Traffic Alert From Mayor's Office

Between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, August 25th and 26th, Michael Baker Engineering will be inspecting the Veteran's Bridge (No. 00901) over the Housatonic River on Route 202 & 67.

Baker is coordinating the inspection through the Connecticut Department of Transportation Bridge Safety & Evaluation Department. During the inspection, one-way alternating traffic will be required at times due to equipment being set up in one lane. The New Milford Police Department will be utilized for traffic control. The contingency date is Friday, August 27th.

Morey: Lawson Letter 'Hypocritical;' 'Top Prize to BOE For Lack of Transparency'

In his Letter to the Editor last week, David Lawson failed to identify himself as a Member of the Board of Education. How about that for transparency, folks? The facts that he is a Member of the BOE and left that out of his letter is significant, of course, and hypocritical, of course, because in that very letter he complains about the lack of transparency in the Town Government.

I marvel at his audacity. Let’s take a look.

Lawson and his cronies criticize the Mayor and the Town Council because they can’t follow the Council Meetings on the Town’s Web Page. Well, Mr. Lawson, hosting meetings on the Web costs money and the Town does the best it can without burdening the taxpayers and creating a new line item in the Budget. The Town Council Meetings are as transparent as the taxpayers can afford at this time. While Council Meetings are cablecast on the Web every Saturday, the Town only has one IT person, not dozens like the Board of Ed has and the Town doesn’t have a 24/7 TV education channel like the Board of Ed has. Why don’t you bring this topic up at your next Meeting and propose that the BOE help the Town by sharing its resources?

With regard to amending the Town Council agendas, maybe you don’t know that there is a State Statute that allows items to be added to an agenda by a 2/3 vote during a meeting! Think about this, Mr. Lawson. Although she has no obligation to do so, the Mayor actually distributes an up-to-the-last-possible-minute Agenda so that there are no surprises at the meetings. She could, instead, just leave the Agenda as is and add new items at the meeting. Remember, too, that issues change daily and come up almost hourly.

Thank you, Mayor Murphy, for keeping us informed.

Finally, on rare occasion, the Council has to add items to an agenda because of the exigencies of time. You know, don’t you, that the Town Council is responsible for far broader issues than that of the BOE. Having never served on the Council and seemingly disinterested in its function, Mr. Lawson’s position is understandable but not acceptable.

Recently, Mr. Lawson seems to have felt threatened by the appointment of a very qualified person, Beth Falder, to a Town Council ad hoc Committee established to examine efficiencies in both the Town and School Budgets to save tax dollars. Likely, he is upset that Ms. Falder had the temerity to speak at a recent School Budget Meeting and ask some totally reasonable questions. I guess that’s a no-no is his book and in the books of the other tax-and-spend cult members for which Mr. Lawson serves as poster-boy.

Mr. Lawson also compared her abilities to those of two Members of the Board of Finance for this Committee who he thinks would have been better candidates. Sorry. Given the abysmal attendance of some members of the BOF at Budget time, they fail the test to qualify for service on any Committee. Ms. Falder is intelligent, has some good ideas, has a mind of her own and brings a fresh approach to an important arena. We’re not fighting Sempra, here, folks and I want to remind readers that the appointees on the Sewer Commission are responsible for millions of dollars.

Mr. Lawson, before you criticize Town agendas for alleged lack of transparency you need to take a hard look at your Board that serves up managed news with very little substance. In fact, I give the BOE top prize for lack of transparency. As viewers of its Meetings know, most of the Board’s important decisions are made in committees and rubber stamped in Board meetings. The viewing public has no clue what’s happened in the subcommittees. Worse, if any Board Member or member of the public attempts to ask any substantive questions about committee matters or any matter affecting our schools, they’re gaveled out of order in a rude and condescending manner by the Board’s Chair.

Here are some examples of the Board of Ed’s lack of disclosure to the public. How was the extra $600,000 in medical savings spent and how was the $750,000 in Federal stimulus money spent in the last fiscal cycle? Why does the BOE wait until a new budget has passed before it votes on its volumes of budget transfers? Why aren’t the school system purchases done in public view but instead in internally managed and controlled meetings out of the public’s sight leaving several bidders questioning the process?

