Bonnita Van Slyke AND Ruth Platner should NOT be re-elected

The CCA’s Toxic Twins need to be retired from Charlestown politics

By Will Collette

Like I said, conjoined twins

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) paints itself as Charlestown’s savior and cites Town Council member Bonnita Van Slyke and Planning Commission commissar Ruth Platner as the real heroes. 

These conjoined toxic twins have been almost inseparable for the past ten years, though Platner is the dominant partner while Van Slyke’s served as Platner’s puppet.

Both are up for re-election on November 3 and hopefully both will lose their seats.

The CCA’s decade-long rule over Charlestown, ended in 2022 when they were trounced by the slate of candidates under the Charlestown Residents United (CRU), was marked by corrupt land deals, financial mismanagement, seemingly endless fake threats to the town’s existence, town government secrecy and cover-ups, and constant rancor.

Platner and her dog’s body Van Slyke were at the heart of just about all of Charlestown’s CCA-inflicted wounds.

This duo has been the driving force behind the CCA policies that voters finally repudiated in 2022. I compiled a list of articles (below, near the bottom) that gives you more detail on all the myriad reasons why the CCA, and Van Slyke and Platner in particular have been bad for Charlestown. 

I'm voting YES on Charlestown Question 7

But today, as many of you ponder early voting or mail-in ballot decisions or as you pore over contradictory mailers, here’s another reason to reject the CCA and its leaders Platner and Van Slyke.

That’s the CCA’s urgent plea to voters to reject Charlestown Question 7 which would change the staggered term of office for members of the Planning Commission from 6 years to 4. You might ask, “Who cares?”

Here’s why. Ever since Ruth Platner was named to the Planning Commission in 1997, she has campaigned to block virtually all home building in Charlestown. When she elbowed the respected late Bob Rohm out of the Planning Commission chair, she turned the Planning Commission into the place where projects go to die.

She did it by using the clock to kill projects. Now she desperately wants to maintain the six-year terms, explaining that “Long, staggered terms let the same commissioners review a large development through from start to finish” urging voters to vote NO to Charlestown Question 7. Naturally, I'm voting YES.

Platner expects commissioners to ponder development projects for as long as six years. No wonder so many projects go nowhere when the funding or investment disappears as Platner talks projects to death.

As one Planning Commission observer once told me, it’s remarkable that Platner and her Planning sidekick Frances Topping can talk for three hours straight at Commission meetings and say nothing.

Under Platner, any project applicant could look forward to years of hell and an ultimate denial, unless they acceded to Platner’s demands on matters as trivial as the color of roof shingles or switch plates on electrical outlets. It helped if the applicant made a substantial donation to one of Platner’s favored charities, such as the Charlestown Land Trust.

By 2000, Platner’s policies succeeded in causing Charlestown population to stagnate and, as she admits in the town Comprehensive Plan, even to decline, a pattern that continues today. She covered that up by cooking Census data to make the claim that growth in Charlestown actually exceeded the rest of Rhode Island, making it unfair for the state to insist the town build more affordable housing.

She cooked the data by choosing 1970 as the start date, which allowed her to use the period of 1970 to 1999 where population grew rapidly to offset the stagnant growth period of 2000 to the present brought about by her policies.

By 2023, alarm bells were sounding about Platner’s obstinate refusal to allow housing for families as reported by Alex Nunes on public radio: In Charlestown, limited progress and lots of discord on affordable housing - TPR: The Public's Radio.

We have no affordable housing for town employees, the children of existing residents or the people who come into town to work to clean our homes, mow the lawns, take out the trash, or change diapers. Those folks are expected to be out of town by sundown. Charlestown has become in the classic sense, a “Sundown Town.”

So, the Planning Commission needs six years to process an application. By sharp contrast, when Platner and Van Slyke want a project, whether its laying down tons of asphalt to build Faith LaBossiers’ ridiculous bike path in Ninigret Park or buying a piece of overpriced land from a CCA political donor or ally, they can operate at warp speed.

At last January 12’s Town Council meeting, we saw the CCA playbook for how to kill good projects.

