Van Slyke’s “commitment” to apple pie and motherhood is not enough to make up for fiscal mismanagement.

Van Slyke must answer for CCA’s glaring financial blunders that she helped to create

By Will Collette

Loving animals and nature is not this election's key issue,
but money management is

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) retread candidate Bonnita B. Van Slyke in the December 2 town council special election just issued a piece in the CCA blog that reprises her promises to support a broad array of environmental issues, the same ones she covered at length in her big, fancy mailer.

Her two opponents, Democrat Jill Fonnemann and Republican Laura Rom, also believe in protecting our environment – clean water, healthy ponds and streams, dark skies, and all our critters and birds. Jill is especially strong on animal protection. The candidates differ on how to achieve our goals, but don’t differ on the goals themselves.

So let’s stipulate that all the candidates love our town and its beautiful environs. And dogs.

The real difference between Van Slyke and her rivals comes into sharp relief when you look at her record on how to manage the taxpayers’ money. Van Slyke makes two “promises” that are belied by her actions and omissions.

Van Slyke pledges “to provide open, honest, responsible leadership” and commits to “manage our town’s administration and budgets effectively” which she failed to do during her previous time on the Town Council.

Bonnie B. left the Town Council in 2022 at the height of Charlestown’s worst financial scandal in a generation, a crisis where she was one of the key architects and led the cover-up and misinformation campaign.

And in her own writings for this special election, she still is.

In 2022, Charlestown learned that under the total control of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance, Charlestown had not only achieved the dubious distinction of having the highest administrative costs in the state but that this CCA-controlled administration had “lost” (they say “misallocated”) $3 million for two years. The “$3 million oopsie.”

Van Slyke was the CCA’s principal spokesperson leading the cover-up and disinformation campaign to deny there was a problem and, failing that, blame someone else while refusing reasonable requests for an outside, impartial review.

Van Slyke pushed – and still pushes – pumping up the town’s surplus (“Unassigned fund balance”) beyond any reasonable need. The $3 million oopsie grew out of the accumulated pockets of cash the CCA had squirreled away in the town budget often used to finance Planning Commissar Ruth Platner’s shady land deals.

Van Slyke praised and defended ex-Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz even though he failed at his #1 job which was to take care of the money. Instead, he presided over ending legal public access to records about the town’s finances and shady land deals and allowed the $3 million to get lost. Then Stanky and ex-Budget Commission Chair Dick Sartor did their own self-audit and of course found themselves blameless.

Van Slyke consistently obstructed every effort by then minority Council member Deb Carney to bring in an outside forensic auditor to find out what really happened and to fix it.

And did I mention that according to the RI Public Expenditure Council, Charlestown’s administrative costs peaked as the worst in the state per capita during the final year of CCA's reign? We're right there at the very bottom of the chart. Here's what RIPEC found (and note that the CCA NEVER even acknowledged this data, never mind acted on it):

Voters threw out the CCA in 2022, electing four of five Charlestown Residents United (CRU) candidates, leaving the CCA with only Susan Cooper to wave their flag. Cooper dropped out in 2024 and voters replaced her with another CRU candidate, giving CRU a 5-0 supermajority.

Stonewall Stanky, Charlestown's cover-up king

After the 2022 election, one of the first orders of business was what to do with erstwhile Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz, executor of the CCA’s clamp down on public records and failed money manager. Right up until Stanky’s exit, Van Slyke praised his feckless performance as masterful and condemned the CRU for driving out this superhero.

The facts showed that Stanky’s only talent was his loyalty to the CCA, but even that turned out to be phony. It turns out Stanky had already lined up a new job in Berkley, MA even before the 2022 election which the CCA was expected to win.

While clueless Van Slyke and the CCA were campaigning to save his job in 2023, Stanky was already out the door and was simply trying to get the biggest severance package he could. Incidentally, Stanky only lasted six weeks at the Berkley job before moving on to mess up Pawtucket’s finances.

Then in 2025, Van Slyke and the CCA repeated the process when the CRU decided not to confirm CCA-aligned Budget Commission chair Dick Sartor – a central figure in the CCA fiscal meltdown – to another term on the Commission. Sartor failed at his job to provide oversight over Charlestown’s finances and teamed with Stankiewicz to run the cover-up of the $3 million oopsie.

The CRU wanted him out but naturally, Van Slyke wanted him retained. Ever the champion of incompetence.

Since the CCA was booted out of office, the CRU-led Town Council has done a great job of cleaning up the mess the CCA left. And to see exactly what the CRU did, see what the state's chief auditor found. 

According to the Rhode Island Auditor General, in their first year in office, the CRU-led Council improved Charlestown’s financial management in the following ways:

Raised more revenue. 

Under the CCA, revenue was $28 million. Under the CRU, this increased to $30 million.

Lowered expenses. 

