The complaint, dated June 2, charges that an informational flyer distributed by the town, in regards to the high school referendum, showed a “clear bias” and this is in violations of state statute that printed materials disseminated by the town to the electorate should not advoate approval or disapproval of a proposal that will be the subject of a referendum.

 

The flyer was distributed as a paid insert in the May 27 edition of The Berlin Citizen. A similar document was distributed at informational meetings sponsored by the town. Millerd charges that authroization to spend funds to distribute the material was done by “individuals (who) are very much in favor of passage of this bond.  He wrote: “This is a clear abuse of power approving the use of town funds to publish information intended to influence voters to vote in the affirmateive.”

Named in the complaint are Town Manager Denise McNair, Deputy Mayor Steve Morelli, Rachel Rochette, William Rasmussen and Robert Dacey.

Morelli called the complaint “completely political”. He said the council and staff followed state statute and that McNair was directed by council to make the “frequently asked question” document “content-neutral”.  As required by statute, the document was reviewed by corporation counsel Robert Weber before it was distributed.

There was “no abuse of power and no willful attempt” to do anything besides get information out to the public about the bond, Morelli said.

McNair said she did as she was directed to do by the Town Council.

Millerd’s EEC filing contained comments in regards to sections of the FAQ sheet that the complaint claims are bias and that he previously asked the town manager to change.

McNair said that the changes suggested by Millerd could be seen as “as slanted another way.” 

She said the review of the document was “done carefully” and that she and Weber went over the document "with a fine-toothed comb" to ensure that the information did not advocate one way or the other.

Morelli said it’s clear that “If (Millerd) thinks the facts advocate for the project, then he agrees this is a worthy project.”

Millerd’s complaint states that the FAQ sheet does not list benefits of using a less expensive option to address the needs of the high school. He also lists numerous other objections to the FAQ sheet and states that items listed as facts are “scare tactics” or speculation.