My name is Donald Sullivan. I’m here to declare my candidacy as a registered Independent for Burrillville Town Council.
The recent letter to the editor from the current town council president highlights the exact partisan political vitriol and rhetoric that our town does not need. Burrillville deserves leadership that represents all residents. We will never all agree on every issue. That should be seen as our strength, not a weakness. That is what makes us a community. Party politics and national talking points have no place in town leadership. National platforms and divisiveness from Washington should stay there.
What our community needs right now is leadership that lowers the temperature, not language that fuels division and fear. There is no place for this in our community. Burrillville is a wonderful place to live and raise a family. We should and need to be focused on unity and respect. Disagreement is healthy. Fear is not. I am not afraid of my neighbors who hold different opinions. Our differences make us stronger, they should never divide us.
I believe in bringing honesty, transparency and accountability to our local government – leadership that tries its best to represent all members of the Burrillville community. All town meetings should be open to the public. This is our government. We should have a planning board that is filled with knowledgeable professionals who can assist the town council with guidance, not simply act as a rubber stamp.
I believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. Every one of us has the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; law meant for all residents, to be interpreted equally for every individual. The Constitution is very clear on our rights and they should not be infringed upon. This includes the Second Amendment. I am a responsible gun owner. I do not agree with certain state laws but the law is the law and must be respected. It is not the place of the town council to tell the police what laws to use their discretion on. That puts our law enforcement in an impossible position. Laws are changed through elections, not political declarations.
I believe strongly in supporting our local police force, fire departments and first responders. I believe strongly in supporting our educators and all town employees who strive to make Burrillville the wonderful community it is. Support must come with accountability. I believe our town employees feel the same way. Our town should be run as a meritocracy.
I believe we owe it to the current and future generations to preserve Burrillville’s rural character and natural beauty. There should be nothing “artificial” about us. We need to maintain our open spaces and support organizations such as the private Burrillville Land Trust and public Burrillville Conservation Commission. I believe we must prioritize conservation so that Burrillville remains special for years to come.
I believe in small business and supporting smart, responsible economic growth that is so important to our community, but doing it within the scope of the town charter and bylaws. I believe in a smart, conservative economic policy that works to keep our tax rate low while still providing the services the community needs and deserves.
I believe in taking care of our children, our seniors and those who are marginalized or struggling. I believe the mark of any great community is how it supports those who need assistance. A great man once said “treat others as you wish to be treated.”
Finally, I believe in myself and my ability to listen to all community members. I believe leadership begins with compassion, respect and understanding. I will always do my best to hear all voices and represent our community fairly.
I hope to earn your vote this November. My name is Donald Sullivan and this is my message.
Donald Sullivan
Burrillville
Facebook- Don Sullivan for Burrillville Town Council
Email- [email protected]
Phone Number- (401)-648-2423
Mr. Sullivan you have my vote!!!
I share Mr. Sullivan’s concerns about Mr. Donald Fox’s continued “partisan political vitriol and rhetoric”. Even while welcoming Mr. Sullivan to the 2026 Town Council election, Mr. Fox’s prose often relies on oversimplifications, binary framing, and assumption-based claims that can lead to fallacious reasoning. While not every question that Mr. Fox asks Mr. Sullivan is problematic, many of them assume Mr. Sullivan’s position. In addition, at times, Mr. Fox mischaracterizes Mr. Sullivan’s written positions. Mr. Fox’s “tone and tenor” can be divisive in its use of partisan rhetoric and is prone to assuming, pigeonholing, and overgeneralizing his opponents’ positions.
The first question was “1. What fear are you talking about? Please be specific. I have not proposed fear or encouraged it.” He oversimplifies Mr. Sullivan’s position, misrepresenting what Mr. Sullivan wrote. In his letter to NRI NOW News, Mr. Sullivan never claimed that Mr. Fox has “proposed fear or encouraged it”. He said our community needs leadership that avoids “language that fuels division and fear”. He asserted that Mr. Fox’s language choices and rhetoric, his “tone and tenor”, are fostering fear and division within Burrillville. Mr. Fox’s rhetoric often emphasizes risk and threat, functioning as appeals to fear. For example, in Mr. Fox’s letter to Mr. Hunt earlier this month, he frequently cites the possible impact of “dangerous criminals” and their impact on our town. During the artificial turf field project litigation, Mr. Fox similarly appealed to the fears of his constituents’ financial stability, by routinely emphasizing the legal fees incurred by the project. Specifically in the Valley Breeze, Mr. Fox said, “[t]his lawsuit is simply an attempt to delay progress, and unfortunately, it’s going to cost Burrillville taxpayers.” (https://www.valleybreeze.com/news/burrillville-turf-field-restraining-order-extended/article_a18c6b7a-9015-11ef-ba5c-2b33dd05dcf1.html) Even if factual, Mr. Fox is appealing to his constituents’ emotions, specifically tapping into their sense of fear (pathos).
