741 Colonel Ledyard Highway

Ledyard, CT 06339

TOWN OF LEDYARD

Administration Committee

Meeting Minutes

http://www.ledyardct.org

Chairman S. Naomi

Rodriguez

Regular Meeting

Wednesday, March 12, 2025

5:30 PM

Town Hall Annex- Hybrid Format

In -Person: Council Chambers, Town Hall Annex Building

Remote Participation: Information Noted Below:

Join Zoom Meeting from your Computer, Smart Phone or Tablet:

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82112241077?pwd=G9hYonZPajUpfSm0OFN9e8Sq7nmSvG.1

Or by Audio Only: Telephone: +1 646 558 8656; Meeting ID: 821 1224 1077; Passcode:

665595

CALL TO ORDER

II.

ROLL CALL

Jessica Buhle

Present:

April Brunelle

Kevin Dombrowski

Excused:

S. Naomi Rodriguez Town Council Chairman

Carmen Garcia-IrizarryTown Councilor

Fred Allyn, IIMI ayor

Sharon PealerResident

Dan Pealer Resident

Edwin MurrayResident

Eleanor Murray Resident

Cory WatfordResident

Steve MungerResident

Larry Erhart Resident

Mike Cherry Resident

Paul WhitescarverResident

John RodolicoResident

Eric Treaster Resident

Bill Thorne Resident

Jacob Hurt Resident

Roxanne Maher Administrative Assistant

III.

RESIDENTS & PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS

Mr. Steve Munger, 12 Nutmeg Drive, Gales Ferry, stated after all the Town Council

Meetings that he has attended, he could not believe that the Administration

Committee was still bringing up this ridiculous Ordinance to Fly Third Party Flags on

Town Owned Property. However, he stated if they were going to adopt such an

Ordinance that they add the following language:

“That if, when we get sued, that the Town Council that approved the Ordinance will

be the ones that are responsible for the legal costs.”

Mr. Munger continued by providing the following points regarding the proposed

Third-Party Flag Ordinance:

· How can the proposed Ordinance state that “The flagpoles are not intended to

serve as a forum for public free expression”? Mr. Munger stated that was exactly

why we flag fly the US American Flag and the State of Connecticut Flag.

· The proposed Ordinance stated that “The flagpoles are designated as non-public

forums”. Mr. Munger stated that the flagpoles were town property, and were our

public forums.

· The proposed Ordinance stated that “The flags are to be authorized by the Town

Council, representing the official sentiments of the Town Council”. Mr. Munger

stated that the flagpoles are not there for the Town Council to express their

sentiments.

Mr. Munger questioned whether a nonresident could make a request to the Town

Council to fly a Flag, because the proposed Ordinance does not state anything about

that. He also noted that based on his reading and understanding of the proposed

Ordinance that “The duration a Third-Party Flag could be flown was at the whim of

the Town Council”. He questioned what that was supposed to mean. He stated as

long as there was a war somewhere on earth, the Town Council could fly the flag of

whichever faction they chose for the next however many years, or months, or

whatever. He stated according to the proposed Ordinance that the Third-Party Flags

could be flown for a cause, nation, or group. Therefore, he stated that would mean

that Hamas, Palestinians, LGBQT+; etc., could all fly flags on Town Property.

Mr. Munger went on to state that the bottom line was that the proposed Ordinance

was headed for legal trouble. He stated Ledyard Residents paid a decent increase in

taxes last year; and it looked the upcoming year was going to be worse. Therefore, he

questioned why would the Town even think of risking a lawsuit; whether they

thought that there would be a lawsuit or not. He stated by adopting the proposed

Third-Party Flag Ordinance, that the Town was risking something they do not have to

risk. He stated the only flag in this country that unites everybody in this Town was

the one that was flying out there right now.

Mr. Munger continued by noting that the proposed Third-Party Flag Ordinance stated

that Commemorative Flags were not permitted. Therefore, he questioned whether

that meant that they could not fly a Special Commemorative Flag for the 4th of July.

Mr. Munger stated the biggest reason not to adopt the proposed Third-Party Flag

Ordinance was because there was already a Supreme Court decision on this issue. He

stated that he read the whole Supreme Court Case noting that the case was brought

about because of the flying of a religious flag. However, he stated Ledyard’s

proposed Third-Party Flag Ordinance stated that religious flags would not be

permitted. Therefore, he stated that the proposed Ordinance was already going

against the Supreme Court decision. that's already been done. He stated that he

knows some like to have a little power when they get in positions. However, he stated

any flag the Town Council allowed to be flown, whether it was my flag or your flag

that it was always going to be divisive for some people. He stated the Town Council

was supposed to make the Town a nice, livable place. He stated by adopting the

proposed Third-Party Flag Ordinance that they were making it a divisive place.

Mr. Munger concluded his comments by stating the Town Council has to look at the

full picture, and the number one picture was One Flag, One Town, One Country.

Mr. Daniel Pealer, 48 Highland Drive, Gales Ferry, stated that he was present this

evening to address the proposed ordinance governing the flying of flags on town

flagpoles. He stated that he believed that the proposed Ordinance, as currently written,

raises several significant legal and constitutional issues that warrant reconsideration. He

noted as he noted in his March 11, 2025 in which he covered Shurtleff v. City of Boston

(2022) and this proposed draft ordinance has been written in a manner to attempt to

avoid the issues in that case, that he would focus his comments on the other problems

that this proposal runs into.

Attribution and Public Perception

Mr. Pealer stated that government speech must be attributed to the government in a way

that is clear to the public. If a private group proposes a flag and it is displayed on a town

flagpole, there was a risk that observers might attribute the message of the flag to the

private group rather than the government. He stated that this creates ambiguity about

whether the speech represents the government's message or that of a private entity. He

stated that courts have been cautious in cases where the line between government and

private speech was blurred, as seen in Matal v. Tam (582 U.S. 2017), where trademarks

were held to be private, not government, speech due to the role of private parties in

creating the message.

Mr. Pealer went on to not that it was important to recognize that the town cannot

unilaterally declare a flag to be government speech simply by approving its display. He

stated that Government speech, by its nature, must clearly convey a message attributable

to the government itself. He stated the involvement of private groups in proposing flags,

coupled with the temporary and rotational nature of flag displays, undermines the claim

that these displays constitute government speech.

