QUESTION:  What kind of justice or ethics goes on in Connecticut?  Which example above represents...Bridgeport?  D.C.? Retaining the e-mail evidence.  "I didn't know" excuse ("impression of a conflict").

ETHICS IN SMALL STATES, TOWNS AND CITIES - HOW MANY ETHICAL PROBLEMS CAN YOU FIND IN EACH SITUATION?




ALL THE NEWS THAT FITS WE PRINT
"...Nothing compares to the importance of true journalism."  Or the self-importance of journalists?

“Journalism is what maintains democracy…”
What, Wait?  Blog
Jon Pelto
December 13, 2011 (part one)

So said the lawyer, author and activist Andrew Vachss.

Through the years many others have said similar things about what may be the noblest of professions.

It can be said that the most important thing that stands between democracy and freedom as opposed to totalitarianism is a free press.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is said to have been the first to pass freedom of press laws in 1539 while a national Freedom of the Press Act was first adopted in Sweden/Finland in 1766.

Here in the United States, the freedom of the press was ensured in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

While those freedoms have been threatened from time to time in this country (i.e. the Alien and Sedition Act), the notion that a free nation must have a free press has remained a constant.

But great responsibility comes with the fundamental duties of a Free Press – the most important being to provide balanced, fair and impartial coverage of the news that the People need and have a right to know.

Or, as Walter Cronkite put it, “Objective journalism and an opinion column are about as similar as the Bible and Playboy magazine.”

In retrospect, I wish I had chosen the path of journalism instead of politics.  Instead, now tainted with the stench of politics, I am left writing opinion columns.  While there is a role for those as well, nothing compares to the importance of true journalism.

It is for this reason that I find myself so disappointed with some of the media coverage of late, both at the national and state level.

Take for examples the relative coverage some media outlets have given to the issue of the 24 state employees who purportedly lied to get food stamps in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene versus the coverage of the potential that 78,000 Connecticut families who received heating assistance last year will get no help at all with their bills this year versus the coverage of the decision by Attorney General George Jepsen and Governor Dannel Malloy to file a court motion to remove “early childhood education”  from the definition of education  as required by the Connecticut Constitution.

One reasonable measure of how important an issue is – is the amount of coverage it receives.

In the HARTFORD COURANT the controversy surrounding the 24 state employees who may have lied to get food stamps has generated more than 10,000 words of coverage and two major editorials.  By comparison the potential lack of heating assistance for 78,000 Connecticut families has received about 2,000 words while the extraordinary move by Jepsen and Malloy to limit access to early childhood education has received a paltry 1,000 words.

By comparison the CTMirror, the on-line news outlet has devoted about 2,100 words to the state employees, a significant 3,200 words to the heating assistance story and less than 750 words to the early childhood issue.

And at the same time, CTNewsjunkie, Connecticut’s original and longest running on-line media outlet has had about 3,400 words on the state employee issue, 2,600 on the heating assistance issues and has led the coverage of the early childhood controversy with nearly 2,000 words.

The amount of coverage – does not – in and of itself prove anything – but it begins to tell a disturbing story of what some media outlets determine as more or less important.

The Courant editorial concluded that “Mr. Malloy is right to affirm the need for ethical behavior in state service. State workers have had weak gubernatorial leadership for the past 20 years. Mr. Malloy is wise to get their attention, before things get worse.”

And for his part, Governor Malloy told reporters that he intends to change the culture of state government, adding “this administration exists to serve the taxpayers and not ourselves.”  Malloy went on to say “I know that culture once existed in state government. It doesn’t anymore.”

Those are certainly dramatic and powerful words, but are we supposed to believe that the alleged actions of 24 state employees represent a culture of corruption?   As one of my Facebook friends noted, 24 state employees out of approximately 50,000 represent 0.048 percent.

Imagine the outcry if the Governor or any public figure made such a grandiose generalization of any other group based on the actions of less than .05 percent.

While those who cheat and steal, state employee or not, should be punished to the fullest extent of the law it is rather absurd to imply that the actions of a minuscule percentage represent the moral standing of the majority.

In fact, such an comment is nothing short of stupid.

But even worse was the attempt by the Governor Malloy to present the evidence in a way as to imply that the problem was far more widespread than the potential illegal actions of a few.

In hastily called and rare Sunday news conference Malloy said “I’m making this announcement because we believe that fraud has been perpetrated by a number of individuals” reported the Governor.

That number, as he knew, was 24.

The number of murders this year in New Haven has been greater and no Sunday press conference was called to offer opinions about that fact.

Yes, the Governor should be taking reasonable action to root out corruption and the media should give those steps appropriate coverage.

But is the action of 24 state employees worth 10,000 words in the Hartford Courant at the same time Connecticut’s paper of record has given 1/5th that amount of coverage to the potential that 78,000 of Connecticut’s most vulnerable families will go through this coming winter without the financial help they need.  While, at the same time, Connecticut’s leading news outlet provided the early childhood controversy with just 10 percent of the coverage given to those 24 state employees.

The people of Connecticut deserve better; Connecticut’s Free Press must do better.

Young takes state advisory position
Kate King, Staff Writer, Stamford ADVOCATE
Updated 09:18 p.m., Friday, January 6, 2012

STAMFORD -- Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has poached Board of Ethics Chairman Dan Young, who said this week he will leave the Government Center to serve on the state Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board.

Malloy, Stamford's former mayor, first appointed Young to the city's Board of Ethics six years ago. Young said he is looking forward to working for the Office of State Ethics.

"It was a new challenge that I thought was interesting and will perhaps eventually help me offer advice in Stamford," said Young, a partner with the law firm Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin and Kuriansky.

Young will be one of nine members on the advisory board, which is charged with issuing advisory opinions, adjudicating cases brought under the state ethics code and finding violations. Legislative leaders and the governor appoint members for staggered, nonrenewable, four-year terms, according to the Office of State Ethics' website.

Advisory board members are forbidden to hold other public offices. Young said he resigned from Stamford's Ethics Board two weeks ago.

Mayor Michael Pavia said he was sad to see Young go and would look for another lawyer to replace him on the board.

"I can certainly understand why someone of Dan's capability is being drafted to state of Connecticut service," Pavia said. "He served the city well, and he's going to be difficult to replace."

Young has served as the Board of Ethics chairman since May 2009, and was charged with guiding the long-dormant board through a tumultuous period of unusually high activity.

A flurry of ethics allegations revived the board in the spring of 2010, when former human resources employee Tania Barnes accused former Board of Finance members Joe Tarzia and Bob Kolenberg of ethical misconduct. City Fleet Manager Michael Scacco also leveled charges against the two men and city Rep. Sal Gabriele, R-16, as well. The allegations sparked two years of political controversy and legal wrangling. In the end, all complaints were withdrawn or dismissed.

Malloy could not be reached for comment. His chief legal counsel, Andrew McDonald, said Thursday the governor has known Young for a long time and appreciated his service on Stamford's Ethics Board.

"The governor was fully aware of the recent ethics cases in Stamford," McDonald said, "and was extraordinarily impressed with the way in which Mr. Young navigated his board through a very difficult set of circumstances. Seeing someone perform so admirably, in such a heated set of circumstances, led the governor to conclude that Mr. Young has the type of temperament and skill which would serve him and the state well on the state ethics board."

From June 2010 to June 2011, the Board of Ethics received three formal requests for advisory opinions, fielded 11 ethics complaints and convened for meetings or public hearings 12 times. Young and fellow ethics board member Cheryl Bader clashed with the Board of Finance on several occasions, as they sought funding for the Ethics Board's investigating panel's legal counsel.

"I am proud of the way our Board of Ethics has handled a very difficult situation," Young said in an email Wednesday. "Everyone on the board agreed to serve without anticipating the extremely heavy workload and resulting public scrutiny that we have faced.

"When called upon, all of our board members made personal and professional sacrifices in order to give priority to their Board of Ethics responsibilities."

As chairman, Young repeatedly said his goal was to execute the board's mission while maintaining public trust in the city's ethics system. In March, Young was the only board member to vote against a measure giving it the power to dismiss ethics complaints leaked to the media before probable cause was determined.

"Public trust is paramount," Young said at the time. "If we lose the public trust, we might as well not exist at all."

The Ethics Board often faced heavy criticism and even legal action over the past two years.

