Lake Authority And Water Ski Clinic

For Disabled Clash Over Fees

By Kendra Bobowick

A handful of surrounding towns’ first selectmen sat across the table from Lake Zoar Authority (LZA) members Tuesday night and asked that they avoid it. A disagreement that has lasted more than a year between the authority and one nonprofit group running ski clinics for the disabled at last drew town leaders’ attention.

Cutting through the many-layered arguments between the authority and Leaps of Faith Disabled Water Ski Club regarding patrolling fees for the nonprofit group’s weekend clinics, Oxford First Selectman Mary Ann Drayton-Rogers leaned forward and told the authority, “There is a possibility of a lawsuit against your board; any suit from any organization is actually litigation against the towns...do what’s in your power to offset the litigation.”

Since the Department of Environmental Protection “revisited our law,” Boating Division Director Eleanor Mariani explained that the authority, rather than the town or police department, is the entity to sign off on permits for ski clinics, for example. That is how the problems between the authority and the Leaps of Faith began.

Adding another wrinkle, the LZA also voted last summer to require law enforcement patrols during ski clinics, and then sought to recover costs of operating the patrol boats. Would the money come from the nonprofit group? Patrols are an estimated $241, according to one LZA invoice. Traditionally, the Leaps of Faith makes a $100 donation to the LZA for each of an average six clinics run during the summer and ending in September.

The Leaps of Faith has answered with a pending lawsuit.  Ski club organizer Joel Zeisler pointed to the heart of the problem. He said in past weeks, “Either we patrol it or, if you insist on your patrol, you pay for it.” From there the argument has resulted in piles of paperwork, for one, defending positions, and interpretations of laws and responsibilities.

With Ms Rogers were Jen Naylor representing Southbury First Selectmen Mark Cooper, interim controller Heidi Meade representing Monroe First Selectman Tom Buzi, and Newtown First Selectman Joe Borst — the collective leadership for the four towns with members on the authority. In a conversation with The Bee Wednesday morning, Mr Buzi was firm. He “absolutely” agrees with steps to avoid litigation. “Nobody wants that,” he said.

Ms Naylor also commented during the evening about avoiding litigation. Also at the meeting and seated in the brief row of chairs behind Ms Rogers and others was Mr Zeisler. He said he is already in touch with a lawyer, but will wait to file. After the meeting, he commented, “The towns have asked me to hold off.” He, like the selectmen, hopes that a round of negotiations might resolve differences. “Working with the towns is the best option. At the moment. But I have contacted my attorney and [a lawsuit] is ready to go.”

‘We Want An Agreement’

Mr Buzi said Wednesday, “We want an agreement between the LZA and Leaps of Faith.” The Monroe first selectman is also willing to help. “I think the selectmen are amenable to helping the process.” In short: “I don’t want to talk about lawsuits, I want to talk about resolving [this]. We’ve got to sit them down.”

Willing to go either way, Mr Zeisler said last week a discussion between LZA members and his skiing organization might end in compromise. “No one will be [entirely] happy and that’s probably the right answer,” he said. Rather than one group unwilling to budge against the others’ demands, the problem might be resolved “somewhere in between,” he said. With a likeminded comment, Mr Buzi said, “With any kind of agreement there are concessions. You’ve got to understand that nothing is going to be perfect.” Again concerned that the situation has reached a “boiling point,” he also looked toward negotiations. “They ought to be able to figure it out.”

During a Newtown Board of Selectmen’s meeting in past months, both the LZA and Leaps of Faith have argued their cases, from budget line items to costs incurred by the disabled. Tense words divided supporters for both groups in the hallway outside the library meeting room where the selectmen moved to other discussion.

Tuesday’s authority meeting in Southbury showed continued signs of stress. As members discussed the Leaps of Faith clinics with selectmen, ski club supporter Dan O’Donnell asked to address a point.

“No,” Authority Chairman Steve Jaroszewski said quickly. Ms Rogers then continued with her appeal. “Now it’s time to have open and honest discussion.” Mr Jaroszewski replied, “I have a dilemma.” He then stressed one of the reasons he feels the authority must charge Leaps of Faith. “I get a letter from Monroe saying [the first selectman] doesn’t want us to pay for the event, and we talk to Oxford’s Board of Finance and they don’t want us to support the Leaps of Faith as a line item,” Mr Jaroszewski said. Countering his statement, Ms Rogers said, “I think they said live within your budget.” The budgeting, or not, is just one example on which parties disagree.

In the last year one of many points of debate focused on fees specifically  — who would pay the cost of patrolling the clinics? Not the authority. At least, that is the argument coming from Monroe specifically. “No LZA funds should be used to support a private, not-for-profit organization, no matter how valuable the service they provide,” states the letter signed by First Selectman Buzi. The point is one of many argued from different perspectives. For example, Mr Zeisler responds, “[Disabled] people have the same rights as able bodied people on the lake; protection should be there for everybody, we shouldn’t have to pay.” Again, he hopes for resolution “someway, somehow,” he said. For his part, he said, “We’ll do all we can.”

An Emotional Issue

As the conversation went back and forth about funds, line items, and expense, Mr Jaroszewski offered his points — the roughly $241 fee per clinic simply to cover costs is reasonable, and not exorbitant.