Temporary and Rotational Nature

Mr. Pealer stated that the nature of the expression matters. He stated that permanent

monuments, like those discussed in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (555 U.S. 2009),

were inherently government speech because of their enduring presence and the

government's long-term commitment to their message. He noted flags, on the other hand,

were temporary and rotational symbols that often reflected the sentiments or causes of

the moment. He stated that this transient nature makes it less likely for flags to be

perceived as embodying a consistent,

long-term government message. He stated the lack of permanence undermines the

argument that these displays were purely government speech.

Mr. Pealer stated the proposed Ordinance in Ledyard differs significantly from the

situation in Summum. He stated the ordinance seeks to govern the display of flags, which

were inherently temporary and rotational in nature, unlike permanent monuments. Flags,

being transient symbols, were often perceived as expressions of current sentiments,

events, or causes. This transient nature differentiates flags from the permanent and

enduring nature of monuments, which are meant to convey long-term messages and

values.

Mr. Pealer stated the distinction between temporary flag displays and permanent

monuments was crucial. He stated that while the government may exercise control over

permanent monuments without violating the First Amendment, the temporary nature of

flag displays requires a different legal consideration. He stated that the broad discretion

granted to the Town Council to approve or deny flag displays based on their subjective

determination of "official sentiments" raises the potential for viewpoint discrimination.

He stated that this could result in arbitrary and inconsistent decisions, which were not

permissible under the First Amendment's requirement for viewpoint neutrality.

Mr. Pealer stated that the flags flown on the flagpole are more akin to the long-winded

speaker that Justice Alito described in Summum, rather than the permanent monument

covered by the case. He noted as Justice Alito wrote, "Speakers, no matter how

long-winded, eventually come to the end of their remarks; persons distributing leaflets

and carrying signs at some point tire and go home; monuments, however, endure. They

monopolize the use of the land on which they stand and interfere permanently with other

uses of public space." Mr. Pealer stated that flags, being temporary and rotational, do not

monopolize space in the same way that permanent monuments do. Just as a public park

can serve as a platform for many orators over time, flagpoles can accommodate a variety

of flags, reflecting diverse sentiments without permanently claiming the space.

Insufficient Standards and Guidelines

Mr. Pealer went on to state for the proposed Ordinance to credibly establish flag displays

as government speech, that it must include detailed, objective, and consistent criteria for

approving flags. He noted the current proposed ordinance used language open to

subjective interpretation such as “flags that promote or may encourage”, specifically in

Section 2, functionally giving the Town Council broad discretion to determine what

flags to approve. He stated that this inherently subjective guidelines weakens the claim

of government speech and opens the door to claims of viewpoint discrimination, as

private speech could be selectively excluded under the guise of government speech.

Mr. Pealer continued by noting in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92

(1972), the Supreme Court struck down a Chicago ordinance that prohibited all

picketing near schools, except for labor picketing. The stated that the Court held that the

ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it

discriminated based on the content of speech. He noted that Justice Marshall, writing for

the Court, emphasized that "The Equal Protection Clause requires that statutes affecting

First Amendment interests be narrowly tailored to their legitimate objectives." The

ordinance's

selective exclusion of non-labor picketing failed to meet this requirement, as it did not

serve a compelling government interest in a narrowly tailored manner. Mr. Pealer stated

that this case illustrated the importance of ensuring that any regulation affecting First

Amendment Rights must be both justified by a legitimate objective and crafted in a way

that does not unduly restrict free expression. Similarly, he noted that Ledyard’s proposed

ordinance's broad discretion in approving flags, without clear guidelines, posed a risk of

content-based discrimination, which is impermissible under the principles established in

Mosley.

Risk of Viewpoint Discrimination

Mr. Pealer stated the proposed ordinance’s declaration that flagpoles were non-public

forums for government speech does not absolve the Town Council from adhering to

constitutional principles. He stated even if the government controls the forum, it cannot

engage in viewpoint discrimination. He stated by allowing private individuals and

groups to propose flags but retaining discretionary power to approve or deny them, the

ordinance risks being a mechanism for suppressing certain viewpoints, rather than a

legitimate exercise of government speech. He pointed out that this was inconsistent with

the First Amendment’s Protections. Further the explicit prohibition of the use of the

flagpole to fly religious flags runs afoul of other court decisions such as Lamb's Chapel

v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993) and Good News

Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001) where the court decided that such

restrictions are prohibited viewpoint discrimination.

Mr. Pealer stated a pertinent case illustrating the importance of viewpoint neutrality in

government regulations is Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. v. DC, No. 21-7108

(D.C. Cir. 2023). He explained in this case, a federal appeals court found that the city of

Washington, D.C., engaged in viewpoint discrimination by selectively enforcing laws

prohibiting defacement of public property. He stated that the city allowed Black Lives

Matter protesters to paint messages on public streets and sidewalks but arrested pro-life

advocates for similar actions. He stated that the court held that "The First Amendment

prohibits the government from favoring some speakers over others. Access to public fora

must be open to everyone and to every message on the same terms." Mr. Pealer noted

that this case underscored the need for government regulations to be applied uniformly

and without favoritism towards any particular viewpoint.

Mr. Pealer stated in the Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District,

508 U.S. 384 (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that a school district violated the First

Amendment by denying a church access to school facilities to show a religious film

series while allowing other community groups to use the facilities for various purposes.

He noted the Court held that the exclusion of the church's religious viewpoint, via Rule 7

which was a clause functionally identical to the prohibition in the proposed policy,

constituted viewpoint discrimination. He pointed out that similarly, in Good News Club

v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), the Supreme Court held that a public

school district's refusal to allow a religious club to meet on school premises after hours,

while allowing other community groups to do so, constituted viewpoint discrimination.

He stated the Court emphasized that the government cannot exclude speech based on its

viewpoint, even in limited public forums. He stated that these cases reinforce the

principle that viewpoint discrimination was impermissible in any forum where the

government allowed speech, which has highlighted the need for the Town Council to

ensure that its regulations were applied in a viewpoint-neutral manner.

