Branford Eagle

Sections

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Branford Asks High Court A Tabor Question

by marcia chambers | Feb 19, 2010 11:34 am

(24) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Marcia Chambers Photo Ten days after dodging a $12.4 million jury bullet in the Tabor land case, Branford is heading back to the Connecticut Supreme Court. It’s asking the justices what they meant when they called the town “dishonest.”

In a unanimous vote, the Board of Selectmen Wednesday night asked town attorney William T. Clendenen, Jr. to file a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court to try to get an answer on a specific jury instruction, an answer that might explain the word “dishonest.”

They did so after Clendenen offered to return the case to the high court on this issue. Clendenen told the selectmen he had raised the issue with the high court but it had not been answered. This latest development means that on the town’s side the Tabor case will remain alive for an undetermined period of time.

Last week in a unanimous decision, the state’s highest court reversed the multi-million dollar damage award that was returned by a Waterbury jury in Sept. 2007. The jury had found that the town acted wrongly in seizing by eminent domain a 77-acre tract of land known as Tabor in 2003. Their verdict was overturned because the developers did not own the land; they had only an option on it. The court also reversed $1.5 million in legal fees the developer’s attorneys, Jim Bergenn and Tim Hollister of Shipman & Goodwin in Hartford had sought.

The Tabor case is not easy to understand. And the victory the town achieved in a case that presented enormous legal obstacles has quickly became mired in a blame game that played out at Wednesday night’s Board of Selectmen meeting. Some 60 residents packed the room for what turned out to be a passionate three hour post-mortem on the Tabor case.

Because of its longevity, the Tabor case has taken on a life of its own. It spans the administrations of four selectmen, beginning with Democrat Unk DaRos in 2003, and continuing with John Opie, Cheryl Morris and DaRos again. Daros and Second Selectman Fran Walsh are the two democrats on the Select board. Opie is the lone Republican.

DaRos was the architect of the plan to seize the land. He said he was concerned about possible contamination from the adjacent town dump and he was worried that the developers were not going to fix the problem. After the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the Tabor project in 2002, the town’s landfill engineers learned that a plume of contaminated ground water flowing from under the town’s nearby landfill to under the Tabor Drive site was a “methane migration.” This discovery became the basis of the town’s decision to seize the property by eminent domain.

DaRos reiterated those concerns, saying contamination issues often arise decades after the initial findings. Many residents applauded him. Opie, now the Republican Third Selectman, formally took the land, zoned industrial, at a cost of $1.167 million early in 2004 after he was elected first selectman.

Marcia Chambers At the outset of the Wednesday night meeting it was Opie who took the lead, saying the town’s name had been besmirched by the high court and he wanted to understand why. He said residents would want to know, too.

“The Supreme Court was rather explicit… They said the town acted dishonestly. Where did they get that?” Opie asked Clendenen.

In a subsequent interview, Opie explained that if the high court is going to “say things like that, they should be willing to explain what they meant, and I’d like it in their words,” he said, “and not an interpretation by Clandenen.”

Specifically the high court said in its opinion that the town “was dishonest about its reasons for taking the land.”

That statement is not the reason why the Court reversed the jury’s verdict.

The reason for the reversal is based on the fact that there was no cause of action, no legitimate reason for the proposed developers, New England Estates, to be in court at trial in the first place, since all they had was an option to build on the Tabor property. The developers did not own the land. Under state law, the high court found, they could not be compensated.

Clendenen told the selectmen the issue over the word dishonest, which is mentioned a few times over scores of pages in three separate Tabor decisions, can be traced to a jury instruction that the trial judge William T. Cremins, Jr. gave the jury before they began deliberations

To find the town acted in bad faith, Cremins told the jurors, they had to find either that the town created a pretext to seize the land or that it acted unreasonably or that it abused its power. When the jurors handed in their verdict on that charge, they said “Yes,” but they failed to distinguish among the three choices.

Not all the answers to the three questions would result in a conclusion that the town acted dishonestly.

The high court also upheld Cremins’s court ruling awarding $4.6 million to the actual owners of the property, finding as did the trial judge that the highest and best use of the land was residential. However, at the time the town seized the Tabor land , which shares a property line with the town dump, the developers had no permits to build and the land was zoned industrial.

While Opie questioned how the high court arrived at the dishonesty issue, he was hardly raising a new issue. Bergenn and Hollister raised it time and again at the trial and in their briefs. They said the town seized the land in order to avoid building affordable housing.

