Debate Showcased First Selectman Candidates’ Style, Substance

By Kendra Bobowick

& John Voket

All four contenders for Newtown’s top elected position made their best case for election October 19 before more than 100 spectators in the theater at Edmond Town Hall as The Newtown Bee presented its third biennial local candidates’ debate. Many of those in the audience were themselves seeking election this fall to offices farther town the ticket.

Democrat Gary Fetzer, Republican Patricia Llodra, Bruce Walczak of the Independent Party of Newtown, and petitioning unaffiliated candidate Patrick Heigel each addressed numerous questions, mostly posed by the very voters who will assign the next first selectman his or her first term November 3.

Bee editor and debate moderator Curtiss Clark posed the questions, some which were submitted in multilayered format, touching upon long-term planning, capital improvements, taxes, economic development, public safety, local environmental concerns, and the candidates’ personal styles of management.

(An audio file, select video highlights, and a photo slide show of the debate are all available at Newtownbee.com.)

The first question of the evening gave the candidates an opportunity to explain their individual management style, and how they might bring that style to benefit the community as its first selectman. While campaigning heavily on the concept of uniting the community, Mr Walczak replied that “consensus building is the second step in the leadership process.”

“The first one is to challenge the people participating in the group to flow freely with their ideas. And to challenge each other on the assumptions in those ideas, and the direction so we have a thorough debate of the issues,” Mr Walczak said. “Then it’s possible to arrive at a consensus and begin to develop a plan as to how to go forward.”

Mr Heigel said he was a “planner and a creative thinker,” and that he would address Newtown’s “problems” by learning about how similar concerns were handled in other communities.

“After I come up with a plan, I work hard to make it happen. It may take a while, but if we have the support from the townspeople and the other selectmen, and people working for the town we can make things happen,” Mr Heigel said. “We can bring Newtown to a sustainable future.”

Ms Llodra defined building consensus as the open and honest commitment to engage ideas without any preconceived notion of their merit. She said consensus comes “when everyone feels that their idea is going to be considered with the same value as every other idea.”

The Republican candidate said in her 30-plus years of handling and facilitating leadership initiatives, she knows the process of achieving consensus might be “long and slow and careful,” but in the end as long as all parties share a common goal, consensus can “be achieved with the recognition that everyone has something positive to bring to the table.”

Mr Fetzer said he does not “have all the answers, but I know where to get the answers.” He mentioned meeting a resident who was installing solar panels, and fielding a question about why towns do not waive building permit fees for green projects like his.

“Now that’s a wonderful idea that we need to take back and we need to implement,” Mr Fetzer said. “So many good ideas are out there just waiting for us to ask the right questions.” The Democratic candidate added that he would build consensus by seeking ideas from “everybody,” and would not discard the input from those whose ideas might be more “innovative.”

Working On The Railroad

The candidates went on to offer their thoughts on striking the right balance between municipal and educational spending; concerns about public safety and the ongoing issue with relocating the Newtown Hook & Ladder Volunteer Fire Company headquarters; and balancing a commitment to long-term planning with what might be rapidly vacillating public opinion on various taxpayer-funded initiatives.

Responding to a question about how he would proceed regarding the Housatonic Railroad’s proposals for expansion and use at its Hawleyville transfer station, Mr Fetzer said the last time he drove through Hawleyville, “everything was covered with a layer of dust.”

“Who wants to live or do business there? I am not going to be satisfied until the hazardous waste is out of there.” Insisting he will talk to “people in Washington” or whoever is in line to effect changes, he insisted, “It’s an abomination. There are other places for them.”

Danbury was one suggested location for the railroad transfer station that recently submitted an application for expansion to the Department of Environmental Protection.

Saying, “It’s a concern,” Mr Walczak recognized the importance of the advocacy and contribution of a local neighborhood organization opposing the railroad’s transfer station expansion, and local agencies that are rallying against the railroad.

“I feel the railroad will come out with full disclosure and we’ll hold them accountable to the letter to fully comply [with regulations].” Arguments recently have been made against the railroad’s treatment of wetlands, for one, and handling of hazardous materials at its facility. The IPN candidate stressed, “The railroad needs to increase its sensitivity to the community.” The new first selectman should continue an aggressive campaign, he said.

Mr Heigel was concise: “The town needs to make them a good neighbor. We need to be aggressive. The town is doing the right thing and staying on top of this.”

Ms Llodra admitted that she was wary of the railroad. “We have a long history with them and they have not been good neighbors,” she said. “We need to be vigilant in terms of their abuse of our land,” she said, adding that jurisdictional issues also must be resolved.

Fairfield Hills Positions

The candidates also responded to several questions about the controversial subject of Fairfield Hills.

Is the $21 million in funds bonded in 2001 being well spent? Is the master plan for the campus reuse a good plan? Does the master plan for the campus reuse need to be revised, and if so, who should be making the decisions regarding the future of Fairfield Hills?

Mr Walczak spoke first, recognizing that while some work has been completed at Fairfield Hills and the original $21 million in bonding to complete the town’s acquisition, Phase 1 remediation and development has been spent, much work remains.

In his conversation with “thousands of residents” he said he discovered that people are “happy to have Fairfield Hills in our control.” He is critical, however, of activity that ensued after the property’s purchase.

“Unfortunately, we were so enamored at the prospect [of owning] the property that some plans in retrospect were not feasible. No consensus,” he said. “We didn’t build consensus to go forward and feel the community is behind us.”

With a lot of money spent on the project, he said, “It’s been a source of debate and frustration, not a galvanizing vision.” Officials need to review the master plan and “rebuild consensus.” Whether it takes the form of a survey or binding referendum, he said, “We’ll know it when we get there.” He also said, “We need to look at the structure of the management” and any ordinances associated with the property and the Fairfield Hills Authority to be sure they “sync with the town charter.”

Mr Heigel: “I have talked to a lot of people and they all have different opinions; it will be hard to get consensus.” With the bonded $21 million spent, and the town has a control of the property, he said, “Now, I would change the way we’re leasing the buildings.” He proposes short-term leases rather than 30-year commitments. A short lease may hold more appeal for a business owner. Regarding income from leasing, he said, “I don’t know that we’ll turn a profit, but we could break even.”

Ms Llodra has no objection to reviewing ordinances establishing the Fairfield Hills Authority or reviewing the master plan for the campus redevelopment, unless the proposal comes to her with a “narrow agenda” with the object of intervening with the current authority’s decisions — a concern she had raised earlier this year during Legislative Council meetings.

So far the ordinance has remained in place “until this point” and with the bond money spent, she added, “Maybe it’s time to took at it again.” She also is willing to look again at the master plan. “If it is not still viable, we need to know that.” The campus offers Newtown “tremendous opportunity for use, not only now, but in the future. We need patience and a long-term view.”

Mr Fetzer first wants to detail all the projects and spending to date. “We need it to lay it out in an easy to read language.” His next thoughts include a fresh start. “We need a clean slate up there. Buildings, let’s take them down.” Many of the older brick structures are not viable for renovation, and are marked for eventual demolition. While razing the buildings may cost money, he also said, “We have to see how it fits with other plans.” The town is currently planning a community center to be located at Fairfield Hills he noted. He also mentioned acquiring a consensus.

Speaking again, Ms Llodra added, “It’s hard to build consensus .”

Mr Walczak agrees buildings need to come down, “But at what pace?”

Mr Fetzer said, “We need to look at Fairfield Hills in context of the entire town, what is more important, the fire house, the schools, a senior center … things need to be contingent on one another.”

As the debate came to an end, candidates stepped away from their side tables, gathered their notes, and shook hands.