Some context for the informed voter

A brief, recent history of open space and recreation issues in Charlestown

By Linda Felaco

We all love open space

EDITOR’S NOTE: On Monday, June 1, a small percentage of Charlestown’s voters will go to Town Hall to cast their ballots for the town budget and three important ballot questions on land use. These issues have a history that goes back a very long time, back to Charlestown's founders taking land from the Narragansett Tribe. We’ve been covering that history since we launched Progressive Charlestown five years ago. My colleague Linda Felaco has gone through our articles to look at the biggest land use fights to create a bibliography to help you educate yourself before you vote.   - wc

Land use issues are highly contentious in Charlestown. In fact you could say that pretty much every issue of any magnitude somehow involves land use. Here’s a brief rundown of some of the major open space issues that have come up in the past few years. In each of these battles, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA), the town’s ruling political party, has repeatedly demonstrated the lengths it will go to to prevent town residents from having any say over how town-owned properties are used.

Did Dan Slattery keep his 2010 campaign promises?

Why CCA’s Dan Slattery does not deserve a second Town Council term

Time to ride off into the sunset

By Will Collette

CCA Town Council Vice-President Dan Slattery has maintained a low profile over the past several months. Perhaps he is hoping that no one will remember all the chaos he has caused in Charlestown and will re-elect him. Slattery has indeed left a Sandy-like swath of destruction through Charlestown. Here’s a quick review of Slattery’s recent political career, including his one term on the Town Council.

In 2008, Slattery presided over the CCA’s first election campaign where the CCA ran five Town Council candidates against then Council President Jim Mageau. The CCA unseated Mageau through the use of vicious personal attacks against him and his running mate Bruce Picard. Earlier CCA attacks were so bad that they forced Council President John Craig to resign mid-term and move out of Charlestown.

Slattery also presided over the CCA’s 2008 endorsement of former Democrat Matt McHugh in his effort to run as an independent against Rep. Donna Walsh. McHugh told the CCA general meeting where he received their endorsement that he planned to continue his efforts to win voting rights for non-resident property owners, a cause the CCA and its big brother, the RI Statewide Coalition, have embraced.

Council President Carney debunks Ninigret Park misstatements.

Presents a run-down of the issues before Council meeting

By Deb Carney

The purpose of tonight’s [April 15] meeting is for the Town Council to discuss and take any potential action on the Ninigret Park Master Plan as drafted by VHB.

After the Council has had the opportunity to discuss the plan and ask questions of the VHB representatives, I will open the floor up to public comment. 

The Council will not take a vote on the plan until after those that wish to speak on the plan have had the opportunity to do so.

I am taking a few moments to remind everyone of proper decorum for Council meetings.  There will be no name calling, no yelling out, no booing, no jeering, no applauding. Tonight’s meeting will not be a free-for-all.  Everyone will be given the opportunity to speak without fear of being heckled or booed. 

Please be respectful of those sitting around you.  If you wish to carry on a conversation, please take it out to the hallway. 

To have a productive discussion this evening, everyone needs to be on the same page as to what the Master Plan Update is, and what it is not. 

Over the past several months, there has been much misinformation about the Ninigret Park Master Plan update posted on social media.  This misinformation campaign has created division in our town, which is unfortunate.  The Park is being used as a political tool to create confusion, concern, hostility, and discontent.

The park is supposed to be a place for all to enjoy. A place to come together as a community. Not a weapon used to divide us.

To get everyone on the same page, I need to correct some statements made online.

Contrary to what was written on social media, this is the Council’s first discussion regarding the draft plan.  The Council has not approved this plan, nor has the Council discussed implementing any of the recommendations, let alone spending over $30 million or $40 million of tax-payers money, as we have been accused of doing.

Contrary to what has been repeatedly posted online, the Council has not proposed constructing a concert/ event stadium.  We are not constructing one for 12,000 people. We are not constructing one for 14,000 people.  We are not proposing constructing any concert/ event stadium.

Contrary to what was written on social media, the Council did not remove proposed cost estimates from the plan. VHB was working on updating the cost estimates which they did, and then emailed to the town last week. 

Contrary to what was written online, the Council did not remove the letters from the end of the report, as we were accused of doing. The Council had nothing to do with the letters.  I know that not all communications were included. For example, the Chariho Cowboys Football and Cheerleading Organization submitted an online petition in support of improvements to Ninigret Park with over 59 signatures. Their petition was not included at the end of the report. The Town Council had no role in determining what was included, and what was not included.

