There was maybe 20-25 people, mostly Democrats in the audience.
here now the transcript with my asides embedded.
Ethics Public Hearing Mtg.
In a brief press conference held before the meeting, Carvin Hilliard and Mike Coffey spoke about the reasons for holding the third public hearing on the revision to the city’s 40 year old ethics code.
Coffey explained that his committee held two public hearings, on ein Ovtober and one jan/feb concerning the code, and that only one person showed. Up . He claims that the sudden interest in the code is due to political issues.
The revised draft of the ethics code has been on the city web site for about a month,
Carvin Hilliard said that they will put a revised draft following the public hearing in the next 10 days and that the full council will vote on the final code at a June meeting.
First Speaker: Gordon Tully speaks how he became involved because he was reviewed the code as part of his role in ZBA. He did some research and said that Norwalk was the only city n the state that did not have an ethics commission. [check that because commoncause cites differently]. Then speaks about inviting Robert Wechsler, strongly recommends having an independent ethics commission. He thinks there are 3 missing pieces. An education component; a means for people with ethically questions to get answers to these types of questions, a set of disclosure forms, (where you live what kind of business you are in) and last whistleblower protection, an ability for people to come forward when they see something wrong.
Robert Weschler: (Comes from North Haven, link to ethics issues in his town). On board of common cause. Democracy works best when people think that government is working for them, a lot of it is about appearance. When you have any politician involved in the process it politicizes the process. Independent commission is more trusted. In a good ethics system you don’t need enforcement. [He thinks that people don’t know when to sit something out. He is pushing the idea that the ethics commission in a place for advice, whether its formal or not.] “Connecticut is way behind the rest of the country in terms of ethics. Norwalk is behind the Connecticut cities.†(funny how he doesn’t cite anything, just says things) [UPDATE: WOW. This guy lied, there’s no board listing for common cause but this is what commoncause says in its 2004 report on Connecticut:
In its 2004 survey of municipal codes of ethics in Connecticut, Connecticut Common Cause
found the standards for municipal ethics are abysmal — they are varied, limited and extremely
weak. Connecticut municipalities scored an average of 2.2 out of 10. Sixty-nine towns don’t even
have an ethics code. Of those that do, only six towns require department heads, boards, or councils to
act on the ethics boards’ recommendations; 10 towns require regular financial disclosure; 6 percent of
towns provide safeguards for whistleblowers, and only one town requires municipal lobbyists to register.
]
Cites investigating panel, that 2 of 3 members not be of the majority party of the council. No language about who those people are. “Do you look impartial†Ethics commissions members are not to be held accountable. Like juries. Elections are not substitute for ethics laws. Ethics laws are for how the government is to be held accountable. Most ethics complaints are just worked out, they don’t go through a hearing process.
3 Areas that don’t appear. Education program. People need to know what they are supposed to do, what a conflict is, basic concepts like that require educations. Disclosure is a way of keeping people honest, making public what one’s major financial interests are …makes it harder to get away from things. Disclosure is the transperncy part. The whisetleblower, the people who know what is going on in town are the employees, without the whiseltblower proision people who are doing unthetical things will know that there’s a provision for employees to say things … good to have rules to make it clear that you are not going to get away with it. Recommends that people discuss these ideas in an open manner and asked for questions.
No questions.
Diane Laurecella: Says is from LWV and elected as president, Passed out handout how Diane can speak at certain meetings. Gives background of LWV. She says she cites this because people question the LWV advocacy’s role. The LWV supports actions to strengthen ethics codes. Talks about transparent contracts. Talks about establishing ethics commissions. Thanks panel for holding hearing, and agrees with previous speakers.
Stresses having an independent commission. It is unusual to not have one. The issue of the revolving door, senior staff handling contracts should not be able to take jobs with companies involved in getting city contracts. Whistleblower protection, and lobbyists. Wants lists of who visits with the mayor. Training program is very important. That ensures that commission may not have to meet.
Joe Robideau: Nice to see some company tonight. 2 people at the meeting before this and 3 people the meeting before that. Politicians have gotten a bad rap. Some of it is deserving. You need to be above reproach and transparent. I support what you have done. I read Moccia’s suggestion to be a bi-partisan panel and citizens as well. When you begin to question your elected officials, you are in trouble. The more you subject yourself to free passes and free lunches you subject yourself to criticism. I still have faith in you, but if we can look upon having common citizens and council people on the commission.
