Budget Discussion Sparks Fairfield Hills Debate

By Kendra Bobowick

By 7:30 pm the meeting room at Town Hall South had filled beyond capacity as more than 70 residents crowded in to hear the public’s comments regarding the budget after the spending package failed for the third time at the polls May 22. Less than 15 minutes later a quick show of hands revealed the reason a majority of those seated, standing, and leaning in through the hallway door had attended the tense Legislative Council meeting Wednesday evening.

Chairman Will Rodgers asked, “Everyone here to support education, raise your hands.” With an immediate rustling sound nearly all hands went up.

The familiar voice of resident Kevin Fitzgerald appealed to council members to remove from the budget line items that “support the building of a new town hall.” He was not alone in zeroing in on an item under the budget’s debt service. Specifically, under the heading of improvement bond issues is the listing for Fairfield Hills/demolition, mothballing, Parks and Recreation fields, and town hall. Mr Fitzgerald’s comments included other statements against the town hall proposal.

“A new town hall is not necessary and a growing demographic will not support a new town hall,” he said.

Resident and concerned parent Donna Monteleone-Randle next stood up to speak. Her opening remarks were grim.

“I am here to talk about the death of a community. The town voted down the budget for a third time — it’s a death penalty for the town,” she said. Ms Monteleone-Randle stressed that nothing else comes before Newtown’s schools, and that without supporting the schools accreditation is jeopardized.

 “Reputation, then residents, then property values go down. People move away. Newtown will die, it’s that simple,” she said. She indicated that she has also overheard that residents simply do not have the money to support academic excellence and pay taxes, she said. “Are you beginning to see the slippery slope?” she asked.

Further outlining the conflict, she said, “Without taxpayers there are not taxes and the town will sink lower and lower. We want people to continue to live here…do not make additional cuts to the [education] budget, look at the town side and make cuts there.”

Michelle Hankin continued the argument on behalf of school funding, saying, “The kids will feel the pinch.” She did not agree with what she called “misleading tactics” by other education supporters who urged residents to vote No. Some may have voted the budget down for the wrong reason, she suggested. “Because they thought it would stop the spending on a new town hall. I disagree with those tactics,” she said. She further indicated that even education supporters were “swayed” at the polls “that a No vote would stop the town hall.”

She is concerned that the school budget will be cut too low. She said, “If you cut tonight, please take from something other than the schools.”

Another outspoken education proponent, Gary Davis stood up to share his opinions that the failed spending package is not only a reflection that voters feel the budget is too high. “It’s not a matter of money, it’s a matter of how people are being treated by their government…you’ve done a poor job of communicating [about] the [new] town hall.” Making his bottom line clear, he said, “People don’t want the town hall ahead of schools.”

As the meeting turned further into echoes from a prior Legislative Council meeting from February 7 where education proponents and a faction of citizens campaigning against Fairfield Hills plans — primarily a new town hall — yet another familiar speaker addressed the council this week.

Staunch school advocate and We Care About Newtown (WeCAN)  member Po Murray took her turn to address the council. In past months she has spoken on behalf education. She has also repeatedly spoken against Fairfield Hills spending, which she implied has become part of her voting decision. She said, “A year-and-a-half ago I urged you to look at the town hall and said, ‘Please, you’re looking to expand the high school, please stop the town hall.’” She urged the board members to form a long-tern strategic plan.

“We have been on top of you, for us to move forward we need a plan, I have warned you. Make the right decision,” she said. She later suggested that the town hall become a separate vote.

While supportive of education, her remarks implied that the town hall would force her voting hand. “Don’t make further cuts to education. If you do, I can’t support it. Take town hall out of the picture,” Ms Murray said.

Coming from another point of view was Kevin Fitzgerald’s wife, Robin Fitzgerald, who admitted that her views are not necessarily the most popular. “One or two years of education cuts won’t make our schools go down the toilet. We have to be real,” she said. “I know people who will have to move if this budget passes.”

Offering her advice she said, “You need to balance the school budget with the town budget so everyone could get something out of it.” Ms Fitzgerald also had an opinion about town hall.

She said, “I feel the timing was wrong — it’s a great idea, but the timing…and the high school is about to close accreditation and people are panicking.”

Cutting through the political arguments hanging over Fairfield Hills, she offered another insight. “People are making their decisions to vote out of fear.” She urged the council to remove the town hall line item for her own reason, saying, “School people are not going to vote for it. Seniors are not going to vote for it, and new residents want schools or trails.”

Noting another element tangled in the arguments about Fairfield Hills, Ms Fitzgerald said, “A lot of people have lost trust in the town government. I know your job is often thankless, but you need to hear what we are saying…there are items in the budget that are wants and not needs. Do the responsible thing, we are asking you to execute our will.”

Expressing similar concern was resident Natalie Aparicio who said, “We have trust issues.” She also sees an ailing school system suffering from space constraints. Regarding special education staffing specifically, she said, “Not enough teachers, not enough time.”

Striking a nerve that had been vulnerable throughout the meeting and prompting the evening’s first recess was resident Robert Murray.

“There are too many decisions made behind closed doors. There is a lot of arrogance in the government,” he said. Giving way to his simmering frustration and bringing to light another issue tangled in the Fairfield Hills mix, Mr Murray said, “If these people stay in office it’s not going to change. I want Mr Rosenthal to tell me now why the town hall is so important.” Mr Rodgers responded that after public comment concluded, First Selectman Herb Rosenthal, seated with the council, was, in fact, prepared to answer questions. Mr Murray argued that many residents, including those with children, could not stay late to hear these discussions.

Mr Rodgers answered, “If you will stay for the meeting you’ll hear [Mr Rosenthal] speak.” When the meeting first began, Mr Rodgers warned that in the interest of time residents should not applaud or make remarks as others spoke.

“Will that be at 11 or 12 tonight?” Mr Murray asked.

Answering in kind, Mr Rodgers said, “I don’t know. Will you keep clapping?” Angered, Mr Murray raised his voice, “See, that’s the level of arrogance…” As the crowd erupted Mr Rodgers adjourned for five minutes.

In 2001 residents voted to approve a roughly $21 million spending package to purchase and renovate the buildings and grounds of Fairfield Hills. Intended uses include economic revenue, recreation, and municipal and educational uses. The improvement bond items in the budget involve principal and interest payments for spending on Fairfield Hills.