The bottom line is this: costs are up, and no group—including teachers—is exempt. Ignoring Anthem’s recommended 22% increase last year may have directly caused the $2 million shortfall.
Everyone has to share in the fix. That might mean higher premiums and leaner benefits. Complaints alone won’t solve the problem—realistic solutions will. I urge all Newtown Teachers to email their Union leaders and express their support for higher premiums.
Its really easy to make assertions and cast doubts from behind a keyboard....a little too easy aparently. You might try conducting the actual research BEFORE doing it next time. If you do, you too will find that there's no need to imagine such a policy to improve public transparency and participation. Take a look at Ridgefield's P&Z meeting agendas on their website for starters. They are just one town that provide links to electronic copies of applications and other public documents, so that their commissioners and residents can easily access them and be well-informed, before meetings and public hearings occur and without making them drive to town hall (during business hours) to ask their land use staff to pull the files and make copies of them, saving everyone time (time is money), and gasoline, and missed work. Most applicants alrleady submit electronic copies, and for those who don't, it's a lot easier for a staffer to scan them once, than to have to make copies every time someone asks for them. And please don't misrepresent or slander those who advocate for smart, low impact & sustainable development policies and practices as 'anti-development'.
It’s important that we separate a genuine desire for transparency from what has become a pattern of disruption and obstruction masked as civic engagement. David Ackert’s latest complaint is not a new concern, but part of a sustained campaign of vexatious FOIA requests and inflammatory rhetoric that continues to cost this town hundreds of thousands in staff time and outside legal review—with little to no benefit for the broader community.
The First Selectman’s February 2024 commitment was reasonable: to draft a policy that balances transparency with practicality and compliance with existing Freedom of Information laws. What’s unreasonable is the ongoing expectation that a town of our size can operate like a large city, livestreaming and archiving every meeting, while simultaneously enduring frivolous complaints that only serve to harass rather than improve.
Let’s be clear: the issues described—meeting room size, screen visibility, etc.—are operational and solvable, but not constitutional crises. And it’s disingenuous to pretend that these challenges are proof of secret dealings or intentional violations. When every town meeting becomes a battleground for the same facebook NIMBY mob demanding more "access" while refusing to engage constructively, the result is not democracy—it’s dysfunction.
At some point, we must ask ourselves: who is truly advocating for the town’s best interest, and who is weaponizing FOIA and public participation as tools of obstruction? Accountability matters, and that applies equally to those making the accusations.
To be clear, there are different types of open space designations in the State of CT. The "Open Space or Recreation" designation simply means that the open space is open to the public for passive recreational activities (e.g., Hiking, Fishing, Horseback Riding, etc.), as opposed to the types of open space that are closed to the public. I'm confident that our terrific Conservation Commission will fulfill their responsibilities associates with Open Space land, as outlined by the town Charter, including the recommendation of specific rules on what's allowed and what's not for the Board of Selectmen to approve.
Also, make no mistake, the final language of the law is completely aligned with the resolution passed by a vote of 2-1 at the 10/7/24 BOS meeting. That resolution reads "....the Board of Selectmen will request that state legislators designate 6 Commerce Road as Town Open Space and request the economic development restriction be removed from the 6 Commerce Rd. deed....."
Interestingly, on November 1st, the First Selectman wrote a letter to Mitch Bolinsky and Tony Hwang saying "....Following a resolution adopted by the Board of Selectmen on October 7th, and subsequently endorsed by the Legislative Countil on October 23rd, we seek to enact legislation that would remove the economic development stipulation from the deed of 6 Commerce Drive."
Not only did he change the name from 6 Commerce Road to 6 Commerce Drive, but he also changed the request to suit his desire for the property instead of what was voted on, by omitting the part about designating it as open space! Thankfully, he attached the 10/7/24 BOS meeting minutes to his letter, where our state reps were able to reference the actual accurate resolution language, which again, matches the final language of Special Act 25-15.
The only clarification needed, is why the First Selectman changed the wording of his Nov. 1st letter, from what the BOS approved on October 7th.
I am feeling like Mr. Ackert's quest/request for greater transparency of our town's governance is disingenuous. First off, I cannot imagine how a "town-wide policy to provide greater transparency" could possibly be worded, and I think that Mr. Capeci was just being polite in agreeing that we should have one. Secondly, Mr. Ackert is accusatory, as if he believes something nefarious is behind the lack of transparency, where it exists, while I do not believe this at all. Third: The time, effort, and upkeep to have absolutely every town meeting interactively live, recorded, and fully documented, would obviously NOT save the town money, and I doubt that other towns of our type "implemented these policies long ago." And lastly, after having witnessed the town meeting behaviors of the anti-development faction, I am certain that we should not facilitate their ability to sit at home and harangue the poor people who work so hard IN PERSON, to make our town a better place.
