December 6, 2009 10:42 am

Norwalk BOE Word Math; Rivas Paid By Morris

A long time ago in a public school educational system far away, young students were taught to read source documents. These days the abundance of information makes it somewhat difficult for the discerning student to identify source documents, and shortcuts to information creep in. For instance, just because something is written about here, doesn’t mean that it is the primary source. That’s what links are for.

So when I wrote about the public financing of campaigns yesterday, I linked to source documents to back up my point about questioning the use of public campaign financing on races that are unopposed. Good habits die hard though, and in perusing those source documents I uncovered another story.

What if an employee of the Norwalk Public School District ran for an elected office and won. During that employee’s campaign, they hired people to work on the campaign and paid them a wage for doing so. Let’s say one of those people who were paid wages, also were an elected official. And that person was elected to serve on a board that voted on employment issues for the Norwalk Public School District.

The right thing to do would be for the person who was paid a wage by the employee of the school district to recuse themselves from any discussion or vote on employment issues affecting that employee. Other wise it’s fair to� question that there’s an appearance that there would be a bias in judgment favoring the employee. Of course there can be bias favoring employees without financial relationships, and there’s really nothing legally one can do about that. But the laws are pretty clear that if there’s a financial relationship, then the letter of the law must be followed.

But did it? On 12/1/2008,� Bruce Morris’ publicly financed election campaign paid BOE member $100 in wages (pg25). Bruce Morris’ employment with the BOE was retained after other employees were released in an effort to reduce BOE operating expenses. These BOE employment decisions were discussed starting in May of 2009.

The recent rhetoric by Migdalia Rivas against the transparent communication efforts moved forward by newly elected BOE members certainly take on a new meaning now don’t they? If Rivas took part in discussions concerning the human relations officer, the position Bruce Morris holds with the Norwalk Public schools, and voted on it, then Rivas and the BOE face an interesting question of compliance with the Norwalk ethics code.

ethics anyone

this should be in front of the ethics committee. we will see how they handle it. if ms rivas did not disclose looks like easy violation. also moving forward i guess she cant participate if his job ever comes up in front of boe again. big troubles for the local dems. also is it a state ethics violation if morris used state public monies for campaign workers that decide his job fatee. wow. kinda scandolous. also looking at the list looks like others he gave “campaign” money dont even live in his district. if he used state money for other candidates he should give it back hopefully this will be investigated
Steward

Someday I’ll learn how to read. Got it. It’s on page 25 of 33. $100 in wages for “get out the vote.”

This is interesting. Primary sources are neat. It’s a shame that she could lose so much over $100.

Of course, I said that about a GE co-worker (mid-30′s, young kids, good job) who made a couple of grand with insider trading and ended up in jail.

Did the board minutes improve enough to read what occured? Some more research — thanks.

NorwalkSpectator

Morris paid Rivas? Say it ain’t so, Joe!

Well, I’m astounded, simply astounded!!!!!

Unless the Board members actually discussed the fact that Rivas was paid by Morris during the meeting, as is apparently indicated on page 25 of the source document that Turfie indicated, it would not be included in the minutes of a Board meeting. The minutes are not verbatim transcripts of the meeting and were never intended to be. They are summaries of what happened. The Board actually audio tapes the full Board meetings, so if it was actually verbalized, it would be on the tape, but I have a hard time believing that someone would actually discuss a payment from a staff member at a full Board meeting.

If the individual position was discussed and voted on as a single item, then it would be recorded in the minutes how Ms. Rivas voted. However, I do not believe that the various positions were voted on individually either last year or the year before. The budget discussions were held in a public forum, items were cut and reinstated, positions were cut and reinstated to achieve a balance and then the entire budget was voted on as one motion. I do not believe that Ms. Rivas recused herself from the overall budget vote.

Another complicating fact this past year, from what I understand, was that the staff used a laptop to project the numbers onto a screen. I was not at the meeting, so only know what I was told. Therefore, as the changes were made to the budget, the figures on the screen would immediate reflect that. Frequently Board members and staff referred to things by their line numbers, rather than their descriptions. To actually “see” the changes in the budget happening would require that the meeting be video taped, which I do not believe it was.