Charlestown residents have long seen the derelict motel topping the moraine north of Route One just opposite the former Hitching Post, now Monahan's clam shack. It’s an eyesore as well as a waste of space, a tribute to the CCA’s anti-business attitudes.

Along comes the WARM Center, one of our area’s most venerable charities with a plan that would have warmed the heart of WARM’s founder, the late Rev. Jean Barry of Charlestown. (Jean and my wife Cathy served together for years on Charlestown’s Affordable Housing Commission.)

WARM wants to convert the derelict motel into affordable housing units by refurbishing the existing building, using the same footprint and making no additional demands on groundwater. They would continue helping residents with support services after they move in. By every measure, the perfect Smart Growth plan for affordable housing that even Ruth Platner should get behind.

Jean Barry’s successor Russ Partridge talked to Cathy and me about this project a few years ago and we loved it, becoming one of the first private major donors to the work.

All WARM asked for from Charlestown was a letter of support that they could use in their efforts to secure necessary state funding to make this important project happen.

Of course, Council President Deb Carney crafted such a letter and asked her colleagues to approve sending it. Given that this project really is a no-brainer on the facts and the merits, that letter should have immediately received unanimous approval.

But that’s not what happened. Council member Bonnie Van Slyke, clearly at the behest of her master Ruth Platner, raised issues with the letter of support. Van Slyke made a little speech where TWICE she voiced her support for the generic concept of affordable housing but questioned whether this project could get proper CRMC approval, implicitly challenging the competence of the WARM Center.

This is not WARM’s first rodeo – they’ve successfully carried out several major construction projects – and they know the steps that need to be done. Besides, the motion on the floor was a simple letter of support that highlighted Charlestown’s dire need for affordable housing not the details of the project.

But Van Slyke’s tactic of fogging the issue was enough to get Councilor Steve Stokes to decide to abstain even though he said he generally liked the project.

Van Slyke, despite her phony praise for affordable housing, voted NO. Deb and Craig Marr voted yes. Peter Slom recused himself and Stokes abstained. The motion to send the letter failed.

Van Slyke tried to pile on by insisting Ruth Platner be given the podium to speak to the issue, no doubt to raise even more phony issues about the project. Council President Carney slapped her down, noting that the motion had already been voted on, so discussion was over.

Under Robert’s Rules of Order, that meant that Platner needed to go back to her seat and STFU without being allowed to pile on or take a victory lap.

If you think I’m making this up, watch for yourself: here’s the LINK to the video of the meeting and the discussion starts about 90 minutes in.

But wait, there's more!

The letter of support story does have a happy end. Deb brought the letter back to the Council on January 26 where it was approved on a 3-1 vote. Van Slyke, implicitly on Platner's instructions, again voted NO to sending the letter of support for what is arguably a model for affordable housing. 

Van Slyke's claim of support for affordable housing is shown to be a lie. The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) remains unalterably opposed to affordable housing. Platner and the CCA paint this election as being about local control, but this incident shows what "local control" looks like under the CCA. More like Mississippi than Charlestown.

More reasons to oppose Platner, Van Slyke and the CCA slate

As promised, here’s that list of key reasons why you should not support the CCA and its candidates in this year’s General Election.

The CCA claims they cut Charlestown's property tax rate.
They lie. They controlled the Town Council from 2010 to 2022.
 See what happened in 2023 to the present after Charlestown
Residents United (CRU) kicked them out of office.
SOURCE: Charlestown Tax Assessor.

We’re still digging out from the CCA’s financial mess. Also click HERE to see how the new CRU Town Council started cleaning up this mess and HERE for a summary of the CCA’s financial messes.

Dirty Land Deals. Read about some of the worst – Tucker Estates, SPA-Gate, and Sawmill Pond.

They ran up the highest municipal government costs in the state: Progressive Charlestown: Charlestown has very high municipal costs, according to new report. The CRU fixed that.

They used secrecy in government to hide their incompetence

They regularly created fake emergencies to “prove” how good they were at protecting the town. For a list of those emeergencies, read THIS ARTICLE.