Opie, Morris and DaRos all took the stand at trial. And when they took the stand they were warned by the judge they could not discuss why the land was taken, even though they were the town’s decision makers. It became impossible for these witnesses to speak, a situation that at the time frustrated both Opie and DaRos.

At one point Bergenn maintained to the judge outside earshot of the jury that the word “contamination” in relation to the land was so prejudicial that “It’s like calling someone a molester.” What the jury was allowed to hear became a key issue at trial.

Pottenger’s Point

At one point Wednesday night, for the first time, an outside lawyer unconnected to the case rose to speak on how the Supreme Court came to rule in the way it did. He also explained how attorneys work.

The lawyer, J.L. Pottenger Jr., a Branford resident, is a longtime clinical professor of law at the Yale Law School. Pottenger oversees law students who are engaged in litigation before a variety of courts, including the Supreme Court.

He explained when the jury got the case they also received a series of jury instructions. As he went through the Supreme Court’s decision, he said understanding the sequence of events was crucial to understanding the court’s finding.

“In the valuation case, he said, footnote 23 of the Supreme Court decision and you have to read the footnotes, too, says the town was precluded, that means stopped, prevented from putting on evidence about environmental contamination of the parcels. The reason was the lawyers who were representing the town at the time did not meet the expert deadline.”

Pottenger did not identify the Marcus Law Firm, but the town subsequently sued the firm over this failure. That case is still pending. The firm represented the town during Mrs. Morris’s tenure from 2005 to 2007.

“The town was stopped from calling experts,” Pottenger said. “So big surprise the judge finds it is residentially appropriate land because there is no evidence allowed that it isn’t. That there are environmental questions, concerns, issues, problems, well, the town was not allowed to put that evidence in. So the judge found that the highest and best use of the land was residential.

When it got to the developer’s case, which was held soon after the valuation case, in the same Waterbury courtroom, but this time before a jury, the same judge gave instructions to the jury before they went to deliberate.

“What he said was you must, you must treat the land as residential because of my finding in the valuation trial. And they were also told that the jury must find that the permits for 300 plus residences would have been issued. (They had not been at the time.)

“So when you read these opinions closely you understand that the town was stopped from presenting its environmental evidence, that the jury was stopped from going behind it. It is not a surprise that they found what they did. They were not allowed to go beyond the judge’s findings about how much the land was worth and whether the permits would have been issued.”

He was about to take his seat when the audience burst into spontaneous applause. Then he said he had one more point to make.

This point had to do with a letter from Fuss & O’Neill, the town’s engineers. At the trial Bergenn strongly suggested that Penny Bellamy, the town counsel in 2003, had doctored the letter. Bergenn’s belief has subsequently been raised in other settings.

Pottenger said that contrary to what some in the room were thinking Bellamy acted correctly in working on the letter and had she not she might have been in legal trouble herself.

“We work with experts a lot. And I have to say and I hope this won’t come as a shock that when lawyers work with experts they talk to each other. And the lawyers and the experts together work out what the issues the expert is supposed to look into. What is the scope of the expert’s job, and guess what, they also talk about what the expert’s opinion is going to say.

“And this will really shock you, sometimes the lawyers don’t like what the experts say and so they have a discussion about did you consider this, or what about that? Or there is this other thing, doesn’t that make a difference?

“And sometimes they even take an expert’s opinion and edit it, he said with emphasis. And what I am here to say to you as a lawyer who works with students and experts a lot, it might have been malpractice not to edit the expert’s opinion.”

###

Comments

posted by: Brownfield's Forever on February 19, 2010 3:01pm

My view is this: Branford is the best town anywhere. I love it. John Opie and Unk DaRos were doing what they sincerely thought was best for the citizens of Branford. In between it appears the baton was turned over to folks that either had other agendas or were less competant, or both. Were mistakes made? Sounds like it. But who’s perfect? Nobody. People on the field that do things get criticized. People that stand on the side lines don’t. John and Unks’ motivations were well intended and I know of nothing to the contrary. They were elected to serve. They have. We spoke. They have both been “re”-elected. Morris wasn’t. We, the people, chose our Town’s leadership. We the people are behind our elected leaders: Unk, John & Fran. We should thank them and move on.

