Chatting with Charlie

An interview with Charlie Vandemoer on Charlestown politics and the National Wildlife Refuge

By Will Collette

Charlie Vandemoer, US Fish & Wildlife Service

On July 11, Charlie Vandemoer, manager of the Ninigret Wildlife Refuge plus four similar facilities in southern Rhode Island, spoke with me for about an hour and a half.

At Charlie’s request, I did not record the interview, and instead must rely on my hand-written notes. I also didn’t take any photos of him, so the ones accompanying this article were taken of Charlie when he appeared before the Town Council.

Our subject was the political flare-ups that have put Charlie near the heart of a variety of contentious town issues over the past two years, ranging from the Y-Gate Scandal, the town’s rights to use the two parcels of land that comprise Charlestown’s Ninigret Park and the potential conversion of Larry LeBlanc’s controversial 81 acre site on Route One into open space..

Most of the interview was tense and we had several points where our exchanges were sharp, but by the end of the interview, we talked amicably about common ground, such as the need to return to a friendly balance between the important mission of the National Wildlife Refuge and the rights and interests of Charlestown.

Throughout our discussion, Charlie consistently said that what he does for the Fish and Wildlife Service is not political but is solely about protecting natural resources. By the end of the conversation, we discovered that he and I have very different definitions of “political.”

Charlie said he thought of “political” as meaning political parties. He apologized and said that was why he turned down my earlier requests for interviews because he thought I wanted to ask him about candidates for local office.

I explained that in my view, politics means a whole lot more than political parties, and that in Charlestown, the top political issue is land use.

The tough parts of the interview –for both of us – had to do with the occasions where he intervened in Charlestown land use politics. I noted that based on the records his agency sent me under the Freedom of Information Act and what veteran town officials have told me, his involvement in town issues increased tremendously just in the past two years.

I asked him why that was, and how he decides when to get involved. He said “when there is a natural resource issue or opportunity or when I am asked to be involved.”

Who was that mysterious town official?

I noted that, according to his own records, there were several issues where there was no record of any such request from a town official. The examples I gave were the two letters he wrote regarding Y-Gate and his letter supporting town purchase of Larry LeBlanc’s land as open space.

Who was that mysterious town official?

He said that a town official contacted him to ask him to get involved. Each time, I asked Charlie who that town official was but he wouldn’t say, citing privacy. When he repeated this argument, I asked, “What right of privacy is there when a Charlestown official talks to a federal official about a public issue in the town?”

Charlie still would not give up the name of this town official. Frustrated, I said, “Charlie, we both know who she is” and he replied, “We probably do.” 

However, despite my best efforts, he would not confirm that it was Planning Commissar Ruth Platner who pulled him into these issues.

Charlie said that the second time he wrote a letter about Y-Gate – in that instance, a letter of support for the grant that the Charlestown Land Trust submitted to RIDEM – he did so at the request of the Charlestown Land Trust.

The Trust is actually based in the Refuge’s headquarters at the Kettle Pond Visitor’s Center. Charlie said they pay a rent for an office – I didn’t ask how much – and contribute volunteer help.

The toughest and most contentious part of our discussion revolved around the Battle for Ninigret Park and the controversies over the defunct municipal wind turbine project and the aborted Parks & Recreation proposal for a grant for sports lighting.

I asked him who requested he get involved in the municipal wind turbine issue . He said it was the same town official who talked to him about that project and about the “writing of a municipal ordinance on wind energy.” This pretty much nailed down the identity of the mystery official as Platner, although, again, Charlie would not confirm her identity, citing privacy.

The reason for the letter to DEM

I asked what led him to write the letter to DEM asking DEM to hold up the funding for dark-sky friendly sports lighting at Ninigret Park. He said it was at the December 2011 Town Council meeting where Parks and Recreation Director Jay Primiano made a major presentation on that project. He raised concerns about the project.

Charlie wrote the DEM letter because he felt he was dissed

He noted that after the Town Council voted to approve the proposal to DEM, Councilor Dan Slattery wanted Primiano and Charlie to get together to discuss Charlie’s concerns.

The Clerkbase minutes contain this entry: “Mr. Slattery suggested that Mr. Primiano and Mr. DiLibero work with Mr. Vandermoer in the interim to work out any potential issues.”

Charlie said he waited to hear from Primiano, but the call never came, so in January, he decided to write the letter.

