YourCT.com header image 2

Norwalk: Bad Judgement Day At The Ethics Corral


by turfgrrl


May 2nd, 2007 · 58 Comments

In the end, Anne Carbone is guilty of bad judgment, and her court was her employer. The ethics panel, comprised of Common Council Members Carvin Hilliard, Mick Coffey and Rick McQuaid voted to dismiss an ethics complaint after the original complainants withdrew the complaint. From Matt “Mad Max” Breslow’s Norwalk Advocate article:

At the start of the hearing, Cassone said the committee had nothing to act on because the complaint had been withdrawn. He said that proceeding without the Diezes’ participation would force Carbone to defend herself against “vapor” and violate her due process right to confront her accusers.

“I don’t have any witnesses of those allegations to confront tonight,” Cassone said.

Committee Chairman Michael Coffey asked Cassone if he could cite case law to support his position. Cassone said he couldn’t and would present his client’s defense “under protest.”

Carbone represented the Diezes from September to December 2005 while at Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage, which announced in December 2006 - after the ethics complaint became public - that she no longer worked there.

Over the past five months, Carbone’s reputation has been sullied and her ability to earn a living as a real estate agent was “completely taken away from her” while she awaited resolution of the complaint, Cassone said.

The Diezes had an illicit kitchenette when they spoke to Carbone about representing them, but she said they must remove the cooking equipment and seek any necessary permits for work they performed in the room, Cassone said.

Let’s stop the narrative here and ask why didn’t Carbone file the anonymous violation at this point?


The couple removed the equipment and Carbone accepted the listing, advertising the room as a wet bar, the attorney said. He said the Diezes found a buyer for their home but decided not to sell because of a family crisis.

When the couple hired another agent to sell their house last year, Carbone noticed the listing advertised a kitchenette and assumed the illegal cooking equipment had been returned, Cassone said.

The Diezes have said the listing was erroneous and subsequently changed.

Carbone asked the zoning department whether the Diezes had a permit for a kitchenette and found they didn’t, Cassone said. That information was public, and pictures of the house were posted on the Internet in the sale attempt, he said.

Hell hath no fury like a real estate broker scorned … or something like that.


Carbone filed an anonymous complaint - which any citizen can do - in May 2006 at the zoning department, Cassone said.

The complaint spurred two zoning inspections, the second of which called the room an illegal second kitchen. The Diezes appealed the inspector’s finding in December but lost and took the case to state Superior Court.

Zoning Inspector Aline Rochefort last night told the Ethics Committee that Carbone did not pressure her to make the second inspection. The second inspection occurred because the first, conducted by someone else, did not address the subject of the complaint, Rochefort said.

“Ms. Carbone supplied information,” Cassone said. “She cannot and did not make the zoning inspector do anything.”

Planning and Zoning Director Michael Greene said city officials routinely file anonymous complaints with his office.

Maybe people who sit on boards, commissions and the common council shouldn’t be allowed to file anonymous complaints. Coldwell Banker realized instantly that having a real estate agent file zoning violations on former clients is just bad business. It’s bad for the ZBA too, since people who disagree with a finding of a zoning violation will end up appealing it. And therefor will end up before the ZBA. If the complaint was anonymous, how does anyone know whether the ZBA member should recuse them self?

Update: According to the Hour:

Rochefort said Carbone submitted between 50 and 60 zoning complaints — “a small stack of paper” — over a period of months.

For full disclosure, I currently sit as a member of the Zoning Commission.

source:Norwalk Advocate, Ethics charge dropped, May 2 2007

source: The Hour, Ethics committee dismisses complaint against city official, By PATRICK R. LINSEY, May 2 2007

Tags: Local · Norwalk

58 Responses so far “Norwalk: Bad Judgement Day At The Ethics Corral”


Pages: [1] 2 » Show All



  • 1 anonymous // May 2, 2007 at 8:51 am

    Ms. Carbone’s real problems are with the Board of Realtors. It’s hard to believe Coldwell Banker would open itself up to the liabilities of slander, breach of contract, wrongful discharge or what have you if there wasn’t an issue with her conduct.