To further clarify non-factual information posted online, I offer the following answers to questions I have been asked based on social media posts:

1.  Why is the Town Council updating the Master Plan?

The Town is required to update the Ninigret Park Master Plan every ten years, The last plan was adopted in 2008. That was sixteen years ago.  The Town is past due.

Page 77 of the draft Master Plan, which is packet page 79 this evening, includes meeting notes from July 13, 1994, with Mr. John T. Kelly, who at the time administrated the Federal Lands to Parks Program for the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.  Mr. Kelly attended a meeting with town officials.

This document from this meeting states, “The application to acquire surplus government land included a ten-year plan of Utilization.  This plan must be updated by the end of each ten-year period.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: also see minutes of a follow-up meeting on October 17, 2002 HERE. To read the original deed that conveyed Ninigret Park to Charlestown from the federal government, CLICK HERE.

I stress this, because I have been asked by multiple people, why is the Council updating the plan.  The answer is because the Town is required to do so.

2.  What happened to the 2014 Master Plan? 

A Master Plan update was drafted in 2014 but it was never approved by the Town Council.  I was not on the Town Council in 2014. I don’t know why it wasn’t approved.  But as of today, the town is not current with our obligation to update the plan.

3.  Why is the Council only looking at the 2008 and 2014 Master Plans? 

We aren’t.  We are looking at numerous factors. This accusation is false.

On January 23, 2023, the Town Council first discussed updating the Master Plan, as the Town is required to do.

The Town Council unanimously approved the following motion: “Motion to direct the Parks and Recreation Commission with the assistance of the Parks and Recreation Department to compile a draft Master Plan detailing the steps necessary to implement improvements to Ninigret Park utilizing the 2008 Ninigret Park Master Plan and the 2014 Ninigret Park Master Plan Update draft, the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the 2021 Townwide Survey documents.

The information should include, but not be limited to, the following objectives, with no preference given to the order listed:

a.  Using as a guide, the 2008 Ninigret Park Master Plan and the 2014 Ninigret Park Master Plan Update draft, specifically the Master Plan Project Areas Map found on page 46 of that plan, compile the report so as to have separate project areas and the details of each individually identified so they may or may not be implemented as stand-alone projects, in groups, or as a whole.

b.  Within the Project Areas, make updates and recommendations taking into account existing infrastructure and any physical changes that have occurred from 2014 to current.

c.  Identify and recommend the order of priority in which each project area may be implemented if done individually.

d.  Analyze, update where needed, and combine the information from the 2008 and 2014 plans, respectively and include such in the draft Master Plan.

e.  Seek input and include participation from the National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Frosty Drew Observatory and Science Center, the Charlestown Senior Center, Police, Fire and Rescue agencies, the sports groups that utilize the current fields, the Chariho Cowboys, the Public, and additional interested parties.

f.  Compile a list of all steps needed to take project areas from current to completion for each project. The Parks and Recreation Commission Chair and the Director of Parks and Recreation, or their designees, shall appear at the April 2023 Town Council meeting with a preliminary update. Any additional resources needed for the Commission to accomplish its report can be addressed at that time. The Commission shall have one-hundred and twenty (120) days to complete this report or request additional time from the Town Council.”

4.  Why did the Town hire an outside company to draft the plan?

The Parks & Recreation Department requested assistance with the task of updating the plan. In part, the memo from the Parks and Recreation Director [Vicki Hilton] reads:

"As the director of the Parks and Recreation Department, I do not feel that the volunteer Parks and Recreation Commission members have the time nor expertise for this task. I feel an impartial and professional assessing of the information would be the best path for this major endeavor. We would like to seek proposals from a consulting firm in Park and Recreation Master Planning and community engagement. The Commission Chairman and I feel an outside qualified professional agency would create the most effective master plan that will reflect the unique environmental and community interests of Ninigret Park for years to come. We do not feel that we are able to meet the necessary design standards, editorial skills, environmental expertise nor are we equipped for the graphic capabilities that a full-time firm would provide.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is not the first Ninigret rodeo for VHB, Charlestown's contractor. For example, they were heavily involved in the town's planning for the Park in 2002. CLICK HERE.

