Simsbury Board of Selectmen Meeting September 9, 2024

Board of Selectmen Meeting September 9, 2024

First Selectman Wendy Mackstutis does not respect the rule of law.

First Selectman Wendy Mackstutis, as an elected official has sworn that she would uphold the Constitution.

The First Amendment to the Constitution is Freedom of Speech which has always been the pillar of democracy where people can express their opinions without being interrupted with derogatory comments in a public forum.

Wendy’s distain for people expressing their opinions in a public forum was displayed at the August 12, 2024 Bord of Selectmen Meeting when she interrupted me during my public comments as I was explaining to the Board of Selectmen my concern about the ability of Deputy Town Manager Tom Fitzgerald to perform his duties.

First Selectman Wendy Mackstutis interjected her concerns about an art exhibit at the Simsbury Public Library where the artist, with permission, placed her political artwork with political comments attached to each face on display.

After reading the comments at the artist’s display First Selectman Wendy Mackstutis was concerned that the comments created a hostile work environment.

This fiasco led to the artist taking down the displays and removing the comments from each piece of artwork and then replaced the artwork on the wall.

When the Director of the Library, Lisa Miceli reviewed the display she was not satisfied, she required more redactions.

Once again, the artwork was taken down with additional redactions of remaining comments and then once again placed on the wall for display.

Then the Library Board met to bless this fiasco.

Artists are usually given much latitude to express their opinions in a democratic society without any interference.

The art display in the Simsbury Public Library was displayed in many public places without any interference.

Why is Simsbury hostile to free expression?

The Town of Simsbury appears to have an issue with freedom of expression and speech which is used to intimidate the public.

The Town of Simsbury in a negotiated settlement of a 1990 Federal Lawsuit on public audience was required by law to affix the settlement on the wall of the Main Meeting room, “readily available observable by those entering the room.”

Recently the settlement was removed from the wall.

I questioned Town Manager Marc Nelson concerning the removal of the document that has been displayed since 1990.

This resolution to the lawsuit mandates that all Board of Selectmen meetings must have public audience and each person has at least 5 minutes to express their views.

Removal of the resolution to the wall is an affront to democracy and the rule of law.

I would not back down on my request that the legal settlement be returned to the wall.

Marc Nelson told me he removed it with the approval of Town Attorney Bob DeCrescenzo that this legal document can be removed, defying the rule of law.

How can Town Attorney Bob DeCrescenzo give a legal opinion that laws have limits and are optional if you disagree with the terms of the law?

According to Town Attorney Bob DeCrescenzo the rule of law is optional.

How many other laws should be phased out after years of enforcement, under our Town Attorney’s opinions.

As the discussion got heated Town Manager Marc Nelson told me that he would have to sue me at great expense to the taxpayers if I did not give him permission for the removal.

I would not back down.

Recently, I asked Town Manager Marc Nelson if he had filed an intent to sue.

He said he is not going to sue, his failure of intimidation.

Town Manager Marc Nelson would have to reopen the lawsuit and renegotiate the terms of the settlement, all for a legal settlement affixed to the wall.

The issue remains that the document is not on the wall and it is a violation of the law.

At the present time we have a Town Manager and a Town Attorney that defies the rule of law.

What is the Board of Selectmen’s position on this debacle?

Will the Board of Selectmen require Town Manager Marc Nelson to return the legal document once again to the wall?

Recently a Bridgeport Police Chief was denied the ability to draw from his pension while serving as Chief in the same department, in violation of Federal law.

An October 2022 amendment to a state statute which allowed the chief to collect his pension despite his having returned to lead the force was found to violate federal law.

Does this legal decision apply to Chief Boulter where he has retired and while receiving his salary is allowed to draw on his pension?