RIPEC flagged Charlestown’s highest in the state expenses which were $31.2 million, more than the revenue collected. Under the CRU, expenses dropped to $29.8 million.

Increased the town’s savings. 

This is the unassigned fund balance (UFB) that the CCA criticized the CRU for failing to increase. In fact, according to the Auditor General, the CRU raised the UFB by 17% from the CCA’s $5.3 million to $6.2 million.

Improved pension funding. 

Funding to cover future pension costs rose from the CCA’s $8.3 million level to $8.8 million under the CRU.

Reduced Charlestown’s debt by a LOT. 

Under the CCA, Charlestown’s debt was $7.9 million. Under the CRU, debt dropped to $6 million, almost 25% less.

Erased the deficit the CCA left behind. 

According to the Auditor General, the CCA left behind a DEFICIT of $3,266,029. The CRU erased that deficit and ended FY23 with a SURPLUS of $157,666.

This table on page 16 of the Auditor General’s report gives the detail:

Not once has the CCA acknowledged these hard facts, sticking instead to Bonnita Van Slyke's false narrative that the CCA was infallible. Oh, she also loves her dog.

Election started today (November 12)

Early, in-person voting has started at Town Hall. If you plan to vote by mail, ask our Town Clerk Amy Weinreich for a mail ballot application. If you've already applied, your ballot should be on the way.

Generally, special elections like this draw almost exclusively from those who pay attention to politics. Turn out is usually very low, maybe a thousand if we're lucky. A three-way race like this is especially hard to predict. 

The CCA will spend from its huge treasury built on non-resident cash to send you fancy mailers telling you Charlestown needs to go back to the good old days when they ran things. The financial facts shown above tell a very different story. 

Democrat Jill Fonnemann is pledged to support the CRU’s sound financial management for a better, more prosperous Charlestown. Let's move FORWARD, not backwards. 

With only days before Charlestown’s December 2 Town Council special election, CCA candidate dodges the real questions

CCA tries to deny and deflect its fiscal failings

By Will Collette

For continued good government in Charlestown,
elect endorsed Democrat Jill Fonnemann for Town Council 

Call it click-baiting if you will, but there’s a remarkable similarity between the way the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) treats Charlestown’s financial meltdown that led to their 2022 and 2024 election defeats and the way Donald Trump is dealing with his friendship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

I have been urging the CCA to come clean on how they managed to lose $3 million dollars used to fund CCA leader Ruth Platner’s shady land deals and then ran a cover-up campaign to hide what they did.

After two straight election drubbings, you’d think someone in the CCA might have figured out that rather than deny, distract and deflect, maybe the CCA should admit and apologize.

A key figure in those scandals is one of the December 2 candidates, Bonnita B. Van Slyke. Van Slyke was on the Charlestown Town Council throughout the 2022 scandal but bailed out before the 2022 election rather than be on the CCA ticket rejected by Charlestown voters.

She tried a comeback in 2024 but ran in last place, 10^th out of ten, as the CCA tried to make that election about dark skies (seriously, the darkness of the sky was their big issue) rather than address the financial mess they caused. The CCA lost the last of their Council seats in that election.

And now, here comes Van Slyke again.

In this special election, Van Slyke and the CCA again want to focus voter attention on “issues” where there is no disagreement among the three candidates – how much we all love Charlestown and its beauty, and clean water, green forests, dark sky, and golden beaches. And critters ranging from wildlife to dogs. She wants to talk about “over-development in sensitive areas” but without talking about how the CCA allowed shoreline property owners to do anything they wanted.

Why does Van Slyke want to raise these issues? Because she and the CCA want to distract voters away from other important issues the CCA doesn’t want to talk about. These include:

·    Who can voters trust to properly manage their money?

·    Who will do the better job of keeping administrative costs and taxes down while providing effective government services?

·    Who will run an honest and open government, free of shady deals, secrecy and attempts to cover up mistakes?

·    Why pile up money in surpluses by over-taxing residents?

·    Who will do better at ensuring fair taxation?

Voters sent the CCA a message in 2022 and 2024: if you screw up the money, you can’t run the town. 

Obviously, they didn’t get the message by running Van Slyke, a key player in their financial SNAFU, as their candidate in this special election.

The heart of the CCA’s money management deficiencies is its obsessive effort to turn Charlestown into an exclusive retirement enclave for the independently wealthy while driving out families, mostly those living north of Route One, while erecting barriers to any new families moving in.

All the gray-marked areas in the center of the map are
Narragansett tribal land - i.e. open space

According to data from the town’s Comprehensive Plan, belatedly submitted by CCA and Charlestown Planning Commissar Ruth Platner, around 60% of Charlestown is tax-exempt or tax-favored open space. See map 👉. But that’s not enough for Platner, Van Slyke and the CCA. 