He said I was wrong to characterize the letter as an attempt to “kill” the grant, but that all he wanted to do was hold up DEM approval until he could work out his concerns with the town.

I didn’t ask Charlie if writing the letter took more than time it would have taken to call Jay and ask “Why in the hell haven’t you contacted me to discuss this?” Maybe I should have. Hindsight.

Charlie said he sent a copy of his DEM letter to the town. [Town Clerk Amy Weinreich told me she forwarded copies to each Town Council member].

That led to the call, followed by meetings and a string of e-mails between Charlie and Councilor Slattery.

Charlie said he suggested to Slattery that the way to mend fences was to draft an MOU (“Memorandum of Understanding”) setting out a protocol for communications. He also sent Slattery a three-page draft of an MOU. If you read on, you’ll see how rarely Charlie has signed MOUs in his territory.

At the end of our interview, Charlie looked at me and said, “If I had known what it would lead to, I never would have suggested it.”

“Just my professional opinion”

Slattery thought he was getting legal advice. He wasn't

During our tense discussion about what took place between January 2012 and today, Charlie and I clashed over the interpretation of the facts.

He said he was simply trying to be helpful and was offering his professional opinion.

I asked him why his “professional opinion” was at odds with that of the National Parks Service official with actual supervisory responsibility over the 172 acres of Ninigret Park, Elyse LaForest, and our own Town Solicitor.

Charlie repeated, “Well, it was just my professional opinion.”

I read him some of his own e-mails where he asserted his legal interpretation.[1] He and I went back and forth about whether he was giving a legal opinion or a “professional opinion.” I said that the language in his e-mail sure sounded like a legal opinion. He disagreed. Read for yourself.

Town Solicitor Ruggiero disagreed with Charlie's opinion

I asked him about one e-mail where Councilor Slattery expressed doubt about Charlie’s claim that the town’s 55 acres were under the same restrictions as the other 172 acres.

I read Charlie the quote from Slattery’s e-mail: “what does [SIC] your attorneys think of the deed regarding the 55 acres…..do they believe that the 55 acres must be managed as the remaining 172 acres?”

I asked Charlie whether he consulted with the Interior Department lawyers at that point, since it was clear that Slattery expected him to do so. Charlie said he did not, but claimed that he never responded to Slattery's e-mail.

Actually, I pointed out, he did answer Slattery – and read him his e-mail response to Slattery where he wrote “There are two somewhat distinct factors (a) the land transfer agreement, and (b) deed restrictions. The potential uses on the property goes back to the land transfer FEIS and what I can glean from old newspaper articles which I can provide for you.”

So did Nat'l Park Service official Elyse LaForest

Again, I asked if any Interior Department lawyers were consulted on this interpretation, as Slattery had expected, and Charlie said no.

I don’t know if Slattery ever knew that Charlie had not consulted Interior’s lawyers before Slattery took Charlie’s “professional opinion” into the Town Council’s March meeting.

“Misinterpretation”

Charlie argued that people were misinterpreting what he was saying and that the whole issue was overblown.

I said that I agreed, but that the first instance of an “overblown” interpretation occurred at the March Town Council meeting.

That’s when Slattery presented the strategy for Ninigret Park that Slattery and Charlie had worked out.

It was also when Town Council President Tom Gentz (CCA) and Councilor Slattery claimed Charlestown was in imminent danger of losing Ninigret Park to a federal reversion[2].

March 2012: Gentz decrees - no sports lighting.
No discussion, no debate, no vote

Because Charlestown supposedly faced imminent danger of losing Ninigret Park, Gentz unilaterally decided there would be no sports lights. Period. No discussion, no debate, no vote.

I said, “Charlie – you were there. In fact, you spoke later on in that meeting about the lighting ordinance. Why didn’t you speak up about the obvious exaggeration about federal reversion.”

He said, “I don’t work for the National Park Service. I had no way of knowing whether the town had been in conversation with NPS about reversion. It wasn’t my place to comment.”

Charlie said he felt terrible for the Chariho kids – the lighting proposal would have permitted the Chariho Cowboys Pop Warner football teams a couple of hours of extra fall practice time in the fall. Since Gentz ruled there would be no discussion or debate, the large group of kids had to leave the room without being heard.

How common are Memoranda of Understanding?