Mr. Pealer stated in conclusion that the proposed ordinance raises significant legal and

constitutional issues that must be addressed. He stated by enshrining the current

unofficial "No Third-Party Flag Policy” into an official ordinance, the Town Council

could ensure clarity, transparency, and legal certainty, while avoiding the potential for

viewpoint discrimination and other constitutional issues. He thanked the Administration

Committee for their attention on this matter.

Mr. Edwin Murray, 26 Devonshire Drive, Gales Ferry, stated that he submitted an

Appointment Application to be considered to serve on the Planning & Zoning

Commission. He noted that he was present this evening to answer any questions that the

Administration Committee may have relative to his appointment.

Councilor Buhle thanked Mr. Murray for attending tonight's meeting, noting that the

Administration Committee would address appointments under New Business later this

evening.

Mr. Elleanor Murray, 26 Devonshire Drive, Gales Ferry, stated that she was coming up

to her third year as a Ledyard Resident. She noted that she was present this evening to

express her support to establish an Ethics Commission. She stated that Ledyad was

one of only twenty towns in the entire State that does not have an Ethics

Commission. She stated that she probably represented about 1% or less of the people

in town that have read the 15 pages of the proposed Ordinance to Establish and

Ethics Commission. She stated that she served on the Second Appeals Committee

Level of Kaiser Permanente. She state that she strongly felt that people have to have a

sense that somebody was looking over what was happening in town, they need to

know that they have a place to go if they feel something that was not happening

properly, and that somebody would look at what they were bringing to them, whether

it goes one way or the other. She stated with an Ethics Commission that somebody

was going to take a look at it and be concerned about it. Therefore, she stated that she

felt very strongly that the town should move forward with the Ethics Commission.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Larry Erhart, 14 Fawn Drive, Gales Ferry, stated that he appreciated the time

and effort of everyone who works in the town, either on committees or any public

service, noting that they all try to do a good job. He stated that he recently became

aware of the proposed Ordinance governing the flags. He stated over the last 30 or 40

years he has heard about many different organizations and their flags. He noted that

today he dug out all of his flags, noting that he was wearing a flag on his lapel this

evening. He stated that he thought the proposed Third-Party Flag Ordinance was a

bad idea for the following reasons:

· Flags are emotional because they mean different things to different people.

· As he drives around town he has seen Confederate Flags; Betsy Ross Flags;

UConn Flags; and US American Flags; etc. Mr. Erhart stated each flag may mean

something to one set of people, but it may mean something different to another

set of people. He noted as an example the Timber Flag and Rattlesnake Flag. He

stated the “Don't Tread On Me” Flag was a good flag, noting that it was the flag

of the Libertarian Party. However, he stated that some people see the “Don't

Tread On Me” Flag as a Militant Flag.

Mr. Erhart stated last June, 2024 State Trooper Aaron Pelletier, was struck and killed

by a truck while conducting a traffic stop, noting that it was a terrible tragedy. He

stated they wanted to honor the fallen State Trooper with the Thin Blue Line Flag. He

stated that he particularly liked the police department, noting that to him the Thin

Blue Line Flag was to honor the police. However, he stated some people voted

against the Thin Blue Line Flag because they thought it was against Black Lives

Matter.

Mr. Erhart stated the proposed Third-Party Flag Ordinance was too vague and too

open. He stated if the Town Council was going to write an Ordinance to fly flags on

town, property that it should be a simple process; with a designated Flag Pole. He

stated Ledyard has a flagpoles at Pfizer Field; at the their baseball and field soccer

fields, at Blonders Park and on the Town Green.

Mr. Erhart went on to note that the proposed Third-Party Flag Ordinance stated that

only the Town Council could consider requests to display a flag if the request is made

by member of the Ledyard Town Council. Therefore, he questioned the reason he

could not make a Flag Flying request, and why he had to go through a member of the

Town Council. In addition, the proposed Ordinance required that the majority of the

Town Council members present must approve the display the requested flag.

Therefore, he stated if the Town Council’s vote was 4-in favor and 3-opposed that

would tell him that there was three people that have a problem with the particular

flag. He suggested they make the vote on a request to fly a third-party flag a

unanimous decision; noting that was fair to say that everybody was in agreement.

Mr. Erhart also noted that the proposed Third-Party Flag Ordinance referred to flags

owned by a private individual, organization, represented a specific historical event, a

cause, a nation, or group of people. He stated that he was wearing a Ukrainian Flag

which was actually Belarus, not Russia. He stated when he went through the Egyptian

Security at the Cairo International Airport the last week of January, 2025 that he was

told to take that pin off and add another pin. He stated because he did not want to be

sent to Egyptian Prison he took the flag pins off. He stated although they were not the

Transportation Security Administration (TSA), but because he was in a different

country; and they had a different set of rules he followed their direction. He stated the

bottom line was that the proposed Third-Party Flag Ordinance was opening up a can

of worms. He stated that it was his option for the Town to stay out of trouble that

they fly the United States Flag, and the State of Connecticut flag. Thank you.

Mr. Mike Cherry, 5 Whippoorwill Drive, Gales Ferry, stated that he was present to

talk about the following things this evening:

· Third-Party Flags - Mr. Cherry suggested the Town look at the Gilbert Supreme

Court decision. He also noted in Arizona it was ruled that if you allow one, they have

to allow them all for free speech. Therefore, he stated that it was a little different than

what Mr. Munger presented during his comments this evening.

· Ethics Commission - Mr. Cherry noted that some communication that was submitted

for the record was included on the Town Council Communications List, however, it

was not included on list for Administration Committee. He noted that he wanted to

highlight what Leanne Anderson wrote in her letter in which she clearly stated

“Without an enforceable Code of Ethics and a Dedicated Commission, that there was

no mechanism to address Conflicts of Interest, Abuses of Power, or Breach of Public

Trust. Mr. Cherry stated that he thought the instruction the Administration

Committee drafted addressed Conflicts of Interest, and it addressed Financial Gain.

However, he stated the draft Ordinance does not address Abuse of Power or Breach

of Public Trust. Therefore, he stated the proposed Ordinance to Establish an Ethics

Commission does not address the question that a lot of people were asking; which

was “Why we need an Ethics Commission”. He stated that this was just something for

the Administration Committee to think about before bringing a proposed Ordinance

to a Public Hearing, noting that it appeared that the draft Oridnane was missing some

of the things that were in State Statute that came up in 2018 or in 2019. Therefore, he

stated that he thought it was worth looking at the draft Ordinance Establishing an

Ethics Commission again. He stated that he understands that this item has been on the

Administration Committee’s Agenda for more than six months, noting that Councilor

Buhle and Councilor Brunelle would most likely be drafting the Ordinance, because

Councilor Dombrowski has expressed his position on the subject.

