It came as no surprise to learn that former New London resident Robert Fromer's appointment to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission in Windsor was relatively short-lived and highly controversial. After a nearly 15-hour hearing stretching over three meetings, the Windsor Town Council voted 8-0 Monday to remove Mr. Fromer from the commission. The council appointed Mr. Fromer in October 2008.

Mr. Fromer plans to appeal in court, which is no surprise. The view from here, which we concede is at some significant distance, is that he probably has a good case. The council knew, or should have known, what it was getting when it followed the Democratic Town Committee's recommendation and named Mr. Fromer to the wetlands commission.

The licensed engineer and rabid environmentalist, now age 69, has acted predictably. Mr. Fromer has challenged the actions of the wetlands agent, questioned the legal opinions of the town attorney, insisted on the strictest interpretation of wetlands regulations and sought to use the agency power to crack down on the use of pesticides and herbicides.

In so doing, complainants said Mr. Fromer has been rude, condescending and domineering. Exactly what did the Windsor councilors expect in appointing the well-known gadfly?

Mr. Fromer has a no-growth philosophy. The Earth, he contends, does not have the resources to support never-ending economic development. He considers suburban sprawl and big-box shopping centers to be foolhardy wastes of energy and open space.

The projects he challenged in southeastern Connecticut included the transfer of the former Norwich Hospital from the state to Preston for potential development; the proposed Coast Guard museum in Fort Trumbull; the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan; Dodd Stadium in Norwich; golf courses; and plans to redevelop the Seaside Regional Center as housing.

Mr. Fromer insists he lived up to his oath as a commissioner and Windsor has no cause to remove him. Its case does appear thin. Proving Mr. Fromer was discourteous, defiant, questioning and a general pain will likely not impress a court.

In a 1978 case, Obeda vs. Town of Brookfield, a lower-court judge reinstated a wetlands commissioner, concluding that to remove an appointed official a municipality must "demonstrate a breach of public trust, either by willful neglect of a public duty or by a callous disregard for moral principles." If anything, Mr. Fromer is overzealously pursuing his public duty based on his moral principles.

The state Supreme Court upheld the Obeda decision.

As officials around here know and Windsor will soon learn, Mr. Fromer will not go quietly.