Having been elected four times in Tiverton over the last decade, I’m now in the odd position of writing as a target in an odd recall process where just 405 voters can vote me out despite over 2,000 voters voting me in just last year. In all this, Mr. McLaughlin’s motivation with his $4M lawsuit is obvious, but as your Town Council president I am more troubled by the false information being spread about the good work being done by your Town Council.

Only halfway through the two-year term, this council has made remarkable progress on multiple fronts. New firefighter and police contracts signed. Decisions made on closing the landfill. Progress on a true long-term financial plan, a new playground, and remediating Bay Street. Personnel issues, such as the last fire chief, and replacing the last solicitor who resigned, have been resolved favorably. Grinnell’s beach re-opened and a new fire rescue was purchased. Taxes have stayed at less than inflation for a decade, and even went down the last two years. And we are releasing all executive session meeting records to further open government. There are many more examples. Of course, no one person or one council deserves all the credit for any one thing, and there is plenty of other work in process, but the real story is that things are going well – quite well, actually – in Tiverton.

Justin Katz and I put in many extra hours on administrative duties to help run the council and work with the Town Administrator and other officials, but we get just one vote like the other councilors. To those who single out Justin’s or my voting record, did you know that the entire council votes unanimously or 6-1 over 95% of the time? Not counting procedural votes, it’s still over 90%. We disagree from time to time, as we should, but after a lot of research, input from others, and good discussion the council votes together 9 times out of 10. And we’ve held over 30 meetings and workshops in just a year.

At the end of the day, Tiverton is a small town and Justin and I are just two of your neighbors. Like most everyone volunteering in local government, we juggle work, raising a family, and life’s other demands while doing the best we can for our town. You can always call me at 401-525-0469 and Justin at 401-835-7156.

In closing, two things. First, no matter how you voted last year, please consider making the choice to not participate in this recall process. Voting “yes” or “no” either way would normalize and weaponize a consuming, expensive recall process for political purposes, which is not what recalls were meant for, and guarantee deep division in the town for years to come. Second, please see through the clutter and know your hardworking council has accomplished quite a bit, even just halfway through the term, and things are going well in Tiverton.

When it comes to board appointments in Tiverton, longstanding Town Council policy is clear.  Whenever there are more applicants than open seats, two things apply.  First, the applicants must be interviewed by the council.  Second, the council does not vote until the meeting after all interviews are done.  This is only fair to the applicants, and also gives the council and the public time for consideration.

For the pending open seat on the Tiverton Zoning Board of Review, there are two applicants: an incumbent whose term is ending and seeks re-appointment, and a new applicant looking to join the board.  Both applicants want a primary seat (not an alternate seat).

When the incumbent (who happens to be the chair) did not attend interviews on August 26th, as a courtesy we held the matter open until our next regular meeting so she could attend on September 9th.  Now that interviews are all done, the council will vote at its next meeting on September 23rd.

This written policy was formally adopted in 2012 and has been used by five councils in a row, including this one which approved the current version unanimously.  Incumbents and new applicants are treated alike, and this too is only fair.

The Daily News article on this routine matter completely misses this point, despite my explaining the policy a half-dozen times at the meeting.  But it’s a perfect example of how political gamesmanship, and the loudest voices in the room, can lead well-meaning, hardworking newsreporters to spin even the most routine business into “news” which, though astray from reality, looks great for those with agendas.  In this case, it’s the personal agenda of a recall petitioner suing Tiverton for $4M, and the political agenda of his allies piggybacking on the opportunity.

Thus, another night of the council’s good work is ignored, while nothing more than a routine, courteous application of a longstanding, fair policy is presented as drama or scandal.  Let’s hope readers of the Daily News remember this going forward, because inaccurate reports like this are not good for anyone other than a select few.

McLaughlin’s allegation that this town council is not representing the will of the voters is a tall tale divorced from reality.

There were 18 candidates who ran for the Town Council in November 2018 and the “will of the people” elected as the majority Tiverton Taxpayers Association (TTA)-endorsed candidates: Donna Cook, Robert Coulter, Nancy Driggs, and Justin Katz. (Donna Cook, Justin Katz, and Nancy Driggs – in that order – being the highest vote getters.) Yet the lowest vote getter, William McLaughlin, joined by town council minority members, former president Denise DeMedeiros and Patricia Hilton, now claim to represent the will of the people in their down-is up and up-is-down topsy-turvy world.

But, if the majority who voted for this town council feel it was misled and its will is not being represented, where are its voices, where is its outrage? If the actions of this town council are so egregious, then why was third lowest vote-getter David Paull’s ethics complaint against Coulter, Driggs and Katz dismissed? And why were the DeMedeiros and Hilton Open Meetings Act charges dismissed? How come McLaughlin’s (the lowest vote getter) and two council minority members’ strident voices are all we hear?