Bill Krummel: Thinks that committee do deserve a word of thanks. People are interested and are aware and expect to see something. Looks at the draft, said he sent an email last night with objections. Three areas: Perception, an important process. Wechsler and Tully have dealt with that. Out constuencey should have confidence in what you are doing. Both the hearing board and investigation board as having it not be council members. Timing. How long does it take for this investigation. The object of the investigation loses because rumor innuendo get circulated around. The process should be shortened as much as possible. 60 days is called for as a maximum in the process, he thinks they need to reduce the time restrictions. Suggests 5 days instead of 10 days legal notice. Blames a lack of quorum as a reason for delays happening. If a deadline is there, if you can’t meet then the investigation should be dropped. [Krummel wants to game the system] The person who is the target that person being targeted that the person has right to counsel.
Sara Sikes: Commends counsel for taking on the ethics issue. It is an important issue, thought there was many good ideas, but agrees with many speakers that it needs an independent commissions and likes the idea of whistleblower, and agrees with Krummel on the timeline.
Ken Slapin: Thanks commission for having hearing. It is a good thing. Not going to repeat what previous speakers said, but concurs on independent body for the ethics commission. Wants to emphasize that Weschler that the ethics board not be held accountable to the voter, they should have the freedom to do what is right. Jurisdiction includes the BOE, in proposed code, but it is normally a state body. Asks whether the council can assume jurisdiction on the BOE. This proposal is modeled after the Stamford code of ethics, commends them for choosing it. Important parts of the Stamford ordinance are missing. Under definitions, business interests is missing. Prohibited source of favors is missing. In Stamford something is prohibited as opposed to refrained. (section three) Prohibited gifts is weaker than Stamford one. There are required disclosure of gifts and business interests have been eliminated while they are there in the Stamford one. For example there is no aggregate. Maybe some departures are warranted. Wants to thrash out why those discrepancies were adopted. In Stamford the burden is on the recipient, but not so in Norwalk draft. Was disturbed that reference to business interests weas removed. Uses a hypothetical example of a dance festival, hits up people for contributions that may have business before the city, …there is nothing in the code that prohibits that public role and private business role. No disclosure ont the budget, or what his family would gain from the business, or what businesses have contributed to the business. There’s no disclosure of what the gains to the individual, or interests that were solicited, or the interests that were solicited and did not contribute. At the very end there is a provision, for mimium funding for board of ethics for a minimum of $25k/year. Has never seen that. That could be a slush fund for witch hunts.
Back and forth between Slapin and Nolin. Nolin says that then a special appropriate would need to be requested and then blocked.
Slapin disagrees with Krummels request for a timeline. Suggests statute of limitations to 3 years like Stamford, not 6 months like the draft.
Coffey questions the subsection.
Slapin questions that the effective date is after the next local election, says that then there is time to adjust it.
Jokes about being a wise ass then, comments form crowds questions then. Admits more.
Says the time is built in, and that revising it is worth the time.
Hal Alvord: 4 Comments. Section 7 sub paragraph L. Less was intended to be more. Observation: Been with city for 3.5 years, involved in contracting for 30 years. He anticipated being required to make political contributions, political paving and says he has experienced none of that since he’s been here. Both sides of the aisle is impressed with how business gets done. Talks about experiences that he has had. First on the prohibited gifts in section 7, there are many exceptions and he has experiences with incidents at the federal and private sector able to influence or unilaterally award contracts of multi-million dollars. First drafts that the organizations look like our draft, sub paragraph a, within days of the adoption his close circle of friends and families exploded. Syas close the loophole. Says he was a witness to the conversation, if you are an official or employee of the city you don’t put undue interest on the other official. Two people can sit and listen to the same presentation and leave with totally different perceptions of what was said. How do you determine when a discussion when a conversation crosses the line and becomes undue influence. He suggests that use language that you are not allowed to talk to the other official about the issue. That was in section 6.
UPDATE Ken Slapin spent a great deal of time going through the ethics draft to find things that could use improvement. But he’s a lawyer, and he should have made his comments in writing and provided them to the panel. He also alluded to the fact that he was a kid the last time the ethics code was changed. Which means eh basically thought all along, including the time he was on the common council, that the current code was just peachy. He also was not so cleverly going after Herb Grant and the Jazz festival with his hypothetical dance festival. I can only conclude that he had no real interest in improving the ethics code and was only interested in making political theater. Why would a lawyer not put something in writing? Also, Matt Miklave is on the ordinance committee and wasn’t there for the hearing.
It truly is baffling how the people who could help make Norwalk a better place by exerting a little effort in a positive direction prefer instead to criticize and complain.
