Rep Wasserman Concerned—

Council Members Criticize IPN Rep For

‘Whistle-blowing’ On Her Own Town

By John Voket

Independent Party of Newtown Council representatives Po Murray and Gary Davis both came under fire during a special meeting June 5 for separate issues, both related to actions involving projects at Fairfield Hills.

Representative Julia Wasserman also made an uncharacteristic appeal for discretion regarding “members of town agencies,” whose direct contacts with state officials resulted in complaints to her office from four different state agencies.

Those complaints, she told the council, came from the Departments of Education and Labor, among others.

While she would not get into specifics, Ms Wasserman said after the meeting that she was referring to correspondence and questions posed directly to state agencies by members of the IPN, representing themselves as acting on behalf of the town or the council.

It was one specific letter, written by IPN co-founder Po Murray, that caused council Chairman Will Rodgers to remind the freshman council member of three previous instances since IPN council candidates took their seats in December 2007, where members were requested to refrain from acting outside established guidelines and engaging government employees on their behalf.

“You can’t do things like this,” Mr Rodgers said. “This is whistle-blowing on your own town.”

Mr Rodgers added that he feared such continued actions would put Newtown in a class with another Connecticut community that is a “laughing stock” in Hartford due to certain officials acting independently to serve their own agenda.

Council member Patricia Llodra also publicly questioned the “motive and agenda” behind the letter, which reportedly sought to put state labor officials on notice of a preliminary proposal to contract building demolition, remediation, and construction of parking at Fairfield Hills through an arrangement with private contractors instead of directly by the town.

“I really think it’s unhealthy. We represent every single taxpayer in the town, not just the Democrats, Republicans, or IPN,” Ms Llodra said, asserting her discomfort with the appearance that Ms Murray was acting on a certain “unknown agenda.” “Council business is council business, not a council person’s business. We can’t have all the back room stuff.”

The arrangement, if eventually approved, could have minimized the town’s exposure to a prevailing wage guideline, possibly saving taxpayers as much as 30 percent on labor costs on certain aspects of the projects. Peter D’Amico, founder of the Newtown Youth Academy, was the architect of the proposal.

Mr D’Amico has said if his nonprofit agency was able to legally negotiate to subcontract aspects of the construction and demolition, it might save the town tens of thousands of dollars in labor charges, while expediting the installation of permanent parking on the campus, where he is building a huge indoor sports center.

Action Has Costs

Mr Rodgers said Ms Murray’s notifying the state, while representing herself as a council representative, activated the town attorney to become involved, resulting in an unnecessary expense to the town in that it was paid for out of the attorney’s retainer.

Council member Joseph DiCandido asked Ms Murray about her motivation for writing the letter.

Ms Murray said she received calls from several constituents who she said expressed concern over the proposal, and whether or not the town would be in violation of prevailing wage statutes if that proposal moved forward.

Ms Murray said after contacting town attorney David Grogins on the matter for clarification, she decided to contact the state, and did so by phone and then via the letter in question.

“From my end it almost looks like you are creating a problem deliberately to try to satisfy an agenda perhaps,” Mr DiCandido said.

Ms Murray replied that she was following through on a concern from constituents, saying she “probably should have come to [the council] and discussed it.”

During his report to the council, First Selectman Joe Borst also brought the unanimous concern expressed by the Board of Selectmen regarding the consequences of Ms Murray’s letter to the state.

Fairfield Hills Oversight

Later in the meeting, Mr Davis discussed the possible formation of a council task force to conduct financial oversight of the Fairfield Hills budget and the role of the Fairfield Hills Authority in its financial management of the town-owned campus.

“I suggested the task force because there is a lot of confusion,” Mr Davis said. “We are at a juncture with this project. We need to be sure as we move forward we do it with a cleaner slate.”

Mr Davis observed that the council has not been engaged in matters regarding the expenditures of bond money earmarked for development and improvements at Fairfield Hills. The IPN rep asked, rhetorically, whether investing bond money in demolition of existing buildings and infrastructure might ultimately serve the town economically, rather than developing town offices at Bridgeport Hall.

Authority Chairman Robert Geckle, who was on hand to report at the meeting, said Mr Davis and the council should not ignore the fact that every experienced advisor to the authority has stated unequivocally that the public investment in town offices would generate, and potentially accelerate, private commercial investment on the campus.

Mr Davis admitted that he is not a commercial real estate expert, and said the outcome of any task force investigation might indeed yield the same outcomes as the authority and the Board of Selectmen are already supporting.

Mr Rodgers said it appeared that Mr Davis was not looking for financial oversight as much as he was suggesting taking a fresh look at all the plans for Fairfield Hills. Mr Davis replied that he wanted the council to be prepared with appropriate justification if and when the authority came forward requesting more funds to support future projects at the facility.

“Obviously, Gary, that’s because it’s connected with your agenda of stopping this thing at all costs,” Mr Rodgers said. “Why don’t we have a task force with the Board of Ed? I’ll bet the Board of Ed will have an increased budget next year. The Edmond Town Hall Board of Managers…they’re going to come to us, they’re going to ask for more money. Why are we singling out this group?”

Mr Rodgers suggested that although the council has the power to set up any group, the power of such a committee would only be advisory in nature.

“This strikes me as more of what we began this meeting with. This is not respecting the process,” Mr Rodgers said. Ms Llodra then suggested Mr Davis take his concerns to the Board of Selectmen.

“I think this should be pitched to the Board of Selectmen,” she said.

Ms Murray said constituents are contacting her “all the time to ask questions; to provide oversight and guidance over what is happening at Fairfield Hills.”

“Have they attended public participation sessions of the Fairfield Hills Authority?” Mr Rodgers asked.

Ms Murray replied saying a recent public survey indicated residents did not want to go to meetings, but would rather get information directly from officials. She then suggested the task force might be able to come up with a long-term plan for Fairfield Hills, and cited her growing concern after a media report indicated estimates for utility infrastructure had escalated from $1 million to $6 million.

“A long-term plan as opposed to the present master plan?” Mr Rodgers asked, adding that the suggestion that remaining bond money be spent on utility infrastructure because of Ms Murray’s assertion that the cost could approach $6 million was “disingenuous.”

“One of the proposals put forth was, don’t construct the municipal center — construct in its place the utility loop. Which to me is the very proof that there is an element out there that opposes the municipal center at all costs,” Mr Rodgers said.

Councilman John Aurelia spoke up, admonishing his IPN colleagues for what he summed up as “stalling” the Fairfield Hills project.

Ms Llodra said the council was being “held hostage” by the discussion, and that the council has to move on.

“This is not a compelling interest other than for a couple of council members, and we’ve now spent an hour and a half on the topic. I think we should move forward with our business,” she said.

That thought was seconded by Mr Aurelia, and was concurred by a majority of other council members.

In closing, Mr Davis said his suggestion was designed to “create a better situation around where we are today.”

“In terms of future task forces, I would certainly entertain task forces for the Board of Education, task forces for anything this committee feels is important,” Mr Davis said. “It’s not a bad idea for people to entertain things, and I certainly understand that people didn’t like this idea. And I appreciate the fact that we could raise it and discuss it.”