False Attacks Against Charlestown Staff Unfairly Tarnish Reputations And Need To Stop

/, 5 Comments

Charlestown was managed very well for a decade, but the current Town Council majority still continues to falsely accuse town staff of misdeeds.

A recent Town Council workshop examined the town ordinance regarding Capital Facilities Impact Fees—fees assessed to assure that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital expenditures necessary to provide improvements to public facilities.

Town Council President Carney is quoted in the Westerly Sun (December 1, “Charlestown Town Council reviews impact fee ordinance“) as follows:

“What stands out to me is, have we the town been violating our own ordinance and state law by moving this money out of the account in which it was supposed to be designated for and instead transferred in as a general line item in the budget.” She continued, “It is pretty clear this money can only go toward capital improvements.”

There is no evidence whatsoever that staff has violated the ordinance. In fact, the town’s tax assessor is reported to have stated at the meeting that 582 dwelling units have been added since 2000, that in every budget there are capital improvement expenses, and that the town is “in balance where we should be with that money.”

This illustrates other times the current Town Council might have benefited from doing additional research. For example:

  • A request for a declaratory judgment from state court regarding the status of the town’s elected planning commission—The Town Council discovered that, when the issue had come up twice before, once in 2008 and again in 2011, the opinions of two previous town councils and two town solicitors, both of whom are currently employed by the town, were that the Planning Commission is legally formed.
  • An order to the town’s building official to issue permits for accessory dwelling units—The Town Council discovered that the Building Official could not issue permits for accessory dwelling units because a state law enacted in 2022 had nullified the town’s long-standing ordinance allowing family accessory dwelling units and therefore such units are no longer allowed under the existing town code.
  • An accusation that Town employees had been paid improperly—The Town quickly discovered that town employees were indeed paid for work they actually did perform, rather than, as they were accused of doing, being paid for work they did not do.
  • The claim that $3 million of taxpayers’ money was “missing”—This money was indeed not missing, and, in fact, the money had been spent to pay into the police pension system and to give back to taxpayers money that was not needed for road repairs, and the like. Indeed, investigations by the town’s budget commission, by two independent auditors, and by an outside consulting firm have confirmed that no money was missing and was spent appropriately.

Scrutinizing where impact fees are spent is the job of every Town Councilor. However, implying, without any evidence, that town staff has violated an ordinance is unconscionable. These attacks unfairly tarnish reputations and need to stop.

Bonnie Van Slyke

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.