They favored rich, non-residents over full-time residents. Prime example: Blocking tax breaks for permanent residents

They banned residential wind power

The put out a deeply flawed and very late Comprehensive Plan: Platner submitted the plan to the state eight years late. It was full of weird ideas (e.g. Seniors should use Uber to overcome Charlestown’s lack of public transportation): Progressive Charlestown: Slyke of hand, Part 3: The Plan from Hell

The CCA consistently raised Charlestown’s tax rate, not lowered it as they claim: https://www.progressive-charlestown.com/2025/11/the-charlestown-town-council-december-2.html

CCA’s thoroughly compromised Town Administrator carried out the CCA's policies: Progressive Charlestown: CCA favorite, former Charlestown Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz leaves the second job he’s held since leaving Charlestown in 2023.

Stanky made Van Slyke, Platner and the CCA look like idiots. They rose up to attack the Charlestown Residents United (CRU) newly elected Council majority for driving out such a talented guy. 

But, in fact, Stanky had already lined up the new job months before the election and didn't tell the CCA. He stuck around and milked the town for every last day of salary. Even after the details of Stanky's exit came out, Van Slyke still stuck to her story that he had been driven out. 

In case you’re wondering where Stankiewicz is, he’s back in his hometown of Stoughton where he’s doing weird YouTube appearances like this:

That's Stanky on the left. See if you can last through this entire video. I tried a few times but just couldn't stand it.

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 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.

UPDATED: Follow the money, Charlestown campaign 2022

As usual, the CCA counts on money from out of state as well as its old supporters

By Will Collette

UPDATE: I added an excerpt of the financial disclosure for Trumplican candidate Westin Place who is running for state Senate District 38. He admits he is in debt to the IRS for unpaid federal taxes. See below. - W. Collette

In case you were wondering where Uncle Fluffy Tom Gentz ended up, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance campaign finance reports tell us. Our former Town Council Boss sent the CCA $500 from his retirement home in Sunset City, Arizona. 

Another CCA regular, Peter Hernstein is now in Fountain Hills, AZ and he sent in his check for $100. Former CCA leader and co-founder Kate Waterman sent in her $500 from Connecticut. Nothing from Deputy Dan Slattery wherever he may be (maybe he’s on undercover assignment for the CIA).

As I read through the CCA’s report for the quarter going from July 1 to October, aside from the out-of-state money, I was amazed at how much the CCA took in from its candidates, past and present, various ward-heelers as well as prominent players in many of the CCA’s controversial land deals. Very little money came from newcomers.

People who stood to gain from the aborted Y-Gate Scandal are still giving, including Joanne D’Alcomo of Boston ($300) and Russ Ricci ($250). 

So are Sachem Passage Association folks who benefited from the town’s $2.1 million bailout of their botched resistance to the Whalerock wind turbine project (we bought the land where the turbines were to be built). 

Later on, the SPA tried it again, attempting to get Charlestown to take a bug-infested parcel off their hands for many times its assessed value – we dubbed that one “SPA-Gate.”   

In addition to Peter Hernstein, listed above, the CCA received $100 donations from SPA members Donna Chambers (seeking another term on the Chariho School Committee), Town Councilor Susan Cooper (SPA Trustee for the duration of Spa-Gate), and first-time donor John Kaptinski (SPA founding father), presumably holding out hope that Attorney Cooper can somehow engineer one last CCA bailout for the SPA should she be re-elected.         

Conspicuously absent is SPA El Presidente Ron Areglado, who “managed” the campaign against Whalerock and the bait-and-switch SPA-Gate scam, although his moneyman in both scams, Joseph Quadrato, coughed up $150 to reserve a slot in future CCA cash & carry do-overs.

Arnolda is well represented with donors but oddly, Councilor Bonnita Van Slyke donated nothing. She is not running for re-election, as she is trying to sell her Arnolda estate on the pond for $2.4 million to someone who will develop the land into “your own palatial coastal retreat.” 

Not only did Van Slyke stiff the CCA party, but she actually took $535.72 reimbursement for mailing expenses rather than make it an in-kind donation. 

In past years, the CCA attempted to hide the high level of out-of-state donations by reporting their absentee donors not at their actual addresses, but at their Charlestown vacation homes. 