If Branford is out (+/-)$3MM because a law firm didn’t file the papers in a timely manner that resulted in the exclusion of the crictical evidence in the Town’s case, it sounds like an Errors and Omission Claim. Let’s make it. The firm’s insurance company should be notified and prepared to make appropriate restitution. We may need to sue them. Pay our additional legal fee on a contingent basis. Let’s not run up another per hour bill. That representation should go out to bid. My preference would be for a Branford Law firm with no conflicts and proven to be looking out for the community’s best interest, take the case on a modest % basis. Better yet, perhaps Jay Pottenger’s Law School Candidates are interested in diving into it for us. They’d be perfect. And Jay’s explanations of the goings are terrific. Win or lose it’s a win win.

Thanks John, Unk and Fran. You are doing your best to serve us. With the exception of a vocal gad fly here and there, nearly all of us are behind you and appreciate your leadership and service. Branford is a great town and remember in the end the “Good Guys” do and will finally win.

posted by: dan bullard on February 19, 2010 3:22pm

Good job on reporting. I think i may finally understand the issues.also,thank you to Mr Pottenger for further clarification confirming the correct actions taken by Opie and Daros. I,for one,have always thought Mr Opie and Mr Daros as well as Mrs Bellamy have acted with utmost integrity for the best interests of the town.I am glad to see them receive the credit for a job well done.

posted by: Mary on February 19, 2010 5:31pm

Mongoose - you are certainly entitled to your opinion but I have to agree with Clendenen and Pottenger who have years of training and decades of experience in these matters. There is no basis for a malpractice suit against Wiggin and Dana regardless of how many times the farmer beats that dead horse.

We are, however, justified in suing the law firm that missed the deadline that prevented the town from introducing the environmental experts testimony at the trial. That never should have happened. That sounds like malpractice to me.

I attended part of the BOS meeting the other evening. Thank you Atty Pottenger for your learned analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision. Thank you,too, Paul Muniz, geologist and new RTM member, for your educated opinion on the matter.

If the vocal minority are not happy with the way the town is being governed, they have recourse. It is called an election. Run for office and if enough voters agree with your viewpoints, you’ll have your turn.

As for me, I’m very pleased with the DaRos administration. I think they have always acted in the best interests of Branford.

posted by: poffe99 on February 19, 2010 5:32pm

If the town is so righteous and upstanding. Why don’t they give the developers their money back? They proceeded on a project in good faith and had the rug pulled out from under them. Is that right? Do people who call themselves “good” get cited by the court for bad faith? Who’s fooling who?

posted by: Pat Santoro on February 19, 2010 7:15pm

Let me see if I understand this next move, we, as taxpayers are going to spend more money to ask the court’s definition of dishonesty.Wow, the attorney’s are cleaning up on this one.Dishonesty means deceit, this a free definition, no fees billed.

posted by: scjerry on February 19, 2010 10:00pm

poffe99
You wrote:
“If the town is so righteous and upstanding. Why don’t they give the developers their money back? They proceeded on a project in good faith and had the rug pulled out from under them. Is that right? Do people who call themselves “good” get cited by the court for bad faith? Who’s fooling who?”

Seems like both the original purchase of the dump site and the subsequent options by the developer are all part of entrepreneurial investment risk, which is part and parcel of our capitalist society. Nothing was written in stone and risk is part of the game. With unknowns in the regulatory process come the element of uncertainty. Just like the stock market. So who’s fooling who, indeed. Sounds like you lost some money!

posted by: MarkH on February 19, 2010 10:08pm

When you edit an experts report to say there is a potential hazard from a methane plume, and then that same expert testifies in court there is no data to preclude the land from being used for residential it poses a contradiction. When said plume passes under an existing neighborhood and the local politicians show no concern for those current residents, it poses a contradiction. When the First Selectman states at trial that we did not test the land, we just took it…that presents an undocumented, unwarranted action. When the Town, while negotiating a settlement of a lawsuit for its initial denial, gets wind that an Affordable Housing application is being prepared, suddenly decides to slander the title of the property raising the manufactured issue of contamination, it appears dishonest. When the elected officials ask the Town Engineer to prepare a plan for a cemetery and ball fields on 12 acres of a 77 acre parcel as a pretext for it taking the entire parcel for the purpose of testing….No amount of “experts” would be able to justify the charade.

