YourCT.com header image 2

Norwalk: Three Investigations; One Ethics Code


by turfgrrl


May 22nd, 2007 · 52 Comments

Today’s Matt “Mad Max” Breslow article in the Norwalk Advocate presented the usual quotes of local politicians hoping to distract the wheels of  government being held accountable for its actions.

In the past 15 years there has been only one ethics complaint filed. That was against Anne Carbone, the chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals. It was filed by her former client and prompted an ethics investigation.

Other investigations were just routine ones to examine the problems arising out of conduct in various city departments. Apparently, some, would like to see such investigations stifled. Unless of course its about a city department that is doing something they don’t like, at which point (see Vets Park) all sorts of hearings and investigations are demanded.

This is of course the cruciable of politics, where programs and people clash usually over things unrelated to the issue at hand. Having a set of rules of conduct though mitigates the constant sparring at that is the what is needed in Norwalk.

When complaints arise, and they always will, there should be a common procedure for resolving that complaint. That procedure should be codified and understood by all participants.  There are many procedures that are not codified in our government, chiefly two that spring to mind are the allegations of racism in the fire department, and the allegation of showing porn to a minor in a city jobs program. Both current department heads expressed great support for a central policy that could be referred to in dealing with such matters. The personnel director expressed support for such policy. To say now, after fact gathering hearings were held, that these investigations should not have been undertaken exposes the hypocrisy of claiming the mantle of transparent government while denouncing the the very act of transparency.

From the Adovcate:

Democratic council member Matthew Miklave said he’s leaning toward supporting the creation of an independent ethics commission after learning of three recent council investigations.

A council subcommittee’s investigation into allegations of racism at the fire department and a video recording of a fireman allegedly using two racial slurs in the workplace was improperly formed and once met in secret, in violation of the state Freedom of Information Act, Miklave said.

He said a tape containing racial slurs would be “horrible,” if it exists, but the investigating panel has been meeting for several months and found no evidence to support the allegations being probed.

The investigation caused unnecessary damage and became political when the focus turned from finding out what happened, and what the city could do about it, to seeking someone to blame and “hang out to dry,” Miklave said.

Reading the newspaper coverage of the hearings, and reading the minutes of the hearings exposes the real truth, that sunlight is really the best disinfectant of government.

source: The Norwalk Adovcate, Push for independence on city’s ethics issues, by Matt Breslow, May 22, 2007.

Tags: In the News · Norwalk · current affairs

52 Responses so far “Norwalk: Three Investigations; One Ethics Code”


Pages: [1] 2 » Show All



  • 1 anonymous // May 22, 2007 at 9:42 am

    Regardless of which side you were on in the Carbone case, one only had to attend the hearing to see a shameful mockery of fair justice and unbiased proceedings. The councilmen and city attorney running the proceedings made no attempt whatsoever to even pretend they were unbiased. Coffey: “I am only sorry we have no complaintant so we can proceed” (he said this over and over again). McQuaid: “I am disturbed by the facts in this case” (there were no facts presented in support of the case - in fact, all of the city’s witnesses testimony supported Ms. Carbone’s version of the facts - something even McQuaid admitted at the end of the hearing when he moved to dismiss the case).

    It is clear that we need a panel composed of independent citizens to investigate ethics complaints with no one from the city involved. Outside independent counsel should be retained for the panel to ensure sound, ethical and legal advice is provided to the panel, free from city politics and agendas to avoid another “Guantanamo-like” trial.

  • 2 Ethics Wanted // May 22, 2007 at 11:04 am

    TG,
    Thanks for covering the ethics issue regularly. I believe that your continual hammering on “investigations” however, is misguided. The Fire Dept, Ann Carbone and Pagano Seafood incidents were better described as “witch hunts” that were politically motivated to hurt certain individuals.
    Your idea of a policy is probably a good one, but nothing can take the place of evidence, which all of these cases lacked. If there is no one willing to make a statement that can provide first-hand evidence for an investigation, then the matter should be dropped.

