Finance Board Is A Tool Of The

Two-Party System

To the Editor:

In regards to “The Council Should Wait Its Turn In Capital Planning” editorial [Editorial Ink Drops, 11/20/09]...

There is a big problem with a system that is “designed for the distillation and blending of the community’s competing desires” whose “critical nexus” is a Board of Finance that was seated by a political maneuver which essentially shut out IPN — a party which by its very existence shows that the “bipartisanship” of the incumbent electorate wasn’t working to the satisfaction of a significant portion of the community’s voters.

Bipartisan in this case meant that the BOF members were able to secure two votes per ballot from those who support the two-party system. If that maneuver was legal, it certainly wasn’t ethical. So in the future, using the term “bipartisan Board of Finance” truly does get the point across that it is a tool of the two-party system which already has shown how little regard it has for fair and ethical practices.

It seems the only way that the taxpayers can get a word in edgewise with the Board of Finance is through representation during the capital planning process from the very beginning. How dare you say that creating a system which already reflects the taxpayers’ interests from the beginning of the process interference? How can you call the Board of Finance apolitical?

In a season of Thanksgiving; I am truly thankful for a Legislative Council that will see to fair representation in a process that was all but thwarted by the recent election of the incumbent Board of Finance. I look forward to the newly elected Legislative Council and all they do to create a fair, TRIpartisan environment that truly reflects the needs of this town.

Sally Lynn MacDonald

5 Beagle Trail, Sandy Hook                               November 23, 2009