  • 2 anonymous // May 2, 2007 at 9:50 am

    Anne Carbone should have resigned and not made such a big deal of her stupid plot to gin up more real estate deals for herself. All of the zoning violations she turned in were from houses on the market listed by other agents. I disagree with the ethics panel dismissing this case. It’s time that we get a modern ethics code in place to avoid the self serving that goes around.

  • 3 Anonymous // May 2, 2007 at 10:00 am

    I’m afraid I have to say you have it wrong turfgirl. I attended last night’s hearing and fully expected to hear at least some murky facts regarding Ms. Carbone’s alleged wrongdoings. There were none. The facts completely supported Ms. Carbone’s version of the facts - the testimony given by all three p&z staff members, the real estate listing agreement signed by the Diazes with their second agent listing the house as having a second kitchen, etc.

  • 4 anonymous // May 2, 2007 at 10:02 am

    Perhaps the ethics committee and the board of realtors prefers the way many (not all) realtors currently operate — not reporting illegal apartments and telling clients that “it’s grandfathered in” or some such malarkey that skirts the law. Did you miss the part in the article where the current listing agent asked Carbone to use her influence to “fix” the zoning violation for her clients? And that Carbone refused? Seems Carbone is being pilloried for doing exactly what ethics would demand. Was someone pulling Coffey’s strings saying “get Carbone to resign from ZBA?”

    Coffey may not like Ann Carbone but that’s no reason to hold a botched ethics investigation wtih a (barely) hidden political agenda. Coffey apparently has a mental list of people who have “offended” him. So I wonder who’s next on the ethics hit list for Commandant Coffey?

    Clearly, we need a new ethics code and an independent ethics committee. Get the politics out of the process.

  • 5 Old Blue Meanie // May 2, 2007 at 10:10 am

    Who’s next on the hit list? Refer to “Pagano Porn” threads here. Coffey’s agenda is all too plain to see. Anyone who thinks otherwise, in this election year, is naive.

  • 6 Just The Facts // May 2, 2007 at 10:14 am

    The Diezes filed a complaint with the city, and so the panel had to go through the hearing. Mike Coffey voted against proceeding with the hearing when the complaint was dropped but was voted down by Rick McQuaid and Carvin Hilliard at the last meeting, and Carbones and Diezes attorneys kept adjourning the hearing. They worked out a deal, that’s how lawyers work.

  • 7 Anonymous // May 2, 2007 at 10:21 am

    to #6 - if you had actually gone to the meeting last night instead of “wednesday morning quarterbacking” you would have heard Ms. Carbone’s attorney clearly state several times that there was no deal between the Diezes and Ms. Carbone to withdraw the complaint, and in fact, they have had no communication since last fall when the Diezes contacted her to “try and get her to use her influence on the ZBA to allow their illegal kitchen”. I think it is the Diezes who are going to be sorry for their slanderous statements in the press. I guess we should call you “Just the Facts as You Want Them to Be”!

  • 8 Amused // May 2, 2007 at 10:22 am

    Who care’s Old Blue Meanie? You dems are a laughing stock in this town, flapping your gums over guys who don’t show up for work, or stick crowns on their heads and think they are above the law. You really think the rest of us see a difference in Knopp, Coffey, Miklave, Wells, Carbone, Wall, Wrenn, Burgess, Watts or any of the other people that seem to think the world revolves around them?

  • 9 Not Amused // May 2, 2007 at 10:41 am

    Don’t be putting progressives like Wrenn in with those republicrats.

  • 10 anonymousObserver // May 2, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Get some perspective folks. Most voters don’t care about this issue, the Pagano’s thing, the histerical commission or a whole slew of other matters that get Knopp/Well’s nightie in a knot.

