A new angle on an old CCA lie

Platner pans progress

By Will Collette

Charlestown Planning Commissar Ruth Platner, leader of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA), has put out a new version of an old CCA lie, claiming that Charlestown is being treated unfairly because the state will not allow the town to ignore the law.

In Platner’s latest screed against the state for wanting Charlestown allow more homes to be built for average families, she headlines the issue this way: New State Plan, Housing 2030, Mandates Rural Towns Grow At A Faster Rate Than Urban Areas.

She's referring to Housing 2030, Gov. Dan McKee’s attempt to appear proactive about Rhode Island’s affordable housing crisis. His plan has been mainly seen as too little, too late but to Platner, it seems like an existential threat. Why? Because it singles out rural towns, particularly Charlestown, as most in need of new housing, more so than the cities.

Duh. Of course rural towns need to do more because over the past 25+ years, they’ve done less.

In her new CCA blog article, Platner continues to try to manipulate data to make her case that Charlestown is being treated unfairly. This is far from the first time that Platner has followed the adage the “if you torture statistics enough, you can make them say anything.”

In March 2024, she attempted a particularly obnoxious approach using census data to “prove” her thesis that “Charlestown has grown 11 times faster than the state.” Her point was that the state wanted Charlestown to grow even faster and really, enough is enough.

Except Platner cooked the census numbers. Using 50 years of data, she arrived at the 11 times number. But all of Charlestown’s growth was pre-2000. In this century, Charlestown’s growth has flatlined as Platner admitted in the Charlestown Comprehensive Plan:

"The Town of Charlestown experienced rapid population growth in the last decade of the 20th century, moving from 6,478 residents in 1990 to 7,859 in 2000, a change of 1,381 residents or 21.3%. 

Since 2000, however, population growth has declined or been flat, as is shown in the above table (See Plan, page 10-2, Table HC-1) showing an estimated town population of 7,772 in 2015 (a decline of 87 residents or 1.1%). Population projections provided by the RI Office of Statewide Planning show a return to a growth trend, with a population of 9,329 by 2040. 

This represents a 20% increase between 2015 and 2040. However, this level of growth is not likely to be realized given recent trends, the ageing [SIC] of the local populace and expected modest declines in average household size. While the actual numbers are likely to be considerably less, these projections will be utilized in this chapter for estimating housing growth, and the need for low and moderate-income units relating to the state’s 10% threshold…”. 

Since 2000 and certainly since Platner rose to become Planning Commissar, the most powerful politician in Charlestown, the town has devolved into a gated senior citizens’ enclave as Platner and the CCA blocked new housing for working families.

Here's a Charlestown house that just sold to a Connecticut couple.
It was assessed at $1,060,000 and sold for $1,300,000.
(Charlestown Tax Assessor)

Here’s what Platner herself wrote about Charlestown housing under her dominion:

“From 2010 to 2023, 357 new homes were built in Charlestown. However, those 357 new dwellings barely register in the census data as many are consumed for non-resident use. An additional 54 new house lots were approved in 2023 and have not been built yet; the majority are likely to be second homes."

She made an even blunter assessment in a CCA blog article:

“The supply of affluent people willing to pay high prices for homes and short or long-term rentals will consume any increase in housing production.”

Currently, the best many low and moderate income
buyers can hope for in Charlestown is a campsite
at Burlingame Park (DEM photo)

Even though Charlestown’s overall population may not increase by much, Platner admits town demographics are changing. This is what she wrote in the Comprehensive Plan:

While median age will trend upward and the segment of the population over age 60 will continue to grow, other general population characteristics should remain steady or change in modest form. 

“This trend may suggest a greater need for housing designed for and more suited to elderly occupancy and needs, including elderly rental, single-story accessible designs, smaller unit footprints and limits on bedrooms. Location wise [SIC] such housing should consider issues of service availability, ease of access and walkability. Entry level family housing, both homeownership and rental, will remain a need over the timeframe of this plan."

