In dueling statements to media, town officials and Sensible Wilton are continuing to quarrel and disagree over the legitimacy of the recent Special Town Vote on the Miller-Driscoll Renovation Project. This follows the ad-hoc citizen group’s filing of a complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission alleging that town officials violated election law before and during the vote.
The complaint alleges that Town Officials used funds and town resources to actively and improperly advocate for Wilton residents to vote ‘Yes’ to approve of the renovation’s $50 million bonding price tag.
On Wednesday, Oct. 8, first selectman Bill Brennan released a statement about the complaint, which was filed with the SEEC earlier this week by the group’s president, Alex Ruskewich.
“Having reviewed the complaint filed by Mr. Ruskewich to the SEEC and having discussed it with Town Counsel, the Town of Wilton believes there is no basis to the complaint and that the SEEC will ultimately dismiss it as unfounded.” Brennan’s statement added that the Town is moving forward with its plans to renovate the Miller Driscoll School “in order to meet the State of Connecticut’s critical reimbursement requirements and time schedule.”
Ruskewich responded to GOOD Morning Wilton‘s request for a comment in response, on Thursday, Oct. 9.
“First selectman Brennan and Town Counsel did not deny the use of Town funds for Vote Yes advocacy brochures. They also did not deny that advocacy meetings were held on school grounds by Town and School Officials. Under the law Town Counsel was obligated to ensure all printed material issued by the Town was neutral. With a $50M Referendum at stake, Town Counsel should have taken steps to ensure that Town and School officials were aware that advocacy meetings on school grounds are prohibited by law. With this statement First Selectman Brennan and Town Counsel did not deny the facts, they did deny the law.”
Sensible Wilton’s supporting materials conclude that the Sept. 23/27 vote should be nullified. “Because the election violations are numerous, there is just cause for a revote of the $50M project in accordance with State Election statutes.”
According to Joshua Foley, SEEC press information officer, now that the complaint has been filed it will be reviewed by a 5-member citizen commission to determine whether the complaint falls under the SEEC’s jurisdiction. “It’s a very low bar, threshold of determination that the complaint alleges a violation of election law. It doesn’t speak to the merits of the complaint. After that point the complaint is assigned to an enforcement attorney and an investigator and they look into the allegations.”
The investigator and attorney will present their findings to the commission; if they determine that there is enough evidence demonstrating a violation of election law, “at that point the commission usually authorizes the enforcement attorney to settle the complaint, usually through a fine. If the respondents disagree, then it could become a contested hearing, or it could be dismissed,” Foley explains, adding that the commission is not empowered to order a re-vote. “There are no do-overs,” he says.
If the commission finds that there is indeed “criminal activity,” Foley says the SEEC can refer the matter to the chief state’s attorney or to the Attorney General’s office, and it can issue cease-and-desist orders or fines. “Those are typically the remedies that come out of the commission.”
The complaint will be brought before the commission on Oct. 14. at 9 a.m..
What the Complaint Alleges
According to a copy of the complaint that Sensible Wilton provided to GMW.com, the group charges that “During the three weeks prior to the …Referendum Vote, Town and School Officials conducted a Vote YES advocacy Campaign on School Grounds during as many as 13 ‘Official, by invitation’ Parent Night meetings at Wilton Schools.”
They also assert that, as part of the “Advocacy Campaign,” town and school officials created “a ‘Vote YES’ brochure attributed to the town. Distribution of the Vote YES brochure occurred during multiple Parent Night meetings with officials present. Witnesses have confirmed these Advocacy Sessions included explicit statements by Town Officials advocating parents cast a ‘YES’ vote during Referendum Voting.”
Sensible Wilton also charges that the violations “were designed to influence the parents of 4,000 Wilton Students or up to 8,000 Parent voters out of 11,000 Registered Electors.”
The Gist of the Law, and did Town Officials Violate It?
The SEEC publishes guidelines to CT election laws related to referenda, which they make available on their website. According to those guidelines, which explain Connecticut General Statutes 9-369b: “Materials in addition to the explanatory text may now be prepared and printed with public funds if they (1) do not advocate either the approval or disapproval of the referendum; (2) are authorized by vote of the local legislative body; and (3) are approved by the municipal attorney.” The guidelines specify that the board of selectmen would be able to authorize such materials in a town, like Wilton, that has a town meeting form of government.
What Sensible Wilton is alleging is that town officials misused town funds to pay for printed materials that advocated for the approval of the referendum question (e.g. to vote ‘yes’ on the $50 million project).
There were materials prepared by the M-D Building Committee that were distributed at several events on school property. The tri-fold brochure that was handed out is pictured here:
According to town counsel Kenneth J. Bernhard, the brochure falls within state guidelines. “It was solely informational, approved by me, it did not advocate.” Bernhard clarified that he approved the brochure after it was produced, and “it met with campaign law compliance, in that it was informational and not advocacy.”
In addition, Sensible Wilton provided GMW.com with a flyer that they said was distributed and placed on chairs at school meetings and Parent Nights, and was referred to by town and school officials at school events. The flyer, which they say “explicitly” advocates for a YES vote, is here (click to enlarge):
Bernhard says the flyer was not produced by town officials, nor was it paid for by the town. “It was produced exclusively by parents with their own funds. It was not produced by the town or by anyone on the town’s behalf. It was not produced by the town, it was not produced by the building committee, it was not produced by the PTA.” Bernhard did not have a name of a parent with whom we could independently corroborate that.
In the SEEC’s election law guidelines, There are two points about using school facilities:
- The prohibition on state or municipal funds also applies to the use of school facilities, supplies, and equipment and postal permits to advocate a position on a referendum. For example, parent teacher organizations and school administrators may not use school equipment to prepare or copy advocacy material even if the town, regional district or school system is reimbursed for such use. This prohibition also extends to the use of a school’s public address system to advocate a result of a referendum.
- School facilities may not be used by political committees or other groups for the purpose of advocating a position on a referendum unless such facilities are accessible to all such committees or groups on a non discriminatory basis.
Sensible Wilton has charged that town officials also advocated for the project on school grounds–specifically at parent nights and open house sessions held at the schools in early September. As well, Sensible Wilton was not offered the same opportunity to advocate for their “Vote No” position.
M-D Building Committee co-chair Karen Birck did confirm the plan to present about the project at some of the Open House nights ahead of time during a roundtable GOOD Morning Wilton interview she did with fellow co-chair Bruce Hampson and first selectman Brennan. Sensible Wilton is alleging that Birck and others crossed the line to advocate while they were presenting in school facilities.