Kill Bill, Part 5: Fact-checking the CCA

So much garbage, so little time

By Will Collette

Read the earlier articles:

The CCA Launches Purge against town staff (Kill Bill, Part 1)

Kill Bill, Part 2

Kill Bill, Part 3
Kill Bill, Part 4

In a continuing series on the anonymous spew being published by the CCA to further its “Kill Bill” campaign to purge town staff who haven’t been sufficiently deferential to their interests, here’s another batch of published comments followed by refuting evidence.

Since these comments are now starting to get repetitive (and there may only be two or three people actually writing them), I’m going to skip over some that have been asked and answered.

On April 2, yet another anonymous CCA e-mailer says:

If all this be true about the Town Administrator overstepping his bounds at the town’s expense, then, for one who needs info, what are our alternatives as citizens, taxpayers and voters to stop it and re-set the course?

Answer: Except it’s not true.

On April 2, yet another CCA e-mailer says:

I think the Town Administrator should be fired for lying and withholding information.

Answer: Except he didn’t.

On April 3^rd, yet another CCA e-mailer says:

I don’t understand Why anybody would want wind turbines in Charlestown. It is the only coastal town not ruined. I do not understand all the issues but thanks for fighting for preservation.

The US Energy Dept.'s wind map of the RI coast - we don't have the
wind strength for industrial turbines using today's technology.
This data is being UPDATED with data from the MET tower at Ninigret
and other stations along the coast

Answer: Industrial-scale wind turbines are a bad idea since Charlestown’s land areas simply don’t have enough wind capacity to make them viable (see map, right). I do not believe Whalerock could ever have gotten financing because of that and do not believe that municipal wind turbines could have made financial sense, either. By the way, one of the reasons why installing the MET tower at Ninigret was a good idea is to get fresh, accurate data.

But I think Charlestown made a huge mistake to effectively ban ALL wind energy. I think residential wind power is fine and I think the technology is advancing rapidly to the point where much smaller, non-intrusive systems will probably make sense in the future. Charlestown and every town needs to be open-minded about all forms of clean alternative energy.

And another April 3^rd anonymous CCA e-mailer says:

The Town Administrator’s documented misconduct has eroded his integrity, professionalism and trust in the eyes of many Charlestown residents. He has placed the town in a number of untenable situations, which have alternately embarrassed us and placed us in the cross hairs of potential litigation. If one checks his recent past employment record in Hopkinton, it reveals a history of contentious and legally questionable behavior, which have brought about several law suits against him and his co-conspirators. Now, our town is similarly embroiled in such malfeasance.

There is a concerted effort by his “friends” to distort the truth. They will “spin” his actions to suggest he is “without sin” and suggest he is being unfairly targeted. Their reasons are obvious. They will benefit from hhe Town Administrator remaining in office and doing their bidding. Don’t be fooled! Check the facts and draw your own conclusions. There is more than sufficient evidence to justify his termination.

If you agree, it is our responsibility to speak up! It is imperative for taxpayers to communicate immediately with all Town Council members to express our displeasure and demand the Administrator’s removal. The Town Council has the legal authority to act. The question is, will they?

Answer: Perhaps my eyes deceive me, but this comment sounds exactly like something one of the crackpot Hopkinton DiLibero bashers would say.

I’ve researched DiLibero’s Hopkinton history and so did the town search committee that hired him. He was involved in two high-profile personnel matters and in both instances, arbitrators ruled his actions were correct and proper. He is currently one of the targets in DiBello v. Charlestown. If you read DiBello’s own words in her court complaint, you will see ample reason why DiLibero fired her.

This nonsense that somehow anyone, like me, who defends DiLibero has something to gain from it is just nuts. The best I have ever personally hoped to get from DiLibero is timely delivery on my requests for documents under the state open records act. Period. 

Tom likes his burgers

I’ll let others speak for themselves, but as far as I can tell, they have no vested interest in DiLibero’s tenure either. (Tom has stated that he looks forward to being served a hamburger by DiLibero at the annual volunteer picnic!)