It is my opinion that the BOE doesn’t want the taxpayers to know the large surplus the Board has at the end of the fiscal year at a time when they are asking them for more Budget money?

The School Budget’s initial defeat should be a signal to you and to your fellow board members that the taxpayers are not pleased and that they are onto the games.

Mr. Lawson, please remember that every penny that you spend is the taxpayers money, not the School Board’s money.

We need serious people with serious ideas to improve government. You don’t qualify.

Mayor and Council Make History: BOE Now Required To Comply With Town Bidding Ordinance

Without fanfare, on Monday night the Town Council approved extremely important changes to the Town’s Bidding Ordinance.   They are of historic significance and, as dedicated readers know, have cured one of my pet peeves.

Simply, the BOE is now required to create its own purchasing authority and to bid out its purchases in the same manner as does the Town i.e. it must invite competitive bids.  The changes also affect the Library.

Here’s the revision; the matter in brackets is deleted:


ARTICLE III
Municipal Purchases

Revision of Chapter 2, Article III (Section 2-92) New Milford Code

Offered by: Mayor Pat Murphy
                                Charter, Section 405
                                New Milford Code, Section 1-4

§2-92. Bids. (a) Purchasing authority defined. Except as set forth in paragraph (l), as used in this section, “purchasing authority” shall mean the Director of Finance and Mayor.

(l) Board of Education and library purchases. This section shall [not] apply to [any] purchases made by the Board of Education [or] and the New Milford Library. Provided, however, the purchasing authority for the Board of Education shall be those persons assigned and designated as such by the Board of Education. The purchasing authority for the New Milford Library shall be those persons assigned and designated as such by the library Board of Trustees when such purchases are to be made with monies from fund sources designated in Chapter 11, §11-3 of the New Milford Code of Ordinances. For all other library purchases requiring the expenditure of funds other than or in addition to monies from such designated sources, the purchasing authority shall be the Director of Finance and the Mayor.

Board of Finance Failure Redux

Section 706(c) of the Charter, Duties of the Board of Finance On Other Financial Matters, requires the BOF to "fix the tax rate"  "within five (5) business days following the adoption of the budget..."

So what didn't happen at last night's Regular Meeting?  You got it!  No quorum, no setting of the mill rate.

PRESENT:  Chairman Joanne Chapin, Frank Wargo, Alternate Bill Bennett
ABSENT:    Vice-Chairman Bob Sherry, Gal Alexander, Larry Tripp (sent note), Mark Vendetti (sent e-mail)

A Special Meeting has been scheduled for Monday, June 14.

Tom Morey hit the nail on the proverbial head.

Budget Passes Handily

In a 19.12% turnout, the Budget passed handily:


Town:  2395 to 1051 

School:  2112 to 1348

The "Vote Yes" Pin

Lest anyone out there still thinks that this was a figment of the imagination, have a look.

Town Council Cuts $1,000,000 from BOE; Restores Its Budget

After the voters rejected the Budget last week, the Town Council tonight cut the $1,000,000 that the Board of Finance added to the Board of Education Budget.  By doing so, the Budget that will next go to the voters is the Budget that it originally approved.  I believe that the next Referendum is set for June 8.

Supporting the BOE Budget: The Law

Here is one of many inquiries that I have received:  "I know that it's a violation to use taxpayer funds, including money used to pay salaries, to advocate a position on the budget, but is it a violation now that we voted down the budget?  My kids are being inundated at school with political propaganda and I'd like to make a formal complaint if that is appropriate."


The following is an excerpt on this topic from A Practical Guide to Connecticut School Law by Thomas B. Mooney who is a Partner at Shipman & Goodwin.  As readers know, I think that this work is the best treatise on any legal topic that I have ever read;  the excerpt is posted here with the Author's permission.   


"Many town charters provide that the board of education budget will be submitted to referendum, either upon petition or in the normal course. Where approval of the board of education budget requires a referendum, school board members and other school officials are free to express their own views, but they must take care not to expend public funds to influence any person to vote for approval of the budget or any other referendum question.