This is in no way a defense of Ms. Rivas, as I believe there is a good possibility of her not recusing herself on the vote, but also a warning that if there was an ethics violation and it is discussed too much in public, it could affect how the Ethics Committee (do they even have one?) would handle the information. And sadly, from other Ethics investigations that I have seen, technically, the Ethics Committees usually only have the power to advise the overseeing entity (who would that be in this case? The BOE?) as to whether an ethics violation has occurred. They usually (operative word here is “usually”) don’t have the jurisdiction to levy any disciplinary action.

On one hand, if someone filed an ethics complaint, it would have to be investigated. On the other hand, even if the ethics committee decided a violation was committed, what would ultimately happen? A slap on the hand? In one way, it would be good to have the paper trail for the next election and the next budget. So it would be important to weigh options here before deciding what to do.

bruce morris is fleecing us

it appears that if she took money from rev bruce ( a benefit) didnt disclose and voted on something for rev brucie, it is a ethics violation. this is easy. also she cannot vote on anything regarding rev brucies tenuous job situation. this makes it even worse and stinks to high heaven. bruce morris is fleecing us. maybe the state ethics commissin will investegate.
OLD TIMER

Don’t bet on anybody getting too excited about one $100 payment in December of 2008, duly reported in January of 2009. She is no longer on the board, so nobody cares what anyone here thinks about her ethics. An ongoing financial relationship at the same time cutting jobs, including possibly his, was being discussed and voted on, would be a conflict, but one little payment for work she did for his campaign ?? If you really believe he bribed her in December to keep his job, you should take your theory to the FBI. They love documented municipal corruption cases.
We have here a demonstration of why many highly qualified people would never consider getting involved in politics. I would probably be a bit annoyed at anyone who suggested I could be bought for that kind of money. I guess you have to be pretty thick-skinned.

turfgrrl

Old Timer: Migdalia Rivas is still on the board.

OLD TIMER

I stand corrected. The May 2009 BOE minutes do not reflect any discussion or voting on Morris’s job.
bruce morris is fleecing us

rivas still on board. also the city ethics code says anything more than 50 bucks so yes, they care about a little old $ 100. no one said it was a bribe, but it looks like it could be unethical behavior under the ethics law. maybe mr colarossi will look into this
cleanitup

i dont care where this goes. it smells fishy
OLD TIMER

Nobody else used the word “bribe”, but the inference was that she took money from Morris and later may have voted on a budget in which his continued employment in the system was an issue. That money would have, could have, might have, influenced her vote. Taking any benefit to do something you would not otherwise do, like vote on keeping him employed, is bribery. Bribery, giving or taking, is a crime in addition to being an ethics violation. If there is really an ethics violation here, there is also a serious federal crime. You can’t have it both ways, either you are accusing them both of a felony federal crime, or you are not, and owe them both an apology. At some point, political attack becomes criminal accusation very quickly. Both her vote and his campaign’s payment to her are on the public record. Seems strange that they would do that, on the record, if they were doing something illegal and/or unethical.
Remember what they did to Donnie Sellers when he accepted a “campaign contribution” from an undercover cop after agreeing to help that person get a pistol permit? That was a state criminal case, and the federal law requires less evidence.
Here is the petinent language from the Federal Law
18 U.S.C. � 666 : US Code – Section 666: Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds
(2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of
value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent
of an organization or of a State, local or Indian tribal
government, or any agency thereof, in connection with any
business, transaction, or series of transactions of such
organization, government, or agency involving anything of value
of $5,000 or more;
BUT (see below)
(c) This section does not apply to bona fide salary, wages, fees,
or other compensation paid, or expenses paid or reimbursed, in the
usual course of business.
I don’t think you have any case against them and owe them an apology.
concerned

no one deserves an apology. what is deserved to the hard working taxpaying public is a full investigation. looks like the parents and public could use an apology. this really doesnt look right and unsure how anyone in their right mind could think this is approporiate
turfgrrl

