BREAKING NEWS, 11:50 A.M.: Former selectman Ted Hoffstatter sent an email to his former colleagues on the Board of Selectmen and other town leaders calling the Miller-Driscoll renovation bonding vote a ‘possible misstep,’ and suggesting the town should consider a re-vote. The email, which was sent Wednesday evening, Jan. 14, was forwarded to GOOD Morning Wilton on Thursday morning.
The email reads:
Dear Ed, and Boards copied here,
While, as you all know, I am no longer a Board member, as a citizen, I do feel this deserves attention.
I understand that there was a Town vote on this matter, and that no matter how small the margin, a vote stands.
However, due to the fact that this is the largest capital project in a long time–at least since I had joined the Board in ’07– and that there are some legitimate questions and concerns surrounding the process, I feel a re vote should be considered. There is no reason for a Government on any level to move forward under a grey cloud if there is a mechanism in cue to change that.
I also understand the argument that we could slide down a “slippery slope” in that we cannot call a re vote very time a portion of the citizenry is unhappy with an outcome. At the same time, I believe government cannot represent the people fully if no flexibility exists at all. This is a very unusual circumstance.
Also, if those who voted for the project– and I did vote for the project– are so confident that the Town wants the project, what is the fear of a re vote?
As the project was being discussed, I voiced concerns over the size and scope of the project repeatedly, as it seemed to grow meeting to meeting. I still voted yes, as I believed my concerns were in the minority. As time has passed, I realize I may have misjudged public support for this endeavor. I would rather address a possible misstep, regroup, and move forward with better knowledge of public sentiment, than have our elected officials bury their heads in the sand and simply move on no matter what.
To be clear, I do feel that all of the individuals involved in this process are good, well meaning people. While I was a Selectman, I believe our Committees worked in good faith with the directives they were given. I wish we, as Board members, had done a better job of reigning in the size and scope of the project; maybe there would have been a real Town mandate. Who knows?
Why not re vote, and find out?
Respectfully,
Ted Hoffstatter
Hoffstatter voted in favor of the renovation. He announced he was resigning from his position on the Bd. of Selectmen at the Dec. 15 meeting, citing a time conflict due to his masters degree studies at Fairfield University that made it impossible for him to attend BoS meetings.
Calls for comment have been placed to First Selectman Bill Brennan and Bruce Hampson, chair of the M-D building committee, and Hoffstatter. We will update the story as soon as news warrants.
UPDATE: 12:30 PM–In a phone call with GMW, Hoffstatter characterized his email as hewing close to remarks that he’d made previously on the day he announced his resignation, expressing similar concerns.
He added that, “of something of this magnitude, if there is a question about the process, I don’t feel a re-vote would be harmful.”
Hoffstatter said he doesn’t “believe a re-vote would be harmful” and that it can clarify things: “Either there can be a revote and the board members can be satisfied, they may get their two-to-one mandate they want and can move forward with confidence, or if there truly is a substantial amount of people who don’t want the project and it goes that way, well then that’s maybe indicative of something.”
With regard to whether there were any election violations, as Sensible Wilton has charged, he says, “I don’t think anyone intended to do anything improper. I’m not versed on the full letter of the law, whether the SEEC was going to find there was anything or not. And I understand that no matter what the elections commission finds, that finding does not constitute a revote. I guess it would be up to whether town officials feel that there is enough question in the constituents’ mind that in this instance it might be appropriate or not. That’s obviously their judgment, not mine.”
He reiterated that the narrow margin is a concern. “I can understand why the questions are being asked on a capital project of that magnitude, to pass by such a narrow margin when there was such low turnout. I’m not saying that’s an excuse, because if someone didn’t show up to vote, that is their fault. At the same time, when I was sitting on the board, I was feeling that if we move forward with a project of that magnitude, in good faith we’d like to feel, because we generally do have a strong mandate, at least at the time I was feeling it would nice to have strong mandate rather than move forward with something that a substantial portion of people may be seeing as controversial.”
He says he “doesn’t feel that there’s any ill-will from any side,” but that the topic of a revote is something that should be discussed. “It’s a fair discussion. I’m not trying to cause a problem. I’m simply asking the question that if this is still an issue, why shouldn’t it be something that’s discussed, that’s all.”
I would not characterize this as a bombshell.
A re-vote is a perfectly reasonable thing to do given all of the various errors that occurred at each step along the way to the counting of the votes.
Time for all the Boards to “man-up” and accept the concerns of many citizens. Opposition to the current plan would evaporate if a re-vote clearly indicated a vote for/in favor of it.
The re-vote should be rescheduled for the ATM to enable all citizens the right to vote now that accurate information has become available.
I agree with Ed – this is not a bombshell. But there is no need to apologize – or have another vote on this matter.
David Frankel, in the November 7, 2014 issue of the Wilton Bulletin eloquently deals with the need for a recount.
“First, I find it disappointing that a group called “Sensible Wilton” is spending time filing lawsuits and campaigning outside election locations seeking petition signatures to overturn a narrow, legal vote result they simply didn’t like. We had our chance to officially state our opinions on the matter, we held a vote, and there was a winner and loser declared. That is how things are supposed to work in a democracy. As they say on the kids TV show “Yo! Gabba Gabba,” “sometimes you win, sometimes you lose” and when you lose, you need to be gracious in defeat, and work to get a better outcome next time. Frankly, if the people supporting “Sensible Wilton” truly cared about sensibility in Wilton, they would understand that they are sending the opposite message by taking a page out of a national political playbook in a ploy that smacks of sour grapes.”