Those 8,000 of us who make Charlestown our home understand the status quo that Ruth Platner created and desperately seeks to maintain. 

Contrary to Platner's claims, Charlestown experienced massive population growth each and every year. 

EcoRI photo by Frank Carini

During June, July and August, our population jets up to 30,000. We pay for an infrastructure year-round to serve those 30,000. We put up with their trash, bad driving and the inflationary effects their property purchases place on Charlestown real estate.

This morning's Providence Journal carried a deep dig analysis - spread over several articles - of housing sales statewide over the past five years. The first piece is entitled "Out-of-state buyers are purchasing more RI homes. Is that a good thing or bad thing?"

The ProJo confirms that we're not imagining the influx of out of state buyers. They also bluntly note that they buy here because we're cheaper than where they live, plus they can and do out-bid local residents.

They provide more detail in a second piece, "RIers can't compete with out-of-state home buyers. Why building more is the only way out." Their data analysis and conclusions directly contradict the CCA's and Ruth Platner's stance on housing. 

There are two more articles that focus primarily on high-end property, of the type that have been selling for enormous prices in Charlestown and the demographics of the new buyers. These articles are entitled Where are out-of-state home buyers coming from, and what brings them to Rhode Island? and Out-of-state buyers snap up nearly half of RI homes over $1 million. Where they're going. 

Finally they rank Charlestown 4th among RI municipalities for non-resident buyers behind only Block Island, Little Compton and Newport. 

Another recent sale of a Charlestown property to a Connecticut couple.
This house was assessed at $2,415,400 and was bought at $2,850,000

These five reports back up findings that non-resident buyers are driving up housing prices and forcing potential first-time and low-income buyers out of the market. Legally, they can't be stopped. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibits state and local interference with interstate commerce. And we can't outbid them.

The ProJo's main conclusion is: RIers can't compete with out-of-state home buyers. Why building more is the only way out. This is the point where Ruth Platner's head explodes. The ProJo collection of articles and research eviscerates the arguments she and the CCA have promoted since the millennium. I look forward to her counterpoint to the Providence Journal.

Platner thinks the solution to Charlestown’s problems is to accept the swarms of absentee property owners and summer people while restricting housing for everyone else, young or old. And she’ll continue to search for ways to rationalize that approach.

If you’ve followed Progressive Charlestown’s coverage of the many times Platner and the CCA have made different and contradictory claims, you’ll notice a pattern. When Platner produces an official document that will be fact-checked prior to state or federal approval, or is subject to perjury, she keeps the bullshit to a minimum.

But when she writes (or ghost-writes) campaign material or propaganda for the CCA blog, anything goes.

For me as a political writer, it’s a lot easier to debate a politician’s claims by using their own words. When Ruth the politician makes a claim, often about housing or open space, it’s a simple matter of finding what Ruth wrote when she faced the pain and penalty of perjury because it's usually the opposite.

Two-faced politicians are a plague on our civil society. Charlestown voters made it clear in 2022 and 2024 that they are sick of lies and deception.

New budget goes to Charlestown voters on June 2

CCA chimes in on Charlestown proposed budget

By Will Collette

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deputy Dan Slattery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Platner levels charge that I did what she always does, and she doesn’t like it

Calling Sigmund Freud!

By Will Collette

Ruth Platner, left, and Bonnita Van Slyke, right

In the midst of national chaos and Constitutional crisis, it\s easy to forget that politics is also a feature of municipal life here in Charlestown. Though our local issues may seem trivial compared to King Donald and President Musk’s destruction of the fabric of our republic, those issues do get argued as passionately – if not weirdly – as Trump’s claim that we MUST take over Greenland by any means necessary.

Welcome to Charlestown political ping-pong.

The issue at hand stems from charges made by Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) spokes troll Bonnita Van Slyke that the Charlestown Residents United (CRU), which holds all five Town Council seats, committed a heinous crime against Charlestown’s established norms.

