To the Editor:

It was with dismay that I read the Trumbull Times letter written by newly-elected Town Council members Block (District 3) and Caron (District 4).

The dismay comes from the continued attempt to portray the newly appointed alternate on the Board of Finance as an “unaffiliated” voter. Mr. Chase may have been “unaffiliated” at the time of the vote but, a day after the vote, he changed his affiliation to Republican. Further, shortly after that it was announced that he became a member of the Trumbull Republican Town Committee (TRTC).

I personally do not care what party Mr. Chase associates himself with but I do expect that the council, the entire council, will be given all of the information regarding a candidate before voting.

It is a disgrace that Mr. Massaro and Mr. Pifko, the sponsors of this travesty, did not tell the public or the full council of Mr. Chase’s intentions. However, if they did not know, shame on Mr. Chase for not being forthcoming. Either way, the entire affair reeks of silly politics and partisanship.

I expect my elected representatives to be transparent when communicating with the public. It defies logic to believe Mr. Chase had an epiphany 24 hours or so after the vote to become a Republican. This matters because again, the Town Council has appointed two Republican alternates to the Board of Finance while denying the elected Democrats an alternate of their choosing. That is simply unfair and an ongoing example of the uncivil behavior demonstrated by the majority Party.

Mr. Block represents District 3, the District I reside in. He has an obligation to answer my questions. So I ask, why is it fair that the Republicans have two alternates while the Democrats have none? The alternate sits in the place of the elected member. Elected members should have the opportunity to select those to replace them that share their core values, philosophies and priorities.

I was elected twice to the Board of Finance and while I was a member of a 4 to 2 majority, we never would have considered denying our Republican colleagues a Republican alternate. Why? Because it was the fair thing to do. When the Republicans became the majority, that long standing tradition of respect was abandoned. Instead, they appointed two Republicans and one unaffiliated alternate. The reasonable compromise — one Republican, one Democrat and one unaffiliated alternative — was rejected.

Mr. Block and Mr. Caron quote the Merriam Webster Dictionary in their letter and I will too.  Merriam Webster defines the word fair as “…marked by impartiality and honesty: free from self-interest…”

With that in mind I ask again, please explain why it is fair that the Republicans have repeatedly denied the elected Democrats an alternate of their choosing?

The voters are tired of the “we won so we can do what we want” mentality. The people of Trumbull are fair-minded people and they expect the same from their elected representatives in both word and action. I look forward to your response.
Tom Tesoro