5. Where is the money coming from to pay for this plan? 

The funding is coming from the American Rescue Plan Act funds that the federal government awarded to Charlestown in 2021. On February 13, 2023, after receiving the memo from the Parks & Recreation Director, the Town Council discussed this matter during the Town Council meeting and approved the following motion: 

“Motion to authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to seek proposals from a consulting firm in Park and Recreation Master Planning and community engagement for the creation of a 2023 Master Plan for Ninigret Park and the potential appropriation of $35,000 in budgetary funding for this purpose, to be taken from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds, Budget Line Item 43.000.5100 (ARPA FUND Expenses), and to authorize the Acting Town Administrator and Town Treasurer, each, to take any and all such actions, and to execute and deliver such certificates, receipts or other documents as may be necessary to carry out the foregoing.”

On July 10, 2023 the Town Council unanimously approved the following motion: 

"Motion to award the Ninigret Park Master Plan Update 2023 Bid to Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) in the Amount of $31,300.00 as Budgeted in Line Item 43.000.51400 (ARPA Fund Expenses) and Authorization of the Acting Town Administrator and Town Treasurer, Each, to Take Any and All Such Actions, and Execute and Deliver Such Certificates, Receipts or Other Documents as May be Necessary to Carry into Effect the Foregoing."

6.  What is the Master Plan?

As written in the report, “The Master plan is a wholistic long-term strategy or blueprint that outlines potential opportunities for development, growth, or revitalization.”

The Master Plan is not a construction plan. 

In 1994, the Town Council approved the Ninigret Park Ten Year Utilization Plan.  That plan from 30 years ago included, among other items, a bandshell and a football field.  Even though both were in the plan, they were not built.  I point this out, because based on comments posted online, some people think that everything in this plan is somehow going to be built in the next few years. 

It’s not.

The approved 2008 plan also included a list of items that were never implemented.  For example, removing invasive species of plants, reducing the amount of paved areas and replacing them with grassed fields, clearing an area of the park for the festivals so as not to impact other areas of the park.  This is a short list.  

My point is none of these things were done over the past sixteen years, even though they were in the plan.

During the November 30th  meeting of the Master Plan Update Subcommittee, the consultants from VHB showed a new community center in their plan.  Contrary to what was printed online, this is not something the Town Council asked them to include.  

If a new community center were to be built, the cost would likely be over ten million dollars.  The new community center that South Kingstown built a few years ago cost over seven million dollars, and they have public water and public sewer.  Charlestown does not.  

That alone would increase our costs.  Also, Ninigret Park is in the hurricane zone, which has stricter, and more expensive building requirements.  This Town Council never expressed an interest in constructing a community center.  

The consultants included it so that if in the future the town decided this is something the town wants to build, then the location in the plan would be a logical place to put it, but not required.  

Also, if in the future the residents of Charlestown decide this is something we want to construct, then there would need to be a construction plan, along with associated costs, which would ultimately be voted on by the voters of Charlestown.

To put things in perspective, in 2019, the majority members on the Town Council proposed taking $3 million of the town’s surplus money and transferring it within the budget for a new “community/recreation /senior center”.  There was no plan for this “center”.  I was on the Town Council in 2019 and was the only Councilor that opposed this “plan”. 

For the record, none of my fellow Councilors this evening were on the Council in 2019, and none of them were involved with that $3 million proposed transfer of money.

In 2019 the voters came out in force to oppose this transfer of funds and voted down the entire budget that year. 

If a community center is ever seriously proposed, then an actual plan with associated costs would need to be developed.  Any proposal of that magnitude should be voted on as a separate warrant item question as was done in 2015 when the voters overwhelmingly approved the citizen petition for $1 million for improvements to Ninigret park as outlined in the 2008 Master Plan.

7.  If something is not in the plan, can it still be built? 

Yes. Just because something is not in the plan, that does not mean it can't be built.  For example, two years ago the town put in an outdoor exercise area.  That was not in the plan, but it was added.  

This is the so-called multi-use path - actually a bike path -
that the CCA pushed through based on the claim that it would
cost less than $7000. It actually cost $266,927, a 4000% overrun.
It was not in any master plan or list of priorities except
CCA founding member Faith Labossiere's. Photo by Will Collette

About seven years ago, the town installed a "multiuse" path, around the playground.  This also was not in the plan, but it was added to the park. [see photo, left]

To have a productive discussion this evening, it is crucial for everyone to understand what a Master Plan is. To that end, I will read from page 45 of the draft plan.

