GLASTONBURY ETHICS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 7:00 P.M.
ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM
GLASTONBURY TOWN OFFICE BUILDING
MINUTES
1. Roll Call
Present
Mr. Alan Spier, Chairmanman
Ms. Nancy Thomas, Vice Chairman/Secretary
Ms. Angela Bull
Ms. Alexandrina Sergio
Mr. Patrick Treacy
Mr. Reginald Babcock, Alternate
Excused
None (Alternate Member Vacancy)
2. Ethics Training – Attorney Bruce Chudwick
Mr. Reginald
Town Attorney Bruce Chudwick reviewed his one page Ethics Training document with the Commission noting that the hypothetical situations he raises with the Boards and Commissions will be geared to scenarios that are most applicable to each one. Vice Chairman Thomas suggested he include that the code applies to current boards and commissions and that there is a statute of limitations determined to be three years. Commissioner Treacy suggested he emphasize that advisory opinions are for those seeking information on their own choices and activities while inquiries are for those questioning the activities of others. Attorney Chudwick agreed to add these suggestions to his training. Chairman Spier asked that Attorney Chudwick communicate back after the conclusions of the sessions in the next month.
3. Report of Committees - Town Ethics Training Program
Commissioner Sergio said that at the last meeting of August 22, they accepted the training procedures to be done by the Town Attorney at meetings of the boards and Commissions in even years. She noted that the following other boards will receive training, Town Council on September 26, ZBA on , October 2, Board of Education on, October 16, Town Plan and Zoning and the Board of Finance, both on October 17. She said that they have communicated some of the bi-monthly Connecticut Ethics quizzes and are in the process of getting them up on the website.
4. Continuation of Consideration of Changes in the Town’s Code of Ethics – (See Accompanying Revised Draft of Memo)
Chairman Spier said that on page 3 of the Draft Memo, proposed changes to Code Section 2-58c, he had changed his mindreconsidered. He continued saying that he had thought harmless some election activities but then was swayed by an the argument that Ethics Members should stay out of the fray entirely.
Motion By: Chairman Spier Seconded: Commissioner Sergio
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission strike from the draft memo to the Town Council the proposed changes to Code Section 2-58c which would not disqualify members for certain election-day service.
Result: Motion passes unanimously. (5-0-0)
The Commission then discussed proposed changes to Code Sections 2-57i and m. Commissioner Sergio felt that close family members don ’t always live in the same household and it relates not only to the receipt of gifts but action that might provide a benefit to a family member. Commissioner Bull agreed. Commissioner Treacy wanted to know the implications throughout the code of the change. Commissioner Bull volunteered to look further into to the definition of “immediate family” family member and theand the implications of change. Chairman SpierSergio said that she had included the recommendation to expand on the definition of “spouse” to include parties to a civil union to be consistent with recent changes to Connecticut law. [Kim, I don’t
remember this clearly and I am not sure I understand this sentence. Don’t worry about it. Sandy can correct it in the next meeting.
The Commission turned discussion to Code Sections 2-58c(2), (3), (6) and (7). Chairman Spier said that the Code specifies what would disqualify someone from serving on the Commission but does not go on to state limitations for they cannot engage in the post-service activities. He recommended that this after their appointment which appears to be an oversight which they suggested be clarified. A discussion ensued about the provision prohibiting members from being a member of any other political committee. Commissioner Sergio said that it is difficult to suggest amendments to the provision when she wasn’t sure what the Council was talking abouthad originally intended. Commissioner Treacy agreed saying that this is one area that it might be appropriate to simply pose the question about
its intentrationale.
Chairman Spier noted that he did not include anything recommendations regarding the on the revolving door policy. Commissioner Sergio said that she had just suggested the Council also review the intent and adequacy of the town’s revolving door policy.
