This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
10/16/2019 08:00 AMAfter reading Dennis Crowe’s partisan rebuttal [Oct. 3, “Constructive, Collaborative, and Transparent”] of my letter [Sept. 12 “Obstructive, Dismissive, or Mute”], I was sorely tempted to respond item by item to defend my criticism of First Selectman Tom Banisch. However, in the same issue, The Source article “Town Discusses Possible Solutions to Lifeguard Shortage, Liabilities” does the work for me.
For the past two years, the absence of lifeguards on our town beaches has been another embarrassing icon of the Banisch administration. Repeated pleas from the Madison community to address this concern have been ignored. The Source article seeks to clarify the situation by discussing with Banisch a recent CIRMA (the town’s insurance carrier) report delivered to the Beach & Recreation Commission. Banisch completely misrepresents the liability risk. He suggests that the town only faces increased liability by hiring lifeguards. In actuality, the liability rests in failing to meet lifeguard standards of adequate numbers, adequate training, and appropriate placement. Likewise there’s associated liability in not having any guards at all—a fact neighboring towns must have taken as the guiding principal since they all have lifeguards! Banisch furthers his obfuscation by suggesting we struggle to attract teenage guards who are “being sued when something happens at a beach.” This is an extremely rare event and the more likely explanation is a failure to champion adequate recruitment and funding of open-water training for the many teens who would love the job but can’t afford the certification.
Finally, at no point in the article does Banisch identify that he’s the vice chairman of CIRMA. This may not represent a true conflict of interest, but the optics are troubling. (Ethics commission, any one?) I stand by my declaration he is deaf to town demands, obstructive to progress, and functions without transparency.
Beth Skudder
Madison