Author Archives: Kim Thompson

Letter to the Editor: On the Issue of Political Signs

Posted on by

To the Editor:

It’s election season and love them or hate them, there are about to be signs supporting candidates all over town. The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee will unwaveringly support the right of all community members to exercise their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and will stand up to attempts by any private citizen or governing body to trample that freedom.

On Monday, September 9th, an individual took it upon himself to steal a ‘Harris for President’ sign from private property, a video of the individual taking the sign has been submitted to local authorities. On a basic level, signs cost money and belong to the person who has chosen to display them in support of their candidate(s). But more importantly, signs represent our freedom to speak freely and to exercise that freedom in support of our Democracy.

Earlier on September 9th, The [Old Lyme] Historic District Commission (HDC) voted on “Signage Guidelines” which seek to limit the presence of “wire stick signs”, among other types of temporary signage, within the historic district. The discussions by the HDC in the months leading up to this decision focused specifically on limiting the presence of political signage within the HD [Historic District] based on a self-serving “tradition” that only those who don’t want signs ever ascribed to in the first place. Even the Old Lyme Historical Society pointed out that Lyme Street was displaying political signs as early as 1900. Political free speech is essential for our democracy and is one of the most protected forms of speech, so in addition to limiting the constitutional freedoms of residents of the historic district, this opens the town up to litigation when these new guidelines are challenged. 

We urge the residents of Old Lyme to remember that our right to express political support—whether through conversation, signs, or other means—is fundamental to the health of our democracy. Silencing any voice, whether through theft, restrictive guidelines, or other forms of suppression, undermines the very freedoms our country was built upon. The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee stands firm in its commitment to defend these rights and to foster an inclusive community where every individual’s voice can be heard and respected.

Sincerely, 

Kim Thompson,
Old Lyme.

Editor’s Note: The author is the Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee Chairwoman.

Letter to the Editor: BOE Discussion of Public Comment Policy Showed General Lack of Concern for Transparency

Posted on by
1

To the Editor:

An Open Letter to The Region 18 Board of Education

I watched the live stream of the November 1st Board of Education meeting and was troubled by the discourse and discussion around public comment policies. It showed a general lack of concern for transparency and public awareness of what business the Board of Education would discuss at meetings, and a disrespect for members of the BOE, who were not provided this discussion item on the agenda ahead of the meeting. 

First, I appreciate the commitment to continuous improvement and desire to look at policies to ensure they are appropriate, however when the chair silences the voices of board members and listens to respond — rather than listens to understand — parts of the conversation get lost. 

Additionally, Steve, you admitted at the meeting that you hadn’t read the policy and didn’t have it in front of you, if you are going to take on leadership positions, you owe it to the public to do your homework and arrive at meetings prepared and give your fellow board members and the public the same opportunity by putting items on the agenda. Further, you interrupted other members of the board and then rudely accused them of talking over you — this is not respect that any elected official deserves from the chair of the board they volunteer to serve. 

Board of Education meetings are meetings held in public, they are not public meetings. Items being discussed by the board must appear on the agenda, so the public has due notice of what is being discussed. While it sounds good to have discussion with someone making public comment, it excludes the rest of the public from the discussion because unless they attend every meeting, which you pointed out is a major burden for busy parents, they are not provided due notice (by way of the agenda) of what is being discussed at the meeting. 

It is wonderful that the public is welcome to comment. I recently asked that public comment be added to Board of Finance agendas, however it is generally understood among the public that the boards will listen to comments but not discuss them, a reminder of this widely accepted practice may go a long way towards mitigating the discomfort you discussed. 

This discussion on policy is a perfect example. I’m very interested in this and might have liked to be at the meeting or make public comment, however the topic did not appear on the agenda, so I had no reasonable way to know that this would be a point the BOE was discussing. I appreciate your attempt to respect busy constituents’ schedules, but it would be more transparent to ensure that all constituents know what is being discussed at BOE meetings by adding discussion stemming from public comment to the next meeting’s agenda.

