OSWPCA: Sunshine / Letter to Bd of Selectmen - Pace, 16Mar10

Text facsimile

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

                             13 George Drive
                             Old Saybrook CT 06475-2636
                             860 388-9858
                             16 March 2010
Office of the Board of Selectmen
Michael A. Pace, First Selectman
302 Main Street
Old Saybrook CT 06475-2384
              'Person' defined two ways
Dear Selectman:

Re the Town's definition for a "person" varies over the course of a voting day depending on a) the Town's interest in preventing Trust properties from voting on the then-prospective Wastewater Management District (WWMD) on 11Aug09, or b) the Town's interest in saddling Trust properties with obligations arising from the WWMD Ordinance that was the result of the outcome of the vote.

Reciprocity requires that, not having been permitted to vote, Trust properties be relieved of their obligations under the Ordinance that resulted from that vote. The Town's opinion that a) Trusts couldn't vote, and yet b) Trust bank accounts can be tapped for $28000 to pay for a Town-required Advanced Treatement septic system? the Town's two definitions for a 'person' a) who can't vote, b) who is obligated as a result of the vote, is perverse by design.

The Town's opinion that a lone motor vehicle assessed at $1000 (or more) and registered in Old Saybrook, or a per-owner portion of a motor vehicle in the assessed amount of 1000 (or more per owner), qualifies one or more voters to vote on the WWMD is absurd on its face. The WWMD is about septic systems and their modification. Reciprocity requires that any qualified elector run the reciprocal risk of a septic system modification. There are no septic systems in motor vehicles, none that rate a mention in the WWWMD Ordinance. Why, then, is a motor vehicle, chattel PROPERTY, permitted to vote (and so lavishly in great numbers at $1000 per), when Trust REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES that have real septic systems weren't permitted to vote at all? The whole of the Town's opinion is absurd, based as it was on Sec. 7-6, when it should have been based on C. G. A. Chapter 97a, Sec. 7-147b(g).

A C.G.A. Chapter 97a, Sec. 7-147b(g) based referendum vote would have solved the reciprocity problem of voters outside the WWMD being permitted to vote by NOT permitting them to vote! Voters outside the proposed WWMD should not have been pemitted to vote because their septic systems were not subject to the Ordinance on which they were voting. There's no equity, no reciprocity; electors outside the WWMD were voting on an Ordinance they themselves wouldn't be subject to; they were applying the lash to electors inside the WWMD.

Retroactively qualifying voters outside the WWMD as electors because they are/were Town taxpayers was also absurd on financial grounds. At the time they entered the voting booth these voters had NO financial interest in the outcome of the vote. It was only AFTER they voluntarily took on the burden of repaying a prospective bond issue that they were qualified. Their qualification as electors is/was a back-formation from the outcome of the vote. This is risible. Either an elector is qualifed to vote when they enter they voting booth or they aren't. Electors living outside the WWMD weren't qualifed when they entered the voting booth. They should never have been permitted to vote. Had they stayed home and sat on their hands instead of voting for the bond issue they would have acquired no qualification as electors that entitled them to vote. Circular definition is the name for qualifying electors permitted to vote base on the outcome.

A legal opinion doesn't provide the Town with a legal immunity from an adverse decision on the part of a court.

Contrary to wishful thinking, establishing a WWMD by fair means or foul doesn't provide the Town with immunity from building a sewer plant.

The Town's malfeasance:
1. Defining a person in two different ways to disqualify 
   Trust electors from voting in the WWMD referendum, while 
   binding them to the Ordinance provisions afterward.

2. Qualifying chattel property owners as electors on a 
   decision in which they had no reciprocal interest to 
   defend, cars not being known to have septic systems. 

3. Qualifying electors residing outside the WWMD on an issue 
   that only burdened electors residing within the WWMD.

4. Qualifying electors retroactivly, electors who had no 
   financial interest in the outcome of the referendum prior 
   to casting their vote to support the bond issue.

                             Very truly yours,

                             Joel R. Anderson

N.B: a copy of this letter is posted to my website,

Office of the Board of Selectmen
William A. Peace, Selectman
302 Main Street
Old Saybrook CT 06475-2384

Office of the Board of Selectmen
Carol Manning, Selectman
302 Main Street
Old Saybrook CT 06475-2384

Robert W. Fish
Treasurer, Old Saybrook
49 Obed Heights Rd
Old Saybrook CT 06475

Michael E. Cronin, Jr.
Old Saybrook Town Counsel
201 Main Street, P.O. Box 454
Old Saybrook CT 06475

John E. Wertam, Partner
Shipman & Goodwin LLP
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103-1919

Hon. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
55 Elm St.
PO Box 120
Hartford CT 06141-0120
re Public Inquiry #339871 or #340861 (or both)

Nora R. Dannehy, US Attorney
US Attorney's Office
Connecticut Financial Center
157 Church Street, Floor 23
New Haven, CT 06510

Eugene M. Evangelisti, Chairman OSWPCA
Town of Old Saybrook
302 Main St
Old Saybrook CT 06475

Gratia Lewis, Financial Mgr OSWPCA
37 Old Boston Post Rd
Old Saybrook CT 06475