Update: Click here for the LJ’s editorial take on the transfer station issue to date.
It’s been another topsy-turvy week in the arena of waste. No, I’m not talking about cutting government spending, but about what has become the great transfer station imbroglio.
For those of you who did not read my first post on this topic (see below), the long-and-the-short of it is that Salisbury’s first selectman, Curtis Rand, spent $18,000 in town funds to purchase options on a site for a new transfer station without consulting or holding a vote with his fellow members of the Board of Selectmen.
It appears to me that Rand was on solid ground legally (and the town attorney agrees), if for no other reason than the fact that state statutes don’t specifically forbid him from doing what he did. Whether or not it was a wise thing to do is an entirely different question. My guess is that until late in the game, Rand had no idea keeping this information from the other selectmen (notably Peter Oliver) would cause this kind of backlash.
What I don’t understand is why Rand went to the Board of Finance rather than the selectmen. My understanding is the finance board has little or no power and is mostly an oversight panel (albeit a very fine one), while the selectmen are clearly the “executive authority” of the town, as defined by the state.
If you’re concerned about keeping the matter quiet so as not to kill a potential real estate deal, why not go to your fellow selectmen? Are they any less trustworthy than the finance board? Oliver won’t actually come out and say this, but I suspect that in addition to being upset that the process for spending town money was short-circuited, Oliver is also scratching his head wondering why he couldn’t be trusted with sensitive information when others (e.g. the BOF) presumably could.
And there appears to have been a procedural oversight in that BOF meeting, where an executive session was held with Rand. The agenda did not include an anticipated executive session, nor did the minutes indicate that anyone had motioned to add an item to the agenda. Rather, it appears to be a case of Rand showing up at the meeting and informing the board he needed to speak with its members behind closed doors.
This appears to be a violation of Connecticut’s Freedom of Information statutes. Will this matter give Rand’s critics the legal opening they need to challenge his actions? I’m not a lawyer (although I sometimes play one on this blog), but I suspect it won’t make much difference in the long run. No action was taken by the BOF after the meeting, so what is there to challenge based on the meeting?
Moving forward, the larger question is whether the Fitting and Luke properties are good sites for a transfer station. Just about the only downside I can see is the site is not centrally located. It’s far closer to downtown Millerton than to any of the villages in the town of Salisbury.
But that’s about it. With 17 acres, the site will offer ample opportunities for buffer zones to mitigate visual impact. And there will be plenty of room for composting, which Rand and retiring transfer station manager Larry Beck have said is one of the keys to reducing expensive “municipal solid waste” or non-recyclable garbage.
And it’s located off a state highway that already has a lot of truck traffic, so presumably it will not alter the tranquility of the mostly middle-class subdivision across the highway. I’m not sure the town could have done much better than this. It’s a bit pricey, but as local Realtors told me, a deal such as this would have to be “incentivized” in order to motivate the sellers to take the properties off the market for a year and eventually give them up for what some see as an undesirable use.
And what about Sharon? Will that town come along for the ride? Or Millerton and the town of NorthEast? I’m open to listening. As Rand himself said, “Let the debate begin.”
23 responses so far ↓
1 Geoff Brown // Mar 15, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Gracefully handled or not, I am glad to see what appears to be an excellent solution to the transfer station problem finally emerging.
Now that they have had a fairly extensive hearing in the press and the blogosphere, perhaps it is time for the bruised egos to get over it and fall in line for the good of our community.
2 Tom Shachtman // Mar 15, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Terry — There is a technical problem for Curtis Rand in going to the other selectmen on this or any other matter that they want to keep quiet. He is not allowed to meet with them other than when and where the public can see them. He and his fellow Democrat, Jim Dresser, can ‘caucus’ together, but my understanding (from Val Bernardoni, some time ago) is that the three selectmen are forbidden by state law from meeting except at times and places that have been advertised as public meetings. It is an awkward thing, but necessary under the sunshine laws. For Curtis to go to the Zoning Board was easier and more private. But he should not have been surprised that the third selectman, or anyone else, took umbrage at this having been done behind closed doors.
3 Terry // Mar 15, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Tom,
Under CT FOI laws, all three selectmen could have broken from the public meeting and met in executive session to discuss a possible real estate transaction, which was also the justification for the closed-door meeting Curtis had with the finance board. So I don’t see a technical problem there.
Geoff,
As I pointed out in this post, I think the site is a good one. Maybe others don’t. So let the debate about begin …
4 Michael Flint // Mar 15, 2007 at 5:59 pm
There are many of us who applaud the action taken by First Selectman Curtis Rand.
There are those who are probably intent on making ‘political hay’ out of the procedure that Mr. Rand followed to get to the end, the land options.
