To the Editor
I’m writing as a neighbor who appreciates anyone willing to serve our town—and as a 20-year Lyme resident, who hopes that our local government stays balanced and transparent.
With that in mind, I’m concerned about a married couple, Mary Powell-St. Louis (“MARY”) and Tom St. Louis (“TOM”), seeking two of our three top seats (First Selectman and Selectman). Concentrating that much authority in one household can weaken the checks and balances small towns like Lyme rely on. Even the appearance of that concentration (of potential power) is troubling. National politics may be beyond our control; our local choices aren’t.
I attended the Republican Town Committee Open Forum hoping to hear two independent voices. Aside from a difference over how to address hydrilla in Hamburg Cove, I heard no meaningful policy distinctions between these husband and wife candidates. Several times, Mary interrupted Tom to display greater subject-matter familiarity—not to disagree on policy. When I asked what significant town issues they differed on, Mary replied, “good question,” but neither candidate was able to identify any substantive policy differences.
This matters for civic discourse. Healthy government needs open, independent debate—ideas tested in public, not settled privately. If domestic partners hold two of three seats, dissent can feel domestic rather than civic, which may chill participation, narrow options, and weaken accountability.
Relatives sometimes serve together in small towns; that’s part of community life, and I value that spirit of service, particularly when it is multi-generational. But granting two executive seats to spouses is different: it concentrates power, increases the likelihood of conflicts and recusals, and reduces the chance for genuine pushback.
This isn’t about party politics, it is about principle. And it would be the same for couples of either red or blue stripe; it’s about our town. Lyme deserves multiple, independent voices—people free to disagree and compelled to persuade. For balance, accountability, and healthy public discourse, please support independent representation, not a household slate.
Sincerely,
Sarah Crisp,
Lyme, CT.
If one is concerned about open, independent debate on the Board of Selectmen, consider that the Democrats have candidates running for all three positions. The charade of the independence of the “unaffiliated” candidates is obvious to anyone paying attention. This presents a far greater risk of limiting diversity of ideas and policy options.
Hi Mike, thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter. My concern is not about a single party. It is a married couple, of whatever political persuasion, having control of our town.
Checks and balances only work when they are built into the structures of our government. The framers of our constitution knew this, and the State of Connecticut knew this when they implemented the minority representation law, which forbids every select board and municipal body to be entirely composed of members from a single political party. The State also has myriad requirements about local public meetings, meeting minutes, freedom of information requests, posting of meeting agendas, the list goes on. Mary has attended Board of Selectmen’s meetings for years as a public citizen. She served two terms on the Board of Education which also has strict rules about agendas, minutes, meeting procedures, policy development, etc. She is no stranger to policies and procedures. And both are so committed to transparency that they gave out their personal cell phone numbers. I was also at the forum the Republican candidates held at the Library and thought that the hydrilla issue was actually a serious division between the two of them. When you asked the question, “what else do you two disagree on?”, I wondered if you had asked the Democrat slate, what would they have said? Do they disagree on much between themselves? How could I ever find out? I actually won’t ever find out. Unless they happen to show up together at our home soon. I will definitely ask that question if they visit together.
Hi Liz, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. I am sure that Mary has many excellent qualities including a thorough knowledge of policies and procedures as, I am equally sure, all the candidates do. That does not alleviate my concern that one married couple would have control over our town. Around the kitchen table they would constitute a quorum. As residents, are we expected to issue a FOIA request on a daily basis. I can only find one other example (so far) of the potential for this to happen (in New Hampshire), I am not an attorney, but even a brief search under CT law says “Any meeting of a “public agency” where a quorum is present and public business is discussed must be open to the public and properly noticed (CGS § 1-225).” I do not wish to be facetious, as I believe this is too important a matter, but does that mean the people of Lyme are to be invited to breakfast, lunch, and dinner with Mary and Tom each day? If a married couple held two seats, almost any household conversation about town matters could risk FOIA violations. It seems to be a situation ripe for civil penalties. I admire them both for wishing to stand, why do they need to stand for the same board at the same time?
Hi Sarah. Thank you for attending our open forum and joining in the conversation. It was great to see folks from all party affiliations in attendance, and we appreciated the opportunity to have a robust, honest and unscripted discussion.
It is unfortunate, however, that you are questioning the integrity Mary and I will bring to our respective roles on the Board of Selectmen. You may recall that we addressed our independence at the forum (posted at LymeRTC.org or on YouTube) including providing an example that as a member of our Town’s P&Z Commission I had access to the draft POCD for several weeks, yet Mary had not seen the document and was awaiting the public review session. As we said at the time, sharing this document would have been wholly inappropriate.
Throughout our professional lives, we have both always respected legal requirements. As a practicing physician Mary treated thousands of patients, yet through her diligent adherence to HIPAA privacy restrictions, I was never made aware of personal circumstances for any patients. In a similar vein, during my long Pfizer career, I was aware of and involved in many organizational developments that were highly confidential and, of course, not to be shared outside the company; we never once even came close to discussing anything like that because Mary understood that I could not and would not be able to share details with her. Yes, we are long-time committed life partners, but we are also committed to high standards of integrity and honesty and would never cross any boundaries imposed by law or regulation.
Thank you again for your engagement. I assure you that Mary and I will take our commitment to the Town very seriously and execute our duties in an ethical, considered and, importantly, transparent manner.
Regards,
Tom
Tom, I am happy that you have responded to my letter, and thank you for taking the time to do that. As I have said, I respect anyone willing to serve.
I want to be very clear that my concern is not about your’s (or Mary’s) personal integrity, which I have not questioned. It’s about the position itself and the perception it creates when two of three top executive seats are held within a single household.
If it weren’t you but another couple, the same concern would arise. In the code of ethics of nearly every public body — from federal agencies and Bar Associations to local boards — there’s a principle that says something to the effect of: “It is not impropriety but the appearance of impropriety that can erode public confidence.”
Yes, your example about not sharing the draft POCD demonstrates a degree of personal discipline, and I respect that. But public trust isn’t built on personal assurances alone — it’s built on structures that avoid even the appearance of insider access or shared influence. That’s why so many ethics codes are written the way they are. Why choose to run together? Why not share your skills and experiences across multiple boards, or at different times, and make a positive choice to avoid the appearance of impropriety?
This isn’t about you. It’s about ensuring the people of Lyme can trust the system and it seems an appropriate time to ask the new Board of Selectmen to consider an Ethics Policy (or an update) that addresses such issues.