Notes from the Board of Aldermen (June 3, 2024)
Homeland Security Grant; Pete Smith as City Clerk; A Paper Street
Let’s start with the positives: on June 3, Mayor Tony Giannatassio honored two Milford lifeguards — Moira Staples and Kaleigh Morton — who rescued distressed swimmers swept by strong currents into Milford’s marina on Memorial Day Weekend.
Truly, Milford is grateful for their bravery and example. To selflessly go into the waters, risking their safety and lives, to help strangers in peril — Moira and Kaleigh embody what Christ taught us two millennia ago: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
This presentation opened the Milford Board of Aldermen Meeting that evening. The rest of the meeting focused on an agreement between the City of Milford and Homeland Security; filling the City Clerk vacancy left by Karen Fortunati; as well as a “paper” road on William Street. (For context: a “paper” road is one that only exists on paper (or a map), but is not necessarily developed.)
The Homeland Security agreement has been brought before the Board of Aldermen for several meetings to approve or reject, but Alderman Win Smith had many questions (nearly 60) he wished to address with representatives from federal and state agencies. He was granted this opportunity, and was joined by City officials like City Attorney Jon Berchem and Fire Chief Anthony Fabrizi among others.
Essentially, the agreement is Milford’s participation in a federal program along with other municipalities in, what is known as, Region 2. The city has entered into this agreement several times over the past decade-plus, receiving more than $200,000 in equipment from Homeland Security. City officials expressed this would help Milford in the event of an emergency (like Hurricane Sandy in 2012).
Still, the main sticking point of this agreement was a blank clause (Appendix A) that did not allow the City of Milford any direct oversight into what Homeland Security purchased on its behalf — and that the City would be liable both monetarily and for upkeep. In those meetings, Alderman Smith asked whether it would be kosher to offer amendments so the City could provide feedback/approval on items to be purchased. From his presentation to the rest of the Board of Aldermen, Homeland Security — who was cordial throughout the process — issued a stern warning: if amendments were approved, the agency would renege on the agreement and even revoke past purchased items. It was a “take it or leave it” sentiment, Alderman Smith shared.
Nevertheless, he offered amendments. I seconded. Why? In my estimation, entering into a contract in which the City is not necessarily sure what it is agreeing to is not sound legal practice. Both parties should know what is being bought and for how much. Trust can only take you so far when dealing with bureaucracies. This goes back to my belief in localism: Citizens have the greatest effect on their own communities, and they deserve to know what is happening in their town and/or city. Self-governance is vital to the American Republic and its character.
Considering those factors, I could not support the Homeland Security agreement. Milford deserves a say on how any federal or state agency tries to help the city.
Alderman Smith’s amendments failed; but the agreement — as is — passed, 13-2.
The next major agenda item was appointing Pete Smith to fill the City Clerk vacancy. Fortunati was a Democrat, so the Charter states that someone of the same party affiliation must replace her. The Democrat Town Committee chose Smith. For background, quite similarly, Joanne Rohrig was unanimously sworn in to replace Linda Stock (who had passed away) almost a decade ago. Rohrig and Stock are/were Republicans.
Even last year, when Ben Blake stepped down as mayor, Rich Smith was unanimously approved by the Board of Aldermen.
The precedent is that whoever is appointed — barring any overt disqualifications — generally receives full support, regardless of party affiliation. That has been the Milford way, and I think a “gentlemanly” practice that residents want and expect. Yet appointment nominees, and therefore precedent, have not been entirely respected over the past few months (i.e., several of the mayor’s appointments have been disregarded by the Democrats, who hold the 8-7 majority, without clear cause). So, in a cynical world, Pete Smith’s appointment could have been an opportunity for retribution. But Smith is a nice man. Despite our ideological differences, he and I get along, particularly in studying history. Why let our neighbors suffer a potentially embarrassing episode, especially with no just cause? I said as much during the vote discussion:
For the past few months, this Board of Aldermen has endured unprecedented partisanship regarding appointments to the city’s various boards and commissions.
When Mayor Giannatassio presented his nominations to the Board earlier this year, the Democrats denied several nominees the chance to serve Milford — however, they gave no clear reason as to why someone should be “prohibited” to serve our community. In fact, they even agreed the nominations were qualified.
By not offering a credible, disqualifying explanation for the mayor’s nominees, they crippled the fabric of our community by introducing politics and political affiliation into this, otherwise, neighborly process.
Milford has, for decades, accepted appointments and/or filled in vacancies regardless of political affiliation unless if something truly disagreeable about a nominee was brought forward.
Cynically, one could view the Democrats’ “no” votes as such: as an attempt to embarrass the new, Republican mayor by letting him know who really controls the levers of power.
Regardless of intent, what resulted from those “no” votes remains the same: they embarrassed their Milford neighbors. And they injected partisanship into a realm where it hasn’t belonged and shouldn’t belong.
I — or we — could be equally vindictive and vote against Pete Smith — after all he is a Democrat and I am a Republican. But if we are to have any healing or true collaboration, we are more than the political party to which we subscribe. We are neighbors first. Republicans and Democrats second.
So, I am choosing to honor the prior Boards of Aldermen. To honor the precedent that the Democrats as of late have disregarded — because Milford’s citizens deserve more than political battles and less partisanship.
This is a show of good faith to them that, while I disagree politically with the nominee for city clerk, I hope this a moment to turn the page and actually strive for collaboration, especially when the mayor forwards more nominations in the near future.
To put it mildly, my Democrat colleagues did not agree with my analysis of what has been transpiring, which does not surprise me. Still, that is what happened. There were qualified people like Katie Martino, Kim Jenkins, Scott Monforte (who was eventually approved), Tony Candido, and Vincent Averaimo who were denied a chance to serve Milford for no cause — so what is one to assume? Meanwhile, there were issues regarding Nick Veccharelli (read here) and Jolyn Washington-Walker’s (read here) nominations to the Fire Commission.
In short, precedent matters. Setting precedents matters, as future Boards of Aldermen will look to our actions. If we want a cordial community, we need to act cordially, which requires seeing others for who they are: as human beings with inherent dignity, and not simply for one another’s political party. It is incumbent on us to build the civil society we seek.
My Republican colleagues took the high road in this instance. Pete Smith was approved 15-0. Let’s hope that when the mayor offers qualified nominees in the future for various boards and commissions, Democrats will honor precedent as well.
Afterward, the Board of Aldermen approved — 13-2 — two resolutions related to construction grants for a Child Learning Center at Jonathan Law High School and the Technical Education Facility & Equipment area at Joseph A. Foran High School. I voted “no” previously when these were bonded, as they would raise taxes on Milford citizens. For the same reason, I voted “no” again.
Concerning the “paper” road, multiple William Street residents spoke during Public Comment stressing the desire to retain the natural buffer for noise reduction. They feared that the property owner, Dan Thornberg — president of Total Lawn Care & More, LLC — may cut it back, as he looks to expand his business operations.
However, Thornberg assured residents he would maintain the 20 feet of trees, bushes etc., sympathizing with them since as he grew up near railroad tracks. He also expressed his plans to use the “paper” road to build a storage facility for his lawncare equipment and the parking lot. The designs were approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 7. In the end, the Board of Aldermen unanimously agreed to abandon the “paper” road.
As always, if you have any questions and/or concerns, feel free to reach out in the comments section below or email me at afowler@milfordct.gov.