· Appointment Application - Planning & Zoning Commission - Mr. Cherry stated the

he noticed that Mr. Edwin Murray’s Appointment Application to serve on the

Planning & Zoning Commission was on tonight’s Agenda. He stated that he has seen

Mr. Murray speak at multiple meetings, Public Hearings; Town Council Meetings,

and many other different Committee Meetings. He noted that Mr. Murray was not

afraid to state his mind; and that he normally has a good opinion; and that he defends

his opinion. However, Mr. Cherry stated that he did not always agree with what Mr.

Murray has to say. He noted in in reviewing the Mr. Murray’s Appointment

Application that he noticed that there was not an endorsement from a Town

Committee, pointing out on his Application that Mr. Murray stated he was registered

as an Unaffiliate; however, he stated that the Connecticut Voter Registration List says

that Mr. Murray was a registered Democrat. Therefore, he stated that he believed the

Administration Committee needed an endorsement from the Democratic Town

Committee before they could act on Mr. Murray’s appointment application. Mr.

Cherry stated with that being said, that he thought that Mr. Murray would be good,

noting that he has seen him in action. He noted the importance of for members of the

Committees, Commissions and Boards to always check their bias at the door; and

that he trusted that Mr. Murray to do that.

Registrar Judy Johnson was in attendance at the meeting and agreed to check the

Voters Registration List to verify Mr. Murray’s Party Affiliation.

Mr. Paul Whitescarver, 6 Stoddards Wharf Road, Gales Ferry, stated as most

probably know, he was the Former Commanding Officer at the New London-Groton

Submarine Base. He stated the Submarine Base had a policy to fly the US American

Flag, the Connecticut Flag, and the Missing in Action Prisoner of War (MIA POW)

Flag. He went on to note that when they attend the Judge Advocate General's Corps

(JAG) School for two-weeks, they were specifically instructed that they have to

enforce their Flag Policy; as to not to offend anyone on the base, because it's a

Federal installation. He stated the point was that they have a great number of

constituents in the Town of Ledyard; and the idea was not to offend anyone. He

stated one of the best ways to do that was to have a policy that the Town was going to

fly two flags. He stated by doing so it would prevent the Town Council and the

Mayor from offending anybody. He stated that he was an apolitical guy, and that he

would hate to see division anywhere, because it was just not good for the culture and

it was not good for Ledyard. He recommended that the Town Council think about

that before they go down the path to allow the flying of third-party flags. He stated

the easiest way to not offend anyone was to stick to flying the one or two Flags.

Mr. John Rodolico, 40 Long Cove Road, Ledyard, stated when he had the privilege

to serve as Ledyard’s Mayor, he had a policy known as the “Line Out the Door” that

was when an individual made a request, and he agreed that would there be a line at

his door with others making the same demand. He stated in fairness, the answer

would be “Yes”, what was good for one was good for everyone. He stated that he

could see a fairness issue with this policy, therefore, we need to be careful with what

we approve on the Third-Party Flag issue. He stated when he saw words in the

proposed Ordinance like “non-public forums”, “official sentiments of the council”,

and “government speech” that he thought of fairness. He questioned whether the

provisions allowed in the proposed Ordinance would truly be fair, equitable, and

represent the community; or a decision made by five officials. He stated the proposed

Ordinance stated that a request must be made to the Town Council 30-days in

advance. He questioned whether that process included requests made by a Town

Councilor? He also noted that there was a conflict between Paragraph 2.B and

Section 3 which gives a Town Councilor the ability to by-pass the review process. He

recommended adding the words “in accordance with Section 3” to the end of

Paragraph 2.B. “All flag requests are subject to FOI requirements which would

identify the requester”. He noted the proposed Ordinance stated that the flag must

represent an “historical event, cause, nation or group of people” Therefore, he

questioned whether Ledyard would be flying the flag of other nations. However, he

noted that the proposal would exclude a flag which represented “a religious

movement or creed”. He stated both of these criteria could be widely interpreted. He

questioned whether Ledyard would fly the flag of a foreign nation or people group,

but not commemorate our heritage. He stated by these criteria they could not fly a

flag with the words of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, or the

pledge that each of you take before every meeting. He asked that the Administration

Committee to keep in mind that many of the causes they would seek to honor,

including civil rights and our freedoms, have their roots in the religious community.

He stated that he does not advocate for religious flags or any flags to be flown, but he

did that he does object to singling out faith while permitting other extraneous causes.

He noted the proposed Ordinance stated that the Third-Party Flag cannot represent a

political party, but not that it can’t be political. He stated that was an important

distinction, since most flags being considered have a political basis. He stated that the

town currently flies two flags, US American Flag and the State of Connecticut Flag.

He stated those two flags were universally accepted as representing all our citizens

who have pledged to obey the laws and pay the cost of those governments. He stated

those two Flags were non-offensive - they speak for all our citizens, and not a few

government officials. He stated the proposed Ordinance stated that the flags cannot

encourage violence, discrimination, prejudice or racism - and he questioned what

about offensiveness.

Mr. Rodolico provided the following suggestion: when he drives through the center

of town the last thing he was looking at was what was flying on the Town Hall flag

pole. He stated in travelling through town very few people look up at the flag poles.

He stated if the Town Council really had an issue that they were seeking to put

forward, there are over 5000 homes, nearly 30 churches, and 100’s of businesses

around our town and that would receive much more exposure and would truly

express a representative and fair measure of our citizens thoughts. He stated for the

reasons he presented this evening, he was opposed the proposed Ordinance because it

was: Unnecessary, Government Overreach, and of Questionable Legality. Thank you.