He complained, “Still, they’re pursuing a lawsuit. What for?”

Ms Rogers noted, “It’s obviously an emotional issue.” She repeated the message she hoped to get across to the LZA Tuesday: “This needs to be addressed — now is an excellent time sit down and settle it.” Neither agreeing nor disagreeing to Ms Roger’s statement, Mr Jaroszewski said, “Can we put this as a line item?” Again, Ms Rogers said that the finance board had asked that the LZA stay within its budget.

 “I don’t want a situation where we’re addressing all issues under discussion with the Leaps of Faith,” she said. “Maybe this has to be addressed, but not tonight.”  

As a volley of discussion followed, Mr Jaroszewski defended the authority. “We absolutely need to sign off on permits.” The board had made its decision, he reminded. “As a board we thought about it and we all voted that we require a patrol at these events,” he said.

“We spent hours talking about it,” Mr Jaroszewski repeated. “When the board voted in June it passed.” The decision to require a policed patrol boat passed. Despite his explanations, Ms Rogers pushed her point: “Maybe open up for discussion and discuss the whole topic with the Leaps of Faith.”

Does the authority intend to talk it out? Mr Jaroszewski spoke instead about the ski club’s traditional contribution for prior years’ LZA patrols. He responded to Ms Rogers, “I’d love to come back to it, but [Mr Zeisler] says at the end of the year he would pay $100. At the end of the year.”

Mr Zeisler later clarified that the donation was $100 per clinic. At the moment at the meeting, however, he interjected, “If I may interrupt…”

“Sorry, you can’t,” Mr Jaroszewski said.

Ms Rogers brought talk around to her appeal once again. “We recognize your job is not easy,” she offered. “But, we’re here to ask you to work out the situation and hope you come to a reasonable solution on the issues at this point.”

The chairman’s reply? No LZA funds should be used to support private organizations, he stated again.

Would the first selectmen provide letters on their policy on this? Mr Jaroszewski and other LZA members were interested to know.

After a pause Ms Naylor said only, “Let’s get it resolved before litigation happens.”

Mr Jaroszewski defended his board: “We’ve never not signed off on a permit. This boils down to who is going to pay? What can we do?”

Authority member Bernie Lintzner spoke. “What do the towns say? The question is, who is going to pay? Are we? Are they?”

“I think there has to be some reasonableness on both sides,” Ms Rogers answered.

 

Are There Clear Answers?

Both the Leaps of Faith and LZA have contacted the Department of Environmental Protection. Boating Division Director Eleanor Mariani had sent a letter clarifying the parameters of a lake authority, but provided no decisions about when fees are necessary, or who must pay the sums. A lake authority enforces state boating law. It is also the opinion of the department that the authority is empowered “to be sole agent in matters of enforcement of boating law and that therefore a Lake Authority has primacy over a member town in this matter,” the letter stated.

During a separate interview, Ms Mariani additionally agreed that the LZA is the enforcement agency that decides when a patrol is necessary. Still without any language on fees and payments, she said, “If there is a disagreement, it’s really a local issue. It seems that both groups are concerned about safety first and it’s a matter of arriving at how best to get there.” The DEP does not decide if an event requires patrols, she said.

Primarily, Mr Jaroszewski defends the need for patrols with liability in mind. What if someone is injured? Every authority member is in jeopardy, he fears. Speaking from experience, he does not want to see his assets entangled in legal matters because someone sues due to an injury on the lake.

Once public comment closed Tuesday and after the selectmen had left, differences of opinion among authority members became clear.

Speaking as a resident rather than the authority clerk, Martha George said, “They deserve equal access to the lake. I am able bodied and you patrol me on the lake, but you’re charging them?” After much back and forth, one issue rose to the surface: closing off portions of the lake. From there questions arose. Who can do it? Who should patrol it? Are police patrols necessary?

Frustrated, Ms George said, “You guys chose to require patrols — it’s like you’re putting up roadblocks — read between the lines. These [selectmen] are saying, ‘End it.’”

Mr Jaroszewski again raised concerns of injury and liability. Ms George retorted, “You’re going to get sued no matter what.” Patrols by the LZA will reduce possible boating accidents, for one, the chairman insisted. Member Glenn Ganz made the point, “He is right, you never know how many accidents they have prevented.”

Raising the threat of Mr Zeisler’s lawsuit once again, Ms George pushed the nuances of the yearlong argument about patrols and fees aside. She demanded, “What does this have to do with what these four selectmen are saying?” Following another burst of conversation, Mr Jaroszewski stated, “I don’t want them to sue, but I have to do what I think is right.”

Ms George was not convinced. “Those four [selectmen] are telling you to end it.”

“What’s that mean?” the chairman demanded.

Raising a point that former LZA treasurer and current Leaps of Faith supporter Paul Gallichotte had made earlier in the evening, Ms George persisted: “[Mr Gallichotte] is telling you — you didn’t do your homework.” He had come prepared with research about boating practices for other organized activities on Bantam Lake and elsewhere, to start.

As conversation circled the table, Mr Jaroszewski came back to his biggest hang up: “Are you willing to assume responsibility and liability if we get sued?” He later conceded, “Let’s do our homework.” Mr Lintzner waved a letter among the collected correspondence, asking, “Anyone want to contact any of these people? I think some of us have to find out.”