  • 3 Anonymous // May 22, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    Let’s wake up to the fact that the ethics investigation was not politcally prompted but was requested by citizens who felt they needed to speak up on their own behalf. The fact that they withdrew is not political, and the committee responded correctly. They dropped the complaint.

    If the local council, state legislature or the congress choose to examine a problem, they owe the public the opportunity to hear the facts and let the sun shine on the subject.

    Remember, the fire department problem was bungled by several people. The city could not have made more mistakes in ignoring an apparent problem and it certainly came back to bite them. If handled early and promptly, there would have been no council hearing on the subject.

    The Pagano issue is similar. The people in charge did nothing. When a complaint like that involves a child, once again prompt action should have been taken. The political smell came from the close ties among the store owner, the mayor and the DTC chair. If you think that should not have been looked at, then you don’t understand the law. It should have been reported to the proper local and state authorities immediately and taken out of the hands of politicians to decide if a crime was committed.

    Let’s take the hypocracy out of this discussion and recognize that the council responded to the demands of the public in all these circumstance.

    I agree that the Ethics board should be independent. No member should be from Norwalk and none should be connected to any political office holder or party in Norwalk. Let outside organizations choose from out of town professionals. THAT would be independent.

    It is a real joke for Mr. Ciccarello to be talking about independent ethics panels when he had the chance for years to suggest this change as corp counsel and ignored it as best he could. After all, he thought he and his pal the mayor could influence its make up.
    Oh yes, and he also opposed having council to the 3rd District be from out of town…while he was lining his pockets by taking that job too. Suddenly Lou is so pure. It would be funny if not so sad.

  • 4 anonymous // May 22, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    to #3…obviously you weren’t at the hearing. At the outset of the hearing, the councilmen and corporation counsel announced that there was no complaintant and the complaint (which was not sworn testimony)had been withdrawn. Ms. Carbone’s attorney requested that the case be dropped as there were no charges or complaintant. The council insisted on proceeding with their sham hearing anyway, calling witnesses, claiming “how disturbed they were” and “how sorry they were there was no complaintant to proceed” etc. After more than an hour of this nonsense, they finally had to admit there were no facts supporting the complaint that had already been withdrawn and had to “reluctantly” drop the case.

    The council’s handling of this case was nothing short of disgraceful. You should read the transcript of the proceedings.

  • 5 Furious Real Estate Pro // May 22, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    #4: Here ya go, you apparently can’t read. See the article on NCLB.

    ….

    Chairman Coffey then read into the record the Complaint submitted by Attorney Michael L. Goldman on behalf of Carlos A. Diez and Diana P. Diez with regard to the property they owned at 31 Heather Lane, Norwalk, Connecticut. A copy of that Complaint, with exhibits, is attached hereto. After presenting the Complaint and identifying the exhibits, Chairman Coffey asked Attorney Cassone to respond on behalf of Ms. Carbone.

    http://www.norwalkct.org/AgendaAction/Ethics/EthicsMinutes.htm

    Upon resuming the Hearing, Chairman Coffey requested advice from the Corporation Counsel with regard to whether the Committee had authority to proceed. Attorney Nolin advised that, merely because the Complaint was withdrawn, it did not mean that the Ethics Committee lacked power to investigate. He noted specifically that § 32-8A of the Code, governing duties of the Committee of Ethics, provided that the Committee could receive and initiate complaints of violations and that in this case such a complaint had been received. Attorney Nolin also advised that there was no evidence under the current Code that the complainant had the power to withdraw a complaint once it had been received.

    Attorney Cassone then argued in response, respectfully, that since it had been withdrawn it should be deemed no complaint. He reemphasized that there were no witnesses for him to cross-examine and that fundamental fairness dictated that the matter should be dismissed.

    Chairman Coffey moved that they should consider Attorney Cassone’s motion and framed it that the matter should be dismissed based on the withdrawal of the Complaint.

    Chairman Coffey then moved at 8:12 p.m. to move into executive session for the purposes of obtaining procedural legal advice on how to consider the motion and how to proceed with the Hearing if the motion failed. The motion to move into executive session carried unanimously.

