For much of the last decade, city officials have been working on revising the city’s Code of Ethics.
While that effort took a step forward Tuesday, it appears there is still a long road ahead before it’s finally approved.
The Board of Aldermen held a joint meeting with the Board of Ethics on the proposed changes that the ethics board finished two years ago.
Why the long delay?
The Aldermen held off on addressing the proposal, board president John Anglace said, because in the interim the state began its own ethics code upgrade.
“We put together our own new Code of Ethics, and then the state put together its Task Force on Municipal Ethics,” Anglace said.
There were rumors that the state revisions would include mandates on local municipalities, Anglace said, so the local proposal was put on hold to wait for the state. “Rather than go ahead, we wanted to wait and see what they would do,” he said. “And then they did nothing.”
Background
In the meantime, Shelton had its name dragged through the mud in the form of the federal trial of developer James Botti, who federal prosecutors claimed bribed Mayor Mark Lauretti. The mayor has never been charged and denied the claims.
While Botti was convicted on charges of structuring deposits in order to avoid IRS detection and mail fraud, the jury was unable to come to a decision on the charges involving the alleged bribes.
Testimony during the trial revealed public officials have accepted gift cards over the years from people doing business with the city.
Elliot Wilson, a Shelton building inspector, admitted to accepting gifts. He pleaded guilty in January to lying to a grand jury.
Debate
The two boards were joined Tuesday by Marty Coughlin and Ken Nappi, both of whom have been involved in the effort in the past, as well as Corporation Counsel Tom Welch, who has advised the ethics board during its work on the proposed revisions.
Almost as soon as the group began going over the revisions, it got stuck on the wording of the first paragraph – the “Declaration of Policy” that calls for violations to be punished by “suspension, removal from office or employment or disciplinary action as more particularly set forth in this ordinance.”
The problem is, there is no discipline process outlined in the ordinance, leading several to question who would be ultimately responsible to dole out punishment.
“I do not remember any discussion on how it would be enforced,” said Board of Ethics member Christine Robinson.
The board spent much of its time investigating what other municipalities have in terms of ethics codes, she said, but that aspect was not included.
Anglace suggested that responsibility could be designated to the Board of Aldermen, but Coughlin said that wasn’t a good idea.
“If you send it to the Board of Aldermen, that makes it political,” he said. “My purpose is to keep it apolitical.”
It would be especially awkward if the accused is a member of the board, Coughlin said. “That would open it up to a lot of troublesome misunderstandings,” he said.
Anglace then suggested that the mayor should charged with that role. Coughlin balked.
“The last big case to come before the ethics board involved the mayor,” he said, referring to the complaint filed by former mayors Eugene Hope and Michael E. Pacowta against Mayor Mark A. Lauretti.
The complaint concerned Lauretti’s purchase of waterfront property off River Road from Emhart Industries, which the mayor had just helped relocate to Shelton from Ansonia after a fire destroyed its Latex Foam facility there.
“You can’t refer a complaint to the mayor if he is the subject of the complaint,” Coughlin said.
Gifts
The two boards also debated what constitutes a gift and whether elected and appointed officials, as well as employees, should be allowed to accept any at all.
“No public official or public employee should receive any gift of any value, period,” said Alderman Jack Finn, the lone Democrat on the board.
But the proposed revisions include a host of exclusions, including political campaign contributions.
It also excludes “items of nominal value, excluding cash, not to exceed $20, provided the total value of such gifts from any person does not exceed $40 in one calendar year.”
That caveat needs more discussion, Anglace said.
“We’ll leave that open,” he said.
The two boards plan to meet every other week until a consensus is reached and the revisions are approved, Anglace said.
