz was NOT forced out. In fact, he had lined up a new job months BEFORE the 2022 election, but milked months of extra salary from the taxpayers.

Stanky began his new job as Berkley, MA’s town manager on his last day in Charlestown in February 2023. He lasted six weeks.

Van Slyke knows all this but repeats the CCA lie because the truth makes them look like chumps.

Then, over objections from top financial officials in Pawtucket, Stanky got a patronage job as Finance Director from Mayor Donald Grebien even though he admitted he was “no finance guy.” His Charlestown experience certainly showed that.

In Pawtucket, Stankiewicz has helped Mayor Griebien get a close to 50% pay hike and a massive corporate welfare scheme for a planned $137 million soccer stadium heavily subsidized by taxpayers all while Pawtucket’s schools are having trouble paying their bills. Stanky is still a political stooge but on a much larger scale.

And Bonnie misses him.

Incidentally, Stanky took Irina Gorman, one of those failed Town Treasurers mentioned in Bonnie’s letter, with him to fill the same job in Pawtucket. Further on, I deal with the auditors.

Mark Stankiewicz was a terrible town administrator. How terrible? CLICK HERE. Among his worst offenses was covering up the Sartor and CCA “$3 million oopsie” as well as the CCA’s shady land deals.

He kept his job because he did exactly what the CCA told him to do, even if it was unethical or illegal.

Were it not for Dick Sartor’s experience and skill at the helm of the Budget Commission, the town would not have been able to develop the 2024–2025 budget on time this past June. There was no draft budget; there was no audit of the previous year’s finances; and there was little to no institutional knowledge in the Finance Department.

The problems Van Slyke complains about were caused by Sartor and the CCA and the mess they left behind. The CCA, Budget Commission, Charlestown’s long-time auditor and Stankiewicz failed to spot a “$3 million oopsie” – a misallocation of funds that remained unnoticed on the books for almost two years.

Instead of acknowledging the “oopsie,” Sartor and the CCA looked for ways to try to cover it up and explain it away. The scapegoated auditor quit.

The CCA hired another auditing firm, Marcum LLP, just before the new majority took office. Marcum’s audit confirmed the serious problems that had escaped Sartor’s and Stankiewicz’s attention.

That was helpful, but Marcum's over=billing practices were unacceptable. The CRU majority fired them. Shortly after that, the US Securities and Exchange Commission fined Marcum LLP $10,000,000 because, the SEC charged, "Marcum prioritized increased revenue over audit quality.".

In producing this year’s budget, probably his last, Sartor also allegedly committed an unforced error by leading a discussion of raises for the town’s unionized workers.

This violates the terms of their contract – you ONLY discuss terms and conditions within the collective bargaining process. Teamster Local 251 notified the town it will file charges of Unfair Labor Practices (ULPs) with the NLRB. (Agenda Package at page 207). With all of Sartor’s vast knowledge and experience, that’s a rookie mistake.

With Mr. Sartor at the helm of the Budget Commission, Charlestown was the first town in the state to develop a written Fund Balance Policy, which was based on an independent evaluation of the risks the town faces.

Sartor pushed Charlestown to maintain a fund balance (surplus) far in excess of what financial experts consider prudent even for the most generous “rainy day” fund.

Sartor said he wanted to give the town the option to pay cash for major capital projects (roads, bridges, buildings, etc.) instead of issuing low-interest municipal bonds.

Now unless you studied financial management under William Shakespeare (“neither a borrower or lender be” – Polonius in Hamlet), that’s a stupid policy.

Regular people take out mortgages and car loans for household capital costs and don't pay cash. So do normal municipalities. But Sartor’s modus operandi called for a needlessly large surplus that increases taxes.

In good part because of Mr. Sartor’s service, Charlestown is one of the most solvent towns in the state, has been able to achieve a tax rate that is among the lowest in Rhode Island, and has, at the same time, provided excellent government services to taxpayers.

For the 1000^th time, the CCA harps on the tax RATE while ignoring the other key factor in determining what you pay in taxes. That’s the property ASSESSMENT.

Tax rate X property assessment = what you pay in taxes.

Charlestown’s tax rate actually went up under the CCA. It stayed relatively low because it was propped up by rising house prices. Average residents still saw steady increases in taxes, but hey, says the CCA, “how ‘bout that tax rate?”

After voters booted the CCA in 2022, the tax rate fell to $5.74 and is expected to go up by only four cents under the new budget. Now, if the CCA was still in power, they’d take credit for the drop and would ignore the role rocketing assessments played in causing the drop.

Sartor’s only role was to trumpet the CCA’s false narrative that only the tax rate matters. If that’s the case, the CRU’s 2023 tax rate at $5.74 beat the CCA’s peak rate of $10.21 by almost half.

The loss of Mr. Sartor’s knowledge, experience, and institutional knowledge is unfortunate. One can only wonder why the Town Council majority would remove Mr. Sartor’s practiced eye from oversight of the town’s budget.

"Practiced eye?" "Oversight?" how do you spell "oopsie?" Richard Sartor vehemently opposed a proposal by Town Council President Deb Carney to commission an outside forensic audit triggered by the “$3 million oopsie.” Instead, Sartor and Stanky did the review themselves and, of course, found themselves blameless.

One last item that is part of Sartor’s legacy. Under him and the CCA majority, the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC) ranked Charlestown as having the highest administrative costs in the state. Details HERE.

If Sartor was an honorable man, he would have taken his fair share of blame for Charlestown’s financial chaos and $3 million oopsie and resigned. Instead, tapes of Budget Commission meetings show Sartor was much more concerned about protecting his image, minimizing the problems in public perception and assigning blame to others.