Checking in on the Charter Revision Committee

“Sleeper” Committee seems to have a single-minded agenda

By Will Collette

                       

Talk about operating in obscurity! Up until a couple of weeks ago, the Charlestown Charter Revision Committee which is responsible for coming up with ways to improve our town charter before each election, had virtually none of its minutes posted on-line. Nothing since last September. After asking our Town Clerk Amy Weinreich about this, Amy got them posted.

But upon reading this large collection of minutes, I can understand why this Committee has been operating under the radar.

This Commission is misnamed. Rather than call it the Charter Revision Committee, it should be renamed the Partridge/Quail Committee because the four of six members come from those two streets, the core of the NIMBY resistance to Larry LeBlanc’s Whalerock wind farm proposal. The remaining two live close nearby. And Mike Chambers, husband of Committee member Donna Chambers, has been functioning as a non-voting committee member (often referred to in the minutes as “the member of our Public”).

Like the complete domination of the Planning Commission by the Charlestown Citizens Alliance, the Charter Revision Committee is the captive of Ill Wind RI, which itself is closely related to the CCA. This small special interest group has been using the Commission to push a pretty single-minded agenda – payback for the Whalerock wind farm proposal that has plagued Charlestown for the past several years.

I do not support the Whalerock project or the process that got the project to the point where it is still alive as an active proposal. But it's disturbing to see the Charter revision process get high-jacked by the Partridge/Quail group for its own purposes.

Read for Yourself

To review the minutes of the Charter Revision Committee for yourself, first go to the official Charlestown website, not Clerkbase. 

Click on the link for “Agendas-Minutes-Newsletter” in the left-hand column. 

Then click on the link for the Charter Revision Advisory Committee. This takes you to the links for the minutes of their meetings.

Pushing their anti-Whalerock agenda

The Partridge/Quail Committee has zeroed in on the following changes they wish to make to the Charter based on their anti-Whalerock agenda:

1. Set term limits for members of the Zoning Board, leaving all other boards and commissions unchanged. The Zoning Board disagreed with the Planning Commission on whether Whalerock had submitted a complete application under the terms set by the former Town Council. For that, they must be punished.
2. Limit the ability of the town to enter into partnerships. Whalerock went forward during the 2009-2010 Town Council as a partnership. Whalerock is bad. Therefore partnerships are bad. The potential unintended consequences of such a Charter change could mean, for example, no more cooperative partnerships with the Washington County Regional Planning Commission, or the Tri-Town Commission, or even the partnerships the town enters into with conservation groups like the Charlestown Land Trust.
3. Allow only one project application for a particular parcel of land. This stems directly from Larry LeBlanc’s strategy of submitting, as a Plan B in the event Whalerock loses in the courts, a proposal for an affordable housing complex.

These issues have come up at every meeting. Based on a review of the minutes, this Committee has spent more time on these issues than any other matter. Some of these issues may be worth reviewing and perhaps some changes are a good idea. But the agenda of the Partridge/Quail people is less important than the good of the town.

The law of unintended consequences

When the Town Charter was changed in 2010 to resolve past issues, those changes created unintended consequences for the future. 

Take, for example, the anti-Mageau Charter change pushed by the CCA to require the vote of not less than three Council members to approve any Council actions. This three yes votes requirement has now hamstrung the Council’s ability to act in dealing with Councilor Lisa DiBello’s lawsuit, since three of the five Council members must recuse themselves. Several pet CCA issues - including two pushed by CCA-anointed Council Vice-President Dan Slattery, died for lack of that third vote.

Plus, the liberalized provision for recall of elected officials pushed by the CCA may now back-fire on them if it is used to remove Lisa DiBello. DiBello has provided CCA-Council members Tom Gentz and Dan Slattery with the controlling vote on the Council. 

Finally, the changes being pushed by the Partridge/Quail Committee really don’t help them deal with Whalerock because you can’t legislate retroactively. Any changes they recommend, even if approved by the voters next November, will apply to future situations, not to the much-hated Whalerock project. And the effects on those unknown future projects could not only be unintended but detrimental to the town.

Dazed and Confused: “Can we sell Ninigret Pond?”

The Partridge/Quail Committee also spent a lot of time trying to understand how the town makes purchases, whether it’s large land deals or buying office supplies.

Ninigret Pond for sale?

The minutes reflect a lot of confusion on the part of Committee members, Some of the discussion reflected in the minutes is pretty strange. For example, in the December 6 minutes, there’s this question:

“Donna [Chambers, one of the Committee members] asked if the town could really sell any property, such as Ninigret Pond?”

The immediate answer I was looking for was “NO!” But instead, the "answer" rambled through a discussion about purchasing procedure, leaving the issue of selling Ninigret Pond unanswered. I was left there wondering (a) why is the Charter Revision Committee talking about the town selling Ninigret Pond?” and (b) when is somebody going to tell them to faggedabouddit?