They only did that once in this election cycle (so far), listing $1000 donor Robert Thavenius at 10 Dudley Lane when his mailing address is listed on the Charlestown Tax Assessor database as Avon, Connecticut. His family owns two properties in Charlestown assessed at $5,071,700.

In sum, the CCA began the campaign season with $7,911.24 and raised another $8,750 for a total campaign war chest of $16,701. Of that, they have spent $9,790 so far, most of it to produce and mail those laughable 6-page, trifold, fine-print graphic novels they’ve mailed to everyone – twice.

Though the CCA seems to be incapable of competently managing Charlestown’s money, they seem to have a good handle on their own cash. 

You can look up campaign finance reports for any candidate on the Board of Elections website HERE. If you enter “Charlestown,” you can see the files for anyone who has run for office from Charlestown going back to when the BOE set up the database. You can also enter a person’s name. 

I think campaign finance reports tell you more about a candidate than any other piece of information. For example, Trumplican Westin Place of Westerly is running for Senate 38 against Charlestown’s Victoria Gu (D) and former Republican Caswell Cooke of Westerly. 

Westin Place started out as a joke candidate, but his prospects came alive when the state GOP did some fund-raisers for him. In last quarter’s financial report, Place says he took in $2,100 from people he can’t identify. He also took major donations from big GOP donors statewide. In his last filing before the election, the only named donor is Gunowners PAC who gave him $200. 

One reason I didn't take Place seriously is that he was late in filing his organization report with the BOE and thus missed the cut-off to file a quarterly report. However, he did file his ethics disclosure statement with the Ethics Commission where he made this disclosure:

It's not a very good look for a candidate for state Senate to start campaigning while showing unpaid federal taxes.

A remarkable amount of money gets spent on political campaigns. It’s only loosely regulated and only occasionally do offenses get caught, like Charlestown’s Sen. Elaine Morgan who ripped off her campaign account to pay for personal expenses. Though she admitted the offenses, she threw her recently deceased husband under the bus by blaming him for her misdeeds. 

She got off with a fine, but I hope the voters will take this into account when they decide whether to re-elect her or replace her with her fine challenger, Charlestown’s Jennifer Douglas (D).

PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU VOTE: What you need to know about Charlestown politics

What is the Charlestown Citizens Alliance?

By Will Collette

Over the past 12 years, I have written and updated versions of this review of Charlestown's ruling party, the CCA - the Charlestown Citizens Alliance. It's a very different version of events than what you will get from the graphic novel the CCA has been sending to your mailbox.

This edition was written last July but if ever there was a time to read (or re-read it), that time is now as they once again, ask voters to renew their rule over the town.  

Tom Ferrio and I launched Progressive Charlestown in December 2010, a month where we drew 106 readers. 

After 12 years and 5.64 million pageviews (an average of 35,000 a month), I sometimes forget that our local readers might not closely follow Charlestown’s political adventures or know the history. This article is the first of a series aimed at giving readers more context in this important election year.

Let’s start with the town's long-time rulers, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) who seek to continue their reign by winning the November election.

In March 2008, the CCA officially formed as a political action committee (PAC) with Dan Slattery as President. Their purpose was Jim Mageau’s ouster from the Town Council (more on Jim, below), painting themselves as the epitome of civility, even though they started out by running a smear campaign against then Council President John Craig that actually drove him out of town.

The CCA achieved the goal of ousting Mageau with a powerful showing in the 2008 election. Mageau ended up as the lowest vote-getter with only 102 votes (4.3%).

However, the CCA became dissatisfied with its own elected Council members because they failed to follow orders from the CCA’s secret and mysterious Steering Committee. The Steering Committee list has not been updated in several years and includes at least one member who is dead. You cannot join the CCA nor are its meetings posted or public even though that’s where every important town decision is made.

So in 2010, the CCA purged their own Council members and replaced them with two of their most doctrinaire leaders, Tom Gentz and Dan Slattery.

With Ruth Platner commanding the Planning Commission (the only elected planning commission in the state, arguably illegal in composition), their conquest was complete. The CCA has controlled all the levers of power in Charlestown for the past 12 years.

