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:

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?

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.

Good news story in Charlestown: Saving Bambi's Mom

Today, Charlestown first responders and DEM team up to rescue doe who fell through Pasquiset Pond ice

By Will Collette

Safe and sound

First, my congratulations and thanks to Charlestown Fire, Ambulance & Rescue, Police and DEM for their brave and heart-warming rescue of a young doe who fell through the ice and faced certain death without their intervention.

This event made me reflect on how often local news stories feature political squabbles, fires, car crashes, murder and mayhem. 

This story does NOT feature an attack from CCA spokes-troll Bonnie Van Slyke on Town Council President Deb Carney for not having the town buy up all the land around Pasquiset Pond as open space. 

The story does NOT feature complaints from Jim Mageau that the Charlestown Home Rule Charter doesn't authorize the town to use taxpayer resources to rescue the deer. 

It does NOT end with a report on first responders taking the deer up to the Nordic Lodge for an all-you-can-eat venison buffet.

This story is about a kind act, bravery especially by the personnel who went out on thin ice, and great teamwork with a happy ending for that doe. 

The Charlestown Police also had this message for residents:

While we are happy we were able to assist with rescuing this deer from the ice, this is a reminder that ponds and lakes in town are not safe to be on. This cold winter has frozen several ponds and lakes that have not frozen over in years, but they are still not safe for human weight. Do not go out on any bodies of water and risk your safety and the safety of the 1st Responders who would have to come rescue you.

Please see the below link for more information and safety tips from RI DEM.

https://riparks.ri.gov/.../outdoor.../winter-safety-tips

Let's close with a look at some shots of the rescue getting under way:

The politics of Charlestown open space

Is there ever enough?

By Will Collette

Let’s face it: the only thing the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) is offering Charlestown voters in 2024 is their zeal to buy up more land for open space, no matter the need, no matter the price.

CCA Town Council candidate Ruth Platner, who has run the Charlestown Planning Commission for years since elbowing out Bob Rohm as chair, makes her case that this is the CCA imperative. Read HERE if you doubt what I’m saying.

Like most Charlestown residents, Cathy and I love our open space, starting with our own 5 acres of trees and meadow. More than 60% of Charlestown’s land area is already protected space. The official list includes:

•        Town owned land,
•        Narragansett Tribal lands,
•        Federal land, especially National Wildlife Refuge,
•        State land, especially Burlingame Park and Charlestown Beach,
•        Land held by non-profits (e.g. Nature Conservancy and Charlestown Land Trust), and
•        Privately owned land protected under conservation easements or the Farm, Forest and Open Space Program.

These properties comprise more than 60% of Charlestown's dry land and that's according to the town's Comprehensive Plan that was written by Platner herself. See this map ↓ that was included in the Plan's narrative.

Unofficially, there’s a lot more unused open space when owners of 2 acres or more leave the land natural. For example, we use only a quarter-acre of our five acres.

Platner complains about those of us who question whether we can have too much of a good thing and should make more strategic decisions about acquiring more open space. According to Platner:

“Our opposition in this year’s election is claiming that we have too much open space, that we shouldn’t acquire more, and that land preservation is competing with development and causing residential growth to be too slow. The data do not support their claims.”

Except that data does indeed support those claims. Ironically, that data includes those used by Platner herself. For example, she opens her statement by citing a 2016 consultants’ report that projected a tripling of the town’s population unless more land was preserved.

Tortured data

Charlestown’s population flat-lined starting in 2000, more than a decade before Platner went on her open space buying spree.

The only time our population triples is during the summer when the tourists and part-time residents swell the population from under 8,000 to around 30,000. For our three-month tourism economy, we must maintain – and pay for - a year-round municipal infrastructure that can handle that influx.

Tourism, the only form of economic activity the CCA supports, is fine while it lasts at least for those in the tourism business, but it is expensive for the rest of us. 

In addition to the infrastructure costs, summer workers who can’t afford to live here must drive in since the CCA has steadfastly resisted RIPTA extending into town. They earn low wages with no benefits, and many survive on public assistance programs.

I would like to see an impartial study done to determine whether tourism brings in enough revenue to cover its costs.

Platner cherry-picked numbers to
"prove" her theory. By using 1970 as her
starting point, she misrepresents
Charlestown population "growth"

Last March, Platner offered up some truly tortured mathematics. In an article titled Charlestown Has Grown 11 Times Faster Than The State Yet The State Says We Must Grow Faster. In it, Platner gives a master class in how to cherry-pick numbers to prove an untrue theory.

Platner's disciple, CCA Council hopeful Bonnita Van Slyke tries to copy her mentor in a letter to the editor of the Sun where she tries to use Auditor General data to argue that the CCA didn't mess up town finances, raise taxes and let expenses run amok - except that's what the CCA did. CLICK HERE to see what the Auditor General really said and then judge whether Van Slyke can be trusted to another Council term.

Platner’s manipulation of data in this article rivals her all-time classic thesis, a mathematical formula she concocted to “prove” that families with children are parasites feeding off taxpayers. Think I’m making this up? CLICK HERE.

One of things I love about Ruth Platner is that when she lies, her own past writing often offers the best rebuttal.

Here’s what Platner wrote in Charlestown’s Comprehensive Plan that contradicts her current arguments:

"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…”. 

As I wrote in my March article on Platner mathematics, “Let’s put a stop torture in Charlestown:”

“Rather than responding to “the need for low and moderate-income units,” Platner as head of the Planning Commission and the Charlestown Citizens Alliance and its precursors clamped down on housing in general but especially new affordable housing. 

“This led to this situation described by Ruthie herself in her article:”

“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."