That crime was the Council’s decision to appoint Laura Rom to fill a vacancy on the Planning Commission created when CCA Commissioner Lisa St. Godard resigned her seat just days after winning reelection. 

According to Van Slyke, that seat belonged by divine right to one of the CCA people.

Except that's not true. 

As usual, Van Slyke regurgitated talking points fed to her by the CCA’s de facto leader Ruth Platner who is also Charlestown’s top Planning Commissar. According to Platner and Van Slyke, there are strictly established pecking orders for how vacancies are filled. For the Planning Commission, the sacred order is for each member to move up one slot when a vacancy occurs.

Platner and Van Slyke claim that this is what the Town Charter demands (it doesn’t) and what the Planning Commission has always done since its formation yea onto colonial times without fail.

Except that’s not true either, as I wrote in my dissection of an earlier Van Slyke-Platner treatise. During its 10-year rule over Charlestown, the CCA practiced patronage appointments over merit more often than not. 

I noted that in 2018, Platner herself broke this so-called inviolable dictum by getting herself appointed Planning Commission chair even though she finished last among an all-CCA slate. That last-place finish earned her only a second alternate position yet somehow, she jumped the line from the bottom to the top.

I also detailed more than a decade of CCA’s persistent use of the spoils system to provide patronage and political payola to their supporters and punishment for those who fail to support the CCA in general and Ruth Platner in particular. Read the article HERE to see the numerous examples.

That rubbed Platner the wrong way.

She claims that “apologists for the current Town Council” [that's me] cherry-picked the facts. She further claims that I “falsely claim that I [Platner] was not elected in 2018.”

I never said that or anything remotely like it. This is a tactic Platner has often used called setting up a “strawman argument.” Here’s the definition of a strawman argument:

A strawman fallacy or straw man argument is a rhetorical ploy that misrepresents an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack.

Obviously, it is easier for Platner to debate something I never said than to answer for the CCA’s documented history of brutal patronage policies.

Platner also claims I committed another rhetorical dirty trick – “cherry-picking.” 

I titled this article “Calling Sigmund Freud” because so much of Platner’s and Van Slyke’s writings are excellent examples of what Freud called “projection.”

Here's Psychology Today's definition:

“Projection is the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another.”

In a recent article, I detailed the extent to which Platner will go to cherry-pick facts to mold them into a false narrative. Almost a year ago, Platner widely disseminated her attack on the state’s push for more affordable housing by claiming “Charlestown Has Grown 11 Times Faster Than The State Yet The State Says We Must Grow Faster.”

Such a remarkable claim demands equally remarkable evidence which Platner offers by citing Charlestown and state population data for 1970 through 2020 that mathematically supports Platner’s claim.

US Census data. Pick 1970 as your starting point
and you get Platner's result. Pick 2000 and you get an
entirely different result. Classic cherry-picking

Platner cherry-picked the data to come up with this remarkable claim. 

However, almost all of Charlestown’s growth occurred between 1970 and 2000. That makes a difference because since 2000, Charlestown's population flatlined and even shrunk some years. 

Why? Because the CCA brought home construction, especially for affordable housing, to a screaming halt.

Platner knew exactly what she was doing because she had this to say about the same data when Platner wrote Charlestown’s Comprehensive Plan:

"The Town of Charlestown experienced rapid population growth in the last decade of the 20th century, moving from 6,478 residents in 1990 to 7,859 in 2000, a change of 1,381 residents or 21.3%. 

Since 2000, however, population growth has declined or been flat, as is shown in the above table (See Plan, page 10-2, Table HC-1) showing an estimated town population of 7,772 in 2015 (a decline of 87 residents or 1.1%). Population projections provided by the RI Office of Statewide Planning show a return to a growth trend, with a population of 9,329 by 2040. 

This represents a 20% increase between 2015 and 2040. However, this level of growth is not likely to be realized given recent trends, the ageing [SIC] of the local populace and expected modest declines in average household size. While the actual numbers are likely to be considerably less, these projections will be utilized in this chapter for estimating housing growth, and the need for low and moderate-income units relating to the state’s 10% threshold…”. 

