Trust Their Voting Record
Trust them. . .
. . . to vote with staff, not residents
. . . to spend more than we earn
. . . to raise staff pay before lowering your water bills
. . . to protect administrators, not taxpayers
About the Candidates
Rebekka Dailey - Current Trustee (2020-Present)
-making her part of the leadership team responsible for every fiscal decision over the past five years, including multiple deficit budgets, water rate increases, and the Connell asphalt plant vote against residents. She has campaigned on building a recreation center since 2020, but no recreation center has been built.
-making her part of the leadership team responsible for every fiscal decision over the past five years, including multiple deficit budgets, water rate increases, and the Connell asphalt plant vote against residents. She has campaigned on building a recreation center since 2020, but no recreation center has been built.
Ed Cannon - Current Trustee (2024-Present)
Ed Cannon served as Wellington's Town Administrator before being terminated without cause by the Board. He was elected as Trustee in 2024 and has since voted to approve both the 2025 and 2026 budget deficits.
Ed Cannon served as Wellington's Town Administrator before being terminated without cause by the Board. He was elected as Trustee in 2024 and has since voted to approve both the 2025 and 2026 budget deficits.
Brian Mason - Current Trustee (2022-Present)
Brian Mason is running for re-election as Trustee, making him also part of the leadership that passed deficit budgets, water rate increases, and the Connell asphalt plant vote against residents. He is running on "proven leadership" and attendance record while not addressing current fiscal deficits.
Brian Mason is running for re-election as Trustee, making him also part of the leadership that passed deficit budgets, water rate increases, and the Connell asphalt plant vote against residents. He is running on "proven leadership" and attendance record while not addressing current fiscal deficits.
* Voters have the right to know how candidates voted on issues that impact their tax dollars and community.
Documenting public votes on public issues is not an attack. It's transparency. If candidates are uncomfortable with their voting records being discussed, they should have voted differently, or they shouldn't be running for office.
Documenting public votes on public issues is not an attack. It's transparency. If candidates are uncomfortable with their voting records being discussed, they should have voted differently, or they shouldn't be running for office.
Vote 1: Asphalt Plant Vote
Date: August 23, 2023
Issue: Reverse the Planning Commission's decision of allowing the asphalt plant near residential zoning.
How Rebekka Dailey Voted: No
How Brian Mason Voted: No
Context: The Land Use Code requires heavy industries to be 1,000 ft away from a residential district. It also requires 2,640 ft distance from residential district for all heavy industries that produce or curate toxic chemicals. Connell only asked the Board of Adjustment for a variance for the 1,000 ft setback. They said the 2,640 ft setback didn't apply to them. The Board of the Adjustment granted their variance. Next, the Planning Commission was told by staff that the setback had already been determined by the Board of Adjustment and they couldn't change it. So the Planning Commission erred in passing the site plan for the asphalt plant without considering the 2nd setback. Afterward, a resident hired a lawyer to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. Thereafter the appeal went before the Board of Trustees. Connell and staff argued that the 2,640 ft setback didn't apply because the asphalt plant would only emit trace levels far below toxicity levels. The majority of the Board (4 to 3 votes) determined that it doesn't matter whether the toxic chemicals are emitted in large or small amounts; the buffer exists to protect residential areas regardless of the quantity of emissions, thus siding with the residents. Subsequently, Connell appeal the Board of Trustees decision to the court. The court ruled that the Board of Trustees made the right decision. The Court determined that the Board has jurisdiction to review the Planning Commission's approval, that the Board read the code correctly, that the plain text of the code was not vague but sufficiently clear, that the plant will produce and curate toxic chemicals, and that "the Board used its common sense understanding of the Code's plain terms".
Why This Matters: This vote demostrates a pattern of trustees rubber-stamping staff recommendations without independent analysis. When Trustees defer to staff instead of reading the code themselves, residents are forced to hire lawyers and appeal decisions, eroding trust in local government. Independent thinking isn't optional for Trustees, it's the job.
How Christine Would Have Voted: Yes. I would have read the town code for myself instead of simply accepting staff's conclusion that the setback didn't apply. Trustees should think independently and verify staff recommendations, especially when residents are raising concerns. Residents shouldn't have to hire lawyers to enforce our town land use code.
Read the Court's ruling HERE
Read the minutes HERE
Issue: Reverse the Planning Commission's decision of allowing the asphalt plant near residential zoning.