    The Hearing was adjourned from 8:12 to 8:17 p.m. while the Committee moved into a caucus room for purposes of seeking legal advice in executive session.

    At 8:17 p.m. the Committee came out of executive session and Mr. Coffey asked for Corporation Counsel to recast the motion. Attorney Nolin indicated that a vote in the affirmative would be a vote in favor of a dismissal of the action based simply on the withdrawal of the Complaint. A vote in the negative would continue the Hearing.

    Chairman Coffey called the motion and on a roll call Councilman Hilliard voted no, Councilman McQuaid voted no and Chairman Coffey voted no.

    At that time Chairman Coffey indicated the Committee would seek testimony by the staff witnesses regarding what had happened on the underlying facts of the case.

    ….

    Sunshine. Ann Carbone turned in 50-60 complaints, including the second one, according to Aline Rochefort.

    Sunshine.

    Ann Carbone real estate agent, ZBA chair and Norwalk’s self appointed rent-a-cop zoning enforcement. DO we have to now tally up how many of these violoations occurred on houses listed for sale, and to which company they were listed with?

    Some of us in the profession are outraged. We know what Ann Carbone was up to. Open your eyes, this was abuse of her office.

  • 6 Ethics Wanted // May 22, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    #5, I fail to see how Ann Carbone reporting illegal apartments is an “abuse of office.” Speaking of sunshine, thanks for the details on the illegal executive session called by Mr. Coffey. Looks like they were meeting in the “Big He-Man’s Secret Club” to try and find a way to keep the witch hunt alive.

  • 7 turfgrrl // May 22, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    Ethics Wanted: If you are so sure that they were witch hunts, why didn’t you attend any of these investigations? I attended the Pagano Porn Incident one and I came away with the idea that all the participants wanted to improve the SUmmer Youth Program and ensure that an incident like this didn’t get swept under a rug of secrecy and that procedures would be developed and put in place to deal with these types of issues. Further, that I was dismayed to hear how there was no centralized personnel policy in place for how each department handles workers, Children or not.

    For people to continue carrying on about “witchhunts” is quite hypocritical. To date, “Todd” has never been interviewed. There was a police complaint filed, and an investigation started though never completed. There has been no reasonable explanation as to how the Wells’ got involved in the first place. If there was such a reasonable explanation, you can be sure that it would have been aired by those it involved. But their silence is in effect pleading the fifth. All the hearing established was that no one documented the incident, no one was sure of what reports had to be filed and everyone there agreed that documentation and setting standard procedures were a good thing.

    Please, be my guest and explain how documenting incidents and following standard procedures is somehow a withchunt.

  • 8 Furious Real Estate Pro // May 22, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    Or maybe they were looking at what the law and corporation counsel said to do. Now if coporation council says go into Executive session, then it is lawful. Stop lying.

  • 9 anonymous // May 22, 2007 at 2:20 pm

    It was the manner in which the hearing was conducted. One would hope that the leader of a hearing at least would try to appear impartial throughout the hearing. This was not the case. The minutes you refer to do not reflect the dialogue that actually occured during the hearing.

  • 10 high road // May 22, 2007 at 2:28 pm

    Was the Mayor living at the Norwalk Inn while the Inn was in litigation that eventually resulted in a settlement with the City? Who was paying for his room? Was it at full rate? Is there an ethics (or worse) violation?

  • 11 Ethics Wanted // May 22, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    TG,
    You are continuing a matter which the police dropped due to lack of evidence, or what you call “documentation.”. That is a slimy way to attempt to embarrass the Wells family. And why would it matter if I attended a meeting?
    #8, That is truly scary if you think whatever a corporation counsel says is “legal.” Here is a link to the CT FOI definition of an “Executive session.”
    http://www.state.ct.us/foi/1998FOIA/Sec.%201-18a.htm.

