Lawsuit Questions

Master Plan, Fairfield Hills

By Kendra Bobowick

Business owner Matt DeAngelis filed a civil action lawsuit in federal court Monday against the Town of Newtown, the first selectman, the Board of Selectmen, and Fairfield Hills Authority members individually “in their official capacities.”

The suit is associated with a recent advertising campaign drawing attention to a website, insidenewtown.com, which lambastes the town’s plans for redeveloping roughly 180-plus acres at the former state psychiatric hospital at Fairfield Hills. Mr DeAngelis confirms that Friends of Newtown, LLC, is the website’s affiliate.

By signing his name to the lawsuit in federal court in Bridgeport this week, Mr DeAngelis stepped out of a guise of anonymity maintained for both the website and for related anonymous demands for information regarding Fairfield Hills from First Selectman Herb Rosenthal’s office. In past weeks the office personnel have struggled to comply with mounting requests for information pertaining to Fairfield Hills plans. This series of Freedom Of Information requests demanding a bulk of information pertaining to Fairfield Hills coincides with the emergence of Insidenewtown.com and now the lawsuit.

Also stepping from the shadows maintained by email correspondence from Inside Newtown, Mr DeAngelis sent out a message to all residents who had joined the site’s mailing list. The message reveals his identity, and also underlines his main complaints with the town. By first introducing himself as Matt DeAngelis, he states, “After examining the facts we have uncovered from our research and documents and conversations with fellow Insiders we have decided to bring a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit against the Board of Selectmen and the Fairfield Hills Authority. I am the plaintiff, but this is a team effort.

“We believe that the selectmen and the authority have violated my constitutional rights (and yours, and every voters’ in town) in moving forward with work at Fairfield Hills without a master plan approved by the voters. We are asking a judge to compel them to put together a valid master plan and order a machine vote on it…”

These comments are the crux of his arguments against the town’s plans for Fairfield Hills, confirmed Mr DeAngelis’s lawyer, Craig T. Dickinson, who said, “Everything goes back to the master plan.”

Both men contend that the master plan now in place is not legitimate. Mr Dickinson argues, “As I understand it at this juncture there has been no master plan approved by the legislative process.”

Flowing from town hall and laced with displeasure are initial reactions to the suit. Mr Rosenthal forwarded a copy of the lawsuit to town attorney David Grogins Monday. Mr Rosenthal said he saw a number of inaccuracies in the background chronology. He also feels that the action will ultimately place a financial burden on taxpayers.

“It’s going to cost a lot to defend a lawsuit and someone trying to save the town revenue is going to [create] cost and I see no merits,” Mr Rosenthal said.

The suit is an injunctive action, which Mr Dickinson explained.

“The municipal taxpayers have a right to bring a suit for injunctive relief…where the court either makes someone do something or stop doing something.” Essentially, Mr DeAngelis wants officials to play fairly.

He said, “I want them to follow the rules. I follow rules every day.” Secondly, Mr DeAngelis said, “The master plan has to be approved, that’s what I want.”

According to Mr Dickinson, “…the town can’t take on a master plan that has not been approved by the town and our position is that they don’t have a master plan.”

The roughly 11-page civil action calls for “injunctive and other relief for Defendant’s violation of Plaintiff’s right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution…”

Further detailing the case, Mr Dickinson said, “The crux of the issue for [Mr DeAngelis] — the way it appears right now is [the town] got a decision from the voters…” After the town planned to purchase the campus, voters had rejected a master plan encompassing future revamping and use for the 180-plus acres, open space, and buildings now standing vacant. Following the vote the town conducted a poll to determine what the town wanted to see at Fairfield Hills. The Fairfield Hills Authority is currently operating by a master plan established in 2003.

Surrounded by interpretation and nuance are two sides of the Fairfield Hills story that now may be subject to lawful scrutiny.

Mr Dickinson explained the legal process now that the lawsuit has been filed. Papers will be served to town hall, which will have a period of time to respond to the complaint or ask for more time or make a motion to dismiss. If motions to dismiss are not granted the suit could ultimately end up at trial, he said.

A lawsuit will draw focus on what will ultimately shape the potential economic, recreational, and municipal hub located along Wasserman Way and adjacent to the Second Company Governor’s Horse Guard.

Opening Argument

Whittling his lengthy suit down to one primary complaint, Mr DeAngelis stated, “I am trying to get them to follow the rules…”

Exposed to scrutiny are the Fairfield Hills Authority and the master plan guiding that body. The suit points a first legal finger at the authority specifically, and at one point declares, “…the Board of Selectmen proposed special legislation enabling the creation of a Fairfield Hills Authority to administer non-municipal uses at the Fairfield Hills campus. The legislation includes a provision improperly vesting the Fairfield Hills Authority with the power to enter leases…This provision is in direct contravention of the Town Charter, which requires that leases of town property be approved by referendum…Moreover, that legislation also permits the Fairfield Hills Authority to retain and reinvest any surpluses generated from the leases…again this provision is in conflict with the town charter…”

Leveling a second accusatory finger at the master plan, which guides the authority’s hand, the suit declares, “The Legislative Council endorsed legislation creating the Fairfield Hills Authority. Pursuant to that legislation, the Fairfield Hills Authority’s power was circumscribed to ‘implement[ing] the master plan…’”

Mr DeAngelis wants the master plan placed back in the voters’ hands.