The bottom line to all of this is the fact that Salisbury will need a new site for the transfer station sooner than later.
Having attended the TRAC meeting on Monday night, I learned that the process for the State to simply approve the site could take up to 3 years. We then must consider design, contract bidding, public hearings and all of the other wonderful things that happen when we embark on a public project of this nature.
In all, we could be talking 5 years or more before we would ever see a transfer station at the proposed site.
We also must consider our contract with CRRA, which expires in 2012. We might have to consider shopping around because of the fact that some of CRRA facilities might be reverting to private control and taking refuse based on the highest ‘bidder’. We really don’t know what the future may hold in the arena, but we should be keeping our eyes open.
Taking the options on these properties was the right thing to do. Finding a transfer sight has already proven to be a major ordeal considering that TRAC started with 50 plus sites and came down to only a handful that were possible for use, or in acceptable locations.
For those who want to drag on the logistics of how Mr. Rand came to his decision and ultimately exercised his authority to act in the Town’s best interest, I suggest you take it to a closet with others who wish to join you. The rest of us want to debate the issue at hand.
To quote from the CT General Statutes, Chapter 91, Section 7-12a:
“Unless otherwise provided by law, the first selectman, in each town for which its board of selectmen is the executive authority, shall be the chief executive officer of such town …â€
I believe Mr. Rand acted as any GOOD CEO would have in this situation.
5 Tom Shachtman // Mar 15, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I want the new transfer station in this new site, too, if that has been agreed is the best place, and I’m hoping that the lack of public discussion on the issue was only temporary. We have a good trio of selectmen who are all devoted to our public interest and to openness in government. This bump in the road should be seen as underlining the need to make decisions openly. This is possible at the town level, maybe not above, and we should do all we can to encourage it.
6 Terry // Mar 15, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Mike,
Here’s the intellectual honesty question:
How would you feel if Judge Manning or Patricia Chamberlain had signed options to purchase property for Region 1 without a public vote or telling their fellow board members? I can already hear the Sunday morning sirens wailing on Straight Talk.
7 Marshall Miles // Mar 15, 2007 at 6:32 pm
18,000 from a fund that already exists for property purchases for an option on a property purchase is a no-brainer for the First Selectman to sign.
Unfortunatly…..
I think Curtis sees that with hindsight, it would have been better to include his selectmen…
On Pat or Judge Manning, if they had an existing fund for property, and it did not raise taxes…I bet Mike would find bigger fish to fry….
8 Michael Flint // Mar 15, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Terry,
Provided the purchase options were done legally, I would only debate the issue of the property and it’s intended use.
I happen to agree on this property and it’s intended use. Curtis did not violate the law and simply excersiced his duty as CEO of Salisbury when an important town opportunity was in need of action.
Should it have been the same for Region One, I would expect them to do the same.
The option purchase by Mr. Rand simply keeps a viable property available while we debate the issue and make a decision.
The purchase decision will in fact be a very public and open debate, thanks to Curtis.
9 Terry // Mar 15, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Marshall and Mike,
I think Bob Estabrook got it right in his terrific Perambulating column this week, “A fine accomplishment undercut by secrecy.” There is a principle here that supercedes the amount of money or the availability of the land acquisition fund, no matter how splendid the outcome. I don’t think the old Machiavellian saw “The ends justifies the means” applies here.
P.S. I seem to recall a lot of people objected to the process of the Falls Village Board of Selectmen making a donation to the children’s theatre company, while conceding it was not necessarily illegal.
10 Peter Oliver // Mar 15, 2007 at 8:46 pm
The following is offered for discussion.
1) What is the land worth? Between the time that the Board of Finance met with Curtis an appraisal could have been commissioned privately when the possibility of the land being optioned was determined.
2) Should the freedom of information act be ignored by the Board of Finance, as inadvertent as it undoubtedly was?
3) How does Section 7-12a of the Statutes empower this action? The unquoted portion of 7-12a merely provides for the CEO to be “ex-officio” to all Boards and Commissions? Period. 7-12a is not a blanket endorsement for suspension of the actions of a BOS.
4) Executive sessions “for the purchase of real estate” is one of the three accepted reasons for a Board of Selectmen under the FOI. (Please note that the BOF met on 1/18 prior to the normally scheduled 2/6 BOS meeting and the option was signed on 2/28.)
5) It is not the site that is the problem, it is the process of usurpation of the responsibilities of the Board of Selectmen’s powers. If this subject had been discussed at an executive session of the BOS, and a vote taken upon returning to public session, the worst that would have occurred could have been a 2-1 vote. Curtis admits that a “mistake” may have occurred in the process and that it could have been handled in a better fashion. Through no intent of illegality, rather a desire to rush to do a good thing, normal process was not observed.