Thank you, Jim, for launching the CCA

James Mageau (Jim) 👉has been a fixture in Charlestown politics since the world was young. Irascible, obnoxious, and litigious. Often called a bully, Jim has probably pissed off more people in Charlestown that I could ever dream of doing. At least, I think so.

Mageau made his reputation through filing tons of lawsuits, complaints and rumors about conspiracies and corruption by everyone else in town but himself. He also liked to get in people’s faces to scream and curse them out. Mageau, for no particular reason, cursed out my wife Cathy when they first met.

Years ago, Jim told me he was a “Scoop Jackson” Democrat, i.e. a DINO who is conservative on just about all issues.

By an odd sequence of events, he not only got himself elected in 2006 to the Town Council but through a string of resignations (including John Craig, noted above) landed in the Council President’s Chair. That was simply too much for most Charlestown residents (myself included). Local Democrats couldn’t stand him and resigned en masse rather than serve on the Democratic Town Committee with him.

Mageau lost his 2010 bid for re-election with the lowest vote total of any candidate and CCA-endorsed candidates won a majority on the Council.

Mageau tried for a comeback a couple of times after his defeat, but clearly had lost his voter appeal. After many years of absence from the ballot, Mageau filed a Declaration of Candidacy for Town Council this year and has qualified for this year’s General Election as an “independent.” 

Though Mageau was once nominally a Democrat, he became Donald Trump’s most vocal supporter in Charlestown. However, even though he's a Trumplican, local Republicans didn’t want him either.

Looking back at history

Though Jim Mageau was the Charlestown Citizens Alliance's causus belli, the CCA’s true roots are in the old founding families of Charlestown. They ran large plantations on land stolen from the Narragansett Indian Tribe using slave labor, mostly African but also some Narragansett who were captured after the Great Swamp Massacre in 1675.

Over time, especially after World War II, rich transplants seeking cheap land for big houses on the ocean joined Charlestown’s “high society.”

In nearby Shelter Harbor, a group of wealthy men formed the RI Shoreline Coalition (RISC) in 2003 to protect their fake fire district and guarantee the ability of non-residents to vote in fire district elections. They actually wanted voting rights to be based on property ownership, not residence.

For most of its life, the Coalition was headquartered in Charlestown. The Shoreline Coalition morphed into the Statewide Coalition and then into “Rhode Island Taxpayers.” But in 2016, it died, largely due to the 2014 death of its founder Harry Staley.

However, you can find lots of DNA traces showing the kinship between the CCA and the Shoreline Coalition.

Besides DNA, the CCA also carries on its parent’s values: favoritism toward rich absentee landowners, hatred of the Narragansetts and a general desire to block families and people of color from moving in.

Yes, the CCA will do anything to preserve Charlestown’s “rural character” though that term has never been defined. In practice, rural character is code for the CCA's effort to wall off Charlestown against “outsiders” most especially “People from Providence.”

Money, money, money

Photo by Steve Ahlquist

Charlestown is no different than the rest of America where money generally determines election results. Out-going state Rep. Blake “Flip” Filippi 👉beat much respected Rep. Donna Walsh (D) in 2014 because he is a wealthy man. His wealth scared off opponents for eight years.

Despite a complete lack of achievements, bizarre policy positions and questionable honesty, Flip was unopposed until this year and remained beloved by the CCA until he decided to quit.

This year, a credible candidate, Democrat Tina Spears, rose to challenge him so Flip pulled a Josh Hawley and flipped out of the race.

The CCA historically has always out-raised all competitors, holding on to power by using its paid propaganda to win over voters who normally don’t pay much attention to local politics. That's been going on again this year - WC.

Over the years, most of the CCA’s funding has come either from out of state or from neighborhoods that have become CCA territory. Ditto this year- WC.

Case in point: the Sachem Passage Association (SPA). Current CCA Town Council member Susan Cooper had claimed she was a “trustee” for the Sachem Passage Association on her filings with the RI Ethics Commission but has dropped that claim this year.