Speculation about why this recall scheme was begun and has the support of DeMedeiros and Hilton includes McLaughlin wanting to change the town council majority to ensure settlement of his $4 million lawsuit against the town, and DeMedeiros and Hilton itching to be in control of the town council again.

What is not speculation is this town council’s accomplishments to date and its future plans: Contrary to McLaughlin’s allegations, it has expanded civil debate by allowing public comment on agenda items, and access to the agenda itself; Katz and Cook, the town council liaisons in the firefighters’ union contract negotiation, successively, and creatively, negotiated a contract and forestalled the anticipated need for arbitration which saved the town between $50,000 and up to $100,000 in legal fees; It scrapped a solar ordinance poorly conceived by the prior DeMedeiros town council and tasked the Planning Board for its input on future solar energy projects. (Unfortunately, for legal reasons some solar projects which had been approved when the solar ordinance was in effect can proceed); And, among other items, it is working on a long-term financial plan, ordinances such as an employee code of conduct to govern the right to receive certain benefits upon termination, and increasing openness and transparency in its actions (which too often in the past were shielded from public scrutiny in executive sessions).

You can defeat McLaughlin’s political stunt fostered and supported by sore losers, by not voting in the election. Because the recall charter provision requires a certain number of people to vote in the election, by not voting and keeping that number low you are helping to reject the recall petition power grab of McLaughlin and his cohorts which is so clearly against the will of the people.

Recall elections are for recalling sham artists, people who somehow hoodwinked voters into thinking they were great citizens and would steer their town into great prosperity. However, the Tiverton recall election is exactly the opposite. Four million dollars is driving the Tiverton recall election.

A gentleman named Bill McLaughlin (who started the recall election) has a lawsuit against the Town of Tiverton. He and the town went through both state and federal courts over zoning ordinance infractions he committed and refused to correct. That ended with the town tearing down his partially constructed garage. Because of that McLaughlin is suing the town for $4 million.

A federal court subsequently ordered the Tiverton Town Council to enter mandatory mediation with McLaughlin but no agreement was reached. Could it be that McLaughlin seeks to recreate a town council (through the recall process) that will reach a mediation agreement that is more to his liking? Could it be McLaughlin is trying to take your election away from you for his own benefit? I think the answer to both questions is yes.

It is not complicated: It’s the money. I call it the McLaughlin Recall.

In order for a recall election to count, a minimum number of votes must be cast (like a quorum). In this case 808 voters must participate for a valid election. If you do not vote in the McLaughlin Recall your non-vote turns into a no vote. Your non vote would be a vote for: 1) not removing your duly elected councilors, 2) against abusing the recall process, and 3) against McLaughlin’s scheme to maximize his lawsuit payout at the expense of the “will of the people” as expressed in your November 2018 Election.

Here are ten good reasons to make the choice to not vote in William McLaughlin’s sham recall election:

1. The recall election is a terrible new political low and will discourage participation. If it succeeds it will also be a new political weapon that could become a regular occurrence. Don’t encourage that.

2. Recalls should be reserved for major, proven misdeeds like actual crimes, but this recall is based on manufactured scandals and lies. This isn’t Fall River.

3. The recall is just part of a pattern of attempts to disrupt the Town Council. Complaints filed with the Ethics Commission, the Attorney General’s office, and the municipal court have all been dismissed, and the recall is an attempt to see if enough voters can be whipped up with false accusations. Don’t fall for it.

4. This council has been the most productive, open, and professional that Tiverton has seen in years.

5. Council members are only in office for two years in Tiverton, and by the time of the recall election, there will only be one year left. Candidate declarations for the next election will kick off campaigns only about six months later. A special election now is a confusing waste of time and money.

6. The council is negotiating contracts, developing ordinances, working on a long-term financial plan to help get the town’s decision-making on track, and more, and voters should let the council finish that ongoing work and judge them on the results at next year’s regular election.

7. If this is really about the decisions of the council majority, why was the petition only filed against two out of those four members? Because it is entirely a political power grab, intended only to flip the majority for Mr. McLaughlin and his political allies.

8. It took Mr. McLaughlin four months to collect enough signatures, after three months of preparation, and he just barely made it. For any other election, candidates and petitioners have a limited time to collect signatures, but with our open-ended process, a handful of signature collectors can take however long they need to undo an election. Don’t be a part of it.

9. This recall could cost the town over $15 thousand. Taxpayers should not have to pay for this.

10. Mr. McLaughlin wants a $4 million settlement from taxpayers for a lawsuit against the town and is working hard to change the leadership of the Town Council — even going so far as to say whom he wants as the replacement president and vice president. Don’t let him get away with this.