    They do care if their streets are paved, if their homes are flooding, if their taxes are reasonable and if their tax dollars are well spent, especially by the BOE. “Inside baseball” is not on the minds of the average voter. The 2007 elections in Norwalk will be a non-event. Who would like to bet?

  • 11 turfgrrl // May 2, 2007 at 11:14 am

    anonymous # 3: I based my conclusions on the following scenario: If I as a computer geek observe illegal software installed on a client’s computer do I:

    A. Report the software piracy to the SIAA (reporting agency)
    B. Tell the client that they should not have pirated software and suggest alternatives.
    C. Do nothing

    My answer is B.

    If I happen to sit on the SIAA should it change my answer?

    I think it does. With a caveat. Before I look at the clients computer I think I have an obligation to say that I sit on an agency that prosecutes people for having pirated software. It is then up to the client to determine if they are ok with that.

    And then I have to go with A. Because now I’m not just acting as a computer techie, but as an agency flunkie.

    That’s why I say Carbone used bad judgement. I also think that if you are on a board or commission you shouldn’t be making anonymous complaints in the first place. Make the complaint, sure, but put your name on it.

  • 12 anonymous // May 2, 2007 at 11:29 am

    Wow. Remind me not to hire you, turfgirl, to work on my computer. I would hope anyone I hired to work with me on my computer would advise me which software was pirated and then work with me to get it legal before reporting me to the “SIAA” just like Ms. Carbone did with the Diezes when she originally listed the property. Too bad they put the ovens back and created this problem for themselves.

  • 13 turfgrrl // May 2, 2007 at 11:38 am

    My point anonymous 12, was that my role on the SIAA would supersede my role as your friendly neighborhood techie. Just like an off duty cop still has an obligation to act upon a crime. But in effect, if you are using Microsft as your OS, your pirated software is getting reported. It’s just that you don’t know that. I don’t think that’s fair. This discussion we having btw, goes back to the core principals of the fourth amendment, which
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    So that disclosure about how someone gets access to your computer, or home, does make a world a difference.

  • 14 Incurious George // May 2, 2007 at 11:47 am

    Big Brother is watching…

  • 15 anonymous // May 2, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    How Libertarian of you, Turfgirl. That government governs best that governs least.

  • 16 turfgrrl // May 2, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    anonymous 15: Yep. I’m a big fan of small efficient government that ensures an even playing field for a healthy citizens engaged in capitalistic endeavors. That should cover parts of the big three in political philosophy.
  • 17 Madashell // May 2, 2007 at 12:26 pm

    Getting back to the ethics thread… anyone see the newspaper ads for CL&P that Moccia has been endorsing them in? Even if he hasn’t been paid, it’s free publicity. Do we want our public officials engaging in that type of practice, whether it’s endorsing CL&P or The (Amateur) Hour?

  • 18 Anonymous // May 2, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    We have a huge illegal housing problem in Norwalk with illegal kitchens, bathrooms and apartments because of landlords who don’t follow the rules, lack of city enforcement and many realtors who are complicit in supporting these illegal conditions. As an investor who follows city zoning in my properties, I constantly see multi-families where the realtor says that you can add back the kitchen that was removed or close-off the door when a sale is complete - wink, wink, nod, nod! (the sellers will even throw in the old appliances and cabinets with the sale!)
    Where is the Board of Realtors “Ethics” on this issue? Where is the complaint against the second realtor who listed the Diezes property as having a second kitchen - the Diezes knew it was illegal at this point and it’s hard to believe the realtor didn’t know as well.

  • 19 Anonymous // May 2, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    Is it really a realtor problem? Sounds like a home owner problem.

  • 20 just1guysopinion // May 2, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    I agree with some of these comments. I think at the end of the day Ms. Carbone exercised bad judgement. Does she have an obligation to report known violations as a sitting member of a land use commission? She certainly is in a unique position as realtor and land use commissioner. But I find it very interesting that she has filed between 50-60 zoning complaints over the period of months. How did she discover these alleged violations? Did she discover them in her position as realtor?