Tarzia named the board in a federal lawsuit filed in October 2010, which he later settled with the city. Gabriele lodged a Freedom of Information Act complaint against the board after a May 5 hearing, during which he alleges the board's hearing panel improperly entered executive session with its attorney.

Connecticut's Freedom of Information Commission is to hear the complaint this month.

Tarzia, who resigned in February 2011 after battling two ethics complaints and accepting a $45,000 legal settlement with the city, accused Malloy and Young of conspiring to remove him from the Finance Board. Tarzia has leveled similar allegations against Pavia, who has denied the claims.

"This is (Young's) reward by the Malloy administration for getting rid of Joe Tarzia," Tarzia said Thursday. "He restricted my attorney and my defense during the hearings. It's all politically motivated, like I said from the beginning."

Young did not comment on Tarzia's accusations, which McDonald dismissed as unfounded.

"Anyone who analyzes the leadership of the board under Dan Young in an objective fashion must conclude that he was as even-handed and fair as possible," McDonald said. "The governor thought he did an exemplary job of demonstrating high ethical standards and leadership skills."

Stamford's ethics code is now up for revision. City Rep. Eileen Heaphy, D-8, is chairman of the committee tasked with the overhaul. Heaphy said Wednesday she appreciated Young's work on the Ethics Board.

"I think he did an admirable job under very difficult circumstances because there was no recent precedent for the kind of lawsuits and counter suits that were going on," she said. "He was very thoughtful to give us, the Board of Representatives, a very good report on how we can go forward and make corrections and improvements in the process."
Stamford board finds cause in second ethics complaint
Magdalene Perez, Stamford ADVOCATE Staff Writer
Published: 10:42 p.m., Tuesday, September 21, 2010

STAMFORD -- In the second such action in less than a month, the Board of Ethics has found probable cause in a complaint against Board of Finance Chairman Joe Tarzia and two other Republican elected officials.

The May 20 complaint filed by City Fleet Manager Mike Scacco, alleges Tarzia, along with fellow finance board member Bob Kolenberg and city Rep. Sal Gabriele, R-16, led a "campaign of harassment and retaliation" against Scacco after he attempted to discipline a city employee. The officials' actions included referring Scacco to the FBI for criminal investigation, and requesting his personnel file, mileage reports and attendance records, among other inquiries, according to the complaint.

In a split 2-1 opinion Monday, an investigating panel for the ethics board found enough evidence to support a finding of probable cause that Tarzia and Gabriele violated two sections of the city ethics code. The panel also found, in a 2-1 opinion, probable cause Kolenberg made one violation.

The decision is the second probable cause finding in less than four weeks for a board that has not made such a determination in more than a decade. Last month, it also found probable cause in a separate complaint, in which Human Resources Generalist Tania Barnes alleged Tarzia asked Barnes, through two high-ranking city officials, to rescind a five-day unpaid suspension imposed on a municipal equipment operator, Tony Vaccaro.

Barnes alleged that when she refused to alter the discipline, Tarzia and Gabriele began requesting her personnel file and other personal information in an effort to intimidate and publicly embarrass her. The complaints are among at least four ethics and labor charges filed against Tarzia in recent months.

Tarzia and Kolenberg said Tuesday the complaints are baseless and a reaction to their attempts to investigate waste and mismanagement in the city.

"It's completely false and it's completely underhanded as far as I'm concerned," Kolenberg said. "The only thing I am guilty of is that I was working too diligently to make sure taxpayers' money wasn't going to waste."

Monday's determination means the Scacco case will soon be subject to public hearings in which he and the three respondents can provide evidence and testimony prior to a final decision whether the men violated the city ethics code. According to the code, the hearings must begin within 30 days, with the investigating panel presenting evidence to a separate three-member hearing panel, also made up of members of the ethics board and chosen by the board chairman. The hearing panel is responsible for making a final determination in the case.

According to Scacco's complaint, the alleged harassment began as a result of his attempts to discipline city equipment mechanic James Fasoli, whom Scacco claimed is Tarzia's friend and political ally. Scacco says Tarzia asked city Director of Operations Ernie Orgera to intervene after Fasoli was issued a five-day suspension. Later, Fasoli was transferred to the Scofieldtown yard, "in lieu of any punishment," according to the statement.

Scacco further claims Tarzia and Gabriele began making inquiries about the purchase of used plow trucks after Fasoli requested "a detailed list of questions" concerning them during one of his pre-disciplinary hearings, with the intent of using the information in his defense. Scacco states Tarzia and Gabriele's requests were "menacing in tone" and suggested the information would lead to his termination.

Finally, the complaint alleged Kolenberg pushed for privatization of the city's vehicle maintenance work for his own benefit. By Scacco's account, Tarzia and Kolenberg said they intended to close the vehicle maintenance facility and privately contract the work.

In Monday's decision, the panel found "sufficient evidence that all three respondents engaged in activities outside the nature and scope of their official responsibilities and that such conduct can reasonably be interpreted to reflect adversely on their fidelity and impartiality," as prohibited by the ethics code. The panel said the evidence shows probable cause the respondents "engaged in a process of targeted inquiry" that "blurred the lines of their official authority and was inspired by personal, punitive motives."

In addition, the panel found probable cause Tarzia and Gabriele violated the code by granting "special consideration, treatment, or advantage" on a city employee. The investigation "revealed evidence indicating that Mr. Tarzia contacted Mr. Orgera" to "intervene in the disciplinary process" and that "Mr. Gabriele enjoys a personal friendship with the employee at issue."

Sheldon Levine, one of two Republicans on the panel, disagreed with both findings. The panel did not find probable cause in the allegations regarding Kolenberg's inquiries into the vehicle maintenance facility.

In a special meeting Monday, the Board of Ethics denied a motion by Kolenberg to dismiss the Scacco complaint. A date for the hearings has not yet been set. Hearings in the Barnes complaint are to begin Oct. 5, Board of Ethics chairman Dan Young said.


Ethics board to examine selectman's role with trash disposal agency
By Jenna Cho Day Staff Writer
Article published Sep 15, 2010

Old Saybrook - Selectwoman Carol Manning has asked the Ethics Commission to review a potential conflict of interest in Michael Pace's dual role as the town's first selectman and chairman of Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA), a solid-waste disposal agency.

If the local ethics board determines there is a conflict, the decision could have statewide implications. That's because five of the 11 CRRA board members are top elected municipal officials: Pace, Old Lyme's first selectman Timothy Griswold, North Stonington's first selectman Nicholas Mullane, and the mayors of Waterbury and Shelton.

Windsor Locks' first selectman is an ad hoc member.

"The reason that we took notice of it is our board is made up mainly of local officials - mayors and first selectmen," said Paul Nonnenmacher, CRRA's public relations director. "And if it came to a situation where this was a conflict of interest, we wouldn't be able to do anything because six of our 11 board members would be gone."

CRRA's board of directors operates under state statute 22a-261(c), which requires that four of the board's members be officials from municipalities that use CRRA for its solid-waste disposal needs. In 2006, in response to a request from CRRA's attorney, state Attorney General Blumenthal cleared the legal air on any questions of a conflict.

"The legislature would not have mandated the inclusion of such municipal officials on the CRRA board if such board members were required to continually recuse themselves from matters that could affect their municipalities, thereby impairing the ability of the CRRA board to fulfill its responsibilities," Blumenthal wrote in a Nov. 16, 2006 letter to Laurie Hunt, CRRA's director of legal services.

Pace, who has served on the CRRA board since 2001, said Blumenthal's opinion made it clear that there was no conflict. Griswold, Old Lyme's first selectman who is also on the CRRA board, concurred.

"The state legislature, they're the ones who developed the law," Pace said. "The conflict of interest (question), I think, has already been addressed by the state. I've never taken a dime from CRRA. And I've never missed my work here (in Old Saybrook)."

Manning raised the issue after discussion on the town's contract with CRRA was tabled at the Sept. 2 Board of Selectmen meeting.

CRRA's longstanding municipal-service agreement with Old Saybrook and 95 other towns and cities throughout Connecticut expires in 2012, meaning municipalities will soon begin discussing whether to renew their contracts with CRRA or take their trash elsewhere.

CRRA's new contract is expected to be shorter than the current 20-year contract, according to Pace.

For the 2010-11 fiscal year, Old Saybrook budgeted $300,000 for solid-waste removal and $120,000 for bulky-waste removal, both of which are paid to CRRA, Pace said. The agency does not charge the town a fee for recycling, he said.