The fact is that he works at the pleasure of the Town Council majority. And the CCA is doing its level best to create maximum displeasure within that Town Council majority. I have to send the question back at them – what is YOUR vested interest in the “Kill Bill” campaign? And don’t hand out that swill that it’s about open, honest and transparent government – spend five minutes looking at Deputy Dan’s record and that argument is blown to hell.

Anonymous CCA e-mailer on April 3, 2012

So, let me get this straight. The Charlestown Democratic Committee is okay with a Town Administrator—a town employee–withholding information from the Town Council and the public. Reason Number 1-and there are plenty of them—is NOT to vote for Democrats to the Town Council in the fall. If this is the way they would run town government-keeping the public in the dark-then I don’t want them in control.

Answer: Yes, you should really try a little harder to get it straight rather than just parrot the CCA's lies.

Anonymous CCA e-mailer on April 3, 2012

Why dosen’t CCA publish a copy of the Land Transfer Agreement for Ninigret Park from the Federal Governent to the Town of Charlestown. Town Citizens can then read and see exactly what the terms and conditions of the agreement are. US Fish & Wildlife was given their property at the same time. Remember it was one big Airfield We are all intelligent and can read for ouselves what the Terms and Conditions of the agreement are and then make informed comments . If CCA is not able to publish it, I will try to find it on my own. Then everyone we will know what they are talking about. I think everyone is shooting from the hip, without any real knowledge of the agreement. He said, she said, you can’t do this and you can’t do that.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Deputy Dan refuses to disclose key Ninigret documents -
while he attacks DiLibero for....not disclosing key
Ninigret documents. 

Answer: They can’t publish it because it appears that only their own champion, Council Vice-President Deputy Dan Slattery, has the document in question. He was asked by his fellow Council members to provide them with a copy, but he told them Town Solicitor Peter Ruggiero forbade him from distributing the record. 

At the March 12 Town Council meeting, Ruggiero said he advised Slattery not to unilaterally post items on Clerkbase without consulting his colleagues first, but never told Slattery not to disseminate the document.

I am also very impressed by this commenter's strategic use of exclamation points.

From “Paula” on April 4, 2012

When the town manager doesn’t tell the town council what he is up to, the public is shut out too. The only way the people can know what is happening is if it is talked about in a public meeting. If this was made public then there are people who know more about the history who could have added their experience to the discussion. But there wasn’t a discussion because the manager kept his lips buttoned for over a year.

WOuld this have added to the information on the 500 foot tall turbines proposed for the other side of Rt. 1? If the federal government doesn’t want turbines near the wildlife refuge, wouldn’t that include the ones north of Rt. 1 too? Would that be a reason the manager kept those letters a secret? I mean was he trying to help that developer? I think hundreds of people came to those meetings and none of them knew. The manager just sat there and didn’t say a word.

Answer: If Town Administrator Bill DiLibero survives this Monday night’s Town Council Executive Session (and I’d put the odds at less than 50-50), I think “Paula” not Andersen and the CCA would like to have him wear an electronic ankle monitor. Let’s extend Clerkbase video coverage to DiLibero’s office, too. 

This would give Deputy Dan something to do all day – he can watch and listen to the DiLibero-cam.

The January 18, 2011, Interior Department letter would have made NO difference in the debate over Larry LeBlanc’s Whalerock industrial wind farm proposal – other than to make Mike Chambers’s head explode – because by January 18, 2011, town law tied that project up through a moratorium passed in November 2010, extended in March 2011 and then replaced by Charlestown’s permanent ban on wind energy enacted in November 2011.

And as I’ve said before, LeBlanc’s Whalerock project is not a serious project – the lack of sufficient wind at the site makes that project impractical. Larry wants Charlestown to buy LarryLand, and he will continue to propose unacceptable uses for the land until we pay him to stop.

If “Paula” is insinuating that there is some secret deal between DiLibero and Larry LeBlanc, that is the kind of charge where you’d better be ready to show some evidence. And, by the way, you should show the evidence to the State Police. If it exists anywhere other than between your ears. Which I seriously doubt.

In Part 6, I’m going to wrap up with several long and complex, if not convoluted, postings from the CCA leadership that are prime examples of the extent to which the CCA will go to torture the facts to “Kill Bill.”