6) In spite of those who would like to make this personal and political it is Not. Curtis and I have worked together for 28 years, although we do not always see things the same way, we have maintained a civil and friendly relationship throughout our discussions and debates. I did not accuse Curtis of illegal action, I asked the Town Attorney “if he acted improperly is the contract (option) binding on the Town?”, in order to understand what (if anything) needed to be done to validate the actions taken.
7) A request for transparency in government should not be perceived as an attack.
Let’s move on.
Peter Oliver
11 Doug Richardson // Mar 15, 2007 at 11:29 pm
One of the many interesting footnotes in this discussion is that several people who are weighing in on this seem to be perfectly “OK” with the expenditure of $18K on a possible land acquistion. If for any one of a hundred reasons this property is not selected as the town’s TS site, the money is gone.
Meanwhile, Region One’s school board was mandated to slash, shave and burn it’s budget; the last cuts demanded were for $7.000 and those cuts included library books. The roof is leaking at SCS, programs, classes and personnel are jettisoned and yet it’s fine for the town to participate in land speculation. Go figure.
And for the record: it was Peter Oliver who brought this subject up for scrutiny and consequent debate. Had he not raised these questions I suspect there would be little, if any, discussion about the wisdom of spending this money or the manner in which it was exercised.
12 Marshall Miles // Mar 16, 2007 at 4:47 am
Just reading the comments on this board tells you why Curtis did what he did…..
The process obviously would have ended up with long winded debate and the potential for no action..blah, blah, blah, and again, we would see no action on a problem that faces Salisbury.
Terry, this in no way compares to a $25,000 donation to a theatre group that has no public budget, thats budget is not controled by the town, that is to buy a building that is not controled by the town, that led to an easment on property tyhat is not owned or controld by the town,etc, etc, etc…the 25,000 dollars was not from a fund that was already set up by the town for the exact indicated pourpose….no comparison, try again!!
Peter has it right in his last post….as a matter of fact, he has it dead right, and basicly, Curtis has said in print, and on my show, looking at it now, he could have handled it better….WE NEVER HEARD THAT FROM THE LEADERS IN FALLS VILLAGE!!!
I agree with Peter, lets learn to keep transparancy in goverment, and move on to the next topic with the impending winter storm….
GOLBAL COOLING
LETS MOVE ON….
13 Paul Bartomioli // Mar 16, 2007 at 5:15 am
I agree with Flint. Let’s debate the substantive part of this. Was it wrong? Maybe. Was it illegal? not sure. Are the results, in the end, a good decision? Maybe, if… Kinda ike Iraq. Right or wrong, we are there. Holding demonstrations and railing against decisions made 5 years ago is akin to children throwing tantrums.
Now, Marshall you have gone back in time! Do you still have the shirt?
Doug: As has been pointed out by Straight Talk there are thousands of dollars at Housy that can be reduced so that programs and books are not cut.
Why does it cost $1000 per student to run the principal’s office? Why does Region 1, inside Housy, rent 6 copiers? What benefit does the region gain from the thousands spent on “association dues?” Are they all necessary? Do we get bang for the buck?
The Region 1 Board does not approach this as a business. They have told the BIG LIE often enough that it is now accepted as truth.
14 Terry // Mar 16, 2007 at 6:36 am
Marshall,
I’m not saying the two situations are identical, just that it’s possible to be for a particular goal while questioning the process that led to the accomplishment of that goal, as Peter has done.
What you seem to be saying is for the selectmen to hold an executive session, discuss the matter there, come out into public session and vote on it, have Joe Cleaveland cut the checks and deliver them, would have been messy or inconvenient and that justifies Curtis’s actions. I suggest it would have been infinitely more convenient than the reaction Curtis has encountered here and elsewhere.
So I agree with Paul and his Iraq analogy (although, in Curtis’s defense, he hasn’t invaded a sovereign country!). But this is the situation, let’s deal with it and move on. What does anyone think of the proposed site?
15 Al Ginouves // Mar 16, 2007 at 8:43 am
Even if I wasn’t the chairman of the SDTC I’d support Curtis’s unorthodox move here. At first I was puzzled by his actions but now I see why he felt he needed to “weave” (my quotes) his way through the FOI laws. If there is a problem with the way BOF handled FOI laws that is the BOF’s problem and does not reflect on Curtis’s actions. I suppose someday Curtis’s methods could be used by someone who didn’t have the Town’s best interests in mind but that is another debate to be considered. Right now I say “Thanks Curtis!” I can’t imagine the time, energy, planning, and thought you put into this.
