By Deb Carney
[Ms. Carney sent this letter to the Westerly Sun, other local news outlets, and PC to rebut a long attack piece by former Charlestown Town Council President Jim Mageau that named more than half a dozen people, including Carney.]
Oh Mr. Mageau, where to begin? I am referring to Mageau’s Westerly Sun letter to the Editor of September 27, 2011. Let’s start with a statement, then corrections to his multiple proclamations.
Mr. Mageau frequently makes statements in public and then once he’s said it, he then asserts, “the public record clearly shows”. Just because he says it and then quotes himself, doesn’t make it true.
1) I spoke at the September 12, 2011 meeting under “Public Comment”, not “Persons Wishing to be Heard”. Not a biggie, but Mr. Mageau was present and should know the difference.
2) My complaint against Mr. Gentz and Mr. Slattery was that at the agenda meeting on September 7, 2011 they voted against allowing Tim Quillen, a representative of the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee, from speaking on behalf of the Town Committee. Mr. Slattery stated that, “political committees of any denomination, Republican, Democrat, Moderate Party, Independent Party, shouldn’t be sitting up here speaking on behalf of the party.” He further stated that, “a specific topic as an individual is fine but that individual shouldn’t be reading from a statement from a particular political commission.”
It is important to note the hypocrisy of this because in the past, both Mr. Slattery and Mr. Gentz spoke before the Town Council on behalf of the CCA, a political action committee of which they are both members.
The disturbing part of Mr. Slattery’s comment is the obvious prejudice towards political committees that are not the CCA . Preventing someone from speaking based on his political affiliation is discrimination and would subject the town to a lawsuit. That would be an egregious violation of one’s civil rights.
3) Mageau stated the Town Council seemed prepared for my “attack” (which was actually more a statement of fact expressing displeasure at their actions) because its president said it checked with the solicitor. Of course they checked with the solicitor, that’s why Mr. Quillen received a call from the Town Clerk prior to the meeting stating that he was going to be placed on the agenda (after the original denial on September 7).
4) Mageau then alleges that the May 5, 2005 Town Council minutes show that Donna Walsh and I denied his request to address the council at its April 11, 2005 meeting. Wrong again, there was no meeting on May 5, 2005. However, there was a meeting on May 4, 2005, those minutes state, “Mrs. Walsh asked that Mr. Mageau’s request to be heard be placed on the agenda. This request was passed from the last agenda until the Council could review Mr. Mageau’s allegations regarding the Chamber of Commerce”. Mr. Mageau was not denied the right to speak under “Person’s Wishing to be Heard”, he was postponed for one month. He was making serious and potentially slanderous statements about the Charlestown Chamber of Commerce. The Council wanted to review these allegations first. Remember, once Mageau says it, then the “public record clearly shows” it.
5) Mageau states that, “after being threatened with a lawsuit the town council relented”. This one is borderline comical. I’m not really sure what he’s referring to here, other than he’s always threatening to sue, as evidenced by the numerous threats and/or actual lawsuits/ complaints he’s filed against the town, however, this was not one of them. After reading his letter, I went and searched the minutes on Clerkbase, the only “pending/potential litigation” that he could be referring to was from the special meeting on April 11, 2005. However this litigation was regarding the police station, not Mr. Mageau. The minutes are available on Clerkbase. Anyone interested can check for themselves.
6) Mageau then mentions that the council let him speak at the fictitious May 5, 2005 meeting. We already established that there was no meeting on May 5, 2005. Let’s assume he means the meeting on May 9, 2005 (that one actually occurred). In his LTE he goes on to accuse Paula Andersen of submitting a false report to get money from the town for the Chamber of Commerce. Remember, because he says it, “the public record clearly shows” it. Subsequently, Paula Andersen spoke at the June 14, 2005 council meeting (minutes available on Clerkbase) and clarified the misrepresentations made by Mr. Mageau.
7) Mageau states the Democrats criticize the CCA for posting anonymous emails. He’s right, we do criticize the anonymous email comments, but true to form, he then gets it wrong. The Charlestown Democratic Town Committee does not post anonymous comments on our website. Period.
8) Mageau then accuses Frank Glista of being involved with illegal fundraising activities at Ninigret Park. At the May 4, 2011 Council meeting, Mr. Glista asked for $500 to be added to the budget for the Economic Improvement Commission. The minutes state that some of the money would be used for Friends of Ninigret Park including putting a donation box at Ninigret Park. The May 9, 2011 Town Council minutes state the budget was amended to include $500 for the EIC. At the August EIC meeting the committee discussed putting a donation box at the Rhythm and Roots Festival. Not illegal.
