Windsor Politics Archives

Symbolic Conversations

This piece appeared in the Windsor Journal on September 19, 2026.

This is the first installment of a column in which I will explore local, state, and federal trends that impact Windsor. As someone who did not grow up in Windsor or Connecticut, I hope to bring something of an outsider’s eye to the news and politics of my adopted hometown and state.

By way of introduction, I moved to Windsor in 2007, bought a house here in 2011, and gradually got involved in local civic life. This included working with First Town Downtown, the Democratic Town Committee, and various transportation safety advocacy initiatives. Readers may know me as one of the more vocal proponents of the Broad Street road diet.

By far the most common question I received after the road diet referenda was some variation on the simple question, “Why?” It’s a difficult question to answer because, as the debate progressed, it developed into something more than a policy disagreement or even a dispute over the underlying facts. It often felt as though supporters and opponents were having parallel conversations, as if the debate were a series of non sequiturs addressing barely related issues.

This type of miscommunication, of course, has been one of the defining features of civic life in America for the past few decades. But there are particular touchstones in Connecticut that seem to recur in these confused debates. What does it mean to be a “high-tax state” when many nearby states have higher rates on top earners than us? What is actually causing the rapid increases in property taxes, housing prices, healthcare premiums, and utility costs in Connecticut? What do we have “local control” of, exactly?

I look forward to diving into these sometimes thorny questions, but I also want to reflect on what it is, precisely, that makes Windsor such a special place to live. My wife and I chose Windsor Center because it provided an easy commute for both of us, vibrant civic life, and a strong sense of community. It also gave us walking-distance access to a train station, a high-quality library, dining options, a grocery store: all the basics and then some. Broad Street’s fortunes have ebbed and flowed, but the past few years have been nothing short of a renaissance.

But there’s something more at play here. Once, when my daughter and I were sitting at The Bean, she looked around and announced in that profound yet matter-of-fact way children do, “This is a nice town.” I asked her what made Windsor a nice town, and without a moment’s hesitation she answered, “the people.” I could not agree more.

But I digress. Until next time, see you around town.

Pedestrian Obligation

This piece appeared in the Windsor Journal on April 23, 2026.

Over the past few decades, Windsor has actively placed public housing and elderly housing in the Center. We did this with an implicit promise that these residents would be able to reach life’s essentials on foot: the library, CVS, the Post Office, Town Hall, Geissler’s, the train station, bus stops, local shops, and local employers. The proximity of these places is the reason it made sense to site public and elderly housing here in the first place. Walkability was not a bonus feature: it was the whole point.

The snow storms this past winter emphasized this point; when we fail to keep sidewalks clear in February, and when we leave Broad Street configured as a four-lane highway bypass, we are not just creating inconvenience for dog walkers; we are ignoring an obligation to our most vulnerable neighbors.

Crossing Broad Street is not optional for these residents. It is how they reach their prescriptions, social services, employment, and each other. Broad Street today is not a neighborhood street. Seventy percent of the cars on it today are through traffic. Thirty percent of drivers exceed the speed limit. The corridor sees a crash about once a month.

The Broad Street Pedestrian Safety Project is simple. It narrows Broad Street from four travel lanes to two, adds a center turn lane, installs bike lanes, and shortens the crosswalks with curb extensions. Federal Highway Administration research shows reconfigurations like this reduce crashes and cut the risk of serious injury and death to all users of the roadway, but most especially pedestrians. This is especially important as elderly and disable people are disproportionately injured and killed as pedestrians in the U.S. The project is fully funded by federal and state grants pulled into town by elected officials at all level of government. This project uses zero property tax money.

It’s worth repeating: This project uses zero property tax money.

Our elderly and disabled neighbors are customers for Center businesses, patients at local clinics, and employees at local establishments that are hiring. A road they cannot safely cross is a customer lost, a worker a business cannot retain. The residents, the merchants, and the neighborhood associations closest to Broad Street are the ones who most consistently support this project. That is not an coincidence.

There is a broader principle here. When a town invites residents into a specific neighborhood on the promise that they will be able to live there without a car, it takes on an obligation. That obligation does not end at the ribbon cutting. It extends to the systems those residents rely on to live, even systems as banal as sidewalks and crosswalks.

Windsor Center is gradually returning to its roots as a walkable community for people to commune and do business, just like it was for three hundred years before CTDOT decided it would be the perfect place for a highway bypass. That design remains a dangerous obstacle to residents who, for reasons of age, disability, or income, may not be able to drive a car. We made them a promise. The Broad Street Road Diet is, at bottom, the town making good on a promise we’ve already made to these neighbors, at no cost to property tax payers.

Please support the Broad Street Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety Project at the Special Town Meeting on Tuesday, April 28 at 7 p.m., and in the likely referendum in May.

When the Culture Wars Come to Town

This post is about politics, and it’s unpleasant. If, like me, you’ve been trying to limit your exposure to politics to shield your sanity, I totally understand; read no further.

The recent doxxing of our mayor is not an isolated incident. It is part of a pattern of lying, political intimidation and bad faith discourse that has characterized the Broad Street debate. A pervading sense of misplaced anger, entitlement, and suspicion of the most basic processes of civil society has seeped from MAGA Republican politics into our town. The way to banish this kind of toxic politics is to vote against it, to show definitively that Windsor won’t be intimidated by lying and bullying.