Norwalk Spectator has identified some of the problems in proving what transpired at the BOE meeting. Other than Corda singling our the position by title, I’m not sure that Brice Morris was mentioned. However, the Code of Ethics does deal with the issue of political campaigns and payment succinctly:

D. No officer or employee shall be required to participate in political campaigns for candidates, parties, political organizations or public issues. Nothing in this Code of Ethics shall preclude an officer or employee from seeking elective office and campaigning in connection therewith or in voluntarily participating in any political campaigns, parties, political organizations or public issues.

So volunteering is fine. But getting paid for it is addressed here:

An officer or employee in the course of his or her work for the City shall not personally solicit or accept any gift, form of service, compensation or any item of property of a value exceeding $50. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this subsection does not prohibit the following:

I’m not going to list the exceptions here, because they don’t apply, but here’s the link to the code book section on the Ethics ordinance.

I don’t see how this isn’t a technical violation. And once you arrive there, then you have to ask what’s the point of having a code that is not enforced? Which brings us back to the theme of the last few weeks, doesn’t it?
NorwalkSpectator

In reading Turfie’s comments, it occurred to me that another thing to factor into this whole mess is that the budget goes through several iterations, some of them orchestrated the BOE, some of them by the administration. Quite truthfully, it’s going to be difficult to figure out when Mr. Morris’s job was taken off the negotiating table, who was actually place the position in the “Saved by the Bell” category, or why. Murky at best. But there are two pieces of the puzzle that are clearly documented, the first being the document that Turfie cited and the second being the fact that Ms. Rivas did in fact, vote for the final budget. Whether an ethics violation occurred or if it is a federal crime is for the legal eagles to battle out. They are the ones that will ultimately decide whether – as OldTimer so aptly put it – “That money would have, could have, might have, influenced her vote. Taking any benefit to do something you would not otherwise do, like vote on keeping him employed, is bribery.” Gonna be interesting, folks. Fasten your seat belts, could be stormy weather ahead.
Wasted

Why are there assistant principals at the elementary level?
What a tremendous WASTE of taxpayer money.
OLD TIMER

TG:
When you are talking about an officer, in the course of his or her work for the city, I don’t believe it was the intent to prohibit casual employment for a political campaign. Now, if an employee, on City time, worked and got paid for working on a campaign, that is on obvious conflict. That same employee, on his own time, probably not. But an elected member of the BOE on her own time ? You don’t suggest it would be a conflict if she had worked and got paid on somebody else’s camapaign ? (like Cafero, for example) The issue seems to be her working on Morris’s campaign when she held a position where she might have to vote on his continued employment. I still think that is a bit of a stretch, but I am not on the ethics commission.
turfgrrl

Old Timer: No, I’m not singling out the political campaign aspect of it. Just that a financial relationship of $100 exists between a BOE member and and employee of the BOE. Morris could have hired Rivas to mow his lawn and it would be the same issue.
OLD TIMER

I understand, but I have my doubts about calling it an ethics violation. It was not “in the course of her work for the City” anymore than mowing his lawn would be. The fact that she is a part-time, unpaid, elected officer may narrow the restrictions on what she does on her own time. In retrospect, it may not have been the best judgement, especially if she knew there would be a vote on eleminating his position (I doubt it). I still don’t believe it rises to the level of an ethics violation unless you believe there was a quid-pro-quo and he bought her vote for $100. If that were true, they should both go to prison. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples of where an employee of the City does a side job for somebody else in the City government with no thought of any effect on future employment, and nobody even thinks of a possible ethics violation. How many City employees have side businesses ?

turfgrrl

Old Timer: If the speed limit is 55 m.p.h. is it a speeding violation to drive at 56 m.p.h.? The ethics rule is that no person elected or appointed can accept gifts or wages of anyone appearing before then in excess of $50. It’s pretty clear. An employee of the BOE that actually speaks to the BOE as part of his job is before the BOE. Either enforce the code, or abandon it. Which incidentally is the same position I hold for all laws and regulations that are inherently unenforceable. Police officer driving while checking the license plates of the vehicle in front of him is. Driving while distracted anyone?