Ms. Sharon Pealer, 48 Highland Drive, Gales Ferry, stated that she was present this

evening to express her opposition to the following two proposed Ordinances that were

on tonight’s Administration Committee Agenda: (1) Ordinance Establishing an

Ethics Commission; and (2) Ordinance to Fly Third-Party Flags. She stated that both

of the proposed Ordinances were unnecessary, and not in the best interest of the

town, long term. She stated that both of the proposed Ordinances open the town up

for expensive lawsuits. She stated with a budget, being presented for a vote, that

called for a 3.15 mils increase for taxpayers who were already strapped with paying,

if not the highest mill rate in the region; it was the second highest. She stated that the

proposed Third-Party Flag Ordinance was poorly written with the exclusions; noting

that the preset was part of the ordinance. She stated that it was exclusionary, not

inclusive, noting that it sets the Town Council members up as being both Judge and

Jury, over which groups were represented, and which ones were excluded, with no

concern over who may be outright offended.

Ms. Pealer went on to address the proposed Ordinance Establishing an Ethics

Commission. She stated that an Ethics Ordinance may be something that other towns

have, but other towns were not Ledyard. She stated that Ledyard does not have a

business or industrial tax base to share the burden of their taxes. She stated as her

parents always said, “Just because your friends are jumping off a bridge, do you need

to follow?”. The incentive for the Ethics Ordinance was something in the past, and it

was fairly obvious that the need has not come up as often, or the push to have one

would have come up more often; as has already been said regarding this subject. She

suggested the Administration Committee read the previous meeting minutes

comments, noting that they cannot find someone in violation of a law or ordinance

that did not exist when the act was performed. She asked that they keep in mind that

attorneys were expensive, or one would have been requested to draft a Flag

Ordinance, noting if they had worked with the Town Attorney that they would have

been aware of all the pitfalls that the proposed Ordinance falls into. Thank you.

Mr. Jacob Hurt, 6 Nugget Hill Drive, Gales Ferry, attending remotely via Zoom,

stated as we gather tonight, they had the following big things on their minds:

· Presidential Administration and Congressional Administration in Washington D.C.

was using the powers of its government and the powers available to actively

persecute the LGBTQ+ Community. Mr. Hurt stated that he would not for a moment

want to be in those people's shoes.

· Federal Government Budget - Mr. Hurt stated that they were also looking at a

situation where we do not even know if the Government was going to be funded. He

stated even if it was, the Administration still tried to deny the funds getting to where

they were supposed to go.

· Ethics Commission - Mr. Hurt stated that the Ledyard’s Planning and Zoning

Commission just has the most controversial Land Use Application in our collective

memory that gave rise to some serious ethical concerns and exposed the fact that we

do not have an Ethics Commission, and we probably should. He thanked those who

spoke out in support of the Ethics Commission, and he noted that he agreed with

them. He stated that he supported the Administration Committee’s efforts to get an

Ethics Commission established, because it was time to make sure that ethics concerns

were fairly aired and resolved, and that we have strong oversight for the ethical

conduct of the elected officials in this town; and for anybody else under whom that

ordinance would fall.

· Third Party Flag Ordinance - Mr. Hurt stated for those complaining

IV.

PRESENTATIONS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

MOTION to approve the Administration Committee Minutes of February 12, 2025

VI.

OLD BUSINESS

Discussion and possible action to create an Ethics Commission for the Town of Ledyard.

Councilor Buhle stated as many of you know, being a Town Councilor was not a

paid position, and because she had several other things that she does to pay her bills

that she did not have the time since their February 12, 2025 meeting to give the time

and attention needed to work on the proposed Ethics Commission Ordinance. She

went on to note her past statements in which she stated that she felt strongly that an

Ethics Commission was necessary, because the time to create an Ethics Commission

was when she had people telling her that the town did not need one. She stated that

they could not make someone follow the rules of the Ethics Commission after they

already broke them. Therefore, she stated the time to enact the rules was before

somebody breaks them. She stated if they think that nobody has been unethical, then

the time to establish a Code of Ethics and Ethics Commission was when nobody has

been unethical. She stated that there was going to be people that think that they have

already seen unethical behavior, however, she stated that they could not retroactively

apply an Ethics Commission; or a Code of Ethics to address those instances.

However, she stated that they could set a standard of what they expected for ethical

behavior for in this town, and without putting words to a page and an ordinance in a

book, and saying, “This is the law of our Town”. She stated that setting the standard

of what the ethics were for their town with a code of ethics was not a partisan issue.

Councilor Buhle went on to note that Establishing an Ethics Commission has

become a partisan issue for our town. She stated she did not think it was too much to

expect ethical behavior from our Elected Officials, from our Committee,

Commission and Board Volunteers and from our Town Employees, noting that it

was a no brainer. However, she stated that she wanted to make sure that the

Ordinance they write does not end up with myriad lawsuits against the town. She

stated that they need to make sure that complaints are founded in truth, and that

investigations were fair, honest, and complete; and that accusations without basis do

not ruin somebody's career, life or future. She stated all these things were extremely

important; and for a lack of a better phrase, that they were not pushing through an

ordinance just to make it happen.

Councilor Buhle continued by acknowledging that she understood that those who

were proponents of Establishing an Ethics Commission that it feels like drafting an

Ethics Commission Ordinance has been going on for a really long. However, she

stated that this was not something that they could get done in two weeks, because it

deserved a lot more attention than that. She also stated that she wanted to make sure

that when they were ready to push a proposal forward they would be submitting the

best version of the Ordinance to the Town Attorney for their legal review; so they

were not wasting the Town Attorney’s time or wasting taxpayer funds.

Councilor Brunelle stated that she had a Quality Assurance background, and that she

finds it upsetting that when they try to bring forward a basic Ethics Commission that

people were against it. She addressed the importance to hold everyone accountable to

the rules, regulations, and guidelines. She state that Ethics in itself was not bad. She

stated that every organization or form of civilization needed to have some form of

rules. She stated just because we do not currently have a Code of Ethics does not

excuse the fact that we should have one, and that we do need one. She stated an

Ethics Commission was a form of fairness which was what they want in a

community. She stated it as a matter of right versus wrong, noting that the Code of

Ethics was like guidelines and bylaws, so that everything could run smoothly.

Therefore, she stated not to a have an Ethics Commission was absurd. However, she

stated that they needed to make sure their Ethics Commission was a good one, a fair

one, a just one.

Councilor Buhle stated that the Administration Committee would continue to work

on drafting a proposed Ordinance to Establish an Ethics Commission.

