In a tense, albeit polite, Board of Selectmen meeting last night, Monday May 18, the single agenda issue discussed by town officials was Sensible Wilton‘s second petition aimed at halting the $50 million Miller-Driscoll renovation. With the aid of a lawyer, the group argued that the Town Charter allowed them to petition the BoS for a special town meeting and ask residents to vote on repealing the M-D bond allocation approved by a town vote in Sept. 2014. But for a second time, the group failed to convince town officials that their efforts had merit, and the selectmen declined to take any action on it.
During the 90-plus minute debate on the issue, there were impassioned public comments from residents on both sides, who spoke either on behalf of upholding the September bond vote, or against the project and the bond referendum. There were also electric moments of conflict between attorneys representing each side whose legal interpretations differed widely.
What’s more, a number of town officials spoke against the efforts being waged by the ad hoc citizens group, saying that not only were those efforts time- and money-wasting to the town and individuals involved, but that anyone lodging complaints should have gotten involved in the process much earlier. Many were angry at the seeming disparagement of their work and many volunteer hours. It seems their ire was more clear now that they find themselves defending a position none of them could have imagined having to defend repeatedly.
Sensible Wilton’s attorney, Wilton resident Simon Rieff, emailed his 11-page legal opinion to board members and town counsel only yesterday. Early in the meeting, Wilton’s attorney Kenneth Bernhard cited a lack of time to review Rieff’s letter adequately, and he suggested that the selectmen table any kind of action on the petition until he was able to advise them based on a more thorough assessment of the document. It seemed that was the course the BoS planned to take–until a disagreement broke out between the two lawyers.
Rieff said if the selectmen did not make a decision that night, they would be legally past the deadline of when the charter required them to act. He cited sections of the charter specifying a 35-day limit from when a petition is certified, and said if the board did not act, they should halt all work on the project immediately–a prospect that Bruce Hampson, who chaired the renovation committee, said would cost the town $6 million. Bernhard said the town charter supported his take that the board actually had 60 days within which it could act.
But it was a tense exchange between Rieff and BoS member Michael Kaelin–an attorney himself who sat on the last charter revision commission–regarding the parsing of words and the definition of ‘ordinance’ versus ‘resolution’ and whether the Charter defined a bond as something the board could repeal, that swayed Bernhard to recommend turning down the petition altogether rather than delay.
That ultimately convinced all the selectmen to agree not to act on the petition–the four BoS members present (Brennan, Kaelin, Deborah McFadden and Richard Dubow) unanimously decided not to act on the petition, agreeing that the charter did not give them the authority to call a special town meeting to consider repealing the bond vote.
Brennan, who started the meeting reminding members of the public who had come to speak, that the board’s focus was on the legality of the petition, not the “purpose, needs or merits of the M-D renovation process.” At the meeting’s end, Brennan said he was “unsympathetic” to some comments made by residents who want to repeal September’s vote because they said the town didn’t inform them well enough on the subject matter or when the vote was scheduled.
“I have trouble with this ‘nobody told me about this meeting.’ There is an obligation on the citizen to function as a citizen and occasionally look at the newspaper or GOOD Morning Wilton or all the different types of media that let people know we do have these events in town. We do not have the resources to go to everybody’s home and knock on the door and tell them we’re going to have a meeting. It’s not possible. So I am unsympathetic to the arguments that there was some cunning strategy to have the meeting in September. We did that intentionally so that we could have the meeting focused on one issue. I am unsympathetic to some of these comments that suggest people don’t know what’s going on around them,” he said.
Dubow agreed. “Participation by uninformed citizens does not advance the democracy. It is a two-way street, people need to be informed.”
Public Comment
Below are highlights of some comments made by citizens who spoke at the meeting.
Alex Ruskewich: This project has grown to such an extent that we feel the citizens are entitled to a special town meeting where this can be discussed in reality with pro and con, which was never given when we had the original referendum, to come up with a reasoned decision. We believe when the referendum was held, state law was violated. Tomorrow there will be an executive session of the State Election Enforcement Commission (SEEC), we’ll find out whether they agree that the state law and regulations were violated.
Lauren Heinz: Since I’ve been here my taxes have gone up from $6,900 to just under $26,000 and that’s why I no longer live here, because I can’t afford to live in my own home. Our mil rates are substantially higher than every other town around us. People are starting to look for other communities.
Stephanie Scamuffo: I’m a senior at WHS. My mother is a preschool paraprofessional at Wilton preschool. I’ve never heard of anything illegal going on, so I don’t know why it would be just now. I don’t think anything would be done to intentionally harm us. Miller-Driscoll definitely needs to be redone. We want those kids to have the best quality education just like my generation did 13 years ago. We’re talking about lives and not just tax dollars.
Stephen Hudspeth: The second petition has had 291 signers. If you look at those who actually voted in September on this, what you are left with is a majority–64-percent on this most recent petition–who didn’t even bother to vote. What you’re seeing is people reaching a rational conclusion: this is a waste of town time, a waste of town effort. If there were a revote, what’s to prevent me from saying, ‘We should do it again, because I don’t agree with that last vote.’ There would never be finality.
