Town Clerk’s Actions Questioned

(The following letter to the Board of Ethics has been received for publication.)

Open Letter to the Newtown Board of Ethics:

It is with concern for our democratic system in Newtown that I am compelled to prepare this letter. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that our freedoms are preserved and are not thwarted by those who would use their positions to suppress them.

On August the 8th, approximately 40 Newtown citizens gathered on the steps of town hall to exercise their rights under our democracy. Petitions were circulated which were intended to place members of the newly formed Newtown Independent Coalition for Excellence (the NICE Party) on the ballot for the November 6 elections. Due to circumstances involving some misinformation, these people gathered at the last minute to submit petitions that were due by 4 pm on that day. The petitions were signed, submitted, and all those gathered felt a sense of accomplishment and most importantly, a sense that they were doing a good thing for their town. They were giving Newtown an opportunity to have an election season dialogue on many important issues facing the town and on election day, a choice. Unfortunately, due to a complaint initiated by the town clerk’s office, an investigation was begun by the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) into the validity of the petitions. This investigation will probably result in one of two petitions being denied. The town clerk’s office was correct in pointing out a problem with one of the petitions and the NICE party accepts that mistakes were made due to inexperience with the political process.

It is, however, that which occurred subsequent to this, that is the purpose of this letter. On August 28, the Town Clerk, Cynthia Curtis Simon, sent a letter to the SEEC amending her previous complaint. In this letter she calls into question a signature on the second petition. After questioning the signature she writes, “I also do not believe that this person was in attendance at the signing of these petitions.” Considering the fact that Ms Simon was away on vacation on August 8, I would like to know on what basis she developed this belief. Whatever the basis, there are at least 30 people who will confirm that the individual in question was indeed there at the petition signing. The state’s  attorney for election enforcement certified this signature immediately upon receiving a copy of the individual’s state issued license.

In the Instruction Page for Nominating Petitions as provided by the Office of the Secretary of State, Election Services Division, it states that “Within two weeks of the town clerk’s receipt of any petition page, the town clerk must check the signers of the petition page against the names of the electors on the registry list, certify the petition page, and file the page with the Secretary of State.” This duty was completed in a timely fashion by the town clerk’s office. Why then in her letter dated August 28, 20 days after the petitions were submitted, did the clerk file a subsequent complaint?

Additionally, The Newtown Bee and the Danbury News-Times both ran articles in their editions dated Friday, August 31, in which the town clerk was quoted relative to the investigations being conducted by the SEEC. In The Bee article it states, “The town clerk said there were at least three signatures that were written in the same handwriting as another signature. In all cases, it appeared as if a husband had signed the name of his wife.” In the News-Times article a reference is made to the town clerk’s letter which I mentioned above, dated August 28, and in the article they quote this letter: “I also do not believe that this person was in attendance at the signing of these petitions.”

In reading these newspaper articles I came away with the impression that an accusation was being made by the town clerk that an individual (who was indeed present at the petition signing) was not there and that her husband was the one who signed her name or at least would have been aware of it. The signature in question was that of the wife of a Newtown legislative council member. If Ms Simon’s accusations were valid, this individual would be in violation of the election laws of the State of Connecticut, and “shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.” I quote this penalty from the Instruction Page for Nominating Petitions.

What we have here are regrettable lapses in judgement by the town clerk of Newtown. It appears that the town clerk, Cynthia Curtis Simon, acting either alone or in concert with others, was going to extra lengths in an attempt to invalidate, and thereby deny ballot access, the petitions submitted by the NICE Party. She was in violation of the Town of Newtown Code of Ethics, which calls upon town officials to “discharge their duties conscientiously, impartially, and to the best of their ability, placing the good of the town above any personal or partisan considerations.” She unjustly accused a fellow town official of a serious violation of election law. And she violated section 6.2.1 of the code of ethics, which states, “No Official or Employee shall, without prior formal authorization of the public body having jurisdiction, disclose any confidential information or divulge personal matters pertaining to others that do not bear upon the Official’s or Employee’s discharge of official duties.” In speaking to The Bee and the News-Times, Ms Simon divulged information about an ongoing investigation at the SEEC and released potentially damaging information about another town official and his family. She did this in regard to a “belief” that turns out to be incorrect and just days after sending her letter to the SEEC.

I call upon Ms Simon to issue a public letter of apology to the falsely accused council member and his family.

I call upon the Newtown Board of Ethics to investigate this matter further and to take appropriate action to ensure that an unfortunate episode such as this does not reoccur. Perhaps Ms Simon would be well served by an unpaid leave of absence, allowing her the time to reflect on the seriousness and the potential effect of her actions.

Respectfully Submitted,

Richard J. Dunseith

9 Silver City Road, Newtown                                      September 4, 2001