I still believe that the Broad Street project should not be partisan, or even political. We are trying to address a safety issue. The first Council votes on the project were, in fact, bi-partisan in favor. Unfortunately, however, projects like this have officially been added to the list of Culture War issues, as detailed in Council member Naeem’s recent piece. True to form, the local Republican Party’s response to the Broad Street project in Windsor has been, in a word, strange. A recent exchange in the Town Council Chambers encapsulates the party’s approach:

Council Member Will Pelkey, “I object to the motion.”

Mayor Black-Burke, “What is your objection?”

Mr. Pelkey, “I just object.”

This would have been a good opportunity for Mr. Pelkey to raise his apparent concern that town meetings are inconvenient for many voters due to the busy schedules we all face, and perhaps offer an alternative date. Instead, he and the Republican caucus waited until spring break, when they knew their Democratic colleagues would be out of town with their families, to call an emergency meeting with no public comment, adamant that the Special Town Meeting vote from a Tuesday to a Saturday.

The actual point of all of this, of course, was to distract from the safety problem at the core of this project, inject confusion into the process, and score cheap political points through parliamentary antics. And so, rather than a discussion of how to improve safety for Windsor Center’s residents, or the impracticalities imposed on voters by Windsor’s charter, we had four confused members of the Town Council staring at each other, without a quorum, and not sure what the rules were for the stunt they were trying to pull off.

In the end, Republicans wanted the question to be on the same ballot as the budget referendum, which takes place on a Tuesday.

The entire Broad Street debate has been like this; residents asking for help, voters trying to understand what is being proposed and what the prescribed process is, while the Republican caucus and their allies throw a series of temper tantrums and ignore residents’ description of the dangers they face walking in their own neighborhood. The recent Special Town Meeting was true to form as local residents described the harrowing experience of being hit by cars and many close calls, while opponents offered impractical alternatives, conspiracy theories of their neighbors’ motives, and complaints about the theoretical possibility of non-citizen voters.

The first inkling of how strange this debate would be occurred in January of last year during the first Town Council meeting on the Broad Street project, when Council Member Pelkey went on a 15-minute rant about how the project’s scope was, get this, TOO SMALL! According to Mr. Pelkey, we should move the curbs to expand the sidewalks, get rid of on-street parking, close every driveway on Broad Street, and close the library parking lot. And, of course, we should delay accepting outside grants for the project because these BIG ideas would require years of additional study and discussion.

Mr. Pelkey’s expansive view changed dramatically when it came time to actually vote. In one of the more despicable acts I’ve ever seen from a public figure, Mr. Pelkey used parliamentary antics to bully a man fighting cancer. Mr. Pelkey repeatedly called for roll call votes, trying to catch a fellow Council member unconscious when he was forced to zoom into the meeting from a hospital bed due to the Town Charter’s voting rules.

Mr. Pelkey went on to lie about police records on Broad Street, claiming in writing on March 6th, 2025, “According to data received from Windsor PD, these same streets recorded only 4 accidents since 2017, and zero deaths.” In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Windsor Police Department revealed that there were, in fact, 85 collisions in that area during the time period Mr. Pelkey specified, 16 of which resulted in injuries. Furthermore, the Police Department confirmed that it had not provided any data of this kind to elected officials or members of the public in the six months preceding the referendum. To be clear, this is a public servant knowingly lying about police records to make a political point. In many places in the US, this is grounds for removal from office. Unfortunately, Windsor’s Board of Ethics has no oversight over Council Members.

An even more exaggerated version of this claim was repeated by the political action committee Concerned Windsor Citizens in paid ads in the Windsor Journal the following day, “The fact is: No Pedestrian involved in accidents in the last 10 years! 4 Motor Vehicle accidents only in the last 10 years! […] Data provided by Windsor Police Department Records Office, 10 yr. data available.” The same ad was posted once as “Paid for by James Durant / Jeffrey Carter, Concerned Citizens,” and separately as “Paid for by Concerned Windsor Citizens” without proper attribution of the group’s treasurer. James Durant was subsequently elected to the Town Council on the Republican ticket along with Mr. Pelkey.

I wish I could tell you more about the relationship between these gentlemen and Concerned Windsor Citizens, but the PAC has never filed their legally required financial statements for this time period. What documentation does exist never mentions Mr. Durant or Mr. Carter as a treasurer, and does not show any donations to the group except for a donation in 2024 from the group’s president, Keith Samolyk. The only time I’ve ever seen Mr. Samolyk’s thoughts on the issue was a comment on a YouTube video that PACs should stay out of Windsor politics. Despite fines from the State Elections Enforcement Commission, we still don’t know who is funding Concerned Windsor Citizens or who paid for these ads in March of 2025.