“The 2024 Master Plan is not promoting any specific type of development, but highly recommends any future development or park improvements need to be carefully limited to specific locations as depicted in this Master Plan and deemed appropriate through a typical town permitting process. It’s imperative for the Community, and anyone reading this report, to clearly understand the following:

• A master plan is a wholistic long-term strategy or blueprint that outlines potential opportunities for development, growth, or revitalization.

• It will serve as a guide for decision-making and future development.

• All decisions will have to go through standard permitting and approval processes, as determined by local, state, and federal governments.

• The result of the 2024 Master Plan is a culmination of master plan alternatives including the 2008 Approved Master Plan, the 2014 Draft Master Plan, as well as research and community input

• A thoughtful process incorporating “Placemaking Principles”.

• “Placemaking refers to a collaborative process by which we can shape our public realm in order to maximize shared value.” – www.pps.org

There is no way any plan is going to make everyone completely happy.  There will be some things some residents want, that others don’t.  This draft plan has a little bit of something for most people.  

I ask that as we discuss the plan this evening, we all keep an open mind.  While something in the plan might not be what you personally would use, it could be something others would use and enjoy.

Finally, nothing in this plan, or any plan, can be implemented without money.  It will ultimately be the 5000 plus registered voters of Charlestown that will vote on what improvements to fund, or not fund, in Ninigret Park.  

EDITOR'S POST SCRIPT. This is not the first, or probably the last, time citizens have almost come to blows over the use of Ninigret Park. 

In 2013-14, in a conflict Progressive Charlestown called "The Battle for Ninigret Park," Charlestown Citizen Alliance (CCA) Council members claimed that a proposal to install lighting so kids could conduct football practice after daylight standard kicked in would constitute a breach of our deed with the National Park Service. 

Photo by Will Collette

They claimed there was a nefarious conspiracy being carried out by then Town Administrator William DiLibero and Parks and Recreation Director Jay Primiano. 

They said they had heard from ex-US Fish and Wildlife Rhode Island director Charlie Vandemoer (left) that the Interior Department was just a hair away from taking back the Park. CCA Council members Tom Gentz and Dan Slattery even suggested Charlestown preemptively give the park back to the feds. [Charlie told me later, face-to-face, he never said that].

All of the CCA's claims turned out to be false and when pressed by the RI Attorney General, Councilor Dan Slattery was unable to produce the so-called definitive proof he claimed to possess. Regional National Parks  Director Elyse DeForest came to Charlestown to answer questions and debunk the CCA's false claims. 

Dan Slattery. Photo by Will Collette

In the end, a chastened Charlie Vandemoer got a piece of paper saying he and Charlestown would talk when needed, something already guaranteed. We got to keep Ninigret Park. Gentz, Slattery and the CCA went on to concoct other phony scandals to create panic among Charlestown's residents to win elections.

Both Bill DiLibero and Jay Primiano lost their jobs. 

Deb is too polite to bring up this sordid past. 

I'm not.

- Will Collette

Primiano gets ousted

Controversial, though popular, Parks & Recreation Director forced out

By Will Collette

Jay reading from his new book at the Charlestown Land Trust's
Farmer's Market. Read the review HERE. It's pretty good.

Next Wednesday night, the Charlestown Town Council will discuss the departure of Jay Primiano as Director of the town’s Parks and Recreation Department at a closed-door executive session prior to setting the agenda for the April 13 Town Council meeting. 

Sources tell Progressive Charlestown that Primiano, long a target of attack by leaders of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA Party), has been forced out though the reasons and terms and conditions that have not yet been disclosed.

Primiano is a member of the quasi-union of Charlestown department heads and as such, has some contract and bargaining rights that will have to be honored unless the Council has found some basis to dismiss him for cause. That seems unlikely since there have been no public actions taken against Primiano. One source tells me Primiano signed the separation papers today though I cannot confirm that. Jay has not responded to my request for comment.

Town Department heads were instructed to stay mum about Primiano’s ouster, if not keep it a secret. Yeah, like that's going to happen in Charlestown!

Memorial Day tradition

Ninigret – past, present and future

By Will Collette

This weekend, to honor Memorial Day, we will continue Progressive Charlestown’s tradition of running a series of essays by Frank Glista and a series of photo arrays featuring one of Charlestown’s most distinctive pieces of land, town-owned Ninigret Park and the adjacent Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge in its former incarnation as the Charlestown Naval Auxiliary Air Field (NAAF) during World War II where thousands of Navy pilots trained, including former President George H.W. Bush, father of George W.

