Personal Attack On Long-Serving Charlestown Volunteer Dishonest

On July 20, Thom Cahir, a member of the Charlestown Affordable Housing Commission and a “Top Contributor” on a Facebook group in Charlestown with 7,000 members, personally attacked Cliff Vanover.

Mr. Vanover — who had served for many years on the Zoning Board and on the Charlestown Conservation Commission before that — had applied for reappointment to the Zoning Board of Review. He and another board member were not reappointed.

Rather than have an authentic conversation over the issue of the balance of experience on the Zoning Board of Review, Mr. Cahir chose to deflect using a groundless personal attack on a town volunteer and his family.

Mr. Cahir based his assault on a case before the Rhode Island Superior Court regarding a decision of the Zoning Board. Mr. Cahir cited the claim made by the appellants, as if the claim was factual, that Mr. Vanover had changed his vote willy-nilly. And, Mr. Cahir cited a statement he said was made by the Superior Court judge, in a footnote, regarding Mr. Vanover’s vote.

The statement does not exist anywhere in the decision — not in a footnote or anywhere else. Nor does any statement like it exist.

Further, the Superior Court soundly rejected the appellants’ argument regarding a statement made by Mr. Vanover during an exhaustive and rambling hearing that spanned a number of meetings of the Charlestown Zoning Board.

Specifically, the Superior Court ruled as follows:

First, contrary to Appellants’ narrative, Mr. Vanover’s comment that he was “exhausted” did not immediately coincide with his decision to modify his earlier tentative vote. Id. at 123:3-5, 129:8-11. This temporal disconnect militates against any inference that exhaustion was Mr. Vanover’s only concern. Second, Appellants fail to acknowledge that after stating his initial position, Mr. Vanover heard further discussion and acknowledged that he was “conflicted by this application.” Id. at 122:10-11. Thereafter, there occurred several transcript pages of discussion of Mr. Quadrato’s proposed alternative to reduce the size of the top floor, including Petitioner’s husband’s response that he did not understand how reducing the size of that level would impact the variance requested, and Acting Chairwoman Quinn’s opinion that the proposal was therefore “random.” See generally id. at 123:7-129:6. Any number of statements in those intervening minutes could have swayed Mr. Vanover’s vote. Board members are afforded a presumption of propriety, Morin, 89 R.I. at 411, 153 A.2d at 151, and the mere fact that a member modifies his vote after hearing further discussion of the issues in controversy is insufficient evidence to overcome that presumption.”

In other words, Mr. Vanover acted as one would hope a public servant would do: He listened, carefully weighed all the evidence, and made his decision.

Mr. Cahir often has his own take regarding the Charlestown Citizens Alliance. He is certainly free to express those opinions. However, misrepresentation and making stuff up are not OK and are not only dishonest but toxic. Mr. Cahir needs to disagree better.

---

Bonnie Van Slyke, the author of this post, was a member of the Charlestown Town Council from 2014 to 2022. She was the Town Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Senior Citizens Commission. She is a former officer and member of the Board of Directors of the Frosty Drew Observatory & Science Center, a former Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals in Harvard, MA and a former member of the Board of Trustees of the Harvard Conservation Trust. Bonnie is a freelance copy editor, technical writer, and publications specialist. Bonnie writes occasionally about governance issues in Charlestown.