"The collection of trash in Old Saybrook is sort of a million dollar situation," Manning said. "I feel as though we have to be very clear and transparent, that when we look at a contract of that size, that we're doing what's in the best interest of the town."

The ethics board's review now would settle any questions that may come up in the future about a potential conflict of interest, Manning said.

Pace has requested that the Ethics Commission discuss the issue at its Sept. 21 meeting, which is scheduled for 7 p.m. at Acton Public Library.

A town with little corruption (it says) ponders ethics rules
By Matt Collette Day Staff Writer
Article published Sep 15, 2010

Groton council debates proposal for ordinance and penalties

Groton - Town councilors showed early support for a draft ethics ordinance at their meeting Tuesday night, but expressed concerns that some parts of the proposal were to restrictive or could not be carried out.

Dean Antipas, a former town councilor who is now running for probate judge as a Republican, led the task force that created the draft ordinance. He said the group was "working in a vacuum" while creating the proposed ordinance because Groton does not have a history of corruption.

Antipas described the draft as a "soup to nuts" document, which laid out everything from conflict of interest to handling gifts to misuse of town property or funds.

Still, the document is far from complete, Antipas conceded.

"I didn't want to bring something that was half-baked; now, this is mostly baked," he said.

Beyond straight definitions of unethical behavior, the draft emphasizes that town employees and elected officials should avoid the appearance of impropriety.

"We talked at length about perception, about what things can look like to another person even if there are no actual ethics violations," said Councilor Bruce Flax, who served on the task force.

The process would start with a complaint followed by an initial inquiry, which would screen out complaints that did not have sufficient merit. A town ethics commission would consider cases, and be able to issue punishments including reprimands, censure, suspension or termination.

Some councilors said those punishments could pose problems. An elected official, said Councilor Frank "Mick" O'Beirne, cannot be kicked out of office. And Councilors Deb Monteiro and Catherine Kolnaski expressed concern with the "public verbal rebuke" that would come with a censure.

There are still questions about a number of areas of the proposal, including whether ethics commission sessions would be open or closed and whether the ordinance would apply to subdivisions and the Board of Education. After another round of edits by Antipas and a review by the council and town boards and commissions, the document will go to the town attorney for review.

Overall, though, councilors seemed happy with the early incarnation of the proposed ethics ordinance.

"It is really a quality, substantial piece of work," said Councilor Paulann Sheets.

League of Women Voters: Greenwich ethics code must be modernized
Greenwich TIME
Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Published: 09:45 p.m., Sunday, September 5, 2010

The League of Women Voters of Greenwich is once again lobbying the town to bring what the organization says is an antiquated municipal Code of Ethics into the modern era to cover nonfinancial conflicts of interest and other potential breaches of the public trust by government employees, elected and appointed officers.

"I think our view is we would like to see more substance in the code," said JoAnn Messina, a longtime member of the nonpartisan voter education and advocacy group. "We don't think the tools are sufficient."

Messina addressed her comments Thursday to the Board of Selectmen, to whom the league has presented a series of recommended improvements to the code twice publicly during the past year.

"The league feels that the best time to look at ethics is when there aren't any scandals so we can all look at them with cool heads," said Cheryl Dunson, a veteran of the local league who is president of the broader statewide organization.

Chief among the group's recommendations is that the definition of a conflict of interest under the code be expanded to cover nonfinancial situations and even those that create an appearance of impropriety.

Public officials are currently required to recuse themselves from voting on anything in which they have a financial interest under the two-page code, which the league has said should go one step further and bar their participation in deliberations.

Dating back to 1965, the code has undergone few revisions. Dunson said that the town has made strides since the league made its first presentation to the prior Board of Selectmen last October, standardizing forms for requesting advisory opinions on potential conflicts and for making ethics complaints.

"However, we do feel that there are other areas that can continue to be enhanced," Dunson said. "How do we ensure that every town officer is aware that they are subject to our Code of Ethics?"

The league's Connecticut chapter undertook a similar ethics reform initiative, as well as Common Cause of Connecticut, which Dunson previously said did a survey of municipal conduct rules and found Greenwich's to be lacking in several areas.

Assistant Town Attorney Aamina Ahmad said that her office is currently drafting a set of ethical standards for municipal employees that should be finished before the end of the year and will be incorporated into existing personnel policies.

"One good thing that's come out of this for starters is it's made us all sit down and take a good look at our code," Ahmad said.

Ahmad characterized the process as a "bit of a tug of war" between developing rigid rules or more flexible ones that allow for more discretion.

First Selectman Peter Tesei said one dilemma is whether to ban gifts outright to town employees or set a dollar value on them. He brought up the example of town secretaries and administrative staff receiving small tokens of appreciation from citizens that they help.

"What if I were to get a box of chocolates? Can I take it or not take it?" Tesei said.

Ahmad did not elaborate on the specific guidelines that will be spelled out in the new ethics policy, which can be adopted administratively by the town's human resources director.

The Board of Selectmen would have to initiate any amendments to the Code of Ethics, which require ratification by the Representative Town Meeting.

Paul deBary, chairman of the Board of Ethics, said the quasi-judicial panel has subpoena power and can levy fines.

"I think some people think we should be a prosecutorial agency but there are other forums for that," deBary said.

Established in 1965 by the town, the five-member panel issues advisory opinions to officials on matters of ethics and also has power to censure those who violate the municipal Code of Ethics. The job of the panel, its chairman said, is to interpret the rules.

"It's not our job to try to change it," deBary said.


Survey Finds That Some Small Towns Have No Policies For Saving Official E-Mails
By MELISSA TRAYNOR and SHAWN R. BEALS, mtraynor@courant.com
August 25, 2010

Despite state guidelines that mandate the saving of official e-mails, a number of small towns throughout the state have inconsistent practices or no policies on keeping these public records.

An informal Courant survey of nearly 20 small towns found that, except for some towns such as Simsbury, Avon, Bolton, Canton and Colchester, the handling of official e-mails falls short of state requirements.  The survey was done following Sunday's Courant story on the dismissal of East Hampton's police chief by Town Manager Jeffery O'Keefe. That story — in which the role of town e-mails was central to the tale of the chief's exit — revealed discrepancies between state guidelines and town procedures.

Such discrepancies seem to go beyond East Hampton, even though the Office of the Public Records Administrator sets retention schedules for all town-relevant electronic messages, which are public records.

"I don't think all officials are aware that their e-mails are public documents," Cornwall First Selectman Gordon Ridgway said.

Ridgway said that Cornwall is drafting a policy for e-mail usage and retention to make it clear that town officials' e-mails are public records and must be saved. Now, there are no rules for saving or deleting e-mails.

Portland's technology coordinator, Dave Kuzminski, said that his town, like other small towns, is grappling with retention issues. The town, which is also forming a retention policy, has no regulations on when and how to save official e-mails, and employees may choose to delete or keep e-mails in their in boxes. Kuzminski said Portland does regularly back up its computers.  Some towns back up their computers regularly as a precaution, although the state guidelines do not accept or recommend retention of e-mails using this method.

Town officials in Cromwell reported that town servers are backed up and that the e-mails of First Selectman John Flanders' office, at least, are archived, but there is no universal approach in place.

The Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission has ruled consistently that e-mails from and to public officials are subject to disclosure under the law –— even when officials use private e-mail accounts. And they have warned that illegally deleting those e-mails can lead to costly orders to forensically retrieve the records.  E-mails with information relevant to town business and that are more pressing than the casual announcement for an ice cream social must be saved for predetermined amounts of time, depending on their content.

"There should be some kind of electronic management system for retaining messages," said LeAnn Power, the public records administrator.

The more important the subject of the e-mail, the longer it must be saved. For example, any e-mail related to financial transactions must be saved for three years or until audited, whichever is later.  Windsor Locks First Selectman Steven Wawruck said that data in his town is also backed up and archived daily, but that there is no formal policy in place.

"You err on the side of caution," Wawruck said. He said that because e-mails from town addresses are open under FOI laws, "I just keep everything."

Suffield First Selectman Tom Frenaye said that his town has no policy for how long to save e-mails, but that data is backed up daily.

"Primarily, the driving force is how much space we have [available] to store them," Frenaye said. "In reality, it's very hard to get rid of stuff from different generations of backups. It's probably all still there."

