The following Op-Ed was submitted as sponsored content, and paid for by the Wilton Republican Town Committee. GMW has published election coverage guidelines and policies, including a schedule for election-related letters to the editor, candidate op-eds and endorsements. All candidates were invited to submit one op-ed that was published in GMW‘s Special Election Issue on Oct. 20. Candidates and campaigns that wish to publish other materials outside of our schedule are able to do so through sponsored posts. For more information, please refer to GMW‘s election coverage guidelines and policies.
Wilton residents deserve leadership that not only speaks of transparency and accountability — but demonstrates it through action. The Democratic candidate [Rich McCarty‘s recent] op-ed is filled with lofty language about openness, fairness and civic engagement. But in the three months since his appointment to the Board of Selectmen, none of the issues he raises have been meaningfully addressed. Not one.
In his op-ed, he speaks of restoring confidence in the Finance Department, tackling $150 million in infrastructure needs and improving public engagement. Yet since his appointment, there has been no visible progress on any of these fronts. The Finance Department remains in disarray, with key staff resignations and ongoing leadership instability. Infrastructure planning is stagnant. And public trust continues to erode — not because of what’s been said, but because of what hasn’t been done.
The circumstances of his appointment also raise serious legal and ethical concerns. As reported by GOOD Morning Wilton on Aug. 5, 2025, Rich McCarty changed his party registration from unaffiliated to Democrat on the very day he was appointed to the Board of Selectmen — a requirement communicated solely to him and not to other potential candidates. This last-minute party switch was not only politically expedient but may also violate Connecticut General Statute § 9-167a, the state’s Minority Representation Law. The statute is designed to preserve political balance and ensure that no single party dominates appointed or elected public bodies. Subsection (g) of the same law makes this point explicit: for purposes of determining party membership, a person who changes political enrollment is still considered a member of their former party for three months after filing that change — unless they are running as the candidate of their new party in an election. Because Mr. McCarty’s appointment occurred on the same day he switched his registration — and was not part of an election — he would still legally be considered unaffiliated at the time of his appointment.
This is not how Wilton should operate. The process, selectively communicated and legally questionable, undercuts the very principles of transparency and fairness that Mr. McCarty now claims to champion. If we are to rebuild trust in our local government, we must ensure that every resident is given an equal opportunity to serve — and that appointments are made in compliance with both state law and ethical standards, not quiet political prerequisites.
The op-ed also calls for collaboration, openness and listening to every voice. But actions speak louder than words. In the three months since joining the Board, the Democratic candidate has had the opportunity to lead on these issues — and has not. No initiatives, no reforms, no measurable outcomes. Just more rhetoric.
Wilton is indeed at an inflection point. But we cannot move forward with leadership that talks about change while maintaining the status quo — or with appointments that may not even comply with state law. We need leaders who act with integrity, communicate honestly, and deliver results — not just promises.
As a candidate for the Board of Selectmen, I pledge to bring real transparency, real accountability and real progress — grounded in both principle and the law. Wilton deserves better — and together, we can make that happen.
Much of Andy’s assessment is right. It is true as he states that “The Finance Department remains in disarray, with key staff resignations and ongoing leadership instability. Infrastructure planning is stagnant. And public trust continues to erode.” Of course, all of this has occurred under Republican leadership on the Board of Selectmen. It would be great to get Wilton back on track by electing a Democratic majority to the Board for the first time in generations. Rich McCarty and David Tatkow are the Democrats running for Selectman.
Andy is also right that Rich McCarty was appointed to fill a Democratic vacancy three months ago. As one of only two Democrats on the Board Rich is not able to direct the Agendas, but he has already established himself as a thoughtful, hardworking, and collaborative addition, with a relevant professional background.