  • 12 anonymous // May 22, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    I kind of agree with Furious Real Estate Pro - I’m scanning this quickly at work, but….I’ve heard some people felt “burned” by ZBA decisions and saw this incident as casting a pall over Ms. Carbone’s character as a Real Estate Agent. If she has vindictive character as an Agent, what does that say about her character as a person who is making ZBA decisions? I thought that was why there was public clamor for the ethics investigation.

  • 13 turfgrrl // May 22, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    Ethics Wanted: I have not dropped the matter. Nor has the police, it’s not a closed case. Nor has the state in its prosecution of Julie Amero, and I could care less about whether Wells are “embarrassed.” Why are they involved at all? I’m more concerned that some guy named “Todd” was never interrogated. I’m sure that Philip Russell was “embarrassed” as well, up to the point that he was indicted for destroying computer evidence. If you bothered to read that I have written on the subject, then you would know that the intersection of computers, crime investigation, and the merits of pornography on computers is a hot topic for me.
  • 14 high road // May 22, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    I suggest folks read the PDF containing Carbone’s statement of the occurence. The minutes don’t quite spell out ALL the facts. Carbone did nothing wrong; too many real estate agents will look the other way and sell properties based on illegal multiple apartments. Ask the folks in Golden Hill. Maybe furious real estate pro is “anti-carbone” because of his/her own “look the other way” tactics.

  • 15 turfgrrl // May 22, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Ethics Wanted: Corporate Counsel is in fact who you turn to for legal advice when you sit on a board or commission. If they give out bad advice, they are the ones that will have to defend that advice, therefor it seems unlikely that they would err.
  • 16 anonymous // May 22, 2007 at 3:17 pm

    Exactly when is it illegal to have a second kitchen? My home has one, and sorry Ms. Carbone, you will not be invited in it any time soon.

  • 17 anonymous // May 22, 2007 at 3:19 pm

    #16 - I’m sure Furious Real Estate Pro will be happy to be your realtor!

  • 18 high road // May 22, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    Corporation Council issues “opinions” — they are not “decisions” and may be challenged or questioned or ignored by the Commissions. These opinions may not always include all the information that a Commission needs in order to come to an independent conclusion. Someone recently said that the job of Corporation Counsel was to find out what the Mayor wanted and then find some legal basis for making that happen. And this was a “bipartisan” job description.

  • 19 anonymous // May 22, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    Seriously. My home is not for sale. I have no interest in Carbone’s “services”. But I do want to know when it is illegal to have a second kitchen.

  • 20 Gordon Tully // May 22, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    Just to clear up a few points in the above chain of comments. First, I will put on my ZBA hat.

    State statutes and relevant case law is very clear that the ZBA must find a hardship in order to grant a zoning variance, and that hardships are difficult to justify. As Assistant Corporation Counsel Robert Maslan has advised the ZBA, the case law clearly supports the Board’s present course, setting stringent standards for finding hardships. This is to a large extent a reversal of the policy of the previous ZBA. Anne Carbone and Kathleen Nagle were the agents of this change, and as they described the process to me, it was not a pleasant experience.

    With respect to the ZBA’s relationship to the Corporation Counsel and Planning and Zoning Staff, we are strongly dependent upon them for counsel and advice as to the facts, the history of each case, and the underlying statutes and case law. No member of the ZBA, solely by virtue of his or her position on the Board, could ever influence or manipulate the Corporation Counsels or P&Z staff members. We trust that they are not manipulating us. Come to a ZBA meeting and see for yourself how this works.

    Doffing my ZBA hat and donning my ordinary citizen’s hat (or more accurately, balding pate), I urge everyone reading this to attend Thursday’s hearing. Before then, try to find time to look at both the proposed Ethics Code, and at least the introduction to the Model Code edited by Rob Wechsler. (www.cityethics.org).

    It is enlightening to know that the main purpose of a Code of Ethics is to provide advice to elected, appointed and salaried public officials as guidance in making ethical decisions. One of the many reasons I favor an independent Ethics Commission is to avoid the chance that this primary function would be compromised. The commission should be busy, meeting at least monthly. The more ethical questions lodged and answered, the better will be our government. Councilors simply don’t have the time to do this crucial work.