Adding to the sense of paranoia and menace in local politics, Concerned Windsor Citizens also paid for an typo-laden ad in the run-up to the budget referendum last year that reads more like a ransom note than political messaging, “(Make Note of who has those Yes Signs as they are the One’s)”

The actual debate on the Broad Street project was (and remains) strange. We get lectures on budget discipline from public officials claiming agricultural exemptions for their financial services businesses. We get PAC presidents saying PACs are illegitimate. We get the political party run by a developer saying all developers are corrupt and can’t be trusted. We get Board of Education members calling for DOGE to scuttle the project. We get politicians saying politicians shouldn’t be involved in the political process. We get statements of “protecting democracy” while circumventing the town Charter to undermine our New England style town meeting: the very origin of American democracy.

We also get increasingly ludicrous claims about the project: The problem is both empty storefronts and ugly new store fronts. They’re turning the Center into North Hartford (yes, someone actually said that out loud). Broad Street is fine and we shouldn’t spend any money on it, but it’s not fine and we should spend more time and money researching the problem that doesn’t exist. We can’t risk drivers being inconvenienced by I-91 backing up 1-2 times a year, so we should remove the crosswalks that residents and visitors use 365 days of the year. Our multi-million dollar fire trucks can’t mount 3″ granite curbs. The bike lanes will kill the Shad Derby (which also causes traffic delays in the Center, by the waw). Just do enforcement, because paying more police officers out of our property taxes will (somehow? magically?) be cheaper than accepting grant money to pay for an infrastructure project. Also, don’t pass the budget so the police department has fewer resources to do the enforcement that we want them to do!

If this all sounds irrational, it is. The intensity of the debate on Broad Street spilled onto the street itself. Volunteer “YES” sign holders were regularly cursed at from passing vehicles, treatment especially directed at female volunteers. I had to file a police report when a truck brushed me as I was putting signs up in the Center and then ran three red lights as the driver sped up Poquonock Ave. Later, a spouse of a local elected Republican explained to me, in all seriousness, why someone might feel justified in attempting vehicular assault in the context of the referendum. When I raised these incidents in the Journal, then Republican Chair Len Walker accused me of “tone policing.”

More recently, opponents have taken to online harassment as an intimidation tactic. In addition to doxxing our mayor on Facebook, opponents have been combing through my LinkedIn pages and speaking engagements with Connecticut Main Street, publishing screenshots online, circling my name in red as if they’re getting to “the real story.” Sam Savelli, a former Republican candidate for constable, was one of the people posting this information about me in public forums.

In another unseemly episode, Mr. Savelli, a volunteer firefighter, posted a video of himself in official Fire Department uniform, lining up town-owned vehicles telling voters “this won’t work” and to “bear this in mind” when residents vote on the project, even though the video shows a clear path through the area he had marked out for the truck to get through. Not only did this show a profound lack of judgement, his presentation reaffirmed the pattern of public officials intentionally misleading voters. He does not say “fire trucks won’t fit”, because the demonstration clearly illustrates that fire trucks can get through the area even in less-than-ideal conditions. He offers no evidence of actual affected response times or vehicle damage on Route 187 in Bloomfield, Route 218 in West Hartford, Windsor Ave. in Wilson, Route 195 in Mansfield, or any of the numerous three-lane configurations in the state for a very simple reason: road diets do not affect emergency vehicle response times.

Frankly, as someone who has witnessed my child nearly being hit by a speeding car in a Broad Street crosswalk, fear mongering over the possibility of scratched truck tires is a bit much to swallow.

Fire trucks are public property, not playthings or props for political messaging. Mr. Savelli does not speak for the fire department, and it was yet another breach of public trust to use taxpayer resources for a ham-fisted attempt at electioneering.

Will Pelkey was aat it again recently, lying about the referendum results in a Town Council meeting while claiming a “a slight majority” had spoken against the project at the meeting, despite multiple people noting that, in fact, residents had spoken more than 2-1 in favor. Even in today’s climate of “alternative facts,” it is still breath-taking to experience a public official lying straight to your face about something you, and they, just witnessed first-hand.

Compare all of this noise to the simple solution. Windsor Center recognized a problem, organized, and spent years developing a plan; reduce the road from four lanes to two with a turn lane to reduce chaotic lane changes and slow down traffic.

To opponents of this project, we are not your enemy. We are your neighbors. We are asking for your help. We have nothing to gain but a safer street so that you, your neighbors, and visitors can safely enjoy our beautiful Center.

I appreciate not wanting a historic district to change visually. The stability of visual similarity over decades is reassuring and worth striving for. I can also appreciate that some residents are accustomed to using Broad Street as an alternative to I-91 and don’t want to be inconvenienced. That’s all fair, it just doesn’t override local residents’ desire for physical safety in their own neighborhood, and it certainly doesn’t excuse the pattern of lying, parliamentary antics, and intimidation opponents of the project have engaged in to make their point.

As strange as this all is, it’s a familiar playbook: claim to be the victim of some nebulous conspiratorial force while avoiding accountability for yourself, complain that the system is unfair while benefiting from it, complain about taxes and fiscal responsibility while engaging in “creative” tax reduction strategies, use the political system to bully anyone perceived as vulnerable, claim to be protecting elections by causing confusion, ignore campaign finance laws, use public resources as political props, wear ignorance as a badge of honor, and challenge anything that even hints that the 1950’s might not have been the apex of American civilization, even if people are hurt or killed by your policy choices.

