GLASTONBURY ETHICS COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2005
The Glastonbury Ethics Commission held a Regular Meeting at 7:00 PM in the Human Resources Conference Room of the Town Hall located at 2155 Main Street, Glastonbury, Connecticut.
Roll Call
Commission Members Present Excused
Ms. Alexandrina Sergio, Chairman
Mr. William Paetzold, Vice-Chairman/Secretary
Mr. Alan Spier
Ms. Nancy Thomas
Patrick Treacy
Mr. Reginald Babcock, Alternate
Mr. John Sweeney, Alternate
Acceptance of Minutes, May 9, 2005
Motion By: Commissioner Treacy Seconded: Commissioner Thomas
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission accept the minutes presented for the Regular Meeting held May 9, 2005, with the following correction:
I Page 1, Motion to accept the minutes, correct “Sweeney” to read
“Treacy”.
Result: Motion carries by the following vote-
For: Chairman Sergio, Vice Chairman Paetzold,
Commissioner Thomas and Commissioner Treacy
Against: None
Abstain: Commissioner Spier {excused}
Communications None
Training Report: Commissioner Babcock
Chairman Sergio reported that there were two sessions May 16, 2005, which went well although they were poorly attended. She stated that she will be asking Commissioner Babcock to get more involved in putting together the final training video with the material they have gathered and to work with the Town Manager on making it available to Board and Commission Members.
Web site Update: Commissioner Treacy
Commissioner Treacy reported that Mrs. Parzych is working with the IT people to get the other forms up on the town’s website but that it will not likely occur until the end of June. Chairman Sergio asked Commissioner Treacy to work with Mrs. Parzych to get a target date.
Proposed Amendment to Procedures Document Section 1-4(a):
Commissioner Thomas
Commissioner Thomas passed out a draft of the section she had worked in response to comments made at the previous meeting. A lengthy discussion ensued about what they were trying to accomplish. Vice Chairman Paetzold stated that the Commission seems to struggle with the same thing over and over, that is, if the people know the process is open, the impact could be chilling and reduce those willing to come forward. He suggested they bring these discussions to a conclusion and handle all requests for Advisory Opinions in public. He added that if people don’t come to the Commission because of the fear that their matter will be handled in the public eye, then that is the way it is.
Commissioner Treacy agreed saying that they can’t serve two masters. He continued saying that they should decide to handle them in the open within the constraints of FOI. Commissioner Thomas felt it wasn’t serving two masters but trying to do the right thing. Commissioner Sweeney expressed concern about someone coming forward under the guise of a request for an Advisory Opinion when in fact, it is targeted at exposing the actions of another. Commissioner Thomas agreed to review the procedures to ensure they are consistent. A consensus was reached that Commissioner Thomas would submit the following for review and comment by the town attorney with potential action to adopt at the next meeting:
“Requests for Advisory Opinions will be reviewed in open session unless upon review by the Chairman and Vice Chairman, it is determined that the matter would be more appropriately treated as an Inquiry.”
Proposed Amendment to Advisory Opinion Request Form: Commissioner Sweeney
Commissioner Sweeney distributed a draft form to the other Members suggesting the bottom portion be modified per the discussion above to read as follows:
“The Ethics Commission encourages the open discussion of issues. This request for an Advisory Opinion will be discussed in a public meeting of the Ethics Commission.”
Motion By: Commissioner Spier Seconded: Commissioner Treacy
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission adopt the Advisory Opinion Request Form as presented and modified at the regular meeting held June 13, 2005.
Result: Motion passes unanimously. (5-0-0)
Discussion of Procedure for Making Clear to Inquiry Subjects that
They May Ask that Process be Conducted in Public Session
Chairman Sergio noted that the person completing the form is not the target of the inquiry, and it is the target person who has the right to request a public meeting.~ She noted that there is a provision in the procedures whereby the chairman must communicate with the subject of an Inquiry, and that communication would be the appropriate vehicle for informing the subject of his right to~choose a public airing of the Inquiry.~ All agreed that this would be the best way to handle the issue.
Other Business
Chairman Sergio initiated discussion of the new Ethics Bill passed by the state legislature.~ Noting that the new bill did not contain previously expected requirements for municipal ethics codes and commissions, she suggested, and the Commission agreed, that a recommendation be made to the Town Council that a review of the Code of Ethics, now two years old,~would be in order.
Executive Session-Pending Claims: Evans and Emerick v. Ethics Commission
Motion By: Commissioner Spier Seconded: Commissioner Treacy
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission enter into executive session at 8:35 PM to discuss pending claims against the Commission and that no votes would be taken.
Result: Motion passes unanimously. (5-0-0)
Present for the Executive Session were Ethics Commission Members
Alexandrina Sergio, William Paetzold, Alan Spier, Nancy Thomas, Patrick Treacy and John Sweeney. The subject of the executive session was exhausted and the Commission exited at 9:05 PM.
Motion By: Commissioner Thomas Seconded: Vice Chairman Paetzold
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission adjourn its Regular Meeting of
June 13, 2005, at 9:08 PM. (5-0-0)
Result: Motion passes unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly Meanix Miller
Kimberly Meanix Miller
Recording Clerk
| 
