I did not attend last night's Board of Finance meeting, but it seems to have been a marathon with all sorts of controversy.
This is a place for those who attended or have watched the meeting to discuss it. But please try to be clear and complete in your descriptions of what happened, and fair and understanding, as well. If you don't understand something, ask (I don't mean me, especially since I haven't even seen the meeting). Don't just assume things were this way or that.
Here's the first comment on the meeting:
William H. said...
Rob, I really wish you were at the Board of Finance meeting. It was a real circus. I have to be honest, the democrats might have dug themselves into a hole. Allegedly, Michael Hallahan approved the Audit Company to do an additional forensic audit without approval from the Board of Finance, which as you know is a direct violation of the Town Charter and the CT Statute. Mr. Hallahan went on to indirectly admit this but his explaniation was that his actions were in the best interest of the town. Now, Rob, as a lawyer I'm sure you can agree that intent does not overrule policy. If one counters that the Republicans were doing this for years, my rebuttal would be that the Democrats promised to stop these actions and bring integrity back to Town Hall. Is this a good start? Also, I'm sure you'll hear that Martin Piccirilo's behavior at the meeting was deplorable but that's another story. I am happy to report that the Board will act as a bipartisan unit when putting together their budget, which is a good first step to your bipartisan uptopia.
As I said, I wasn't there, so I don't know what was done or said. But I am required to say once again that I am not a lawyer, that I haven't been a lawyer for 25 years, and that I was never a member of the Connecticut bar. If I don't do this, I will be publicly accused of illegal conduct by a member of the Republican Town Committee.
What actions did the Democrats promise to stop that you know occurred? And did the Democrats fail to stop it?
The question that your description raises is, Why would a forensic investigation firm do any work based on the words of one Board of Finance member, when it is directed by acting finance director Ed Swinkoski and there had been no BoF vote? In other words, did Hallahan talk to the firm about doing further investigations, or did he order them to do it, and did they accept his orders?
This is what I mean by providing a clear and complete description, and not making assumptions. But I don't know what was said or what happened, so I can do nothing more here than ask questions.