Who does that remind you of?

Snow Clearance for Some

Each winter in New England brings its own set of challenges. While state and town crews work tirelessly to keep the roadways clear, this year’s heavy snowfall highlighted a significant gap in our snow removal program. Clearance of sidewalks and curb cuts has been uneven at best, leading to dangerous conditions for elderly and disabled residents long after snowstorms have passed.

Improperly cleared sidewalks create very real hazards for our elderly and disabled neighbors. Icy, uneven surfaces create dangerous conditions for everyone, especially for physically vulnerable residents. It was a common site in February to see people abandon the sidewalks entirely to walk on icy street shoulders. This is especially concerning in Windsor Center, where the town has sited public housing specifically for pedestrian access to the Center’s services and businesses. We place these residents here with the promise of a walkable community, but uncleared paths effectively trap them or force them into harm’s way.

This is the consequence of a complicated distribution of responsibility. Unlike road clearance, where the town takes full responsibility for snow removal and the police rigorously enforce a proactive parking ban, responsibility for sidewalk snow removal is diffuse. The relevant ordinance states that sidewalks on private property must be cleared within twelve hours of a snowfall. The Police Department can issue a fine for each day the sidewalk is not cleared, or Public Works can remove the snow themselves and bill the property owner for the cost. Failure to pay can even result in a lien on the property. The same is true for clearance of fire hydrants on private property.

In practice, however, consistent enforcement of this ordinance is difficult to maintain. It’s not always clear where the town’s responsibility ends and the property owner’s begins. Uniform enforcement would undoubtedly require additional resources to inspect relevant infrastructure and issue fines. The existing ordinances also assume every property owner is physically or financially capable of clearing their frontage, which is not always true. Neighbors help each other in isolated acts of kindness, but that can only go so far towards uniform clearance of transportation infrastructure, and any group organizing snow clearance volunteers faces the challenge of assuming the property owner’s liability in the event of an accident or fall.

The result is that pedestrian infrastructure remained inaccessible for months this winter. The curb cuts on Center Street, the very core of Windsor’s transportation-oriented development district, remained impassable to disabled residents until March 11th. After three days of unseasonably warm weather the accumulated ice finally melted and the sidewalks became ADA-accessible for the first time in almost two months.

These are growing pains. Windsor Center is gradually changing into a genuinely pedestrian-friendly neighborhood, to the benefit of local businesses and all Windsor residents. The neighborhood is attracting residents who, for a variety of reasons, may not want to (or be able to) drive a car. The existing systems for sidewalk snow removal are not up to the task, and we need to adapt. One way or another, we need to keep the sidewalks clear in the winter.

Let’s Remember Where Our Freedoms Come From

Dr. Lynda Alexander responded to my recent piece about Will Pelkey with a piece entitled “Let’s Celebrate Our Freedoms” in the Windsor Journal.

I have some thoughts.

It may surprise some of you to learn that I grew up in a very conservative family of lifetime NRA members, libertarians, mainline conservatives, and believers of a variety of Christian faiths. Windsor has always reminded me of the floodplains on the north Potomac where I spent most winters hunting waterfowl, one more reason I’ve always felt at home here. Both sides of my family are from Mississippi. Vigorous political debates were a frequent occurrence at family gatherings in Natchez. Among the many topics in these discussions, I heard outrage over armed IRS officers, unelected judges, and federal incursions into state prerogatives. It was assumed that citizens should stay vigilant against unaccountable power. Imagine my surprise then at some of the same family members now gleefully cheering on warrantless “arrests” by masked federal officers.

My point isn’t to highlight hypocrisy (we all have our blind spots), only to note that I watched the conservative movement change from the inside. I have noticed a rhetorical tick among conservatives in Windsor that very much mirrors my family members’ newfound appreciation of maximalist government power. I think it’s worth teasing this out, because it’s worrying, and because I’m not sure they’re fully aware they’re doing it.

The opening line of Lynda’s piece is indicative, “Our founders granted us considerable freedoms in our constitution[sic].” This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the people and the government. We are a free people. We are not granted rights: our rights are inalienable. The government is an instrument of our sovereignty. It does not dictate our rights to us.

Rights that are granted are rights that can be revoked. In Dr. Alexander’s formulation, the relationship between the citizens and the government is inverted. Rather than the government representing a sovereign people, the people become subjects to a government that is sovereign unto itself (or perhaps by divine right?), which is kinda’ what the framers were trying to avoid when they launched a rebellion against the anointed monarch of the globe’s most mighty empire.

This isn’t an isolated example. We see this kind of language slipping into local politicians’ rhetoric with alarming frequency. When discussing the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, Councilor Ron Eleveld said the following, “Because you cannot accept the fact that someone does not agree with you, you have to use violence to quiet them down. In Nazi Germany they silenced the opposition, in Russia, China and North Korea they silence the opposition, even today. In America we do not silence the opposition. We have something called free speech. We should all defend the right to this Right in our Constitution.”

It’s a noble sentiment, but expressed in a way that dangerously inverts the Constitution’s intent. In this framing, individuals’ use of political violence is equated with government repression. The trouble is that the Constitution does not constrain individuals: the Constitution constrains the government. It even states this explicitly in the amendment Councilor Eleveld is referring to, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” We, the people, elect a representative government which passes laws to govern individual behavior. The Constitution protects us from overreach by that government.