How Rebekka Dailey Voted: No
How Brian Mason Voted: No
Context: The Land Use Code requires heavy industries to be 1,000 ft away from a residential district. It also requires 2,640 ft distance from residential district for all heavy industries that produce or curate toxic chemicals. Connell only asked the Board of Adjustment for a variance for the 1,000 ft setback. They said the 2,640 ft setback didn't apply to them. The Board of the Adjustment granted their variance. Next, the Planning Commission was told by staff that the setback had already been determined by the Board of Adjustment and they couldn't change it. So the Planning Commission erred in passing the site plan for the asphalt plant without considering the 2nd setback. Afterward, a resident hired a lawyer to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. Thereafter the appeal went before the Board of Trustees. Connell and staff argued that the 2,640 ft setback didn't apply because the asphalt plant would only emit trace levels far below toxicity levels. The majority of the Board (4 to 3 votes) determined that it doesn't matter whether the toxic chemicals are emitted in large or small amounts; the buffer exists to protect residential areas regardless of the quantity of emissions, thus siding with the residents. Subsequently, Connell appeal the Board of Trustees decision to the court. The court ruled that the Board of Trustees made the right decision. The Court determined that the Board has jurisdiction to review the Planning Commission's approval, that the Board read the code correctly, that the plain text of the code was not vague but sufficiently clear, that the plant will produce and curate toxic chemicals, and that "the Board used its common sense understanding of the Code's plain terms".
Why This Matters: This vote demostrates a pattern of trustees rubber-stamping staff recommendations without independent analysis. When Trustees defer to staff instead of reading the code themselves, residents are forced to hire lawyers and appeal decisions, eroding trust in local government. Independent thinking isn't optional for Trustees, it's the job.
How Christine Would Have Voted: Yes. I would have read the town code for myself instead of simply accepting staff's conclusion that the setback didn't apply. Trustees should think independently and verify staff recommendations, especially when residents are raising concerns. Residents shouldn't have to hire lawyers to enforce our town land use code.
Read the Court's ruling HERE
Read the minutes HERE
Vote 2: Budget Deficit Votes
Date: November 19, 2024 and November 18, 2025
Issue: Approval of town budgets operating at deficit, using fund balances (savings) to cover ongoing operating expenses
How Rebekka Dailey Voted: Yes
How Ed Cannon Voted: Yes
How Brian Mason Voted: Yes
Context: Fund balances are meant to be financial reserves, the town's "savings account", used for emergencies, unexpected expenses, and one-time capital investments. They should not be used to subsidize regular operating costs year after year. When a town spends more than it earns year after year, it eventually exhausts its reserves. The General Fund, Sewer Fund, and Park Fund are spending more than they collect in revenue. This is not sustainable long-term. Future boards will face depleted reserves and difficult choices.
Why It Matters: Running deficit budgets is like a family spending $55,000 a year while only earning $50,000, eventually the savings run out. When Trustees approve deficit budgets instead of demanding staff bring balanced budgets, they're passing the problem to future boards and future residents. Fiscal responsibility means living within our means. Two years of deficits isn't bad luck or temporary circumstances, it's a pattern of fiscal mismanagement. Boards that prioritize balanced budgets force necessary conservations about spending priorities, efficiency, and what the town can actually afford. Boards that approve deficits avoid those hard conversations and let the problem fester.
How Christine Would Have Voted: No, when presented with a deficit budget, I would send it back to staff with clear direction: bring me a balanced budget where ongoing expenses are covered by ongoing revenue.
Read the 2024 minutes HERE
Read the 2025 minutes HERE
Issue: Approval of town budgets operating at deficit, using fund balances (savings) to cover ongoing operating expenses
How Rebekka Dailey Voted: Yes
How Ed Cannon Voted: Yes
How Brian Mason Voted: Yes
Context: Fund balances are meant to be financial reserves, the town's "savings account", used for emergencies, unexpected expenses, and one-time capital investments. They should not be used to subsidize regular operating costs year after year. When a town spends more than it earns year after year, it eventually exhausts its reserves. The General Fund, Sewer Fund, and Park Fund are spending more than they collect in revenue. This is not sustainable long-term. Future boards will face depleted reserves and difficult choices.
Why It Matters: Running deficit budgets is like a family spending $55,000 a year while only earning $50,000, eventually the savings run out. When Trustees approve deficit budgets instead of demanding staff bring balanced budgets, they're passing the problem to future boards and future residents. Fiscal responsibility means living within our means. Two years of deficits isn't bad luck or temporary circumstances, it's a pattern of fiscal mismanagement. Boards that prioritize balanced budgets force necessary conservations about spending priorities, efficiency, and what the town can actually afford. Boards that approve deficits avoid those hard conversations and let the problem fester.
