Board of Ethics, Wethersfield

[GoldShield]

Code of the Town of Wethersfield (Updated 05-01-2004)
(Go to Town's website, Government section and follow the link there; the direct link wound up being too wide and I removed it; sorry. G/S)

PART I ADMINISTRATIVE LEGISLATION
Chapter 10, COMMITTEES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

ARTICLE XXI, Code of Ethics and Board of Ethics
Town Code: § 10-64 to § 10-74

§ 10-64. Policies.

The proper operation of democratic government requires that public officers and employees be independent, impartial and responsible to the people of Wethersfield; that government decisions and policy be made in the proper channels of governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal or private gain; that the public have confidence in the integrity of government; that public officials carry out their duties the best of their abilities and with the high moral and ethical standards, regardless personal considerations, and that their conduct should at all times avoid conflict public and private interests and responsibilities......

§ 10-65. Applicability.

The Code of Ethics of the Town of Wethersfield shall govern members of the Town Council, any person appointed by the Town Council or any board or commission member appointed by the Town Manager, collectively hereinafter referred to as officials.

§ 10-73. Complaint procedure.

A.The Board shall receive complaints from any person of any alleged violation of the Code of Ethics. Any complaint received by the Board must be in writing and signed by the individual making said complaint. Upon receiving a complaint of an alleged violation of the code, the Board shall, within three (3) days, notify, in writing, the person about whom said complaint has been filed, advising the concerned party of the specific nature of the complaint made and being investigated by the Board and enclosing therewith a copy of the complaint. Upon receipt of said notice, the party so notified shall have the right to file a response within ten (10) days and may, within said time period, demand a hearing by the Board.....

Current Sitting members
(per Town's website)
D: Robert L. Hirtle,Chr.
R: Joseph J. Koneski,V.Chr.
U: Keith A. Latulippe
R: Herbert H. Northrop
D: George E. Steinmetz

Alternates:
U: John C. Lepper
R: Penrose Wolf
D: Cynthia L. Zuerblis

[GoldShield]

re: ASFFAC* ethics matters and a resignation

Monday, 5/3/2004 saw the public filing (by Ron Rodd) and announcement of an ethics complaint against former ASFFAC member Neal Brickley.

An unnamed source, on 5/4/2004, when asked about the involvement of this paid employee (of a local engineering firm which will directly benefit from the Cottone Field contract) sitting on and influencing the ASFFAC, s/he responded in part (edited and redacted):

"Yep - saw that on the Council meeting last night. That's what I had assumed, but wasn't aware of the depth of it, although it had been making the rounds. Regardless of what happens, it certainly doesn't pass the "smell test"...

They will try very hard to see that this gets buried by the ethics committee in town - they refused to meet when people complained that a (former) mayor sat in on his wife's performance review (a few years ago) while he was still mayor...

Want some added irony? The places you would go after (or in addition to) the town ethics board are the state and federal attorneys'...public corruption units. The state one is headed by Chris Morano - Russ Morin's step-brother. The federal one is overseen by Kevin O'Connor - Dan's (O'Connor) brother..."

This obviously puts a big question mark in front of the town's "ethics" committee and perhaps beyond. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The first time this board will meet, apparently in this regard, is this coming week. Contact the Town Clerk for time, place, agenda.

Any of you legal beetles out there want to weigh in?

*Artificial Surface Football Field Advisory Committee, to the Town Council of the Town of Wethersfield

[tooold]

Appeance can be misleading. Without total knowlegde of the situation, but with some facts in hand, I have the utmost confidence that improprieties do not exist.

Having known the firm and the individual for years, I will make a statement that the only reason this firm got involved was to try to ensure that the same type of garbage installation that has been common place at the high school did not take place.

I will further state that anyone who thinks that the firm is making money on this “lucrative” contract shouldn’t bet the house on it. The firm has always been a leader in the community and I, for one wish that they would mount a libel/slander case.