In summary, before you start throwing out or ignoring existing policies, you need to have a thoughtful discussion and comprehensive understanding of why those policies may exist in the first place, and you need to explore all possible downstream impacts before you decide to toss long-standing policies.  

Sincerely, 

Kim Thompson,
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: Old Lyme RTC Seems to be Using Same Rhetoric as DeSantis, Extreme Republicans

Posted on by
4

To the Editor:

I received the Republican Town Committee’s (RTC) letter sent in mid-March and was immediately alarmed by rhetoric outlining their platform for the upcoming municipal election. Then I saw Mr. Nixon’s letter published in the CT Examiner on March 31st in response to a sermon delivered at the First Congregational Church.

First, Mr. Nixon’s letter sounded like the sermon hit the nail on the head and he’s just sorry that anyone outside his base properly interpreted what “parental rights” mean, like a teenager who has been caught doing something they know was wrong and is trying to talk their way out of it. 

It appears the letter the RTC sent to the whole town was sent with the hope that everyone but their base would either throw it right in the recycling or were too dumb to know that “standing up for parental rights in the town’s school system regarding the school’s curricula and student policies” is identical to the rhetoric used by Ron DeSantis and many others to justify the banning of hundreds of books, “don’t say gay” laws, and to prohibit the use of gender affirming pronouns in schools.

It sounds like Mr. Nixon understands these are unpopular policies among all but the far-right, and when he and the RTC decided to include that rhetoric as part of their platform and criteria for selecting candidates to run in this year’s municipal election, and as part of our State Representative Devin Carney’s platform, they should all expect significant blow-back from the community.

It is hard to believe that none of the 33 members of the RTC Mr. Nixon mentions are familiar with this rhetoric and the actions that have followed it all over this country.

It seems the Old Lyme RTC has fallen right in line with the most extreme Republicans, and we should be wary of all candidates they present as part of their slate this fall.

Sincerely,

Kim Thompson,
Old Lyme.

Editor’s Note: We invited Randy Nixon, who is the chairman of the Old Lyme RTC, to submit the letter he sent to CT Examiner, which is referred to above, to us for publication on LymeLine. He has not responded to our request at this time. Therefore, for reference, we are including a link to the letter, Sermonizing a ‘Complete Misrepresentation of the Facts’ in Old Lyme, here.

Letter to the Editor: Carney, Rubino Display Distinct Differences in Response to President; Rubino Rebukes Trump, Carney Does Not

Posted on by
Reply

To the Editor:

In 2016, Devin Carney said of Donald Trump, “Up to this point I have not expressed support for him and have not endorsed him. I’m not supporting him. I’m not supporting Mrs. Clinton either.”  Of course, the polls favored Hillary Clinton at the time so the politically opportune thing for a Republican to do was to ride the fence. Don’t endorse, but don’t rebuke. Since that time, Donald Trump has been caught on video making vulgar comments about women, ignored a global pandemic so profoundly that the U.S. has seen more than 220,000 deaths, overseen the biggest recession since the depression, and sowed racial divisions like no other President in recent history. Even Fox News confirmed that he called our fallen veterans “losers” and “suckers.”  One would think that Carney has ample reason to pick a side now. But he hasn’t. Because disavowing the President will lose him votes. We need a leader who has the courage to take a position on the important issues of the day – even if it will cost him politically.  

Dave Rubino has rebuked President Trump from the get-go. When Trump pushed the myth that absentee ballots would lead to fraud, Dave pushed back with the facts. Voters in our district should not have to choose between their health and their Constitutional rights. When Trump said that states like Connecticut had to send their students back to school or lose Federal funding, Dave spoke out. Most significantly, when in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, the political tides favored support of Black Lives Matter, Carney spoke with vigor at BLM rallies. But when Trump and his enablers came out against police accountability, Devin fell in line and voted against the police accountability act.

We deserve better than that. We deserve a leader who will stand for what’s right regardless of the political consequences. We deserve Dave Rubino.

Sincerely,

Kim Thompson,
Old Lyme.