When Councilor Eleveld confuses limits on government with limits on the people, he changes the Constitution from a shield into an instrument of censorship.

Other town Republicans have repeated this misunderstanding recently. Earlier this year, I pointed out that opponents of the road diet referendum had been very aggressive, yelling epithets from moving trucks (how brave…) and in one case brushing me with a pickup truck while I was putting out signs. Rather than address this alarming behavior, the Chair of the Republican Town Committee wrote that I was “tone policing.”

Dr. Alexander’s response is of a piece. She says, “In granting us freedom of speech and expression, by implication, [the framers] expected us to exercise our judgment.”

The idea that the framers expected nothing but good judgement and uprightness in speech falls apart on the slightest contact with early American history. Many of the framers were polemicists of the first order and had no qualms hiring unscrupulous journalists to savage each other in the press. The career of James Thomas Callender is a good example of how the framers used their own First Amendment rights to publicly smear each other without mercy. I don’t hold this out as the paragon of upright behavior, only to point out that for the framers, freedom of speech was a good unto itself and was not contingent on the good intentions of the speaker. One glaring exception to this is John Adams’ Sedition Act, which is (and was at the time) widely regarded as an utterly shameful power grab.

Dr. Alexander goes on,

Speakers and writers are permitted to express their opinions without restrictions. These opinions include the interpretations, speculations and even at times, fabrication of information in order to make a particular point. And we are charged with investigating the motivation of the writers and speakers who have their own goals and agendas.

In short, Dr. Alexander read a piece laying out a factual critique of a government official and, rather than considering the claims against that official, she questions the motivations of the speaker. Seeing a citizen use freedom of speech to hold the government accountable, the very act with the framers sought especially to protect, Dr. Alexander sees nothing but poor judgement and distasteful agendas.

Perhaps it’s no wonder we see this kind of language slipping into local discussions of politics. We’re living through an utterly warped reactionary movement, one that has birthed the dystopian constitutional fiction of the Unitary Executive. For the first time in our nation’s history we have an actual secret police. The government is using its regulatory leverage over the private sector to silence voices it doesn’t like. And when millions of people took to the streets to state clearly that Donald Trump isn’t the sovereign, we are, he responded with shocking contempt by publishing imagery of himself, wearing a crown, dumping excrement on people who were (say it with me!) exercising their actual First Amendment rights.

So, fellow citizens, listen for this type of constitutional sophistry, and guard against ideas that turn the Constitution against us. Now more than ever, we must use our voices to hold power accountable.

Will Pelkey is Unfit to Serve

This piece appeared in the Windsor Journal on October 24th, 2025

Before the actual piece, I want to provide a brief meta discussion about why I chose to write this at all. Having a shit heel Town Councilor in a small town in Connecticut is pretty insignificant, in the grand scheme of things; so why bother?

Well, we’re in the midst of a fascist take-over in this country, and, contrary to the image they like to project, fascists tend to be small-time shit heels that aren’t worth the bother. That is, until they create a movement that swallows up a whole country. I don’t think Will Pelkey is a fascist. I think he sees the big shit heels and buys into their image of themselves. He’s using local government as a way to play act and to garner attention to himself, to make himself feel important.

And that’s how fascism takes hold, thousands of tiny, pathetic men (mostly men, anyway) donning the aesthetics of a mean, bullying movement to make themselves feel better.

We have to defeat this movement at the national level, but we also have to starve it of recruits from below by mercilessly reinforcing how pathetic these people are. We have to say it out loud, clear as sunshine.

That’s why I wrote this.

It’s election season, and we’re all exhausted. Politics has become increasingly ugly over the past few decades, prompting sentiments like Councilor Eleveld’s in this paper recently, “That is my biggest fear: that these sorts of situations happen and we don’t get good quality people, citizen legislators, coming forward willing to put their time in, for the simple fear they could end up with the target on their back.” Mr. Eleveld was speaking specifically about political violence, but I think his point can extend more broadly to the trolling, name-calling, bad faith, and meanness that pervades politics today. Good candidates, people who are genuinely interested in public service, don’t get into politics to engage in food fights.

Which is why I want to tell you about Councilor Will Pelkey.

Mr. Pelkey has engaged in a pattern of behavior that is out of step with Windsor’s values, his oath of office, and basic decency. He repeatedly posted repugnant images of Representative Jane Garibay’s face superimposed on Jabba the Hutt, despite protests from both Democrats and Republicans that such behavior is harrassing. In a rather bizarre episode, he posted pictures, taken at a distance, of Black residents at a public swimming pool, asking if one of his colleagues on the Council was in the images (for the record, she was not). He bullied a seriously ill colleague on the Town Council, repeatedly calling for roll call votes to try to catch former Councilor Smith unconscious when he had to call into meetings from a hospital bed due to a quirk in the Council’s quorum rules. These parliamentary shenanigans were cruel and completely unnecessary.