This year is destined to be another contentious year for Ninigret Park as voters go to the polls on June 1 to decide whether to actual put some funding, $1 million in this case, into actually going forward with the Ninigret Park Master Plan. The ruling CCA Party is totally opposed to this bond petition and only allowed it to appear on the special Town Financial ballot because they have to (more than 300 Charlestown residents signed the petition).

If that bond issue passes, and I hope it does, the next struggle will be to get our CCA Party rulers to actually spend the money. I am willing to bet that they will simply impound the money. Rhode Island is one of several states that forbid the Governor from impounding funds appropriated by the General Assembly, but it’s an open question whether a municipality can do that.

I predict another major fight over Ninigret – and this ties in very closely with the reasons why we celebrate Memorial Day – if the Quonset Air Museum decides to try to relocate to Ninigret Park.

Deputy Dan emerges from his hideout

Just when you thought he was on the lam, here he is again
By Will Collette

On Monday night, Charlestown will be treated to what looks like the last act in Charlestown’s own Deputy Dan Slattery’s final Crusade. Yep, on Monday, the Town Council will vote on a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) with Charlie Vandemoer, our federal overseer and head of the National Wildlife Refuges in southern Rhode Island.

After several months of laying low, apparently hoping that Charlestown voters would forget all the crazy stuff he has done (e.g., his unauthorized investigations, his nonexistent documents, studies and evidence, search for “phantom properties,” the “Kill Bill” Campaign, his attack on Chariho, RHOTAP and his attacks on Charlestown working families, censorship of political opponents, not to mention his flat-out lies), Slattery will have another moment this Monday to wrap up his quest for the Ninigret MOU.

New concert series for Ninigret Park?

Over the Partridge NIMBYs’ dead bodies

Nooooooo! Russo says he has several "easy listening"
stars in mind

By Will Collette

When I previewed last Monday’s Charlestown Town Council meeting, I noted that a proposal endorsed by the Parks and Recreation Commission for a potential new concert series in Ninigret Park might turn into one of the night’s biggest fights, despite strong competition from several other very ugly issues.

I predicted that likely opposition might come from the Arnolda neighborhood who often turn in to oppose human activities in neighboring Ninigret Park, but I was wrong….and I should have seen it coming.

There was a long and fiery discussion over the proposal by famous promoter Frank Russo’s Creative Entertainment company to explore the prospects for bringing in some big-name stars for perhaps two afternoons or evenings of entertainment. Russo was asking the Town Council to give its approval for four tentative dates so that he could to approach the half dozen prospects he had in mind.

TONIGHT: Charlie gets his MOU

And he’ll milk it for all its worth

By Will Collette

Charlestown's federal overseer Charlie Vandemoer

On the July 9 Town Council agenda is the consideration of perhaps the last chapter in the Battle of Ninigret Park, the phony conflict concocted by CCA Council members Deputy Dan Slattery and Boss Tom Gentz. Click here for all our coverage.

As you may recall, last March, Deputy Dan and Boss Gentz reveals a terrible though imaginary crisis: the federal government was on the verge of taking back Ninigret Park because we had displeased CharlieVandemoer, our federal overseer from the Fish and Wildlife Service, and Elyse LaForest of the National Park Service’s Federal Lands to Park program.

Deputy Dan declared that we had a moral, ethical and legal obligation to give up our stewardship of Ninigret and place its fate in the hands of overseer Vandemoer. Boss Gentz concurred, fearing that if we didn’t surrender control of Ninigret Park, the feds would take the Park back forthwith.

Town Council Meeting - the April Play-by-Play

by Will Collette and Tom Ferrio

The published agenda was daunting but your intrepid reporters were there, in person and online, to get you the earliest summary of Monday's Town Council meeting.

Charlie Vandemoer: Dupe or Duplicitous, Part 2

The Battle for Ninigret Park begins

By Will Collette

Read: "Searching for a Home for the 'Ninigret Bomb'" by clicking here.
Read Part 1 by clicking here.

Part 1 was published Monday morning just after midnight. Later that same day, through one of those coincidences you just can't plan, a letter to the editor by none other than Charlie Vandemoer ran in the Westerly Sun. That letter is a remarkable example of Charlie Vandemoer's choice to inject himself into Charlestown politics, to the detriment of Charlestown. Read it yourself by clicking here, then please read Part 2 of this series.

In Part 1, I used records received from the US Department of Interior to show how our local federal overseer, Ninigret Wildlife Refuge manager Charlie Vandemoer of the US Fish and Wildlife Service was at the heart of one of Charlestown’s most divisive political battles of the past year.

