More Intimidation Attempts Against The MVFD

“Beginning in 2006, the Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. had been actively engaged in lobbying efforts to defeat a proposed charter revision and those candidates supporting the charter revisions in the Town of Middlebury, Connecticut.”

You left out some pretty key elements. Lets look at the facts here.  

1) Mr. St. John and Mrs. Strobel proposed a charter change that would include a permanent fire commission. The purpose of the MVFD is to protect lives and property from fires and other disasters.  The fire commission was a disaster, and not only threatened firefighter safety, but public safety as well. 

The fire commission was a group of untrained, uninformed, politically charged individuals, that served as a roadblock between the MVFD and the BOS. During their tenure they delayed apparatus replacement decisions, attempted to interfere with fireground operations, and attempted to stall the repair of essential lifesaving equipment. The fire commission threatened firefighter and public safety.

When former First Selectman St. John and Elaine Strobel made a move to make the temporary fire commission permanent, and created language in the Charter that would in-essence, take the vote for Chief away from the MVFD members, the Department, led by Chief Perrotti informed Middlebury residents of the destructiveness of such an action. The realization that the Fire Chief could be appointed by a fire commission, even if the Chief is not a firefighter was absolutely ridicules. It should also be noted that the late Selectman Hal Lynch was strongly against such a Charter change.  Read more about Hal here.

Allowing a politically motivated group to control fire safety in town could not be tolerated. The Department was well within its rights to protect its members and the residents from the damage a permanent fire commission would have inflicted if allowed to continue.

2) The question regarding whether to make the fire commission permanent was the only element of the Charter change the MVFD was opposing. In fact, on July 14, 2007, Chief Perrotti gathered almost 200 signatures from residents who wanted to see the fire commission question be separated from the Charter Revision vote. Mrs. Strobel was quoted in the July 17, 2007 Republican/American saying, “Splitting up the ballot would become too complicated.”  The petition was denied by Ed St. John and Elaine Strobel.

3) At no time did the Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department ever formally support any candidate. The assertion above is an outright lie.  The MVFD is made up of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.  That was made very clear at the time. Whether or not members, as Middlebury residents, supported their chosen candidates outside of the MVFD was well within their First Amendment rights.

“They actively campaigned against the charter on their website (www.middleburyfire.org).”

The website is not the official website of the MVFD Inc., and is not owned by the MVFD. It is a privately owned website, and funded 100% through private funds.

“They created mailers actively opposing the charter change and encouraged voters to help defeat it.”

The mailers were not created by the MVFD Inc. No MVFD Inc. funds were used to create such mailers, and none were ever mailed out.

“Most disconcerting is the fact that this organization has raised significant funds through public grants, bequests, fund-raisers or tax-deductible donations and then used these funds to support political activities.”

Another lie. Not one penny of the funds used to fight the Charter change that included a permanent fire commission, came from taxpayer money. Nor were any funds of the MVFD Inc. used in the endeavor.   Once again, the information above is wrong. All funds used were personal contributions from members.  

This is just another act of intimidation directed toward the MVFD, in an effort to stifle their voice in the upcoming referendum that will determine if Middlebury replaces a 27 year old pumper.  This is no different then the IRS threats made earlier. This is just harassment of individuals of a volunteer organization whose only motive is the safety of fellow firefighters and those in the community they serve.

One last thing. It will be interesting to see if this letter, dated yesterday is actually sent.  Why is the signature blocked out?  Who wants to keep their identity secret, when simple FOI to the SEEC would reveal the author. Who is going to sign this letter. Mr. St. John, who has aspirations of returning to office? I doubt it.  Mrs. Strobel?  How about the former chairman of the fire commission?  Who wants to have their name attached to a document that is full of false claims, and is designed to intimidate and harass a volunteer fire department?