Cheshire residents accuse town of sanitizing Department of Agriculture consent order; independent probe ongoing

Dozens of residents pressed the Town of Cheshire Town Council on June 10 for answers and accountability after records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act showed town edits to a Department of Agriculture consent order involving the town’s animal control operations.

The public outcry came during the council’s public-comment period, where speakers said the council and its attorney removed language that would have linked the town to criminal allegations. Jean Melendez read from town records, saying, “The proposed consent order makes specific reference to violation of CGS 53-247, which includes felony animal cruelty. The town cannot agree that it violated CGS 53-247.” She added that town counsel later changed the draft to say “the department alleges the respondent has violated,” a revision she said removed any formal admission.

The residents’ remarks followed repeated questions about the status of the town’s independent investigation into operations at the municipal pound and an animal control officer’s conduct. Several speakers urged immediate action and described long-standing distrust of the town’s handling of the matter. Janice Copes told the council, “Stop defending the indefensible.” Jim Block said elected leaders had “refused to speak” and that the situation represented “multiple levels of failure.”

Town officials told the public that the town hired an independent investigator with a broad scope to examine both personnel and facility operations and the allegations in the consent order. In response to questions about timing, the council said the investigator has nearly completed interviews: “It is my understanding … the last interview as part of the investigation is to be conducted tomorrow,” the council stated during the meeting, and that the investigator will require time to prepare a written report once interviews finish.

Town staff and council members emphasized the independence of the review. The council also noted that any application for an arrest warrant goes to the state’s attorney and that a warrant had not been issued by that office. Multiple speakers countered that the public had received no satisfactory explanation for decisions they say were made in closed session, and several asked that the council release more records and move with greater transparency.

No formal personnel action or formal disposition of the consent order was announced at the meeting; the council said it will receive the investigator’s report when it is complete.

The controversy drew repeated public testimony over more than an hour and prompted questions about the town’s use of private email for official business and the scope of records provided in FOIA disclosures. Several residents called for new procedures to ensure accountability and for the council to make findings public once the investigator’s report is complete.