Let’s remember Platner’s latest declaration is that “Open Space Is Not A Threat To Population Growth” even though she details in her article that the CCA has been dedicated to buying more open space and admits in the Comprehensive Plan that we need more housing for seniors and families but aren’t building it. 

AND she admits almost all new housing has been bought up by outsiders for vacation homes.

She also catalogs some, but not all, of the properties that the CCA acquired, or tried to acquire, for open space using either town money or town money plus some state bond funds (state money is still all OUR money). Let's take a look at several of the most recent.

Dirty deals but not dirt cheap

Platner’s land deals usually share these features:

•       Sales price is often far higher than tax assessment
•       Appraisals are often based on improbable conditions, usually with the appraiser noting that factors used in the appraisal are fictional
•       Seller often has some political connection to the CCA
•       Deal is cloaked in secrecy where documents are blacked out or simply withheld

Platner flags one failed transaction to mount a personal attack on Town Council President Deb Carney (D/CRU):

“We also received a $400,000 Natural Heritage Grant to purchase the 100-acre Saw Mill Pond Watershed, but that purchase was blocked by Councilor Carney [emphasis added].”

So Deb is bad for not liking this deal. Except there’s a lot more about this deal that Platner leaves out.

Let’s start with the fact that Platner, aided by her Council puppet, aforementioned Bonnita Van Slyke, insisted that the owner, property location and the proposed sale price be kept secret from the public while the town applied to the state for matching funds in October 2021.

DEM awarded Charlestown the $400,000 grant referred to by Platner in March 2022 but still did not reveal the owner, location or actual sales price.

When we finally got all the details, we learned it was the Richard Family property, already on the town tax rolls since at least 2010 as tax-advantaged open space, zoned "R40 Open Space," assessed by the town at $312.800. Platner wanted to spend at least $800,000 for a property that was already open space and worth less than half the assessed value.

And it’s all Deb’s fault, right? Well, in my opinion, congratulations to Deb and to late Councilor Grace Klinger for opposing this rip-off.

But in a twist, the real reason Platner didn’t get her way because one of the CCA Council members Cody Clarkin insisted on recusing himself - his mom owned property abutting the Richard Family land. That denied Ruthie her usual 3-2 margin. She doesn’t mention Cody’s rare display of ethics in her slander against Deb.

So many of Charlestown’s land scandals originated in the elected Planning Commission under Platner’s rule. 

For example, Platner and her stooge Town Plan Jane Weidman tried to buy a piece of property from CCA affiliate group, the Sachem Passage Association (SPA), and even secured a DEM grant for part of the cost.

The SPA wanted to sell the vacant lot they had obtained at no cost to the town for $426,000, a stark contrast to the fair market valuation of $61,900 on file at the Charlestown Tax Assessor’s office. 

Weidman was warned by Charlestown Tax Assessor Ken Swain that the property was wildly overpriced, but Weidman pushed the grant forward using an appraisal that contained this warning:

The SPA-Gate deal was good to go as far as Platner and the CCA were concerned. However, there was a catch in DEM's grant award: there had to be another appraisal, this time WITHOUT "extraordinary assumptions" or "hypothetical conditions." 

That appraisal gave the property a generous value of $75,000, not the $426,000 SPA and the CCA wanted. SPA leader Ron Areglado turned down the new, honest amount of $75,000 and this dirty deal died.

Then there's Tucker Estates, another Platner "triumph" where she and former and wannabe future CCA Council member Bonnita Van Slyke worked a deal for the town and the state to pay Brian Lind $900,000 for a piece of property only worth $333,600 according to the tax assessor.

To get to that $900,000 asking price, Platner had Planner Jane Weidman force the appraiser to re-do his appraisal until he got a number that met the seller's demand. 

Even using the bogus assumption that 22 units of housing could be built on the property, the town's appraiser's first appraisal was $660,000. Pushed by Platner and Weidman, he did a second appraisal but could only bring it up to $725,000. No matter how hard Weidman pushed and how much he tortured the numbers, he couldn't get it up to $900,000.

Owner Brian Lind wasn't satisfied with those numbers and commissioned his own appraisal. To no one's surprise, his appraiser came up with $915,000 which Lind, out of the kindness of his heart, rounded down to $900,000.

Somehow, Platner and Weidman convinced DEM to accept this bloated appraisal and Bonnie Van Slyke heralded it as a great triumph. 

That's not what I would call it. Us Charlestown taxpayers paid $500,000 directly with state taxpayers paying the $400,000 - $900,000 for a property assessed at $333,600.

Any or all of these deals could have gone to a grand jury since each involved deliberate deception in applying for and receiving state funds.

These are just the recent deals from just before the CCA was ousted from power by voters in the 2022 election. One of the first stories Tom Ferrio and I covered in Progressive Charlestown was one of Ruthie's first dirty deals, the 2001 "Y-Gate" scandal.

No to Platner, no to Van Slyke and yes to CRU's Planning Commission candidates

We need change on the Planning Commission.
Please support these candidates endorsed by
Charlestown Residents United (CRU)

Platner, for unstated reasons, is no longer running for Planning Commission but instead wants to go on the Town Council. I suppose she figures that would allow her to control both the Council AND Planning, but only if voters forget her record and elect her.

Van Slyke has done nothing to earn your vote.

Voters cannot do that. Only by giving the Charlestown Residents United (CRU) majority a second term in office can we curb the CCA’s land lust. Plus, we need change on the Planning Commission itself and I urge you to support the CRU candidates for Planning.

There must be a balance between our farms, forests and open space and meeting the needs Platner herself admits Charlestown has for housing for seniors, workers and families. I urge you to cast your mail-in, early or in-person votes for the CRU on or before November 5.