I wanted to know how much experience Charlie had with Memoranda of Understanding, since this seems to be the way Charlie, Councilor Slattery, and the CCA want to go.

I asked him if he had a lot of Memoranda of Understanding[3] with the five towns where he manages National Wildlife Refuges. These include not only Charlestown, but South Kingstown, Narragansett, Middletown and New Shoreham (Block Island).

MOUs are more scarce than piping plover nesting areas

He paused to think. He said he thought he had a couple MOUs regarding piping plover nesting areas and believed these MOUs were with Middletown and Block Island. He could think of no MOU on any subject involving South Kingstown or Narragansett.

He said he thought there was an old MOU with the RI Natural History Survey[4], but it might have expired. He thinks there might be one with URI.

So, I asked, none of these other agreements are at all similar to the one proposed for Charlestown either in subject or scope. His answer: No.

I asked him about the MOU that appeared on the June 9 agenda. He said he had heard that something had happened, but he didn’t know what. I showed him the MOU draft that was posted on Clerkbase. He said that, yes, that was his all right, but he thought it was the one he had sent to Slattery last January.

I told him I would compare the two documents, and did. It turns out they are two different documents, as you can see for yourself. I don’t know when Charlie’s second draft was written – it had to be recent because otherwise, the Interior Department would have been required to include it with the materials released to me under the Freedom of Information Act.

Charlie thought Town Solicitor Peter Ruggiero was writing the draft agreement and he expressed surprise that he hadn’t seen any drafts yet.

Hoping for a return to normal

He said that he hoped all these problems could be resolved soon and that his relationship with the town could return to normal

I told Charlie that I hoped so, too. I said there was no profit for anyone in a prolonged conflict over these issues, but urged him to consider a different approach to the town.

I said that he ran a great program at Ninigret and that I loved the other refuges under his management as well. But I told him that when he gets involved in town land use issues, he brings a very unpredictable element to the debate. 

“Charlie, you’re the top resident federal official in town,” I said. “When you come in on one side or another in a debate, your voice has disproportionate weight.”

He said he had come to realize that.

I asked him “Have you ever considered whether you’re being played?” He asked me what I meant and I explained that perhaps he wasn’t just being asked to come to a meeting or write a letter or give an opinion because he’s a smart guy but because of his unique position of power.

He said that this was one lesson he learned out of all of this. He said he wished he had never gotten so involved in these issues.

We finished our conversation on a more pleasant note. I was done with my list of questions and he was clearly glad I was. I told him about spending ten years working for an environmental group fighting coal mining problems where I dealt with his Interior Department colleagues in the Office of Surface Mining, mine inspectors who wanted to clean up the coal fields but found their hands were tied when they tried to bust coal operators.

I told him I had a lot of first-hand experience with federal environmental officials who just wanted to do a good job. I told him about one of my favorite national groups, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), who always took care of mine inspectors who wanted to turn whistle-blower.

I told Charlie I understand he is trying to do the best job he can. But I cautioned that Charlestown’s land politics can be pretty byzantine. People’s motives for asking for his help may not be as innocent as they appear.

Though Charlie and I did not shake hands at the beginning of our conversation, we shook hands at the end.

---

[1] He wrote this to Slattery: “My reading of the land transfer agreement indicates that the management of lands ‘not inconsistent with’ the refuge applies to the 55 acres as well, since the land transfer document referred to and applied to all lands to be used for municipal purposes.” Federal Lands to Parks manager Elyse LaForest did not support this interpretation. Town Solicitor Peter Ruggiero told the Town Council that under Rhode Island law, the language in the deed supersedes prior language like the land transfer agreement. 

[2] Federal reversions – take backs – of properties given to local or state governments under the Federal Lands to Parks Program are very rare and done only under extreme circumstances. The Federal Lands to Parks manager for our area, Elyse LaForest, told the Town Council that the town was never in any danger of reversion.

[3] There was some side discussion about how significant Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) are. Charlie argued, as have a number of CCA spokespeople, including the “Voice of the CCA” Mike Chambers, that MOUs are no big deal and carry no legal weight. Chambers claimed he wrote many MOUs as a government employee, usually without a lawyer. However, that’s not what legal sources, including our own Town Solicitor, say. They call MOUs legally binding documents – contracts. Click here and here and here and here

[4] The RI Natural History survey is a non-profit collaborative of academics, individuals and non-profit groups. It is NOT a municipality or other unit of government.