So which Platner version is true? The claim that Charlestown's growth has dramatically outpaced the state's or the one where she correctly notes that growth came to a screeching halt 25 years ago. Both use the same data to sing two very different tunes.

Yeah, it’s tiresome to wade through the Byzantine minutiae to address such a picayune issue as Ruth Platner’s hurt feelings with so much else going on. The compulsive lying by Platner, and Van Slyke, is also pretty annoying. I've known people who didn't seem to be able to help themselves and lied even when there was need to do so.

Pathological lying is a genuine mental disorder often associated with malignant narcissists (e.g. Donald Trump). Maybe the CCA needs a resident shrink.

Some say we are living in a post-truth era where facts don’t matter. In Charlestown under CCA rule, we've been living fact-free since 2008.

I refuse to accept that. I believe we have a duty to call out politicians who lie, cheat, distort data and just simply make stuff up to push their agenda. 

The fight for truth is one that needs to be fought at every level, from the global stage to our own little Charlestown. We must each do what we can where and when we can.

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

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

By Will Collette

The CCA's 2024 campaign slogan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013-2014

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

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

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

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

2017-2019

Life-long Charlestown public servant
Frank Glista

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

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

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

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

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

He offered another example the CCA spoils system:

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

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

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

2021

Freud knew what was going on

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

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

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

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

Why raise issues that only spotlight your own malfeasance?

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

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

You can do great things, Part 2

Take up important issues the CCA ignored

By Will Collette

Remember this guy? That's Phil Armeta who did
federal jail time for organized crime, owner of the
infamous Copar quarries in Westerly and Charlestown.
Even knowing Copar's background, ex-Town Administrator
Mark Stankiewicz issued Copar a business license.

Last night, I ran Part 1 of this series that focused on taxes and finances, issues of paramount concern to Charlestown voters and prime motivators for the town's rejection of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) and the election of a Town Council comprised totally of members endorsed by Charlestown Residents United (CRU).

CCA control was also diminished on the powerful Charlestown Planning Commission, the only planning body in Rhode Island that is still elected, not appointed.

In Part 2, there are some recommendations to the new Council for further changes that they can make to enrich the lives of Charlestown residents. 

The first addresses the rhetorical question of "Why do business with criminals?" The answer is that we shouldn't so let's look at our options.

Bad Actor Policy.

The town of Charlestown does business with a lot of businesses. We buy things, hire contractors, and issue permits and licenses. When it comes to contracts and purchases, Rhode Island courts have held that municipalities are not required to strictly take the lowest bid, but rather the lowest responsible bid.

The courts have left it to the municipalities to define what “responsible” means, granting wide discretion so long as the definition is fair and reasonable, not arbitrary and capricious.

I spent much of my working life doing background research on companies and gave this subject a lot of thought. In 2022, I wrote this article: Charlestown needs a “Bad Actor” ordinance. It details the various ways “bad actors” can be defined and stopped.

For starters, I suggest the Council initiates a policy committing Charlestown to only buying from responsible vendors and contractors while developing a more comprehensive approach that can also be applied to permits and licenses.

If we had a town Bad Actor prohibition, we could have quickly blocked the Dollar Store proposal over their health and safety as well as wage and hour violations and the Copar Quarry expansion into Charlestown over its environmental violations and ties to organized crime.

Residential Wind Power.

$225 on Amazon. That's not an endorsement but
a fact that there's a big market for small wind generators.

Despite an avowed conviction to fighting climate change through lessened use of fossil fuels, Charlestown effectively bans all wind energy of any size or type.

In 2011, Charlestown overreacted to developer Larry LeBlanc’s proposal to build two industrial sized wind turbines on what is now the Charlestown Moraine Preserve. In addition to spending $2.1 million to buy the land, Charlestown also enacted a draconian anti-wind power ordinance that creates so many town regulatory hurdles as to make it impossible for homeowners and small businesses to install small wind-to-energy devices.