CONTINUE

RESULT:

Discussion and possible action to draft an Ordinance regarding the raising of

Unofficial-Third-Party Flags on Town Property.

Councilor Buhle thanked Councilor Brunelle for drafting the proposed Ordinance

regarding the Raising of Unofficial-Third-Party Flags on Town Property and she

asked her to provide an overview of the proposal.

Councilor Brunelle stated at she drafted the proposed Ordinance by pulling a lot of

the language from other community’s ordinances. So if it was badly written, that she

guessed that everybody writes bad ordinances; and that was okay.

Councilor Brunelle stated that she wanted to address some comments that she heard

this evening regarding the flying of Third-Party Flags. She stated that she felt strongly

that the Town Council should be able to have a Flag Ordinance, noting the reason the

Town needed a Flag Ordinance was so they could fly the Pride Flag and other flags to

show support for our community. She stated as the Town Council that they want to

show support and to show that Ledyard was a welcoming community. She stated that

flying other flags should not be offensive to people. She stated what was offensive

was when you were not welcoming someone into the community.

Councilor Brunelle went on to state that she has heard that the proposed Flag

Ordinance was ridiculous. She stated that it was not ridiculous, noting that it was an

ordinance to try to be a helpful and a welcoming to a community that was right now

under attack. She stated that Red, White, and Blue does not stand for everybody. She

state the LGBTQ+ Community’s right to marriage was under attack right now, and

they were not being treated equally; and women were in trouble of losing some of

their rights.

Councilor Brunelle stated that she was an American; and she wanted to serve her

country, noting that she loved her country. She stated that she had many family

members that fought in wars, stating that one family member almost died because he

threw himself on a grenade to save his country. Therefore, she stated that she felt

strongly for this country. However, she stated that right now our country does not

cover everybody equally; and that was okay, because we have our laws. She stated

our people keep fighting for justice, keep fighting for rights, and keep fighting for

equality. She stated because she did not expect things to be perfect, was the reason

she was here.

Councilor Brunelle stated that she never liked politics; however, she stated the reason

she ran to serve on the Town Council was because people in this community needed

to step up. She stated that she loved to see people come up and talk, even if she did

not agree with them because they were doing something.

Councilor Brunelle stated that she strongly agreed with the proposed Flag Ordinance

because all the LGBTQ+ Community hears was hate; all they hear was oppression.

She stated the that people tell the LGBTQ+ Community to just shut up and go away;

and that they were ridiculous! She stated that she has been told that she was divisive

because she wanted to welcome those people. She stated flying the Pride Flag should

not be divisive or offensive, noting the LGBTQ+ Community exists. However, she

stated that sadly these were the reasons they have to keep moving forward.

Councilor Brunelle addressed residents comments that “The flying of Third-Party

Flags was a public forum”; however, she stated that it was not a public forum, that

was why the proposed ordinance was written the way it is. She stated that it was not a

Public Forum; it was the Town Council's Forum. She stated all of those laws versus

laws, and this one versus that one, who said they had to fly the religious flags. She

stated if they read the law it was a problem because they did not have this written

down. So that was why they had to fly the religious flag; and why they had to “Fly

One; Fly All”, because they did not have this in place, and that was why we are

doing this so that we do not open that up.

Councilor Brunelle continued by stating like the Ethics Commission; it needed to be

written first before the problems. She stated that they write an ordinance so that it

was fair; and so they do not offend people. She stated that she could not sit here and

say that because we want to show that we welcome the LGBTQ+ Community that

they would be offending people. She stated that it would be like saying, I know

somebody who wanted to put up a Breast Cancer Pink Ribbon; that they would be

offending all the other cancer patients. Councilor Brunelle stated “No, you're not….

You're not”. She stated some people might have colon cancer, or stomach cancer,

noting that her Mom died from lung cancer; but that she was still going to support

someone who had breast cancer.

Councilor Brunelle stated all the comments she has heard regarding the proposed

Ordinance to Fly Third Party Flags were just excuses to show their biases and that

they just do not want to be welcoming; and that was because there was a lot of

LGBTQ+ people in this community. She stated these people were too afraid to come

forward; they were too afraid to say anything because they were being told to “Shut

up! You're ridiculous. Go away. It's easier if you don't exist”. However, she stated

that she did not agree with that, and if flying the flag could save one life, it was

worth it. She stated flying the flag could help one person stop crying in a corner and

from feeling like they were a loser; when they could be the next greatest thing for this

country. She stated that was what why they proposed the Flag Ordinance, noting that

everybody was special, everybody was different, everybody was unique; and she

loved everyone in this community; and that she wanted to welcome everyone in this

community.

Councilor Brunelle noted residents comments that said the proposed Flag Ordinance

was anti-religion; however, she stated that they were not. She stated that she just

attended a nice program for Black History Month in a church, noting that none of

them were anti- religion. However, she stated that there was a time and places for

stuff like that, noting

that Religion was welcomed; Freedom of Speech was welcome, Free Expression was

welcome, and that Our Rights should be welcomed. Therefore, she stated “Yes”, you

may not agree with her and that was fine, because she did not agree with a lot of the

residents who have spoke, and that was fine. However, she stated the she was super

thankful for everybody that comes forward and talks, because it was important

because they do not ever hear the opposing person's thoughts and comments. She

stated that she did not sit here and actually think about what they were saying and

feeling. She questioned how they were going to understand anybody in this world,

how they think, or how they feel, noting to understand other viewpoints that the

world needed more of this; not just more of who cares. She stated that everything was

hard, but that does not mean that it was wrong. She stated, “Just because everybody

was jumping off a bridge does not mean that you have to follow”. She stated that the

proposed Flag Ordinance was the same, noting that because it might be hard, and

because everybody else was telling you things that you do not agree with. Therefore,

she stated that she had to stick to her gut; and stick to who she was; which was that

she wanted to be welcoming to people of this community, for everyone in this

community, and not just a select group. She stated that she was not picking just one

group over the other group; but that she just wanted to be able to express kindness to

people who were under attack right now, noting that they needed that support,

whether residents liked it or not, because they were part of this community, they pay

taxes, they were helping the community; and that was all she had to say. Thank you.

