Can you trust the CCA in Charlestown?

After you look at their record, no, you can't

Frank Glista, Charlestown 

When voting in Charlestown, most residents look at which candidates have participated in our local government, whether by volunteering for a board or commission or by elected office.

The candidates that are supported by Charlestown Residents United (CRU) have done just that. All nine of their candidates have had extensive experience in our local government. 

In comparison, the candidates from Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) fall short of this basic achievement. 

Three of their five candidates running for Town Council and one of their four running for the Planning Commission have never been involved with any volunteer or elected position that Charlestown offers. 

So who do you trust to run our town government? Dedicated residents who have given decades of service, or citizens that have been asked to serve to fill up the CCA ballot card?

Speaking of trust, here are a couple of interesting tidbits for you to review:

■ Did you know that the CCA Town Council attempted to giveaway YOUR town-owned property by giving a conservation easement to an outside agency? (You, the voters rejected this idea by a margin of 618 to 548 during the all-day financial referendum on June 1, 2015.)

■ Did you know that the CCA knew about the Federal RailroadAdministration attempt to create the Old Saybrook /Kenyon bypass a year before the CCA revealed it to the residents of Charlestown? (Town Council Minutes of January 10, 2017, or watch the video at the 49:30 min. mark.)

■ Did you know that in 2019 the town of Charlestown had an excess surplus of $3.1 million? The CCA members of the Town Council tried to include that amount in the municipal budget that went before the voters, instead of making it a warrant question. They wanted the money to construct a building in Ninigret Park without a plan or cost estimates even though a majority of residents spoke against this plan. Only Town Council Vice President Deb Carney listened and agreed with the voters. (The CCA didn’t adhere to the will of the voters and the budget was soundly defeated by a vote of 739 to 265 at the all-day financial referendum on June 3, 2019.)

The CCA won’t tell you these things, but instead spin the truth to benefit their own agenda ... so much for transparency. Don’t fall for their propaganda. Do the research and find out for yourselves. After all, the only thing transparent about the CCA is their lack of transparency.

Please support the CRU candidates:

Deb Carney, Craig Marr, Rippy Serra, Peter Slom and Stephen Stokes for Town Council; Glenn Babcock and Laura Rom for the Planning Commission; and Ray Dreczko for town moderator and Laura Chapman for School Committee. 

A version of this article appeared as a Letter To the Editor in The Westerly Sun on October 30, 2024.

Who's next?

For more cartoons by Jen Sorenson, CLICK HERE.

Act FAST!

Indigenous Museum in Exeter Eyes Move to Bigger Location

A "Yes" vote on Rhode Island Question 5 will make the difference

By Colleen Cronin / ecoRI News staff

Make the dream real. Vote YES to RI Ballor Question 5

As the Tomaquag Museum looks to move to a new location at the University of Rhode Island, the organization hopes funding from the state will help make it happen.

Rhode Islanders will vote on Question 5, which if approved would create a $10 million bond for arts and preservation efforts — $2 million of which would help fund the Tomaquag Museum and its planned relocation to a larger facility and research center in Kingston.

At a virtual meeting Wednesday, the museum’s executive director, Loren Spears, reviewed preliminary plans for the new museum and discussed how it will further the organization’s goals.

“Those that know me well know that I kind of grew up in Tomaquag Museum, but I’m not quite as old as when it was founded,” she said, smiling, at the start of the meeting.

The only Indigenous-run museum in the state focused on Native history and culture, the Tomaquag Museum started as a small enterprise in 1958.

Founded by Princess Red Wing, a member of the Narragansett and Wampanoag tribes, and Eva Butler, an archaeologist, the museum was a way to preserve and share the story of local Indigenous people.

US Election Sabotage Fears Grow After Ballot Boxes Set Aflame

New MAGA strategy: Burn ballot drop-off boxes

Jessica Corbett

Law enforcement officials in the Pacific Northwest are investigating a pair of Monday morning fires at ballot drop boxes that have heightened concerns about illegal efforts to interfere with the November 5 elections.

