The Real Warning in Farmington

On November 2, Farmington residents received an email trumpeting a WARNING (in oversized red font so that you couldn’t miss its gravity) that featured “important information about a smear group operating in Farmington.” Curiously, despite the fact that the e-mail was filled with distortions, innuendo and outright lies, it did in fact prove to be true to its subject line. It was certainly rich with important information about a “smear group.”

Unfortunately, that “smear group” is its sender, Responsible Farmington.

The e-mail is an exercise in projection, using derogatory terminology to discuss a group its writers clearly don’t like very much. Rather than a composed, rational approach, its message relies on name-calling and insults: opponents are a “negative campaign machine”, a “hit squad”, and, yes, a “smear PAC.” And yet, all of this from a group laying claim to higher moral ground.

This is their tactic – poison the discussion, while at the same time claiming they’re being wronged. Just the other day, a posting to the Farmington Patch by Responsible Farmington candidate David Houf showed how it works. Exactly one paragraph after dismissing United Farmington as “carnival barkers,” he declared that, “The demonization of political opponents is a precarious first step down a road that can only end in angry and uncompromising entrenchment.” But his insult shows no insight. He goes ahead to say, “we should not lump the Democrat candidates together with United Farmington despite the former’s recent unfortunate cohabitation with it.” See what he did there? I’ll translate, “We shouldn’t…but I will!”

Then there are the falsehoods. A recent mailer mentions five separate times the mythical “$184 million high school proposal,” because they were successful in creating a false narrative using that number around the June referendum vote. They know the appropriation on the ballot was for 25% less than that number, and the number after state reimbursements would have been $109 million. The real number is not an inconsiderable sum, but real numbers are not their point – they needed to blow that number up and make it crazy-sounding, because they couldn’t risk fighting the real facts. And now it’s the core of their ongoing narrative. These are politics at their most insidious – trying to hang unequivocal falsehoods on opponents as a scare tactic.

So, what about United Farmington? Well, every time I’ve seen one of its members at a school or soccer field for the last couple of months, they have made a point of telling me we can’t talk at all until after the election because of the rules of independent political action committees (PAC). So no, we aren’t handing missions to our “hit squad” - theatrically powerful as that image may be. But I know many of them, so I’m comfortable saying this: they’re people who want our town to thrive, and be a place in which we’re all happy and proud to live. They’re not all one party, nor one perspective. They are united in their alarm at the direction Farmington has taken over the several months.

Are they anti-Responsible Farmington? More accurately, they’re against things they have seen Responsible Farmington do. Faced with behavior by the four named members of that group that they find inappropriate, improper, and bad for the future of this town; they have banded together to campaign for what they believe is right. They are invested in this town, and are taking a stand. These are not radicals, nor political vandals. They are trying to shed daylight on a process that matters to their lives – and to their families’ lives. If you simply go by what’s in the November 2 email, they’re reckless villains. But they’re not - they’re concerned citizens. They’re your neighbors.

So why do they oppose Responsible Farmington? Some of the reasons are outlined in the very email that demonizes them. Yes, they pointed out that Justin Bernier still has yet to return more than $46,000 in campaign contributions as the law mandates – he’s using a loophole that, by never closing out his campaign, he never needs to return it. But five years later, it’s safe to say that campaign is done, and the responsible action would have been to close the books on it long ago. And yes, they’ve brought up that Bernier and Jon Landry improperly disseminated handouts at a town meeting during the high school referendum process. That deceptive act is documented on surveillance video from the high school’s security cameras.

And then there are those radio ads. Shortly before the Republican primary a couple of months ago, wildly inappropriate ads that directly supported Responsible Farmington were aired on local radio. The ads were identified as the work of a major Responsible Farmington donor, who allegedly paid an employee to contract for them so his name would not be attached to them. There is currently a State Elections Enforcement Commission investigation into what happened, but all Responsible Farmington has said is that the placement of $10,000 worth of ads that championed them by name was in no way related to them. Oh, and Justin Bernier told the newspaper that their appearance may have been a “false flag” - an act of sabotage by political opponents. So $10,000 worth of ads paid for by their donor (whose contribution they have not returned, so it seems he’s still okay with them)n hit the airwaves in support of them, and when it goes wrong, rather than getting to the bottom of how it happened that something like that could make it to air with their names on it…the answer is a fantasy about how someone may be out to get them?

After the insults, lies and innuendo, in uncivil language entirely of their own choosing, their email closes with a stunning pivot to, “Keep a positive attitude by reminding yourself that it’s only a few negative people who are mudslinging in our normally polite town.”

And you know…they’re not wrong. But I don’t think they’re correct in quite the way they intended.

This group – Jeff Apuzzo, Justin Bernier, Paul Cianci and Jon Landry – have sown chaos and divisiveness. Their vision for our town is a destructive one, mirroring the hysteria of their own communications. Where they should engage in reasonable debate, there is only discord (or complete absence). Where they should be accountable, they offer malignant self-righteousness. They can’t even get along with their own party - when the complaint was filed about the radio ads, it was the Republican Town Committee Chair who handled the paperwork. Are we expected to accept that everyone else involved in town business is wrong, and they’re the only people with an appropriate vision for the future?

For those who don’t know me, I’ve been a Farmington resident for 20 years. I have been actively involved the community; and for over six years, I have been paying very close attention to what’s happening with our town government. I believe I have a lot to offer, but I do not aspire to use a Town Council position as a stepping-stone or as my own personal legacy. While we are fortunate for so many good things in town, I think there is a better direction that the Town Council could take. We need more back and forth communication between Town Hall and residents, town leaders need to be having discussions and making decisions in a more transparent fashion. We need to continue the balance we have here between maintaining the excellent services and schools with a considerably low tax rate. Most of all, we deserve leaders who will behave ethically and honestly –with integrity.

Most of the messages from Responsible Farmington to voters throughout this campaign have been founded on fear, negativity, and paranoia. Anyone who would attach his or her name to those messages is not suited to lead our town. Here’s the bottom line: What happens next matters to everyone in Farmington. I encourage every voter to look to his or her own conscience, consider what each candidate offers, and go to the polls Tuesday to help point our shared home toward its best future. It’s in your hands.

Beth Kintner

Candidate for Town Council, 1st District