More Accusations Follow Federal Lawsuit Filing—

Selectmen, Complainant Spar Via Memo

By John Voket

After the initial volley, a skirmish of words has ensued.

Last Monday evening, the Board of Selectmen unanimously issued a written statement, reviewed and approved by the board’s attorney, attempting to clarify their collective position on accusations and demands made in a federal lawsuit filed recently by Matt DeAngelis, a local liquor store owner. The suit, filed November 20, seeks a restraining order preventing any further spending on development or environmental remediation at Fairfield Hills, a public vote endorsing a master plan for the town-owned campus, a full accounting of all public spending on the project to date, and attorney’s fees.

The suit specifically names the three selectmen and certain members of the Fairfield Hills Authority as defendants.

Within days of the selectmen’s statement being released to The Newtown Bee, Mr DeAngelis fired back with a rebuttal asking more questions, as well as clarifying his position and demands. The officials’ position was also read into the record Monday evening, and served as the sole collective position on behalf of First Selectman Herb Rosenthal, and fellow Selectmen Joseph Bojnowski and William Brimmer, Jr. (The full text of the statement appears in this week’s Bee.)

The selectmen’s statement opens by saying the elected officials, “…generally do not make comments regarding pending litigation, [but] we believe it is important to set the record straight with regard to the false allegations made and the misinformation put forth in the federal suit filed by Mr DeAngelis.”

The selectmen contend that every dollar of tax money spent for Fairfield Hills was duly approved by Newtown taxpayers on multiple occasions.

“Beginning with a town meeting held on June 6, 2001, attended by approximately 900 people, the appropriation of $21,850,000 and bonding resolution that contained the purposes for which funds may be spent were passed by a large majority. The town meeting vote followed previous unanimous approvals by the Selectmen and Legislative Council.”

The selectmen’s statement goes on to say that each time the town has sought to borrow money for the Fairfield Hills project, the expenditures have been approved “in accordance with the original resolution — we have included the amount and purpose for the borrowing and resulting debt service expenditures in the annual budgets approved by the selectmen, Board of Finance, Legislative Council and by the taxpayers at annual budget referenda.”

The statement also points out that every expenditure “for operations as well as from borrowing for capital projects are reported each month at public meetings of the Fairfield Hills Authority.” It also speaks to Mr DeAngelis’s contention that a master plan for the project must be endorsed by town meeting or public referendum, saying: “The only requirement for a Master Plan of Development is a zoning requirement. On May 7, 1998, the Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission created the Fairfield Hills Adaptive Reuse Zone, Section 4.23 of their regulations. At that time it appeared there might be private redevelopment of Fairfield Hills and the commission wanted to preserve the character of the ‘campus.’”

The selectmen’s letter points out that, in light of the present litigation, there is nothing in Newtown’s Charter that requires a master plan of development to be approved by the voters at either a town meeting or a referendum.

“More importantly, the charter does not provide a means for holding either a binding town meeting or a binding referendum to adopt a Master Plan of Development,” the statement continues. “Without a means for a binding vote, the Selectmen opted for the nonbinding, advisory referendum held on August 12, 2003 in the hope of obtaining a consensus of public opinion for the then proposed plan. Unfortunately, there was very low voter participation (15 percent) and no consensus (the “no” votes exceeded the “yes” votes by 154).”

The statement concludes saying the selectmen “…want to assure you that we have followed all of the statutory and town requirements for moving ahead with this important project, and that no funds have been expended without authority.”

DeAngelis Takes Issue

Upon reviewing the selectmen’s statement with his attorney, Mr DeAngelis emailed a lengthy rebuttal statement questioning virtually every point, and taking the officials to task over filing a response.

“I am pleased that Herb, Joe and Bill have gone on the record stating that they had the authority to make the decisions and spend the money. It is rare that politicians take responsibility for their mistakes. However, I am puzzled by the fact that more than one defendant in the lawsuit has publicly called it ‘frivolous,’ yet the selectmen have rushed to air their arguments in public against the advice of counsel (which we are paying for), rather than allowing the legal process to dispose of what they consider to be just another frivolous lawsuit.”

One question Mr DeAngelis poses is, “If ‘every dollar of tax money spent for Fairfield Hills has been approved by the taxpayers on multiple occasions,’ then why have they been so reluctant to promptly and completely answer my lawful Freedom of Information requests regarding the details?”

Mr DeAngelis continued, saying, “Mr Rosenthal and the Selectmen can split semantical hairs, shuffle their feet, perform sleight of hand tricks and wail like banshees all they want. The elephant in the room will always be the fact that the voters never approved a Master Plan for Fairfield Hills.”

He concluded his statement clarifying that if all the conditions outlined in the suit are met and the eligible taxpayers of Newtown “are allowed to decide the fate of the Fairfield Hills Project I will instruct my attorney to withdraw my lawsuit. I also expect that the town will share some of the legal costs I have incurred up to this point. I merely am asking that Herb, Joe and Bill stop showing contempt for the voters of Newtown and follow the rules.”

Following the Board of Selectmen meeting Monday, Mr Rosenthal reasserted that the town and its elected and appointed officials have handled every aspect of the Fairfield Hills project in an appropriate manner.

“We’re convinced we followed all the processes, we have nothing to hide and all available records requested in the numerous and comprehensive FOI complaints have either been produced, will be or are available for review,” Mr Rosenthal said. He explained that in cases of specific payments to vendors working on the projects at the former state hospital, copies of checks would have to be requested from the bank, which apparently charges a fee for each record.

The first selectman said certain records dating back beyond a certain timeframe are not required to be kept, so a select few items requested dating back to the early stages of the Fairfield Hills project may not be available. Mr Rosenthal also pointed out that other vendor files are specifically ordered under the advice of town auditors, so any review of those files must be done in the presence of a town representative.

He said to date, many hours have been spent by his staff and employees of the finance office in an attempt to locate and provide the thousands of pages of data requested by Mr DeAngelis or others in related memos.

“We have a lean staff because of our budget and space constraints, and we try to get the most work from the least amount of people,” Mr Rosenthal said. “While we understand we are compelled to provide access to every shred of information requested, that is still available, we also have ongoing town business to handle in these offices and we’re doing everything we can to meet these many requests while taking care of our day-to-day responsibilities. The taxpayers expect no less.”