Andy is not right, though, about the processes that led to Rich being appointed in August. Town counsel was heavily involved and was brought in to address a valid concern raised by one of the Republican Selectmen. The concern was that state law required the vacancy to be filled by a Democrat since the vacating Selectman (Bas Nabulsi) had been a Democrat. There were two people whose candidacies reached the Board, neither of whom was a Democrat. One was formally registered with a different party and Rich was not registered with any party. Under state law a person formally registered with a party needs a 30 day “cooling off” period before he can be considered a member of his new party for “minority representation” purposes. On the other hand, someone who is not a member of a party can register with immediate effect. Accordingly, town counsel and the Republican First Selectwoman identified that only Rich had a viable path for the appointment, and suggested that Rich register as a Democrat. Rich did so at their suggestion and to comply with state law.
And in the name of transparency, which you both say is needed, who notified him, and only him, that he needed to register as a Democrat to be appointed?
I find it odd that town counsel would notify a person that they needed to register as a Democrat to be appointed. But par for the course. Thank you for the response and clarification.
Tom,
This isn’t about party politics or the legality of McCarty changing his affiliation—that’s permitted under state law. This is about integrity and leadership.
The issue is simple: the First Selectwoman’s appointment process lacked transparency. Standard practice is straightforward: publicly notify, accept applications, conduct executive session interviews where all Selectmen hear from applicants and ask questions, then hold a public vote. That didn’t happen.
Selectmen Josh Cole and Kim Healy called this out and voted no for precisely this reason.
On Republican leadership: Romandi, Cole, Healy, and Tomasetti have all publicly questioned the First Selectwoman—on the record, with heated debate, pushing back hard when necessary. Have other elected officials done the same? Called her to account publicly? None that I recall. We’ve put community over politics, welcomed collaboration and debate. I’ve witnessed very little of that from the other side.
A leader with integrity would have declined the appointment and demanded a fair, transparent process. Instead, McCarty accepted—then questioned P&Z’s legally conforming process?
You can’t champion flawed processes when they benefit you, then criticize proper ones when they don’t. As Thomas Sowell observed: “If it were not for double standards, there would be no standards at all.”
Read both letters and decide for yourself:
My Letter to GMW and Rebuttals: https://goodmorningwilton.com/election-2025-wilton-planning-zoning-chair-tomasetti-corrects-record/
McCarty’s Letter to GMW: https://goodmorningwilton.com/wilton-election-2025-rich-mccarty-sponsored-op-ed/ (Response pending—I’ve requested GMW post it)
Judge on substance, not spin.
Rick Tomasetti
Andy Warren says that “residents deserve leadership that not only speaks of transparency and accountability — but demonstrates it through action”, and recognizes the erosion of public trust in our governing bodies. We couldn’t agree more. But Andy does not face the elephant in the room. That erosion and lack of leadership has come about over decades of Republican controlled majorities in the Board of Selectmen, Board of Finance and Planning & Zoning Commission. Instead of pointing to the actions and inactions of his own party that have brought us to where we are today, he faults one minority Democratic member of the Board of Selectmen who has been on the Board for only 3 months for not turning things around and producing measurable outcomes. What we need is a change in majority control of the Board of Selectmen, Board of Finance and Planning & Zoning Commission. Without that change, we should only expect more of the same.
Wilton residents do deserve leadership that demonstrates transparency, accountability, and action — not just words. We also agree that public trust in our local government has eroded. But restoring that trust won’t come from pointing fingers or dividing our community along party lines.
The challenges Wilton faces — from infrastructure and fiscal management to community engagement — are not Republican or Democratic problems. They are Wilton problems, and they require Wilton solutions.
For decades, residents from both major parties and many unaffiliated citizens have volunteered countless hours to make Wilton a better place. Their service — on our boards, commissions, and civic groups — should be respected, not reduced to political labels. Each of them, regardless of party, has contributed to the town we’re proud to call home.
Rather than relitigating who’s to blame, we should focus on what comes next. Our energy is better spent on collaboration, transparency, and delivering measurable results for our residents. Let’s move forward with a shared commitment to good governance and an open mind — because progress in Wilton will come not from partisanship, but from partnership.
This is not about Republicans or Democrats.
It’s about Wilton.