Response to Jim Jinks Social Media Comments
Jim, you’ve lost your objectivity. Let’s focus on the issues—not personal attacks on private citizens. She served as a volunteer board member, not an elected official or town employee. She has both a family and a reputation that deserve respect. You and I are politicians who have voluntarily placed ourselves in the public spotlight. Targeting a private Cheshire citizen’s character does nothing to advance the discussion; it only fuels rhetoric, distracts from the real issues, and makes others question whether they should ever volunteer in the future.
I believe strongly in the importance of public health in Cheshire. However, we must remember that Chesprocott is a subcontractor—not a direct part of our town government. With that in mind, our responsibility is to make sound business decisions. Over the past two years, significant time and energy have been invested into sustaining a service that could have been replaced if it was not performing efficiently. The Town Council and Town Manager identified a reputable district that can provide the same, if not a higher, level of service to our residents. The effort to “save” Chesprocott was driven more by politics and reputation during campaign season than by what was best for the town.
Let’s look at the facts:
Duty to Taxpayers vs. Duty to CHD
As Town Council members, our duty is to protect taxpayer dollars. As CHD Board members, the duty is to support services and a budget funded in part by per-capita rates—also taxpayer dollars. You cannot argue for lowering contributions on one hand while defending a budget that depends on them. That’s a conflict of interest. The April 29th Board minutes show you voted against the CHD budget instead of recusing yourself. Why? Was it because the night before, during our final Town Council budget meeting, you claimed the per-capita would drop by $1.00—yet the accountant, not the Chair, advised against lowering it due to a deficit? That left our town scrambling to add back $27,000 into our budget.
Board Governance and Ethics
Are you now suggesting that you engaged in quid-pro-quo arrangements to remove a CHD Board Chair? You and two others asked her to resign twice, and then you offered to resign yourself if she did. That does not appear in public minutes. That is not governance—it is poor practice and borders on unethical conduct. The lawful process would have been a formal vote. If your claim is legitimate, where is the public record? Even your own Council colleagues were surprised you did not resign as expected. Why didn’t you follow through?
Handling of Personnel Matters
The Chesprocott Board minutes over the years clearly document executive sessions on employee performance—including the September 10th minutes referencing “possible action concerning performance (including independent investigation findings) of a CHD employee.” We know from our own experience with the Animal Control Facility investigation that legal counsel advises against public discussion or releasing reports. To suggest she “failed to act on personnel issues” is not only misleading—it is hypocritical.
Council’s Role vs. Health District Independence
You’ve said, “with a Council member on the Board, we have insight and can protect taxpayers.” But the CT Department of Public Health says otherwise: health districts are independent governmental entities, separate from towns. Public health oversight should remain independent. By serving on the CHD Board, you’ve had to recuse yourself from votes—leaving Cheshire with one less voice at the table. That weakens, not strengthens, our representation. And if you want to talk about political appointees, look in the mirror. Emails show you expected to be appointed in January 2024, but Michal Milone was chosen instead. Then in August 2024, you told the acting health director you were going to be appointed before it even came to Council.
Artsplace Renovation Delay
CHD had over $1M set aside, plans completed, and construction ready to begin. Then, after the Hartford Courant reported that you and Peter had secured $350K in ARPA funds, the project was stalled. Neither the CHD Board nor Council minority knew about this beforehand. Because federal/state funds were introduced, the project had to undergo the full bidding process—delaying what was meant to be a short, 3–4 month renovation. Without ARPA entanglement, it would already be finished. The May 2nd CHD Board minutes confirm that renovation was well underway before ARPA funds disrupted it.
Management of Chesprocott
Two years before the vote to leave Chesprocott, Town Council members began hearing concerns about the facility: financial mismanagement, high staff turnover (22 employees in two years), and multiple grievances. That’s when we appointed Sean Kimball to the Board. One year prior to the vote, our Council Chair met with Chesprocott and the mayors of Wolcott and Prospect to discuss these same concerns raised by residents, businesses, and staff. Nothing improved in the following 11 months. To compare the last 18 months of turnover to Maura’s tenure is like asking which shipwreck was worse—both were disastrous and cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Jim, let’s rise above politics. Do the right thing and step down. Our residents deserve leaders focused on policy and governance—not personal attacks on private citizens who volunteer their time. Cheshire deserves nothing less.