Some towns seem to have a grasp on state guidelines. Officials in Colchester, Bolton, Avon, Canton and Simsbury said that their towns' policies match the state regulations. Simsbury's data processing manager, Richard P. Bazzano, said that the town is looking for an electronic management system as an alternate to saving locally or printing out individual messages.

Dick Barlow, Canton's first selectman, said that all town employees, boards and commissions abide by the state retention schedules and keep e-mails in their in boxes.

"In the past, we had some concerns over retention," Barlow said. "Our IT people were looking for deletion policies [due to computer capacity issues] and our chief administrative office said that they should be keeping those documents instead of deleting them."



CTNEWSJUNKIE picture

NU Execs Gave To Campaign Of Esty's Wife
Hartford Courant
Jon Lender, Government Watch
8:42 PM EDT, October 7, 2011

With controversy already enveloping the $205,000 in consulting work that Daniel C. Esty did for Northeast Utilities before he became commissioner of the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, it turns out that NU executives also have contributed to the congressional campaign of Esty's wife, Democrat Elizabeth Esty, public records show.

Why should it matter that four NU executives gave a total of $2,000 on June 29 and 30 to Elizabeth Esty's effort to win her party's nomination in the 5th Congressional District?

It matters because corporate executives could be "seeking favor" from an official whose agency regulates them — as Esty's does — by giving campaign contributions to his wife, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Responsive Politics.

The executives might hope that either the regulator or his wife — if she is elected to Congress — "might view their agenda in a more favorable light," said Krumholz, whose non-profit groups monitors money in politics. Donations don't necessarily mean executives are trying to influence a public official, but they bear watching to be sure official actions aren't influenced, she said.

In the case of Daniel Esty, Krumholz said, "his office should be mindful of the potential for conflicts of interest, or the appearance of a conflict," that might arise from someone who is regulated by Esty's agency giving money to his wife's campaign.

According to Federal Election Commission records, four NU executives who live in Connecticut gave $500 each to Elizabeth Esty's campaign on June 29 or 30. They were: Leon J. Olivier, NU's chief operating officer; NU vice presidents Shirley M. Payne and Lisa Thibdaue; and James B. Robb, who was identified on the FEC report merely as an NU executive.

Daniel Esty said through a DEEP spokesman on Friday that he's had no involvement with his wife's fundraising other than contacts with friends and family who don't do business with the state government.

And a spokeswoman for Elizabeth Esty's campaign, Julie Sweet, said that "there has been absolutely no effort to target companies that her husband regulates for contributions to Elizabeth's campaign."

Before Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy installed him as energy and environment commissioner early this year, Daniel Esty was a longtime Yale professor, author, environmental consultant and public speaker. He made $1.2 million in speaker's fees from corporations and trade associations over the past five years by talking on environmental subjects, including his 2006 book, "Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage."

Rough Ride

But his wide network of business associations has led to a bumpy beginning as state commissioner. For example, his past financial ties to NU have put him into the spotlight since The Courant disclosed two weeks ago that the corporation paid him $205,000 in consulting fees from 1997 to 2005.

Esty has been criticized since then for not including NU on a "recusal list" that he released in July, itemizing 28 companies and organizations with which he will avoid any contact as commissioner, should any regulatory issue arise with DEEP involving them.

He said his standard for including companies on the hands-off list was whether he had done consulting or had some other involvement with them during the past five years. Because his consulting for NU ended six years ago, he said he didn't need to disqualify, or "recuse," himself from personal contact with matters involving NU. He said state ethics officials had endorsed his recusal standards.

Thus, he said, it was OK for him to intervene on Aug. 30 in his agency's handling of a multi-million-dollar request by NU's subsidiary, Connecticut Light & Power Co., to install 1.2 million "smart meters" at customers' homes and businesses. Malloy defended that controversial intervention from criticism by House Republican Leader Lawrence Cafero of Norwalk.

And yet Esty came under criticism again this past week, and Malloy again defended him, after it was revealed that he received a $7,500 speaking fee in 2009 from United Illuminating, which provides electric power in the New Haven and Fairfield County areas. Even though that was less than five years ago, he said a one-shot speech isn't a significant as a consulting relationship, so he doesn't need to disqualify himself with regard to UI.

After running into so much trouble over such issues, Esty decided last week to write a letter to the Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board for an opinion "regarding the interplay of my current position as the Commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection … and the business relationships from my former professional life as a Yale University professor, book author, and consultant."

The letter was still in draft form when he released it late Friday after The Courant called about the NU executives' donations to Esty's wife, DEEP spokesman Dennis Schain said. It is to be sent on Tuesday.

As the draft stood Friday, Esty will tell the ethics board: "I specifically seek your guidance on whether the steps I have taken since I was appointed Commissioner to disclose and manage these past professional relationships — including the development of my recusal list, my efforts to disengage from my former consulting firm Esty Environmental Partners LLC … and receipt of an honoraria for one recent speaking engagement — conform with the provisions of the state Code of Ethics and its regulations."

Wife's Campaign

"I also seek your guidance on how best to manage my role as Commissioner in light of the fact that my wife, former State Representative Elizabeth Esty, is currently running for the U.S. Congress."

He wrote that his personal lawyer, the governor's legal office, DEEP's in-house counsel and his wife's campaign-finance lawyer agreed about "whether or not there are state law constraints on the contributions that my wife's campaign can receive due to my position as Commissioner, or whether I am constrained by the contributions she receives.

"All of these sources came to the same legal conclusion: that there are no such constraints and that my wife and I have no obligation to limit who my wife receives campaign contributions from. I now seek your confirmation that this legal conclusion is correct. I would further note that I have committed not to solicit any campaign contributions from anyone in Connecticut who has business interests before DEEP."

But, he added: "I seek your guidance on whether there are any further guidelines I should follow."

In addition to the four NU representatives, a few other contributors to Elizabeth Esty's campaign were connected with the energy industry or a corporation that comes under DEEP regulation. But the campaign spokeswoman, Sweet, said there is no connection in that regard, adding: ""We're proud of the support the campaign has received. Friends, family, and neighbors — people all across Connecticut. Many of these people Elizabeth has known for years — some even dating back to her college days. In addition, Elizabeth's supporters have been extremely helpful in bringing together new supporters who are interested in a grassroots, reform-oriented campaign."

Elizabeth Esty, who served one term as a representative in the state House from Cheshire from 2009 to last January, is one of four Democrats seeking the 2012 nomination for the congressional seat now held by U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy, D-5th District, who will vacate the seat to run for the U.S. Senate.

She is not the only candidate to receive campaign funds from Northeast Utilities managers or executives. State House Speaker Chris Donovan, D-Meriden, received four contributions totaling $1,250 total from NU managers. They included $500 from Olivier, the NU chief operating officer who gave the same amount to Esty, as well as three other managers who gave Donovan $250 each: Johnny Magwood, Mary Emerson, and Thomas Dorsey.

No contributions from NU executives were evident on campaign reports through June 30 from the other two Democratic candidates seeking the nomination, Dan Roberti and Mike Williams. None showed up on the reports of the four Republicans seeking their party's nomination in the district: Justin Bernier, Mike Clark, Mark Greenberg and Lisa Wilson-Foley.
Esty faulted by Malloy on communications, not ethics
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
October 6, 2011

On the question of whether his old consulting business poses a conflict with his new public role as a state commissioner, Daniel C. Esty has the governor and the state ethics code on his side. But will it be enough?

To function as the state's first commissioner of energy and environmental protection, Esty acknowledged Wednesday he should meet another standard not found in Connecticut law: Avoiding the appearance of a conflict.

Esty, a celebrated Yale professor, author and policy expert, spent three days this week trying to respond to questions about his lucrative consulting and speaking income before joining the administration.

On Wednesday, Esty released a list of global speaking engagements that paid him $1.2 million since 2006, including a $15,000 fee for an appearance Monday as part of a public speaking series in Ohio, the Town Hall of Cleveland.

"I know that impressions matter, and we want to be very clear about addressing any past work I've done," Esty said.

With previously released information about his consulting working, including $205,000 he was paid over eight years consulting for Northeast Utilities, the public now can see the full extent of his past consulting and speaking clients, Esty said.

So, has clarity been achieved?

"I guess it depends on who you ask," said House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk. "Commissioner Esty has fostered this uncomfortable feeling everyone has."