  • 21 anonymous // May 2, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    This attacking of Ann Carbone is certainly giving the “let’s just look the other way” crowd a boost. Have you no pride in your city? Look around…there’s still good stuff here…if you don’t give it all away to greed and self-interest. How soul numbing it must be to think that way. How unpleasant.

  • 22 Anonymous // May 2, 2007 at 8:45 pm

    I think the realtor’s “code of ethics” should require a realtor to report any suspected violations of zoning or occupancy issues - maybe it already does. But, a “board of realtors ethics committee” is kind of like having Halliburton run the defense department…oh right, they do run the defense department…never mind.

  • 23 anonymous // May 6, 2007 at 10:01 pm

    test

  • 24 anonymous // May 10, 2007 at 7:35 am

    The most disturbing aspect of this case isn’t whether or not Ms. Carbone had an ethics violation, but the city’s handling of this case. The politicians have blamed it on an oudated ethics code. However, at the hearing, run by Coffey, he made no attempt whatsoever, to even pretend that this was an unbiased proceeding designed to get at the facts in the case. He just kept saying over and over how “sorry he was there was no plaintiff anymore to move the case forward” and how “disturbed he was at the facts in the case” even though no facts were presented supporting the Diezes claims. The council members never brought up the issue that Turfgirl puts forth regarding the potential conflict of interest issue. Their handling of this hearing was so appalling it was hard to believe this was a hearing being held in America.

  • 25 Ethics anyone? // May 11, 2007 at 10:31 am

    Turfgirl,
    Wonder why you didn’t post this story about Herb Grant? While he and Coffey are busy “investigating”
    ethics problems that are non-existent, here is one of their own making. The Jackie Robinson Foundation has demanded that HErb Grant stop associating his for-the-ptofit-of-the- Grant- family event, with the truly great JAckie Robinson Jazz event. This was a fund-raiser where all the proceeds went to minority scholarships.
    The mayor finally signed an agreement with Grant that gives all the proceeds to him, meaning the city gets nothing. There is no mention of scholarships in the agreement, or the phantom “non-profit” which supposedly is to get the money from the event. If this isn’t a conflict of interest, i.e. a councilman’s family profiting from the no-bid use of city park land, then what is?
    By Matt Breslow
    Staff Writer

    May 11, 2007

    NORWALK - Before the first note has been played, the Norwalk Jazz Festival found itself in discord with the Jackie Robinson Foundation, which accused the event’s producer of wrongly associating the planned music performances with the nonprofit group.

    Herbert Grant, president and chief executive officer of DMG and Associates LLC, the Norwalk-based company behind next month’s festival, yesterday denied the allegation.

    “The only thing we ever did was give the recognition to the Robinson family for having the foresight to start a program many years ago - and that was specifically called An Afternoon of Jazz,” Grant said. “It was not called a festival.”

    However, he said he told festival marketing consultants to stop referring to An Afternoon of Jazz in promotional literature earlier this year because of concerns about people mistakenly believing the two events were related.

    The Jackie Robinson Foundation, named for the late baseball pioneer, held An Afternoon of Jazz at Norwalk’s Cranbury Park until 2001.

    The Norwalk Jazz Festival, which Grant hopes will become an annual event, is scheduled June 23 at Veterans Memorial Park.

    In a letter to Grant this week, New York City attorney Robert Sherman, who represents the Jackie Robinson Foundation, said festival literature contains “false statements and misrepresentations” about the foundation and festival.

    The letter cites marketing materials that call An Afternoon of Jazz “the precursor of the Norwalk Jazz Festival” and state the foundation’s event “outgrew its Cranbury Park location.”

    The end of An Afternoon of Jazz “left many loyals disappointed,” the festival Web site states. “Relocating the event to Veterans Park overcomes this dilemma.”