Other CCA donor bases include Quonnie and Arnolda.

In recent years, the CCA has used open space purchases to expand its political donor base. Buying land at the behest of a neighborhood filled with potential donors has paid off for the CCA, starting with the 2011 “Y-Gate scandal,” the first CCA land scam after they took control of the town.

The CCA locked in the devoted support of many Sachem Passage Association residents by spending $2.1 million in taxpayer money to block the Whalerock wind turbine proposal by buying the land out from under it.

The CCA rarely does fund-raising except in the last half of each election year. That’s when the money comes pouring in. I expect to see the first influx of big campaign bucks to show on the campaign finance report due to be filed on August 1.

Susan Cooper, a retired lawyer, is the only CCA Councilor seeking re-election. The rest of the CCA slate are primarily active or retired businesspeople with little experience in government but lots of experience making money.

What does the CCA really stand for?

You can read the CCA’s platform even though it’s largely a work of fiction due to glaring omissions but it’s a good place to start.

My quick take is the CCA stands for controlling the land, protecting the wealthy, fighting the Narragansett Indian Tribe, and turning Charlestown into a sparsely populated gated community for people like themselves.

You should also read the town’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan that was largely written by CCA leader and Planning Commissar Ruth Platner 👉.

In it, you will see that the CCA opposes affordable housing, public transportation, Narragansett sovereign rights, business development except for tourism and services, and most green energy development while wanting everyone to ride a bike, plant shrubbery and support Platner’s goal of buying every acre she can to be set aside as open space. You can read this for yourselves in the CCA's 6-page mailers.

The CCA also has enacted numerous ordinances that attempt to micro-manage every business and residence in town. We have ordinances governing trees and shrubbery, light, the color of switch plates on electrical outlets, signs, mulch, etc. 

Most ordinances are “complaint-driven” meaning nothing happens without a complaint. That often feeds neighbor vs. neighbor feuds. Many town ordinances are unenforceable or enforced selectively, often ignoring some of the most obnoxious offenses.

Couple of examples: loud motorcycles and large illegal fireworks. Both are illegal and a public health and safety hazard, yet where is the enforcement?

Above all, the CCA stands for “rural character” as if all Charlestown residents have pick-ups with rifle racks, fly rebel flags and count on free care at Arrowhead Dental to save the last few teeth in their heads.

What you won’t find in their own self-description are these key parts of the CCA philosophy:

Larisa dismisses tribal sovereignty

Institutional racism. 

The CCA supports a perpetual war with the Narragansett Indian Tribe paying a $25,000 retainer to attorney Joe Larisa to monitor the Tribe and block any action the Tribe might take to better itself. It is the CCA’s position that the Tribe may do nothing on their own land without the town’s approval.

The CCA is also committed to “rural character” which, in practice, means no new housing that might attract “People from Providence,” working class families with children or any establishment that doesn’t meet the CCA’s undefined idea of “rural character,” although I think they might be using the antebellum South as their role model.

Reducing the town population. 

The CCA has an allergy to any housing that might increase the population.

To that end, the CCA seeks to buy up all the private land it can, regardless of the price. If you take the pattern the CCA has set over the past 10 years and extend it into the future, Charlestown north of one will consist primarily of government-owned open space and landowners with large tracts of land. South of One will be dominated by large and expensive waterfront homes occupied by wealthy retirees or owned by wealthy summer people.

Their latest ploy, their proposed “conservation development” ordinance, aims to give the Planning Commission more power to block new housing. How? By creating conditions that are so onerous and difficult that no one will seek to apply for a permit.

The CCA would be comfortable with a return to the 1700s version of “rural character” with large farms worked by compliant labor and large manor houses for the landed gentry.

Closed government, shady deals, rampant secrecy and rigged rules.

Charlestown has made it a struggle to gain access to public records. Our Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz seemed more devoted to finding loopholes in the law to deny access to information under the Access to Public Records Act, drawing a rebuke from the Attorney’s General’s Office.

