North Branford's new, Republican majority Town Council was sworn in Nov. 14 during a first meeting of the new term which included both unified collaboration and some party-line contention among the council's nine members.

As previously reported, the GOP won back control of the council with a six-candidate sweep in the Nov. 7 municipal elections, reducing the former Democratic majority of five members down to three. See the story here

As a body, the Town Council voted unanimously on Nov. 14 to appoint a new Town Attorney, Vincent Marino (Cohen & Wolf P.C., Orange) for the 2017-19 term. Marino replaces immediate past term Town Attorney Pasquale "Pat" Young.

The council also acted as unified group to support a request from North Branford High School's (NBHS) Cross Country teams to form a committee to recommend signage naming the NBHS Cross Country Course (Swajchuk property) in honor of NBHS coach Floyd Parness, who passed away in May.

Jared Jamieson, NBHS Varsity Cross Country captain, described the dedication Parness showed to his students and the team.

"The course was his pride and joy," said Jamieson. "He maintained the course for several years on end on his own as well with help from the team each year. Over the years he perfected the course and turned it into one of the best-known courses in our conference."

The council also welcomed a report from Town Finance Manager Anthony Esposito on the improved town budget situation following the bipartisan legislative passage of a new state budget in late October.  Instead of facing what could have been an additional $5.5 million deficit and the need to send out supplemental property tax bills in January 2018; North Branford will instead recoup approximately $1.4 million with the newly-passed budget. Esposito suggested putting $1 million toward needed capital improvements which had been put aside due to anticipated state cuts and costs. In addition, the council will likely deposit some $400,000 back into the town's General Fund, to offset borrowing $750,000 last spring to help balance the 2017-18 town budget.

Town Manager Michael Paulhus did note the town would now have account for one tweak in the new budget, a 50 percent reduction in the renters' rebate program, which "...puts us the hook for $21,000," in revenue to be made up, he said. Added to the original cuts in the budget, North Branford will be impacted by a total state budget reduction of $452,000, said Paulhus.

The council arrived at a fork in the road when five GOP council members voted not to support councilman George Miller's (D) nomination of Lynn Riordan to be appointed to the BOE as an interim member (term ending Nov. 12, 2019). The motion was denied by a 5-3 party-line vote; with Republican councilman Bob Viglione abstaining.

Riordan had been appointed to the BOE on Oct. 3, 2017 by a Town Council majority vote. She filled a seat vacated by former BOE member Deb Prunier (D), who resigned Sept. 15.

By state statute, Riordan's interim appointment expired after the Nov. 7, 2017 municipal election; requiring the council to make a post-election appointment for the post.

On Nov. 14, Deputy Mayor Angeloni (R) said while she had supported Riordan's appointment in October, she would not this time. Angeloni said of Riordan that she was "...disappointed in some of her actions on the board."  She said she felt Riordian's use of Facebook to post both BOE and school district information was "not following board bylaws" and disrespectful of the board chair.

Another issue raised by Angeloni was an "illegal meeting" involving four of the five immedaite past term's Democratic council members, together with Riordan and a past Republican BOE chairman. At a later point in the Nov. 14 Town Council meeting, further discussion of the "illegal meeting" caused the council to hit another snag, with Democrats disputing the description and more contention displayed along party lines.

The "illegal meeting" apparently involved information gathered by council member Marie Diamond (D) and immediate past council member Dan Armin (D) regarding past BOE chair practices. Armin and Diamond then brought the information to a public Town Council meeting in October, where they described finding evidence of a number of unilateral actions by past BOE chairs. The council is currently looking in to similar claims brought to light in documents requested by a citizen beginning in April 2017 using the Freedom of Information act. The council is seeking to determine if actions which took place in 2015 and 2017 with the unilateral approval of past BOE chairs (rather than by vote of the full board) contractually or otherwise benefited some district administrative employees, including the Superintendent of Schools.

Following Angeloni's comments, Miller noted Riordan had only been on the BOE for a month asked if she didn't deserve a "learning curve." He also asked whether issues raised by Angeloni couldn't be solved through a discussion between the BOE chair and Riordan.

"Personally, I'm not sure how objective [Riordan] can be," responded Angeloni.

"That seems hardhearted, Rose," answered Miller.

Angeloni replied she'd listened in at the BOE's October meeting with Riordan on the board; and when it came to board discussion on selecting Republican Sara Querfeld as chairperson, Angeloni said Riordan,"...told Sara Querfeld she could not support her, because Sarah could not be impartial. I thought that was hardhearted, too."

