Monday, August 10, 2015

State Ethics Commission investigating self-styled ethics and morality expert

CCA Party School Committee member Ron Areglado accused of failing to disclose
By Will Collette

The Rhode Island Ethics Commission has commenced an investigation of alleged ethics violations by Chariho School Committee member and Charlestown Citizens Alliance activist Ron Areglado. 

The Commission determined that my June 18 complaint against Areglado for failing to disclose required information “alleges facts sufficient to constitute a violation of the provisions of the Rhode Island Code of Ethics.”

Most experts on ethics in government say the first big steps to ethics enforcement are full and honest disclosure and public transparency. Indeed, Ron Areglado often preaches that line from the podium when he was on the attack against his political opponents. He was particularly strident when he joined the CCA Party attack that led to the ouster of Town Administrator Bill DiLibero in 2012, citing lack of transparency and full disclosure as the worst of DiLibero’s alleged sins.

When Areglado campaigned for Town Council in 2012 and for School Committee in 2014, he posted a long and detailed resume listing virtually every membership and experience he has ever had – everything short of listing membership in the National Geographic Society or the Junior Varsity Checkers team in high school. Read it for yourself here.

One of the lead items on Areglado’s vitae is this:
Current President, The Center for Ethical and Moral Leadership, train and coach clients in leadership development, interpersonal communication and organizational development and effectiveness. Clients include for profit and nonprofit entities.”
Since Areglado frequently spoke and wrote of “ethical and moral” matters as if he was an expert, it was surprising to see this organization go unmentioned on the annual ethics disclosure forms Areglado has been required to file with the Rhode Island Ethics Commission since he ran for office in 2012 and was named to the Chariho School Committee.


Indeed, Progressive Charlestown has published details about this glaring omission in the past (click here and click here).

After we wrote about it, I thought Areglado might take the hint and list it on his current disclosure form. But, nope. It’s not there.

Real or fictional?

Maybe Areglado’s Center for Ethical and Moral Leadership is just a fictional organization, similar to our current state Representative Blake Filippi’s “Rhode Island Liberty Coalition.” That turned out to be a coalition consisting only of Filippi. He used it as a gimmick to get media attention for his campaign for nullification. That's the discredited idea that states can simply ignore – “nullify” – federal laws they consider unconstitutional. The South wanted to nullify federal laws on slavery leading to the Civil War. Click here for more details on Filippi’s fake organization.

Areglado’s “Center for Moral and Ethical Leadership” is not listed with the RI Secretary of State, is not on the IRS’s register of non-profit organizations and, according to Charlestown Town Clerk Amy Weinreich, does not hold a business license in Charlestown.

Also missing from Areglado’s ethics disclosure form was his role as Trustee for the Community 2000 Education Foundation, a group that is real and duly registered with the state and IRS. This group seems to function as a source of scholarships for Chariho students. Click here to see their state corporate report that lists Areglado as a trustee.

I puzzled over this glaring omission. Areglado lists several organizations that apparently do not exist on his CCA Party political resume and many that seem to serve no purpose other than to pad the resume’s length.

Yet here is a real group that actually seems to do something, and he doesn’t list it. Plus, I mentioned this when I wrote this article on past inconsistencies between Areglado’s political resume and his 2013 ethics disclosure report.

Aloha!

Finally, Areglado failed to disclose how he and his wife bought into a timeshare in Hawaii on May 5, 2014 in answer to the Ethics Commission question about whether they held a financial interest in property other than their primary residence.

You may recall Areglado recently spoke from the Town Council podium about the expenses he and his neighbors bore – according to him, around $40,000 – to fight against the proposed Whalerock wind turbine project. 

Some of the parties to the case are still trying to get a full accounting of all the money the Areglados collected and spent. 

There are unconfirmed reports that the attorney in the case is still trying to collect for his work.

Who are the “anonymous abutters” whose legal bills YOU paid?

These legal costs are separate from the nearly $50,000 the town of Charlestown paid to attorney John Mancini to provide legal representation to members of Areglado’s anti-wind power NIMBY group, referred to only as “anonymous abutters” and still unidentified. Click here and here and here for more details.

This may be the only instance in Charlestown’s history where the town spent taxpayer dollars to pay for a lawyer to represent private parties – and Charlestown taxpayers still don’t know who exactly who these “anonymous abutters” are.

These legal and financial struggles notwithstanding, the Areglados were able to afford travel to Hawaii and the investment in a Hawaii timeshare on their public employee pensions.

My complaint to the Ethics Commission was strictly limited to the three omissions I just described – failing to report the presidency of the “Center for Ethical and Moral Leadership,” the trustee position in the Community 2000 Education Foundation and the piece of the Hawaii timeshare – on his FS-1 financial disclosure form for 2014.

The rest of Areglado’s bloated political resume, including the listing of organizations whose existence I could not verify, may be tacky, but isn’t against the law. Except maybe it's on the edge of criminal to use a bogus resume to secure a government position, such as Town Council or School Committee member. I'll have to look that up.

Areglado admits two out of three charges and tries to parse his way out of the third

Areglado’s answer to the complaint was filed with the Commission on July 20. In it, Areglado admits to failing to include the “Center for Ethical and Moral Leadership” which he described as a “one-man consulting business.” 

He acknowledged that he did have one client in early 2014 (which meant it was covered by the latest ethics disclosure report), a charter school on Pima Indian Reservation in Arizona. He says he “erroneously interpreted” the question.

Areglado also admits that he failed to include his trusteeship in Community 2000 Education Foundation, calling it “an unfortunate mental lapse.”

