A Board of Ethics met in Shelton Thursday for the first time in more than a year.
It has a lot of work to do.
Background
The board had been defunct since last holding a regular meeting — with different membership — in October 2011, with an ensuing political party snafu keeping the panel in limbo since late that year.
Changes to the city’s charter approved by voters last November saw the commission reconstituted, with its membership expanded from three to five.
Other revisions included prohibiting more than two people from one political party from serving on the board at the same time, and made aldermen responsible for appointing members instead of Mayor Mark Lauretti.
Aldermen appointed four members to the new board in February without discussion.
By Thursday’s organizational meeting of the ethics board, that number was whittled down to three because Paul Augustine, appointed as an unaffiliated member, resigned.
Left on the board are Democrat John Bashar, who served on the Charter Revision Commission, and Republicans Walter Drozeck, a former alderman, and Paul Bueker.
Raising Awareness
The board met on Wednesday for about a half-hour and appointed Bashar, a lawyer with the state’s Department of Revenue Services, as its chairman.
Bueker, semi-retired after spending more than 30 years at General Electric, was voted vice chairman Thursday, and said the board should be educating city employees and officials more about ethics rules, long a hot topic in Shelton.
“In addition to just reacting to problems, it might be a good thing to do something proactively to do some climate-setting and do a little training and just develop a program so we raise a little bit of awareness about ethics in City Hall,” Bueker said.
“It kind of brings it to their attention that there’s certain things you should do and should not do and be aware of,” he added. “It’s pretty easy based on issues that have come up in the past in the real world, not just in Shelton but in other cities in the state, to put together a short course that people can use as a reminder.”
Bueker wants to develop some sort of ethics training for employees and officials, and suggested they all also sign a form annually acknowledging they know the rules.
The board agreed to research the topic and revisit it at meetings they scheduled for July 11 and October 3, with more added if necessary, or if complaints are received.
Drozeck noted the group’s “tight timeline,” especially with municipal elections coming in November.
Ordinance Changes?
The previous ethics board had for several years been working on revisions to the city’s ethics ordinance, last modified in 2004.
Article continues after the document.
Aldermen rejected proposed changes to the ethics code in December 2010.
Click here to read more about the proposed changes, which would have set guidelines for public officials and employees on accepting gifts, disclosing information about business ties and using city equipment.
The issue of gifts featured prominently since a years-long federal investigation uncovered allegations of gift-giving and influence-plying at City Hall.
Two developers and a city building official were convicted on various federal charges, though the case has been quiet for nearly two years and no high-level government officials have been indicted in connection with the probe.
But City Hall hasn’t been immune to allegations of wrongdoing — former assistant finance director Sharon Scanlon resigned last summer and has since been charged by state police with stealing more than $900,000 from taxpayers.
Ethics board members didn’t discuss the ordinance revisions in depth Thursday, just in general terms.
Bashar said afterward that he hadn’t looked at the previous board’s proposals yet, but that his main concern would be “transparency.”
He said the Charter Revision Commission took the same approach in recommending changes to the board.
Click here to read a guest column Bashar wrote last November in support of those changes.
During the meeting he said the toughest area of the revisions would probably coming up with rules governing “financial aspects,” and whether they would apply just to city employees and officials, or have a broader reach.
“Where do you draw the line?” he said. “Does it extend to your immediate family, your extended family, how far does it go?”
