New Haven Independent

Bruno admits Marcus told him the letter requesting the special meeting was done correctly, “and the request meets the requirements under the provisions of the Branford Code.”

Yet he failed to post the meeting, thereby stopping the legitimate legislative process. He said he was torn between his duty as RTM town moderator and Ms. Marcus’s legal opinion to Cheryl Morris, the First Selectwoman, a copy of which he received. Ms .Marcus said that there was “no valid reason” to hold a special meeting. She has maintained that the RTM does not have to approve the lease because the lease is not a lease—it is only “an addendum” to a lease.

In a letter to Kurt Schwanfelder, the Republican Minority leader, Bruno wrote: “This puts me in a precarious situation. Where I have no problem holding a Special Meeting when such a meeting is warranted, I do have a problem in calling for a Special Meeting if there is in fact no valid reason to hold a Special Meeting.”

Schwanfelder, a member of the RTM for 21 years, said in all his years this has never happened. “We met the requirements of the charter to hold the meeting. We wanted a special meeting because the topic was important and we wanted to focus on it alone. The moderator and town counsel chose not to permit our meeting. They have violated the charter. I have my own counsel who is now checking whether there are grounds for reprimand or removal” Section 3 (c) of the charter says the Moderator may be removed and replaced at any time by a two-thirds vote of the entire membership.

Does the Branford charter require “a valid reason,” to quote Ms. Marcus, to hold a special meeting?

The Eagle consulted the Branford Charter. Section 5C says nothing about needing “a valid reason” to call a special meeting. It says only that the notice of the meeting “shall specify the object for which the meeting is to be held.” In other words, the Charter says to state the meeting’s purpose. Section 5C makes no mention whatever of input from the First Selectman or from the town attorney. The ten RTM Republicans did not ask for Ms. Marcus’s opinion. They didn’t have to. And Bruno didn’t have to either.

For her part, Ms. Marcus says there is no reason for the RTM to review the recently approved lease (it was approved 2-1 by the Board of Selectmen) even though section 73.3 of a town ordinance adopted in 1997 requires RTM approval. In her view, “past practices” prevail. In December, 1999, she says the lease was amended without RTM approval. While there are changes in payments and time frames, there were no new uses in the 1999 lease.

However, this “addendum” allows for major changes in the operation of the quarry. For the first time, Non Stony Creek Granite or NSCG products will be produced at the quarry. This section of the lease refers to “storage, processing and subsequent distribution.”

John Opie, Republican Third Selectman, said the door was now open “to an industrial operation,” one that would dramatically increase truck traffic in the village of Stony Creek. In addition, there is a new tenant, Doug Anderson, a well-known Branford builder. Anderson formed the Stony Creek Quarry Corporation August 2, apparently after five to six months of discussion with the Morris Administration.

Other attorneys interviewed by the Eagle say this so-called “addendum” is a new lease. “There is a new tenant and new terms. That’s a lease in my book,” said one.

There are 30 RTM members and the party in power typically elects a moderator, in this case Bruno, who is a Democrat. There are 18 Democrats and 12 Republicans, but not all the Democrats follow Bruno’s commitment to the current Morris-Marcus administration.

What appears to have happened is that caught between his duties as Moderator and his loyalty to the Morris-Marcus administration, Bruno abandoned his commitment to the organization he heads. Frank Twohill, an RTM member, said “he showed total disrespect for our branch of government.”

One issue that is beginning to emerge is whether Ms. Marcus, faced with a potential conflict of interest in wanting to keep the lease issue from the RTM, should have conferred with Bruno in his legislative capacity at all. Bruno understood he faced a precarious situation, as he so aptly put it. The Rules of Professional Conduct governing lawyers in the state of Connecticut caution lawyers to examine their roles when advising potentially different clients.

On Anderson’s part, he appears to be seeking community approval for the new lease. He met with a group of concerned citizens at the quarry over the weekend. They voiced their concerns and he listened. The group intends to meet again. Meanwhile, the Board of Directors of The Stony Creek Association has asked the RTM to “void the terms of the lease” until it can receive the “discussion and review that is mandated.”

As far as RTM review of the lease, Bruno offered a compromise to Schwanfelder. He would put the item under “new business” on the RTM agenda—when the RTM meets Wednesday, Sept 13 at 8 p.m. at the Canoe Brook Center.

For the hardy, “new business” is #22 on the agenda.
###