Mr. Fox’s second question, “2. Do you not support all law enforcement?”, is an example of binary framing, which can put Mr. Sullivan in a defensive position. It is not a plain question, encourages all-or-nothing, binary thinking, and seemingly assumes that Mr. Sullivan has previously demonstrated opposition to law enforcement. This question would not be as problematic if it were asked more plainly: “Do you support law enforcement?” or “Do you support all law enforcement agencies?” Then, Mr. Fox asks, “Would you not support ICE or other agencies?” If instead he asked, for example, “Would you support ICE or other agencies if elected?”, it would avoid presenting support for his position as the default.
Mr. Fox’s third question is built upon assumptions, such as that Mr. Sullivan does not support Burrillville’s Second Amendment sanctuary resolution. Mr. Fox said “[he] seem[s] to take disagreement with our second amendment sanctuary resolution. Will you be against this if you are elected?”; however, Mr. Sullivan never brought up Burrillville’s Second Amendment sanctuary. Instead, what Mr. Sullivan wrote was, “The Constitution is very clear on our rights and they should not be infringed upon. This includes the Second Amendment. I am a responsible gun owner. I do not agree with certain state laws but the law is the law and must be respected.” While I wish to avoid making assumptions about Mr. Sullivan’s positions, it seems like according to Mr. Sullivan’s own testimony, that if elected, he would likely continue Burrillville’s Second Amendment sanctuary, being a responsible gun owner in support of the Second Amendment. Mr. Fox appears to assume Mr. Sullivan’s position, framing the question in a way that presupposes disagreement with Burrillville’s Second Amendment sanctuary resolution. At present, Mr. Sullivan has not stated a position on the resolution.
Then, Mr. Fox writes “[m]any of your fellow residents have not given up their high capacity magazines. Would you have such people charged as felons?” First off, Mr. Sullivan never discussed high capacity magazines in his letter, and does not specifically address this issue, making Mr. Fox’s assumption speculative. Mr. Sullivan has clearly stated his support of the Second Amendment, being a responsible gun owner. However, we do not yet know for certain his position on specific firearms legislation or on high-capacity magazines. Mr. Fox’s framing here does not appear to reflect a charitable reading of Mr. Sullivan’s stated position.
Mr. Fox’s fourth question is about the artificial turf field project, asking “Will you not support the new sports complex?” This question is framed so that support of the project is the binary default, and that non-support must be justified. And as Mr. Fox said, Mr. Sullivan made a “comment” about the “artificial”. However, Mr. Sullivan never explicitly made a claim about the artificial turf field project, only that “[t]here should be nothing ‘artificial’ about” Burrillville. Instead, Mr. Fox was the one who brought up the artificial turf field project.
Mr. Fox’s fifth question is “What policies exactly are you opposed to?” and is a totally fair question. However, he follows this question up with framing that resembles the “straw man” fallacy, misrepresenting Mr. Sullivan’s positions and distorting them into more extreme and broad claims. As an example, Mr. Sullivan originally wrote that it is “not the place of the town council to tell the police what laws to use their discretion on” and that he “believe[s] strongly in supporting our local police force, fire departments and first responders”. He never once said that he does not support all law enforcement, yet Mr. Fox claims that he “clearly do[es] not support all law enforcement (ICE)”. Furthermore, Mr. Sullivan never wrote that he does not support Mr. Fox’s “right to respond to Mr Hunt [sic] earlier editorial”, as Mr. Fox claims. Instead, Mr. Sullivan said that “[t]he recent letter to the editor from the current town council president highlights the exact partisan political vitriol and rhetoric that our town does not need”. Mr. Sullivan did not claim that Mr. Fox does not have the right to respond to an editorial on NRI NOW News, instead expressing concern with Mr. Fox’s vitriol and partisan rhetoric. Mr. Fox’s framing at times builds layered assumptions that are presented as established facts.