Up to this point, everything I’ve described is just the odious behavior of an unserious person. However, he also lied about police records, which violates his oath of office to “faithfully discharge” his duties as a Town Councilor.

On March 6 of this year, Mr. Pelkey posted the following regarding the upcoming road diet referendum, “According to data received from Windsor PD, these same streets recorded only 4 accidents since 2017, and zero deaths.” In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Windsor Police Department revealed that there were, in fact, 85 collisions in that area during the specified time period (roughly 1/month), 16 of which resulted in injuries. Furthermore, the Police Department confirmed that it had not provided any data of this kind to any elected official or member of the public in the six months preceding the referendum.

To be clear, Mr. Pelkey deliberately invoked the authority of the Windsor Police Department to mislead voters about basic facts concerning our physical safety. He did not “receive” data from Windsor PD. He made up safety statistics to make a political point. These are simple counts that Mr. Pelkey could have easily obtained or verified with the police had he bothered to try. This project has been under consideration for over two decades; it’s not like he didn’t have time to check. This was no mistake either. Mr. Pelkey doubled down on this claim in the original social media discussion despite being shown publicly available police data contradicting his assertion. The message was then repeated almost word-for-word, in print, by Concerned Citizens of Windsor, a political action committee that has been fined multiple times for state campaign finance violations and reporting lapses.

His statements were obviously false to residents of the affected neighborhood, leading some to question the Police Department’s truthfulness on this issue. He eroded trust between the neighborhood and law enforcement, and he erased years of diligent, dangerous work by police and first responders from the public discourse.

Windsor police and first responders deserve better. Their jobs are hard enough without unserious politicians lying about what they’re doing. Our Town Councilors and state elected officials deserve better. Being an elected official is hard, but it shouldn’t come with open harassment from colleagues. Most importantly, Windsor residents deserve better. At a minimum, we deserve to be told the truth about our own safety by the people we elect to represent us.

Yes, politics has gotten uglier. But we, Windsor voters, don’t have to accept this kind of behavior here. Please vote for candidates who reflect Windsor’s values and who take their responsibility to us seriously.

Police Cameras & the Fugitive Slave Act

This letter was sent to the Town Council of Windsor Connecticut regarding an ongoing debate in the town over the use of video data collected by Windsor police and shared to outside agencies via Flock. FOIA requests to WPD had revealed numerous access incidents by federal immigration departments, and at least one incident of a Texas Sheriff's office accessing the system to search for someone for the stated reason that she had "had an abortion."

Dear Council Members,

I was unable to attend the Council meeting last night, but I did want to take the opportunity to share my concerns about the use of Flock cameras in our community.

There is no doubt that retroactive video data, shared across departments, can help solve crimes more quickly and at lower cost. Public safety is important, but any benefits must be carefully balanced against the rights and security of our residents.

History warns us of the dangers of law enforcement tools being used across state lines in ways that undermine individual rights. To discourage enslaved people from escaping the barbaric laws of slave states, the Fugitive Slave Act co-opted other states’ law enforcement resources. “States rights,” in this case, could only be maintained by forcing other states to act against their own citizens’ conscience and the basic dignity and autonomy of people within their borders. The Fugitive Slave Act was a major factor leading to the Civil War and remains a stain on this nation’s history.

There are strong echoes of this now. Some states have criminalized reproductive health care for erstwhile protected classes of citizens, and have also criminalized providing aid to people trying to access that care. As with slavery, the states’ unequal treatment of people before the law is rationalized by religious belief and extra constitutional claims of “states’ rights.” These states are using technologies like Flock cameras to track their residents who travel elsewhere for legal medical procedures. They are also passing civil laws to extend their reach across state lines. This effectively deputizes their citizens to enforce state laws, akin to the bounty-hunting system that existed throughout the antebellum period.

In addition to this retrograde legal environment, we’ve also seen the emergence of masked federal agents abducting people and moving them between states without extradition, without meaningful accountability to the public, and without accountability to the judicial system. Immigrants, documented and undocumented, already face the constant threat of dislocation, deportation, and family separation. These paramilitary law enforcement resources can easily be refocused to impose unjust state laws across other states like our own. With one executive order, local camera data can be used to locate health care providers in our town and send them to face felony charges in other states.

While I understand the potential crime-solving value of these systems, I urge the Council to prioritize the rights and safety of Windsor’s residents and visitors. A prudent course would be to suspend implementation until the Council can guarantee that these systems will not expose Windsor residents, visitors, or providers to out-of-state legal risks.

Please act now to protect our neighbors and the medical professionals our community depends on.

Respectfully,
Keller Glass

This Is Not Normal

This piece appeared in the Windsor Journal on May 2, 2025.

Dear Neighbors,

Though I’ve lived in many places around the United States, I’m proud to have made Windsor my home. One thing I noticed right away when I started to get involved in local matters is Windsor’s deeply ingrained tradition of civility and bipartisanship. Even in the Land of Steady Habits, our civic culture stands out as civil, even cordial. Neighbors and political adversaries talk over beers and across fences. But in recent months, something in our civic culture has shifted, and not for the better.

