New Haven Independent: State Dismisses Milici Complaint against RTM Member Lonnie Reed

State Dismisses Milici Complaint against RTM Member Lonnie Reed

by Marcia Chambers | May 18, 2007 3:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

The state dismissed Mike Milici’s shameful complaint against RTM member Lonnie Reed last week, finding she had not violated any residency law when she was elected to the RTM in November, 2005.

In a three page click here decision outlining its findings and conclusions, the State’s Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) analyzed Milici’s sworn allegations against Reed and concluded no law was violated.

“The Commission has completed an investigation of your complaint,” a letter from the Commission sent to Milici said. The Board “voted unanimously to adopt the enclosed Findings and Conclusions. The complaint is dismissed for the reasons stated and our file is now closed.”

Reed thanked her colleagues on both sides of the aisle. She said they “refused to be scared silent. And that to me is the real victory here. Most of my RTM colleagues stood up for me, but more importantly for the process. They stood up and fought back and sent their own letter to the SEEC challenging the complaint against me. And they did it because they were convinced the complaint against me attempted to hijack RTM and SEEC procedures for use as weapons of political payback.

“To me,” she said, “that kind of political intimidation is an abuse of power. The State Elections Commission, by its unanimous action, clearly saw through this attempt and refused to be manipulated. As a citizen of Connecticut, I find that very reassuring.”

The decision was issued four months to the day that Milici and Dan Baughman, Sr., both former chairs of the Branford Democratic Party, wrote a letter to RTM Moderator James Bruno excoriating Reed by name as unethical. The letter accused her of being guilty of “gross and total violation of election laws.” Without warning, Bruno read the letter aloud at the January RTM meeting.

Milici followed the letter with a formal, sworn complaint and that set off a firestorm of protest aimed at Bruno within the RTM. RTM member Anthony Giardiello did his own investigation of the Bruno cover letter and enclosures, including Milici’s formal complaint, because he knew the RTM had never voted on it. The Moderator’s cover letter appeared to endorse the accusations. He finally agreed to send the SEEC a retraction saying he was writing as a private citizen, an absurdity since the entire letter dealt with the Reed issue. The RTM has since taken steps to rein Bruno in.

From the outset Reed said she was innocent and she termed Milici’s complaint a weapon designed to take aim at public figures who speak out against the Cheryl Morris-Ed Marcus administration. Indeed the letter, which she thinks was written by a lawyer, noted that Reed had made “overt and bias criticisms” against town officials. She was quoted in the Sound as saying the bogus inquiry into Anthony Unk DaRos “was instigated by seasoned professionals using town resources.” She said the soon-to-be released ad hoc committee’s report on Granite-gate “should clearly censure this conduct.” Hours later, came Milici’s letter open letter before the RTM.

The letter against her went out of its way to make its point. Among other things, it accused her of improper conduct, gross and total violation of the election law ( gross and total, mind you) ethical misconduct, and of course, fraud.

In an interview Reed said that while “the total vindication feels wonderful personally, what happened to me as an individual is the least important part of this whole episode. The most important take-away here is that the public suffers when these kinds of tactics go unchecked. The real goal of political intimidators is to control public policy by targeting and shutting up critics. The voters become victims if the people they elect to serve them are too fearful to speak out and to fight for what’s right.”

Chairman Stephen F. Cashman of the SEEC wrote that the issue before it was “whether Reed was a bona fide resident of the town on the date of the Nov. 8th election.” Milici argued that she had lived in the 5th district, until Nov. 1 when she sold her house. He claimed that since she actually lived at the home of friends in the Second district while running for election in the 5th district, she had violated elections laws.

Milici also challenged her right to vote in the 5th district. What is amazing about this charge, which was dismissed, was the address from which she cast her vote. It was not from her former home at 134 Pawson Park. Rather she voted on a supplemental list from 135 Pawson Park Road, the address of Cheryl and Bruce Morris, her neighbors across the street. Reed did not claim she stayed there, the decision said. But the decision explained that her neighbors, “insisted that she use their address for registration purpose,” Bruce Morris is a former State Senator and is a current central Democratic committeeman.

The question for the Commission, it said “is in which district Ms. Reed was a bona fide resident on the date of the Nov. 8 2005 election”. What the commission held was that as of Election Day she had not “established a new domicile” but “had a genuine intent to remain a resident and elector in the 5th district. Under those circumstances, Ms. Reed continued to be a bona fide resident of the 5th district on Election Day, Nov. 8, 2005. The fact that she did not ultimately find a permanent residence in the 5th district does not operate retroactively to affect her status on Nov. 8, 2005.”