How Christine Would Have Voted: No, when presented with a deficit budget, I would send it back to staff with clear direction: bring me a balanced budget where ongoing expenses are covered by ongoing revenue.
Read the 2024 minutes HERE
Read the 2025 minutes HERE
Vote 3: Water Rate Increases
Date: Continuous
Issue: Increase water rates on Wellington residents
How Rebekka Dailey Voted: YES
How Ed Cannon Voted: YES (on increases during his tenure)
How Brian Mason Voted: YES (on increases during his tenure)
The Result: Wellington residents' water bills increased.
The Context: Year over year, the Board approves roughly around 6% raises for town employees. When it came time to address water fund costs, trustees did not direct staff to cut expenses, freeze raises, or find efficiencies. Instead, they voted to raise rates on residents.
Why It Matters: This vote reveals a fundamental problem with priorities. When faced with budget pressures in the water fund, the Board could have frozen employee raises, cut unnecessary expenses, found operational efficiencies, or delayed the rate increase until cost-cutting was attempted. They did none of these things. Instead, they passed the costs directly to residents through higher water bills.
The pattern: Increase employee compensation (6% raises), avoid cutting expenses, and make residents pay more.
This is backwards. Before raising rates on residents, trustees should demand that staff cut costs first. When you approve 6% raises for employees, then turn around and raise rates on residents without attempting to reduce expenses, you're showing whose side you're on.
How Christine Would Have Voted: NO, not until staff demonstrated they had cut expenses and frozen non-essential pay increases.
As a bookkeeper, I know how to find cost savings, such as, review every line item, eliminate waste, freeze raises during budget pressure, and prioritize essential services. Only after exhausting those options should rate increases even be considered.
Raising rates should be the absolute last resort, not the first option. I would have sent this back to staff with clear direction: "Cut costs first. Show me you've frozen raises, reduced expenses, and found efficiencies. THEN we can talk about rate increases if truly necessary."
Residents shouldn't subsidize employee raises and unchecked expenses through higher water bills. Cut costs before raising rates.
Issue: Increase water rates on Wellington residents
How Rebekka Dailey Voted: YES
How Ed Cannon Voted: YES (on increases during his tenure)
How Brian Mason Voted: YES (on increases during his tenure)
The Result: Wellington residents' water bills increased.
The Context: Year over year, the Board approves roughly around 6% raises for town employees. When it came time to address water fund costs, trustees did not direct staff to cut expenses, freeze raises, or find efficiencies. Instead, they voted to raise rates on residents.
Why It Matters: This vote reveals a fundamental problem with priorities. When faced with budget pressures in the water fund, the Board could have frozen employee raises, cut unnecessary expenses, found operational efficiencies, or delayed the rate increase until cost-cutting was attempted. They did none of these things. Instead, they passed the costs directly to residents through higher water bills.
The pattern: Increase employee compensation (6% raises), avoid cutting expenses, and make residents pay more.
This is backwards. Before raising rates on residents, trustees should demand that staff cut costs first. When you approve 6% raises for employees, then turn around and raise rates on residents without attempting to reduce expenses, you're showing whose side you're on.
How Christine Would Have Voted: NO, not until staff demonstrated they had cut expenses and frozen non-essential pay increases.
As a bookkeeper, I know how to find cost savings, such as, review every line item, eliminate waste, freeze raises during budget pressure, and prioritize essential services. Only after exhausting those options should rate increases even be considered.
Raising rates should be the absolute last resort, not the first option. I would have sent this back to staff with clear direction: "Cut costs first. Show me you've frozen raises, reduced expenses, and found efficiencies. THEN we can talk about rate increases if truly necessary."
Residents shouldn't subsidize employee raises and unchecked expenses through higher water bills. Cut costs before raising rates.
Vote 4: Administrator Severance Package Escalation
Dates: Dec 13, 2022; Jan 23, 2024; Dec 10, 2024; Sept 23, 2025
Issue: Progressive increases to Town Administrator severance package from 6 month severance to 12 months conditional to 12 months permanent to automatic raises and renewal
The Timeline:
Initial policy: 6 month severance for Town Administrator
First request: Raise
Second request: 6 months health insurance with severance → Trustees approved
Third request: 12 months severance if terminated within 6 months of new Board being seated → Trustees approved
Fourth request: 12 months severance made permanent → Trustees approved
Fifth request: Contract on autorenewal with automatic raises
How Rebekka Dailey Voted: YES (on all increases)
How Ed Cannon Voted: YES (on increases during his tenure)
How Brian Mason Voted: YES (on increases during his tenure)
The Result: Town Administrator severance increased from 6 to 12 months over a series of requests—each approved without apparent negotiation or modification.