Chairman Spier noted that the changes to Code Sections 2-58d(1) and (2) have provoked public stirred up controversy, and he proposed that the Commission consider these changes de novo. The issue, he noted, is whether citizens can bring to the attention through the advisory process a potential ethics violation, such as a conflict of interest in a pending matter. He explained that currently, said that as the code stands, an the advisory opinion is for those seeking whoused to seek guidance on one’s their own choices or actions whereas an inquiry is for those whoto question the actions of others. He noted that allowing said that to allow advisory opinions to be used by others third parties to question what what someone else has the potential to disrupt the flow of business for the town’s boards and
commissions members might do has the potential to disrupt the flow of business. He did recognize that there might be benefits to the change as well but suggested that the town would be better served with the code as it is. Vice Chairman Thomas felt it that these kinds of questions could be handled within through the inquiry process . if they wanted to reap the benefits yet not compromise the advisory opinion being guidance on one’s own actions.
Commissioner Sergio felt it was bizarreazaar to inquire about what somebody may opt to do, such as fail to recuse himself or herself, might do wrong in the future and felt strongly that an inquiry remain for activity that has occurred. Commissioner Treacy agreed, expressing concern that allowing challenges before the fact might adding that otherwise, it would be subject to abuse. He continued sayingadded that the Commission must allow people to exercise their judgment and that it should only get involved when action is questioned. He said that otherwise, they would be bogged down with hypothetical issues and a volunteer board simply wouldn’t have the time to operate in that fashiondo its work.
The Ccommission then turned its attention to A discussion ensued briefly on anonymous complaints. Commissioner Babcock stated that he believes that they did not entertain anonymous complaints largely to discourage abuse. He added, however, that he is sympathetic to citizens or employees who want to raise an issue generically – without attribution to a particular individual – or in a way that prevents violations toes the Code. Vice Chair Thomas noted that, in the final portion of the Commission’s procedures, the Commission may receive and consider on a case-by-case basis “other communications.”
Motion By: Commissioner Sergio Seconded: Commissioner Treacy
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission accept suggested amendments to 258b(1) and (2) as presented.
Result: Motion passes unanimously. (5-0-0)
A discussion ensued about whether Commissioner Babcock was a seated member. It was determined that they had a full commission for the votes and therefore, he was not seated and his vote was not counted in the result of the motions. Attorney Chudwick agreed and also noted that because all members of the Commission are present and voting, his participation in unanimous votes would not change the results.
Commissioner Bull asked whether Commission members could participate in meetings using a speaker phone. Attorney Chudwick reviewed guidelines for members participating telephonically saying that thea 1980 Advisory Opinion 41opinion specified that the voices members speaking telephonically must be clearly identifiable for on the record and that, a majority of members must be physically present. A member and that any person attending a meeting telephonically cannot may not be counted for a quorum.
5. Report of the Chair
Chairman Spier noted that there were five letters in the Glastonbury Citizen.
6. Reading of Communications None
7. Reading and Approval of Minutes of Meeting of July 24, 2006
Motion By: Commissioner Treacy Seconded: Commissioner Bull
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission approve the minutes of the meeting of July 24, 2006 with the following changes:
Page 1, strike last word on the page, “Secretary”
Page 2, item 2, 3rd line, change, “in the attached memo” to, “in a memo received by the Commission.”
Page 2, item 2, 7th line, move the period inside the quotes
Page 2, item 2, 7th line, strike rest of the sentence after “Commissioner Sergio” and replace with, “suggested that the Council might want to review the adequacy of the revolving door provisions set out in Section 2-6-6.
Page 2, item 2, add to the end, “It was also suggested that we review the definitions of “immediate family members,” that we add “parties to a civil union” after the word, “spouses,” that the Council clarify service or engaging in political activities during their term of office, and that the prohibition on being a member of any other type of political committee be clarified.”
Result: Motion passes unanimously. (5-0-0)
Adjournment
With no further business, Chairman Spier adjourned the meeting at 8:56 PM.
Motion By: Commissioner Sergio Seconded: Commissioner TreacyMOVED, that the Ethics Commission adjourn their special meeting of September 19, 2006, at 8:56 pm.
Kim, we did not move to adjourne or have a second. Alan simply adjourned us. Result: Motion passes unanimously. (5-0-0)
| 