    There are dozens of scenarios that must be examined in drafting an Ethics Code. Each provision can be and should be argued in an open forum, just as it is argued in editorial comments to the Model Code. This will take time, but far less time than the 3 years it is taken to come up with the present draft.

    A dedicated group of citizens could put one together, based on the Model Code and aided by counsel, in a few months. Allowing a few months for public hearings, the Code would be ready for a vote in a year or less. Another year after 40 years is not going to make or break the enterprise. It can and should proceed without respect to election cycles.

    If the job were properly described as an important public service, I am confident that the Common Council could identify citizens willing to take on the task of drafting a Code, which would be a fascinating and rewarding enterprise.

    As for finding unbiased members for an Ethics Commission, everyone I know who has served on a jury rose to the occasion and took pride in seeking impartiality. I am certain that out of a population of 84,000 people, 5 willing persons can be found who will be perceived by public servants and citizens alike as competent to administer a Code of Ethics.

  • 21 disgusted east norwalker // May 23, 2007 at 7:07 am

    “They’re really just trying to taint the voter, right from the beginning. I haven’t even been nominated yet and here they are already trying to annihilate me with so many cheap shots that aren’t true. I have a great deal of integrity and care about this neighborhood,”

    That is Laurel Lindstrom in today’s Hour. Then she should resign from the board of her civic association if she has such great integrity. If she had so much integrity she would resign. Can someone say conflict of interest Laurel. Everyone else resigns from civic boards when they run for office. Why does Laurel Lindstrom think she is different ? Can we say conflict of interest ?

  • 22 Anonymous // May 23, 2007 at 7:21 am

    Is that you, David? Turfie, when are you going to create the “Partisan Attacks” thread?

  • 23 hitcow // May 23, 2007 at 12:53 pm

    Nice to see proof that turfgrrl just sling mud. She does provide out of date or unconnected links, but so does focus on family an others. She is just another evil republican, hell bent on the politics of destruction.

    Bad, Bad girl. go to your room.

  • 24 Anon // May 23, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    Haha. Hitcow you really don’t know who you are dealing with in attacking turffie. Baseless accusations without citations? And you’re credible how?

  • 25 turfgrrl // May 23, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    hitcow: Yep, I wake up every day thinking How can I be another evil republican? And then it hits me, why don’t I write about stuff going on in my town and invite people to discuss the issues. That way everybody will have a lively discussion about stuff that is affecting them and the city they live in, and evil republicans like me will chortle in glee. And then, I diabolically think, wait, I can periodically make links that don’t work, and then send that code over to Diebold so that they can use it on voting machines!.

    Or, I may in fact have a bad link that I could correct if only someone would tell me where they are.

  • 26 truthfull taxpayer // May 24, 2007 at 10:22 am

    In today’s Hour - “Expert: Thumbs down on revised city ethics code - An independent expert in city ethics will offer a poor review of proposed revisions of Norwalk’s Ethics Code at a public hearing tonight.”

    I agree. City Councilman should not be on a Norwalk Ethics Committee. If it is independent more residents would trust the process. That is unless the process is perverted as in the process for commissioners, boards and hiring in Norwalk. This pervision crosses all party lines.

    Anyway, isn’t Norwalk ethics an oxymoron?

  • 27 Anonymous // May 24, 2007 at 10:24 am

    Whaddya wanna bet the consultant’s expert advice somehow doesn’t get implemented by the Common Council?

  • 28 anonymous // May 24, 2007 at 10:51 am

    consultant ? I read in the newspaper that he recommends high school students on ethics panels. Sounds like a real expert.

  • 29 truthfull taxpayer // May 24, 2007 at 11:22 am

    #28 - I’ve read the article again and there is nothing in it about high school students. Sounds like you are taking something out of nowhere or a different article or context and that in itself - is unethical.

  • 30 anonymous // May 24, 2007 at 11:51 am

    read the Norwalk Advocate’s recent article on the updated ethics code for High School kid reference.

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All