Selectmen Snipe At Each Other

Over Fairfield Hills Housing Issue

By John Voket

First Selectman Pat Llodra said Wednesday that she was over her “snit” from two days earlier when she publicly addressed fellow Selectman William Furrier about his allegation in an e-mail reply to another elected official on the Edmond Town Hall Board of Managers, also a constituent, that Mrs Llodra harbored a “private agenda” that was shared among town Republicans supporting public housing at Fairfield Hills.

At the March 21 Board of Selectmen meeting, during and after scheduled discussion on an amendment to the lease between the town and the Newtown Youth Academy, Mrs Llodra and Selectman Will Rodgers both took issue, particularly to Mr Furrier’s tone, and response to Karen Pierce. The town hall manager, who e-mailed Mr Furrier March 18, asked him to comment on rumors that there is a conflict of interest with the town attorney and his ties to a construction company that has been engaged with projects at Fairfield Hills.

“For years I have heard rumors that our Town Attorney [David Grogins] and/or his firm [Cohen & Wolf] represent Claris Construction ...if so, then we have a conflict of interest...” Ms Pierce’s e-mail states.

Both Mr Furrier and Ms Pierce are elected representatives of the Independent Party of Newtown (IPN). In recent months, some IPN members and supporters have written letters to The Bee and posted comments on the newspaper’s Facebook page about concerns or direct opposition to housing on the town-owned campus.

Mr Furrier replied to Ms Pierce’s e-mail referencing plans for a proposed lease for a multifamily residential development at Cochran House.

“It is clear that the schematic diagrams were prepared by Claris Construction. Is it true that Attorney Grogins represents Claris Construction? If so, then your assertion that an appearance of a conflict of interest does exist, and if so, then I believe that Mr Grogins, in my opinion, should not represent Newtown in this matter.”

Ms Pierce then replied, referring to the current independent review of the Fairfield Hills Master Plan, saying: “We need to make certain that there are no distractions or concerns of ulterior motives, as has beset FFHs since its purchase.”

Mr Furrier responded, in part: “Are you accusing our leadership of harboring a private agenda, it seems that you are. Recall that the first selectman said that she would not tolerate anyone harboring a private agenda at the beginning of our term. Are you insinuating that she meant that only she could harbor such an agenda or that only her side could? To me it sure looks like the leadership of the RTC is driving a private agenda of housing at FFH forward in opposition of the will of the electorate, and that if true, it should be considered intolerable.”

 Referencing the local public opposition to housing at Fairfield Hills in comparison to what the selectman described as national public opposition to “Obamacare,” Mr Furrier added, “By the way, Karen, I hope you understand that the voters in Newtown are not in any mood to have anyone’s private agenda rammed down their throats, or any other orifice at that matter, especially a high density housing agenda that is highly likely to depreciate all our property value by a significant amount.”

E-mails Were Public

Since the e-mails were circulated and copied to all three selectmen, the content of those e-mails is subject to public view under state Freedom of Information statutes. The assertions about a potential conflict of interest in those e-mails were taken to heart by Mr Rodgers, who is an attorney.

During the Monday meeting, Mr Rodgers referenced the e-mail chain, as well as similar comments made by Mr Furrier on a local blog site, and reminded his colleague that as an elected official his statements about a potential conflict could be taken as representing his official position as a selectman.

Saying such assertions could be “professionally damaging” to the town attorney, Mr Rodgers asked Mr Furrier and anyone taking part in public statements to consider exhausting all avenues to learn the truth, and to then address the issue in terms of any “obvious fault and improper actions.”

Mrs Llodra referred to Mr Furrier’s comments as perpetrating or promoting a “whispering campaign questioning me.”

“I continue to state I won’t allow a private agenda,” Mrs Llodra said, calling her colleague’s public statements “inflammatory and hurtful.”

“Character assassination is not something that is in the best interest of this town,” the first selectman continued.

While Mr Furrier said he would not respond to the issue of his public comments, he maintained that the selectmen did not have the constitutional power by charter or statute to commit local taxpayers to a contract that promises public money will be spent to purchase services in lieu of cash lease payments for the Newtown Youth Academy’s 40-year land lease.

He then stood alone voting against the lease amendment on the agenda.

That renegotiated subsection changes the required amount of hours the town is committed to using in exchange for credit on the NYA lease from 1,600 to 1,400 annually — primarily for Parks and Recreation programming. It also sets forth a provision for handling disputes; requires the NYA to publish its rental rates and to give the town appropriate discounts on those hourly rates as set forth in other existing sections of the contract.

The new provision also provides the town with 200 donated hours of use of the NYA, to use as seen fit by town officials.

Conflict Review Panel

After the selectmen conducted other business, Mrs Llodra returned to the matter of Mr Furrier’s public correspondence, assuring the public that her board will not be collectively weighing in on the proposal for residential development at Cochran House. Mrs Llodra suggested the lease proposal and correspondence go straight to the town attorney.

Mrs Llodra said she feared that if she accepted a copy of the proposal, it would infer to some that she was not maintaining a neutral stance while the Fairfield Hills Master Plan review committee finished its work.

“Mr Grogins is in receipt of that letter because I don’t want anything to do with it,” Mrs Llodra said. She also said that she asked Mr Grogins directly about the insinuation of a conflict, because his firm represents Claris Construction, she was assured that “Mr Grogins doesn’t have anything to do with Claris in this town.”

Mr Rodgers then said in his assessment, it was Mr Furrier and others who were trying to “circumvent the [master plan] review committee’s role,” and reminded Mr Furrier that Mr Grogins’ firm has a formal conflict of interest panel that regularly reviews case loads to ensure no such conflict occurs.

He added that the firm may have such a review panel because their malpractice carrier may require it, but he believes the firm also employs such a review because it is the ethical thing to do.

Mr Furrier said the subject of housing at Fairfield Hills in any respect was cause for alarm, and raised fears that the people of Newtown would not be part of any decision to bring possible housing options to the campus.

Mrs Llodra replied, “I say comments you made have contributed to that alarm.

“Let me point out in practical reality that you don’t know how I feel [about the housing proposal], and if it came to this board today, it would go down,” the first selectman said.

Mr Furrier responded saying, “It’s not that I don’t trust you, Pat. I’ve seen too much. I’ve lost trust.”