Connecticut ethics laws bar public officials from acting on matters in which they have a direct financial interest, and they forbid them from taking a position with a business they regulate for at least a year after leaving state service.

But the laws are silent on when business dealings prior to becoming a state official pose a conflict or the appearance of a conflict. In states that define an apparent conflict, the statutes talk about whether "a reasonable person" or "an impartial observer" would see an official's relationships as causing bias.

In Esty's case, should his consulting for NU, the parent of the state's largest utility, Connecticut Light & Power, disqualify him? How about a $7,500 speaking fee from the other major power company, United Illuminating?

"The code of ethics always has a tension between attracting good people to work for government and protecting the interests of government," said Carol Carson, the executive director of the Office of State Ethics.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who says Esty has no conflict of interest, said anyone with expertise in an industry will have a history in that industry.

"What you have to understand is that if you want tremendously accomplished people to give some portion of their life to public service after they have proven that extraordinary talent, situations like this present themselves," Malloy said. "But we work through it."

Cafero agrees - to a degree.

"You want experts who worked in the industry," Cafero said. "If you said you can't take anyone with experience, you'd be hard-pressed to find qualified people."

But Cafero said Esty articulated a voluntary standard for conflicts, then appeared to fall short: He recused himself as commissioner from dealings with more than two dozen former consulting clients, but he left CL&P and UI off the list.

"You brought it on, pal," Cafero said. "You set the bar. You don't think you are going to get questioned?"

If Esty had publicized his dealings with the two utilities and explained why he believed he had no conflict, he might have avoided the controversy, Cafero said. Instead, the dealings were disclosed by The Hartford Courant.

And for that, Malloy faults his commissioner.

"Could he have handled it better? Yeah, I think he probably could have," Malloy told reporters.

Malloy later said he was referring to Esty's failure to initially disclose everything.

"He should have done it out of the box," Malloy said.

Hours later, Esty said the same thing in an interview: "In retrospect, it would have been good to put this all out there on day one."

Before he released the list, there was no way to determine who paid him for speaking engagements, even in the financial disclosure form all state officials are required to file annually. It is supposed to list all sources of income for the year in excess of $1,000.

On April 29, Esty filed his first annual financial disclosure statement with the Office of State Ethics. But the only source of honoraria identified by Esty was an entity that collected the fees and then paid him, Esty Associates LLC.

His wife, Elizabeth Esty, disclosed her husband's speaking fee from UI in 2009 in the disclosure form she filed as a state legislator in 2010.

Esty said he initially focused only on consulting clients, because that work often represented a closer relationship with a company than giving a single speech, as he did for United Illuminating in 2009.

"It's not the same level of engagement," he said.

He said he did not recuse himself from dealing with CL&P, because the consulting he did for the utility's corporate parent, Northeast Utilities, ended in 2006, outside a five-year lookback period he set.

The new Department of Energy and Environmental Protection has two functions pertaining to energy: energy policy, and energy regulation. The latter function is the responsibility of an autonomous unit, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority.

Esty has no direct control over electric rates, nor can he hire or fire members of the regulatory authority. But the energy policy being developed by the department under his supervision is meant to influence the regulators.

"Our responsibility will be to present a policy framework," Esty said. "Once in place, we let the rate review go, and we don't inject the policy perspective at that point."

Esty conceded he may have contributed to confusion about his relationship to the regulators by his intervention in an issue involving a CL&P application to install "smart meters" that better track energy use.

Instead of asking that the regulators delay acting on the application until the energy policy is finished, he wrote a letter directing a delay, language he says was inappropriate.

Roy Occhiogrosso, the governor's senior adviser, said the governor remains grateful that Esty has given up his outside income to work for the state. His integrity is not questioned within the administration, he said.

Asked if the administration saw Esty's problems as a matter of better communication, Occhiogrosso said, "At some level, everything is a communication issue."

Gaffey case prompts renewed call for an ethics committee
Jacqueline Rabe, CT MIRROR
January 18, 2011

The recent resignation and guilty plea of Sen. Thomas P. Gaffey has prompted renewed calls for creation of a  permanent committee to investigate complaints of misconduct against legislators--and renewed opposition from leaders of the Democratic majority.

"I think establishing a standing committee would set a dangerous precedent, leading us down a slippery slope," said Senate Majority Leader Martin M. Looney of New Haven, who fears the committee and investigations would be used for political gain.

The issue has been framed in recent years by charges of ethical and criminal misconduct against senators in recent years. In 2007, Senate Minority Leader Louis C. DeLuca pleaded guilty to hiring someone to threaten his granddaughter's husband; he later resigned his seat.

Earlier this month Gaffey, a Democrat from Meriden, pleaded guilty to larceny for double-billing the state and his political action committee for out-of-state travel, reportedly to cover the cost of a girlfriend who accompanied him.

The scandal spotlight has also fallen on current-Sen. Joseph J. Crisco, D-Woodbridge, for inducing someone to forge a signature on a campaign-finance form.

The State Elections Enforcement Commission fined both Gaffey and Crisco, but the legislature never investigated. An investigation was launched into DeLuca's actions, but only after he pleaded guilty.

"The precedent that has been followed has worked well," Looney said.

But Senate Republicans say the method of considering expulsion or censure of a lawmaker only after they are convicted of a crime is not the right approach.

"Elected officials too often break their vow to the public and it takes too long for anything to happen... The perception of the public is that we are protecting ourselves," Senate Minority Leader John P. McKinney, R-Fairfield said.

They point to previous complaints regarding Gaffey, including his admission in 2002 that he had charged $10,000 in personal expenses, mainly for travel and cell phone usage, to the Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority, a quasi-public agency where he is employed. That was followed by reports that he was dating the legislative liaison of Connecticut State University System while he was co-chair of the Education Committee. And his recent criminal charges were preceded last year by a State Election Enforcement Commission action on the double-billing complaint that resulted in a $6,000 fine.

None of those led to any legislative inquiry.

"This is a matter of public trust that we start policing ourselves," McKinney said.

Nationwide, 18 states have a standing committee to investigate complaints against their colleagues, reports the National Conference of State Legislators. Congress also has ethics committees to investigate its members.

But state Democratic Senators have long insisted the current process is fine, and rejected the Republican proposal in 2009 after an hours-long debate on the floor of the Senate.

Sen. Edward Meyer of Guilford was the lone Democrat to vote for the initiative and his opinion has not since changed, and is even proposing an ethics committee be created this legislative session.

"We should have done this years ago," he said.

While other Democrats are cool to his proposal, Looney said there is a very real possibility that the General Assembly will debate adopting a "code of conduct" for members to adhere to.

"That is something some of our members have talked about and expressed interest in," Looney said. "I think there will be a debate on this."

"It makes sense for us to look at what the standards of conduct should be," said Sen. Gayle Slossberg, co-chairwoman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

Meyer said this code would be a great first step. "We've just had lots of misconduct in the last six years by our members... and intense conflicts of interest," he said.

The state legislature's research team in 2008 identified 18 states that had a codes of conduct for its members.

McKinney said he supports a code of conduct, but thinks it needs to be backed with consequences when a lawmaker breaks the rules.

"It's extremely important that we get this right," he said.

Blumenthal: A Fine Line Between Misspoke and Mislead
Vietnam service • Mr. Blumenthal's gaffes are puzzling
Hartford Cournat
May 19, 2010

Why do men who didn't serve in wars want others to think that they did? Shakespeare had it right 400 years ago in Henry V's famous speech that ends:

"And gentlemen in England now-a-bed,

Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon St. Crispin's day."

For whatever reason, a surprising number of prominent men have said they served in Vietnam when they didn't. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is one of them.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that Mr. Blumenthal spoke to a group in Norwalk in 2008 about "the days that I served in Vietnam" and had on other occasions left the impression — with uncharacteristically vague language — that he served in the Southeast Asian conflict. Mr. Blumenthal, 64, was deferred until 1970, when he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Reserves. He was not sent to Vietnam.

Mr. Blumenthal made a big gaffe at the Norwalk event. But his conduct is not the decades-long deception that some others have maintained. He said Tuesday he unintentionally misspoke about his military service a few times. He has at other times correctly described his record. For example, in the U.S. Senate debate on March 1 televised live on Fox 61, Mr. Blumenthal made clear that "I never had to go to Vietnam, but I wore the uniform and proudly" and "although I did not serve in Vietnam, I have seen firsthand the effects of military action."