16 Marshall Miles // Mar 16, 2007 at 11:37 am
Terry, you and I agree on Peter, I would have been upset if I were in his shoes!
About the site…..I think its the best option I have heard yet, it sure beats buying the Cleveland property and taking the current site by ED..(and i don’t mean erectile dysfunction!)
And I still don’t think you can compare it to Falls Village in any way, shapeor form!!
I guess it won’t be long before the signs both pro and con come out…I can see it now….
The site is garbage!! Dump the site!!!!
or
Your trash is my cash, build it and the trash will come!!! (submitted by CRRA!!!)
17 Peter Oliver // Mar 16, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Al,
The old man walks into the bar and sits down next to the most beautiful woman the bartender has ever seen. After a couple of drinks the old man turns to the woman and says, “I am a psychologist studying human behavior. May I ask you a question?”
The young beauty replied, “Sure”.
“Well”, said the old man “Would you sleep with a stanger for a million dollars?”
Taking her time and thinking about all that a million dollars could buy she said, “For a million dollars, yes.”
“Thank you”, said the old man as he returned to his scotch on the rocks.
Two drinks later the old man asked, “Would you sleep with me for fifty dollars?”
“Of course not” snapped the young lady “What do you think I am?”
The old man rolled his eyes and said, “We have already determined that, now we are just haggling over the price.”
What people decide to say and do lingers on long after it is said or done.
The problem with Curtis’”unorthodox” “weaving” around the FOI is the cheapening of the process and denying the very reason for the Freedom of Information Act. The precedent for acting on his own, and then attempting to justify the action, is a precedent for every possible future situation when any future First Selectman “feels” it is justified.
Confidential? After speaking to TRAC, and the BOF only leaving out the BOS in the discussion of an option, one can only ask why. Curtis mis-spoke at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting, on the 6th of March, when he referred to a “February meeting of the BOF” (On the tape being broadcast on Channel 6 CATV), as the meeting was in January before the February and March BOS meetings. I believed what he said (at the March meeting) and was somewhat appeased by the schedule of action resulting from a panic response. But it was not so. He had every opportunity to ask for a BOS action.
Curtis did not invent or discover this site on his own. He did not select it, Anchor Engineering placed it on a list of possible sites. His participation was contacting property owners to find out about availability. Credit for the site should go where it belongs - TRAC.
Why is this not the time to “debate” the method and process? If people consider it waste of time to assess and understand the process of their Town government, and are happy to “just let it happen” then the SRTC, SDTC, Mike Flint’s, Marshall and Terry’s interest in fostering thought (and candidate selection) are wasted. If not now when?
My concern is not political. As much as some people would like to make this about something else it is about process.
In answer to Terry’s question, the site has all the room needed and can be screened from neighbors to reduce the NIMBY complaints. It is on a State road where the volume of traffic will not be appreciably increased or noticed. All in all a good location.
Peter
18 Geoff Brown // Mar 16, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Even if it’s about as far from my house in Twin Lakes as it could be while still remaining in the town, it’s a very sensible siting choice. On Route 44, with adequate room to screen it really well. There are not a lot of alternatives out there.
As someone pointed out, this transfer station is several years from fruition, and all kinds of approvals will be required before it can even open. It seems to me that we should get going on this so that, in the event the State or some other entity says “What were you thinking?” we still have time to regroup and recover.
19 Paul Bartomioli // Mar 17, 2007 at 6:41 am
So, the point of discussing the process is????
Peter, what about a town plebescite? 1 Question, Yes or No, Up or Down:
something akin to : Do you agree with the actions of Curtis Rand’s actions to obtain purchase options on the … properties?
Honestly, i think the debate you seek can go on as long as the Red Sox Curse, maybe longer (Cubs?)
20 Paul Bartomioli // Mar 17, 2007 at 6:42 am
yaknow, one of these days…
A more grammatical question:
Do you agree with Curtis Rand’s actions to obtain purchase options on the …..properties?
21 Geoff Brown // Mar 20, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Or, to take the politics out of what should really not be a political question at all:
“Should the new transfer station be built on the _____ properties?”
22 Paul Bartomioli // Mar 22, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I like your question better. Thanks
23 james meyer // Apr 12, 2007 at 7:16 am
I find Peter Oliver’s behavior completly unprofessional and against the selctmen process himself,The lady does protest to much,why is he impatcial,why would he be more quailifed to be involed in this?Than the people selcted.
He is airing his personal grudes in the paper .
If you have a town commitee of 15 peolple 12 people can barley agree on a jury and quiet often dont,leaving the case undecided.
Leave a Comment