Monthly Archives: November 2023

Letter to the Editor: Old Lyme Treasurer Reiter Again Refutes Statements Made About Him, Looks Forward to Serving Another Four Years in Same Role

Posted on by
1

To the Editor:

I read John Flick’s October 30 letter to the editor entitled, “’Dedicated Volunteer’ Ward has ‘In-Depth  Financial Expertise, Experience’ Required to Serve as Old Lyme Town Treasurer” and was dismayed to  find the exact same (word for word) untrue statement about my record as Treasurer that was printed in an LTE [on] this LymeLine website from October 16. So I am here to say again, while what he writes about Mr. Ward may be true, what Mr Flick writes about me continues to be false. 

Mr. Flick notes with exactly the same words as the [previous] LymeLine LTE that he reached out to Board of Finance members and was told that I rarely attend any Board of Finance meetings. I remind you all that he left out a rather crucial point: the Town Treasurer has no standing need to attend Board of Finance meetings. The duties of the Town Treasurer and the duties of the Board of Finance are different. One can easily research the statutory job responsibilities of the Treasurer in section 7-80 of the Connecticut General Statutes which is titled, “Duties of the Treasurer.” As I said before, the Treasurer is responsible for managing the Town’s money and ensuring that all bills are paid. Which means the Treasurer works with the Finance Department, not the Board of Finance. Nor do I report to the Board of Finance or Board of Selectmen either. 

So what have I been doing over the past four years, besides the day to day task of working with the Finance Department? When COVID hit I worked with the Finance Director and our IT Company to ensure that even if Town Hall had to shut down, bills and paychecks would still be paid. (And while I was at it, I worked with the Town Hall IT Committee to upgrade all our IT systems to current standards). More  recently, when our Finance Director was out on extended medical leave, I helped find a temporary replacement to fill the role until a permanent replacement could be found. 

I believe that the Republicans actually do know the Town Treasurer responsibilities and continuing to push this lie in now a second LTE concerns me deeply. If they are telling people this clearly false statement about me and the Town Treasurer responsibilities, what else are they telling you that isn’t true? 

I take this role extremely seriously. Honesty and integrity are the backbone of all elected positions. I’ve  been inside Town Hall for the past four years working hard for the people of Old Lyme and I’m looking  forward to continuing to work for you over the next four years.

Sincerely,

Michael Reiter,
Old Lyme.

Editor’s Note: i) The author is the current Old Lyme Treasurer and the candidate endorsed by the Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee for the position in the upcoming election.

ii) The author is correct that the letter from Mr. Flick is an almost ‘verbatim’ copy of Mr. Bucior’s letter. We apologize that we did not notice that — we would not have published the second letter had we realized. We offered to take down Mr. Flick’s letter but Mr. Reiter preferred to respond to it since it had been published for a few days. We would respectfully ask that letters are not submitted, which are effectively copies of previously submitted letter,s, but signed by a different author. Thank you.

Letter to the Editor: Banning is on the Ballot

Posted on by
4

To the Editor:

In June, a number of candidates on the current Old Lyme and Lyme RTC slates, including Board of Ed candidates Mary Powell St. Louis and Mike Presti, signed a letter seeking removal of sex ed books from the Young Adult section of the public library.  Surrogates continue this shameless campaign even now, and have gone so far as to publicly call for the resignation of Democrats on the Board of Education who have rejected this censorship. 

So what’s all the fuss about?  Two cartoon sex education books.  Are the books obscene? Unequivocally: no.  From a legal perspective it isn’t even close. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue in Miller v. California. There, the Court noted that in order for a book to be determined obscene, one must review it “taken as a whole” and find that its primary purpose was to appeal to “prurient interests” (i.e. to turn people on). The Court understood that context matters. It understood that historically censorship proponents often cherry-picked “objectionable” out-of-context snippets to the detriment of society.  For example, the previously governing Comstock Laws led to anatomy textbooks being prohibited from being sent to medical students on obscenity grounds. (At least those future doctors didn’t have to see naked people!)

A reasonable person would see that taken as a whole, these books are meant as a form of relatable and informal sex education – a sometimes goofy but genuinely sincere attempt to answer the very real questions that might stem from an often confusing and clinical school curriculum.

Unless they are your own kids, attempting to “hide” that resource from teens who seek it out isn’t just wrong, it’s unconstitutional.  The federal court in a case called Sund v. Wichita Falls, found that “the First Amendment to the United States Constitution indisputably protect(s) the right to receive information” and therefore the First Amendment is violated by “the forced removal of children’s books to the adult section of the Library.” Almost a duplicate of the facts here. (But the Court does give a solution, “if a parent wishes to prevent her child from reading a particular book, that parent can and should accompany the child to the Library, and should not prevent all children in the community from gaining access to constitutionally protected materials.”) That should end this. These books are by definition not obscene, and banning them, moving them, or restricting them is unconstitutional censorship. That’s the law.  

So why are we still having this conversation?  Because certain people have made a choice.  They’ve gone “all in.”  They’ve decided that the national Republican Party has cracked the code to victory.  

And that code means book bans are on the ballot. 

Sincerely,

David Rubino,
Old Lyme.