Letter: Taking a Harder Look at “Sensible”

To the Editor:

I write to respond to the letter from the president of “Sensible Wilton” published here last week. In it, he speaks of “a cloud of voting violations” and a belief that the state will therefore order a revote. Yet he knows full well that, in state SEEC staffer Joshua Foley’s own words quoted in the local press, “there are no do-overs” in these circumstances, contrary to “Sensible’s” assertions — just fines or censure for anyone who is found to have violated pre-election discussion rules, as “Sensible” asserts that some have. Do-overs are reserved for frauds at the ballot box, and not even “Sensible” is alleging that.

“Sensible” would also be well-advised to take a harder look at the circumstances of its petition signers, as our registrars of voters have just completed doing very laboriously and thoroughly. The registrars report that out of the 1,070 who signed the petition, only 320 actually took the time to vote. That means that 750 of the signers — who could have voted but didn’t, even though the vote took place on two days — now want to undo their failure to go to the polls. Those 750 signed the petition, yet they didn’t even bother to vote; there’s something really backwards about that! Moreover, apparently 632 of those who voted “no” (952 “no” votes minus 320 voting petition-signers) haven’t deemed “Sensible’s” petition itself worthy of their signature. That kind of petitioning v. voting picture is disturbing on multiple levels, but especially on the level of the degree to which–if our Board of Selectmen in their discretion were to decide to have the bonding revoted as “Sensible” is demanding–it would reinforce very bad voting behavior.

Ironically, “Sensible” is claiming to the state that our town failed to adhere to what it asserts are limitations on pre-vote discussion of the project even as it also asserts that voters weren’t informed, allegedly because, in the words of one of its members in a letter published in the Wilton Bulletin on Jan. 18, “prior announcements were limited” — an astounding assertion given the great coverage pre-vote by all of the news sources in town, print and on-line, including Good Morning Wilton of course, with banner headlines and in-depth articles. In fact, twice the percentage of voters came out for the Miller-Driscoll vote as voted in the average of the last two annual town votes (17% v. 8.3%).

Ross Tartell — in his letter published here last week at the same time as the “Sensible” president’s letter — reports that in the case of three other builds cited by “Sensible” as more cost-effective than Miller-Driscoll’s (including the nearby Newtown school build and also ones in Williamsburg, VA and Wilmington, MA), the actual cost per square foot per student served is higher than for the Miller-Driscoll build by a factor of from 40% to 60%. He states that, “Sensible Wilton has consistently misrepresented the information in their communications to the electorate.” Even “Sensible’s” president had to acknowledge in his letter that, “improvements are needed at Miller-Driscoll to protect student health/safety.” Dr. Tartell’s analysis shows that the most cost-effective way of doing improvements that everyone acknowledges are needed is, in fact, the way that Wilton voters have already approved.

Steve Hudspeth