Then there is Areglado’s answer to this question on the disclosure form:


Areglado admits that he and wife Maureen vacationed in Maui in 2014 and went to a “Club Wyndham vacation presentation.” He said he “liked their concept of a flexible-points-based system, which to us, was different both conceptually and practically, than what a traditional timeshare plan entailed [Footnote 1].”

Thus, according to Areglado, “I did not believe our investment fell under the aegis [FN2] of a ‘real estate’ purchase.” Besides being unresponsive to the actual question on the Ethics Commission form, the statement itself is questionable given the way the transaction was recorded. 

The Hawaiian Board of Conveyances recorded the $15,200 May 5, 2014 transaction on July 1, 2014 as a “Grant Deed” for a “Timeshare” granting Ronald J and Maureen Areglado as “Tenants by Entirity[FN3]” [SIC] a deed in a “Split Parcel Sale” paid for in cash. Click here for the Westlaw record of this transaction.

Areglado’s answer also attempts to parse the way the Ethics Commission question is written to include only ownership of property. The question not only asked about ownership, but asked whether the respondent “had a financial interest in any real estate” [emphasis added].

The intent to include all forms of property ownership is even clearer if you read the Ethics Commission instruction sheet on how to file out the form. (Click here to read for yourself – see #7). Here is that section:



There, the Commission says property interests must be disclosed whether they are direct or indirect or even if you only buy shares in a corporation that primarily deals in property, as the Areglados did. Club Wydham is such a corporation - dealing in vacation resorts is what they do, as they clearly describe on their own website.

Ultimately, the Commission with the advice of its own lawyers will decide this question. But as a non-lawyer, I see an official filing with the Hawaiian government showing the Areglados paid $15,200 and in return, received a deed for an interest in Hawaii timeshare property.

Much of Areglado’s response to the Ethics Commission has less to do with the substance of my complaint and more to do with how Areglado considers himself to be a moral and ethical person, claiming “I have worked in the field of education for over 45 years. Never have I been accused of malfeasance or errors of commission.”

That’s a finely parsed bit of self-congratulations, I must say and hard to independently verify, However, the failure to disclose required information is technically nonfeasance [FN4] and Areglado is once again trying to cast himself in the best possible light.

He also includes a lot of background material on the Native American charter school and promotional material on the timeshare deal. This material has nothing to do with whether or not he failed to disclose information in response to the questions on the Ethics Commission’s simple and straight-forward disclosure form.

Areglado admits to omitting his consulting business and his Foundation trusteeship on his 2014 disclosure form. Actually, Areglado did not disclose these two required facts in his earlier filings for 2011, 2012 and 2013, but I chose to limit my complaint to the most recent year.

When I saw the Hawaii timeshare deal – and its omission on his 2014 filing – I felt it was time to file an official complaint, regardless of how the Commission decides the property question.

Areglado admits to two out of three of the counts in my complaint, pleading a misunderstanding on one item and “an unfortunate mental lapse”  on another. Both mistakes were  \repeated over four years. His mental lapses are presented by Areglado as grounds to dismiss my complaint.

Did he do it on purpose?

Areglado no doubt anticipates the question the Commission must decide: whether Areglado intentionally violated the law. Proving actual intent is a daunting legal challenge.

While he claims these mental lapses, Areglado also holds forth on his overall brilliance, experience and talent and how proud he is to have done the work he failed to disclose. He also claims some shrewdness as he describes his analysis of the Club Wyndham timeshare deal.

How can he claim to be so sharp, so smart and so shrewd – beginning and ending his letter to the Ethics Commission with his title of Ed.D – yet be prone to such gaffes, especially since I publicly exposed his inconsistencies in his 2013 filing (click here for those details)?

One sign of Areglado’s frame of mind is this closing remark to the Ethics Commission investigator saying that in future dealings between him and the Commission “I will be represented by an attorney.” I wonder if he will ask the Town Council to pay for one.

To read my original complaint, the Ethics Commission notice that they saw sufficient grounds to investigate and Ron Areglado’s answer to the complaint in full, click here.



FOOTNOTES


[1] The Areglados may have been attracted by these amenities offered by Club Wyndham (from their website):
"...you'll delight in the luxury of all the comforts of home. Many CLUB WYNDHAM suites have the following great features:
  • Spacious living rooms with large-screen TV, DVD player and even video game systems
  • Separate bedrooms that offer a quiet, relaxing environment
  • Dining areas with a large table for plenty of room to spread out
  • Convenient washer and dryer
  • Wireless Internet access to keep you connected
  • Fully equipped kitchens with large refrigerator, stove, microwave, coffee maker — and even wine glasses!
"I love to cook and I love to bake — if I want to bake here, I can. I have a full oven in the room and I can just go and get the stuff and make brownies. I couldn't do that in a hotel."
— Sandy Tucci, Owner Since 2003

[2] Actually “aegis” is defined as a shield or a sponsorship or auspices in Webster’s New World Dictionary. I hope Areglado didn’t ever try to teach English (or rhetoric). Further, if Areglado had actually read the questions on the Ethics disclosure form, it does not require a purchase but simply holding a “financial interest” in property not one’s primary residence.

[3] Misspelled in the Westlaw record. Tenancy by the Entirety is defined in the Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms as a form of co-ownership where ownership automatically passes to the survivor in the event of the death of one of the owners.

[4] Malfeasance is “commission of an act that is positively unlawful.” Nonfeasance is “failure to do what duty requires to be done.” Areglado could have used a dictionary to look up the terms he wanted to use instead of winging it.