20 October—The four candidates for the Litchfield Board of Selectmen debated in the Great Hall of the Bunker Wednesday night before an audience about half the size of the one that had enjoyed the mayoral debate last week. But Wednesday’s audience was treated to a rather more spirited few-holds-barred pseudo-tag-team match.

Moderator Anne Dranginis, who had served on the Board of Selectmen herself, relayed substantive questions to the two Democratic incumbents—Jodiann Tenney and Jeff Zullo—and the two Republican challengers—John Bongiorno and Dan Morosani. While Messrs. Bongiorno and Morosani aren’t selectmen at the moment, both have been very actively involved in Litchfield’s civic affairs for some time.

The questions posed to the four candidates were rather more pointed than the softball issues the First Selectman candidates had debated. In fact, Wednesday’s questions were thoughtfully hardball. And the issues brought on baseball-gloves-off, vigorous, spirited, even heated give-and-take from both teams. While civil and polite at all times, of course, the two teams weren’t particularly cordial to each other. Understandably.

All four candidates clearly were well acquainted with the issues at hand, although one team’s interpretation of facts and figures and forthright expression of opinions tended to aggravate the other team at virtually every turn. At various points during the debate, the incumbents, especially, appeared to be offended by expressed and implied criticism of their board’s decisions and actions—or lack of same—and reminded their opponents that most BOS votes were unanimous, including the GOP members.

Righteous indignation is all well and good. But isn’t it the job of the challengers to point out the inadequacy and/or misdirection of incumbents in order to justify the need for change? By the same token, isn’t it the job of incumbents to defend their record? Politics—even the local variety—is no place for thin skin.

Among the bones of contention picked over at the Team Debate of the Biennium were two that need clarification, if not correction, which was not possible at the debate. On the question of the advisability of springing for a five-figure study to determine what should be done with or to the Bantam School/Annex, incumbent selectman Jeff Zullo asserted that a 2018 referendum determined the voters and taxpayers wanted to keep the Breuer white elephant, with a view to upgrade and renovation.

In fact, however, with specific reference to the Bantam property, the referendum determined only that the voters and taxpayers did not want to transfer it to the Affordable Housing Trust. Nothing in the referendum question or result expressed or implied anything else.

(Had it not been for the obdurate Bantam Planning & Zoning Commission, the town could have sold the Bantam property many years ago for $1.5 million. But that’s spilled milk.)

The other bone to pick concerns the thousand dollars the town assessor earns—earns; repeat, actually earns—for working at Town Hall one day a week but being available at all times. The misinformation that the assessor is paid a grand a day had been insidiously propagated by the town tax collector at the Republican pasta supper earlier this month. The tax collector may or may not actually earn what she’s paid; but the position is elected (for now), so it doesn’t matter.

That the assessor’s assistant left Litchfield’s employ is true, but among the reasons for her leaving not mentioned in the debate were better pay elsewhere and her new job being closer to home. And, sad to say, equally motivating was the toxic work environment in Litchfield Town Hall, of which the Tax Collector is alleged to be one of the vectors.

The Republican candidates would do well to confirm and verify. So would we all.

In all events, when the debate was over, the hundred or so voters in the Great Hall of the Bunker knew where the four candidates stood . . .