Milici also claimed Reed violated another statute, section 9-361, which makes it illegal for voters to vote in any primary other than the voting district in which the elector is legally entitled to vote. This claim was dismissed because it applies only to fraudulent voting in a primary “and is inapplicable” to a general election.

There was never any question that the RTM knew of Reed’s change of address. She told them. The Republican Party discussed it in caucus and decided it was a non-issue. Not only did the Democrats know, but Bruce Morris personally saw to it that Reed could use his and Cheryl’s address as a mail drop while she looked for a new home in her district. She eventually found one in the 4th district, where she resides.

The Town Charter, which the decision discussed, permits an elected official elected in one district to locate to another and to continue to serve until the next election as long as the official remains a resident of Branford.

“The Branford RTM was aware of Ms. Reed’s residence status and allowed her to remain on the RTM: There is no indication that that determination was contrary to any state election law within the Commission’s jurisdiction.”

It is not without irony that the letter the SEEC sent to Milici was sent to his former address in Branford. His Branford address is the one he used when he signed the complaint against Reed, the very day he closed on the sale of this home. He had been living in North Branford and continues to live there. The complaint was sworn to before a notary public who is employed in the New Haven law firm of town attorney Ed Marcus.

Reed was forced to hire a law firm to respond to the Milici complaint.
Asked what steps she might take at this point, she said: “It has not escaped my notice that the complaint against me was notarized by a person who works at the Marcus Law Firm. I’m considering my options for what’s next. And I shall continue joining forces with respected colleagues to do the people’s business with dignity, honor and integrity.”
###

Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: Mark Simon | May 19, 2007 3:57 PM

Please add me to your mailing list!
Thanks
M

Posted by: Taxpayer Too | May 19, 2007 11:00 PM

Congratulations to Ms. Reed and shame on the Morris-Marcus-Milici Team and their supporters for their never-ending desire to bully good citizens for money, power, and greed. November can't get here fast enough!!!!!

Posted by: Warren Gould | May 19, 2007 11:27 PM

It's important to continue to fight against the bullies who have attempded turn Branford into a Developers profit center. Thank you, Lonnie Reed, for representing what Branford is all about. That's exactly what the leadership of the Democratic Party should be doing. If you allow the bullies the opportunity to do there dirty deeds than your part of the problem. If the leadership of the Party fights against bullyism and dirty government and point out that the bullies don't represent Democrats than the Democrats can win in Nov otherwise it's a close election.

Posted by: Lucille Caliendo | May 20, 2007 2:18 PM

is this the same Lonnie Reed who once worked for Channel 3..just curious

Posted by: HeavyD | May 20, 2007 2:27 PM

Am I the only one that finds these highly editorial "news" pieces to be non-journalistic? I understand this is a charged issue, and I agree the facts show the complaint against Reed was unjustified and politically motivated. But this is ostensibly a news article. Why is the qualifier "shameful" included in the first sentence? Bruno's letter is described as an absurdity. The article mocks the content of the letter. Etc.

Again, the whole incident sounds like a mess, and it sounds like several officials in Branford may end up answering for it. But if this is a news report, stick with the news. If it's an editorial, make that clear. Several of the "Eagle" articles share this same tone; as readers, we can (and should) interpret "news" for ourselves.

Posted by: marcia chambers | May 22, 2007 10:05 AM

Heavy D's post about the Branford Eagle's coverage gives me an opportunity to explain to newcomers what the Eagle is. It is not a blog. It is not a news article. It is not, as Heavy D says, an editorial. It is a column.
A news article is just what it says: it reports the news concerning the event in question. It doesn't give an opinion. An editorial is primarily opinion, taking the publisher's stand on an issue or offering positive or negative judgments.
A named column, in contrast, is normally a combination of news and opinion, in which the columnist is allowed to offer an opinion about the events of the day. As a column, the Eagle is entitled to an opinion. Often I wait until an event is concluded before I state my views. But that is my choice; I don't have to. Sometimes I will share my views as a news event is unfolding.
Some columnists give their opinions without doing their own reporting. They rely on others to report and then give their views.
Other columnists, and I am one of them, like to do their own reporting. I have taken this approach because, frankly, I like to report. I cover events, take notes and tape the proceedings. This way I am able to learn first-hand what people in the community are saying and doing and how others react. The column often expresses an opinion, but it is an opinion based on actual reporting, and that may be new for Heavy D.
By way of example, think of the reporting that NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof has done from Darfur. This is reporting based on his own observations of events and his interviews. He writes about these events and then states his opinion in a column.
I am not in Darfur. I am in Branford. But I am trying to do the same type of reporting and analyzing that my former colleague does when he travels abroad.
I have covered this Mike Milici episode from the outset and my view is that his complaint is shameful. I have also given readers links to the various letters in this case ---which you can only get on an on-line newspaper like the NewHavenIndependent.com ---so readers can evaluate the total picture for themselves, and perhaps form their own opinion about my opinion.

