Letter to the Editor of the Record Journal by Christopher Rourke

The following is a letter to the editor, published on Thursday November 17, 2011 as written by Christopher Rourke

Editor: In the referendum this past Monday, I could not help but notice in the days and weeks preceding it a huge temporary sign in front of what used to be the library saying “Vote No.”

My understanding is that the building is now owned by one of the people who would profit from the referendum being turned down by voters.

It was allowed to stand, even though a very similar sign was erected in the same spot a few years ago in reference to the Wooding-Caplan property referendum.

This sign was ordered torn down by Mayor Dickinson (citing town ordinance).

Is it just coincidence that the sign ordered torn down and the one allowed to stand is based on whether Mayor Dickinson agrees with what is on it, or not? I think so. Cronyism and the “good old boys” need to end in Wallingford!

Letter to the Editor of the Record Journal by Michael Gagne

The following is a letter to the editor, published on Thursday November 17, 2011 as written by Michael Gagne

Editor: In my travels in Wallingford the other day, I noticed a huge sign in front of the former library building currently owned by Fred Ulbrich. This sign urged voters to vote “no” on overturning the parking deal — a deal which I believe would financially benefit Ulbrich. The last time there was a referendum in town, it concerned the Wooding-Caplan deal. At that time there was also a sign posted on that site.

The sign was opposed to the mayor’s position on the deal. At that time, public works employees were sent there to take down that sign as it was erected on town property.

This time, Ulbrich’s sign was untouched and unquestioned. The only difference this time was that the sign was in support of the mayor’s position. It seems that there is a different set of standards, and you can ignore the town ordinances if you agree with the powers that be.

Letter to the Editor of the Record Journal by Chet Miller

The following is a letter to the editor, published on Thursday November 17, 2011 as written by Chet Miller the Republican Registrar of Voters in Wallingford.

Editor: The registrars of voters would like to thank all poll workers for their work on Election Day and also to those who also worked the referendum just six days later. For the benefit of those people upset that this could not be on the election ballot and saw none of the explanations elsewhere, here is the true explanation. State Statute 9-369a prevented its being on the ballot. A second polling place on the same day as election was not feasible because SS9-289 requires one privacy booth for every 250 voters eligible to vote at a poll, which we don’t have (they cost $175 to $200 each and we were 80 short).

We also were lacking space, trained and certified poll workers to staff the second poll, and lacked the required number of scanner machines to operate legally. The old machines could not be used due to SS9-240a.

While I was personally attacked and blamed for this, understand that there are two registrars who work together and must agree on all decisions. There was no “clandestine meeting” as charged. Our job is to administer elections to comply with the law. We do not set dates or decide arbitrarily who can and can’t vote. We follow the law and our town charter, even if it may sound silly to some. We work with the school system and Senior Center to minimize disruption of programs. We kept traffic out of the elementary schools, which were in session, for safety’s sake. It never was a matter of what was convenient for us, but what was economically prudent and what complied with the law.

If law allowed things to be eliminated, combined or staff reduced, it was done.

Consolidation of polls saved $14,000, offset by the cost of $5,100 for the notification postcard.