posted by: Carleen on February 20, 2010 10:25am

I completely disagree with Mary being “very pleased” with this administration. How much is this going to cost the town? I am a Democrat and a member of the DTC who also attended the bos meeting. I will not vote for them again neither for opie. For the town attorney to edit an experts opinion is totally incorrect.

posted by: Ray Ingraham on February 20, 2010 12:22pm

I attended this meeting for the first time, I have a plan to attend more of these and others in the future. I started off with the BOE budget workshops. A common theme is developing persons that are speaking for an opinion are labeled by their opposition as “vocal minority”, “gad-fly” or worse yet a “loonies” The great part of living in Branford is that we are a community that can take the opinion of all sides and make an informed choice for our community. The persons that should be taken to task are the ones that decide to heckle and have conversations while others were speaking, this was appalling to me. Stan K. had an opinion on a item that Representative Riccio’s spoke on it his comments he presented his views and the meeting moved on this is how it should work. No citizen should think because they are making a point or question that anyone in the audience can lash out at will. Those persons that heckled did not speak to the group, did not speak for themselves, they just made a hard meeting a circus. In my opinion the town did lose while it may be a fraction of a loss it was a loss we are paying more than we needed to for land, I hope we can put to good use. Saying this is not a loss is like a gambler suddenly hitting a bet just before leaving the casino and lessening the blow. We gambled in the way we obtained Tabor and we lost. We didn’t lose as big as we may have but we will pay more than we wanted.
I challenge all to come out to these meetings and speak your piece to the BOE the RTM. If you only come and watch and listen it will send a message to the people we elected that we are watching we are listening.

posted by: scjerry on February 21, 2010 9:54am

MarkH

As a former scientist (not an environmental expert) there are a number of issues related to the exclusion of expert testimony as repeatedly emphasized by Attorney Pottenger, all of which you seem to ignore.

I don’t know what peer review process of Fuss & O’Neil’s expert testimony and report ever took place. A competent attorney in preparation for trial would have taken depositions of such reviewers. But of course, under the direction of Mr. Marcus, such a process never took place.

Then there’s the absence of the history and expert analysis of some of the several other CT town dump sites, where tests were conducted and years later problems arose. Again, this was never introduced into evidence.

I don’t know what Mr. Muniz contributed to the discussion in the BOS meeting, but as far as I can tell there was no exhaustive analysis by a geologist or hydrologist to augment whatever Fuss & O’Neil may have reported, and certainly such persons would have been deposed by a competent attorney. My suspicion is that fissures in the granite bedrock carry VOCs in all directions and testing may or may not have determined all possible paths, nor would it have determined all of the hidden sources in drums of chemicals planted years ago outside the main dump site.

We know that the dump center is a couple hundred feet high, well above the water table. We don’t know what is there or elsewhere on the site contained in drums that take years to rust through. Methane is the natural byproduct of the decomposition of organic matter and by itself is not the problem. What is the problem are other volatile organic compounds that are much more onerous. No testimony was submitted by experts in fields related to analyzing the potential health hazards or the forensics of such dump sites.

So, with respect to a single letter that was or was not edited by the town attorney, the issue is a red hearing.

posted by: Expert Guy on February 21, 2010 10:48am

Edit an expert opinion? An expert opinion is represented as an unbiased third party. If its edited by the lawyer, who is hired to advocate their client, is the result truly an unbiased opinion?? The lawyer is then committing a type of fraud by hiding behind the veil of the unbiased expert when the opinion is changed.

posted by: JSG on February 21, 2010 1:54pm

I am hoping that Branford can move forward now that the decision has been made. I really don’t understand why there is a need to go back to the Supreme Court for clarification. I got an email from Unk DaRos which I believe stated that the town made a strategic decision to appeal based on the technical legal issue. (I deleted the email, but if I’m incorrect - I feel certain someone will let me know). In doing so, there must have been an understanding that the town would not be resolved of wrong doing. Continuing this looks to me like it will only result in further polarization of the community.

posted by: MarkH on February 21, 2010 3:48pm

SCJerry
I would agree with you that editing a single letter would be a red herring if it wasn’t for the fact that this single letter was the impetus used at a VERY short RTM meeting as the smoking gun for taking the property. The Fuss & O’Neill expert who testified at trial, I believe is the same part whose signature was on the Bellamy edited letter.