Yet it doesn't speak well for Mr. Blumenthal that he apparently gave some people the impression that he had served in Vietnam. He said Tuesday that he regretted that he had "misspoken" on a few occasions about his service. Is military service something someone misspeaks about? At what point does "misspeak" become "mislead"?

The Times reported eight incidents in which Connecticut newspapers reported that Mr. Blumenthal had served in Vietnam. The stories apparently went uncorrected. If this media-savvy politician let these errors stand, he was in the wrong and taking untoward advantage.

This will wound him with many voters, undermine his credibility and place a shadow on his long record of public service and his interest in the welfare of veterans.

It's surprising that a man whose mission has been to protect consumers against misrepresentations would leave his own uncorrected.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant



Journalists muddied by Blumenthal episode
Richard Hanley, CT MIRROR
19 May 2010

No one will emerge from The Blumenthal Misstatement with his or her dignity intact, or at least with what once resembled dignity. Both politicians and journalists are neck-deep in the big muddy with this one, but for one group, journalists, the damage will persist. Here's the scorecard:

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal never fired so much as a memo in anger during the Vietnam era but he on occasion claimed, without specificity, that he served in that Southeast Asian hellhole. Ironically, the originator of The Blumenthal Misstatement has already installed miles of P.R. booms and will successfully deflect the oily stuff from washing on the shores of his campaign. All the same, the venerable Blumenthal is no longer as venerated as he was a week ago.

The Senate campaign of Linda McMahon saw something and said something to the New York Times about The Blumenthal Misstatement in expectation of earning Times Square T-shirt vendor-level appreciation for its heroics. McMahon for Senate Campaign staff even talked trash about how they led the Times by the nose to the story, only to moonwalk away from such bravado when pilloried for the unforgivable sin of playing gotcha politics during an election year.

And then there are the journalists.  Things have gone terribly awry when the subject of the reporting blames journalists not for posting stories that are false but for perpetuating a fiction of his own making, whether unintentionally created or not. Even BP executives may get poll numbers higher than journalists this month.

The news organization that broke the story, the New York Times, appeared to be seeking to boost its stock price by outsourcing investigative reporting to political campaign operatives. With constant staff cuts and orders to report news in the ephemeral style of Twitter and Facebook, who can blame journalists for mailing this one in? Stenography isn't everything; it's the only thing when there is tweeting to be done.

Where will the muck stick the longest? As noted earlier, Blumenthal has magically become both the Jacob and the Smoke Monster of The Blumenthal Misstatement, something Lost writers never thought possible in their fantasy island of a television program that, unlike Blumenthal's career, will end on Sunday.

McMahon has yet to win the Republican nomination, so for her, this was a classic win-win, Goldman Sachs-style derivatives play for the campaign. If McMahon wins the nomination, then she has potentially damaged a potential opponent in the general election. If she loses, who cares? It's back to World Wrestling Entertainment, which given the present political environment would be a return to a saner world.

So who is the biggest loser in this race to the bottom? Alas, poor journalists. The Blumenthal Misstatement reveals nothing new. Politicians and journalists literally and figuratively ride on the same bus, and they treat information and access as commodities such as pork bellies. It's stuff to trade.

Yet at a moment when journalism needs a Woodward and Bernstein libretto to show that it can survive because it must survive for Democracy to at the least muddle through, we get a political story that was missed in the first instance and was misplayed after that.

The Connecticut press corps did not notice Blumenthal's occasional inconsistencies with his own record as it raced to reproduce news releases trumpeting victories over Big Tobacco and MySpace, among many others, on behalf of Connecticut citizens. To be sure, the dispersed locations of the remark, generally offered during rubber-chicken-and-cold-peas talks around a state with one hundred and sixty nine towns covered less and less by statewide media, made it difficult to detect moments when Blumenthal strayed from his record. Still, the media needed to be as aggressive with Blumenthal as they ordinarily are when covering other elected officials.

The New York Times responded to criticism about its exclusive by stating that it pursued independent reporting for the story. Yet it strains belief that The Blumenthal Misstatement had its origins in anything but a methodical attempt by a campaign organization to push a news organization toward pursuing a story damaging to a political rival. Even in the age when political operatives routinely post information about opponents on theirs and other political Web sites, there is nothing like the New York Times to give a story at least the veneer of credibility among non-believers, or the independent voters who decide elections.

There's nothing new with reporters fielding tips from political parties. It happens all the time, but for the most part, the tips are treated for what they are: propaganda and subsequently dismissed. What's troubling about The Blumenthal Misstatement isn't that the New York Times published information that clearly emerged first in opposition research. It's the implication that in this period of constrained news resources, future investigative reporting will depend on the kindness of the strange people who work in the shadows of politics, the kind of people who were once the target of the very journalistic practices they now promote.

Richard Hanley is a journalism professor at Quinnipiac University.


 Silvester Testifies Against Ex-Senate Majority Leader;  Rowland's former treasurer asserts at SEC trial an illicit payment made to his friend 
DAY
By Associated Press    
Published on 5/13/2007

New Haven (AP) — Former state Treasurer Paul Silvester testified Friday that he arranged for an equity company to pay a large finder's fee to his longtime friend, former state Senate Majority Leader Bill DiBella.

The $374,500 commission was built into a $75 million dollar state pension fund investment that Silvester signed with Thayer Capital Partners in 1998. It was done to reward DiBella for his work on another, unrelated deal, Silvester testified.

Silvester, a Republican who served two years in federal prison for accepting bribes in exchange for investing pension funds, was a government witness in its civil case against DiBella, a leading Democrat. The Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking to have DiBella forfeit the $374,500 commission. He does not face any criminal charges.

Silvester, who has known DiBella since childhood, said he wanted his friend to be paid after another firm, Paine Webber, failed to give DiBella any money for arranging a meeting that led to a separate pension fund investment.

“He went to a lot of trouble introducing the state to a great group of people and he didn't get compensated for it,” Silvester testified.

Silvester said that after he decided invest $75 million in a private equity fund run by Republican financier Frederic Malek, he asked Malek to hire DiBella as a consultant and pay him the $374,500 commission.

Earlier in the trial, Malek testified that he could not recall DiBella doing anything to earn the money.  Silvester denied that DiBella played a role in other questionable pension deals.

“Mr. DiBella had no knowledge of any of this,” Silvester testified. “Mr. DiBella would never participate in such a scheme.”

The SEC alleges that politics was behind Silvester's decision to create a sham commission for DiBella.

Silvester has testified on other occasions that DiBella implicitly supported his campaign for treasurer by not supporting Democrat Denise Nappier, who unseated Silvester in 1998.  Evidence has been presented by the SEC showing that Silvester arranged the DiBella commission after losing the election for treasurer.


The wrong choice for city commission
Connecticut Post Staff editorial
Updated: 05/05/2009 05:11:47 PM EDT

In depressingly typical Bridgeport fashion, an appointment that should have been a sure thing has gone sour. Mayor Bill Finch's choice to fill a vacancy on the Planning and Zoning Commission has city officials trading barbs and raising accusations of bad faith.

It was easy to see coming. Jose Tiago, owner of Tiago Construction on Seaview Avenue, has fought with zoning officials over his business, which authorities say was illegally established. Choosing him to help make decisions about other city residents and how they can use their land was bound to spark controversy.

Complicating matters further are allegations Tiago was less than forthcoming with the city's Ethics Commission, which in January approved the mayor's appointment. One commissioner later said he felt deceived because Tiago falsely told the panel his zoning issues had been resolved. Others say he may have misunderstood the question.

Ethics Commission hearings by law are held behind closed doors; there's no way to tell for certain what anyone said. It well could be a simple misunderstanding.

That's not the issue. A member of a city commission should be free of conflicts regarding the public's business. Fighting a years-long battle over what the city says was an illegal business does not clear that hurdle.

Tiago was issued a cease-and-desist order by the city several years ago for his failure to obtain a special permit or coastal site plan approval for a construction yard on the Seaview Avenue site, which borders the Yellow Mill Channel. In 2007, Tiago went before the PZC seeking to legalize the use of the property, but was denied.

It can be hard to find qualified, available people to serve on boards and commissions who don't present some sort of conflict. Realtors, builders, developers -- these are people who understand city planning, and would do well to serve on a panel like the PZC. Almost anyone who has done business in the area could potentially present a conflict, but that shouldn't preclude everyone with experience from public service.

