I hope Mr Mangiafico’s rush to judgment recommending going forward with plans for a new town hall at Fairfield Hills is not an indication of political pressure or a continuation of the “good ole boy” organization. He claims no compelling facts have been presented to him that would substantiate delaying a new town hall (ignoring the fact that he doesn’t know whether the people of Newtown want or don’t want a new town hall). Is he not getting these facts because people aren’t talking to him or is he discounting what they are saying when they are talking to him or he is talking only to a select group of people? Gary Davis and Po Murray have been presenting compelling reasons not to go forward with the new town hall until a comprehensive review assessing the cost-benefit of all Fairfield Hills projects has been completed.

At the December 5 Board of Selectman’s meeting, the issue centered around losing $1 to $2 million rather than whether the remaining funds, $8.5 million could be better spent on other prioritized capital improvements. Any one of those should have been sufficient for him to allow Mr Borst to go forward with his fact-finding before making his infamous motion, which discounted Mr Borst’s promise of review made to the voters. Having been in office only a few days, it is amazing to me that Mr Mangiafico would alienate many of the voters that put him into office. His rush to judgment creates a suspicion that perhaps Mr Mangiafico is not the representative of the people that he proposes to be and is more aligned with the old régime.

In a letter to the editor written by newly elected District 3 Legislative Council member Jan Brookes [“The Greater Good,” December 14] she said, and I quote, “After a thoughtful, reasoned, careful analysis of this complex issue, Paul Mangiafico decided that Newtown’s welfare was best served by building a new municipal office space. Because he understood the IPN’s position, his vote was a selfless and courageous act. For that, he has my admiration and gratitude.” While I appreciate Ms Brookes’s sentiments, I’m wondering why this analysis has not been made public and if she had reviewed it before writing her letter. Wouldn’t the town have been better served if that thoughtful, reasoned and careful analysis were presented to the public at the Board of Selectman’s meeting? Could it be that it doesn’t exist? If he had made such a presentation at the Board of Selectman’s meeting then we all could have admired his selfless and courageous act, instead of being concerned about his rush to judgment!

Mr Mangiafico has to present positive reasons of why he takes an action and not rely on facts that haven’t been presented to him.

A.P. Roznicki

169 Hanover Road, Newtown                                December 19, 2007