Town Clerk’s Actions

Were Not Impartial

To the Editor:

I am writing about our Town Clerk Cynthia Curtis Simon’s letter in last week’s Newtown Bee where she tried to justify her actions against the NICE Party.  Until now only her side of the story has been presented.

No one questions Ms Simon’s actions as town clerk except when they are no longer impartial.

When we started the NICE Party and approached Ms Simon looking for some assistance she told us she knew nothing about the process and we could get the forms from the state.  If we had received the same verbal instructions as were given to the Charter Revision Commission’s Joe Borst and Bill Sheluck (as seen in the picture in The Bee), the “irregularities” that occurred could have been avoided.

The facts are that the State Elections Enforcement Commission conducted an investigation and found only a minor civil infraction had happened and fined Mr Piesner the minimum the law allowed – certainly not the “compromise of the election process” that Ms Simon indicates.  If Mr Piesner had actually done something as serious as Ms Simon claims, the commission would have thrown the book at him instead of giving the mild slap on the wrist he received.  The fundamental point here is intent.  The State of Connecticut agrees that at no time and in no way was it the intention of Mr Piesner to compromise the election process.

I find it interesting that Ms Simon started a criminal investigation (when she could simply have rejected the signatures) and then while it was proceeding, released information to the press knowing that the NICE Party would not be able to respond until the investigation was completed.  Does that sound impartial?

Ms Simon has also created an impression that both of the NICE Party petitions were equally flawed and were part of the initial investigation.  This is absolutely false.  Our petition for Legislative Council District 2 was perfectly fine and was immediately approved upon receipt by the Elections Commission of the State of Connecticut.

The members of the NICE Party would like Ms Simon to explain to the residents of Newtown why she filed a second complaint with the Elections Commission against Mr Piesner and another signer of the District 2 petition 20 days after her office had examined both petitions and couldn’t find anything wrong with the second petition. That complaint filed by Ms. Simon was deemed totally without merit by the Elections Commission.  Does this action seem to go beyond the scope of Ms Simon’s responsibilities ?  Does this extra scrutiny seem like it was impartial and non-partisan?

As far as Ms Simon’s staff is concerned, they are wonderful. They were helpful, considerate, non-partisan and present at the time we turned in our petitions as she was not.  Stating facts and making accusations based on second-hand information is dubious at best.

I hope I have set the record straight and asked the right questions so that the public can make up its own mind.

I do not wish to make an enemy of Ms Simon as she will most certainly be reviewing the NICE Party’s petitions for candidates in the 2003 election. We are bound and determined to offer the voters in Newtown the choice and change that they want. Perhaps one of those changes will be in our town clerk’s office.

Sincerely,

Robin Lozito Fitzgerald

Vice Chairperson

Newtown Independent Coalition for Excellence

24 Old Farm Hill Road, Newtown September 19, 2001