Middlebury’s first selectwoman is calling for a special election and for changes to a state law governing vacancies in selectman positions after the town’s Board of Selectmen (BOS) was forced to make changes to minutes from a special meeting called to fill a vacancy.
The town held a special meeting for the town’s elective officers on January 13 to fill a vacancy on the three-person BOS created in November 2025 when former selectwoman Jennifer Mahr became the First Selectwoman.
Under Middlebury’s town charter, at the first meeting after a held after a vacancy on the board occurs, the remaining BOS members are to declare a vacancy and follow Section 9-222 of state statute.
That section of statute, which applies to vacancies on boards of selectmen, stipulates that the remaining members of the board have 30 days to fill a vacant seat. After that, if the vacancy is not filled, the elective town officers then have 60 days to fill it.
The BOS did not fill the vacancy within 30 days, which Mahr has said was the result of other selectmen’s “refusal to participate”. Selectman Paul Vance cited family obligations as a reason he could not attend a December 30, 2025, special meeting to address the vacancy, which was subsequently cancelled for a lack of quorum. This led to the January 13 special meeting, where town elected officials voted to appoint Brian Shaban to the vacant seat.
Shaban was elected by a vote of three to one to one by town clerk Brigitte Bessette; treasurer Ralph Barra; Democratic registrar of voters Francis Barton, Jr.; Republican registrar of voters Nancy Robison; and tax collector Cindy Palomba.
However, the initial minutes filed after the meeting did not record which official voted for which candidate. Nor did the official ballots record this.
In a January 21 press release, Mahr called for a special election over “deficiencies in the official minutes” that “prevent verification of how each official voted.”
“Because the written ballots were not signed or labeled with each official’s name, the minutes did not identify how each official voted and therefore did not comply with Freedom of Information requirements under Section 1-225.” Mahr said in the press release.
Section 1-225 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) governs how meetings involving electronic participation must be run. It requires that roll call votes be taken at meetings where members participate electronically, unless the vote is unanimous. The January 13 special meeting was held both electronically and in person.
After consultation with the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC), the town refiled amended minutes that recorded the vote of each elected official: Palombo, Robison, and Barton voted for Shaban. Barra voted for Sally Romano and Bessette voted for William Stowell.
Mahr told Inside Investigator that she wouldn’t be filing a complaint with the FOIC over the violation because the technical problem had been solved.
“My difficult decision was, do I let the minutes be wrong and someone files a complaint because they’re wrong, and would that have to be me, or do we take the steps to correct the minutes, knowing that’s unusual as well. Because it’s not like we could go to the ballot and see a person’s name and how they voted.” Mahr told Inside Investigator.
She added that, while the change to the minutes addressed the technical violation, it still created information that was not available at the time the meeting was recorded. Essentially, there’s no way to check that the votes from the amended minutes match how elected officials actually voted because that information was not recorded.
“Which is worse, to have an open FOIA violation that you know about or to have to go and do this other thing that to me is like, that’s not right either?” Mahr said.
Mahr is also calling for a special election to be held to appoint a new selectman.
“Given the controversy Middlebury has experienced, and to avoid continued dispute, restore public confidence, and ensure that the outcome is beyond reproach, the most transparent course of action is to ask Middlebury voters to decide.” Mahr said in the press release. “A special election removes ambiguity and places the decision where it belongs—with the electorate.”
Under Section 9-222 of state statute, a special election can be triggered by a petition containing the signatures of five-percent of registered voters. When Inside Investigator spoke with Mahr on Friday, January 23, she said the petition had received 288 of the 345 signatures needed.
Mahr told Inside Investigator that the vote to appoint Shaban the new selectmen had “nothing to do with the people” and was down to “which political party had the most people sitting in the room at the time.”
“At the end of the day, I want voters to be confident that this is their choice, that it’s not a political numbers game as to who controls what at this point.” Mahr told Inside Investigator.
Mahr’s press release also stated that she intends to discuss vagueness in Section 9-222 with Middlebury’s state delegation.
“There are now three Connecticut towns dealing with selectman vacancies, and residents in all of them have been affected by how vague the statute is.” Mahr said in the press release. “The General Assembly needs to establish a clear, uniform process for municipalities.”
Mahr told Inside Investigator that one possible solution to the vagueness in the statute would be to add time frames specifying when certain actions should be taken.
Mahr suggested the statute stipulate that appointments to fill vacancies within six months of an election are okay and that within a time frame of six months to a year, municipalities could have the option to hold an election to keep the appointment or hold a special election.
“Anything past a year, I think needs to go to a special election.” Mahr said.
She added that five percent of electors in a bigger town is a “really heavy lift.” “You might get stuck with somebody for two years that voters didn’t vote for.” Mahr said.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