    The Web site states that Robinson would have been 88 last January.

    When told that the Web site included references to An Afternoon of Jazz yesterday, Grant said he would have them removed.

    Sherman’s letter states, “We insist that (the festival) immediately cease all false and misleading statements . . . so that it is clear that there is no association whatsoever between” the festival and foundation.

    Robinson and his wife, Rachel, began hosting a jazz fundraiser benefiting civil rights groups at their North Stamford home in 1963. Jackie Robinson died in 1972, his wife formed the foundation, and the musical event continued, moving to Cranbury Park in 1986. The popular concert, which attracted jazz legends such as Ella Fitzgerald and Dizzy Gillespie, ended when corporate sponsorships dried up.

    Grant, a Norwalk Common Council member, said he only cited an Afternoon of Jazz in festival literature to credit the Robinsons with starting an annual jazz event in the area. He said he invited Rachel Robinson to the festival to honor her but received no response.

    Grant said he will send the foundation a reply stating that the festival’s marketing materials did not constitute an infringement.

    “At no time, in any publicity or news story, has there been an association with the name of the Jackie Robinson Foundation and/or the . . . Robinson family,” Grant said. “We have established the first annual Norwalk Jazz Festival.”

    - Tickets are available online at www.norwalkjazzfestival.com and at Patriot, Fairfield County Savings, Webster and Commerce banks.

    Copyright (c) 2007, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.

    ——————–

    This article originally appeared at:
    norwalkadvocate

  • 26 Truth to Power // May 11, 2007 at 11:10 am

    Good point. Just more proof of the bias evident on this blog. Turfie gets to control the dialogue, must be fun to be on a power trip like that. She’s even admitted as much in past postings.

    Odd that despite Grant’s claims that the web site will have references removed to “An Afternoon of Jazz”, the press release page on the Jazz Festival’s web site still claims:

    “The precursor of the Norwalk Jazz Festival, the Jackie Robinson Annual Afternoon in Jazz event sold-out during the 26 years it was held. Growing in size from several hundred to several thousand attendees the event outgrew its Cranbury Park location. Developed by the late, great baseball hall-of-fame and his wife Rachel - the end of the annual event in 2000 left many loyal’s disappointed. Relocating the event to Veterans Park overcomes this dilemma. Jackie Robinson would have been 88 years old on January 31, 2007.”

    Site page is at http://www.norwalkjazzfestival.com/press_releases.html.

    Grant’s plans are just another example of the cronyism in “Two-Face” Coffey’s council and the attempts to cash in on the public property, like “Behind Your Back” Bondi’s efforts to get approval for a miniature golf course and ampitheatre. Hmm, wonder who an ampitheatre would benefit? Certainly not anything like a Jazz Festival.

    The neighborhood opponents are on top of this issue, with a website at http://www.savevetspark.com. The Common Council Rec & Parks Committee is holding a public hearing on May 16 at City Hall from 6-8pm.

    Did anyone see the editorial in this morning’s Advocate regarding the need for DEP testing for contamination at Veteran’s Park? At least some of the media in the area is keeping relevant issues in the public eye.

    Hopefully, between the environmental concerns, the fact that the City seems hell-bent on violating the deed restrictions included by the original owners on the donation of the property to the City, and the obvious sleazy back-room dealing among the Common Council parties involved, this issue will be decided by residents of Norwalk that it benefits only private interests, not public ones.

  • 27 AnonNorwalk // May 11, 2007 at 11:22 am

    Ok, so the marketing people obviously made a huge mistake and rightfully so the Robinson family should request that all association with the foundation cease but, what has that got to do with the festival being unethical. The following is from the The NJF Scholarship Foundation, Corp website: I do believe that false advertising is a something that Herb Grant nor any other council member would engage in. This foundation is not for minorities only. It allows children of all backgrounds to pursue their dreams in music education.