posted by: Lori Nicholson on February 21, 2010 4:45pm

The Branford Tabor meeting was a disgrace. I work at the Connecticut State Legislature and found many of the residents rude and disrespectful. The First Selectman Mr. Deros mocked the opinions of the speakers and in my opinion could benefit greatly by attending a public hearing in Hartford and observing how legitimate civil servants behave. The general atmosphere was uncivilized, out of order and a mockery of public participation. Those without the wit to substantiate their arguments resorted to character assassination and childish behavior. Branford is not the classy little town I thought it was after witnessing that charade.I side with the United States Supreme Court on this matter.

posted by: Steve Roberts on February 22, 2010 4:31pm

A 5 minute Google search turned up the following excerpt from a legal publication (The Review of Litigation, a publication by U of Texas School of Law) I am not a lawyer myself, nor can I vouch for UTexas’ publication, but it certainly seems to clear up the present argument regarding editing of expert opinions and backs up what Atty Pottenger had to say.

If you’re going to post commentary here and call what Atty Bellamy did totally incorrect or fraud, at least take 5 or 10 minutes and do a little research, eh?

I also posted the citations included in the excerpt, for those interested in further research.

—————-

Dealing with draft dodgers: Automatic production of drafts of expert witness reports
By Romines, Franklin D II
Publication: The Review of Litigation
Date: Tuesday, April 1 2003
“…Other cases suggest that this may not be an entirely isolated incident of attorney authorship or editing of an “expert’s” report.4 In the classic form of attorney influence on an expert’s report, the expert prepares a draft of the report and forwards it to the attorney, who then places written comments on the draft and returns the marked-up version to the expert, who revises the report to accommodate some or all of the changes suggested by the attorney.5 In other cases, attorneys go even further, by ghostwriting the expert reports.6
Although some may be troubled by the extent to which lawyers assist their experts in the preparation of reports and in the development of their opinions,7 the legitimacy of these practices is beyond the scope of this Article. Such practices are generally acknowledged to be acceptable under current discovery and procedural law, even by those who drafted the rule requiring disclosure of expert witness reports.8”

citations below

4. See Isom v. Howmedica, Inc., No. 00-C5872, 2002 WL 1052030, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2002) (“The [expert’s] affidavit appears to indicate that [the plaintiff’s] attorney prepared the initial draft of a report based on extensive discussions with [the expert] regarding his findings after he reviewed relevant materials, and that [the expert] then made amendments which were incorporated in the final version of the report.”); In re Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Premium Litig., 46 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 201, 202 (W.D. Mich. 2000) (“The record clearly supports the finding that the language of [the expert’s] report, including the formulation of his opinions, was not prepared by him, but was provided to him by plaintiffs’ counsel.”); Manning v. Crockett, No. 95-C3117, 1999 WL 342715, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 1999) (“The second report, purportedly prepared by [the expert witness] pursuant to Rule 26, . . . virtually mirrors the allegations in the [plaintiffs’] complaint, right down to the repetition of a typographical error from the complaint.”); Clintec Nutrition Co. v. Baxa Corp., No. 94-C7050, 1998 WL 560284, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 1998) (”[Defendant’s expert] admits he did not prepare a first draft of his report. He drafted the report with the assistance of counsel. Additionally, significant portions of the report under the heading ‘The Alleged Invention is not Adequately Disclosed’ are verbatim recitations of an opinion letter written by [defendant’s] counsel.”) (citation omitted); Ind. Ins. Co. v. Hussey Seating Co., 176 F.R.D. 291, 292-93 (S.D. Ind. 1997) (quoting part of an expert’s opinion where the expert testified that the retaining attorney prepared the expert’s report, but noting that the expert had drafted some portions of the report); Baxter Int’l Inc. v. McGaw, Inc., No. 95-C2723, 1996 WL 145778, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 1996) (finding that an expert “did not independently prepare his expert report,” but rather “allow[ed] himself to be a ‘mouthpiece’ for plaintiffs’ attorneys”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 149 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998); cf. Marbled Murrelet v. Pac. Lumber Co., 880 F. Supp. 1343, 1365 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (finding that experts’ trial testimony “appears to have been crafted by [defendant’s] attorneys”), aff’d, 83 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 1996); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 533, 539 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (noting that attorneys “might argue that lawyers draft experts’ declarations, especially in sophisticated patent litigation like this”); Gall v. Jamison, 44 P.3d 233, 234 (Colo. 2002) (”[The retaining attorney] admit[ted] that his letter to [the expert witness] included a discussion of deposition testimony that he considered important, an assessment of how defendants’ actions may have fallen below the standard of care, and citation to medical journals that he deemed relevant.”).5. See generally Stephen D. Easton, Ammunition for the Shoot-Out with the Hired Gun’s Hired Gun: A Proposal for Full Expert Witness Disclosure, 32 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 465, 491-501 (2000) [hereinafter Easton, Shoot-Out] (outlining numerous ways in which a retaining attorney can influence an expert witness’s opinion).
6. See, e.g., Occulto, 125 F.R.D. at 612 (explaining that the attorney prepared the report purportedly written by the expert witness).
7. See infra note 82 (citing opinions holding that attorneys asserted too much influence over experts and their reports).
8. FED. R. CIV. P. 26 advisory committee’s note (1993) (“Rule 26(a)(2)(B) does not preclude counsel from providing assistance to experts in preparing the reports, and indeed, with experts such as automobile mechanics, this assistance may be needed.”).

