Warning and Conduct Policy

Any form of harassment, threats, intimidation, or attempts to contact or pressure any public official or their family will result in immediate reporting to law enforcement and platform administrators. This is a civic process, not a personal attack campaign. All participants are expected to act lawfully, respectfully, and responsibly. I will personally defend the First Selectman from any abusive conduct as if she were family. Any comment or material that crosses the line will be documented and reported without exception.

On October 15, 2025, during a public Board of Selectmen meeting broadcast by Simsbury Community Media, First Selectman Wendy Mackstutis interrupted 88-year-old resident Joan Coe during lawful public comment, declared a “decorum violation,” and stated on record:

“Do I call the PD to come up?”

The meeting was recessed, and Coe’s microphone was cut despite no disruption.

This act directly conflicts with:

U.S. Constitution, First Amendment — protecting speech critical of government officials (Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987));

42 U.S.C. § 1983 — prohibiting deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law;
Connecticut General Statutes § 1-225 — guaranteeing open public meetings and participation without unlawful interference.

Threatening law enforcement to silence a peaceful speaker constitutes retaliatory government action and abuse of authority.

We, the undersigned, demand Wendy Mackstutis’s immediate resignation and a formal investigation by the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission and Attorney General into her violations of constitutional and statutory law.

No official is above the Constitution.

News Article - Simsbury First Selectman Threatens To Call Police On 88-Year-Old Woman After She Calls First Selectman A Name

Video Of Incident - Occurs ~ 9:45 -

Further Historical Context : 

In 1990, Simsbury resident Joan Coe sued then–First Selectman Theodore T. Tansi in federal court after being ordered to leave a public Board of Selectmen meeting for criticizing town officials. She alleged her First Amendment rights were violated when she was silenced and removed. The case, Joan Coe v. Tansi (U.S. District Court, D. Conn., Nov 14 1990), ended in a negotiated settlement that exposed early tensions between Simsbury’s government and outspoken citizens—a conflict that still plays out decades later.

Under the settlement, Tansi and the Town of Simsbury admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to significant concessions. They paid $5,000 in attorney’s fees plus a $1 symbolic settlement to Coe and pledged to create formal, written procedures for handling public participation and removals at meetings. The agreement required the town to draft and adopt a Resolution on Public Comment Conduct outlining how and when a citizen could be warned or asked to leave. That resolution had to be posted publicly and attached to the Board’s official rules. In return, Coe withdrew her lawsuit and a pending Freedom of Information complaint, agreeing not to refile over the same June 25 1990 incident.

The resolution that emerged reaffirmed Simsbury’s duty to maintain open, democratic meetings but also gave the chairperson power to control speech and remove anyone deemed disruptive. It was intended to protect both citizens’ rights and the orderly conduct of meetings—a compromise born directly from Coe’s ejection. Both parties signed with the statement that they “regret the events leading to this lawsuit and wish to avoid any like problems in the future.”

Yet 35 years later, the same pattern has resurfaced. Residents are again being cut off or threatened with removal during public comment, including the recent case of a woman who was silenced while speaking about her daughter’s suicide. When Joan Coe defended her, she herself was cut off and threatened with police involvement—almost an exact replay of 1990. The historical irony is stark: the very rules established to prevent arbitrary silencing are now being used to justify censorship under the guise of decorum.

This lawsuit documents the beginning of a long-standing culture of retaliation against dissent in Simsbury. It shows a government pattern of responding to public criticism not with transparency, but with control—of creating procedural shields to suppress uncomfortable speech rather than engage it. The Coe v. Tansi settlement was supposed to enshrine the public’s right to speak freely in town meetings; instead, decades later, it stands as evidence of how fragile those protections remain when power goes unchecked.

In short, Joan Coe’s 1990 case was about one resident demanding accountability and free speech in her own town hall. The settlement forced Simsbury to codify fair public-comment rules. But today, those rules are being bent to silence people again. History is repeating itself—and the same citizen who fought for the right to speak in 1990 is still fighting for it in 2025.

False Transphobia Claims Refutal: 

The statements being labeled “transphobic” are taken from the Simsbury Board of Selectmen meeting minutes dated September 24, 2025. Both Joan Coe and Elvira Syed spoke during public comment, and a full reading of the minutes shows no transphobia or hate speech.

Joan Coe’s remarks focused entirely on First Amendment rights, censorship, and public policy. She criticized the library’s refusal to display certain political artwork and cited Abraham Lincoln’s quote about “government of the people.” Her comments concerned constitutional free speech and government transparency, not gender identity or any protected group.

Elvira Syed’s testimony was a deeply emotional account about the suicide of her daughter, who was 18 and on testosterone therapy. Her statements criticized school policies and societal handling of gender identity issues, which she felt isolated her child and prevented family communication. She never attacked or demeaned transgender people. She described her experience as a grieving mother and blamed institutional failures, not gender identity itself.

The September 24, 2025 meeting minutes confirm that neither Coe nor Syed expressed hatred, prejudice, or mockery toward transgender individuals. Both were addressing issues of public policy, parental rights, and free expression, not identity.

Source: Town of Simsbury Board of Selectmen Regular Meeting Minutes — September 24, 2025.