At the final regularly scheduled meeting before summer break, the Greenwich RTM voted to accept a substitute resolution for a non-binding SOMR titled, “Fiscal Prudence in Town Dispute Resolution.”
The vote came at 11:43pm.
The SOMR, item 29, was largely in response to Greenwich First Selectman Fred Camillo’s lawsuit against the Greenwich Board of Education, which has dragged on since December 2024, with attorney fees for both parties adding up.
Committee chairs who took up the SOMR reported first.
James Waters, chair of the Budget Overview Committee said his committee had discussed the impetus for this SOMR on multiple occasions and that Adam Leader from RTM district 11 spoke to his committee.
“(Leader) explained he wasn’t satisfied with the process around the ongoing lawsuit between the First Selectman’s office and the Board of Education, and that more collaborative approaches should be pursued more seriously, particularly when the cost of outside counsel is a concern, given that the law department is conflicted out of this matter,” Waters said.
Mr. Leader penned a LTE back on May 27 regarding the Greenwich-on-Greenwich lawsuit, writing, in part:
“Here’s a principle everyone else in town can agree on: Greenwich elected officials and town bodies should not spend precious taxpayer dollars suing other Greenwich elected officials and town bodies. Suing anyone is bad enough. It’s even worse when we, the taxpayers, have to pay for both sides. To make matters worse, it seems like First Selectman Fred Camillo didn’t first attempt less costly and potentially more successful methods of dispute resolution.”
Mr. Waters said Owen Weaver from Zabel Schellenberg LLC, representing the town law department, addressed the BOC, informing them that any town ordinance stemming from the SOMR would be out of legal order, noting there are many situations where the town does need to initiate legal action.
“Mr. Weaver, however, affirmed that there was nothing wrong with passing a SOMR on the topic,” Waters added.
The BOC hesitated to approve the SOMR listed on the call without more work on its language – their vote was 1-2-8.
However, they did vote in favor of a ‘sense of the committee statement’ as follows:
“The BOC committee supports the intent of the SOMR, and calls upon the BOE and First Selectman to resolve their ongoing legal dispute immediately.”
Their vote on the sense of the committee statement passed, 10-0-1.
District 11 offered a substitute resolution with simplified language for the SOMR.
D11 chair Susan Fahey said, “The amended motion that Adam Leader circulated to the entire RTM was brought before us. We had a brief discussion about (how) everyone felt like the spirit of what he was trying to do was something we needed to adopt. We thought the new language was more concise – looking obviously first for arbitration first or mediation before they would go and have a lawyer-v-lawyer approach.”
Fahey said her district voted 18-0-0 in favor of the substitute resolution, which starts with this Whereas clause:
“Ongoing litigation between Town entities in Greenwich has accrues about $200,000 through May 2025; The cost for this dispute is continuing into a second fiscal year; The total spend is currently unknown and future spending is not capped; For reasons of comity and resource preservation, the RTM prefers collaborative dispute resolutions such as facilitated negotiation or mediation, arbitration or resolution through the electoral process over administrative complaints and Town-versus-Town litigation.
Kip Burgweger, chair of Leglislative & Rules, said his committee did not vote on the SOMR since they hadn’t had time to review the substitute resolution.
Greg Zorthian said his Finance Committee did not vote on the original SOMR either, since they had not reviewed the substitute, but described the sense of the committee as supportive of the SOMR.
“We did feel that this ongoing expenditure of intramural fighting needed to end,” Zorthian said.
“And that we were spending money without even knowing how much we were spending.”
Speaking in opposition to the SOMR was Karen Fassuliotis who is an attorney and Republican member of the Board of Estimate and Taxation.
“I don’t think anyone that is still in this room would not prefer collaborative dispute resolution over an administrative or civil lawsuit,” she said. “As an attorney, I’ve seen it all. I’ve seen a lot of money wasted, but the most ethical attorneys do seek a solution rather than expensive court litigation.”
She said the SOMR was neither feasible nor practical.
“The Freedom of Information Commission has heard arguments. Final papers have been filed, and a decision is pending by the commission. Similarly the superior court decision is pending, likely awaiting a decision of the FOI commission before that decision is decided.”
She suggested perhaps the RTM SOMR should instead call for the Town entities to abide by the FOIA commission decision and/or that of the superior court and not appeal the decision.
“That might be a practical solution,” Fassuliotis said. “We have a town attorney and legal dept for a reason: They are hired to defend the town and make their judgements on how to proceed with a case.”
Fassuliotis said elected officials cannot bind future officials on a policy matter and urged members to vote no on the SOMR in September.
The RTM voted to accept the substitute, simplified resolution.
94 in favor
12 opposed
13 abstained
The SOMR will be back before the RTM in September for a second read.
See also:
Greenwich Sues Greenwich: First Selectman Camillo vs School Board Democrats
December 9, 2024
Also from the June 9 RTM meeting:
June 11 2025
RTM Votes to Approve SOMR with Message to BET: Avoid the “Fiscal Cliff”
June 12, 2025