Notes from the Board of Aldermen (April 1, 2024)
The Appointee Debate Continues
The Milford Board of Aldermen April 1, 2024, Meeting may be the shortest for the next few months. In terms of contentious, long debates and back-and-forth questioning, there was very little — except concerning the ongoing saga of Mayor Tony Giannattasio appointing a new member to the Milford Fire Commission.
Currently, Kevin McGrath — who is the commission’s acting chairman — is serving on a month-to-month basis since his term expired at the end of last year. Over the past few months, the mayor has offered other nominees to replace McGrath, but all of them have failed.
The latest nomination was Nick Veccharelli — a retired firefighter, former Board of Aldermen Majority Leader, and a registered Democrat (though I understand he is no longer affiliated with the Milford Democratic Party). When the vote came, Board Chairman Phil Vetro told other members that Veccharelli sent him an email indicating he no longer sought the appointment. Mayor Giannattasio quickly dismissed the email, saying that he and Veccharelli spoke over the phone that afternoon (April 1), to which the latter proposed to “let the nomination ride” — i.e., that Veccharelli still sought the appointment.
From my perspective if Veccharelli told Vetro he no longer wanted to be appointed, he may have wanted to avoid being voted down like previous nominees — or being tossed into, what has become, a weird chapter in Milford politics. At least, that’s the scuttlebutt around City Hall.
It should be noted that despite the claim, Board Chair Vetro did not distribute copies of the email for those in the Republican caucus to see the timestamp.
Obviously, the Democrats believe Mayor Giannattasio has a “beef” with McGrath otherwise the caucus would not be such stalwarts against any of the mayor’s nominees for the position. The mayor, however, says he has no personal animus against the Fire Commission’s acting chairman. Meanwhile, lost in all of this is whether my Democrat colleagues believe Veccharelli was qualified or not — which none of them indicated during the Discussion period before the vote.
Ultimately, they voted against Veccharelli believing the nominee no longer wanted the job. Republicans sided with the mayor, believing Veccharelli was qualified and that he was still interested in the position. The final tally ended in a 7-7 split — so the motion failed.
This is becoming a sideshow. The only outcome Democrats seem to desire is for McGrath to remain on the Fire Commission. The mayor, meanwhile, wants to replace him, which is his prerogative. What do I think? When this kerfuffle first began, I stated this was an outlier in Milford’s history — which it still is — with the Democrats leveraging their 8-7 majority on the Board of Aldermen to deny the Republican mayor his appointees; perhaps, to even embarrass the new, recently elected mayor.
That’s the worst-case scenario. And to be fair, most of the mayor’s appointees have been unanimously voted on various boards and commissions since that Jan. 8, 2024 meeting. So, if they simply believe Mayor Giannattasio has it “out” for McGrath, then there is a communication breakdown somewhere.
What troubles me is the precedent this sets; and how people, whose terms have expired, can remain on a board or commission seemingly in perpetuity, even though the Board of Aldermen — who represent the people of Milford — have not voted to keep said person on (at least passed their expired term). These boards and commissions do have a significant impact on the community’s operations, so this matter is not to be taken lightly.
Essentially, this issue stems from the Milford Charter. Right now, Article IV, Sect. 3 of the Charter states:
“…the members of all appointed boards and commissions existing at the time of the adoption of this charter shall serve out their terms and until their successors are appointed and have qualified. The terms of all appointed boards and commissions shall begin on the January first after their appointment. Except as otherwise provided, the term of any member of any existing board or commission shall be continued and extended to the end of the calendar year in which said term expires. The successor appointed to said vacancy in each board or commission shall take office on the January first next succeeding his appointment.”
You can read the full Charter here.
One could read this, especially “existing at the time of the adoption,” as a Grandfather Clause, meaning that members of boards and commissions on Nov. 8, 1983 — when the Charter was last revised — would remain until Jan. 1, 1984, or when their term expired. And, to me, the clause “until their successors are appointed and have qualified” refers to only those persons on boards and commissions in 1983. However, the City Attorney’s Office offered this explanation when I asked for clarification [italics are by them]:
“It has been suggested that the phrase ‘existing at the time of the adoption of this charter’ refers to the members, not boards, and that holdover terms only exist for those specific individuals who held board seats at the time the Charter was adopted. This office disagrees with that interpretation of Section 3. If that was the intent, the language would have read ‘those members seated …at the time of the adoption of this charter.’ Furthermore, that language derives from the original 1959 Charter and has survived each of the eleven revisions since. If ‘existing at the time of this charter’ was meant to signify members seated as of 1959, then surely the language would have dropped off following the first revision after the original Charter (1962). The true test of this language can be found in its application - there is ample evidence of commissioners who have continued to serve on their respective boards or commissions beyond the expiration of their terms until a successor commissioner was appointed.”
You may agree with the City Attorney’s interpretation. That’s fair. But I am not the only one of my colleagues — or Milford resident — to believe in a different interpretation of the Charter’s language as written. Therefore, I believe this process should be rectified with a crystal clear clause like: “A member of a board or commission, whose term has expired, shall remain as a voting member on a month-to-month basis until the Board of Aldermen votes to accept their replacement.”
The proposed clause can be word-smithed, of course. However, at the end of the day, the Fire Commission saga continues — and I have a feeling it will for some time.
As for the rest of the evening, the Board of Aldermen approved a cash advance from the State of Connecticut totaling $506,579.84 to fund capital improvements like repairing sidewalks, paving roads, etc. Meanwhile, two matters were tabled:
The FFY 2022 State Homeland Security Grant Program Region 2 Memorandum of Agreement.
An Ordinance Amending an Ordinance Establishing Compensation of City Officials and Employees in the Service of the City of Milford
The former was postponed due to incomplete legal language. The latter was postponed over insufficient cost breakdowns, such as the overall budget impact of these salary increases. I asked Milford Finance Director Peter Erodici about that, as well as retroactive pay to these city employees. He told me:
“The cumulative impact to the general fund FY25 budget overall would be $152,182 [$95,210 FY24 plus $56,972 FY25 equals the $152,182]. The FY25 BOF budget has these salaries at FY23 rates. Technically, this increase is offset by the Benefit & Salary reserve in the budget. This reserve funding is used to cover the retroactive pay. The current balance is $495,165.”
But speaking of Milford’s finances…
If you haven’t seen it already, the Milford Board of Finance voted unanimously for Mayor Giannattasio’s $148 million budget proposal but reduced the Milford Board of Education’s proposed budget by $1 million. It should be noted that the Board of Education’s budget will still be an increase from last year’s operating budget.
For a quick breakdown:
The combined budgets (city and education) will amount to $257.8 million if passed by the Board of Aldermen as is.
If passed, the tax rate will increase to 28.72 mills or about $698 for the average homeowner (as reported by Hearst Connecticut Media)
The Board of Aldermen will begin holding budget meetings over the next few weeks. Here is a schedule if you’d like to stay in the know:
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out!
You can watch the full meeting below.