IPN Councilmen Fire Back Following Chairman’s Admonishment

By John Voket

Gary Davis was not in attendance at a Legislative Council meeting November 17 when chairman Jeff Capeci admonished him and two other IPN colleagues over a letter they sent to influence the Charter Revision Commission (CRC). But Mr Davis did not want the rebuke to go unanswered, so he came to the council’s December 1 session prepared to rebut the chairman.

During the earlier gathering, Mr Capeci expressed his concern that the letter to the charter panel appeared to be signed by Mr Davis, James Belden and Kevin Fitzgerald noting their official credentials in an attempt to exert influence in their capacity as elected representatives.

 Mr Capeci said the three did not identify themselves as speaking on their own behalf as citizens. And he said by signing as Legislative Council representatives, it was left to the reader to determine if the requests in that letter came from concerned citizens, or officials who participated in seating and charging the charter commission.

When discussion on accepting the minutes from the November meeting came up December 1, Mr Davis launched into a prepared statement saying, “Your comments raise serious issues concerning undue influence on the charter revision process.”

Mr Davis said he and his two colleagues decided to write to the CRC after reading minutes noting comments made by four other Republican officials. “We felt we had an equal right, and an obligation to our constituents to provide a different point of view,” Mr Davis said. “In signing this letter to the CRC we were expressing our views as public officials...just as you and other Republicans members of the council had done.”

Mr Davis also referenced a comment by Mr Capeci that implied the IPN letter might somehow violate processes outlined in state statutes, “but you have not offered any substantive explanation about how our comments do that — it appears to be your personal opinion.”

In his original statement, Mr Capeci suggested the net effect of the three IPN council members’ correspondence “could be interpreted as cause to confer greater influence on their letter than that would be given to a letter from any other resident.”

“The authors’ actions could circumvent the charter amendment process defined in state statutes by unduly influencing the commissioners as they deliberate on recommendations that will ultimately come back to this council,” Mr Capeci said. “If these individuals harbor strong convictions on items in this charge, it is appropriate to speak as citizens during public participation [at regular commission meetings], or during hearings the Charter Revision Commission holds.”

Mr Davis went on to say that when council members speak as private citizens before other groups regarding issues that might eventually come before the council, they are often telegraphing the way they will advocate for the matter once it comes before them officially.

He added that half of the Republican council members who spoke to the CRC shared similar positions as articulated in the IPN representatives’ letter, and referenced a similarly signed letter from Republican Jan Andras which was sent to the CRC.

“And yet, Mr Chairman, you seem unconcerned that 50 percent of the majority of this council provided the same basic comments to the CRC, and instead you chose to chastise the three non-Republican members of this council,” Mr Davis said. “Quite frankly it is three people who, as a group, have little or no power to change the course of what the council may decide as opposed to the overwhelming Republican majority.”

Mr Davis contended that when it came to the IPN letter, he was not sure if anyone was even paying attention and added that the only real attention the memo garnered was when Mr Capeci brought it up. He went on to say that while Mr Capeci dressed down the IPN councilmen for their letter, the chairman represented the full council in directing the charter panel to put off considering a request by the local water authority to be written into the charter, without putting the issue before the full body for discussion.

Mr Davis also pointed out that by statute, a charter commission is free to entertain any matter related to the document at any time during revision deliberations.

At the earlier meeting, the chairman reminded the entire council that its members will have an opportunity to influence the outcome after charter commissioners deliver their final recommendations, and said it was “completely inappropriate” for the IPN councilmen to assert themselves into the process at that juncture.

“Their actions demonstrate a lack of respect for the process, and an ‘ends justify the means attitude.’ I’d like to take this opportunity to remind all council members that this type of communication is inappropriate and should not happen again,” Mr Capeci said.

But Mr Davis disagreed, countering that it was Mr Capeci who was using his influence as the chairman to pontificate against the minority councilmen.

“We think an objective look at the facts that it was not the three of us who unduly tried to influence the CRC or demonstrated a lack of respect for the process,” Mr Davis said. “The chair should not be in a position to discourage IPN council members, or any council members from offering dissenting viewpoints on issues.”

Mr Davis concluded by reminding Mr Capeci that it is a “violation of the Town’s Code of Ethics to use partisan politics to interfere with the proper discharge of their duties.”

He then asked the minutes be changed to reflect that Mr Capeci’s statements were his own. Mr Capeci replied that he would be glad to leave his statement as an attachment to the record so that any reader could “draw their own conclusions” as to what might be opinion and what might be fact.