GLASTONBURY ETHICS COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF MONDAY, OCTOBER 23 , 2006
MINUTES
The Glastonbury Ethics Commission held a Regular Meeting at 7:00 PM in Meeting Room A, Second Floor, Town Office Building located at 2155 Main Street, Glastonbury, Connecticut. Also in attendance was Bruce Chudwick, Town Attorney.
1. Roll Call
Present
Mr. Alan Spier, Chairman
Ms. Angela Bull
Ms. Alexandrina Sergio
Mr. Reginald Babcock, Alternate
Excused
Ms. Nancy Thomas, Vice Chair
Mr. Patrick Treacy
(Alternate Member Vacancy)
Chairman Spier seated Commissioner Babcock for one of the excused members. He suggested they complete the public portion of the meeting prior to moving into the closed portion. Attorney Chudwick also suggested a re-wording of the agenda items noted as confidential to also include the word “closed”.
Motion By: Commissioner Sergio Seconded: Commissioner Babcock
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission re-order the agenda changing item 6 to item 2, item 5 to item 3, item 7 to item 4, the unnumbered item 8 to item 5, item 2 to item 6, item 3 to item 7 and item 4 to item 8.
Result: Motion passes unanimously. (4-0-0)
Motion By: Commissioner Bull Seconded: Commissioner Babcock
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission add “Closed and…” to precede “Confidential” in agenda items 7 and 8.
Result: Motion passes unanimously. (4-0-0)
2. Report on Town Ethics Training Program - Attorney Bruce Chudwick and Commissioner Sergio.
Attorney Chudwick informed the Commission that the Ethics training brought to the more critical boards had been completed. Commissioner Sergio passed out a document (attached) detailing the questions or concerns raised by the seven boards and commissions receiving the training and reviewed it. She noted that Town Plan and Zoning was uncertain of the provision exempting an association with a profession as being a conflict of interest which still needs clarification. She added that in future years, they may want to allot more time to the Ethics Training for TPZ.
3. Consideration of Request for Two Advisory Opinions Received from the Town Manager – See accompanying letter.
Chairman Spier reviewed the memo from Mr. Johnson as well as supplemental information from him distributed at the table questioning the ability of an employee to accept a raffle prize and to partake in an expenses paid event for a professional advisory board. Commissioner Bull remarked that a raffle prize is a random drawing and not a gift to a specific person questioning if it would even be considered a gift. Attorney Chudwick said that the code defines valuable gift but not gift. Commissioner Spier said that if it was a valuable gift accepted from someone with a pending matter within the purview of that employee’s responsibility, then it would appear to be a violation. He continued saying that if you assume that it was not within the employee’s purview, technically, there is no
violation but it would seem that the employee acting as an agent of the town should then present the prize back to the town. Commissioner Babcock expressed concern about using any kind of raffle prize exemption to skirt the regulations. The discussion continued briefly and a consensus was reached to continue the discussion at a future meeting.
Chairman Spier stated that they should presume that the financial director has the authority and it’s within her official responsibilities to make decisions that would influence the business the pension company does with the town. He continued to say that a nice four days from the pension company could cause someone to be favorably inclined toward that company and create an issue. Commissioner Babcock remarked that the letter from the pension company seems to indicate that they recognize that their offer of paying for activities associated with participation on the board could be viewed as a violation of ethics regulations. Commissioner Babcock and Chairman Spier both agreed that the issue would be cured by the town paying for the event. A consensus was reached that the pension company
covering the costs of the director of finance to attend the board meetings would constitute a valuable gift from an entity directly interested in business transacted and a pending matter within the purview of that employee and therefore, would be a violation.
Chairman Spier agreed to draft a decision for consideration at a special meeting tentatively scheduled for Monday, November 6. Chairman Spier said that he would make sure he has not made a mistake on fact about the responsibilities of the finance director. Commissioner Sergio added that if the town manager feels that her attendance benefits the town than the town should pay for her to be there. Chairman Spier added that at the special meeting, they would bring the raffle question to closure and after that meeting, someone would draft a decision for consideration at the regular meeting on November 27, 2006.