During the Broad Street referendum in March, volunteers (especially women) were subjected to curses and epithets from passing cars. As I was putting up Yes signs in the Center, I was nearly struck by a pickup truck that veered out of its lane toward me, then sped through three red lights up Poquonock Avenue. Later, a prominent opponent of the project explained to me, in all seriousness, why someone might feel justified in attempting vehicular assault in the context of the referendum. This is not normal.

It didn’t stop there. During the same campaign, elected officials lied about crash statistics in the Center, facts that directly impact the physical safety of Windsor residents. Regardless of your views on lane widths, roundabouts, etc., our representatives have a duty to tell the truth, especially when it concerns public safety. These lies were amplified, and further distorted, by a local political action committee, “Concerned Windsor Citizens,” which, for all their supposed concern, repeatedly failed to meet even the most basic filing and attribution requirements under Connecticut campaign finance laws. They’ve paid several fines in recent months for these violations. Again, this is not normal.

Most recently, the same group ran an ad in this paper riddled with typos and grammatical errors, urging residents to “Make Note of who has those YES Signs as they are the One’s” [sic] who want to increase the town budget. Is this what we’ve come to—political discourse that reads like a ransom note?

The word “Orwellian” has become cliché in recent years, but sometimes the shoe fits. Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four devotes entire chapters to the horror of a society where neighbors are encouraged to monitor and report on one another. He also warns of what happens when political actors view their opponents not just as wrong, but as inherently illegitimate. Once that idea sets in, all acts can be justified. That, too, is not normal.

I’ve been surprised by our reluctance to address this shift in political discourse in town. Yes, Windsor has a laudable tradition of civility. We don’t all have to agree: we won’t. But we should demand that civic and political groups engage the public with a good-faith commitment to the truth. We do not have to accept lies from public officials, and we absolutely cannot accept political intimidation. Civility without accountability does not serve the public good.

Sincerely,

Keller Glass

An Unfortunate Result

The piece appeared in the Windsor Journal in March of 2025.

Hello neighbors,

The referendum to approve the Broad Street Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety project failed by a roughly 42% to 58% in a high-turnout vote. I won’t sugarcoat it—this was a decisive result. The only district that supported the project was Windsor Center were the project is actually located, which is both telling and deeply disappointing.

I know this might sound odd right now, but I am so grateful for this experience. It has been a privilege to meet new friends and deepen existing relationships as we did the hard work of democracy together. I never expected this level of individual support, and I am in awe of the time and effort our friends and volunteers poured into this effort.

One unexpected outcome of our outreach was how many people came up to me, introduced themselves, and shared their personal stories of being injured in this neighborhood—or of friends and family members who have been hurt or killed. Just last week, a man told me about his brother, who was struck by a drunk driver on Bloomfield Ave and died at just 12 years old. It’s difficult to recall that conversation without tearing up. I can’t express what an honor it has been for neighbors to share their pain and their stories with me. We hear them, and we are not giving up on them.

We expected some NIMBY pushback. What we didn’t anticipate was how this referendum would take on the tone of a culture war, nor the outright misinformation spread by elected officials and even a few town employees. Insults and epithets were hurled at residents putting up YES signs, with greater frequency at our female volunteers. I also had to file a police report after putting up YES signs in the Center. A pickup truck swerved out of the travel lane to miss me and the car my daughter was napping in by inches, and then immediately ran all three red lights going up Poquonock Ave from Broad Street. We knew this would be an uphill battle, given the national climate, to say nothing of legitimate local concerns over property taxes. But we did not expect people’s anger and resentment to override Windsor’s tradition of bipartisanship and civil discourse. This passed the Town Council in a bi-partisan vote, after all. It’s incredibly difficult to have a reasoned conversation about detailed infrastructure plans in the middle of a culture war debate. Opponents of this project took full advantage, stoking fear and anxiety to make sure a rational, empathetic discussion never had a chance.

I respect the outcome of the referendum, but I am deeply saddened by the incursion of callousness, misinformation and political intimidation into Windsor politics. Broad Street remains dangerous. Windsor Center residents will attest to this fact, and publicly available data proves them right. We will continue to advocate to address this dangerous roadway in our neighborhood, and we will not be silenced or intimidated.

This project has suffered a major setback, but the support from Windsor Center points to a clear need for safety improvements in this neighborhood, much as other neighborhoods have concerns about speeding on their own roads. The town took a maximalist approach to Broad Street, which we fully supported because of the obvious need and the complications of doing this kind of work while meeting CTDOT standards on state roads. Pedestrianization often starts small, however—with inexpensive materials like paint and temporary concrete planters. Some opponents of the project expressed a desire to see more temporary fixes attempted before a full configuration: they may well get their wish. We will continue to support large-scale projects, but we’ll also advocate for neighborhood-level safety improvements throughout Windsor, wherever residents are unsafe.

All of this is to say: the feedback from the voters on this specific project was clear and we respect the outcome of the referendum, but we’re not done advocating for a safer Broad Street. Safety is a process, not a destination. We still live here. Collisions still occur with startling regularity. People are hurt. Lives are put at risk.

This road is still a tragedy waiting to happen. I sincerely hope that reasonable opponents of this project were earnest when they said it was the specifics of this project’s design and funding that they objected to, and that we don’t have to wait for a tragedy to implement common sense road safety measures.