Read HERE to see the details.

There is no rational scientific reason to treat small home or business wind installation any differently than the town treats residential solar panels or heat pumps where the town inspector checks to make sure the work done properly.

Arrowhead's wind turbine as art

Wind power tech has advanced to the point where many residential wind installations are not only silent and efficient but even beautiful. My favorite style are the vertical axis turbines that replace the spinning blades with what looks like a top spinning on a spindle.

Some models look a lot like the art installation Dr. Bruce Gouins installed on the grounds of Arrowhead Dental. When I first saw them, I loved the design but was disappointed that they didn’t generate electricity – a missed opportunity, in my opinion. However, if they were rigged for power, they’d be illegal under Charlestown’s existing law.

The part of the ordinance on small residential or small business wind power generators needs to be repealed posthaste.

RIPTA connection.  

Charlestown is the only RI municipality (except Block Island) that isn’t on a RIPTA bus route. Buses run regularly from Providence to Westerly, South Kingstown, Narragansett and URI and loop back. 

Why not change some of those bus routes to cross over through Charlestown? For example, the South Kingstown bus could go down Route One where we could have a bus stop anywhere along the state’s highway easement, continue to Westerly and then return to Providence.

The CRU majority already made a forward step by approving $30,000 in APRA funds, supplemented by $120,000 in state funds, for senior citizen transportation. 

The main reason Charlestown doesn’t have a bus stop is that the CCA didn’t want one. Ruth Platner explicitly said so in her Charlestown Comprehensive Plan and suggested that residents without cars can just call Uber. I’m not making this up.

How can we claim we care about the dangers posed to Charlestown by climate change and fail to make it easier for residents to use public transportation? It makes no more sense than Charlestown's ban on residential wind power.

The Town Council could simply pass a resolution calling on town staff to open up discussions with RIPTA or ask Senator Gu or Representative Spears to do so on our behalf.

Dark skies campaign.

Preserving Charlestown’s dark sky was the centerpiece of the CCA’s 2024 campaign. Obviously, the voters didn’t get it although, as a lifelong amateur star gazer, I appreciate our tiny patch of sky that is relatively free of the worst light pollution.

Even though our dark skies are popular, the Charlestown public has long resisted the CCA’s approach. In 2010, Planning Commissar Ruth Platner started out wanting to swing a heavy hammer by crafting a town ordinance that would micro-regulate all Charlestown outdoor lighting. Under her early versions, if you needed to change a lightbulb in an outside fixture, you would need to replace the fixture with a new, town-approved model.

Time and again, Ruth would come back with slightly modified versions, but still unacceptable versions. She finally ended up with an ordinance that was very narrowly focused yet still unenforceable.

Cheap and easy way to
retrofit outdoor flood lights

At the time, Charlestown’s well-respected zoning officer Joe Warner said the ordinance was strictly “complaint-driven” and that he refused to go out at night and into dark back yards to see if a light violated the town ordinance.

I offered some advice at the time – unheeded by the CCA – that Charlestown would get a better result by putting together some discount deals to abate the cost of retrofitting or set up a cooperative plan like Solarize Charlestown. One-time tax credits to offset the cost of major replacement or refitting would help.

Though our dark skies will never generate the lucrative “astro-tourism” failed CCA Council candidate Sarah Fletcher promises, nonetheless, I think it’s worth protecting just for our own enjoyment. But let’s try a different approach.

Fire Joe Larisa.

Once and for all, let’s end the town’s Indian Affairs lawyer Joe Larisa’s retainer. It’s an embarrassment and a major obstacle to healing the wounds between the town and the Narragansett Indian Tribe. Read HERE for more detail on why Charlestown should end his contract. 

Besides, Larisa has one foot out the door already. According to the Providence Journal, he is one of several Republicans well known in Charlestown vying for a job with the Trump Administration in DC. Maybe as head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs?

Can you trust the CCA in Charlestown?

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

Frank Glista, Charlestown 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please support the CRU candidates:

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

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