OSWPCA: Sunshine / Letter to Michael E. Cronin, Jr., Town Counsel, 9Feb10

Text facsimile

---------------------------> Joel R. Anderson

                             13 George Drive
                             Old Saybrook CT 06475-2636
                             860 388-9858
                             http://govtwork.home.att.net/
                             9 February 2010
Michael E. Cronin, Jr.
Old Saybrook Town Counsel
201 Main Street, P.O. Box 454
Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475

Dear Town Counsel Cronin:

Re problems with the integrity of the 11Aug09 vote to establish the Wastewater Management District (WWMD).

The problem hinges on WHO was permitted to vote. To be eligible to cast a ballot, property owners (voters) must have an 'interest' in the outcome of the vote.
1) On 11Aug09, voters living outside the proposed WWMD were 
   permitted to vote, though they only acquired their 'interest' 
   in the outcome of the vote through the passage of the bond 
   issue simultaneous with the vote on the WWMD. They had NO 
   INTEREST in the outcome UNTIL AFTER THEY VOTED and the bond 
   issue passed. (The passage of either issue on the 11th was by 
   no means certain.) Voters outside the proposed WWMD were 
   qualified on the speculation that the bond issue would pass, 
   qualifying them retroactively to vote. This is nonsense.

2) On 11Aug09, properties held in Trust within the proposed WWMD 
   were disenfranchised though they had an 'interest' in the 
   outcome of the vote. That many of these same Trust properties 
   are waterfront that would be facing a $28,000 expense for 
   Advanced Treatment plants, plus ongoing monitoring, maintenance 
   and replacement. Owners of property in Old Saybrook are 
   permitted to vote on budget issues, pocketbook issues, though 
   they aren't registered voters in Old Saybrook. The proposed 
   establishment of WWMD was and is a pocketbook issue that 
   impacts Trust properties. The question arises, Were ALL 
   properties within the proposed WWMD held in Trust, not one of 
   them would have a vote? Withholding the vote from properties 
   with an interest in the outcome of the vote is more nonsense.
If you were counsel to the Board of Selectmen on the issue of WHO was permitted to vote in the 11Aug09 referendum, I would like a copy of your legal opinion and any documents surrounding its production. If you were not counsel to the Selectmen which resulted in the absurdities (1, and 2, above) then you might want to lean (or not) on Michael Pace to deliver the documents I requested of him in my letter of 20Jan10.

WHO could vote in the 11Aug09 referendum is an issue of great public importance. Voting is how we govern ourselves.

I see no difficulty with attorney-client privilege. I'm asking for information that doesn't involve a negotiation, a personnel issue, or a health issue. Any advice you gave the Selectmen was in your official capacity as Town Counsel, not as anyone's personal lawyer.

No, I am not, by writing you this letter, engaging you as my lawyer; bill the Town of Old Saybrook if you can. As Town Counsel, you might want to assist in clearing up an otherwise hidden record that should be public. Diddling the vote is a serious matter.

Rare is the deed that ends a career in politics, it's the coverup.
                             Very truly yours,



                             Joel R. Anderson


NB: A copy of this document is posted to my website,
    http://oswpca.home.att.net/
e:
Joel Anderson to Board of Selectmen, 6Feb10,
online at the URL above.

Joel Anderson to Michael Pace, 20Jan10,
online at the URL above.

Susan Bysiewicz, Secretary of the State,
to Joel Anderson, 4Feb10, online at the URL above.

"Saybrook On-Site Plan Passes," The Day, 12Aug09, online at
http://www.oswpca.org/files/Referendum_Results.pdf