Furthermore, the only reason that this was filed was due to the desire of one person to demonstrate that any usable delay tactic should be employed. The committee and the town are part of this, as well, since their integrity and decision-making has been called into question.

[oldetowne]

I am not going to get into the mud pit on this one - it's too crowded. All I meant to say when I posted last week was that this is project is controversial enough to begin with and anything that appears to its opponents to be further evidence of monkey business just makes it worse.

[Gotcha]

Tooold; I couldn’t agree more. CJM is one of the most respected firms in Wethersfield and also in the State. As for filing an ethic complaint against Neal Brickley I think that is outrageous. When will the opposition to this field/lights stop with all these false accusations and let the project start. What is happening now is not good for this town.

Ethics? This was a closed bid proposal with all the same details going to each bidder. There were no improprieties in the bid process so Neil wasn’t able to see bids from competitors until they were all opened. As for Neil being on the committee, why wouldn’t we rejoice at having an expert with his qualifications on this committee? He and the firm he works for are the best in their field and we were lucky to have him volunteer his time to insure the project is done right this time.

[oldetowne]

The minutes from two of the committee's meetings are posted on the town's web site. Maybe if they all get up on there people can see for themselves what went on.

[MikeC]

As a bystander looking in from the outside, maybe a libel suit against Rodd and the organization he represents is the way to go. CJM has an impeccable reputation and for them to be slandered with these erroneous accusations of ethics violations is absurd.

So what’s next for this group of anti-lights activists? Maybe they should call Ralph Nader or Mike Bogasloski and solicit there help.

I was under the impression that this group wasn’t anti-field just anti-lights. Has that changed too?

[GoldShield]

"Re: Board of Ethics, Wethersfield
Started by GoldShield |
Post by MikeC on: Today at 08:54:15
As a bystander looking in from the outside, maybe a libel suit against Rodd and the organization he represents is the way to go. CJM has an impeccable reputation and for them to be slandered with these erroneous accusations of ethics violations is absurd."

Libel (written); slander (spoken). Hmmm!

Why shouldn't the Taxpayers Association sue Dan O'Connor and Jay Cottone for slander and libel?

Consider the 'whistleblower' federal and state laws. If there were no protection for the concerned employee, there would be nothing to prevent the employer from penalizing the employee for having spoken up. Rodd is in a similar position; he saw things which led/lead him to believe that there was/is an ethical lapse on the ASFFAC in the person of Brickley.

Rodd followed his conscience and then followed the protocal. He filed a complaint with our legally constituted Board of Ethics so that IT might sort it all out, one way or another. If the person of interest (Brickley) is implicated, okay; if he is exonerated, okay. As long as no one tampers with the system, the process will work, either way.

The complainant should not be penalized if there was sufficient appearance of impropriety to warrant a complaint. Rodd is not the only one in town, I hear, who felt that something fishy was going on with this committee.

We may or may not like the outcome, but the process works (eg. Heather Specyalski's recent, rapid acquittal of all charges in re Neal Esposito, April 30, 2004).

Wethersfield has been referred to as "a very political town." Apparently it is. However, this sounds more and more like a bunch of little kids squaring off. What happened to "Sticks and stones may break bones but names (words) will never hurt me!"? Maybe it time for both "sides" to grow up.

As has been said many times: 'anybody can sue anyone over anything'.

In the end, only the lawyers win.

[tooold]

I agree with most of what you stated, but it goes back to the intent of the individual.

When are mistruths lies and so forth?

People represent themselves in an ongoing and usually unchanging manner. You cannot hide the stripes, they come out.

As much as there is outspoken commentary from the proponents I have not heard mistruths. I am not impartial here, so when you state Dan and Jay more specifics would be appreciated.

I know that the taxpayer's group has stated inaccuracies about the cost of the field and lights, about exactlly what the petition they were cirrculating stated, and although it has been expressed that the taxpayers group has never made statements that are personal or rude, all one needs to do is go and look at the tapes of many council sessions, including the last one, where a speaker directly, loudly and tactlessly told at least one council member to pay attention.