When do the voters have their say?

Then on January 16, the minutes say:

“Maureen [Areglado, Committee Secretary who writes these minutes] said she was concerned that we may be limiting the acquisition of land by the [Nature] Conservancy, for example, because $50,000 isn’t much money for a land purchase.”

This remark had me confused because, as far as I know, the Nature Conservancy is not a town agency and its land purchases are its own business.

If Areglado is referring to the half million dollars the Charlestown Land Trust wants from town taxpayers to buy the YMCA camp, that half million dollars ought to be something that goes before the voters.

The Charlestown Land Trust is not a town agency, either. If the town decides to spend half a million of town taxpayer money to buy the land, I would expect the next proposed step, granting title to a private, non-profit organization like the Land Trust is also something the taxpayers should decide through a democratic vote.

Maybe that's what was behind Areglado's question about selling Ninigret Pond. If we can give away a parcel of land like the YMCA camp - without a vote- then why NOT sell Ninigret Pond?

Despite the confusion reflected in the Committee’s minutes, they would be doing the town a service if they can clarify town policy on land acquisition to avoid inconsistent, and seemingly biased practices.

Examples: the Town Council’s decision to send the Beach Facilities issue to the voters when it could have been paid for through the already-approved Open Space Recreation Bond. The Town Council promise that if it decided to pursue the purchase of Larry LeBlanc’s wind farm site, they would seek voter approval. But the absence of such a pledge before the town pays almost half a million of town funds to the YMCA for their busted out campground on Watchaug Pond and then gives title to the Land Trust.

The Committee spent a lot of time discussing alterations to the town’s bidding process for goods and services, seeking to cut the number of bids required for smaller purchases.

What they seem to have missed is the need for Charlestown to have a “Responsible Bidder” policy that screens potential vendors and contractors to ensure their records are clean, reputations are solid and references check out, so we can avoid another situation where we give an 11-year monopoly to a beach concessionaire with lots of undisclosed problems.

Issues that were rejected

The Committee took a pass on a request from the Town Administrator to change the Charter to require a “supra-majority” of Town Council members (4 of 5) to approve either the hiring or firing of the Town Administrator.

The Committee also seems disinclined toward the Town Administrator's other major request to allow him to reorganize the financial staff at Town Hall. He wants to change the Treasurer position into Finance Director with direct supervision over the Tax Assessor and Tax Collector. At present, all of these officials report directly to the Town Administrator.

The Committee has also dropped the idea of changing the length of Town Council terms, as well as staggering them, although they like the idea of changing the Charter to mandate that the top voter getter should automatically become Council President and the second-highest should automatically be Vice-President.

They dropped suggestions to change the Planning Commission from being an elected body as it is now, to one that is appointed, as required by state law. This issue may end up being decided by the courts – it is one of the main issues being contested in the Whalerock wind farm litigation.

Totally missed: balancing the public interest and personal freedom

One important issue the Committee hasn't even discussed is the abuse of power by the Planning Commission in the form of the “Platner Principle” – that Charlestown property owners are forbidden to do anything with or on their property unless it is expressly permitted in the Town Charter or Ordinances.

In Progressive Charlestown, we exposed numerous instances of Charter provisions and ordinances that make no sense because they are not enforced, are unenforceable, are overly intrusive or unnecessary. It would be a service to Charlestown for its Charter to require a periodic review of existing town laws to determine their continued value. Or even a “sunset” provision that ends certain parts of the town’s laws unless they are renewed.

Of course, it makes sense that this Committee would not even discuss these issues. They are closely aligned with the CCA and with the CCA-controlled Planning Commission. Besides, they like the “Platner Principle” and Planning Commission over-reaching because it worked for them in their jihad to ban all forms of wind power in Charlestown.

Who ultimately makes the decision about changes to the Charter?

In addition to the Ill Winders who are official members of the Committee, Donna Chambers’ husband Mike has acted as a de facto, though non-voting, member of the Committee. He is often referred to in the minutes as the “member of our Public.”

At the January 16 meeting, according to the minutes, Chambers wanted to know if the Committee made the final changes to the Charter.

“Mary [O’Connor, Committee chair] said Peter [Ruggerio, Town Solicitor] writes the final referendum questions, they are then submitted to the State for review, and finally the questions are included on the November ballot. She [Mary O’Connor] thought the Town Council made the final changes – Mike [Chambers] thought our Committee did this since this was ‘our work.’ Maureen [Areglado, Committee Secretary and minute taker] sated [SIC] that we’re a recommending body only and have no ‘power’ whatsoever in changing the Charter.”

Thank goodness for that, because after taking over the Charter Revision Committee on August 2, 2011, they are still unclear about how the process works.

The Charter Revision Committee will hold its first Public Hearing on February 27. That’s when we will all get to see how much damage they have done.