OLD TIMER

TG:
Now you are getting silly. You would be the first to scream about ridiculous unreasonable enforcement if any police officer actually gave you a speeding ticket for 56 in a 55mph zone. If it was all that simple and no common sense judgement was involved, a computer could handle mailing speeding tickets to the operators of every car clocked at anything over the speed limit, and we could lay off half the state police dept. Have you driven on the parkway or turnpike recently? The police are looking for aggresive driving, not everybody who exceeds the posted limits. Average speed on the 55 MPH parkway, on a nice sunday afternoon, when traffic is light, runs about 67-68MPH. I know you can’t be serious about police officer’s distracted driving. Police officers are expected to multi-task all the time and are specifically exempt from many of the MV laws they are expected to enforce. It was easier when all they had to do was ask over the radio who owned a particular plate. Now, I understand, they type in the number on a computer. Distraction, certainly, should they be prosecuted for driving while distracted ? Be serious. Should they first stop the car, then run the plate, or should they know and ask for assistance before the try to stop the car if it is stolen or wanted for some serious crime ?
Getting back to Morris/Riva conflict of interest, as I said, maybe, but a bit of a stretch. Unless there is some evidence to suggest the $100 was intended to influence her performance (vote) as a member of the BOE, no REASONABLE person would pursue an ethic violation claim against either, or both of them. Unless, there is some other agenda beyond a simple concern for the purity of the process and the ethics of all involved in any phase of City government.
Somebody here recently made a comment suggesting that somebody must have gotten some benefit from a lawyer representing a developer who got a favorable, not very popular, decision from the Zoning board recently, and you were properly offended. How different is that from your suggestion that there is an ethics violation in this case ? No law is perfectly written to cover all circumstances. That is why we carefully select law enforcement people to exercise common sense judgement in a reasonable pursuit of justice. Going after these two over a $100 wage payment for service rendered to a political campaign is not reasonable. Now, if it was a lot more money, I might be inclined to agree with you that it merited investigation to see if the payment went beyond reasonable for the work performed. If it did, then an ethics violation would be a distinct possibility.
When can we expect to see similar meticulous scrutiny of campaign expenses of other candidates, possibly even from another party ?

turfgrrl

OldTimer: Of course I’d be outraged on a ticket for 56 in a 55. However the law clearly states that 56 in a 55 is a violation. That’s my point. It’s what the law says, and I’m a big fan of don’t write laws that are essentially unenforceable. Having driven in France recently, I have come to respect the outcome of having the camera speed traps as speed enforcement. On the roads, the areas are clearly marked, warning you the driver that there’s an automated camera hooked up to nail you for speeding. They are known, and accordingly drivers speed between them, and slow down to pass through them, which forces drivers to pay attention to the road, the road signs which is the point of speeding laws isn’t it? To reduce reckless driving?

I only point out the distracted driver law, because for one, I’m against it. I think it’s unenforceable since what a driver is doing in the car is not the problem. It’s how they drive. And I don’t care how a driver arrives at reckless driving, the behavior of reckless driving should be looked at. So, sudden and frequent lane changes, un-signaled, tailgating, excessive speeding, all should be enforced. If however, I’m driving while chatting on my cell phone, slurping my slurpee, and fiddling with my GPS and radio, yet somehow driving while following all the rules of the road, then let me be.

Since, as you point out, police officers are expected to multi-task all the time, then I say even further evidence that the law on districted driving is stupid.

