Ethics Commission

MINUTES OF NORWICH ETHICS COMMISSION MEETING October 11, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT Joseph Sastre Wayne Rosenfield Tamara Lanier Robert Davidson Rabbi Arian MEMBERS ABSENT None ALTERNATES PRESENT Marcia Marien ALTERNATES ABSENT Ira Misenheimer OTHERS PRESENT Jill Brennan-Recording Secretary I. Call to order – Chairman Rabbi Charles Arian called the October 11, 2011 meeting to order at 5:04 P.M. II. Determination of Quorum It was determined a quorum was present. III. Approval of Minutes Motion to approve, T. Lanier 2nd J. Sastre, minutes of the September 12, 2011 meeting were approved. IV. Citizen Comment None V. Correspondence a) 2011-7 Complaint & withdrawal (discussed in Executive Session) VI. Old Business a) Code of Ethics amendments to be recommended to Council C. Arian discussed the letter that he drafted to the Council & City Manager regarding the motions made for amendments to the Code. Ethics Commission October 11, 2011 Page -2- T. Lanier distributed a copy of the State Code of Ethics. Discussion followed on the section regarding members having conflicts of such that they would have to recuse themselves. She suggested having a form that members could fill out to put the conflict in writing. R. Davidson suggested that T. Lanier draft language that would be applicable to Norwich. b) Rules & Procedures amendments J. Sastre is still working on the amendments and will have a draft ready for the next meeting. He will email them to J. Brennan prior to the next meeting for distribution. c) Re-appointments These are on hold until after the election. All members will remain effective even after their appointments expire or until they resign or are replaced. VII. New Business a) 2011-1 Final Ruling C. Arian and R. Davidson commended members of the hearing panel on their performance and speed with which they drafted the final ruling. T. Lanier questioned how much leniency they have to give the attorneys that may be present for either the complainants or respondents. M. Driscoll has clarified that the Commission has complete jurisdiction. J. Sastre suggested that when respondents are sent letters finding probable cause, that the probable cause is explained. C. Arian discussed including the finding of probable cause document generated by the Commission in the letters to respondents. W. Rosenfield asked if R. Davidson felt, as a citizen, that the findings were appropriate to the evidence presented at the hearing. R. Davidson felt that it was an appropriate conclusion based on the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing. T. Lanier offered that Mike Driscoll has said that the only thing that can be considered is the sworn testimony. R. Davidson questioned that he thought the opposite was true, that everything was considered. C. Arian clarified that at the hearing, the clock is turned back and the only thing that a decision is based on is the sworn testimony and evidence presented at the hearing. T. Lanier questioned an interpretation of the Code regarding disclosure of significant vs. insignificant interest. Section 254-E refers to conflict of interest regarding membership and disclosure & recusal in cases of “significant interest”. M. Marien & Ethics Commission October 11, 2011 Page -3- T.Lanier asked for clarification on “significant interest”. Discussion followed. T. Lanier feels that the Commission sets the bar high by its own members’ recusal and any interest should be disclosed. VIII. Other Motion to go into executive session to discuss complaint 2011-7 & withdrawal, T. Lanier, 2nd J. Sastre. The Ethics Commission adjourned to executive session at 5:38 p.m. The Ethics Commission resumed regular session at 6:02 p.m. Motion to take no action regarding 2011-7 due to the withdrawal by the complainant, J. Sastre, 2nd W. Rosenfield, motion carried. T. Lanier abstained. Motion to create a sub-committee to investigate matters which have been brought to the Commission’s attention, J. Sastre, 2nd C. Arian, motion carried. T. Lanier abstained. C. Arian asked for volunteers for the sub-committee. M. Marien mentioned potential conflicts that she may have in serving on the sub- committee. C. Arian clarified the relevancy of conflicts as being, do you believe that, having disclosed the conflict, that you can still decide on the matter fairly? T. Lanier recused herself based on potential conflicts. J. Sastre, R. Davidson & M. Marien volunteered to serve on the sub- committee. VIIII. Adjournment Motion to adjourn, T. Lanier, 2nd J. Sastre, meeting adjourned at 6:11 P.M.