Tainted.
That’s how Shelton Planning and Zoning Administrator Richard Schultz described the integrity of Mayor Mark A. Lauretti during his testimony at the federal corruption trial for Shelton developer James Botti.
“In my opinion it’s (tainted) is someone that consciously bends the rules for monetary or other gains,” Schultz said toward the end of his several-hour-long testimony Thursday.
U.S. Attorney Richard Schechter asked Schultz if that testimony made him concerned about his job. Lauretti is his direct supervisor.
“Absolutely,” Schultz replied.
In the fourth day of testimony, much of the focus of the government’s questioning remained focused on Lauretti – whether he received gifts and favors from Botti and other developers in exchange for influence getting projects approved.
Lauretti has not been charged with anything and has maintained he didn’t do anything wrong.
He has not returned calls requesting comment each day this week — and he was not present at Thursday night’s Shelton Aldermen meeting.
Government officials have not commented on whether any charges are pending and only say the investigation is ongoing.
Other Developers
While much of the questioning has focused on renovations Botti completed on Lauretti’s David Drive home in 2002 and on a Christmas party Botti threw at Lauretti’s restaurant, the government’s questioning has strayed toward Lauretti’s management style and on the atmosphere for doing business in Shelton during the past decade.
Thursday, Schechter also directed questions to Schultz about other developers in Shelton — asking whether Botti had ever indicated he was upset about approvals the other developers received on projects.
Schechter asked Schultz whether Botti ever complained specifically about developer Monty Blakeman and his Split Rock project on Bridgeport Avenue.
“He (Botti) indicated gifts were received by the Planning and Zoning Commissioners” from Blakeman, Schultz answered. Those gifts included fruit baskets with cash placed at the bottom, Schultz testified Botti told him.
Schecter asked if Schultz had ever received gifts from Blakeman.
“I received a cash payment and two Broadway tickets and quickly handed it back,” Schultz testified.
A secretary at Blakeman’s office said he is out of town. A detailed e‑mail sent to Blakeman Thursday afternoon seeking comment went unanswered.
Blakeman has not been charged with any crime.
Favors?
Schultz said in their conversations about the alleged gifts, Botti “always volunteered that he would never stoop to that level.”
But, Botti also told Schultz he had given a job to Lauretti’s brother as a favor to the mayor.
Botti also said Lauretti went on his Bridgeport Avenue job site and took a backhoe to use at his David Drive home, Schlutz testified.
“He said he did not give the mayor his permission,” Schultz said.
Dow, on his cross examination of Schultz and Planning and Zoning commissioner Anthony Pogoda, questioned the fine line between favors and inappropriate gifts.
Invoking the city’s code of ethics, Dow asked Schultz what would be considered a “substantial gift” — something that the ethics codes prohibits accepting.
“If I’m a developer and I want to drop off a bottle of wine, you would consider that OK in your point of view?” Dow asked.
“Right,” Schultz answered, saying anything above $50 was considered substantial in his department.
In his opening remarks, Dow said Shelton is a town where people have values from the 1950s, and do favors for each other.
He questioned Pogoda along those lines Thursday evening.
Pogogda, who was one of two commissioners who voted against Botti’s 828 Bridgeport Ave. project, testified he had once given Botti a gift card.
“Why would you give him a gift card if you didn’t have any projects before him?” Dow asked Pogoda.
“It’s just a friendship thing. It wasn’t for anything he did for me,” Pogoda answered. “Just for being a friend. Just for being a friend.”
828 Bridgeport Ave.
More details about the 828 Bridgeport Ave. project came out during Schultz’s testimony. That project is the one government attorneys claim Lauretti used his influence to get approved.
Schultz testified that during June 13, 2006 deliberations on the project, the planning and zoning commission appeared to be ready to deny the project, with three commissioners in favor and three opposed.
After that meeting, both Botti and his then-land use attorney Dominick Thomas contacted Schultz to try to get the item on the Planning and Zoning agenda for June 20 — the next regularly scheduled meeting.
“Mr. Thomas indicated it needs to be put on (the agenda). There was a lot riding on the project. Time was of the essence,” Schultz said. “I said the only way it could be placed on the agenda was if the chairman directed me to place it on.”
Schultz said shortly after, then-chairman Al Cribbins asked him to add the item to the next agenda.
“I got the sense that a favorable consensus was forthcoming,” Schultz testified.