Actions of boards of education are not subject to review by referendum except as provided by law. For example, some years ago the Town of Milford sought to hold an "advisory referendum" posing the question, "Are you in favor of the Board of Education entering into a busing contract presently known as Project Concern for the forthcoming year, 1969-1970?"  The Superior Court, however, enjoined the Town from conducting the referendum because the matter was for the Board of Education to decide: When a question such as this, whether or not the contract for busing should be entered into, presents itself, and no provision exists for its submission to referendum, the expense of submitting it to the voters, even on a "straw vote" basis, as here, would constitute a misapplication and waste of public funds. Murray v. Egan, 28 Conn. Supp. 204, 208-09 (1969). It is appropriate, therefore, to conduct referenda only in accordance with law.

When referenda are held, it is important to avoid any expenditure of public funds to advocate a referendum result. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-369b prohibits any such expenditures of public funds to influence a vote on a referendum question. The scope of this prohibition is very broad, and it applies to both local and regional school districts. The statute clearly prohibits a board of education from paying for posters or an advertisement urging approval of the board's budget in a pending referendum vote. However, the law also prohibits indirect expenditures. The State Elections Enforcement Commission, the agency responsible for administering this statute, has, for example, repeatedly held that it is a violation of this law to permit students to act as couriers for information advocating approval of a referendum question, because such delivery would be the functional equivalent of the cost of postage. This prohibition applies whether the material is prepared by the school district or by a third party, such as the PTO.

Using equipment or supplies to produce materials advocating approval of a referendum question is similarly prohibited. This prohibition extends to such use even if the party advocating a referendum result reimburses the district for the use of the equipment. School officials granting permission for such improper activities can be personally liable for the value of the facilities or equipment used. School facilities, however, can be made available to parties advocating a referendum result if they are made available to all interested parties on a non-discriminatory basis.

The prohibition against expending public funds to advocate a referendum result applies once a referendum has been scheduled. Significantly, prohibited advocacy is not limited to direct statements, such as "Vote Yes." The Commission will look at such materials as a whole to determine whether they are neutral and factual, or whether they cross the line and constitute advocacy materials. If they do constitute advocacy, expenditure of public funds on their preparation and/or dissemination will be a violation of the law.

In this technological age, it is important to be vigilant against making such indirect expenditures. While advocacy material may generally be posted on the school district website, it must be removed once the referendum is "pending." Avalon Bay, Communities, Inc. v. Gulbin, File No. 2001-186 (St. Elec. Enf. Com. March 27, 2002); In the Matter of Matthew Paulsen, Bethel, File. No. 2003-152A (St. Elec. Enf. Com. 2003). The same analysis applies to a "link" to such material. Also, when students expressed support for a referendum on a publicly-funded cable access program, a violation of the prohibition was found. In the Matter of Daniel Bernier, Killingly, File No. 97-219 (St. Elec. Enf. Com. 1997). Compare In the Matter of Paul Benyeda, Montville, File No. 2002-149 (St. Elec. Enf. Com. 2002) (mayor did not violate prohibition by making advocacy statements on his own time on cable access program that was not publicly funded). A related question is whether a board of education can maintain its practice of broadcasting and re-broadcasting its meetings while a referendum is pending, even if advocacy statements are made. While it does not appear that the Commission has addressed this issue, the answer appears to be a qualified yes. It is important to maintain the established practice with regard to such broadcasts. Any special re-broadcast may be seen as an expenditure to advocate a referendum result.

The State Elections Enforcement Commission has provided guidance concerning these prohibitions in a short flyer. This helpful, concise summary is available at http://www.seec.state.ct.us/, and it addresses the questions most frequently raised concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-369b. For example, it specifies that "a notice limited to the time, place and question to be voted upon may be sent home to parents via children in school," but it states that "children in school may not be used as couriers of information that advocates a position on a referendum." It also defines "advocacy" broadly: A communication advocates a position on a referendum when in part, or taken as a whole, it urges the listener or reader to vote in a particular manner. The style, tenor and timing of a communication are factors which are considered by the Commission when reviewing alleged improprieties of Section 9-369b. In Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, 249 Conn. 296 (1999), the Connecticut Supreme Court confirmed that this statement is a proper description of the legal standard. Moreover, it applied this standard to the communication at issue in that case, and held that the communication violated the law because the content would encourage a reader to vote in favor of the referendum, even though the specific words, "Vote Yes" were not included.

