The chairman of Ansonia’s Democratic Party critiqued the process by which the city’s Aldermen voted in two new members Tuesday.
During a special meeting Tuesday to appoint two new Aldermen, David Knapp raised his hand as the board was about to vote on two candidates nominated for a Fourth Ward vacancy.
No Public Session?
“No public session, sorry,” Phil Tripp, the president of the Board of Aldermen, told Knapp.
“How come there’s no public session?” Knapp, a former Alderman, asked a Valley Indy reporter in attendance. “Why don’t you write that in the Sentinel?”
Minutes later Knapp rose to address the Aldermen during the public session of their regular monthly meeting.
“It was my understanding that during a Board of Aldermen meeting there is always a public session,” he said. “We just had a special Board of Aldermen (meeting) and it wasn’t open to the public.”
“Well it is open to the public, everybody’s obviously here,” Tripp replied.
“There was no opportunity for the public to speak,” Knapp said.
Tripp asked John Marini, the city’s corporation counsel, to weigh in.
“There was no public session on the agenda,” Marini said.
“You have your opportunity now,” Tripp said.
“What about the folks who wanted an opportunity at the last meeting?” he said.
Video of the meeting is below. Knapp’s comments begin around the 16:15 mark.
Votes, Vetoes
Knapp went on to question the process by which the Aldermen filled the two vacancies.
He referred to a meeting last month at which Aldermen voted to appoint two other people, after which Mayor David Cassetti vetoed the votes.
Tripp subsequently sought an opinion from a lawyer about whether the mayor’s vetoes were legitimate.
“I’m a little confused,” Knapp said. “Last month we had a vote to fill the vacancies in the Board of Aldermen. It was vetoed by the mayor. (You) went out to an attorney at a cost of 1,100 dollars, give or take, to render a decision. That was inconclusive. So tonight we had another meeting, we had another vote. Which was the official vote? The vote last month or this one? What happens to the ruling?”
“Sir, the vote last month was vetoed,” Tripp replied. “The mayor does have veto authority. It’s in the city charter, and attorney Teodosio concurs with attorney Marini that the veto authority of the mayor does exist. Three names were put out this evening, and the Aldermen selected two of the three names.”
“Maybe I misunderstood the article, the article in the Sentinel,” Knapp said. “I thought it was inconclusive, there was an argument for both sides.”
The Valley Indy story to which Knapp referred said the following regarding Teodosio’s opinion, in addition to posting it in its entirety:
In a four-page memorandum filed in the town clerk’s office Thursday (Sept. 8), Teodosio reached a similar conclusion to the one Marini relayed to Aldermen during their Aug. 9 meeting — that parts of the charter conflicted with each other.
On the one hand, Teodosio wrote, Section 143 of the charter gives Aldermen the right to fill vacancies. On the other, Section 8 gives the mayor veto power over the Aldermen’s decisions.
“Whether within the context of the entire charter that interpretation is correct, is debatable, with strong arguments for and against,” Teodosio wrote.”
Tripp told Knapp he could get a copy of Teodosio’s opinion — which is posted below — from the town clerk’s office any time.
“Thank you,” Knapp said.
A bill from Teodosio submitted to the city for $1,181.25 was not discussed by Aldermen during their meeting Tuesday.
Teodosio Opinion by The Valley Indy on Scribd
