To the Editor:

I read Genevieve Reilly's interesting article: "State Supreme Court ready for special election arguments", in the Feb. 9 issue of your paper.

An incumbent Fairfield selectman resigned. According to the Fairfield town charter, [the governing document of the town], a successor must be appointed within 30 days of the resignation. This requirement was met when Edward Bateson was appointed by the remaining members of the Board of Selectmen, Mike Tetreau, and Chris Tymniak. The selectmen strictly and appropriately followed the town charter when Bateson was appointed.

I will quote the following passage from the Genevieve Reilly's article: "The Democrats, however, cite Connecticut General Statute 9-222, which addresses the length of the appointment....".

This specific issue concerns the resignation of a local Fairfield municipal town official, a selectman. What does Connecticut General Statute

9-222, a state statute, passed by the state legislature have to do with this? This is a local issue, not a state issue. This falls under the jurisdiction of the town charter, and local town government.

The selectmen and other municipal officials work for the town of Fairfield, not the state of Connecticut. The town charter is to be followed when the issue is strictly local, and occurs within the borders of Fairfield.

The language in the town charter addressed the resignation of a local municipal selectman, and the charter was followed when Mr. Bateson was appointed the next selectman.

In this specific case, Connecticut General Statute 9-222 is an intrusion on the town charter, and local municipal government.

If the town charter is ignored once, it will more than likely be ignored again, and again. Is the town prepared for that?

Michael Treadwell


To the Editor:

Highway tolls, strategically placed and appropriately priced, can result in less demand for highway expansion to relieve traffic congestion. That is particularly important here along the shoreline where I-95 is bound by coastal wetlands and other environmental hazards.

I listened to the debate over tolls in the state legislature last session and now as it begins this session. Not once has the advantage of capital cost avoidance been recognized by the advocates or the opponents of tolls.

Additionally, the federal government has long been willing to fund tolling and tolling implementation studies in any state that will commit to such a program mitigating the need for highway expansion. Connecticut is still not one of those states. So the tolling studies upon studies that ConnDOT and the various regional planning agencies keep rolling out are all paid on the state taxpayer dime. Not so smart, if you ask me.

There are lots of reason for these omissions and an uniformed debate. Not the least of which is eight years of gross managerial incompetence by the lame duck Malloy Administration and its DOT.

Jim Brown