First Selectman- Matthew Hoey

Dear Mr. Hoey

As a concerned citizen I am reaching out to you as Selectman of the town of Guilford seeking information and action regarding Simon the dog.

As you know, Simon has been on death row for one year for protecting his own property against a trespasser armed with a large stick. This despite CT State law 22-357 that clearly protects Simon on his own property against unlawful trespass, destruction of property and threatening harm.

Simon’s owners and the tax payers of Guilford have been repeatedly told that the Selectman's Office does not have the authority to change or revoke the kill order placed on Simon. In fact, as the chief executive officer for the town, the first Selectman does have the power to overturn an administrative order. This designation is clearly outlined in Chapter 91 of the Connecticut General Statutes. A recent letter issued by the CT Attorney General regarding another case upholds this fact and states that the Town does have the power to negotiate release of the dog, and that this negotiation would be affirmed by the court and therefore override a Dept. of Agriculture decision. Therefore, the Town of Guilford (through its Chief Executive Officer) is absolutely in a position to order Simon’s release.

What is the legal basis for the claim that the Selectman does not have the authority to reverse a clearly erroneous kill order? Are you not responsible, as chief executive officer for the town, for all administrative actions, and in particular those that violate state law?

If you simply refused to take action, this would be a much different scenario than claiming you do not have the authority to do so. Without legal justification, the latter is a gross misrepresentation at best, and intentionally lying to constituents at worst.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Angela Bollettieri

Stamford, CT