Enfield Things

  In 2022, the Town Council, under a Democratic majority, approved a policy allowing Pride flags to be displayed at Town Hall during Pride Month in June. After retaking the majority in 2024, Republicans passed an ordinance banning all non-government flags from government buildings. That should have been the end of it. But it wasn't. After forming a Charter Revision Commission, its chair, Mayor Ken Nelson, sought to include what amounts to a permanent Pride Flag ban in the town charter. Changing the town charter requires voter approval through a referendum. If voters approve the measure, future councils must follow the rule unless a new referendum overturns it. Mayor Nelson has been the strongest advocate for putting this on the ballot. "Can the town buildings be used to push a personal ideology on the residents of Enfield?" he asked at the Commission's final meeting. "It is a political issue—it's not our billboard." Last week, the Charter Commission dead...

This was the budget data the Charter Revision Commission examined. It shows the percentage of budget increase by year. The budget increase does not translate to a tax increase. In 2023, the Democrats for instance, lowered spending but taxes still increased. The party and COLA columns were added by author.  The Charter Revision Commission’s 7% budget referendum proposal isn’t reform — it’s a political weapon. It's disguised as fiscal responsibility, but it’s engineered to shift blame, confuse voters, and lock Enfield into bad policy. There are some good ideas in the commission’s package. But this one? It shouldn’t go to the ballot. Here’s what the proposal says: If town expenditures increase by more than 7% over the current fiscal year, it would trigger a referendum. That sounds reasonable — until you understand the facts. The 7% Fiction First, Enfield hasn’t approved a 7% budget hike in at least 15 years — likely far longer. No council, Republican or Democrat, proposes a 7% hike u...

AI generated art  Enfield is on the hook for more than $1 million in legal fees after a federal court ruled that the town and its Board of Education violated federal disability laws by failing to accommodate Sarah Hernandez, an autistic and deaf elected official. In 2017, Ms. Hernandez was a newly elected school board member. Instead of providing reasonable accommodations for her to participate in board meetings fully, the town chose to fight a multi-year federal legal battle. After about five years, a U.S. District Court jury ruled in January 2024 that Enfield discriminated against Ms. Hernandez in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She won little in damages from the court, but the court later issued a permanent injunction requiring the town not to discriminate against people with disabilities. The town had to pay her legal cost, and that bill has arrived. On March 7, the U.S. District Court in Bridgeport ordered Enfield to pay $964,366 in attorneys' fees and ...