‘Signgate’ was amusing, disturbing but could serve a useful purpose

Tuesday’s election results will tell us whether the antiTrump tsunami has ebbed in Greenwich or if it is still rolling over and reshaping longestablished political and civic norms.

In a preTrump offoffyear election when only local offices are at stake,

Republican Fred Camillo would have been expected to cruise to an easy victory in his first selectman’s race against Democrat Jill Oberlander.

Many still expect a Republican victory two days from now, though not with

what local GOP leadership would consider a comfortable level of certainty. Voter registration numbers compiled at the end of October show Democrats narrowing their deficit with Republicans, and unaffiliated voters continuing to build as the biggest bloc of the Greenwich electorate.

In 2017, according to the greenwichct.gov website, Republican registration stood at 13,206, Democratic at 9,722, and unaffiliated at 13,580. That was the first time unaffiliated voters outnumbered Republicans in town.

In just two years, GOP registration has declined 6.4 pecent, from 13,206 to 12,359; Democrats have added 675 voters, or 7 percent, bringing that party’s total to 10,397; and, unaffiliated voters now number 14,031, a 3 percent increase over two years ago and a 1,672vote edge over the oncesuperdominant Republicans.

The key this Election Day, as always in localonly election years, is getting voters to pay attention. Fortunately, the campaign this year has had events ranging from the amusing to the confounding, with a dollop of party arrogance thrown in for flavor.

First, the amusing: Signgate. A little more than a week ago, big red and white lawn signs imploring people to vote for “Trump/Camillo” sprouted overnight along the busier intersections across town. Now, it is not unusual for a local office seeker to align him or herself with the party leader, particularly if that leader is the president of the United States, and a former town resident.

But it gets instantly amusing when you get a text message first thing in the morning from Camillo, with a photo of the offending sign, and his claim that it was a dirty trick by Democrats. How hilarious is it that the Republican candidate thinks it is a dirty, malicious lie to put his name next to the current Republican president of the United States?

Camillo has tried to downplay his support for Trump and his conser

What arrogance to assume that, as long as both parties’ leaders agree, any given political sign could disappear. Have they not heard of the first amendment? Apparently, they were comfortable in deciding the sign was illegal because it did not include “paid for by” information. Nonetheless, a determination of legality is for the courts to decide, not two guys running local parties.

vative voting record in Hartford as a state representative, knowing that both might not play well with moderates of either party.

At first, there was speculation that Camillo or his camp was behind the Trump signs, but he quickly denied any such shenanigans. “Why would you accuse the person who was attacked?” he asked.

While I was laughing and, at the same time, trying to find out who was behind the unwelcome (by the GOP at least) signs, I was distracted by a message GOP Town Chairman Richard DiPreta left with Greenwich Time back on Oct. 25, the day the signs appeared. DiPreta had earlier that day asked the town attorney for a legal opinion that would lead to the instant removal of the offending signs.

DiPreta’s message said that while there was no legal opinion issued, the town attorney agreed with DiPreta, as did Democratic Town Chairman Joe Angland, that it would be “OK” to remove the signs.

What arrogance to assume that, as long as both parties’ leaders agree, any given political sign could disappear. Have they not heard of the first amendment? Apparently, they were comfortable in deciding the sign was illegal because it did not include “paid for by” information. Nonetheless, a determination of legality is for the courts to decide, not two guys running local parties.

And, as came out earlier this week, the sign was the idea of Greenwich Police Capt. Mark Kordick, a Democrat who is the very embodiment of a loose cannon. Kordick admitted to a police department deputy chief that he had purchased the signs but he did not, he said, distribute them. Someone else, whom Kordick did not identify, placed them along town roads.

Kordick said that he had asked the State Elections Enforcement Commission about guidelines for individual political speech. Such signs, he was told, did not have to include the “paid for by” disclaimer. Why did it not occur to the town attorney or one of the two party chairmen to make a simple call to the SEEC? Or why didn’t the town attorney just read the law? I don’t know which lawyer in the town attorney’s office spoke to DiPreta, but I asked Town Attorney John Wayne Fox who it was and did not get a response.

The confounding part of Signgate is why did the Greenwich Police Department suspend Kordick over this? Kordick is no stranger to suspensions or controversies. But in this case, he was exercising his rights as an individual. Absent any proof that he used police equipment or that he, in fact, planted the signs while wearing his police uniform, the GPD should have kept him at his post.

“It is questionable actions such as this that besmirch the otherwise outstanding reputation of the Greenwich Police Department,” First Selectman and Police Commissioner Peter Tesei said. “One would expect better.”

Yes, one would expect better, of the Greenwich Police Department and the town’s police commissioner.

At least these are the kind of gossipy political items that gets people’s attention and may serve to get them to the polls this Tuesday. Come election night, the town will know who is to succeed Tesei. It is a very important election. Vote early and vote often.