When the town started the process to form a 10-year strategic plan early this spring, things got underway with little fuss or debate, though as the months have rolled by, some elected officials have started to take issue with how the planning and appointment of a key position has played out. By the time the Board of Finance (BOF) meeting on Aug. 15 rolled around, tempers hit a full boil and the meeting descended into chaos.

The 10-year strategic plan in theory will help to guide all of the needs of the town for the next decade or more. The plan should go beyond just analyzing budgetary and capital needs and look at issues as far ranging as protecting environmental assets and prepping for changing demographics.

The plan is an initiative of the Board of Selectmen (BOS), but the BOF and Board of Education (BOE) along with town department heads and key community stakeholders are expected to be involved in the process. The BOS began the process began in early 2018 when it put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) to companies that would help guide the town through development of the plan.

Three proposals came in and then two members of the BOS and BOF sat on a selection subcommittee to select a firm. The subcommittee selected Management Partners and the contract was awarded in late June.

That’s when the conflict began. In July, the BOS discussed the need for a project manager (PM) who would help guide the project along and liaison between the company and the town. How the PM role was filled was the spark that lit the fuse, particularly for elected Democrats.

Process and Procedure

At the BOF meeting on Aug. 15, First Selectman Tom Banisch (R) was asked to explain the selection process for the PM role. The BOS had approved Chris Puricelli, a former member of the BOE and current Republican Town Committee treasurer, for the job. Banisch said the company, Management Partners, wanted someone in the PM role who wouldn’t be seen to have too much bias, so not a town employee.

“I knew Chris Puricelli, who does project management for strategic planning, and so I said, ‘Would you be interested?’ and he said yes,” said Banisch. “He is not being paid. There is some rumor going around that he is being paid.”

BOF member Kevin Kranzler (D) then asked Banisch if all selectmen approved of this choice, to which Banisch said “Yes.” Kranzler later pointed out that Banisch was incorrect (the vote passed three to one). Banisch admitted his error, but by that point the meeting was so heated that Kranzler and Banisch ended up in a shouting match over who was taking this whole thing too personally.

Kranzler said his issue isn’t with Puricelli as much as it is with how the whole thing played out.

“I am just concerned that there wasn’t consideration of others and it seemed like someone being appointed was effectively anointed,” he said. “I think that is a concern and I think the public trusts something we all have to be sensitive to…It seems it is not constant with the spirit of the tri-board discussion we had just a few weeks ago. I know some people were surprised by this plan.”

Some BOF members pointed out that appointing a PM does fall within the role of the BOS as it pertains to the town charter. However, Kranzler said be that as it may, he felt, along with others, that the whole strategic plan was going to be a collaborative process among the boards and parties.

“I am trying to figure out is this a collaborative process or is not and if it’s not then let’s just put it out there and say it’s not going to be a collaborative process and the BOS is going to chose directionally where they want to go irrespective of our voices from the BOF or the BOE or from anyone for that matter,” he said. “Because to be honest with you, I don’t want to waste my time thinking that we are having a collaborative process when in fact that is not the case, which is why I have a strong issue with this process. I think it spoils the collaborative nature. It spoils it and it spoils the spirit of it.”

BOF member Ken Kaminsky (R) wasn’t quite as emphatic as Kranzler, but said he too thought this was going to play out differently.

“There was a disconnect between the expectations that everyone felt was set at that meeting compared to what actually played out,” he said. “Even though the intent may have been there, it didn’t play out the way people thought.”

Kaminsky then asked Banisch if he knew at the time the three boards met that the process for appointing the PM was already being considered. Banisch said “No,” which appeared to further upset Kranzler.

“So you made a decision in two weeks for a 10-year plan and chose one individual within a two-week period,” he said. “Are we to assume that no other person would have presented themselves as a volunteer? Again, he might be the best most qualified individual, but it spoils it and makes it difficult. It does not show inclusiveness it shows, as you said Tom, ‘Hey it’s a BOS decision and we are going to make it.’”