Please let me know what you meant about Dan and Jay, especially about what might have been unfounded and nonfactual statements.

[oldetowne]

Does anybody know if they met last night and decided anything?

[LouS]

I was under the impression that the hearing was tonight.

[GoldShield]

tooold,
Their statements and comments are part of the public record. Look it up: in the minutes of Town Council and Board of Education, and the tape recorded and broadcasted versions (more complete than the official minutes which are usually paraphrases of what was actually said), and at least one email from Cottone, I am told. Dan or Jay can probably provide you with recorded or printed copies of what they said and / or wrote too. You will have to do your own investigation, though. Besides I do not believe that THIS is the most appropriate medium to conduct such a moot court.

Maybe I will see you at the meeting of the Board of Ethics tonight; you are coming aren't you? It should be interesting (though I expect predictable). Did you see this morning's Hartford Courant editorial: it has something for everyone. I get the feeling that the HC has not been following this affair close enough. I will post it here for the un-Courant public unless someone else does first.

[GoldShield]

The Board of Ethics will meet TONIGHT in the Town Hall meeting room - UNDER the library - at 7:00 pm (presumably after a short meeting of the Council at 6:30 when the budget is officially adopted and the mill rate is set - it may go longer if there is a lot of posturing).

[oldetowne]

my bad

[oldetowne]

From today's Courant:

Ethics Board Sets Complaint Hearing
May 13, 2004
By MARYELLEN FILLO, Courant Staff Writer

WETHERSFIELD -- The board of ethics will have a public hearing June 2 to help determine the validity of a complaint against a man who briefly served on a committee overseeing the proposed $1.2 million in repairs to the high school athletic field.

The board unanimously voted Wednesday to hold the hearing on the complaint filed by Ronald Rodd, a member of the town's Artificial Surface Football Field Advisory Committee.

Rodd alleged former committee member Neil Brickley helped develop criteria for the requests for proposals for the Cottone Field project, resigned from the group and then went before the committee to represent his employer, a bidder for project engineering work.

Close Jensen Miller PC, in conjunction with RAD/Sports Turf of Massachusetts, submitted the winning bid for $1.2 million.

Brickley claims he was asked to serve on the committee when it was initially formed but then resigned prior to the submission of any bids.

No contract has been signed for the work that includes resurfacing the main field with artificial turf and adding new drainage, as well as repair work to a practice field. Both fields are located at Wethersfield High School.

Two citizen groups opposed to the project have filed petitions seeking a referendum on the issue. No decision has been made on their requests.

"We have very little information or background on the complaint," ethics board chairmanRobert L. Hirtle said of Rodd's allegation against Brickley.

The real issue here "is when did he know his employer was going to be engaged in the bidding process and did a conflict exist when he was serving as a member of the committee," Hirtle said.

While ethics board members had originally planned to move quickly on Rodd's complaint, they agreed Wednesday they could take more time because it appears the group of residents opposed to the field project will successfully force a referendum on the plan. The council has set aside money for the work and is waiting for a legal opinion on whether a referendum must be held.

"I don't want to make any hasty decision on this," said ethics board member Keith Latulippe.

He and others want to see all surface committee minutes and other correspondence to determine if Brickley was on the committee when his employer was preparing to bid on the project.

Both Rodd, who attended Wednesday's meeting, and Brickley, who did not, will also be expected to attend the public hearing.

"This is not a public hearing for just anyone from the public to speak," Hirtle told the dozen or so people at the proceedings. "This is to hear from the parties that are involved."

Hirtle stressed it was important for the town to investigate the charge.

He said the local ethics board would most likely be "under a magnifying glass" because of the current investigation by state and federal agencies into allegations of state bid irregularities.

"When there was an effort to pass stronger ethics rules, small towns said they don't need them because they are honest," Hirtle said. "I'd rather get everything out and in the open on this."

Rodd said he was satisfied with the decision to move forward with his complaint.

"It seems to be an objective process," Rodd said. "I'm encouraged."