Former Town Council President Carney files charges with Attorney General

Charlestown violates the Open Meeting Law, again

By Will Collette

Platner under cover

You would think the top brass of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA Party) who have controlled town government for the past six years would learn. They’re good at preaching “open and transparent government” except when it comes to their own practices.

For the second time this term, the CCA leadership of town government has held a secret ballot in the middle of an open town meeting to decide a public issue. This time is was Ruth Platner, Commissar of the Charlestown Planning Commission, who asked her plucky planners to vote by secret ballot who to pick for a $60,000 town contract to re-write Charlestown’s Comprehensive Plan.

Except the Attorney General’s Office has already ruled, in Carney v. Charlestown, that a secret ballot cannot be held in the middle of a public meeting and held the CCA Party-controlled Town Council in violation of the state Open Meetings Law. They did this last March when they picked CCA Party camp follower Donna Chambers to appoint to fill a vacancy on the Chariho School Committee, even though she was less qualified than her competitors.

The Attorney General slapped Crocodile Dan's butt for
his "Australian Ballot" last March 2013

Given the definitive decision in the earlier complaint, Deb Carney (D), former Town Council President, has filed a new complaint against the Planning Commission. 

In this case, let's call it Carney v. Charlestown Deux, Deb cites the Attorney General’s earlier decision, including the AG’s warning to Charlestown that a repeat violation of the same nature would be considered intentional. That’s where fines come in.

Town Council liaison to the Planning Commission George Tremblay was a party to that violation and was present when Platner committed the same violation on May 7. For that matter, Platner was also present during the Town Council meeting where the violation, called an “Australian Ballot” by CCA Party Councilor Crocodile Dan Slattery, was committed.

But maybe if they do it again, they can get a
different result

After the secret ballot, the Planning Commission then took a final vote with a 4-1 outcome without recording the names of which Commissioners voted yes or no.

When asked by Councilor Lisa DiBello during the June 9 Town Council meeting how this action was not a violation of the law, Platner only muttered an excuse for the secret ballot and as for the recorded vote, said they rarely put who voted how into the minutes because most of their votes are unanimous. Except this was one of those times when someone didn’t follow Platner’s orders.

The minutes should include that person’s name not only to comply with the law, but so that Charlestown citizens can hold a celebration in his or her honor.

Ruth Platner and her CCA Party cohorts may have the arrogance to believe that they can make up their own rules and that “open and transparent” government applies only to chumps and Democrats, but she is sadly mistaken.

Here is Deb Carney’s new charges against Platner’s presumptive play as they were submitted to Attorney General Peter Kilmartin’s Open Government Division:

Dear Ms. Pinsonneault,

I am filing an Open Meeting Act complaint against the Charlestown Planning Commission.  I believe the Commission violated two sections of the Act; 42-46-1 and 42-46-7.  First, during an open meeting on May 7, 2014, the members of the commission voted by "paper poll... to see how close they were in their preference."  Second, the minutes from the May 7, 2014 meeting do not include a record of how each individual member voted.

During their May 7, 2014 special meeting, the Charlestown Planning Commission took a secret paper vote, as noted in their meeting minutes (attached).  The minutes state, "the Planning Commission decided to hold a paper poll by each member writing their choice of consultant on a slip of paper to see how close they were in their preference." 

Subsequent to that "paper poll", the interim Town Planner, Ms. Weidman, "read the anonymous results."  The vote was then announced as 1 consultant receiving one vote and the other consultant receiving four votes.

The Commission then made a motion to select one of the consultants and that vote was made aloud.  The minutes indicate the following:

"Motion to select Mason & Associates to be the consultants for the rewrite of the Charlestown Comprehensive Plan by Ms. Baker, seconded by Dr. O’Connor. All in favor. Motion passed with four (4) concurring votes and one (1) opposed".

Although the final vote was open, the public has no way of knowing if the four (4) to one(1) anonymous paper vote, was the same as the four (4) to one (1) public vote.  The public has no way of knowing if two Planning Commission members changed their minds or if any additional information or comments were written on the anonymous paper ballots. 

Specifically, Section 42-46-1 of the Open Meetings Act states, " It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner."  Even though there was public discussion, the very action of taking an anonymous paper vote at an open meeting, seems to run contrary to the very notion of an open meeting.
 On March 12, 2013, I filed an Open Meeting Act complaint against the Charlestown Town Council for the exact same action of voting by secret paper ballot at a public meeting.  In a letter dated June 28, 2013, the Department of the Attorney General agreed that an OMA violation occurred.  The only difference between the anonymous vote of the Planning Commission and the anonymous vote of the Town Council, is that the Planning Commission took a public vote, following their anonymous vote, at the same meeting.

The letter from the Department of the Attorney General dated June 28, 2013 also stated, "This finding serves as notice to the Town Council, however, that the conduct discussed herein is unlawful and may serve as evidence of a willful or a knowing violation in any similar future situation." As noted in the attached minutes from the May 7, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, approved by the Commission on May 28, 2014, one of the Town Council members, Mr. Tremblay was present and serving as Town Council Liaison during the Planning Commission meeting.  Mr. Tremblay was a member of the Town Council on June 28, 2013 when the Town Council was found to be in violation of the Open Meeting Act, and when the Town Council was put on notice that voting by secret paper ballot was a violation of the Open Meeting Act.

I further believe the May 7, 2014 minutes violate Section 42-46-7 of the OMA. The minutes indicate there were four concurring votes and one opposed, but the minutes fail to indicate who voted in favor and who voted against the motion.  Specifically, the minutes state,

"Motion to select Mason & Associates to be the consultants for the rewrite of the Charlestown Comprehensive Plan by Ms. Baker, seconded by Dr. O’Connor. All in favor. Motion passed with four (4) concurring votes and one (1) opposed." 

Section 42-46-7 of the Open Meetings Act states:
Section 42-46-7 of the Open Meetings Act states:(a) All public bodies shall keep written minutes of all their meetings. The minutes shall include, but need not be limited to:
   (1) The date, time, and place of the meeting;
   (2) The members of the public body recorded as either present or absent;
   (3) A record by individual members of any vote taken; and
   (4) Any other information relevant to the business of the public body that any member of the public body requests be included or reflected in the minutes.
   (b) A record of all votes taken at all meetings of public bodies, listing how each member voted on each issue, shall be a public record and shall be available, to the public at the office of the public body, within two (2) weeks of the date of the vote.
I believe the minutes are a violation of the Open Meeting Act because they fail to indicate which specific members of the Planning Commission were in favor of the motion and which member was against the motion.  I have attached a copy of the approved minutes for your review.

Although the Commission followed their anonymous private paper ballot with a public vote, it seems as though there should be no place in open government for a private exchange of views, or votes, on a public topic at a public meeting.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my complaint.

Sincerely,Deborah Carney