Posted by: Gail Chapman | May 22, 2007 10:59 PM

Great explanation, Marcia! Also, thank you so very much for all the time and effort you spend at meetings gathering information and time that you are researching, writing, and producing your columns ~ all on a volunteer basis!! You're the BEST and we are very fortunate that you are part of our Branford community.

Posted by: HeavyD | May 23, 2007 8:07 AM

Okay, so I see that point. The Eagle isn't intended to provide news articles per se. But I still find the format confusing. Unless I've got my facts mixed up, Kristof's columns are identified as op-ed pieces. Furthermore, going back to the current article, I find the lines a bit blurred. The editorial content is sprinkled into otherwise factual reporting. Maybe it's just me, but when I read a Kristof piece, the editorial content stands out, perhaps just because there's much more of it. I realize that's not really a fair criticism, since it implies some defined rules for editorializing. But I worry that readers may become confused about what the Independent regards as "news."

Posted by: Jim McGuire | May 23, 2007 3:35 PM

Dear HeavyD:

The writings of Marcia are the most accurate versions of what has and is transpiring at our town hall. I have learned much about back door politics since this administration took office and appreciate her efforts. With everything that has been covered with respect to the happenings of this administration and legal council, including their extended democratic family, you can not put lipstick on a pig! It stinks. Perhaps you may feel that Marcia should be more subjective but she is only writing it as it is. I have lived in Branford for fifty plus years and I've never seen such an effort by any administration to sell the town down the drain as does this one. If you want snippets and sound bites, read the new haven register or better yet watch the local tv channel as the jesters perform in front of the camera.

Thank you Marcia for all of your accurate and well written articles. I look forward to reading your coverage of what must be unending material which I would assume will end with a new administration.

Posted by: HeavyD | May 23, 2007 6:00 PM

I appreciate Marcia's response, but I have to take exception to Jim's comment. I agree Marcia's coverage has exposed some gross misconduct in Branford, and this is the only place I've seen these issues reported. But how do my comments sink to demanding "snippets and sound [bytes]?" I'm quite impressed at the depth of Marcia's reporting, and I think the facts she presents speak volumes about what's going on politically. This isn't about the quality of the work, it's about the difference between news ("writing it as it is") and editorial (writing it as one sees it). Clearly, Marcia is seeking a mix of both, and that's fine by me so long as it's made evident, as Marcia has done above.

Personally, I think the reporting would be even stronger without the opinion. Again, the facts speak for themselves. But Marcia's the one doing the work, and she's obviously entitled to do it as she sees fit.

Posted by: scjerry | May 24, 2007 1:50 PM

Interesting comment by HeavyD about the requested exclusion of Marcia's opinion from her column, and if she were to do that, her columns would be more effective.

I find opinion often conveys a more complete emotional context, not possible with just a description of the facts.

A shooting of 36 innocent students and teachers at Virginia Tech is horrible, but an eye witness account conveys the true emotional horror.

All Marcia has done is be both reporter and witness, and she has done an admirable job.

Emotionally charged adjectives such as "shameful", certainly should clue in the reader as to the author's point of view without much further explanation about the biases involved.

You can argue whether the use of the adjective "shameful" is the result of the author's personal dislike of the individual, political proclivities, or a reliance on a strict code of ethical behavior, but the use of the term is certainly reason to flag the behavior as unacceptable to some segment of society.

In many instances recent incidents should lead to a more pronounced sense of outrage, but we have become so inured to gross behavior that we let it slide.

New Haven Independent

State Dismisses Milici Complaint against RTM Member Lonnie Reed

Comments

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed