Regarding the Letter to the Editor in OurMontville:
Just to be clear, I was not aware of any “deal” between Mr. Braden and Mr. Sandham regarding the 2011 election when Tim decided to withdraw. I was told that the decision to withdraw was driven by an understanding with Mr. Sandham regarding the boundaries of our powers based on the Charter. Satisfied with the consensus view on these boundaries, the promise to operate within the confines of the Charter, and an understanding that this would lead to a more “harmonious” atmosphere on the Township Committee, Mr. Braden withdrew his name from consideration and Mr. Sandham received the support of the Township Committee.
Bartering for the Mayor’s title with a campaign promise for the 2011 Primary, or dealing away the center chair for a 2011 election favor is unacceptable. These quid pro quos should never be allowed to become woven into the fabric of our Township Committee culture, and certainly never become a factor in the election of our Mayor. It simply does not serve the best interests of Montville.
Regardless of the outcome on June 7, everyone on the dais must recognize that their personal differences cannot get in the way of doing business. Montville residents deserve better, and you must demand nothing less from your elected officials.
7 comments:
It seems that personal differences are already "woven into the fabric", and that there's more below the surface than what the average resident can see.
If Braden was voted to be Mayor, how did Sandham get the position?
It's not the personal differences that concern me. As long as everyone behaves in a professional manner on the dais, the business of Montville can be conducted effectively without emotion.
I did not take the oath of office until Jan 3, so the vote in December was an "unofficial" election. Consider it a straw poll endorsement with the binding decision made on Jan 3.
Heather,
If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Gallopo was not allowed to attend any township committee meetings until Jan 3. There was no way for Mr. Gallopo to be part of this arrangement. This precedent started in November 2010, precludes newly elected commitee members from sitting in on meetings until sworn in. Wouldn't you like to know what went on beyond close doors?
Scott-
I believe you DID attend the reorganization work session????
Please verify??
Yes, and since I did not take the oath of office until January 3 it was a non-binding "straw poll".
Just add a bit more clarity - You can see clearly from the minutes on the Montville Municipal website I was in attendance at the December 21 public meeting.
Heather/Rick - I think you are referring to the CLOSED SESSION meetings that I was not permitted to attend. Certain TC members felt it was inappropriate for a newly elected official to attend these closed sessions before being sworn in on January 3. Prior newly elected officials were permitted to attend these meetings in the past, which made this a bit controversial.
The bottom line - I did not attend any closed session meetings in 2010 that apparently (perception or reality) were the breeding ground for "back room deals".
I hope that clears things up....
Scott, thank you for the clarification. I was referring to the closed session meetings in 2010. The words integrity and transparency have come alive by township committee members since you first used them during your campaign. The residents of Montville deserve nothing but the truth from our elected officials.
Hopefully, closed door politics and " back room deals", are a thing of the past.
Post a Comment