Matt “Mad Max” Breslow delivers the preview of the council agenda in advance of tomorrow’s meeting. itsridiculous take note there’s flooding contracts to be voted on. Let’s see if the council can avoid bickering and vote these into actions. From Breslow’s article:

Three flooding-related projects will go before the council at an 8 p.m. meeting at City Hall.

The council must approve a $1.7 million special appropriation, which would come from the Water Pollution Control Authority’s reserve cash, to hire a Missouri firm to fix sewer lines in the Westport Avenue service area.

“During wet weather peak flow periods, the sewer system in this area is unable to handle the volume of flow, and as a result, the city has experienced sewer overflows and back-ups in this area,” Finance Director Thomas Hamilton said in a recent memo.

The problem has caused sewage to back up onto streets and private properties. Until the sewer lines are fixed, the city has placed a moratorium on new developments that would add sewage to the Westport Avenue service area.

Insituform Technologies Inc. was the low bidder on the project, which also will address illegal hook-ups, involving items such as downspouts and sump pumps, from 15 residential properties to the sewer system.

Another agenda item calls for the council to approve a $334,000 contract amendment with Tighe & Bond, a consulting firm that studied flooding in Norwalk.

The amendment calls for the firm to design fixes for storm drainage problems that cause flooding in the Olmstead Place-Fitch Street and Buckingham Place-Lockwood Lane areas.

In a stunning double feature, Breslow analyzes the revised ethics code. From the artcile:

Coffey said the council started with “a bare-bones, antiquated ethics code.”

“What we have now is vastly improved,” he said.

Norwalk based its update largely on a model drafted by the state, making it similar to Stamford’s Code of Ethics.

If it passes, Norwalk would join Stamford, Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven in having an independent ethics panel not comprised of elected officials.

The proposal would make Norwalk’s rules more stringent than the other four cities’ in some areas, while lacking or loosening sections contained in the other codes. One action that would be barred under Norwalk’s proposed code includes the taking of original records for non-city use.

The council considered drafting the policy when former Mayor Alex Knopp took files after losing the 2005 election. Knopp said he did nothing wrong by removing what he called “personal working files,” noting he inherited an empty office when he was elected in 2001.

Any information Mayor Richard Moccia needed was in the files of each city department, Knopp said, although he returned some documents and pledged to allow Moccia access to any files he needed.

Another section unique to Norwalk is a “revolving-door” policy that would bar former officials from accepting employment with departments they oversaw within 18 months of leaving office.

Ethics Committee member Carvin Hilliard, the council’s Democratic majority leader, said such a guideline avoids the appearance of “the good-ol’-boy system or corruption.”

Speaking hypothetically, Hilliard said a council member may develop an excellent relationship with a department head and, if a job that interests the council member opens up in the department, he has an unfair advantage over other candidates.

It’s funny that former mayor “scurrilous accusations” would say he did nothing wrong yet again, when it was clear in both the Fire Department Racial Video incident and the Pagano’s Porn Incident, that the documents that the former mayor claimed he wrote were never found. Doesn’t anyone think that these documents should exist if the former mayor says he wrote them?

When an ethics complaint is filed in Stamford or Bridgeport, ethics commission members investigate to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a violation occurred. Hearings and a ruling ensue if probable cause is found.

Under Norwalk’s proposal, the ethics commission would appoint a separate three-member panel to investigate for probable cause.

Hilliard said the Ethics Committee didn’t want the same people who would rule on a complaint to conduct the preliminary investigation. The committee wants ethics commission members to have open minds during hearings and while deciding whether violations occurred, he said.

“We’re just trying to avoid as much bias as possible,” he said.

Norwalk is the only city of the five that would require the ethics commission to hold an annual refresher seminar for city officials and employees.

In Stamford, the ethics code bars former officials and employees from assisting anyone except the city in any matter in which they “participated personally and substantially” while working in government.

Norwalk’s new code includes a similar clause, but imposes a one-year ban on former officials and employees representing anyone except the city before agencies they served, in matters in which they were intimately involved.

A similar policy in Hartford establishes waiting periods of two years for former officials and one year for ex-employees.

Coffey said working in government is a public service that shouldn’t be punished. A restriction on future employment can become punitive, which is not the purpose of an ethics code, he said.

Norwalk’s proposed code would bar officials and employees from receiving a gift worth more than $50 while working for the city.

Stamford’s ethics code contains a similar provision, but also limits the total value of gifts from a “prohibited source” - such as someone seeking to do business with the city - to $150 per year. Stamford’s gift limits apply for one year after an official leaves office.

Hartford limits the annual gift total from one source to $100.

Explaining Norwalk’s lack of a yearly banned-gift total, Hempstead said the city hasn’t had problems in that area. An annual limit could be a hindrance, he said, citing the many invitations to events the mayor receives. Organizers want the mayor to attend events and don’t expect him to pay his way, Hempstead said.

But the council would monitor the regulation and tighten it if abuse is perceived, he said.

In Hartford, numerous officials must file annual statements disclosing their financial interests.

Financial disclosures would be helpful, Coffey said, and Norwalk considered them in creating the draft code. But annual disclosures can discourage people from volunteering to serve in government, and would be “very onerous,” he said.

Norwalk’s draft code requires written disclosures in certain instances, such as when an official knows he has a conflict of interest.

Hartford’s ethics regulations, unlike Norwalk’s proposal, prohibit an official from supporting political candidates in connection with his position.

Coffey said there could be constitutional problems with barring people in government from being politically active.

Bridgeport prohibits potential ethics commission members from holding or seeking public office, or from office in a political party or committee for two years before joining the commission. The same moratorium applies to members of lobbying groups.

In Hartford, no one can serve on the ethics commission within three years of holding or running for public office.

Norwalk’s proposal contains no such provision, although ethics commission members cannot be elected or appointed officials or city employees.

Hempstead said “there’s no such thing as a perfect document,” but because the proposed code would take the form of an ordinance, it could be amended relatively quickly if the need arises.

I’d like to see the Hartford regulation of prohibiting an official from supporting political candidates, migrate over, but otherwise the improvements made to the ethics code are good.

source: The Norwalk Advocate, Flooding, police pact fill agenda for council, by Matt Breslow, June 11, 2007

source: The Norwalk Advocate, Proposed ethics code is tougher, and looser, than others, by Matt Breslow, June 11, 2007