He triggered the series of events by writing a letter to the state Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) to block sports lighting funds the Parks and Recreation Commission had been seeking.

CCA tries to distract Charlestown voters with shiny things

Don’t fall for this old trick

By Will Collette

To hear the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) tell it, if not for them, Charlestown would be lit up like a car dealership in Cranston. Unless they are returned to power, Charlestown will be lit up like convicts caught in the prison yard attempting a jail break. Without them in charge, Charlestown will look like the Las Vegas strip.

If you read their literature, this election is all about Charlestown’s dark sky. It’s not about the CCA’s financial screw-ups and mismanagement. Or about continuous tax increases during their ten years of power. Or their succession of shady land deals – over-priced properties, bogus appraisals, insider deals. It’s not about their decision to cover up their conduct by denying access to public records and denying non-CCA members to speak at Council meetings.

No, none of those issues matter at all. Just look at the shiny objects that the CCA wants you to think are a menace to you and all that you love.

My oh my, I am so sick of these people.

To learn more about the CCA's sleezy land deals, read The Politics of Charlestown Open Space.

Look, I grew up wanting to be an astronomer, at least until I found out it required a math aptitude I just don’t have. But I love sky-watching and appreciate the rare ability we have in Charlestown to see so much more of the night sky than our urban neighbors. We've run more than 400 articles in Progressive Charlestown on astronomy.

According to the CCA's campaign filing reports, these slick,
3-page flyers cost $3000+ to print and mail on a phony issue

But if you were to ask me to rank dark skies among the needs of residents, it would be on the list but not in first place by a long shot. As a voter, I’d put a higher ranking on good town management, clean water, affordable housing for seniors and workers, transportation alternatives, sound land management and honesty.

But apparently CCA leader and Town Council candidate Ruth Platner (possibly former Planning Commissar) wants this election to be all about dark skies. It sure beats talking about CCA financial foul-ups. Oh, look at the not-shiny thing!

For detail on just how badly the CCA messed up on finances and taxes, read Charlestown finances and taxes – Your choice on November 5 then read RI Auditor General finds new CRU leadership in Charlestown improved town finances to see how our current CRU Council leadership has turned things around. It also explains why the CCA is so eager to distract you with a bogus issue.

It’s worth revisiting how we got to this point. When Tom Ferrio and I started Progressive Charlestown, we found the CCA gave us lots to write about. In addition to shady land deals, Platner’s dark sky obsession figured prominently in the early years of the CCA’s rule.

For several years, Platner kept trying to figure out how to write a town ordinance to ban outside lighting, especially for sports and recreation, or at least force people to comply with using only shielded, downward facing outdoor lights.

In her early attempts, she tried to make it retroactive to cover every light in town but was told that wasn’t legal. She tried to make it compulsory on everyone, but that sparked a huge backlash.

She tried to regulate lighting as minutely as she has in such things as Charlestown’s anti-wind power ordinance or their newly released “Design Standards” that dictate down to the smallest detail what can or can’t be done with buildings in Charlestown. At one point, she went for a plan that would require you to install new dark sky-friendly light fixtures anytime you changed a lightbulb. 

Some CCA Planning Commission members had even more radical ideas, such as blacking out the town, noting that we get the best dark skies during extended power outages.

It was everyone’s worst nightmare of regulatory overreach.

Watching it was sad, but also funny. It was a battle that never needed to be fought and that’s still true today.

At the time, I suggested a better approach would be to conduct public education to pursue assisted voluntary compliance. The town could help promote dark sky lighting through property tax credits to offset the cost of retrofitting. It could also arrange a bulk purchasing plan to make it easier and cheaper to buy such things as hoods for outdoor floodlights.

But no, the CCA and Ruth don’t trust you to make good decisions.

After long and arduous failed attempts and endless public hearings, Ruthie finally got a watered down, unenforceable dark sky ordinance passed. In my opinion, she got less than she would have through the voluntary approach I recommended.

But that’s not all. It wouldn’t be a CCA campaign without an imaginary crisis, in this case “The Battle for Ninigret Park.” Like today’s phony CCA dark sky panic, it involved an approaching Armageddon sparked by the idea of after-dark activities in Ninigret Park.

To read more about the CCA’s habit of creating phony threats, read Fear and Loathing in Charlestown Politics.