Banisch and Judith Friedman (D) then went back and forth over how the PM position was presented to the BOS. Friedman said the two Democratic members of the BOS, Scott Murphy and Al Goldberg, were kept in the dark. Banisch said that was not true.

“You are presenting this to us as the BOS did this together and well that’s very different than my understanding Tom of what happened,” said Freidman. “You are compounding what I consider to be an injury already to this transparent inclusive process by not presenting it in a really forthcoming way tonight.”

Running Off the Rails

While the first 10 minutes could have been called civilized in terms of debate, the next 30 minutes were not. The conversation veered off point at times, board members and Banisch started shouting at each other, and board members started cutting each other off and berating each other for specific answers.

“There is so much misinformation being spread right now and all you are trying to do is sully the process,” said Banisch. “‘You can’t start off the process’—well, we haven’t even started. The first step is the kick-off meeting and the first step is to try to get people to understand what is involved in the kick-off meeting and you are saying already before we even get into the process, ‘Its no good and we don’t trust it.’”

All boards and stakeholders are suppose to meet for a kick-off meeting of the plan in a couple weeks to get everyone on the same page and iron out the goals and objectives of the plan. While there was some discussion of what is actually supposed to be accomplished before or during the kick-off meeting, Kranzler brought the conversation back around to the volunteer PM discussion.

“We all do different things in our jobs,” he said. “I would never hire one person blindly for any position ever without having multiple individuals because you just don’t know. You don’t know what a candidate for a prospective role can do without seeing other candidates and then you say ‘OK who is the best one?’ and you do it as a committee, because last I checked it’s a board of selectmen, which is a committee…I think the disconnect in here is that there are people in the room who I guess don’t think that process matters and its simply like ‘My bad’ and let’s just continue.”

BOF Chair Jean Fitzgerald (R) told Kranzler not to categorize peoples’ comments as if they don’t have a care or concern.

“Listen carefully because that is not what is being said,” she said. “I understand that people are unhappy. I understand that members of the BOS felt like this got pushed through. I understand all of that. My concern and my job as an elected official is to try to help and make sure that when things happen that are not done in a way that is in the best interest of the people that I represent, I have to also be able to look forward and say, ‘How can I prevent this from happening again?’ It doesn’t mean...”

Kranzler then repeatedly cut Fitzgerald off, asking her again and again if she agreed with the process or not. Fitzgerald said the way the PM role was filled was not how she expected the process to play out.

“Well it’s good that you qualified that,” Kranzler said. “I think a single individual process isn’t good for a company or a town.”

Fitzgerald said she wasn’t arguing that, and after several further exchanges asked, “Can I give you my answer or can I only give you the answer you want me to give you?”

To which Kranzler replied, “I want you to give me an answer that is correct.”

“Which is your opinion,” said Fitzgerald. “In my opinion, when we left that meeting it was my understanding that we were all going to work together moving forward. That is the answer I give you. The project manager then came up after. I knew nothing about it and then the decision was made. Do I think it’s in the best interest of everyone? No.”

What’s Next

Trying the rein in the conversation, Fitzgerald asked the board what it wanted to see happen next, making it clear that the BOF can ask the BOS to change or stop the process, but does not have the authority to force the BOS to do anything.

“We want this to be inclusive, but the reality is we don’t have the authority over this, so do we send a formal letter saying we would like to stop the process and reboot it?” she asked. “There is no issue with that. My point is that’s what we can do. People are not happy. I get it, so is that something you want us to do?”

Ultimately the BOF decided to send a letter to the BOS asking it to press pause on the process until all the boards could get together again and get back on the same page. All board members seemed to eventually agree that everyone needs a chance to air their concerns and cool off before the work really starts if anyone hopes to make a success of the plan.

“I hope we don’t go through this process and the same cynicism and nonsense continues to happen,” said Kaminsky.