Even MORE M-D Vote Drama at Monday’s Board of Selectmen Mtg.

Lots happened at Monday evening’s Board of Selectmen‘s meeting, but regular town business (of which, granted, there was a good amount) took a back seat to the drama that continued from the controversy following September’s Special Town Meeting and Vote.

Town’s (Limited) Response to Sensible Wilton Election Complaint Filing

Leading things off, first selectman Bill Brennan made a statement referring to recent accusations made by Sensible Wilton, and the news that the group had filed a complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC). According to a press release Sensible Wilton sent Friday, Oct. 3, the group alleges that town officials violated election laws leading up to the recent Special Town Meeting and Vote on the Miller-Driscoll School Renovation.

Reading from a prepared statement, Brennan stated:  “The town will respond in an appropriate time once we have obtained and reviewed a copy of the complaint. To date nothing has been provided, and as of noon today, Oct. 6, the SEEC reports that it had not received the said complaint. Regardless the allegations in the press release seem to be without merit.”

At the end of his statement Brennan said he does not intend to make further comment.

Alex Ruskewich, president of Sensible Wilton, emailed GOOD Morning Wilton on Monday morning, explaining that the complaint had been sent to the SEEC by certified mail last Thursday, Oct. 2.

He added that the group “confirmed with SEEC staff that the each of the actions detailed  in the Complaint was a statute violation” prior to submitting the complaint.

He also wrote that the press release was issued on Friday “because  we continue to receive complaints about the advocacy program at the schools. An advocacy program on school grounds by Town Officials is a violation of election statutes.” Ruskewich said that he would release the actual complaint to both town officials and media once he had confirmed that the SEEC had received the certified mailing. At 3:39 p.m. Ruskewich emailed GMW.com again to state that, “The complaint has been confirmed as delivered to the SEEC.” However, no one from Sensible Wilton forwarded a copy of the actual complaint to us by press time, even after it was requested an additional time.

Additional Education of Town Volunteers

While Brennan did not make further comment regarding the specific SEEC complaint, he did move on to say that, “We need better education of our volunteers on our boards and commissions. There have been some issues that I fully believe that education can correct. And it has to do with FOI [Freedom of Information].”

According to the website of the Freedom of Information Commission in the CT Office of Governmental Accountability, FOI laws “ensure citizen access to the records and meetings of public agencies in the State of Connecticut.”

Brennan announced that Thomas Hennick, an attorney with the FOI office, will be coming to Wilton to make a presentation on how the FOI laws apply to those who serve on town boards and commissions. Hennick, a public education officer, will be presenting on Tuesday, Oct. 28 at 7:30 p.m..

“I will be sending an email to all our board and commission chairmen, and having them discuss this with their members, we hope to get a good turn out. It’s an opportunity. Tom Hennick has educated some of the town officials over the years and he knows this law cold,” Brennan said.

This follows some of the allegations made during and after the Sept. 23 town meeting about Miller-Driscoll building committee members who had not signed ethics pledges or had voted improperly.

The selectmen also discussed how important it is for any elected officials and appointees serving on town boards to be diligent about getting sworn in by the Town Clerk and getting their ethics statements signed and turned in. “Most of these are not intentional, with people thinking they’re already covered. When it comes up and people haven’t been sworn in, they just didn’t know,” Brennan said.

Hal Clark urged making the process more convenient for volunteers who are unable to get off of work in order to be sworn in before the Town Clerk’s office closes at 4:30 p.m.. “We need to make it easy for our citizen volunteers,” he said.

They also said that the database at the Town Clerk’s office “was not very good.”

Brennan added, “It’s been manual.”

Brennan said that town human resource director Sarah Taffel is working on improving that record-keeping as well as looking into some jurisdictional issues for some of the positions, but as soon as it’s worked out they would make sure that any oversights are cleared up. But he also put the onus on the chairs of each board and commission.

“I want to put this on the shoulders of the chairmen, [and say], ‘Your job is to be sure that every one of your board members…and by a date,’” Brennan said.

Acknowledging that there have been past issues, Brennan said they are trying to rectify mistakes.

“I just want to get this behind us. We’re trying to respond to a recognition that we’ve had some problems, I don’t think that they’re earthshaking or intentional. The only way we can do this is through education. We’re on our way to getting it corrected.”

Brennan also referenced some of the confusion that occurred during the vote, specifically pertaining to property-owning non-U.S. citizens who showed up to vote, but had to be turned away because they were not U.S. citizens.

“I’m surprised that there are questions over one thing I thought most people understood–you’ve got to be a citizen to vote. That is the law, I am told, in all the states in the United States. The answer is very simple–you can’t vote if you’re not a citizen. The election laws are very precise and we must follow them to the letter,” Brennan reiterated.

