Sensible Wilton Plans Revote Petition–But it Won’t Fly, says Town Counsel

On Monday morning, Oct 27, the ad-hoc citizen group Sensible Wilton announced its intention to conduct a petition drive in hopes of pushing town officials to schedule a revote of the $50 million Miller-Driscoll Renovation Project.

In the group’s press release, Alex Ruskewich, Sensible Wilton’s president, claims that, “Under the Town Charter, if 2 percent of registered voters – approximately 230 voters — sign a petition for a revote, then the Board of Selectmen must schedule a Special Town Meeting and an adjourned vote to consider the matter. Under the Charter if at least 15 percent of all registered voters cast ballots in the revote, approximately 1,700 voters, then the results of the revote are binding upon the Selectmen.”

However, according to Wilton’s town council Kenneth Bernhard, Sensible Wilton’s assumptions about what Wilton’s charter allows are wrong. He says a revote isn’t possible.

“It appears that Mr. Ruskewich has overlooked section C-9 B (1), which identifies those instances where a petition request is applicable. Specifically excluded from the list is the option to petition for a reverse a vote [sic] of approval of a bond authorization,” Bernhard wrote in an email to GOOD Morning Wilton. He noted that his opinion was formed after “a quick review… since I  have only just received [the press release], I haven’t had the time to fully research the issues therein beyond a quick review of the Charter.”

The Question of ‘Only 27 Votes’

Ruskewich substantiates the need for the petition drive in the close margin between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes on the question of whether to renovate.

“We need a revote because the largest project in Wilton’s history should not be decided by a razor thin margin of 27 votes. Especially when the SEEC is considering evidence town and school officials violated state election laws to get those 27 votes. We need a revote untainted by documented election violations,” he writes.

Bernhard says the town stands by the vote, adding that the charter does too–no matter how small the margin was.

“Mr. Ruskewich does not acknowledge the democratic process set out in the Town Charter that provides that the majority vote prevails. The fact that a vote is close is irrelevant. If it were relevant then with any controversial matter, it would be impossible to ever get resolution. In this case the majority of voters participating in the town meeting voted to approve the bonding resolution. It passed. In cases of bonding resolution, there is no basis for undoing the vote unless, or until, the administration elects to hold another town meeting for that purpose, which is not the situation in this instance. The administration believes that the bonding proposal supported by the majority of those who voted at the town meeting is the best course of action for the community,” Bernhard explains.

As Bernhard continues to assert the BoS’s intentions to respect the results of the Special Town Vote from Sept. 23 & 27, it seems unlikely that the selectmen will voluntarily approve a revote, as Sensible Wilton’s Ruskewich says they can. As a result, says Ruskewich, a petition was his group’s only option:

“Selectmen have the authority to voluntarily order a revote without a petition. When the SEEC accepted Sensible Wilton’s complaint about the first vote, the group issued an open letter asking the Selectmen to discuss the complaint and consider the remedy of a revote. When the first selectman refused to acknowledge the letter or publicly discuss the complaint, a petition became necessary,” Ruskewich said.

The “open letter” Ruskewich refers to was something Sensible Wilton forwarded to GMW.com on Oct. 15.  At the time he described it as a “courtesy email” notifying town officials of their complaint filed with the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

Sensible Wilton’s complaint against town officials was accepted by the SEEC and deemed “necessary to investigate” by the state commission on Oct. 14.

In its release, Sensible Wilton notes that the SEEC ruling came “less than 24 hours after first selectman Brennan claimed there was ‘no merit’ to Sensible Wilton’s SEEC Complaint.” Ruskewich added, “Two days later Town Counsel undercut the first selectman’s claims when he publicly acknowledged the validity of the physical evidence given to the SEEC: the ‘Pink Vote YES’ cards attributed to the Town and unlawfully distributed at official ‘Parent Night’ advocacy sessions run by town officials.”

Another Sensible Wilton member, treasurer Curt Noel, was quoted in the release, “Our proposal of a voluntary revote gave the first selectman a gracious way to avoid a petition drive. Town officials haven’t denied any of the documented election violations that occurred at all [four] schools. They can’t. There are too many witnesses. When Politicians ignore the facts and the law on a major issue, the petition option can make them accountable.”

Bernhard dismissed their charges, stating, “Apparent from Mr. Ruskewich’s press release is his misunderstanding of the SEEC process. When a complaint is filed, the Commission is obligated to assume the complainant’s facts are true and to investigate their merit. Mr. Ruskewich filed a complaint with incorrect information, which will come out in the investigation. Mr. Ruskewich wants to imply that his allegations will be supported, which I am confident will not be the case.”

Just as town officials have said renovation plans are moving “full steam ahead,” so too is Sensible Wilton moving forward with their plans to launch this petition  Ruskewich writes, “Sensible Wilton expects to get at least 230 signatures from the 1,900 residents who voted in September. We also expect to get at least 230 signatures from the 9,000 voters who did not vote. This week we expect to finalize our petition language and organize canvassing teams to get the petition drive started.”

And Ruskewich makes a public promise: “If we can’t get 230 registered voters to sign our petition for a revote, we commit to let the $50 million project proceed without further challenge.”