Mr. Fox employs the use of logical fallacies, broad assumptions, and provocative partisan rhetoric. His “tone and tenor” tends to appeal to the fears and emotions of his constituents. He makes broad assumptions about the positions and intentions of others, often framing disagreement as opposition or disloyalty. Mr. Fox’s comments rely on oversimplifications, binary framing, assumption-based claims, and fallacies that pressure other Burrillville residents into defensive positions. Not every question Mr. Fox raises is unreasonable, but the repeated use of assumption-driven framing weakens the quality of the exchange. Mr. Fox’s language choices and rhetoric prioritize partisanship and persuasion over reasoned dialogue.
– Concerned Bronco
Wow, I have not seen simple questions dissected in such a manner before. Binary framing, huh? No, these are simple questions that should be easy enough for any candidate to answer. I am a straight forward guy. I ask straight forward questions and give the same type of answers. We are not splitting the atom here, but talking about policies that matter to many in our Town. “Assumption-driven framing”!! LOL. I will tell you, I did enjoy this amusing analysis of 5 simple questions. Let’s see how Mr. Sullivan does in answering them, if he chooses to answer. His opening letter is vague and leaves more questions than specifics as to where he stands on local issues. I do look forward to his reply to either my comments or to Councilman Anderson’s comments.
I’m glad you enjoyed my analysis. However, my point isn’t that your questions are improper or unnecessary — it’s that several of them include built-in assumptions (presuppositions) about Mr. Sullivan’s positions that haven’t been established yet. I understand you aim to ask straightforward questions, and I appreciate the clarity that can bring. My analysis is simply intended to show how certain phrasing can unintentionally create assumptions or limit responses.
For example, in your third question, you wrote that Mr. Sullivan “seem[s] to take disagreement with our second amendment sanctuary resolution”, but he never stated that position. He said that he supports the Second Amendment and is a responsible gun owner. This is why I pointed it out — it assumes a conclusion has already been reached. The same issue shows up again in the fifth question, where you say he “clearly” does not support all law enforcement, the new field, or your “right to respond to Mr. Hunt[’s] earlier editorial”. I’m not saying you intended to misstate his views, just that the wording draws conclusions beyond what Mr. Sullivan actually wrote.
Some of your questions are framed in yes-or-no terms, which can limit the range of possible responses on nuanced issues. This is binary framing, a rhetorical tool that compresses complex issues into only two options. Examples include: “Will you be against this if you are elected?”, “Would you not support ICE or other agencies?”, and “Will you not support the new sports complex?” Take the sports complex question: the phrasing suggests support as the default, rather than inviting a range of nuanced positions. The question presumes support as the baseline, leaving little room to indicate conditional stances, such as being in support only if local organizations could freely rent and use the field, like Burrillville Scouting troops and Burrillville Patriots Youth Football & Cheer. The question assumes support instead of asking for a neutral answer.
Regarding my earlier term “assumption-driven framing”, I acknowledge it was vague. My intent is to analyze questions neutrally and avoid pigeonholing your intent. However, I’m always striving to improve my word choice and framing. Precision in wording leads to better answers and more productive dialogue. As for your “splitting the atom” analogy, clarity matters even more in practical policy debates. These are local issues affecting Burrillville citizens, so careful framing ensures we discuss real positions rather than implied ones.
While Mr. Sullivan’s opening letter outlines some positions, there is time before the election for him to provide further specifics. I look forward to his responses and campaign updates. Burrillville benefits most when candidates and residents alike engage in clear, substantive discussion and avoid unnecessary assumptions.
– Concerned Bronco
To those commenting looking for examples, why don’t you ask your constituents directly? I’ve lived with my family in this town for 20 years now, & have had other family move here as well. I’ve directly contacted the town council with questions of information and concern and have been met with abrasiveness, elusiveness and accusations that I’m ’too liberal’. I’ve kept emails that have come from the town council to the general public where the language is VERY partisan, which alienates about 48% of your registered voters. I watched a video on this very website where a woman was aggressively kicked out of a ‘public’ town council meeting because she dared to ask questions. Y’all, you guys work for US, we the people. Would be nice if you acted like it and stop the innocence and elusiveness act. You don’t ask US about our opinions but act like you’re doing things on our behalves that we all want — you’re not speaking for all of us and your lack of social awareness on the pulse of the town residents’ opinions is concerning. Stop acting like it’s left vs right because the way you conduct yourselves in public is perpetuating the discourse. Believe me, just viewing your commentary all over social media drives fear and frustration.
