Common Council Meeting 6/26/07

All present except Nick Kydes. Peter Nolin was absent and Jeffrey Spahr sat in his place

A moment of silence was held for the passing for Steve Oris and the 9 firefighters in North Carolina.

Then there was resolution for the Norwalk High baseball team for winning the FCIAC Baseball championship. Rick McQuaid singled out coach Angelo Bruno for doing such a great job and mentioned that 5 of the baseball players were form Narmanake elementary school. (Nick Cardone, Matt Taliercio, George Savaides and ??????? [check with RMcQ afterwards.])

Fred Bondi spoke about the little league season that some of the players participated in.

Mayor Moccia mentioned that they [Norwalk Bears] did much better than his Yankees.

Once the baseball team left, I had a better idea of how many people were in the audience. Not very many, mostly the usual suspects who have been complaining, and I should note not making constructive changes or improvements to the ethics code..

There was a motion to accept the minutes but Herb grant had a question about the language used on the no vote on the contracts. Bolden and Krumml abstained, the rest voted to approve.

Public Portion

Ken Slapin: Is for ethics code but in his opinion its not ready and thinks that they should take more time with the ordinance. He doesn’t think its not substantially stronger and then goes back to what he claims is the differences with the Stamford ordinance. He says it starts out with guts that you would expect like things that say avoid in Norwalk instead of prohibited. He then points out that contracts shall be terminated instead of should be terminated. [In short he is nit picking lawyer language which often is under dispute as well.] He then goes on to talk about disclosure on contacts that might be construed as a conflict so that the board of ethics in Stamford can rule on it. Then goes into his famous analogy. A councilman who starts a business after he is elected, and uses contacts to get business, say for a dance studio .

Moccia: You are at 3 minutes Mr. Kydes …. The room erupts in laughter… What an accurate Freudian slip. Mr. Slapin, the mayor corrects himself.

Urban Mulville: Speaks about boats coming to vets park about boaters coming to pick up or drop off people at Vets park. He is speaking to encourage that the city make the dock facility available on a trial basis. Hopes that the council looks on that issue favorably.

Diane Lauricella: Speaking as president of the LWV. Says it’s a non partisan local state and national organization to encourage and afford an open system of government that is open and accountable. Wants to encourage the council to wait on the ethics code to be tweaked to be better, and that since it is not going to be in effect in several months. If it passes tonight, make it enforced as of tonight., and add an amendment to revise it on a quarterly basis. Says the trip up of the investigative committee, and once again, here’s another person who failed to submit any constructive changes prior to the hearing tonight. Suggests that LWV hold a public forum on the ethics code.. hands out leagues mission.

Marija Bryant: Nothing to add to what the experts say on ethics. Read the draft and the model draft of Robert Weschler. Said it was eye opening. Vague convoluted law language, vote for what you have. If you want a clear English language one like Weschler document. Thinks that is provides better specificity and timetables that it [Weschler’s] does. Thinks the council should take a giant leap in the state.

Laurel Lindstrom: Speaks to the code, it does need revision. Says the question is about what needs more things to be added. Looks at the revised code and sees examples that would not be covered by that code. Thinks that they should take more time to review the code and thinks it should be sent back to the ordinance committee. Thinks there’s too much new material to review in less than a week. No hurry in moving it along. [What are they speaking form the same talking points?]

Gordon Tully: Speaking as a citizen not a member of the ZBA, Says he prepared an 8 minute statement, and says would pick up from the last page. He regrets any ad hominem comments he made when Mr. Nolin attacked him [Weschler]. Says that Weschler not a paid lobbyist with commoncause, nor city ethics. Says code weshler’s code comes from Mr. Davies a law professor from ?????, says Weschler cross checked against Connecticut statute. He thinks its better than the code written by Nolin and Coffey. [Notice how he doesn’t mention how many other people contributed to it} use Hal Alvord as an example as a professional who seeks other professionals, and then mentioned how Kydes wrote that he [Tully] to gt a life.

Barry Natale: Moved to Norwalk about a year ago. They want to move their business here to Norwalk, operate a charter boat, and hopes that the common council considers the [application] thinks that the waterfront business is an asset to the city. Thanks harbormaster Mike Griffith and Fred Bondi and Mike Moccaie and consider the business on the waterfront.

Appointments:

Ralph DePanfelis: Approved. TO the Oak Hills Authority Unanimous

Cesar Ramirez to the Housing Authority. Unanimous

Andrea Light to Zoning: Doug Hempstead speaks to reappointment, has shown leaership as chairman of that commission through two administrations and aprties.

Jaqueline Lightfield to Zoning: Some discussion about who was going to speak, some conversation about who was going to speak and get into the blog. Mayor Moccia speaks to “independent voice” Voted: Unanimous.

Robert Virgulak to Oak Hills Authority: Mayor Moccia speaks to his many [ lost track here sorry] unanimous.

Fuller [lost track here too ] years of service and how he hs touched many young people. The board of is honoring Fuller

Darelene Young spoke about the summer youth program and that 100 children have been placed. Mayor Moccia adds

Krummel: Point of order and believes that Council president is going to make a report of the ethics committee and that it is a revision of an ordinance and should be made as part of the regular common council.

Coffey: Peter Nolin said that it was properly moved and could be presented under President remarks. The guy in place of Nolin says that that is an ad hoc committee and that the sunshine requirements have been met and so it is its fine there.

Krummel: Wants that it moved because it would be as a remark of the president instead as an ordinance committee. That they are not supposed to act on the remarks on the president.

