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