In this case, it was Paul's focus on the housing trust's proposed development, not the townspeople owning the land, which resulted in his failing to obtain all notice and other requirements to procure an unquestioned legal need tor the townspeople's vote.
Paul says that he, the selectmen, and Rybak simply were unaware of a relatively new state law that made stricter public notice and other requirements before a town property could be transferred or sold to any party.
After three townspeople, including myself, the writer of this opinion piece, discovered these questionable conflicting ethical activities by Rybak, and their support by Paul, those townspeople's protests exposed them to the public. This was later followed by Rybak eventually disqualifying himself as town attorney in this very case. Paul then hired Robert D'Andrea to replace Rybak to review the property transfer and advise the board what it "should or should not" do.
As a result of this overall controversy, the battle between the town and those protesting the development, including its next door neighbors along Route 202, continues. One hundred and sixty-nine people signed a petition challenging the ownership of the property by the Litchfield Housing Trust. Now it appears that the Wetlands Commission's attorney should have to decide whether or not this development is valid or legal before the commission considers its merits or demerits.
The freelance investigative writer of this opinion piece, Thomas D. Williams, has been involved in the public's protest to the Board of Selectmen and the Wetlands Commission.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
