---------------------------> Joel R. Anderson
13 George Drive
Old Saybrook CT 06475-2636
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,
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