Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RiverCog board seeks meeting with Gateway Commission after lawsuit against member town raises conflict concerns
Summary
RiverCog staff and board members expressed concern that Gateway Commission enforcement actions—culminating in litigation against Old Saybrook—create a perceived conflict with RiverCog staff who provide administrative support; the board directed staff to seek a meeting with the commission and to require that commission letters be on Gateway letterhead and signed by commission leadership.
RiverCog officials raised concerns after the Lower Connecticut River Gateway Commission, which RiverCog has hosted and staffed since 1973, took enforcement action and sued the town of Old Saybrook. Board members said the arrangement has created confusing optics because RiverCog staff prepare letters and Susie has been signing them, which some member towns interpret as RiverCog taking positions against its own member municipalities.
Sam Gold, RiverCog’s executive director, and Susie (Gateway contract administrator) briefed the board on the history and current conditions. Susie said RiverCog staff now provide purely administrative support and do not have decision-making authority for the commission, but signing practices have created misimpressions.
"I am signing it," Susie said of commission letters, "which is causing some confusion with zoning boards and zoning boards of appeal in the different towns." Board members proposed several options: ask the Gateway Commission to sign their own letters, limit RiverCog staff signatures or tasking, or assist the commission in finding a different host agency. Several members urged a meeting with the commission to air grievances publicly and seek corrective steps; the board directed Susie to convey that letters should bear the commission’s own chair signature and that her initials, if used, should reflect an administrative role.
Board members also discussed the contract value ($91,000 this fiscal year) and staff time spent on Gateway work (Susie estimated 40–45% of her time, plus contributions from other staff). The board agreed to convene a meeting with Gateway Commission leadership and invited all CEOs to attend.
Next step: staff will schedule a joint meeting with Gateway Commission leadership to discuss letterhead/signature practices, scope of staff work and possible hosting options.
