The ethics investigation into Anne Carbone grinds on, and Gordon Tully fires off several emails complaining about the revised ethics code and the executive session that the Carbone investigation is conducting. What’s with his fixation on Carbone?
First there’s this one from 4/24/07:
The previous thread was getting very long, and beginning to move in the direction of a blog. Since I chose my own list of recipients, it really can’t function as a blog. Having sampled the ” yourct.org”, I was disappointed in how quickly things become personal there, plus it is heavily partisan. So I am simply starting up another thread to the same recipients. Please weigh in if you wish to come off the list.
Well Tully is not being honest here. I invited Tully to post his comments about the ethics code revisions. And Tully, it’s yourct.com, not dot org. And what happened. Well, let’s look at the number of comments to this post. 4. One of those 4 was Gordon Tully, whose comment was the third one. It appears Tully never bothered to read my post, because had he, he would have noticed that I called for the ethics panel to be people outside of Norwalk. Clearly, that somehow is a personal and heavily partisan position. But Tully goes on in his email:
My basic point remains: no matter who drafts the code and reviews it, there will always be the taint that they “rigged” it somehow. The only defense against such perception (and again, perception is just as important at content in this legislation), is to make the process as open as possible.
The problem, which I don’t think anyone has solved, is how to make is really open and at the same time keep it efficient. Let’s all think hard about the options. One that comes to mind is to create a wiki to draft the legislation (I know next to nothing about running a wiki, so maybe someone could weigh in on that subject). This is the 21st Century, after all, and maybe for sensitive legislation like this there needs to be a new approach.
Apparently Tully, who never bothered to attend any of the public hearings on the ethics code wants it to be more public? Talk about being an hour late and a dollar short. Well when I first read his email criticism, I dismissed it, he didn’t bother to read anything and was apparently miffed that only one person commented on his comment. That comment merely pointed out that he was on the ZBA and questioned whether a sitting commissioner should be involved in crafting an ethics code that would over see themselves. Not a bad question, I think. But it was one comment. And Tully’s reaction was to pick up his marbles and go back to a private, non public email list to air his concerns. Kinda strange, no? Then he came back later with another email on 4/29/07:
As I understand it, the hearing on Tuesday about an alleged ethics violation by Anne Carbone must be confidential according to the state statutes listed in the agenda. The agenda for the meeting, plus the relevant statutes (with relevant language in boldface), are included in the attached document.
As everyone knows, the alleged ethics violation was the subject of headlines in The Hour when it first was filed. It appears, reading Section 1-82a, that anyone and everyone involved in making or receiving the initial complaint were obligated to maintain confidentiality unless released from this responsibility by Ms. Carbone or her representative.
I would ask Mr. Coffey and Mr. Nolin how they can justify closing to the public a hearing about the alleged violation, when in the first instance they or others involved in receiving the complaint appear to have violated the very statute being used to justify an executive session.
Is not this initial act violating confidentiality in itself a cause for an ethics complaint under state law? If so, to whom does one complain?
In any case, is not the fact that confidentiality has been violated sufficient, perhaps even necessary, cause to open the hearing to the public?
I believe the readers I have copied in this email deserve an answer to my questions, as they are highly relevant to the issue of establishing an independent ethics commission.
Ah well, it is becoming clear that Gordon Tully is really concerned about Carbone’s ethics violation. And of course Tully continues to play loose with the facts, because it was the Diez family that made public the complaint, and Carbone herslef who responded in the newspapers. Patrick Linsey of The Hour offers a nice recap:
In January, Norwalk zoning official Anne Carbone was accused by her former real estate clients of prosecuting a zoning complaint against them after they found a new real estate agent.
…
Carlos and Diane Diez accused Carbone, chairwoman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, of submitting a zoning complaint against them that alleged a room in the couple’s basement containing a refrigerator and sink as well as a washer and dryer constituted a second kitchen.
Carbone has admitted making the complaint and the Diezes said they received a notice requesting inspection of their home several days after they hired a new real estate agent.
Carbone’s employment with Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage ceased the day The Hour first reported the Diezes’ allegations.
After the first zoning inspector found no violation, a second inspection was requested. The Diezes’ attorney Sarah Marshall has told The Hour city Planning and Zoning Director Michael Greene acknowledged Carbone submitted materials to prompt a second inspection. Greene has declined comment, citing the ethics investigation.
Carbone’s attorney has denied his client requested a second inspection.
It seems fairly straight forward that if you are a real estate agent, and sit on the Zoning Board of Appeals, that you shouldn’t go around filing zoning complaints against former clients. Coldwell Banker figured this out in less than a day. But straight forward thinking is not what Gordon Tully wants. He prefers to have a discussion with people who won’t publicly disagree with him. Why he thinks Carbone is worth the effort is odd, but to each his own.
