To the Editor:

As the chair of Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) Ms. Mucchetti is an important public figure. It is therefore important to correct misstatements in her lengthy defense against an alleged “false narrative” as depicted in the story “Mucchetti defends record against ‘false narrative’” (Ridgefield Press, Dec. 12, 2019).

Please consider the context of an ethics complaint lodged after a P&Z meeting that included a vote 'amending' our town zoning regulations. An informed group of dedicated volunteers was tasked by the first selectman to report generally on how town planning and zoning commissions are addressing renewable energy systems, an evolving technology appearing in residential applications.

A P&Z meeting on March 12, 2019, was scheduled to consider a narrow commission initiated amendment and new definitions to the town zoning regulations. During the meeting Mucchetti reported on correspondence received regarding the proposed changes uttering “Let’s go to technical correspondence. (35:54) We received a letter from Connecticut Green Bank saying they are in support of both the accessory structure amendment as well as the definitions.” Referring to the cited volunteer group, Mucchetti then stated, “We got a letter … saying they also support this ….” The group never voiced support for the changes proposed and passed into law on March 12, 2019.

The article concerns an ethics complaint filed against Mucchetti. She reports that the ethics board found that she did not misrepresent a letter “supporting renewable energy.”

She goes on to say “… the only recourse for violating the confidentiality of the ethics review process is to file an ethics complaint against the public official who made the complaint public. We chose not to do so.”

As the individual that filed the complaint, I implore anyone interested to listen to the meeting. P&Z hearings are recorded and the audio recordings are public record. After being called out for mischaracterizing input received, Mucchetti is now pretending that she was referring to generic correspondence received prior to the proposed changes discussed on March 12, 2019.

General support for renewable energy was not the issue.

This mischaracterization immediately preceding a vote changing town regulations should be an issue for the ethics board. Sad. Finally, the ethics complaint was never posted on social media.

Do these false claims now posted in The Ridgefield Press constitute a violation of the confidentiality of the ethics review process?

Eric Beckenstein

Old Stagecoach Road, Dec. 16