Ethics Commission

MINUTES OF NORWICH ETHICS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING July 23, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT Joseph Sastre Robert Davidson Wayne Rosenfield Ira Misenheimer Tamara Lanier MEMBERS ABSENT ALTERNATES PRESENT Alan High Marcia Marien ALTERNATES ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT Marjorie Blizard Jill Brennan-Recording Secretary 1. Call to order –Chairman Robert Davidson called the July 23, 2012 meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. 2. Determination of Quorum It was determined a quorum was present. 3. Citizen Comment None 4. Discussion of hearing on Complaint 2012-1 Does the resignation negate the need for a hearing? W. Rosenfield feels that the Complaint does not go away. The Commission is obligated to hear the evidence and make a decision. There are 3 possible outcomes: Complainant can withdraw the complaint Respondent can admit the Ethical violation Hold hearing The Commission does not have an interest in humiliating anyone publicly. T. Lanier agrees and feels that it is a moot point that a resignation has been received and any other formation is irrelevant. Ethics Commission July 23, 2012 Page -2- I. Misenheimer feels that even an admission of guilt would not preclude a hearing. If the hearing is held and an admission of guilt is received, then the Commission has followed through with its own Rules & Procedures. A. High discussed the resignation letter from the respondent and agrees with the above three options. He asked if there is any other option other than the hearing. Can a letter be sent to either complainant or respondent or is the Commission restricted to holding the hearing? R. Davidson feels that now that the Commission has determined probable cause, this supersedes the complaint. As long as guilt has not been acknowledged by the respondent, her membership on the Boards is irrelevant. M. Marien does not agree with asking the complainant to withdraw her complaint. T. Lanier agrees. J. Sastre agrees that it is not proper to ask a complainant to withdraw the complaint under any circumstances. However, the ordinance clearly states that a person has to be affiliated with the City. The respondent no longer is. If the Commission decides to go ahead with the hearing, what path are they going to use to get the respondent to appear? And if a violation is found, what could the recommendation of the Commission possibly be? Because the respondent is no longer under the jurisdiction of the ordinance or the Ethics Commission, J. Sastre suggests that the complaint be closed out with the reason that the respondent is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Ethics Code any longer. T. Lanier used the analogy that there is a Governor who makes egregious acts, semi-apologizes and resigns. Because the Governor has resigned, are the acts not addressed? She feels that they must be fair to the process, the citizens and the complainant. A. High feels that a citizen’s standing in the community and reputation with the government is important. He feels that if there is guilt, it must be determined because the person will still be involved and people need to know whom they may be dealing with. He also adds that the building has procedural failures that allowed this to happen and the Commission may be able to make recommendations to address these. I. Misenheimer feels that the resignation is a moot point. The Commission decides if there has been a violation, then that information must be recorded. R. Davidson believes that there is an obligation to the public to determine if a violation occurred. M. Marien is not sure if the regulations provide an opportunity to NOT proceed if probably cause has been found. W. Rosenfield feels that the Commission’s duty is to answer the question, “Has an Ethics violation occurred?” A fair hearing should be held to determine that. R. Davidson compared the case to the Lincoln portrait case. The Commission determined that they did not have jurisdiction, but an opinion letter was sent. I. Misenheimer feels that once probable cause is found, the only option is to proceed with the hearing. J. Sastre moved the question, vote carried unanimously. The hearing will proceed as scheduled.  Ethics Commission July 23, 2012 Page -3- 5. City Council correspondence regarding proposed changes to the Ethics Ordinance I. Misenheimer reported on the Council’s questions on the proposed changes: 1. This ordinance was adopted by the Council 2. Requiring complainants to appear at hearings: The council had an issue with this because of the anonymous complaint. I. Misenheimer reported that there is no provision in the Code for someone to submit a complaint anonymously. He checked with an FOI attorney about allowing anonymous complaints. If these are accepted the process must be anonymous from the very beginning. The ordinance would have to be rewritten to allow this. R. Davidson clarified with the Commission that their intent was not to allow anonymous complaints, but to not require complainants to have to appear at a hearing if there is a hardship. I. Misenheimer could have clarified this for the Council, but was not asked to speak. He has read both the State and Department of Defense Ethic’s codes and neither makes a provision for a completely anonymous complaint. 3. I. Misenheimer distributed the State Code definition of a gift. The Council requested additional information on the number of times that the “gift” can be given. This is not addressed in the original ordinance which is why the Commission did not address it. The Commission will use the language in the State Statute which clarifies the R. Davidson suggests re-iterating the Commission’s request in the simplest way possible and adding any clarification that the Council requests. A letter will be sent to the Council clarifying the requested changes and asking that it be placed on the agenda for discussion at the August 6th Council meeting. R. Davidson will write this and get it to J. Brennan in the CM Office by Monday, July 30 for agenda setting. 9. Adjournment Motion to adjourn, W. Rosenfield, 2nd T. Lanier, meeting adjourned at 7:00P.M.