But getting back to Rivas and Morris, the law is the law. If no one is going to enforce it, then why have it? And for the record, yes it is a fairly important issue to discuss what a board member should do when there is a financial relationship with someone that appears before them. In zoning, commission members recuse themselves. It’s not that hard to follow the ethics code. Why are you making excuses for Rivas? Would it have been so difficult to recuse herself? On the Common Council, council members recuse themselves all the time for the same situations. And yes, that means for amounts as little as $50 and sometimes even where there is no direct financial benefit. (Such as being employed by a firm that is itself engaged in business with the entity before the council/commission.) Why should one person hold themselves above the law? This is one of those fundamental issues.

Again, the Rivas/Morris violation was something I discovered when doing the due diligence in writing about the public campaign financing story. As I wrote then, Morris returned money to the fund, which is just as important in the context of the story as that he took money from the fund. Should someone look at all campaign disclosure forms to see who was paid? Sure why not.

OLD TIMER

You know, a distracted driving charge is a good argument for two-person patrol cars as safer for the officers and for the driving public they share the road with..

turfgrrl

old timer: Just like car 54.

OLD TIMER

TG:
I am not making excuses for Rivas, or Morris. I am suggesting that there is not much of an ethics violation, in this case. If there is an ethics violation, the way to handle it does not require her to recuse, it only requires her to make the financial realtionship known. She may have done that, for all we know. For this particular relationship, I doubt if it ever occured to her that anybody would ever think there might be an ethics violation. I am not saying she was right, but, if anybody takes it to the ethics commission, I doubt if anything will come of it.
If there is anything to suggest an agreement to vote a certain way, they should both go to prison. I doubt such an agreement existed, based on one $100 wage payment. If you feel strongly about it, bring it to the attention of the ethics people, but don’t expect them to get very excited.
In France, apparently, their law allows them to have computers find the violations and issue tickets. Our law presently requires proof of operation, not just proof of ownership, for speeding tickets. Enforcement, almost anywhere in this country, allows for less strict enforcement than ticketing 56 mph violations in a 55mph zone and only the people who are unreasonably out of conforming with the traffic flow get tickets. Cops won’t tell you, but most departments have policy that works to only ticket those who are a certain amount over the posted limit. That word, reasonable, is very important in most law enforcement practice.
OLD TIMER

TG:
From time to time you voice the opinion that strict, or at least stricter, law enforcement would be a good thing. To some extent, I agree, stricter enforcement on quality of life crime, like graffiti, minor property damage, and littering, sends a message about a community and most people feel safer in a community where it is obvious there is a real effort on minor crimes. Criminals are not all stupid, and they also get the message a well policed community is not a good plave to practice their trade, like burglary, and robbery. Up to a point, everybody benefits, except the crooks. Beyond a certain, hard to define point, however, too strict enforcement gets opressive and makes any community an inhospitable place to live. The key word is reasonable. We are all nostalgic for a time when kids were brought home for their parents to deal with for minor offenses, and they were dealt with. In small towns, cops knew just about everybody, and everybody knew all the cops. Guliani demonstrated in New York that stricter, but not unreasonable, enforcement benefits everybody except the criminals. He also spent more on law enforcement and the department swelled to the highest numbers ever. It all cost money and not everybody is willing to spend the money on police, even though they are a tiny part of a City budget.(less than 7% in Norwalk)
It is human nature to want stricter enforcement of the laws our neighbors break, but not too strict for the laws we break. If Rilling retires tomorrow, the next chief will only be someone the administration trusts not to be too strong a public advocate for the police budget.
turfgrrl

Old Timer: I struggle with this issue all the time, I’m not one for a whole lot of rules. The less the better imho. But when you have them, you should enforce them. And they should be clear and understandable.

The political scientist in me recognizes that human behavior is governed by a complicated set of influences. Focusing on the low level quality of life crimes, that is the “broken window” theory, supports the effect of crime prevention. For those I advocate stricter enforcement. If the data doesn’t support the efficacy of that approach then I’d be looking for something else. Policy makers should be encouraged to try at the risk of sometimes failing instead of just repeating the same old stuff that doesn’t work but is politically expedient. I point to all the anti-drug and drunk driving programs out there that can’t point to a single study that shows they work.