Citizen Says Wilton Officials Perpetuate a Myth

During public comment, Ed Papp, a resident who has criticized the Miller-Driscoll Renovation project and vote, addressed the selectmen. In a reference to his failed attempt to speak at the Town Meeting on Sept. 23, he thanked the BoS for the opportunity to speak last night, adding, “Sometimes that’s denied.”

Papp spoke calmly, but critically:  “There is a myth in this town. It’s the only town I’ve come across that perpetuates this myth. That ‘no vote’ is a tacit approval and therefore a ‘yes vote.’ Anyone with any sense of reason would fail to understand that.”

Papp presented the selectmen with what he said was Internet research on reasons why people don’t vote.

“Nowhere in this research, nowhere that I’ve heard before outside of Wilton, have people said a non vote is a yes vote or a tacit approval. If the town wants to perpetuate this myth, something’s wrong. You come across like Tinkerbell. You’re wrong to suggest it. I think it might be serving your own interests, it’s certainly a disservice to the town, a disservice to both parties, and a disservice to the voters. It’s a lie, it’s a myth. Now that you have this information, I would like you to stop saying that a no vote is tacit approval.”

He closed by thanking the BoS for the opportunity to speak, again saying, “It was denied to me the other night. But I’m glad I could tonight.”

Brennan thanked Papp for his time and opinion.

Papp’s public comment seemed to reference an op-ed written by the first selectman (and published elsewhere), in which Brennan referenced past Wilton votes and turnout numbers, concluding, “…when 83-percent of Wilton’s eligible voters decided not to vote, I believe they were tacitly expressing their support for the proposition on the ballot. While it may be of no consequence now, rather than being a ‘close’ vote as characterized by many commentators, it is my personal opinion that the outcome of the referendum was supported by the broader majority of Wilton citizens.”

[You can read Brennan’s op ed in entirety here.]

Post-vote regret and discord between Hoffstatter and other Selectmen

Following Papp’s comments, selectman Ted Hoffstatter spoke up, seemingly to break ranks from the previous united front of the selectmen. In a sort of ‘hindsight is 20-20’ scenario, he expressed his “concern” since the election outcome.

“I’m a bit concerned. I realize as a board member I did vote for the project, although I did have some hesitance over cost and scope over time. But it seems to me that when we have a $50 million project, the largest we’ve had since I’ve been a board member, only being approved by 27 votes, I am concerned and I’m also concerned about considering the non vote being a ‘yes vote.’ I’ve had people talk to me, people with kids, people without kids, people who would have voted yes, or who would have voted no. For whatever reason they did not vote, and it’s not an excuse. But I do have to say, I would be remiss as a representative,  to say that I’m not concerned about the situation we’re in and what’s being talked about. I know it’s not convenient, we would like things to move along smoothly. But sometimes, if we’re listening to the voters and to our constituents, it doesn’t always go smoothly. But it is morally incumbent on us to listen.”

Brennan responded cooly: “You sat here and listened to the presentations.What could they have done differently? Why wasn’t suggestions made instead of this after the fact comment?”

“I did vote for it, because I made the suggestions I did going along about cost or scope,” Hoffstatter answered. “At the end it did seem reasonable to me, although I was concerned about cost. But as an elected official, when the vote went before the town, and I see it’s that marginal, it gives me pause for concern. My gauge, maybe I was wrong, I thought it was going to pass with more of a mandate. So it makes me revisit my own thinking if it didn’t pass with more of a mandate. I’m not blaming anyone. But I think as elected officials, when it comes back without a mandate and the cost is that high, it does give me cause for concern. I don’t have an easy answer but I don’t feel that I can sit back, and not address it, or just assume if somebody didn’t vote no, they voted yes, or if they didn’t vote at all they voted yes.”

Selectman Dick Dubow replied. “In our form of government, a majority is a majority. The majority may be 1, if it’s 27, it may be 270. From my perspective we have an obligation to respect the vote of the majority that day. I don’t know what it would have been another day. But for those who chose to come out to vote, a majority approved that project.”

Brennan again addressed Hoffstatter:  “You voted for it. It was unanimous, on all the major boards. We all have better vision in hindsight. I think it’s important to express concerns ahead of time rather than…

“And I did,” Hoffstatter insisted. “I expressed concerns when I did vote for it. I’m just sorry it didn’t pass with a higher number, because I would like to feel that when we do something as a board, when it costs that much money, that we have a good enough gauge that we have more of a mandate from the town. I can’t sit here and listen to what I’ve heard since the vote and simply say nothing.”

Selectman Hal Clark focused on the turnout numbers. “I wish we had gotten 70 or 80 percent of the town to come out and vote. It’s a lot easier to figure out what the town wants when more than 17 percent of the town comes out to vote on a $50 million project. I was very disappointed at the size of the vote. At the end of the day, it would be easier guys  if you came out and voted in larger numbers. It is $50 million project, the largest that came in front of this town since I’ve been in office.”