4. Continuation of Consideration of Changes in the Town’s Code of Ethics – See Accompanying Memo of Commissioner Bull.
Commissioner Bull reviewed her research on the matter saying that she did not like those that listed the various relatives that would constitute “immediate family” and advocated for the simplicity of one example which designated immediate family as anyone within the third degree of consanguinity. Chairman Spier noted that the definition of “immediate family” serves two functions, one, as an exception to the ability to accept a valuable gift between people that would otherwise exchange gifts and two, defining the group of people that could not accept a gift from a vendor with which an employee does business. He suggested that they may want the definition of “immediate family” to be different for each one.
Commissioner Sergio stated that she had gone back to the minutes of the council meetings during which the code was created and said that they seemingly wanted to flee the issue by stating that immediate family meant those that reside in the same household. She continued saying that there was a concern expressed for difficulties created for family members of those that sit on boards and commissions. She stated that she did not support the recommendation of Commissioner Bull because the commission had long been trying to ensure that the code be easily understood. She continued saying that they had advocated for a plain language guide and abandoned it for now having decided that the code itself should be plain language. She said she didn’t think the language proposed was user friendly and said it
did not represent what this commission was trying to do.
Chairman Spier shared the concerns expressed by Commissioner Sergio. Commissioner Babcock said that they shouldn ’t have to reinvent the wheel, other organizations have wrestled with the same issue. He continued saying that you know it when you see it and suggested Attorney Chudwick look into it further to suggest language getting at the intent of the gift rather than trying to exhaust the list to permit or prohibit. Commissioner Sergio added that the problem with a long list is that you might miss a critical relationship. Chairman Spier agreed to take another look at the matter in an effort to recommend a change to the Council. Attorney Chudwick said that he would provide the Chairman Ethics codes from towns all over the state which he might find useful.
5. Reading and Approval of Minutes of Meeting of September 19, 2006.
Motion By: Commissioner Babcock Seconded: Commissioner Bull
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission approve the minutes presented for the meeting of September 19, 2006, with the following changes:
i. Add the following footer back to the document -
“Glastonbury Ethics Commission
Special Meeting Minutes, September 19, 2006
Recorded & Edited by NT/Transcribed by-kmm Page # of ##”
Page 1, add “2.” to 2nd header
Page 1, item 2, 5th line, replace, “determined to be” with, “of”
Page 1, item 3, 1st line, replace, “at the last meeting of August 22, they accepted” with, “it had been agreed that”
Page 1, item 3, 2nd line, insert after Attorney, “would be carried out at”
Page 2, item 4, 2nd paragraph, 11 th line, replace, “state”, with “contain”
Page 2, item 4, 2nd paragraph, 12 th line, replace, “for post-service activities.” with “similar activities for existing committee members.”
Page 3, item 4, last paragraph, 3rd line, replace, “the 1980”, with, “The Freedom of Information Commission 1980”
Result: Motion passes unanimously. (4-0-0)
A break was taken from 8:38 pm to 8:47 pm allow the recording clerk and members of the public to clear the room.
Executive Session – Discussion of strategy with respect to pending claim against the Ethics Commission (Freedom of Information matter).
Motion By: Commissioner Sergio Seconded: Commissioner Bull
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission enter Executive Session at 8:47 pm for discussion of strategy with respect to a pending claim against the Ethics Commission (Freedom of Information matter). The Commission invited Town Attorney Chudwick to join them in the Session.
Result: Motion passes unanimously. (4-0-0)
The executive session ended at 9:10 pm.
7. Closed and Confidential Session Pursuant to the Town Code of Ethics and Sections 7-148h and 1-82a of the Connecticut General Statutes for the Consideration of an Inquiry.
