great achievement? ahuge debt, unbalanced budgets, downgraded credit rating and deficit in the pension none of existed prior to Flatto

Certainly Flatto had some positive impact on us here in Fairfield. But, that does not excuse the abuse of power, secret agreements, significant waste and loss of taxpayer money, and lies and misrepresentations surrounding several of the projects that has a significant impact on our finances and tax burden.
I hope, in the next election, my fellow voters remember that you, Ms Stamler, by not supporting the censure motion, gave Ken a free pass for his egregious acts. I will remember.

its very easy to say "had they done THIS, I would have done THAT."

unfortunately there is very little precedent for EITHER party in Fairfield to cross those lines... so my response to you, Ann Stamler, is "prove it."

Ann,

I'm not familiar with Robert's Rules of Order, but, isn't there some mechanism by which you could have tabled the motion for further discussion? Were your, and the other Dems', hands so tied? Where is the Dems motion of censure? If the Repubs' motion was so unacceptable, have you all started crafting your own? And are you crossing the aisle in that effort?

I'd always prefer to give a volunteer the benefit of the doubt, but given the above, I'm struggling to find your words earnest. Unless, of course, you really are just pouting and sulking because no one asked you?

Ken's actions often demonstrate that he believes the ends always justify the means. He didn't play by the rules. I'm wondering, how many of our elected officials read Crime & Punishment? For those that did read it, did you really miss the lesson? Sure, it's wordy, and the names are tough to pronounce, but the concepts really weren't all that tough to grasp.

A democratic republic is far from optimal, but we embrace its weaknesses specifically for its greatest benefits: the prevention of corruption and maintaining a balance of power.

Tell me, what lesson does letting Flatto and Saxl go without censure send to children? That as long as you believe your actions are noble, rule and law need not apply to you?

Thanks Ann Stamler for the sane comment. All this "gotcha" mentality has become more and more risible over the years. Comments like "Letting Flatto and Saxl go." and "the message it sends to children," are so silly, as though they should be in shackles and made to stand on the Town Green bare to the waist for a weekend and receive 30 lashes, by the children of the town. The comment that cracked me up was Greg comparing Flatto's achievement to those of George W. Bush.

Greg. Thanks for the laugh you gave me by describing the state of the country left us by George Bush. LOL

I thanked Ann for writing a sane comment. Since I didn't address her position there was nothing I misunderstood.

Marcia,

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Your comments seemed directly leveled at mine, as you quoted me. I was most confused that you felt Ann's letter was sane, with these words: "profound dismay at actions which seemed to show disdain for our laws and elected representatives" yet mine, "what lesson does letting Flatto and Saxl go without censure send to children? That as long as you believe your actions are noble, rule and law need not apply to you" were "silly."

Certainly, my response to your comment was less than gentlemanly. I was reactive, and chose to debate your position in a similar tenor in which you addressed mine.

My apologies.

I can see you are relatively new to commenting on articles here. I regret you didn't receive a gentler induction. I respond in similar temperament to which I'm addressed. N.B. You may find many others less accommodating.

This conversation is pushing the terms of use. If you wish to continue, you are welcome to contact me directly, at msoclr @ yahoo.com (removes spaces).

Ann, next time table the motion do not hide behind rhetoric and Marcia if Flatto's record mirror's W's then I quess one of Flatto's achievement is bi-partisian corruption.

This entire scenario seems quite ironic to me. We have a RTM member that wants to censure previous public offcials for not respecting other town bodies and the rules that govern the administration and interaction beteween each and the public. But, the RTM member fails to follow the rules that govern his own body. The motion to censure was raised under the New Business part of the agenda. It therefore cannot be voted on in the same meeting

Chaper 115 Sec1 subsection 33 of the Town Code states:
Any matter not on the Warning for a meeting except: a) honorary resolutions and b) matters previously held in committee, may be discussed at such meeting but shall not be acted or voted upon until the resolution stands over one meeting. The body may, by a majority vote, limit the time to be allotted for such discussion.

Had the RTM member been sincere in his resolve to bring forth a bipartisan motion, one must ask why did he not bring it through committee and have it properly placed on the agenda so the public had notice that such a motion was going to be debated.

Instead the motion was brought up under New Business with no public notice. Isn't that the chief complaint against the previous adminstration. That they did things under the cover of night and sprang them on the public.

Politics - go figure

We need to demand better from evryone involved

Both, the moderator is responsible for enforcing the rules, but any member of the body can call for a "point of order" and question the moderator as to whether the procedure being followed is in accoradance with the rules

It seems we underestimated them. I don't yet understand the mechanism but, the vote was legal. No motion to table is still a legitimate point.