Selectmen Agree To Open Discussion With Residents

By Kendra Bobowick

Public comment soon turned to argument Tuesday, February 17, during a Board of Selectmen’s meeting, when resident Ruby Johnson concluded her remarks about Fairfield Hills saying to Selectman Herb Rosenthal specifically, “Now he’s going to answer [my comments] but I am not going to be able to say anything.” Her jab perfectly stressed a point that Selectman Paul Mangiafico would soon make.

Temper straining his voice, Mr Rosenthal shot back, “I have taken this from you for ten years and I won’t anymore. I have heard your ideas over, and over, and over and I won’t sit and listen to you distort things …”

Mr Mangiafico had a solution, to which fellow selectmen soon agreed. Stepping into the silence after Ms Johnson’s remarks, he offered her a hint, “I encourage you to stick around. Stay. The topic will come up.”

The anger in the room perfectly defined a point Mr Mangiafico promptly stressed: “I propose … to have a discussion with our citizens … and hopefully afford them the chance to speak ‘with us’ as opposed to ‘to us.’” He read from a letter he had sent his fellow selectmen several months ago, dated November 22. Wednesday morning, February 18, during a separate conversation he mentioned the dates of two other written, and one verbal reminder to First Selectman Joe Borst, asking that the board adopt a policy for a “voter friendly” approach to topics such as Fairfield Hills.

Tuesday, he pushed the issue and found unanimous support from Mr Borst and Mr Rosenthal, but not without speaking his mind. He read from the record, word-for-word a more than page-long letter on the subject: “Better Communication.” Wednesday, he said, “After three reminders [since November’s letter] no one responded.” He had proposed, simply to improve upon the board’s interaction with the public. Regarding the public comment period of meetings, he wrote, “Townspeople are given the opportunity to speak to us … I have been watching these expressions carefully and have concluded that there is something lacking … we hardly ever respond and usually go on to the next item … Quite often they seem to want to have us respond.

“It seems to me this is not a good situation … I believe we bear the responsibility to correct this situation.” He imagines a “voter friendly” type of meeting every several months designed to “have a discussion with our citizens,” Mr Mangiafico’s letter stated. “There should be no other items on the agenda. When someone asks a question we will have a conversation.” He also pictures a more relaxed setting. “We may elect to sit in chairs immediately before [the public] as opposed to being at the ‘head table’ with all the trappings of formality.” Making his preferences clear, he continued, “This will allow us to have a discussion and should enhance our communication with [the public].”

Mr Borst at first protested the additional meetings. “I don’t think you have any idea of what goes on in my office. I don’t have time to do all that you want me to do.” Bending somewhat, he then said, “I’ll be more than glad to have a forum and I’ll be there, but I have to establish priorities in my day’s work.”

Throwing an appeal at Mr Mangiafico, Mr Borst said, “I am asking you to help me,” he requested, referring to his workload.

Mr Rosenthal spoke. “I am fine with it. If you set up a meeting a few times a year I think it will be a good idea.” He did note one snag, however. What if the board had not yet voted on a topic? “We may all have different answers,” he noted. Mr Rosenthal then conceded, “We’re not taking action” at the forums — the meetings are for discussion.

Summarizing, Mr Mangiafico said, “I don’t think that every four months is an onerous task.” Referring next to Ms Johnson’s earlier remarks, Mr Mangiafico said, “She used the term ‘deliberative democracy’ — people want to engage us in discussion.” The term suggests a strong aspect of public deliberation in making decisions. Turning to the first selectman, Mr Mangiafico stressed, “This is a valuable way to communicate with our constituents, unless you think we can’t do it.”

“I never said that,” Mr Borst insisted.

“Pick a day,” Mr Mangiafico asked, “It’s not a big deal, not a lot of work. In fact, it’s hardly any work at all.”

Finally, he moved, “I direct the first selectman to initiate and hold a discussion meeting with the board and the public to be held as needed, and no more than every four months.”

All voted promptly “in favor.”

“That’s the end of that,” Mr Borst added.

Ms Johnson last Tuesday was also is interested in Mr Mangiafico’s pursuits. She said, “I wanted to follow up, you talked about a dialogue better than what we have. I am concerned about our democracy,” she said, next expressing the desire to have conversations, to “test ideas.”

She said, “Maybe you could answer our questions. Rather than we talk, then you talk and have the final word.” Her reasons? “The town government has not acted in a democratic way.”

She next ran down her often repeated list of concerns regarding Fairfield Hills — with her own interpretations of the number of playing fields, use of buildings, and changes to plans for reuse. Revealing her suspicions of the selectmen’s decisions, she said, “You did this without asking the public.” Expressing further disagreements about Fairfield Hills plans, she said, “There is no democracy.” Had the board engaged the public in dialogue, “everyone might have been persuaded,” she said. Instead, she cited the voters’ disapproval of the master plan for the campus’s redevelopment accusing, “You did it anyway.”

Her frustrations and anger were clear as she repeated, “At no time did the Board of Selectmen ask the public…”

Growing frustrations were evident in the 2007 municipal elections as then-First Selectman Rosenthal lost the race for reelections to Mr Borst, who found support from the new Independent Party of Newtown. The party stood in opposition to plans to relocate municipal offices to Fairfield Hills, for one, and also questioned spending millions on the vacant campus. The party also supported Mr Borst, who said he would thoroughly look into the validity of renovating Fairfield Hills.

Wednesday, Mr Mangiafico was candid regarding his reasons for compelling Mr Borst, for one, to please establish the public meetings. Lack of clear understanding between the town officials and the public is partly a fault of venue, he explained the day following the selectmen’s meeting. The public comment period during a meeting allows citizens to express ideas, but is not a discussion. Selectmen are not required to engage in conversation. Residents who are not familiar with meeting procedures may feel brushed aside. “They want to be heard and they want their concerns addressed in a reasonable way,” he said, noting that a lack of response breeds suspicion.

“There is no substitute for an honest discussion, even if the parties disagree,” Mr Mangiafico explained. Talking with people “works both ways,” he said, also agreeing that misinformation among public circles can be dissuaded, while at the same time creating accessibility to the selectmen and discussion about Fairfield Hills projects in particular.

By setting up the public discussions, Mr Mangiafico wrote in his letter, “What have we lost? At least we will have given people the opportunity to engage us in a two-way conversation. We, after all is said and done, represent the people. I think we need to talk with them more, listen more, discuss reasons for our positions more, discuss dissenting views more and generally open government up more. If it takes a few more hours of our time every few months so be it. That is a very small price for us to pay for what we can all gain.”