For the recall to count and Mr. McLaughlin to pull this off, he needs a minimum of 800 people to vote either way. Whatever you think of the current council, the best choice for Tiverton is to stay home, and see if Mr. McLaughlin can get over 800 people to show up and support him in this sham.

You’ve heard the saying, “politics makes strange bedfellows”? That sure is proving true in Tiverton.

During the 2000s, James McInnis tried again and again to sell his land between Souza Rd. and Rt. 24 for a variety of developments. Again and again, the town government did not let it happen. The back-and-forth came to a head on March 24, 2008. Shortly before a scheduled Town Council meeting, Mr. McInnis submitted another plan to develop the area.

That night, led by then-President Louise Durfee, the council changed the zoning to residential, in keeping with a 2006 change of the town’s comprehensive plan. Along with McInnis’s lawyer, his real estate advisor, Bernard Giroux, argued that the town should hold off on the change and first consider the new proposal.

Here we are in September 2019, and the town is still trying to resolve the lawsuit that was sparked that night. And within the past week, both Ms. Durfee and Mr. Giroux have taken to the local newspapers to go after… me.

Ms. Durfee’s reason is obvious. She doesn’t like the results of the last election and doesn’t want to wait until next year to try to change them. So, she helped collect signatures for a recall petition to get rid of President Rob Coulter and me and shift power back to people she likes better. A few weeks ago, the Don’t Mall Tiverton group, with which Durfee has been deeply involved, began lying to the public, trying to sell the recall as a way to stop “the mall” on Souza Rd. I wrote a letter to the editor informing Tiverton residents that Rob and I have no intention of voting to change the zoning as the development would require.

Because the recall campaign depends so heavily on lies, Durfee pivoted to a complaint that my letter would bring another lawsuit, like the one that her Town Council caused. She’s just plain wrong. When it comes to zoning changes, the town’s ordinances do not require the Town Council to keep its mouth shut until the Planning Board studies a proposal and then to vote based only on the Planning Board’s findings.

The only restriction on how the council makes its decision is that it must “be in the best interest of the town.” If a council member looks at the initial plan and believes that it is definitely not in the best interest of the town, he or she can say so before the developer spends time and money convincing the Planning Board. In this case, the developer hasn’t even officially submitted the plan.

Mr. Giroux’s reason for objecting to my letter is more obvious, and his arguments about the law are even more obviously wrong. My writing a letter to the editor has no relevance to the Open Meetings Act, and expressing an opinion about a public policy question in which I have no financial interest is not even in the universe of the state’s Code of Ethics.

To be sure, angry people are free to pretend elected officials might have violated the law in order to try to make other people angry, too. Actually, I should clarify that’s only my opinion. In 2010, when she was Council President, Ms. Durfee attempted to sue a Tiverton resident for saying the council had violated the law. The ACLU jumped in to defend him because her lawsuit was an abuse of the legal system.

So, here we are. The same people who were just two weeks ago lying about my position on a development on Souza Rd. are now angry that I told the public the truth. A former council member who tried to sue a resident for suggesting that her actions violated the law is suggesting that my actions violated the law. And the anonymous people behind Don’t Mall are now aligned with the developer in objecting to my statement that I wouldn’t vote to make the mall happen.

Yup. Strange bedfellows. Tiverton residents should stay out of that bed and choose not to participate in the sham recall election that would put Durfee’s allies back in control.

This letter is to correct misinformation regarding hijacking and destruction of the Tiverton Republican Town Committee (TRTC), mostly stated by William McLaughlin and endorsed by a vocal group that is on a quest to recall two TRTC endorsed and duly elected members of the Town Council.

In May of 2016, we were asked by TRTC Chair DeEtta Moran, to become involved and help revitalize the committee that was in desperate need of new and active members as well as funds. At that time, there were 9 members, 5 of whom were active. We took on the challenge as newly elected Chair and Secretary.

As a committee, we reviewed and made changes to very old by-laws, adopted a beautiful logo and Mission Statement, recruited new members, helped organized a multi-town, very successful fundraiser, distributed newsletters to the community that generated additional members and generous donations. And our most important mission…to recruit and support conservative candidates (registered Republicans or Unaffiliated candidates) for the 2017 Charter Review Commission (9 endorsed, 9 elected), 2018 candidates for Town Council (7 endorsed, 4 elected) and Budget Committee (6 endorsed, 5 elected), a very successful accomplishment thanks to the voters of Tiverton.

So, no Mr. McLaughlin, you are totally wrong, you are spreading false information about something that you have no knowledge, as you have never been involved with the TRTC. The Tiverton Taxpayers Association (TTA) did not “hijack” nor did they destroy the TRTC, members of the TTA became new members of the better and stronger Tiverton RepublicanTown Committee.