This crisis featured a phony dossier – referred to as "Document #2" - held but never revealed by former CCA President and Town Council member Dan Slattery. According to Slattery, any attempt to install lights in Ninigret Park would trigger the federal government to take back the Park. And he had the proof right there in Document #2.

The town was in an uproar for months and it took an appearance by regional US Interior Department office Elyse LaForest to establish that (a) Charlestown owns Ninigret Park, (b) no, the Interior Department had no plans to take back the Park and (c) under the federal program that transferred decommissioned military land to local governments, there were almost no instances of land reverting back to the feds.

In those rare instances, it was usually because the local government asked the feds to take the land back.

After an investigation by the RI Attorney General, Dan Slattery admitted that there wasn’t actually anything in “Document #2, his Ninigret dossier.

There were casualties in the Battle for Ninigret Park, of course, since the CCA needed blood. Town Administrator Bill DiLibero and Parks and Rec Director Jay Primiano lost their jobs.

So here we go again, another election and another bizarre CCA conspiracy theory.

Like I said, I am so sick of these people and the way they behave. After all this, how dare they ask for your vote.

Deputy Dan Slattery returns to do a drive-by on the Charlestown budget

Former CCA leader decides to try to sway Charlestown voters

By Will Collette

Before getting into the surprise Letter to the Editor by former town councilor and Charlestown Citizens Alliance leader Dan Slattery, I urge you: VOTE!

You have until the close of the polls on Monday, June 1 to vote on Charlestown’s proposed $16+ million town budget. I hope most of you have put your ballot in the mail so it arrives in Monday's mail at Town Hall. 

If you still have your ballot, you have two added ways to make it count. First, drop it off at the white drop-box outside and next to the main entrance to Town Hall. Second, you can go in person to the one open polling place – Charlestown Elementary School, 8 AM to 8 PM. Be sure to wear your mask.

And, I hope, you will vote NO to a very bad budget (CLICK HERE for my reasons for calling it that).

Now, let’s talk about Deputy Dan’s re-appearance in Charlestown politics.

Deputy Dan used to be a Charlestown Town Council member under the CCA Party’s banner. He served as vice-chair under Tom Gentz and did not run for re-election in 2014. He later moved out of Charlestown and he writes his May 27 Letter to the Westerly Sun Editor from North Kingstown.

Slattery mainly sticks to CCA Party boilerplate arguments for the proposed budget except for his opening paragraph where he asserts:

“As a former Charlestown Town Councilor and eight-year member of the town’s Budget Commission, I always made decisions and voted based on the facts. I believe any vote on financial matters or public policy should reflect what is best for the entire town and not special-interest groups. Don’t be misled by misinformation campaigns that paint this as a bad budget and offer alternatives that would adversely affect the town’s quality of life, such as a 15,000-seat concert venue in Ninigret Park.”

Wow. There’s a lot to unpack in this one paragraph. I think three Slattery claims deserve priority treatment: 

(1) how Slattery's actions were always acted based on the facts; 
(2) how budget decisions should be made without regard for special interest groups and 
(3) his amazing claim that somebody wants to use the budget surplus to build a 15,000 seat concert venue in Ninigret Park - where he got that, I don't know.

In his time in Charlestown, Deputy Dan was a non-stop fountain of Grade A horseshit, coming up with one whopper after another. He ALWAYS could be counted on to back special interest (i.e. CCA) schemes, many of them described in THIS article.

Finally, I think Deputy Dan’s fantastic notion about the 15,000 seat concert venue may be the way he remembers the Battle for Ninigret Park. That brutal and bloody battle started when Slattery confabulated a draft proposal by then Parks & Recreation Director Jay Primiano to get DEM recreation money for lights to allow kids to have a few extra hours of football practice time during the fall.

That idea never came to be but, in Slattery’s mind and by the power of mass hallucination in the minds of CCA followers this proposal somehow became a “football stadium” with tiers of bleachers and who knows what else. (That imaginary stadium may have morphed into Dan's imaginary concert venue.)

But wait, there’s MORE! 

According to Dan, the idea of this imaginary stadium was so abhorrent to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, custodians of the National Wildlife Refuge adjacent to Ninigret Park, that the Interior Department was on the verge of exercising its “right” to take Ninigret Park back from the town. This, because Deputy Dan had DOCUMENTS showing that Charlestown didn’t actually own Ninigret Park. (He was wrong - CLICK HERE.)

