To the Editor:
I am writing in reply to John Kiker’s misleading, nothing-to-see-here letter to the editor published on July 28.
Before doing so, I encourage readers to review previous letters to the editor that I have published in CT Examiner, which provide specific details in real time of anti-democratic practices in Lyme, for which Mr. Kiker is a primary architect.
With apologies for the litany, those letters, published since 2022, include: “Party Maneuverings in Lyme are Undemocratic, ‘Rob Voters of Choice’,” “The Antidemocratic Movement in Lyme Continues,” “Rabble Rousing for Democracy in Lyme,” “Accountability and the Anti-democratic Movement in Lyme,” “Appeal for Donations in Lyme is Grift, Not Honest Electioneering,” “Cowardice of the Anti-Democratic Movement Embarrasses Lyme,” “Cosplaying Democracy in Lyme,” “Rather than ‘Polite Cooperation,’ a Genuine Commitment to Pluralistic, Democratic Society in Lyme,” “Land Preservation, Race and Politics in Lyme,”
and “Silence and Soft Racism in Lyme.”
In his second paragraph, Mr. Kiker asserts “there’s never been a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between the Democrats and Republicans in Lyme,” although there have been uncontested elections for Selectmen. In other words, it’s all just an innocent coincidence.
Mr. Kiker fails to mention the numerous times that the Lyme DTC—including under his leadership—and the Lyme RTC cross-endorsed candidates rather than ran competitive and honest elections. And as I detail in those earlier letters to the editor, on two occasions those cross-endorsed candidates retired during their term (Ralph Eno in 2017 and Steve Mattson in 2022), which allowed the remaining two Selectmen (Steve Mattson in 2017 and David Lahm in 2022) to promote themselves to First Selectman and continue the ruse. This is a system that effectively prevents voters from choosing town leaders, and Mr. Kiker was instrumental in its execution.
I can also speak from personal experience. When I was an active member of the Lyme DTC, then chairman Steve Mattson inquired if I were interested in joining the Board of Education. I replied that I did not have time for a campaign, but he explained that the tradition in Lyme was for each Town Committee to select a person in alternating turns. While I do not recall Mr. Mattson’s specific use of the term “gentlemen’s agreement,” that certainly was the spirit he conveyed. I objected to that practice then, and I object to it now, so I am pleased to see the Board of Education election this year. But Mr. Kiker’s claim that no such tradition exists is ludicrous—and he knows that.
In his third and fourth paragraphs, Mr. Kiker contends that in small towns “there typically aren’t enough candidates to fill the seats available in elections, let alone produce contested elections.” While I would like him to produce the data for that wildly unsubstantiated claim about regional municipalities, I can again counter his point directly regarding Lyme.
Mr. Kiker was in the room at the DTC meeting when Emily Bjornberg suggested she may run against Republican Ralph Eno, prompting chairman Steve Mattson to berate her. I too was a witness to that shocking display. My wife was a witness to it. And numerous other members were witnesses to it. That meeting occurred before the Lyme DTC ultimately cross-endorsed Eno, which set in motion Eno stepping down and Mattson promoting himself to First Selectman. To anyone with basic reasoning skills, it is clear and obvious that a backroom deal was made.
While my wife and I spoke out against this mistreatment of a talented potential candidate for office, John Kiker sat silently, acquiescing to Mattson’s plan. My wife and I later resigned from the DTC in protest of those anti-democratic and dishonest dealings. Mr. Kiker was rewarded with the Lyme DTC chairmanship when Mattson promoted himself to First Selectman.
I do not have the expertise necessary to judge the legality and ethics of the Lyme DTC’s latest decision to run one Democrat (Kiker) and support two Unaffiliated candidates (Christy Zelek and Kristina White), but I hope that CT Examiner consults those who do. All of us voters would benefit from clarity about this new plan and whether it is a way to game elections and to skirt minority representation. I can alert readers to the fact that White was appointed to the Select Board by David Lahm and John Kiker after Mattson stepped down during his term; in other words, she was originally granted the position without an election and clearly as part of a deal between Mattson, Lahm, and Kiker.
Finally, I laughed out loud at Mr. Kiker’s claim that the Lyme DTC “supports a diversity of voices and perspectives, which is a cornerstone of our values and beliefs.” It is literally untrue. Lyme ranks lowest of all towns in Connecticut on the Diversity Index, the measure by which two individuals who meet would be of a different race or ethnicity. Mr. Kiker and his sort have for years pledged to keep Lyme “the way it is” — a town of White wealth, with little support for families with children, and no serious commitment to affordable housing, including for first responders, teachers, and firefighters. In public comments, in the pages of the DTC newsletter, and in countless campaign materials, Mr. Kiker has routinely promised to restrict diversity of thought—and of bodies in Lyme that he and his supporters deem inappropriate.
So, I ask my fellow Democrats: Is John Kiker the best we can do for a public official? Are his values genuinely those of our party? And do we want honest people leading our town or not?
Stephen Gencarella
Lyme, CT