Just when you think you could not be more disgusted with politics, a total farce like the Tiverton Town Council recall rears its ugly head. What I’ve had difficulty understanding is how seeming adversaries can collaborate in perpetrating a historic sham on the voters of Tiverton — until now.

The following is a chronology of events based on the Summary Opinion of the RI Supreme Court (SC) decision, filed June 30, 2018:

• 2008: William C. McLaughlin builds garage in violation of zoning setback requirements.
• 2013: Superior Court affirms Zoning Board of Review’s decision to deny McLaughlin’s request for relief from setback requirements.
• 2013: McLaughlin’s procedurally improper appeal to Superior Court is dismissed.
• 2014: Zoning board’s “Motion for Order to Comply,” is granted.
• April 7, 2014: Superior Court orders McLaughlin to move or remove garage.
• 2014: McLaughlin motion, filed April 8, to vacate/reconsider, is denied.
• 2016: McLaughlin adjudged to be in contempt and ordered to pay $69,300 in fines.
• March 2016: The Town of Tiverton removes McLaughlin’s garage.
• May 2016: McLaughlin’s motion to vacate the April 7, 2014, order is denied.
• 2016: McLaughlin’s appeal to Supreme Court is denied.
• 2016: Based on procedural error by Town Council, Supreme Court reverses Superior Court’s denial of McLaughlin’s 2016 motion to vacate, giving McLaughlin grounds to sue Tiverton.

Please note the following fact established above. Mr. McLaughlin’s final appeal succeeded on the basis of a procedural error committed by the Town Council which, at the time, was headed by Ms. Denise deMedeiros, who, brazenly, is McLaughlin’s key partner in advancing the recall.

The following two additional excerpts from the above Supreme Court decision lend more insight into how Tiverton has come to be exposed to a potentially lucrative settlement in favor of Mr. McLaughlin, the initiator of the recall. From the majority opinion:

Had the Town of Tiverton filed an action in the Superior Court alleging that McLaughlin’s garage was out of compliance with the Tiverton Zoning Ordinance’s setback requirements, it may well have prevailed given the evidence in the record before us…(T)he town’s failure to comply with § 45-24-62 in obtaining permanent injunctive relief on April 7, 2014, is fatal.

From the dissenting opinion:

The majority…has…vacated the original order of April 7, 2014, and…thereby cast a shadow over the propriety of the town’s action in removing the garage. This not only may frustrate the town’s ability to seek reimbursement for the costs of the removal, but it exposes the town to potential liability for the removal itself.

When a Supreme Court judge states that a shadow has been cast over the propriety of the Town Council, you don’t ignore it. By failing to follow proper court procedure and by tearing down McLaughlin’s garage prematurely, the Town Council, headed by Ms. deMedeiros, ensured the success of his appeal and the likelihood of a sizable settlement. So, perhaps the bedfellows are not so strange after all.

Something inside tells me that I cannot dignify such a shameless power grab as this recall is with something so time-honored and sacred as a vote — up or down. It’s been said, “he who sings, prays twice.” Well, here is your opportunity to vote twice by staying home, no less. First, you’re voting against the recall. And second, you’re voting against the people who perpetrated this shameful misuse of a recall process that was never intended to be used to remove political opposition. Don’t allow this precedent to be set. Stay home.

William McLaughlin first collected his recall petition papers on January 15, less than two months after we took office.  By the time a recall election actually happens, we’ll be halfway through our two-year term, with just a year left to go before the next election.

Meanwhile, McLaughlin’s efforts have been accompanied by a long series of baseless complaints to the state government, all of have which have been dismissed.  The recall and these complaints have been led by candidates who lost the last election (including McLaughlin) and members of the council who expect to return to power if we are no longer in office.

The people of Tiverton voted for Town Council in November 2018 and will vote again in November 2020.  You shouldn’t have to vote for council every year.  Imagine how disruptive that would be.  Anybody whose ideas for the town are a little bit different from the way things have always been done will have to think twice about whether it’s worth it.

In our time in office, we’ve worked to put out the many fires that we inherited, and over the coming months, we’ll continue our work to fix the long-term problems that Tiverton faces.  We welcome calls and emails from anybody with an interest in our plans going forward, questions about the rumors that are being spread, or concerns about our decisions so far.  Rob can be reached at (401) 339-3494 or rcoulter@outlook.com; Justin can be reached at (401) 835-7156 or justin@justinkatz.com. We ask the people of Tiverton to stay the course and “reject the recall” by making the deliberate decision not to participate in this harmful political stunt that is based on falsehoods and rumors.  If we haven’t convinced you that we deserve to remain in office by 2020, choose other candidates.  But for now, if you send the message that you won’t be forced to vote every year, maybe people who want to go down that path will see that it isn’t worth the effort.