The law sets forth three "safe harbors," i.e. situations where public funds may be expended concerning a referendum result without violating the law. First, a public official may expend public funds to prepare a written, printed or typed summary of his or her views and to distribute that summary to the news media. Significantly, the official may express support for or opposition to the referendum in such a statement. Such a summary may also be provided to members of the public upon their request, but public funds may not be expended on a general distribution of such a summary to the public. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-369b(a).

Second, by vote of the legislative body, a town may authorize the preparation and printing of concise explanatory texts concerning referenda proposals. If the legislative body is the town meeting, the board of  selectmen may authorize such explanatory texts. The town clerk is responsible for preparing the text, and it is subject to the approval of the municipal attorney to assure that the text does not advocate either the approval or disapproval of the question. This option is also available to a regional school district. The regional board of education may vote to approve an explanatory text, and the secretary of the board is responsible for preparing the text and otherwise fulfilling the duties of the town clerk, and the text must be approved by legal counsel for the board.

The statute also empowers the legislative body of the municipality or regional board of education to authorize "the preparation and printing of materials concerning any such proposal or question in addition to the explanatory text." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-369b(a). Such materials are subject to the approval of the municipal attorney, and like the explanatory text must be neutral and advocate neither approval nor disapproval of the referendum question. Id.

Third, a municipality may provide by ordinance for the preparation and printing of "concise summaries of arguments in favor of, and arguments opposed to, local proposals or questions approved for submission to the electors of a municipality at a referendum." Any such ordinance must provide for the establishment of a committee to prepare such summaries, and the members of the committee must represent the various viewpoints concerning such referendum questions. When such summaries are prepared, they must then be approved by vote of the town's legislative body, and are to be posted and distributed in the same manner as are explanatory texts prepared by the town clerk for referendum questions. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-369b(d). Interestingly, however, when it extended the provisions for explanatory texts to regional school districts in 2004, the General Assembly did not take similar action with regard to this provision.

Though the law does not expressly so state, it is important to keep in mind that school board members and school officials retain their right under the First Amendment to speak out in favor of the proposed school budget or other referendum question. The prohibition applies only to the expenditure of public funds. School officials can certainly advocate for a referendum result at meetings of the board of education. In addition, since board of education members do not receive a salary, their devoting their time to such advocacy would not be considered an expenditure. Other school officials may speak out as well, as long as they do so voluntarily on their own time,
so that the value of their salary will not be an imputed expenditure to advocate a referendum result.

Finally, the General Assembly has granted special status to challenges to referenda. A person claiming that (1) he or she is aggrieved by a decision of an election official, (2) votes were miscounted in certifying a referendum result, or (3) there was a violation of certain laws concerning referenda may petition a judge of the Superior Court for expedited relief, and the judge must act, before or after the referendum, on a tight timetable in hearing the matter and issuing a decision. P.A. 04-117, Section 4.  In any event, the prohibitions in the law must be taken seriously.

The law provides that persons violating its provisions are subject to a fine not to exceed twice the amount of the illegal expenditure or $1,000, whichever is greater. Moreover, the law specifically prohibits a school board or other public agency from reimbursing a public employee or officer for any such fine imposed. Normally, public officials and employees are indemnified for claims made against them for their actions in fulfilling their responsibilities. For fines imposed for violations of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-369b, however, one is personally liable."

Winter Gone Overboard

It appears that rabid BOE supporter Jeff Winter has finally done it.

It's aggravating enough that he airs his ignorance in his rants to the Town Council  -- he's entitled, of course -- but now he's gone off the deep end.

In very public exchanges on Facebook, Winter is engaging in a boycott of local businesses that advocated the defeat of the Budget.  Are you kidding me?  People certainly have a right to do this however misguided and downright stupid it may be: yes go ahead and punish the very entities that contribute to the very survival and well-being of the Town, State and Country.  That makes a lot of sense.

But get this.  Winter is the Vice-Chairman of the Economic Development Commission!  Yes, the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION!  Outrageous!

He ought to be removed from the post and the Commission immediately. 

Budget Failed

Town:    2666 yes, 1896 no (+770)

School:   2243 yes, 2336 no (-93)

As some of you saw, I was posting on the last entry as the numbers were coming in.  Take a look there to see how the evening progressed.

Now the Budget goes back to the Council.