This goes too far. Zoning rules exist for a reason, and someone who flagrantly flouted the rules over a period of years does not belong in a position to enforce those same rules, even if it does not legally disqualify him.

The city could have found someone with experience and a good working relationship with zoners. Instead, we get one more example of how progress in Bridgeport will always be a long, hard slog.

Zarnetske Continues To Blast Norwich Block-grant Process; Others defend the city's efforts to fairly disburse money to community 
          DAY
By Claire Bessette    
Published on 2/13/2008 

 Norwich — Alderman Robert Zarnetske continued to question the city's new community development small business grant program this week, asking whether technical assistance offered to one applicant and preliminary screening by city staff was proper and fair and why grant decisions were made behind closed doors.

City officials involved in the program responded that federal guidelines require technical assistance and that the program couldn't function without confidentiality.  Zarnetske, who served as city manager when the program was proposed nearly a year ago, also continued to assert that the review committee of technical advisers should meet in public.  Zarnetske presented a three-page letter to City Manager Alan Bergren Monday addressed to the City Council Administration, Planning and Economic Development Committee.

Zarnetske resigned as city manager June 6, 2007, after a tumultuous 17 months in office that included frequent conflicts with Mayor Benjamin Lathrop and the former City Council.  Bergren said Tuesday that he would review the letters from Zarnetske and respond to the concerns.

In his Feb. 11 letter to Bergren — the second in less than a week on the new community development micro-enterprise grant program — Zarnetske said the handling of the first round of grant approvals was “not acceptable and must be remedied.”

But Thomas Marien, an accountant and volunteer on the grant-review panel and also an adviser to the economic development committee, disputed Zarnetske's position that the review committee is a public entity. He said the committee could not function if sessions had to be open, because members review confidential financial records, income tax forms, business plans and strategies. He likened it to similar review panels that have handled small business loan programs in the past.

“I don't think you could have a very worthwhile program if you did it in public,” Marien said.

Marien also disputed Zarnetske's position that the grant applicants should not receive any technical advice or assistance from city staff. He said the staff should be providing that assistance.  The issue came to the forefront after a letter of complaint by applicant John Andriote, whose application was denied by the committee. Andriote complained he never got the chance to speak to committee members, but only met with Assistant City Manager Jennifer Gottlieb and community development staff member Susan Goldman.

During those discussions, the staff told Andriote that his initial plan for a coffee vending truck would not qualify for assistance. They advised him to rewrite his business plan to open a downtown coffee shop instead. Andriote followed that advice and proposed Downtown Joe Coffeehouse & Lounge.

“I'm not sure I want a government entity doing that,” Zarnetske said of the advice given to Andriote. “I suggested to the city manager that we should not be giving advice, solicited or unsolicited, to any applicants.

Gottlieb, who sent a written response Tuesday to Zarnetske's first letter on the issue, said that guidelines in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development — which oversees federal community development block grant money — specifically call for staff to offer technical assistance “to enable such entities to facilitate economic development.”

The section describing the aid states: “providing technical assistance, advice and business support services (including assistance, advice and support relating to development business plans, securing funding, conducting marketing and otherwise engaging in microenterprise activities) to owners of microenterprises and persons developing microenterprises....”

Gottlieb added that the grant program review was modeled after a similar small-business loan program in California, which has a technical review committee that acts on the proposals. She also said other Norwich block-grant assistance programs are run through technical reviews that don't involve public meetings.

For example, the city pays tuition supplements to qualifying nursing students at Three Rivers Community College. Staff at Three Rivers and the city's Human Services Department choose the students based on financial need, and the community development office accepts those decisions.

In his letter and during the Administration, Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting, Zarnetske argued that the microenterprise grant committee should be formed as a public committee that holds open meetings and then votes to go into executive session to discuss specific grant applications and then opens the meeting again for votes on the proposals.   
        

Hot Topics in Wilton: A Matter of Ethics
By Jeff Yates
Nov 16, 2006

Wilton certainly isn’t the first community to take a hard look at its Code of Ethics, and it certainly won’t be the one to solve the age-old question of what makes “right” right, but the town is interested in doing what it can to solve its own ethics dilemma.

During a discussion on Tuesday at the Wilton Library called “A Matter of Ethics,” one of the many “Hot Topics” meetings sponsored by the library and the Wilton League of Women Voters, a panel of experts, both local and state, attempted to encapsulate the debate around ethics codes and what can be done to improve them. The panel included First Selectman William Brennan, Council on Ethics chair Paul Burnham, Wilton Historical Society co-president Owen Williams, Andy Sauer, executive director of Connecticut Common Cause, a nonprofit government ethics watchdog group, and Enid Oresman, a member of the state’s Citizens Ethics Advisory Board. More than 40 residents were in attendance.

At the center of the discussion was the town’s Code of Ethics, described as being “full of holes” and in need of rewriting to correct vague statements and, in some sections, complete omissions. How the town gets to a better code, and what that would look like, however, was a matter of some debate among the panelists.

The issue of ethics is a debate that stretches back thousands of years, to the time of the Greek philosophers in the 5th Century, who first battled with the notion of right and wrong.

Mr. Williams, a doctoral student in history at Yale University, started the night off with a brief history of the philosophic study of ethics. He pointed to the Greeks as the first true philosophers who considered the question of right and wrong, and outlined the progressive steps, setbacks and changes that have been made to our understanding of ethics over the years. (See related article.)

Ms. Oresman spoke next, explaining how the state has evolved in its consideration of ethics.

A member of the nine-member Citizens Ethics Advisory Board, appointed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, Ms. Oresman said the state is tackling the issue of ethics and looking to broaden the impact to all reaches of government.

A newly created Office of State Ethics has been created, acting as an independent state agency, and each state agency now has an “ethics compliance officer” to oversee its activities, she said.

Among the tasks before it, the state ethics agency is responsible for educating the public and state officials, overseeing the behavior of officials and lobbyists, interpreting and applying the state ethics code, and investigating ethics complaints.

Although focused primarily on state-level issues, “we ... receive complaints about municipal ethics codes weekly,” Ms. Oresman said. One major goal in 2007 is to consider and resolve the issue of municipal codes, something that was brought up two years ago.

Mr. Sauer said it’s important for residents to understand that a code of ethics works only when it’s enforced, and if people are willing to stand up and call their elected officials to task for apparently unethical behavior.

Only 59% of towns in Connecticut actually have a written code of ethics, he said, and some towns that have what his group considers the best codes do not enforce them, making them virtually worthless. In a recent survey of all codes in every town, Mr. Sauer’s group ranked Wilton’s Code of Ethics at a three out of 10. He said some of the best codes are those that are most simple, pointing to the code at West Point among the cadets.

“A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate any who does,” said Mr. Sauer, paraphrasing the code. “Period.”

The major mistake most residents make, said Mr. Sauer, is that “we presume that government will be responsible, we presume that someone will be watching out.”

Wilton’s code

Mr. Burnham, who spoke on what he saw as gaps in Wilton’s code, said he disagreed with Mr. Sauer’s assessment of Wilton’s Code of Ethics.

“I’m somewhat surprised, frankly, that we did that well,” he said.

Mr. Burnham briefly described the town’s code, and explained how it compares to those of other area towns. Most towns, he said, have a five- member council on ethics, while others have even more members. Wilton’s council is made up of three appointed members, though two of the seats will be vacated at the end of the month.

Mr. Burnham said the main problem facing the town is not the size of the council but the makeup of the code, which, while it has beautiful language, is too short and omits many powers and responsibilities the Council on Ethics should have.

The code also has no provisions about the use of public property by officials and no provision about the disclosure of confidential information, said Mr. Burnham. The Council on Ethics is given no authority to initiate investigations, it has no procedure for considering the acceptance of gifts by officials, and the current members of the council fear that these gaps may diminish the willingness of people to file a complaint.

“It is somewhat awkward or inappropriate for a commission to base its decisions on gut feeling,” he said, pointing out that Wilton’s Code of Ethics was last revised in March of 1983.

Mr. Brennan agreed that the town’s code was in need of review and explained the steps the Board of Selectmen has taken and will be taking to bring about revisions.

“I’m not comfortable with our current code,” said Mr. Brennan. “I think there are a lot of holes in it, to be frank.”

