Acting On The Principle

Of Accountability

To the Editor:

In a week when the Legislative Council approved the $3.15 million appropriation for capital projects and scheduled a town meeting for voters to approve this important appropriation, The Newtown Bee instead chose to devote a front-page article to a letter I sent to the Department of Labor seeking clarification regarding the prevailing wage law and the Fairfield Hills lease deal.

Contrary to the impression left by this article, the intent of my letter was not to “whistle-blow” on Newtown or to act “on behalf” of the council. It was an honest attempt to seek clarification on an issue raised by some constituents.

Since there are no established guidelines on how to communicate with the state, I e-mailed the town attorney for some information and the e-mail was ignored. One of my constituents already contacted Mr Smith from the Department of Labor. Another constituent asked me to contact Mr Smith, who advised me to write a letter seeking a ruling, as he believed that while the demolition of a building may not be subject to the prevailing wage law, construction projects on town-owned land could be. Mr Smith reported that towns that avoid prevailing wage often face funding shortfalls after the fact and agreed it was prudent to seek a ruling.

When the D’Amico parking deal was first reported in The Bee, I asked the council about the funding arrangement and the council chair, Will Rodgers, said it was not determined. I did not feel right about voting to approve any funding without fully understanding the prevailing wage law and its relationship to the Fairfield Hills lease deals and, therefore, sent the letter asking for a ruling. I shared the letter with the Board of Selectmen, the Fairfield Hills Authority, and the Legislative Council chairman.

Getting answers to my questions has not been easy. Many of my concerns expressed to Mr Rodgers are ignored or dismissed. I have been told that I must pursue Fairfield Hills-related answers by attending the Fairfield Hills Authority and the Board of Selectmen meetings since the issues raised are my own concerns — not the concerns of the council. Despite the fact that the council created the Fairfield Hills Authority ordinance and has the authority to revise it, many council members claim that the council does not have oversight of Fairfield Hills activities. Given that voters feel disenfranchised by not having a say with the master plan, the ordinance should be revised to allow the voters to decide the future of Fairfield Hills.

Repeated requests for accounting and due diligence review of Fairfield Hills activities have been viewed as a secret motive or a hidden agenda. Newtowners should be aware that my “motive and agenda” have always been the same as when IPN established the IPN platform. I pledged to act based on the principles of accountability, checks and balances, and transparency in government. I had pledged to “Garner Greater Public Consensus for a Fairfield Hills Master Plan”; therefore, I must continue to pursue gathering information, informing the constituents and advocating to allow them to participate in the decisionmaking process.

Po Murray

38 Charter Ridge Drive, Sandy Hook                            June 17, 2008