Democratic council member Joe Faughnan also came to Riordan's support.

"Social media is an issue with everyone in society," said Faughnan. "I try to avoid it like a plague, because it tends to be one. I can't believe we're making a determination on a person's ability to sit on a board or commission based on posting on Facebook [and] I would say it's kind of shallow excuse to avoid a reappointment which is a Democratic appointment to that particular board."

Councilmember Al Rose (R) explained why he wouldn't vote for Riordan.

"I'm not supporting her because of the comments she said right here," said Rose. "We all know the [BOE] is under investigation or whatever you want to call it; and the further we look, the more stuff that's been done wrong... so we're trying to get to the bottom. And I can't support someone who stood here when we were talking about the Superintendent's vacation pay [for unused days] and said it's only $3,700 what's the big deal; move on."

Rose also said Riordan characterized Superintendent Scott Schoonmaker to the council as her "best friend."

"You don't get appointed because you want to go and protect your best friend," said Rose.

Riordan, who was present at the November 14 meeting, addressed the council quite a while after the vote, during Citizens' Statements at the meeting's end.

"First of all, I do want to congratulate you on a totally well-fought campaign," said Riordan, recognizing the council's Republican majority. "You deserve to win; so congratulations."

Riordan then thanked the council's three Democratic council members for their support and added,"...if I'm being totally honest, I'm relieved. I am grateful that I am not going to be serving on the Board of Ed. It is not for me."

Speaking to Angeloni and Rose, she said, "I'm not going to go...tit for tat with what you said and what's truth and what's not [but] I never said Scott Schoonmaker was my 'best friend' [but] I'm not here to debate all of that. I just want to say thank you, very much. Because it was very well thought out, well planned [and] executed and I'm grateful, so thank you."

At an earlier point in the Nov. 14 meeting, Rose also kicked off the night's other main bone of contention between the Town Council's majority and minority, the "illegal meeting."

Rose shared information from a CT Freedom of Information Commission public education officer regarding proper meeting procedures. Rose disputed information he said Paulhas had received from Faughnan when inquiring about the nature of the meeting, which framed it as a "non-meeting." 

In addition to contending it was an "illegal meeting," Rose said another description given to him, that it was a caucus, also couldn't be accurate, "...because a caucus is the same board, same party." 

Rose also said the meeting was illegal as it did not meet the standards of a meeting as described to the council two terms ago by then-Town Attorney John Gesmonde.

Faughnan took some offense to Rose's information.

"I didn't render a statement that I was part of a non-meeting," Faughnan said, later adding, "...meetings happen all the time. I take issue with fact that was an illegal meeting. You can reach whatever conclusion you like, but don't accuse me of conducting an illegal non-meeting. I had a meeting, period."

Councilman Anthony Candelora (R) noted the meeting was not mentioned by Armin and Diamond when they later shared their findings during a full Town Council meeting.

"At the last council meeting, I sat here and listened to how Marie and Dan worked hard all night; and no one said you had a meeting – that's a fact; it's on tape," said Candelora. "I don't understand the cloak and dagger. Why was it so secret?"

"I had nothing to do with what they chose to do on the internet," to research their findings, said Faughnan. "I was not part of it ... I did not know about it until that night...this was not an illegal meeting."

"The guy at FOI concluded it was an illegal meeting," Rose responded.

Councilman Miller weighed in on that point, saying, "...we had a conversation [at a past Town Council meeting] about FOI, and I'll reiterate now that Tom Hennick is the Public Information Office for the FOI commission, and when we were talking about the FOI at that time, and we were talking about issues [and] I said that Tom Hennick does not give advice, he cites a statute. And that's what has happened here. What you have here is a memo from the Town Manger where he paraphrases things that the Public Information officer gave...and a copy of CT general Statutes," Miller continued. "They did not render any opinion that this was an illegal meeting. You're characterizing it as that...and you are not the deliberative body in that regard. If you care to, take it up with FOI. Otherwise, you're just squabbling."

"So since you people can't read and comprehend, that's what we'll do," answered Rose. "It was an illegal meeting. You held it, you didn't have minutes, it wasn't published. So if it wasn't a caucus and it wasn't a non-meeting -- which it can't be either one of those, it's a meeting. So it needed to be scheduled, posted with minutes; all that, okay? And if you guys can't see that's illegal, what you did... I will prove you wrong."