I am in my 8th year on the Town Council (TC), and to my wife’s chagrin I intend to run again in 2026. In my former working life, I was an engineer with an MBA that finished first in his class in both. You won’t see me on social media. If you watch videos of the TC meetings you can observe my level of engagement. I am only commenting on this letter because it has some unfounded and unfair left-handed assertions that are patently unsubstantiated.
“Honesty, transparency, and accountability” – I am very proud of the Town Council and town administration accomplishments over the time I have been on the TC. Please share any valid examples where you believe these are lacking.
“All meetings open to the public” – The TC and all boards and commissions comply with Open Meeting laws. It is unwise to assert they are NOT without any evidence.
“Planning Board should have knowledgeable professionals” – I am the TC liaison to the Planning Board. Can you name the nine members of the Planning Board without looking at the Town website? Do you know anything about the experience and background of any of them?
“Tell the Police what laws to use discretion on” – You obviously don’t know Col. Lynch. This comment is way off base.
“Town should be run as a meritocracy” – We have some very talented and committed people in leadership positions. The staff is similarly willing to do what needs to be done. The DPW employees literally were working around the clock during the foot and a half of snow last week to keep the citizens safe. I’d love to hear what you would change to achieve a “meritocracy.”
“Smart, responsible economic growth” – What would you advocate that hasn’t been done, or is in progress, or has been discussed? The list under the tenure of our town manager is pretty long… Industrial park, Stillwater redevelopment, Pascoag Main Street redevelopment, Nasonville redevelopment just beginning, senior housing complex being developed, and conversely not developing Sweet’s Hill, Echo Lake campground, or Buck Hill. I am also the TC liaison to the Burrillville Redevelopment Agency and will attest to the commitment of those members.
“Doing it within the scope of town charter and bylaws” – What in heaven’s name are you talking about? Please enlighten me with even one example not “within the scope.” For what it is worth, I was a member of the 2015-2016 Charter Review Commission.
“Keep the tax rate low while providing services” – You are in my wheelhouse here. This is exactly what we have done going all the way back to my 4 years on the Budget Board. It gets harder every year. We are legally bound to NOT exceed a 4% cap on the property levy. The majority of the budget is people. There are four unions with contractual increases each year. The State is also unpredictable on the school funding formula and as they think up new legislation to mandate on us, most of which costs money. The reality is we strive to find the balance between the schools, the town, and the taxpayers so everyone is equally satisfied or dissatisfied as the case may be.
“…our children, our seniors and those who are marginalized…” – Burrillville is in the minority in RI of achieving over 10% affordable (LMI or low-moderate income) housing; senior housing a significant part of that. As said earlier, we are working on a new senior living complex currently. I am also on the Steering Committee for the Burrillville Village of The Village Common of RI (you can read about it in the Bugle), and I volunteer to drive elderly to medical appointments. Senior Services operates out of the DPW and has a network of helpers for the seniors, and they also oversee the Snack Pack program for children that may be vulnerable to food insecurity.
“Compassion, respect, and understanding” – I guess you don’t know me. I am WellOne Board Chair. I lead worship on Sundays. I drive little old ladies to medical appointments.
I know you have not been on any boards or commissions, at least in the last 10 years. There is an ad in the Bargain Buyer this week listing all those with openings. If you apply, we will meet because I am the Chair of the Screening Subcommittee of the TC.
I saw you at TC meetings when The Conjuring House was on the agenda. I don’t recall seeing you at any other TC meetings or those of the Planning Board or Redevelopment Agency. Before I ran for the TC, I attended meetings for over 10 years in addition to being on the Budget Board and Charter Review Commission. If you are serious about this, it is not too soon to get involved.
Good luck!
Thank you for welcoming me to the race. In the upcoming months I look forward to interacting with as many residents as possible.
Don, welcome to the race. A couple of quick questions. 1. What fear are you talking about? Please be specific. I have not proposed fear or encouraged it. 2. Do you not support all law enforcement? Would you not support ICE or other agencies? 3. You seem to take disagreement with our second amendment sanctuary resolution. Will you be against this if you are elected? Many of your fellow residents have not given up their high capacity magazines. Would you have such people charged as felons? 4. You made a comment about “artificial” turf. Will you not support the new sports complex? 5. What policies exactly are to opposed to? I listed a number of reasons for people to vote. You clearly do not support all law enforcement (ICE) or the new field, or my right to respond to Mr Hunt earlier editorial, but what else do you disagree with from a policy standpoint? I am sincerely curious and would like to know what can be done better, aside from the tone and tenor of my prose. Again, thanks for standing up to run. The exchange of ideas is great and I look forward to hearing yours.