The selectmen have received a report on possible changes to the code from the three members of the Council on Ethics, and are considering options and suggestions of their own. Shortly, a five-member ad hoc committee will be charged with reviewing the code and proposing changes.

“We hope to have everything in place by early December,” said Mr. Brennan. The ad hoc committee would then be charged with coming up with a proposal within a set time period, and that proposal would be brought to a public hearing for citizen input, he said.

“Ethical issues can creep up on you in a number of ways,” said Mr. Brennan, adding that in August he sent a booklet to all town officials from the Connecticut Council of Municipalities that covered many of the typical ethical situations encountered by elected officials.

Questions

Residents in attendance had many questions regarding proposed changes and the current system.

One man asked about the recent case involving Second Selectman Marilyn Gould, in which the Council on Ethics determined a substantial personal interest did exist, after which she was asked to write a disclosure letter by the Board of Selectmen.

“I was confused, because the council, I thought, had found that there was an ethical violation,” but nothing seemed to be done about it, the man said.

Catharine Kempson, the league’s moderator for the night, explained that specific cases would not be discussed but that the panelists could answer the question in generalities.

Mr. Burnham explained that the council’s authority does not extend to meting out punishment, and that under the code, it serves as an advisory board to the selectmen, providing input on whether there is the appearance of a substantial interest, not whether there is an actual violation.

John Dempsey of DeForset Road, the resident who had filed the complaint against Ms. Gould, said that he saw other issues with the town’s code.

“Another potential hole is that the Board of Selectmen can take whatever action it deems advisable,” he said. Did the panel think it was incumbent on the selectmen to at the least initiate even a limited investigation and review of the Council on Ethics’ determination? he asked.

Mr. Brennan said that under the current code, the Board of Selectmen “is not required to make another investigation.”

Others, including Bob Faesy, asked how the town expected there to be a consensus on what the new code would look like, asking Mr. Williams how such documents are drafted.

“Typically a small group is appointed” to decide, said Mr. Williams. “That happened when we wrote a Declaration of Independence, it happened when we wrote the Constitution,” he said.

Mr. Brennan said he felt it was possible to have a new code written, and that he felt the basis for that code could be the town’s existing code.

Where Mr. Brennan and Mr. Sauer disagreed, however, was in how the code would be adjudicated. While Mr. Sauer pushed for a statewide model for the code, and suggested final decisions be made by an impartial board in Hartford, Mr. Brennan said he favored home rule, and did not like the idea of a state-mandated code.

“I want a simple and clear code, not like the state’s, which is 40 pages,” said Mr. Brennan. “I don’t want what my associate said, is that adjudication should go to Hartford. Anything that goes to Hartford goes into a black hole.”


Oct 6, 2005
Gould chides ethics chairman: Claims Burnham has conflict of interest
Second Selectman Marilyn Gould, the subject of an ethics investigation, has now publicly accused Council on Ethics Chairman Paul Burnham of having his own conflict of interest in the case.

Ms. Gould, who is contesting a conflict of interest charge regarding her role as a selectman, alleged in a letter to The Wilton Bulletin Tuesday that Mr. Burnham has professional ties with John Dempsey, who filed the complaint against Ms. Gould last August. The complaint revolved around Ms. Gould’s use of the Wilton High School field house for community organizations with which she is involved as a member and as a businessperson.

In her letter, Ms. Gould said that she was “troubled” that Mr. Burnham has not chosen to recuse himself and that “any personal or professional collaboration creates an undeniable appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest.”

Ms. Gould was responding to an open letter written by Mr. Burnham on Sept. 9 in which he acknowledged that he had “engaged indirectly, in some, but quite limited, professional collaboration” with Mr. Dempsey. The letter also stated that he and Mr. Dempsey have lived in Wilton for more than 10 years, have children approximately the same ages, and have both been active in community affairs.

In a phone conversation Tuesday, Mr. Burnham said that collaboration to which he alluded in his letter was the fact that a partner at his law firm Rucci, Burnham, Carta & Edelberg hired Mr. Dempsey as an expert witness in a fraud case. According to an e-mail sent to The Bulletin from Mr. Dempsey, Mr. Burnham’s firm hired his own business, Dempsey, Myers & Company LLP, to perform accounting services and litigation support services in April 2002.

“I was involved in this matter only peripherally,” Mr. Burnham said. “The matter concluded a few months later, now more than two years ago. There has been no other professional collaboration.”

Mr. Burnham said that when he was appointed to the council in August, the members of the Board of Selectmen knew that Mr. Burnham, a former longtime Board of Finance member, had been involved in Wilton for several years and that his wife, Karen Birck, is a member of its Board of Education.

Mr. Dempsey said in a phone interview Tuesday that he filed the complaint against Ms. Gould two weeks before Mr. Burnham was appointed to the Council on Ethics. He also said that he advised the then-chairman, Laurence Mauer, that the two had personal and professional contacts over the years that warranted disclosure.

“When Mr. Burnham was appointed, I wrote to the council and disclosed these past relationships. The council as a whole agreed that these relationships would not pose any conflicts,” Mr. Dempsey said. “Now Ms. Gould is publicly accusing the chairman of a conflict of interest and she has never once filed a disclosure about her own.”

Mr. Dempsey also said in his e-mail that he had been acquainted with Mr. Burnham and his wife for several years through the Wilton Congregational Church. According to the e-mail, his son worked in Mr. Burnham’s firm in 2003 as a summer legal assistant and, at Mr. Burnham’s request, he displayed a “Vote for Burnham” sign at his Danbury Road office during Mr. Burnham’s 2004 campaign for state representative.

In her letter, Ms. Gould also took issue with the new statement of procedures developed by the council to handle the case. She said that she is challenging what she believes to be “improperly adopted” procedures that “violate both the charter provisions governing the Council on Ethics and fail to protect the due process rights of myself and potentially other citizens of the Town of Wilton.”

“The procedures drafted by the Ethics Council, without any public input, apply only to me rather than uniformly to all the townspeople of Wilton. Why?” Ms. Gould said.

According to an e-mail from Mr. Burnham, the “insinuation that the Statement of Procedures were crafted in a less-than-evenhanded manner, is misplaced.”

Ms. Gould manages a Wilton-based company, MCG Antiques Promotions Inc., which is private and for profit. The company has used the field house for antiques shows for the Drum Hill Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, the John Corr Memorial Scholarship Fund, and the Wilton Kiwanis Club. Ms. Gould is a member of all three organizations. She is also the paid executive director of the Wilton Historical Society, which rents the field house for its annual antiques show.

The Council on Ethics will meet tonight, Oct. 6, beginning at 7:30 in the town hall annex meeting room to discuss Ms. Gould’s latest letter.

© Copyright 2005 by Hersam Acorn newspapers



Weston, Connecticut's Code of Ethics
Researching the Code of Ethics is very simple!  At least in Weston, Connecticut!  LWV spearheaded this issue.  League recommended no members of  Political Town Committees be on the Board of Ethics - the Town of Weston Code only prohibits OFFICERS of the Town Committees to sit on the Board of Ethics.

After a study and consensus regarding Ethics in Government by the Weston League of Women Voters in 1995, recommendation that the Town of Weston adopt such a document resulted.  The Board of Selectmen took action on that recommendation.  Here is an unofficial timeline as reconstructed by search of the Town of Weston Selectmen's meeting records:

1.  Feb. 1, 1996, item #8 on the Selectmen's agenda:  "consideration re: Code of Ethics Committee"
2.  Mar. 7, 1996, item #4 - appointments to Code of Ethics Committee
3.  Mar. 11, 1996, item #4 - Discussion of appointment to the Code of Ethics Committee
4.  Nov. 7, 1996 - item #4 - Discussion/decision re: proposed Code of Ethics;  Public Hearing re: a proposed Code of Ethics for Weston.  Names presented (14) to the Selectmen.  Seven selected (eventually).
5.  Mar. 11, 1997 - Seven members chosen, Dick Bochinski named Chair. Board of Ethics
6.  Nov. 7, 1997 item #4 - Public Hearing to hear comment on proposed Code of Ethics;  after the close of the Public Hearing, Code of Ethics as adopted.

DURING THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION CYCLE 2011...
WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS OF THE WESTON BOARD OF ETHICS REGARDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST?  Code recently uploaded to its website by the Town - but we have had it on our site since original complaint!

CURRENT EVENTS IN WESTON:  Discussion about what is a conflict continues...