Gail & Ray Moskow (statement read by Hudspeth): We believe a small group of dissident citizens are doing damage to our community. Their efforts will further divide our population with distorted claims, unfounded assumptions and lingering threats. The vote is over; we are wasting time and money.
Jim Newton: I’m a volunteer member of the MD building committee. This process is ridiculous. A vote was taken. The measure passed. It’s time to proceed with the building.
Richard Creeth: I’m a member of the Board of Finance but I’m speaking as a private citizen. This M-D story evolved over a long time, there have been myriad meetings and hearings as the project evolved. It’s unfortunate that people are coming in at the end of the process, and had they been in the process earlier, they would have understood better why we are where we are today. Every member of an elected board in this town, and everybody on building committees is a tax paying citizen. I pay taxes. I am very concerned about making sure those tax dollars are well-spent. I like to think my responsibility on the BoF is to make sure that no taxes are levied more than absolutely necessary to meet the needs of the citizens of Wilton. Once those tax dollars are levied and raised, to make sure they’re very efficiently spent.
I’m deeply concerned with the amount of money that’s being wasted here. I suspect a lot of contracts have been signed, and a fair amount of money has been spent already. If we put a hold on that, the cost to the town would be very significant. There have been a lot of FOI requests; the cost to the town has not been trivial. If this situation goes to litigation there will be costs incurred by the town. I just would ask for sanity here. Money is being wasted. The time to steer the project is long gone, votes were cast, the decisions made along the way in a fully open, public process. Move forward, the vote has been taken, let’s move on.
Paul Burnham: I speak as one of the members of the charter revision commission. Never did I–and I can’t imagine anyone else on the charter commission–imagine that the term ‘ordinance’ would mean anything like the repeal of a resolution of the Town Meeting. I also serve as chairman of the DTC nominating committee, and I fear that the actions of Sensible Wilton will in fact make this town ungovernable because we rely on 99.9-percent on all of our elected officials are volunteers. I don’ t think we’ll find many people to volunteer in this town, if we have threats of litigation, continued FOI requests, continued SEEC hearings. I hope we can bring to a conclusion. If litigation is necessary to do that, I’m sorry but maybe that’s the only way we can put an end to this.
John Kalamarides: I’m a member of the BoF, and the BoF representative to the M-D committee. To Sensible Wilton, with the number of people on your petitions who have not voted, who had three chances to vote—at the town meeting, on Saturday, by absentee ballot, they did not vote but yet they’re willing to sign petitions. All this time the committee has been so open in allowing you to come and comment, and has explained all the details about how this project grew, yet you persist. It’s really time for Sensible Wilton to come off its high horse, to cease and desist, and to let us get on with this very, very important project.
Nick Davatses: I’ve lived here since 1971 and I have never seen anything like what’s going on about M-D. There was a vote—one side won, one side lost. I suggest to those who are not happy that they get in the arena and run for public office to make changes, rather than trying to do it through the courts. I suggest to Sensible Wilton: get off your high horse, and run for public office.
Bruce Hampson: I’m the co-chair of the M-D building committee, a committee of 13 citizens of Wilton, we’ve been working 2.5 years on the project. What is the status today? We have committed approximately $6 million of the $50 million bond referendum. If Sensible Wilton was successful, that would be wasted money, and the town would have to write a check to the contractors and consultants that we have signed contracts with. Construction drawings are being completed as we speak, and will be completed by the end of June. The temporary classrooms, the contract has been approved, installation will begin in June and be competed by August. Allow renovation to begin in Dec. of this year, and completed in 2017.
I’ve heard many times from members of Sensible Wilton that all we need to do is fix the roof and the air conditioning system. As we have said, this is a 50-year-old building. It is not just an HVAC system and roof that have to be corrected. We’re looking at code issues that must be corrected, student safety and outdated capital infrastructure. It’s not the lack of day-to-day maintenance, which has been extremely good, considering how old that building is. It’s about fire, life safety, intrusion protection for the children–it must be updated. This building does not have a fire sprinkler system. You cannot put in a new HVAC system and then at a later date tear everything down and put a sprinkler system in. First responder communications must be improved. A single entry, ballistic glass protected entry—is part of this project, that’s critical. The learning environment for students is dramatically upgraded, including acoustics. Hazmat abatement must be completed as part of the project.
The current process has been approved by the voters—it is the fastest possible way to replace the roof and HVAC system. It can’t be done piecemeal. Construction inflation is running 4-4.5 percent a year. Any delay will increase the cost. It would be irresponsible to do it piecemeal.
To repeal the bond funding would cost $6 million of totally wasted money. That’s not the worst. We are under the gun to submit all our plans and specifications to the appropriate boards in Hartford, to bid this job at the end of the summer, in order to get reimbursement–in order to proceed. If this job is delayed for any reason, we’re going to miss that window and this project will be delayed at least a year. If it’s changed? Then it goes back to a new statement of requirements from the BoS, [new] education specifications that would have to be rewritten by BoE. That’s irresponsible.
This job should go ahead as the voters approved, as the committee, architect and engineers have been working on and we’re ready to do it.
Editor’s note: This was the extent of public comment that could be included by press time. More public comment will be added later today.