Councilor Buhle stated while Councilor Brunelle was talking that she pulled up her

exact comments that she made during a Town Council meeting nine months ago,

today and she read them as follows:

“With the Community Relations Committee's focus on mental health over the last few

years she wanted to say that it was s extremely important for us to embrace and

support our LGBTQ+ Community and Youth. She noted that according to the Trevor

Project, a nonprofit dedicated to LGBTQ+ Youth Suicide Prevention that 41% of

LGBTQ+ young people ages 13 to 24 seriously considered attempting suicide in the

past year. Including roughly half of transgender and non-binary youth. Additionally,

only one-third of LGBTQ+ young people experience parental acceptance with

one-third experiencing rejection, and one-third not disclosing their identity until

they are adults. She stated that LGBTQ+ Young Adults who report high levels of

parental rejection were eight times more likely to report attempting suicide. She

stated while we cannot control whether LGBTQ+ youths were accepted at home by

their parents that we can create safe spaces and events that show our town is

welcoming and supportive. She stated just over one in three transgender and

non-binary youth found their home to be gender affirming but 52% found their

school to be affirmative. She state that the Trevor Projects Research consistently

finds that LGBTQ+ young people report lower rates of attempting suicide when they

have access to LGBTQ+ affirming spaces. She stated that she could go on reading

statistics about why this is important all night; but people were not statistics, and

there were absolutely members of our community who need to know we are an

affirming, supportive community. We must be more than a town for all seasons, but a

town for all people”.

Councilor Buhle stated what she found interesting was they have a community of

people who have told her that the world was not about her, and that she was a

“Snowflake” when she was not; and that her feelings of being offended were not

valid, and that some people just had delicate feelings, and yet the people who said all

those things were offended about a flag.

Councilor Buhle stated that she was supportive to a group that commits suicide at a

higher rate than almost anybody else. Therefore, she stated that if there was a flag up

there, and there was a child in our community who was struggling with their identity

and was feeling that this world did not accept them, and thought that they were better

off dead than being in Ledyard, or were being told that they were not welcome here;

that she hoped they were listening. She stated every single comment that said they

would rather not have a flag, because it was offensive, means that you are offensive,

and you may not think that was how it comes off; whether or not they thought that.

Councilor Buhle stated the legal parts was all of that matters. However, she stated

when they use the word offensive and divisive; that every person she know who was

LGBTQ+ does not want to be divisive, they just want to be friends, they just want to

hang out together and do normal things and live a normal life. However, she stated

the hardest part of that stage was during their youth and their growth of becoming a

person. She stated the people she knows who were the most comfortable in their

LGBTQ+ lives have been LGBTQ+ for 10+ years. They have dealt with all of that

trauma before, and now there were coming out on the other side of feeling

comfortable within themselves. She stated when they were 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,

20-year-olds in our town, who were coming into the town, and seeing these

comments, and feeling unsupported; that something as simple as flying a flag, noting

that it does not have to be in front of the Town Hall, they could put it at the Town

Green, could make a difference in their lives. She stated that there were other town

property options that could tell somebody this community loves you, and we want

you to be here.

Councilor Brunelle stated that she was happily married as a Cisgender woman to a

Cisgender man, and that she was very content, and that she would never look at a flag

and be upset by it, because it did not encompass her. She stated that realistically,

there were other communities that may want to fly flags that she did not fit into, and

she was find with that. She stated that she was a big enough person to move past that

and look at the bigger picture. She stated that we need to be a town for all people; and

all people means people who love differently than you do, who live differently than

you do; and people who look differently than you do.

Councilor Buhle stated that obviously, they were not ready to move the proposed

Flag Ordinance forward, noting that there were some suggestions that were valid.

CONTINUE

RESULT:

Any other Old Business proper to come before the Committee

None.

VII. NEW BUSINESS

MOTION to reappoint the following members to the Cemetery Committee for a three (3)

year term ending April 26, 2028:

Mr. William Vidal, III, (D) 183 Spicer Hill Road, Ledyard (Regular Member)

Mr. Vincent Godino (D) 1906 Center Groton Road, Ledyard (Alternate Member)

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Brunelle

Discussion: None.

Administrative Note: the terms of Cemetery Committee Members Ms. Jessica Stately

and Ms. Kimlyn Marshall would also be expiring on April 26, 2025. However, the

Committee did not endorse their reappointments due to attendance records.

VOTE: 2 - 0 Approved and so declared

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

Jessica Buhle

RESULT:

MOVER:

April Brunelle

SECONDER:

Buhle and Brunelle

Dombrowski

AYE:

EXCUSED:

MOTION to reappoint Mr. Charles Duzy ( R) 4 Harvard Terrace, Gales Ferry, to the

Housing Authority for a five (5) year term ending March 31, 2030.

Moved by Councilor Brunelle, seconded by Councilor Buhle

Discussion: None.

VOTE: 2 - 0 Approved and so declared

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

April Brunelle

RESULT:

MOVER:

Jessica Buhle

SECONDER:

Buhle and Brunelle

Dombrowski

AYE:

EXCUSED:

MOTION to appoint Mr. James Harwood (D) 10 Eska Drive, Ledyard as a Regular Member

of the Planning & Zoning Commission to complete a three (3) year term ending December

31, 2026 filling a vacancy left by Mr. Whitescarver.

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Brunelle

Discussion: Councilor Buhle stated that she served on the Conservation Commission

with Mr. Harwood, noting that he was well rounded, knowledgeable, and brings a lot

to the table.

Administrative Assistant Roxanne Maher stated that Mr. Harwood has been serving

as an Alternate Member on the Planning & Zoning Commission. She stated with Mr.

Whitescarver’s resignation that the Commission has requested that Mr. Harwood be

moved to a Regular Member.

VOTE: 2 - 0 Approved and so declared

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

Jessica Buhle

RESULT:

MOVER:

April Brunelle

SECONDER:

Buhle and Brunelle

Dombrowski

AYE:

EXCUSED:

MOTION to appoint Ms. Rebecca Watford ( R) 429 Colonel Ledyard Highway, Ledyard, as

an Alternate Member to the Historic District Commission to complete a five (5) year term

ending December 6, 2028 filling a vacancy left by Mrs. Parkinson.

Moved by Councilor Brunelle, seconded by Councilor Buhle

Discussion: Councilor Buhle stated that Ms. Watford had previously been a caretaker

of the Nathan Lester House, noting that she has some experience and background

with the Historic Commission District Commission.