Through a series of shady land deals, Charlestown expanded the amount of town-owned open space often by buying property at much higher than its assessed value. CLICK HERE for a prime example.

They usually paid cash despite a voter-approved referendum that called for the town to use low-interest municipal bonds. Paying cash meant the cost of major capital expenditures were dumped on taxpayers that year instead of being amortized over time.

Several of their land deals were blocked by public pressure after we dug up public records exposing the details. Click on the links to see what we exposed in two of those deals: the SPA-Gate scandal HERE and the Saw Mill Pond scam HERE.

Under the CCA, this was the typical response
you got after paying for a public record

After these records wrecked the sweetheart deal behind SPA-Gate, the CCA made their lapdog Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz clamp down on public information. Requests under the state’s open records law were routinely delayed. Records requested were subjected to careful legal and staff review to make sure that everything that could be withheld was indeed withheld. The town charged the maximum amount it could.

The result was that records about land deals were then offered with cost estimates of several hundred dollars payable in advance. If you paid the money, all you eventually got were pages almost totally blacked out. See sample 👈to the left.

I believe these secrecy practices not only contradicted the CCA's claims about "open and transparent government," but also contributed significantly to Charlestown's out of control administrative costs (see table below).

Van Slyke herself was behind the most outrageous abuse of the open government norms when she introduced a resolution to buy a land parcel but insisted that the name of the seller, the location of the property and the price for the purchase were withheld from the public!

The CCA Town Council majority approved the deal to proceed.

We later discovered the land in question was the Saw Mill Pond property that was already classified as open space and taxed accordingly by the town. The proposed purchase price was never actually disclosed but based on the paperwork, it had to be at least $800,000. The assessed value was only $312,800.

Van Slyke and her CCA Council colleague Susan Cooper voted yes to proceed with the deal. However, they were thwarted by no votes from late CRU council member Grace Klinger and Council President Deb Carney plus the recusal ofCCA council member Cody Clarkin on ethical grounds.

If Van Slyke really wants to talk about land use, these concrete cases of waste, fraud and abuse need to be part of that conversation.

While debates over land use raged, the town’s administrative functions were undergoing some serious dry rot. Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz geared Town Hall to serve the CCA’s political agenda. Under Stanky and CCA leadership, Charlestown racked up the worst administrative costs in the state. That’s according to the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council. Check out Charlestown at the very bottom of this 👇table. More details HERE.

Aided by former Budget Commission chair Dick Sartor, Charlestown accumulated a massive surplus far in excess of what was needed. Here’s what the Rhode Island Auditor General wrote in his report on Charlestown about that surplus during the CCA’s final years, saying "unrestricted fund balances significantly exceeded the GFOA reserve recommendation (17% of fund expenditures/other financing uses)."

The CCA's policy resembled putting taxpayer money under the mattress.

Apparently, that excess surplus was moved around from pocket to pocket without proper management. In early 2022, the town’s auditor reported that $3 million had apparently been misplaced for an almost two-year period. This came to be known as the “$3 Million Oopsie.”

Van Slyke was the public voice of the CCA in trying to deny, diminish, deflect then ultimately attack critics of the “Oopsie.” Behind the scenes, Stanky and Budget chair Sartor worked hard to come up with any answer that didn’t involve blame falling on them or the CCA.

Van Slyke’s only glancing mention of this whole mess has in her most recent mailer where she continues to plug an unnecessarily high surplus fund to deal with “hurricanes and other crises.”

From Van Slyke election mailer, received November 22.

The state Auditor General has already criticized the inappropriately high fund balance salted away by the CCA when it ran the town. (See above). Remember: it’s your tax dollars being put away in Bonnita’s mayonnaise jar.

I could go on but suffice to say that since the Town Council control shifted from the CCA to Charlestown Residents United (CRU), things have gotten a lot better. Don’t take my word for it, look at what the RI Auditor General reported:

Note that the final column on the right is the first year (2023) that Charlestown began to be managed by the Charlestown Residents United Council majority. The previous four years were under the CCA's control

Cathy and I have already voted by mail for endorsed Democrat Jill Fonnemann who is also supported by the Charlestown Residents United. She manages a large chunk of the Rathskeller’s business which makes her far more qualified than Van Slyke to be diligent about protecting the taxpayers. 

You can meet Jill and see for yourself why she is the best choice for Town Council at the General Stanton Inn Tuesday night.

Let’s turn out for Jill and make her Charlestown’s next Town Council member.

The Charlestown Town Council December 2 Special Election

Who is best for Charlestown?

By Will Collette

Now that the Blue Tide has swept over Nov. 4’s off-year elections, it’s time for Charlestown to focus on its December 2 special election to pick a successor to Rippy Serra whose unexpected death created a vacancy.Rippy served as Council vice-president, was a stalwart in the Charlestown Republican Town Committee (CRTC) and a leader in the non-partisan Charlestown Residents United (CRU) that ended the long rule of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance with landslide wins in the 2022 and 2024 elections. The December 2 election features three women who will appear in the following order on the ballot. 