We actually had to bring in Elyse LaForest, regional head of the National Parks Service’s Federal Lands to Parks Program to calm people down and assure them that Charlestown DOES own Ninigret Park and the Interior Department had no intention of taking the Park back. And as the time to put up or shut came, Deputy Dan really didn’t have the documents he said he had.

That may have been the worst of Deputy Dan’s wild excursions with the truth, but there are others that are noteworthy.

Slattery, Charlestown’s Top Cop

Slattery frequently touted his federal law enforcement
credentials.

For example, there was the time he accused Frank Glista of dishonesty when Frank built a donation box that was set out at Ninigret Park events by Friends of Ninigret Park to raise small amounts for the benefit of the Park. 

At a town council meeting, Slattery waved a folder that supposedly held evidence to back up his claim of Frank's malfeasance.

So I filed an open records law request to SEE those documents. After a lengthy give-and-take with the Attorney General’s Office, Slattery admitted he was running a personal investigation without town authority. 

He never disclosed what was in that folder claiming it was his private property. I declined to appeal, even though the AG's office encouraged me to do so because at this point, Slattery's half-baked, unauthorized witch hunt had been exposed.

Slattery versus Alien Invaders

Slattery set off another wild goose chase because he had heard people were somehow encroaching on town properties. Allegedly, some gardeners had plots that spilled over into town-owned space. 

So Slattery got the Council to commission a broad search and inventory of all town properties – including some tiny parcels such as the spots along the road where we have storm water cisterns.

These were dubbed Charlestown’s Phantom Properties.

No evidence was found of Deputy Dan’s alleged encroachment. 

Nonetheless, Slattery wanted to fence or rope off these newly unveiled phantom properties and have them signposted against alien incursions. 

That idea died when other Council members did a little arithmetic and realized this would cost many thousands of dollars to deal with a largely imaginary problem.

Slattery versus the Water Board

Slattery launched another one of his crusades when he found out that his perennial enemy Frank Glista was negotiating with the Rhode Island Water Resources Board to sell undeveloped property he owned to be set aside by the Water Board to meet future water needs.

Slattery again confabulated the facts to claim this was a scheme to pump out Charlestown’s water and send it elsewhere. Plus, he claimed, the state Water Resources Board had no right to conduct any business in Charlestown without the Town’s expressed approval. This new "Slattery Doctrine" was supposed to apply to ALL state and federal agencies whose "agents" set foot in Charlestown.

He gave the state Water Resource Board director a 2-hour grilling, accusing him of every short of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. His behavior was so awful that even Tom Gentz was moved to publicly apologize.

In fact, Frank Glista had every right as a private land owner to sell his land to whomever he wished. The state Water Board, as well as dozens of other state and federal agencies can and do conduct activities consistent with their mission within Charlestown’s boarders without the Council’s permission. 

And finally, if anyone but Frank Glista had decided to convert a nice big parcel of land into open space to protect water resources, the CCA Party would be jumping for joy.

RHOTAP

Truth be told, I miss Deputy Dan

I could go on with lots more Deputy Dan stories – we wrote 401 articles referencing Slattery. The earlier ones go into lots of juicy detail. But I will stop with one of my favorite Deputy Dan schemes. 

Dishonorable mention goes to Deputy Dan's "Australian Ballot" scheme - read about it HERE.

In 2012, when many families were still hurting from the Great Recession, Charlestown Democrats proposed a Homestead Tax Credit to give tax relief to full-time residents. 

The CCA Party stomped the idea to death because this would have caused modest tax hikes for rich absentee land owners who provide most of the CCA Party’s campaign revenue.

But the CCA Party knew it needed to do something to show it cared for cash-strapped Charlestown families, so they gave the job to Deputy Dan, their go-to guy.

He came up with the “Resident Home Owner Tax Assistance Program,” RHOTAP for short.

Under Slattery’s RHOTAP, a "truly needy" resident could petition a new 5-member citizen tribunal for tax relief by writing an essay about why you were truly needy, not at fault for your reduced circumstances and how tax relief would allow you to keep your home. 

If you oversold your need, leading the tribunal to believe you were too far in debt to be saved, you were S.O.L.

You had to give the tribunal all your financial records AND a signed authorization permitting the tribunal to rummage around in any records they wanted to examine.

Finally, you could be required to come before the tribunal to tell your story in person – presumably in public, given the state Open Meetings Law. I guess the model Slattery used was the old quiz show “Queen for a Day.”

This insane idea was referred to Town Solicitor Peter Ruggiero for "review" and was never heard from again. Until now.