The CCA-Three, their Council majority, have bent and twisted the rules of procedure and common courtesy to the point where getting an item on the agenda is a struggle unless you are a CCA member. The three are: Bonnita Van Slyke, Cody Clarkin, and Susan Cooper. Only Cooper is running for re-election. Clarkin doesn’t even reside in Charlestown anymore, making him ineligible to serve.👇

Last July the CCA-3 voted down a resolution that affirmed the right of all Council members to be able to place items on the Council agenda, a key part of their responsibilities as Council members.

Here's what they voted down: 

The CCA-3 also ramrodded approval for filing a $400,000 open space grant application with the state without revealing where the land is, what it comprised, the asking price and who owned it. A normal piece of business for an out-of-control CCA.

Part of the CCA creed is to follow the dictates of Trump mentor Roy Cohn to “Never admit, never apologize, always attack.” Even when caught in a lie, such as Ruth Platner’s recent Charlestown Choo-Choo Hoax, they will profess their good intentions and innocence. Or say nothing at all.

The Prime Directive

Ever since the CCA’s 2010 internal purge of CCA-endorsed Council members who were not following orders, the CCA has made it clear that anyone running for office under their auspices MUST obey all the CCA decrees. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s their published platform, or the values expressed in their actions, spoken at secret Steering Committee meetings, or whispered in their ears by Ruth Platner

It doesn’t matter if it’s unconstitutional or illegal or simply doesn’t make sense. 

Conform or die as the 2008-10 CCA Council majority learned. The 2010 purge occurred when several CCA Councilors supported construction of the Whalerock wind farm. 

To them, it had merit and besides, CCA leader Tom Gentz had made a big presentation to the Council in support of wind energy, citing a CCA-conducted poll showing overwhelming public support for wind power. That poll was purged from the CCA website, but not before I reproduced the results HERE). Gentz was a big backer of a test turbine called “the Met Tower” in Ninigret Park, the precursor of a large municipal turbine in the Park that never happened.

Here's Dan Slattery delivering anonymous
anti-wind power leaflets in Sachem Passage

What these hapless CCA Councilors didn’t know was that Tom Gentz and Deputy Dan Slattery were canvassing the Sachem Passage neighborhood AGAINST the wind project. 

As my colleague Robert Yarnall documented, this effort by two CCA top leaders to subvert the CCA’s public support for wind power was done largely to win the support – financial and electoral - from the Sachem Passage neighborhood for the CCA.

It was like a page out of 1984 as the CCA did a 180 degree turn from loving wind power to absolutely hating it. Now, our current wind power ordinance makes it impossible for any Charlestown resident to install even the smallest residential wind energy device. Pure Doublespeak!

Those Councilors the CCA elected in 2008 were effectively excommunicated. This sent a message to all future CCA candidates: Obey or we will kill you.

The CCA also purged each town Board and Commission of people they deemed unfriendly to the CCA’s spoken and unspoken goals. 

They systematically placed their own loyalists onto these commissions, whether they were qualified or not, often passing over far more qualified volunteers whose only fault was a lack of professed homage to the CCA.

The CCA purged Charlestown’s Town Administrator Bill DiLibero over an astounding fake issue over who actually controls Ninigret Park. 

DiLibero and his Parks and Recreation director Jay Primiano (who was also purged) favored more active recreation in the Park, while the CCA won the undying support of the wealthy Arnolda neighborhood by fighting against anything other than passive (and quiet) use of the park.

One of them actually argued that children playing in the park kill birds. How? Citing an imaginary study, when children make noise, migratory birds fly away never to return, preferring to die at sea rather than tolerate the kids. I tried to find this so-called science and failed. If you have better luck, let me know.

The one exception to the CCA's aversion to active recreation was the construction of Faith’s Folly, an asphalt path in the Park for bikes and walking that no one uses.

CCA founding member Faith Labossiere really wanted this pathway and told the Council it would only cost $7,000 and would be very nice. Except the final cost was $266,927, a 4,000% overrun and used tons of asphalt, a material Planning Commission Ruth Platner has virtually banned for any other use.

But the land deals, the favoritism, the “pay-to-play” have been the CCA’s primary accomplishments since 2010. Personally, I believe the CCA may be just one more shady land deal away from a grand jury.