9) Mageau asserts that the Democrats are “acting anonymously on Collette’s website”. That is just nonsensical and as usual with Mageau’s assertions, it is incorrect. [Also, it is answered here]
10) Finally, Mageau quotes an old adage about a quacking like a duck, I think with regards to Mr. Mageau the other adage may apply, “if it quacks, maybe it’s just a quack.”
2) My complaint against Mr. Gentz and Mr. Slattery was that at the agenda meeting on September 7, 2011 they voted against allowing Tim Quillen, a representative of the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee, from speaking on behalf of the Town Committee. Mr. Slattery stated that, “political committees of any denomination, Republican, Democrat, Moderate Party, Independent Party, shouldn’t be sitting up here speaking on behalf of the party.” He further stated that, “a specific topic as an individual is fine but that individual shouldn’t be reading from a statement from a particular political commission.”
It is important to note the hypocrisy of this because in the past, both Mr. Slattery and Mr. Gentz spoke before the Town Council on behalf of the CCA, a political action committee of which they are both members.
The disturbing part of Mr. Slattery’s comment is the obvious prejudice towards political committees that are not the CCA . Preventing someone from speaking based on his political affiliation is discrimination and would subject the town to a lawsuit. That would be an egregious violation of one’s civil rights.
3) Mageau stated the Town Council seemed prepared for my “attack” (which was actually more a statement of fact expressing displeasure at their actions) because its president said it checked with the solicitor. Of course they checked with the solicitor, that’s why Mr. Quillen received a call from the Town Clerk prior to the meeting stating that he was going to be placed on the agenda (after the original denial on September 7).
4) Mageau then alleges that the May 5, 2005 Town Council minutes show that Donna Walsh and I denied his request to address the council at its April 11, 2005 meeting. Wrong again, there was no meeting on May 5, 2005. However, there was a meeting on May 4, 2005, those minutes state, “Mrs. Walsh asked that Mr. Mageau’s request to be heard be placed on the agenda. This request was passed from the last agenda until the Council could review Mr. Mageau’s allegations regarding the Chamber of Commerce”. Mr. Mageau was not denied the right to speak under “Person’s Wishing to be Heard”, he was postponed for one month. He was making serious and potentially slanderous statements about the Charlestown Chamber of Commerce. The Council wanted to review these allegations first. Remember, once Mageau says it, then the “public record clearly shows” it.
5) Mageau states that, “after being threatened with a lawsuit the town council relented”. This one is borderline comical. I’m not really sure what he’s referring to here, other than he’s always threatening to sue, as evidenced by the numerous threats and/or actual lawsuits/ complaints he’s filed against the town, however, this was not one of them. After reading his letter, I went and searched the minutes on Clerkbase, the only “pending/potential litigation” that he could be referring to was from the special meeting on April 11, 2005. However this litigation was regarding the police station, not Mr. Mageau. The minutes are available on Clerkbase. Anyone interested can check for themselves.
6) Mageau then mentions that the council let him speak at the fictitious May 5, 2005 meeting. We already established that there was no meeting on May 5, 2005. Let’s assume he means the meeting on May 9, 2005 (that one actually occurred). In his LTE he goes on to accuse Paula Andersen of submitting a false report to get money from the town for the Chamber of Commerce. Remember, because he says it, “the public record clearly shows” it. Subsequently, Paula Andersen spoke at the June 14, 2005 council meeting (minutes available on Clerkbase) and clarified the misrepresentations made by Mr. Mageau.
7) Mageau states the Democrats criticize the CCA for posting anonymous emails. He’s right, we do criticize the anonymous email comments, but true to form, he then gets it wrong. The Charlestown Democratic Town Committee does not post anonymous comments on our website. Period.
8) Mageau then accuses Frank Glista of being involved with illegal fundraising activities at Ninigret Park. At the May 4, 2011 Council meeting, Mr. Glista asked for $500 to be added to the budget for the Economic Improvement Commission. The minutes state that some of the money would be used for Friends of Ninigret Park including putting a donation box at Ninigret Park. The May 9, 2011 Town Council minutes state the budget was amended to include $500 for the EIC. At the August EIC meeting the committee discussed putting a donation box at the Rhythm and Roots Festival. Not illegal.
9) Mageau asserts that the Democrats are “acting anonymously on Collette’s website”. That is just nonsensical and as usual with Mageau’s assertions, it is incorrect. [Also, it is answered here]
10) Finally, Mageau quotes an old adage about a quacking like a duck, I think with regards to Mr. Mageau the other adage may apply, “if it quacks, maybe it’s just a quack.”
