by Rit Carter and Jack Krampitz
Rep. Cara Pavalock-D’Amato is a darling of Bristol’s Republican Party. She is a strong proponent of the second amendment, a dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporter, and impervious to the grievances of the Democrats.
According to Cara’s supporters, her opponents drum up issues against her because they cannot defeat her at the ballot box.
For her detractors, Pavalock-D’Amato is the epitome of cruelness and pettiness. She notoriously referred to a constituent as a bitch, refused to meet or correspond with former Bristol Mayor Ellen Zoppo-Sassu on any issues that could benefit her constituents, and has a sense of entitlement. The residency issue is merely Cara being Cara, who thinks she can do whatever she wants because of who she is.
The reality is, of course, somewhere in the middle, she is not some Marie Antoinette figure who is tone deaf to her “subjects'” hardships, nor is she Mother Teresa, an angelic figure who can do no wrong.
In March, Pavalock-D’Amato found herself in the eye of a political storm once again when the issue of her residency was called into question.
Is Pavalock-D’Amato residing in the 77th district, which she represents, in a 250-sq. ft. efficiency apartment above a former pawn shop with a view of Farmington Avenue and a parking lot (this is where she is claiming to reside)?
Or does the three-term representative call a 2,793-sq. ft. home on Chippens Hill with 12 acres, an in-ground swimming pool, and vistas of the Farmington Valley in the 78th district home (Her husband and child live on Perkins Street)?
Due to a complaint filed by Bristol’s Democratic Town Committee, the matter is currently before the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission to resolve.
The commission must decide where her true and fixed home is, i.e., what is her domicile?
Domicile is the location of a person’s fixed, principal, and permanent home and is the place to which a person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere.
Domicile is different than residency. While a person can have multiple residences, a person can only have one domicile.
The Connecticut State Elections Commission defined an individual’s “bona fide residence” for Connecticut’s election laws as a person’s genuine domicile. More specifically, that place where a person maintains a true, fixed, and principal home to which the individual, whenever transiently relocated, has a genuine intent to return.”
And interestingly enough, the office of Legislative Research in 2020, explained domicile for tax purposes as “The individual’s domicile does not change until he or she moves to a new location and intends to make his or her permanent home there. If the individual moves to a new location but intends to stay there only for a limited time (no matter how long), his or her domicile does not change.
The TBE has twice reached out to the Elections Commission to learn what factors they will use to determine her home and what evidence they need other than Pavalock-D’Amato’s word. Due to their investigation, they did not comment.
How is one’s residence determined?
Most often, domicile cases are due to state income tax investigations. State tax departments use many factors when considering a person’s domicile, among them:
▪ Physical presence (amount of time spent in the state)
▪ Residence (whether a person owns or rents a home in the state)
▪ Employment
▪ Family location
▪ Real property ownership
▪ Voting registration and actual voting
▪ Driver’s license
▪ Automobile registration and location of most valuable cars
▪ Bank accounts
▪ Tax return filings
▪ Memberships and licenses
▪ Location of valuables
One then must ask: what measures did she take to change her domicle?
Moving and merely paying utilities or rent does not constitute a change in domicile.
Suppose Pavalock-D’Amato truly changed her home to 467 Farmington Avenue. In that case, that move would be and should be documented by a change of address on a variety of documents, including but not limited to her driver’s license, voter registration, final will and testament, physicians, dentists, attorneys, accountants, investment counselors, and any organizations she belongs.
Changing a domicile is no easy matter. Many wealthy taxpayers have found themselves entangled for years with state tax departments and before state judges trying to prove what they consider home.
It is up to the person asserting the change to prove the change.
If the commission is just going by her word, here are some factors to consider.
Did she keep a calendar as to where she stayed every night? By doing so, tax auditors say this would establish a pattern of living.
Another area to examine, does the “efficiency apartment” contain items near and dear to her?
For example, if Pavalock-D’Amato owns a coin collection, where is it stored? Generally, items considered near and dear are kept where you live. A review of the photos she shared publicly reveals the apartment has minimal necessities. However, in her defense, if she had a valuable collection, it would not be displayed online in all likelihood. Also, an argument can be made for keeping it in a secured location.
What about her lifestyle? Lifestyle audits conducted by the Internal Revenue Service concern living beyond one’s means, not usually below one’s means.
A lifestyle audit goes beyond numbers and examines how someone lives and where someone lives.
In this case, if the commission wished to dig deeper, they would examine both properties regarding their size, amenities, and who are her neighbors.
Public records indicate that in 2020, well before her lease agreement, a tenant of 467 Farmington Ave. was arrested on larceny charges for entering an elderly and disabled apartment complex in Plymouth with force.
The minutes from Bristol’s Code Enforcement Meeting of Jan. 6, 2021, state, “The owners of the property located at 467 Farmington Ave. are making progress on the fire suppression and sprinkler system. The Police Department has been patrolling the property, and less residents are trespassing. The Water Department stated the owners still have an outstanding balance. They are also delinquent on the real estate taxes.”
And a review of several public websites shows a series of individuals caught up in the justice system that have moved in and out of the Farmington Avenue address during her residency.
And lastly, the Connecticut Sex Offender Registry website identifies a tenant at 467 Farmington Ave. as being convicted in Massachusetts for rape of a child under 16 with force, and indecent assault and battery on a child under 14.
Does it seem likely that she would knowingly put herself and those she cares about in harm’s way?
Meanwhile, according to public records, the Perkins Street property has seven rooms, multiple bedrooms, bathrooms, and half baths, with Central AC, a porch, a screen porch, a patio, and an inground swimming pool.
It appears from outward appearances, based on what is known, that her domicile argument for Farmington Ave. does not hold, but the decision is not based on perceptions.
Republicans attacked Councilman Calvin Brown in 2016 for a similar issue
When former city councilman Calvin Brown, a Democrat, moved from one district to another during his term. The Republicans seized on the issue, bombarding social media with outrage and turning the event into nothing short of The Inquisition. They wanted him to resign because you cannot represent a district in which you do not live.
They were right.
In January 2016, the then-Republican Committee Town Chairman Jeff Caggiano took to Facebook and posted, “Are there any investigative reporters that can inform the electorate of not only what transpired and when, but what this all means for the voters of the 1st Council District? I think the citizens of Bristol deserve more answers.”
In 2022 though, there are no such calls from the Republicans asking for Pavalock-D’Amato to resign or for a thorough investigation into the matter.
One last strange development in this case was the recent shifting of 77th District to include Perkins Street and much of Chippens Hill. This will allow Pavalock-D’Amato to run for re-election in her old district despite her family’s move. Chippens Hill has been represented by Republican Whit Betts for years, but this year he announced his retirement from the legislature
Normally this type of “gerrymandering” would be done by the party in power to benefit one of their own. But the Democrats have control in Hartford and still made this shift to benefit a Republican. Another anomaly to add to the mix.
One would have to ask how this deal came to be. So many questions, but no answers.
However, the elections commission is expected to decide shortly.
The Calvin Brown issue, based on the dates of the public documents, was clear. The Pavalock D’Amoto issue is murky because more factors are necessary to determine her true home. Some factors will swing to her side, and some will not.
Regardless of how the commission decides, they have no power to remove her from office should they rule against her. Therefore, it begs the question: if it is agreed that Pavlaock D’Amato is not living in the district she represents, how will the legislative body deal with one of their own trying to represent a district in which she does not reside?