posted by: JNeil on February 22, 2010 9:59pm

Mr. Roberts-
Thank you for your exhaustive research. However, many of the citations, while acknowledge the practice of Attorneys putting words in their experts’ mouths, seem to indicate such actions are poorly received or judged. These appear to be trial cases, not presentations to a Committee encouraging them to take a specific action.

posted by: Steve Roberts on February 22, 2010 11:08pm

JNeil,

My research is by no means exhaustive (as I imagine you meant to intimate with the sarcasm). I was just trying to encourage folks to take some time, even if is not an exhaustive amount, to check and see for themselves before jumping to arms about atty Bellamy’s editing just because someone else implies that her actions were fraudulent or dishonest.

Poorly received is not the same as fraudulent or illegal. No, I do not want our town atty to use even questionable, albeit legal, practices to deceive the RTM, but that point has yet to be proven, has it not?

So let’s wait for the court to clarify why the believe the town acted dishonestly. If they submit that atty Bellamy’s actions were dishonest, then I stand corrected. I have already stated that I do not know, nor am I an expert in the matter. It just bothers me to have folks stating opinion as fact, perhaps to support some personal or political agenda. As for me, I have no agenda other than to encourage people to treat each other civally and premise their arguments on logic and research because I think in the end it is better for our town and will result in better decisions.

posted by: Yankee Doodle on February 24, 2010 7:21am

I highly doubt the Supreme Court is going to specify much about the term “dishonest” or comment on Penny Bellamy’s alleged wrongdoing.
It would seem most advisable that the town itself look into the matter of possible malpractice committed against it by appointing a bipartisan ad hoc commission to examine the issue—perhaps chaired by Professor Pottenger..

posted by: Ray Ingraham on February 24, 2010 10:44am

I am with Yankee Doodle on this , Lets do our own work on this, put a team together and find our own conclusion. I am also willing to sit on such a committee.

posted by: Yankee Doodle on February 24, 2010 1:59pm

Perhaps the Eagle can contact Professor Pottenger and ask if he would be willing to participate in such an effort. He strikes many as both a scholar and a gentleman.

posted by: susan barnes on February 24, 2010 3:19pm

I agree with Ray and Yankee. I, too, would like to serve on this a committee.

posted by: Steve Roberts on February 24, 2010 10:06pm

Bravo…civil discourse focused on solutions. You guys rock!

Count me in, although I’m not sure how much I can bring to the table as a high school teacher or how much I can contribute…typical demands of family (four boys), teaching, chemotherapy (recovering from esophageal cancer…hoping its gone and this followup chemo is just precautionary) doesn’t leave me lots of free time. Still, if this committee becomes a reality, send me some grunt work.

I had started a couple days ago to respond to a poster named Churchill (love the name…but his posts seem to have disappeared) At any rate, I did some reading and made myself a little timeline so I could better understand what transpired here. Still has lots of open questions, but I’ll post it below in case its of use to anyone.

posted by: Yankee Doodle on February 25, 2010 1:32pm

I agree with Mr. Roberts. Someone should contact Professor Pottenger. Does he live in Branford? What about Dr. Henry Lee?

posted by: susan barnes on February 28, 2010 8:22am

What happened to the “time line” Mr. Roberts mentioned in his last post?

New Haven Independent Login Form