    The Foundation
    The NJF Scholarship Foundation, Corp enables talented young musicians in Norwalk, CT to pursue their dreams of becoming professional artists through financial support. The Foundation opens doors by providing cash for music education while enrolled in a college/university degree program or professional training program in their artistic discipline.

    The nonprofit education organization was founded in 2007 by the Grant family. Their vision is to help to fill the tremendous void in arts education left by the lack of sufficient music scholarships. Their commitment is to offer Norwalk’s most promising young musicians college level training by America’s jazz masters and to support public school-based jazz education programs for young people in Norwalk.

    Funding and Scholarship Awards

    Funding for the NJF Scholarship Foundation, Corp comes primarily from supporters of the Norwalk Jazz Festival, its Sponsors and Contributors.

    The NJF Scholarship Foundation, Corp Award Committee makes awards on the basis of merit and need combined. The total amount of aid provided depends on the student’s artistic promise and school record, and on the financial circumstances of the student and his or her family. To apply for financial aid, new students should complete the NJF Scholarship Foundation Application by June 30th.

    Students receiving financial assistance must maintain good academic standing and satisfactory progress in accordance with the standards set forth by the NJF Scholarship Foundation, Corp.

    The NJF Scholarship Foundation, Corp does not discriminate against applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, political beliefs, national origin or disability.

  • 28 Truth to Power // May 11, 2007 at 11:36 am

    #25 - Good point. Just more proof of the bias evident on this blog. Turfie gets to control the dialogue, must be fun to be on a power trip like that. She’s even admitted as much in past postings.

    Odd that despite Grant’s claims that the web site will have references removed to “An Afternoon of Jazz”, the press release page on the Jazz Festival’s web site still claims:

    “The precursor of the Norwalk Jazz Festival, the Jackie Robinson Annual Afternoon in Jazz event sold-out during the 26 years it was held. Growing in size from several hundred to several thousand attendees the event outgrew its Cranbury Park location. Developed by the late, great baseball hall-of-fame and his wife Rachel - the end of the annual event in 2000 left many loyal’s disappointed. Relocating the event to Veterans Park overcomes this dilemma. Jackie Robinson would have been 88 years old on January 31, 2007.”

    Site page is at http://www.norwalkjazzfestival.com/press_releases.html.

    Grant’s plans are just another example of the cronyism in “Two-Face” Coffey’s council and the attempts to cash in on the public property, like “Behind Your Back” Bondi’s efforts to get approval for a miniature golf course and ampitheatre. Hmm, wonder who an ampitheatre would benefit? Certainly not anything like a Jazz Festival.

    The neighborhood opponents are on top of this issue, with a website at http://www.savevetspark.com. The Common Council Rec & Parks Committee is holding a public hearing on May 16 at City Hall from 6-8pm.

    Did anyone see the editorial in this morning’s Advocate regarding the need for DEP testing for contamination at Veteran’s Park? At least some of the media in the area is keeping relevant issues in the public eye.

    Hopefully, between the environmental concerns, the fact that the City seems hell-bent on violating the deed restrictions included by the original owners on the donation of the property to the City, and the obvious sleazy back-room dealing among the Common Council parties involved, this issue will be decided by residents of Norwalk that it benefits only private interests, not public ones.

  • 29 Inside Roman Leak // May 11, 2007 at 11:41 am

    How can Nowalk Government have anything to do with Ethics? If you don’t have them, you can simply buy them (at a discount) from a number of Norwalk venues

  • 30 Ethics anyone? // May 11, 2007 at 11:44 am

    Does the foundation exist? It’s not registered with the state as required by Ct Public Charities law. There is no way to know if any funds actually reach reach the foundation. That is one issue. Besides the obvious conflict of interest and lack of transparency, what of the commercialization of our park land? Has there ever been a business given exclusive use of Vets Park for their own profit? How do we as citizens benefit from that?

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All