One fire occurred around 3:30 am Pacific time on Southeast Morrison Street in Portland, Oregon. The Portland Police Bureau explained that "by the time officers arrived, the fire had already been extinguished by security personnel who work in the area. Officers determined an incendiary device was placed inside the ballot box and used to ignite the fire."

Multnomah County noted in a separate statement that "fire suppressant inside the ballot box protected virtually all the ballots," and the three voters whose ballots were damaged will be contacted by officials so they can receive replacements.

"Make no mistake, an attack on a ballot box is an attack on our democracy and completely unacceptable," declared Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade. "Whatever the motivation behind this incident, there is no justification for any attempt to disenfranchise voters."

RED FLAG WARNING for fires issued for Charlestown and our region NOW until 7 PM

 ...RED FLAG WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 8 AM TO 7 PM EDT FRIDAY FOR

RHODE ISLAND...

The National Weather Service in Boston/Norton has issued a Red
Flag Warning which is in effect from 8 AM to 7 PM EDT Friday.

* AFFECTED AREA...In Rhode Island, Northwest Providence,
  Southeast Providence, Western Kent, Eastern Kent, Bristol,
  Washington, Newport and Block Island.

* TIMING...From 8 AM to 7 PM EDT Friday.

* WINDS...West 10 to 15 mph with gusts up to 30 mph.

* RELATIVE HUMIDITY...As low as 44 percent.

* TEMPERATURES...Up to 77.

* IMPACTS...Any fire that develops will catch and spread
  quickly. Outdoor burning is not recommended.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

A Red Flag Warning means that critical fire weather conditions
are either occurring now, .or will shortly. Any fires that start
may spread rapidly and become difficult to extinguish.

How the Election Could Affect Toxic Chemical Regulation

Under Trump, there won't be any

By Teresa Carr

Photo: The White House

On a chilly morning in early December 2017, attorney Anthony Spaniola awakened at his cabin on Van Etten Lake in Oscoda, Michigan, to the sight of billowy white froth bobbing along the shore. He recalled his wife peering out the window and remarking, “Hey, it snowed last night.”

“And I said, ‘I don’t think that’s snow,” said Spaniola. “It was contaminated PFAS foam.”

Thanks to their stain-, water-, and grease-resistant properties, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, have been a mainstay of commercial and consumer products for decades. Sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals” because most don’t break down naturally, PFAS (pronounced PEE-fass) accumulate in the environment and have been linked to harmful health effects, including increased cholesterol, lowered immunity, liver damage, diabetes, kidney and testicular cancer, and lower birth weight.

The foam on the Spaniolas’ beloved lake contains high levels of PFAS, remnants of the chemicals once used in firefighter training at nearby Wurtsmith Air Force Base, shuttered since 1993.

In the past decade, activists like Spaniola have successfully pushed for tighter restrictions on PFAS, culminating in regulations that set the first national limits on the chemicals in drinking water and require polluters pay for cleanup. Now, advocates are lobbying federal regulators to do more to limit PFAS at the source, including by banning the chemicals in certain products and helping municipalities pay for technology to filter them out of waste and drinking water.

What the upcoming presidential election, though, could mean for those policies remains unclear. The executive branch wields broad power over PFAS regulation, but neither Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump have made PFAS contamination part of the platforms published on their campaign websites. Still, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s track record during their respective administrations yields important clues about how the outcome of the presidential election could shape policy.

In advance of the upcoming presidential election, some former officials at the EPA are raising the alarm that a second Trump administration could undo progress in reducing PFAS production and cleaning up contaminated areas such as Oscoda.

“The biggest concern I would have is a rollback,” said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who was an environmental scientist and administrator at the EPA for four decades. Political appointees could overrule scientists to pull back and redo regulations they didn’t like, she said. “You could end up going backwards in environmental protection.”

Orme-Zavaleta and others point to Project 2025, an initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and featuring input from many former members of the Trump administration, which calls for efforts to “revisit” and “revise” key PFAS policies finalized during the Biden administration.