Why It Matters: This vote isn't about whether severance is reasonable—it's about how the Board responds to staff requests. When staff asks for more, does the Board negotiate, ask tough questions, or seek compromises? Or does the Board simply approve what staff requests?
The severance escalation demonstrates a pattern: Staff asked for health insurance if terminated, got health insurance. Asked for 12 months conditional, got it. Asked to make it permanent, got it. At no point did the Board counter-offer, negotiate down, or question whether the increases were necessary.
This is the definition of rubber-stamping: approving staff requests without independent analysis or negotiation. The same pattern appears in other votes—Connell (approved staff recommendation despite resident objections), deficit budgets (approved staff budgets without requiring balance), water rates (approved increases without requiring cost cuts first).
When trustees consistently approve what staff requests without negotiation or modification, they're not governing, they're rubber-stamping.
How Christine Would Have Voted: I would have negotiated terms that protect taxpayers while being fair to the employee.
When I served as Fire District Treasurer and our Fire Chief requested higher severance, I didn't just approve it. I negotiated reciprocal accountability: If he wanted 120 days severance, he had to give us 120 days notice before leaving, otherwise he would owe the District 10% of his annual gross salary to cover the expedited costs of recruiting and hiring a replacement.
That's fair negotiation. He got security. We got protection against sudden departure costs. Both sides had accountability.
Wellington's trustees could have negotiated similar terms: "We'll approve 12 months if you commit to X" or "Let's phase this in" or "What do we get in return?" Instead, they approved every request without modification.
Saying yes to every staff request isn't leadership, it's abdication. Trustees should negotiate creative solutions that protect taxpayers while treating employees fairly.
Issue: Progressive increases to Town Administrator severance package from 6 month severance to 12 months conditional to 12 months permanent to automatic raises and renewal
The Timeline:
Initial policy: 6 month severance for Town Administrator
First request: Raise
Second request: 6 months health insurance with severance → Trustees approved
Third request: 12 months severance if terminated within 6 months of new Board being seated → Trustees approved
Fourth request: 12 months severance made permanent → Trustees approved
Fifth request: Contract on autorenewal with automatic raises
How Rebekka Dailey Voted: YES (on all increases)
How Ed Cannon Voted: YES (on increases during his tenure)
How Brian Mason Voted: YES (on increases during his tenure)
The Result: Town Administrator severance increased from 6 to 12 months over a series of requests—each approved without apparent negotiation or modification.
Why It Matters: This vote isn't about whether severance is reasonable—it's about how the Board responds to staff requests. When staff asks for more, does the Board negotiate, ask tough questions, or seek compromises? Or does the Board simply approve what staff requests?
The severance escalation demonstrates a pattern: Staff asked for health insurance if terminated, got health insurance. Asked for 12 months conditional, got it. Asked to make it permanent, got it. At no point did the Board counter-offer, negotiate down, or question whether the increases were necessary.
This is the definition of rubber-stamping: approving staff requests without independent analysis or negotiation. The same pattern appears in other votes—Connell (approved staff recommendation despite resident objections), deficit budgets (approved staff budgets without requiring balance), water rates (approved increases without requiring cost cuts first).
When trustees consistently approve what staff requests without negotiation or modification, they're not governing, they're rubber-stamping.
How Christine Would Have Voted: I would have negotiated terms that protect taxpayers while being fair to the employee.
When I served as Fire District Treasurer and our Fire Chief requested higher severance, I didn't just approve it. I negotiated reciprocal accountability: If he wanted 120 days severance, he had to give us 120 days notice before leaving, otherwise he would owe the District 10% of his annual gross salary to cover the expedited costs of recruiting and hiring a replacement.
That's fair negotiation. He got security. We got protection against sudden departure costs. Both sides had accountability.
Wellington's trustees could have negotiated similar terms: "We'll approve 12 months if you commit to X" or "Let's phase this in" or "What do we get in return?" Instead, they approved every request without modification.
Saying yes to every staff request isn't leadership, it's abdication. Trustees should negotiate creative solutions that protect taxpayers while treating employees fairly.