Councilor Brunelle stated if there was no relevant conflict arising from Mrs.

Waterford being the caretaker of the Nathan Lester House and with serving on the

Historic District Commission that they should move her name forward.

VOTE: 2 - 0 Approved and so declared

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

April Brunelle

RESULT:

MOVER:

Jessica Buhle

SECONDER:

Buhle and Brunelle

Dombrowski

AYE:

EXCUSED:

MOTION to appoint Mr. Edwin Murray (U) 26 Devonshire Drive, Gales Ferry as an

Alternate Member of the Planning & Zoning Commission to complete a three (3) year term

ending December 31, 2025 filling a vacancy left by Mr. Harwood.

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Brunelle

Discussion: Councilor Buhle stated that she had some reservations with Mr. Murray’s

appointment noting that she has seen some of his online content. She noted during

Residents Comments earlier this evening Mr. Cherry stated that Mr. Murray was

good at providing opinions, and that he was well versed; even if Mr. Cherry

disagreed with the Mr. Murray’s opinions. However, she stated that she had concerns

with any biases that may come into play. Therefore, she stated that she was somewhat

indecisive.

Councilor Brunelle stated that she understood Councilor Buhle’s comment.

The Committee discussed the following options: (1) Move Mr. Murray’s

Appointment Application forward to the Town Council to discuss further; (2) Review

his Application again and make a decision this evening; or (3) Table the Motion to

clarify Mr. Murray’s Party Affiliation relative to whether they needed to wait for an

endorsement from his respective party and revisit this item at their April 9, 2025

meeting

Mr. Murray stated that the mistake has been correct, explaining that the Voter

Registration List still had him registered as a Democrat; but that he was an

Unaffiliated. Therefore, he stated that he completed the paperwork this evening to

change his party affiliation to Unaffiliated. He asked if the Administration Committee

had any questions that he could answer for them this evening.

The Committee noted that they did not have any questions for Mr. Murray this

evening; and they thanked him for attending tonight’s meeting.

VOTE: 0 - 2 Motion Failed

MOTION FAILED

Jessica Buhle

RESULT:

MOVER:

April Brunelle

SECONDER:

Buhle and Brunelle

Dombrowski

NAY:

EXCUSED:

Discussion and possible action to draft a resolution establishing a Sustainable CT Ad-hoc

Committee.

Councilor Buhle stated that she added establishing a Sustainable CT Ad-hoc

Committee to tonight’s agenda because when she ran to serve on the Town Council

that one of her goals was for the Town to obtain a Sustainable CT Certification.

Councilor Buhle stated during the March 6, 2025 Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Budget

Work Session they briefly discussed obtaining a Sustainable CT Certification

explaining that the Program had some strict requirements in the certification process,

which required the Community to complete certain things within the last three-years.

However, she stated that Ledyard has already done a number of Sustainable CT

Projects that would have qualified for the Certification, such as purchasing all the

streetlights from Eversource and converting them all over to LED bulbs, which was

done several years ago, therefore, she stated that those projects could not be used

toward their certification process, because they were not done within the last three

years.

Councilor Buhle went on to explain that there were many sustainable opportunities

that the town could, noting that one of her favorite’s things was to save the town

money and bolster economic development; and things to protect our watersheds;

which was extremely important.

Councilor Buhle stated that Ledyard and North Stonington were currently Sustainable

CT Certified Towns; and that our current point of contact was Land Use Director

Elizabeth Burdick. She stated that she talked with Ms. Burdick before adding the

discussion to establish a Sustainable CT Ad Hoc Committee to tonight’s agenda,

noting that they discussed the best approach to facilitate this initiative. She stated that

East Haddam, East Lyme, and Stonington were Sustainable CT committees, and had

Ad Hoc Committee to help them create goals and achieve the certification. Therefore,

she stated this was on tonight’s Agenda for discussion.

Councilor Brunelle stated that she was definitely for having a Sustainable CT

initiative. She noted at a CCM Class that she spoke to someone about whether

Ledyad was already a Sustainable CT Community and that she learned that they were.

She stated that it would be worthwhile to establish an Ad Hoc Committee because

they would want to save money, and to also help bolster more tax revenue from

businesses, noting that she did not see any downside.

Mayor Allyn, III stated as everybody knows, the town was very minimally staffed.

Therefore, he stated that he did not believe they had the capacity to staff another

Committee, Commissioner Board at least right now.

Councilor Buhle questioned whether the town could look into using a Staff

Consultant or perhaps look into to using a Sustainable CT Fellow through

Southeastern Connecticut Council of Government (SCCOG). She noted that it was

her understanding that the Fellows were supposed to start in April or May, and would

be available until late August or early September.

Mayor Allyn provided some background noting that Ledyard began the Sustainable

CT Certification some time ago; however, he stated the initiative was derailed due to

other time demands. He stated as Councilor Buhle mentioned this evening that

Ledyard had already undertaken all the LED Streetlight turnovers; and a couple of

other projects, which cannot be counted. Therefore, he stated that they would need to

develop a new slate of Goals and Projects

Councilor Buhle stated that it would be interesting consider what they could;

questioning whether the Multi-Use Pathway and the Food Waste Progrm could count

toward their Sustainable CT Certification.

Councilor Buhle went on to note that last year Councilor Garcia-Irizarry showed her

a presentation regarding the Sustainable CT Program that she had discussed with one

of the SCCOG Fellows. She stated that she forwarded the Sustainable CT Program

Presentation to the Administration Committee, noting that it included the contact

information for the Program. She stated that she was going to ask Councilor

Garcia-Irizarry to help with this initiative. She stated that even if we do not qualify

for the Sustainable CT Certification, that if they picked ten small projects that could

help to reduce the town’s energy expenses or improve the quality of life for the

residents in our town, that it would still be worth the effort; especially because grant

funding was available to assist with many of the projects.

Councilor Buhle concluded by stating that she would work with Administrative

Assistant Roxanne Maher to draft a Resolution for a Sustainable CT Ad Hoc

Committee. She also noted that they would need to consider the membership of the

Ad Hoc Committee stating that she thought having representatives from other town

commissions such as the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and

Conservation Commission; as well as some members of the public would be helpful.