Thank you again to everyone who voted, and thank you to everyone who poured their time, energy and stamps into making Windsor a safer, thriving community.

Sincerely,
Keller Glass
President, Citizens for a Thriving Windsor

Roundabouts and Road Diet Myths

This piece appeared in the Windsor Journal in February of 2025.

There are several persistent myths about roundabouts and road diets that often lead to misunderstanding. Here are a few of the most common ones:

“Roundabouts are dangerous.”

Decades of research show that roundabouts are safer for all users, especially pedestrians, who experience a 50-80% reduction in collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities.

“Roundabouts are a proven safety countermeasure because they can substantially reduce crashes that result in serious injury or death.” — Federal Highway Administration

“Roundabouts are safer intersections for all users.” — Connecticut Department of Transportation

“Roundabouts are designed to improve safety for all users, including pedestrians and bicycles.” — U.S. Department of Transportation

“Traffic-calming measures, such as roundabouts and speed bumps, are engineering approaches designed to reduce vehicular speed and, thus, decrease the number of pedestrian crashes and associated injuries.” — American Academy of Pediatrics

This is especially true for single-lane roundabouts like those proposed in the Broad Street Project, which consistently show reductions in all crash types, unlike some multi-lane designs.

“Drivers won’t know how to use them.”

Connecticut drivers adapt quickly to roundabouts. The two roundabouts installed in Glastonbury have resulted in 40% and 60% reductions in crashes at those intersections, as discussed in the Hartford Courant article “Glastonbury roundabouts significantly reducing collisions after 2 years in operation.”

First Selectman Ed Chmielewski of Salem said of the roundabout installed at the intersection of state roads 82 and 85, “I think it has saved lives.”

Granby development director Abby Kenyon, reflecting on the roundabout installed at Route 202 and Notch Road in 2020 remarked, “the complaints have really died down; the feedback now is largely positive.”

Roundabouts are increasingly common in Connecticut, and contrary to some claims, Connecticut residents have proven themselves perfectly capable of learning how to navigate them.

“Roundabouts slow down emergency response times.”

Roundabouts are far less likely to become backed up than lighted intersections, enabling traffic to clear for emergency vehicles more quickly. “Studies by the Federal Highway Administration have found that roundabouts can increase the traffic capacity by 30 percent to 50 percent compared to traditional intersections.” — The Open Transportation Journal.

Because they are better able to handle unexpected traffic surges and prevent backups, emergency vehicles can move through more efficiently. In free-flowing conditions, fire trucks, ambulances, and police vehicles can pass through without stopping, unlike at a red light.

“The project is too expensive.”

Roundabouts and road diets are more cost-effective than signalized intersections. They reduce the need for police enforcement, as speeding is controlled by design rather than active monitoring. This frees up Windsor’s police force for more pressing duties.

Roundabouts also save on infrastructure costs. The three traffic lights on Poquonock Avenue in Windsor Center are due for replacement, an expense that could exceed $1.5 million. Roundabouts eliminate the need for costly signal maintenance and use no electricity, leading to long-term savings. They also remain operational during power outages, ensuring safer roads in winter storms.

Residents will also save money. Roundabouts reduce fuel consumption by cutting idling time at red lights, lowering both fuel costs and travel time. They decrease property damage from crashes and reduce medical expenses, lost wages, and insurance costs due to fewer and less severe collisions.

As for the town budget, the total project cost is $6 million, with $3 million already secured from federal funds and $1 million from state transportation grants. Windsor is actively pursuing additional grants to cover the remaining balance.

Even in a worst-case scenario where no additional funding is secured, the estimated cost per household would be about $3 per month over five years. While any tax impact is a serious consideration, this project will enhance Windsor’s financial resilience and ultimately pay for itself through long-term savings at the state, town, and individual level.

“Nobody bikes or walks, so there’s no need for a road diet.”

This argument is circular: “We built an unsafe road, so people don’t walk or bike, therefore we don’t need to make it safer.” The reality is that Windsor’s roads see fatal crashes almost every year. Just because residents make the rational decision to avoid walking or biking on unsafe streets doesn’t mean the town has no obligation to make those street safer.

Road diets consistently lead to increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic by making streets feel safer. This, in turn, boosts local economic activity. A prime example is Hamburg, NY, “Completed in 2009, the project has resulted in a 60% decrease in crashes and 90% decrease in serious injuries. Unexpected by the State, the project has also catalyzed far-reaching social and economic benefits for the village, which has seen a steady increase in population and public programming. These include a farmer’s market, outdoor movie nights, garden walks, a street music festival and other events.” — Project for Public Spaces

Local business owners were also thrilled with the project’s results, “Our entire village is transformed. Not a day goes by in my store I don’t hear about how everyone loves our village. This project fulfilled every expectation and then some.” — Laura Hackathorn, Village Trustee.

Both roundabouts and road diets improve safety, reduce crashes, and create more livable, business-friendly streets. While myths persist, the data overwhelmingly supports their benefits—they work, and they work well.

This project is about making Windsor a safer, more connected, and more vibrant community—while saving lives and money in the process. Please join me in voting YES for the Broad Street Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety Project on March 11.