At the top of the ballot is Democrat Jill Fonnemann well known to patrons of the Rathskeller where she works as beverage director and has organized numerous community fund-raisers. She is endorsed by the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee (CDTC) and the CRU. Spoiler alert: Jill is also my personal choice. Second on the ballot is Laura Rom, chair of the CRTC, who wants to keep Rippy’s seat Republican. She currently serves on the town Planning Commission and chairs the Charter Revision Commission. She is endorsed by the CRTC and shares a joint endorsement from the CRU with Jill Fonnemann. In a statement, the CRU explained why it issued this unusual joint endorsement:

A Message from Charlestown Residents United (CRU)

As many in the Charlestown community know, Council Member, Rippy Serra passed away this past August.  His dedication, integrity, and commitment to serving all residents left a lasting impact, and his loss is still felt by many in our town.

As we look ahead to the upcoming election to fill this important Council seat, Charlestown Residents United (CRU) recognizes the contributions that both candidates - Laura Rom (R) and Jill Fonnemann (D) - could bring to the Council.  We believe each candidate offers valuable experience and a strong commitment to serving our community.

Consistent with our mission as a nonpartisan, community-focused organization, CRU supports both candidates equally and remains committed to a respectful, informed and inclusive process.

We hope every resident will take the time to learn about each candidate’s vision, values and priorities and vote in a way that best reflects their hopes for Charlestown.

Together, we can continue fostering respect, transparency and collaboration in our community.

Charlestown has the distinction of being governed effectively and without drama – despite the partisan rancor roiling the country – by the CRU’s bi-partisan coalition. Together, they ended the financial mismanagement, shady land deals, secrecy and cover-up that marked the 10-year reign of the CCA. Thus the dual endorsement.

The third name on the ballot is a familiar one to any resident who follows local politics, Bonnita B. Van Slyke who is endorsed by the CCA.

Van Slyke on the right. Her puppet master
Ruth Platner to the left

Van Slyke has become the CCA’s main spokesperson, delivering the script prepared for her by the CCA’s de facto leader Planning Commissar Ruth Platner.

I’ve devoted a lot of time to debunking the endless stream of false statements that came from the Platner-Van Slyke duo over the past 10 years. There are a total of 62 articles so far featuring Van Slyke. You can read them all by CLICKING HERE.

The CCA is already cranking up its propaganda machine. As usual, they seem compelled to lie, even when it is so easy to disprove them. Here’s a “whopper” (one of Van Slyke’s favorite words) in their latest piece about the CCA and Van Slyke’s greatest claim to fame:

“Reduced the tax rate to one of the lowest in Rhode Island and adopted a policy to reserve sufficient savings to protect taxpayers in the event of emergencies.

This is a two-part false claim. First, the CCA did NOT reduce the tax rate and certainly not during Van Slyke’s tenure from 2014 to 2022. Simply look at the tax rate table from Town Tax Assessor Ken Swain that shows the tax rate steadily increased when the CCA took power in 2008 and dropped dramatically when the CRU kicked them out in 2022.

The CCA took power in 2008 and
were kicked out by the CRU in the
2022 election.

While Charlestown’s tax rate is very low compared to other municipalities, property values driven by non-resident purchases, not anything the CCA did or didn’t do, that determined your property tax bottom line.

Second, the CCA policy of raising the actual taxes you pay to pad the town’s surplus fund account spawned such scandals as the $3 million that went missing (“misallocated” was the term the CCA used).

It drove a series of shady land deals where Van Slyke acted as Platner’s puppet plus a systematic cover-up campaign by CCA tool, former Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz.

Van Slyke's other recent campaign pieces are also packed with easily disproved and discredited claims as we'll be showing you over the coming weeks.

Over the month of November leading up to the December 2 special election, we’ll be covering these issues and more. 

We’ll look at why Charlestown needs Jill Fonnemann, a young, fresh new face, on the Council. 

We’ll also examine Van Slyke’s past record and current claims to see what Charlestown will get if she is returned to the Council.

Here are the ways you can vote:

You can also get an application for a mail ballot by e-mailing Town Clerk Amy Weinreich at arweinreich@charlestownri.gov. Amy turned my own request around very quickly.

Last Tuesday, November 4, record numbers of Americans turned out for off-year elections. “No Kings” translated into a Blue Wave that swept from Virginia to California sending a clear message that Americans do not want a corrupt, inept and repressive government.

We had that in Charlestown for 10 years under CCA rule. Your vote for Democrat Jill Fonnemann keeps Charlestown on a forward track for the benefit of all Charlestown’s people.

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.