Motion By: Commissioner Bull Seconded: Commissioner Babcock
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission go into a closed and confidential session at 9:10 pm pursuant to the Town Code of Ethics and Sections 7-148h and 1-82a of the Connecticut General Statutes for the consideration of an Inquiry and invite the Town Counsel, Attorney Bruce Chudwick, to be present during the session.~ Result: Motion passes unanimously. (4-0-0)
This closed and confidential session ended at 9:17 p.m.
8. Closed and Confidential Session Pursuant to the Town Code of Ethics and Sections 7-148h and 1-82a of the Connecticut General Statutes for the Consideration of Possible Initiation of an Inquiry Pursuant to §2-1(b) of the Commission’s Procedures.
Motion By: Commissioner Bull Seconded: Commissioner Babcock
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission go into a closed and confidential session at 9:17 pm pursuant to the Town Code of Ethics and Sections 7-148h and 1-82a of the Connecticut General Statutes for consideration of the possible initiation of an Inquiry pursuant to Section 2-1(b) of the Commission's Procedures and invite the
Town Counsel, Attorney Bruce Chudwick, to be present during the
session.~
Result: Motion passes unanimously. (4-0-0)
This closed and confidential session ended at 9:35 p.m.
9. Adjournment.
Motion By: Commissioner Sergio Seconded: Commissioner Bull
MOVED, that the Ethics Commission adjourns their regular meeting of October 23, 2006, at 9:35 p.m..
Result: Motion passes unanimously. (4-0-0)
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly Meanix Miller
Kimberly Meanix Miller
Recording Clerk
Attachment: Questions/Concerns raised during Training of seven Boards/Commissions
REPORT: Ethics Training for seven regulated Boards and Commissions
Trainer: Atty. Bruce Chudwick, Atty. Lisa Gladke (TPZ,BOF)
ZBA: Questions/concerns:
Consequences of finding of ethics violation.
In response to Atty. reply that finding would be referred back to ZBA, question was asked re what ZBA would do with a member who had violated. (Treacy)
TOWN COUNCIL: Expressed appreciation for the quality and quantity of the Ethics Commission’s work.
Questions/concerns:
If Council members are subject to an ethics hearing, will the Town Attorney represent him/her? Atty. response: No. Atty. would represent town, but town would pay for representation for Council member.
How does Glastonbury’s Code compare with other towns codes?
Atty. response: It is much more comprehensive.
Concern voiced about timeliness of response, especially to advisory opinions.
Atty. assured that stated timelines were the outer limits and that Commission would be as expedient as possible in delivering opinions in a timely manner.(Bull, Sergio)
Conservation Commission: Questions/concerns:
Can a Conservation Commission member ask a Council member his/her opinion on, for example, a land acquisition? Atty. response: Yes.
Can a Conservation Commission member write a letter to the editor in reference to a conservation matter? Atty. response: Yes.
Who administers “punishment” in case of a finding of code violation?
Asked clarification of the terms Advisory Opinion, Inquiry, Complaint. (Sergio)
TPZ: Questions/concerns:
TPZ needs a follow up. They had numerous questions, all of which could not be satisfactorily answered, and the session ran over time, with no time for the case study. Ethics Commission member in attendance delivered part of the session, with most time devoted to explaining the processes ancillary to Advisory Opinions and Inquiries.
Question that involved a lot of discussion and for which an answer was promised was clarification of the item on “professional interest” (Section 2-64, paragraph 3)
(Note: I think the Commission needs to have this further clarified as well.) (Sergio)
Board of Finance: Questions/concerns:
Clarification of “immediate family” was requested, as limitation to persons living under the same roof seemed inadequate.
Can a request for Advisory Opinion be brought after the fact/within three years.
This was a puzzling question. Reply was that the commission could consider such a request under other communication and then determine into what category it might fall. (Sergio)
Board of Education: Report to be made by Commissioner Babcock.
Ams10/23/06
| 
