Ethics Commission

Ethics Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, May 9, 2011 Room 210 City Hall Building MEMBERS PRESENT Joseph Sastre Wayne Rosenfield Tamara Lanier Robert Davidson MEMBERS ABSENT Rabbi Charles Arian ALTERNATES PRESENT Marcia Marien (seated as a regular member) Ira Misenheimer ALTERNATES ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT Jim Craven-Norwich Bulletin 1. Call to order – Vice-Chair Robert Davidson called the May 9, 2011 meeting to order at 5:04 P.M. 2. Determination of Quorum It was determined a quorum was present. 3. Approval of Minutes Motion to approve, J. Sastre, 2nd T. Lanier, minutes of the April 11, 2011 meeting were approved with spelling of name corrected. W. Rosenfield, M. Marien abstained due to their absence at the last meeting. 4. Citizen Comment None 5. Correspondence a) Complaint- receipt of complaint acknowledged. b) Request for Advisory Opinion Motion to discuss both correspondence items under new business, T. Lanier, 2nd M. Marien, motion passed unanimously. Ethics Commission Minutes 5-9-11 Page -2- 6. Old Business R. Arian will discuss his findings regarding the NPU issue at the next meeting 7. New Business a) Complaint-Both R. Arian and R. Davidson will recuse themselves from consideration of this complaint due to conflicts of interest. J. Sastre took over leading the meeting at this point. Complaint was received last Thursday. Letters must be sent to both the respondent and complainant indicating that the complaint was received and offering the respondent a 15 day window to request a hearing or write a response to the complaint. After the response is received from the Respondent, the complaint will be presented to the entire Commission at the next regular meeting in Executive Session. Since two members are recusing themselves, all members should make every effort to attend the next meeting. J. Sastre read the letters to the Commission without divulging specific information and they will be sent certified mail tomorrow. Motion to mail letters, M. Marien, 2nd W. Rosenfield, motion passed 4 affirmative, R. Davidson abstained. W. Rosenfield has been invited to one Rotary lunch in the past few months and questioned whether that should be considered a conflict. The Commission decided it would not pose a conflict. It was decided that Commission members would be presented with the complaint at the next meeting in Executive session. They will not receive it with next month’s agenda. b) Request for Advisory Opinion R. Davidson took over Chairing the meeting at this point. A request for Advisory Opinion was distributed. The City Manager would like a recommendation on the disposition of the gift of pearls that was received by Board of Education members and the Mayor from a visiting Chinese delegation. The value must be determined, the Code of Ethics does not specify a value for gifts. R. Davidson asked Commission members if they are going to assume the gift is of an insignificant value. M. Marien commented that they are asking for an opinion which means they feel the value may not be insignificant. T. Lanier suggested that the value must be determined first. J. Sastre suggested that the request has two parts: 1. Are the pearls a significant gift as defined by the Code? 2. Is there a conflict of interest and was the gift given with an expectation of favoritism? I. Misenheimer stated that a gift to a government official gets turned over to the government and becomes a “gift” to the government. R. Davidson stated that if the gift is of value then it cannot be accepted personally and he suggested that they be offered to a non-profit for fundraising efforts. The disposition suggestions would be only that- they would not be binding. Ethics Commission Minutes 5-9-11 Page -3- W. Rosenfield stated that a value determination is not necessary because these are personal gifts to individuals and gifts of equal value were not exchanged, so these gifts should not be accepted by the individuals. The pearls belong to the City not the individuals. Motion to vote on below Question: 4 for, 1 (T. Lanier) against. Motion carried. Motion that the Ethics Commission has found that the pearls are a gift as defined under Section 252-D and are therefore the property of the City of Norwich and cannot be kept by the individuals as explained under Section 254-C, M. Marien, 2nd W. Rosenfield, motion carried, 4 for, 1 (T. Lanier) against. T. Lanier stated that she feels the gifts should never have been accepted in the first place as stated in the Code. R. Davidson to write response letter with the Commission’s decision to be sent to the City Manager. 8. Other I. Misenheimer and T. Lanier suggested that on the next agenda the Commission discuss amendments to the ordinance allowing City Officials to accept gifts on behalf of the City and defining “significant value”. 9. Adjournment M. Marien motion to adjourn, 2nd J. Sastre, meeting adjourned at 6:20 P.M.