“I want the master plan to be approved at a town meeting, that’s what I want.”

The Town’s View

Opposite the lawsuit is the town’s side of the story where Mr Rosenthal responds to Mr DeAngelis’s plea that officials follow the rules.

Bluntly, Mr Rosenthal said, “We have.”

He continued, “It is my belief that we have followed the proper procedure by the charter and [state] statutes.”

Attorney David Grogins and Mr Rosenthal note special legislation from 2005 accounting for matters now under question, which include the referendum where voters rejected the master plan and the authority’s power. First, on the state level in the form of House Bill No. 6712, came Public Act No 05-33, which was soon followed by local ordinance establishing the Fairfield Hills Authority.

The act states, “Any municipality…may, by ordinance adopted by its legislative body, establish an authority to oversee…a specified parcel of land…”

Both Mr Grogins and Mr Rosenthal defend all decisions made so far regarding Fairfield Hills. Mr Grogin said he has seen every effort to comply with the law.

As a response to accusations that the master plan is not valid, Mr Rosenthal said the referendum was advisory, and not binding.

“It was advisory and it was told in the beginning that it was advisory.” In essence, the vote was exploratory, he agreed.

“The only binding referenda we have are for budgets or an appeal of an action at a town meeting.” He also implied that the referendum occurred at a time when there were enough people who did not want a town meeting, but a town meeting also would have been advisory, he said.

Particularly the House Bill explains the powers and duties of the authority to include “implementation of a master plan of development…. Negotiating and entering into leases for any part of the land and improvements thereon…” Answering whether the authority can enter a lease, the local ordinance allows the authority to negotiate leases, which are subject to approval through the Board of Selectmen.

Members of the public can also review all money allotted for and spent on the Fairfield Hills project. Mr Rosenthal said, “Absolutely,” that money is accountable through town records. “If you want to come in and look you can certainly find what we’ve expended. Every dime is authorized with voters.”

Rebuttals

Adding a last comment about an advisory referendum regarding the master plan, Mr Dickinson remarked, “I have never heard if a town going through the voting process merely for giggles.”

With the understanding that the town officials do not feel they have broken rules, Mr DeAngelis said, “It’s a good thing they’re not the judge. Obviously we wouldn’t be in court if we agreed.” He stressed again that voters have not approved a master plan.

Even though it was advisory, he feels the selectmen are disregarding the taxpayers, he said. Mr DeAngelis explained, “I think that’s another way of saying it doesn’t matter what the voters say, and going ahead with the plan….I guess I am in shock, I don’t know what to say.”

 

The Friends Of Newtown & Insidenewtown.com

Since Mr DeAngelis has only lately put a name to Friends of Newtown and the group’s affiliated website, insidenewtown.com, he also spoke about the reasons behind the secrecy — including anonymous Freedom of Information requests — and its origins. As their spokesperson, he said, “Friends of Newtown is an identity. I guess I don’t understand why that would matter, our identity doesn’t matter.” Thinking about his explanation further, Mr DeAngelis said, “The facts are the facts and it doesn’t matter who is asking.” As far as maintaining anonymity on a website advocating openness and transparency and encouraging its visitors to share their ideas and responses, he explained, “We thought and still think more people will come forward with information and feel comfortable we won’t give them up.”

Mr DeAngelis explained when the website and Friends of Newtown began. “It started with six [people] but if you asked the Friends of Newtown to step forward now, about 50 people would,” he said. The Friends’ website correlates with advertising that recently appeared in The Newtown Bee.

The website opens with the questions, “What’s really happening with your hard-earned money?” and is followed by the summary, “We’re a growing group of Newtowners trying to get a handle on where we are as a town and where we’re going. We are advocating open and transparent government that is responsible to all of us. We could use your help. Join us.” When visitors respond to the prompt to join, they enter another page on the website that reveals something more about those involved with Inside Newtown.

The page’s statement offers, “We’re a motley crew, but we are large in number. In fact, you can’t go anywhere in town — the soccer field, Starbucks, My Place, Stop & Shop, the landfill, Town Hall, Fairfield Hills — without running into one of us. We work together, and our goal is simple...to keep each other informed about what is going on, and keep an eye on our Town government and its leaders. Want to join us? We’d love to have you. Just enter your email address below. We don’t want your name, address or phone number. We just want your email…”

To date, Mr DeAngelis is the only member of the group who has formally identified himself.