Moccia: Defers to corporation council. It was noticed properly.

Miklave: Allowed Mr. Coffey to speak during the response to Krummel, but continues to point out that it is a standing committee like the BET and it should have its own place on the agenda. But will defer to his ruling.

Moccia: Sounds like semantics, we will now have debate. It’s on the record that it might have gone through the ordinance committee.

Coffey: This is a great moment, there’s been many who opposed and may in fact try to table it or nit pick it or make amendments. This is something we should be proud of and that this is ethics reform.

First red herring, it’s a crime to accept gifts you don’t have to codify it in an ethics code. If you take $50k in gifts you get arrested.

Speaks to the declaration of policy… [he spoke to fast so I missed a bunch of this]

It has a whistleblower protection, it has an educational component, it has an independent board it has many things that people have asked for. It has teeth, it will put Norwalk in the top of the list. You can’t take records when you leave office, you can’t take a job with an agency once you have left office. It is a crime to accept gifts and vote certain ways. It talks about violations of confidentiality, access of information, whistle blower protections, the council will no longer be in the ethics business. He goes on to list more things it does. Meanwhile Matt Miklave has a whispered conference with Gwen Briggs. He ends that it has become very political in the end, and that they are there to put people before politics, and that code is tremendous step forward for the city. He anticipates that there are some political things that will be played before it comes to a vote. If people don’t like it, they can vote against it, or vote to table it and tell the voters why they are stopping it. Thanks the corporation counsel and has great respect for the corporation counsel. Thanks Hilliard, Hempstead and McQuiad and all the members of the ordinance committee.

Hilliard: Supports what Coffey said. Has 2 public hearings then there was an outcry so they had a third public hearing, and that there was a committee meeting that was not well attended. If people had attended the meeting more questions would have been answered.

Bondi: Supports it, if it has to be fine tuned, the people that are appointed to the board can propose revisions to the ordinance. Feels that a lot of work has been done by the committee and commends them for the job well done.

Poruban: comments on the language, and compares it to the Stamford ordinance and says it says shall engage and Norwalk’s should engage. [Funny how that it is Slapin’s lawyerly nit pick] Questions whether if committee subgroup has even read it. Claims that there’s a typo but won’t reveal what it is.

Moccia: A typo is not substantial enough to not pass it.

Poruban: yes, we corrected many typos our first few years. Makes a motion to refer it. Back to the committee.

Miklave: Thinks you can refer it back to

Poruban: Holds off to further debate it.

Krummel: Wants to be very up front Mike Coffey brought this up 3-4 years ago. He deserves a lot of credit for that. But we are now looking at a serious revision, as Poruban pointed out, there are things that need to be revised. But on line 5 of page 2 the definition that says that the council can appoint city officials which they didn’t want to do. Didn’t know that the Stamford code was the model for this, but it looks like it was. It should come up as an action item by that committee and that changes in the proposed ordinance should be referred back to the ordinance committee. Says there are very obvious shall and must instead of should, and thinks that there needs to be more strength in the ethics code. His colleagues don’t think its ready and questions what the public thinks about this.

Briggs: Thinks good enough shouldn’t be good enough for Norwalk and thinks the code needs more work. Finds a glaring error on people going after other people on commissions.

Miklave: This is an emotional issue and that people should take a deep breath. Says that ethics code should not be an emotional issue, and that Wrenn and Coffey deserve great credit for making this an emotional issue. Says that email chain was part of the great debate, that it was heated and emotional and notes that he had nothing to do with it. Thinks that is a credit to the council that these things matter and that it is important to follow through. There have been times that the councils actions have fallen far short of the its rhetoric. Ethics is not or should not be a campaign slogan, resume builder or weapon. It should be a high standard. He looked at what it must have been like when the original ethics code was implemented that they must have through they were doing a really good job,. He hopes that this ordinance will be looked at with great derision by future people because of what it doesn’t cover. He thinks that the debate is disserved by the rhetoric, said that a common council member spoke out that anyone who who wanted an independent ethics board was against ethics reform. No one here is against ethics form. Refers to section 3, officers and employees should avoid ….. thinks that if you have such a conflict you should not vote, but you can still use you influence and your office. Thanks there should be no gain form any conflict. Does a better job than the current ethics code. [note that he has never made any changes and waits to this hearing to make nit picks] Thinks that there should have been a great debate. Thinks that is missed opportunity.

Moccia: Mr Krummel the word shall was used 57 times.

Miklave: You weren’t listing to me. Room laughs

Bolden: Recalls that Coffey sent an email asking for changes, and that only two people responded, Galen Wells and Joe Mann. That meetings were held and that they were open to the public. This committee has worked hard, and put their all into it, and that it was a long process. Everything has a glitch, very much in favor in passing this tonight, and this is the work of a committee of three who worked on it.

Hempstead: We’ve had history lessons, and a typo that Poruban wants to play Where’s Waldo with it. The ethics code that was done 35 years, that it served it well since in his 20 year recollection that only 4 times that an individual has brought forward a complaint. Fortunately that the council members are not compensated and the high standards of the community we’ve not had problems. Norwalk because of its history and because of its standards this ethics provide a suit of amour. This an ordinance it can be tweaked and changes at any time. It is time to pull to the trigger, as Rev Bolden said. Have we tried to put forward reform? They never come easy, they come with passion they come with … this is a document that is far vastly improved. Is it perfect, no. Some of that we won’t find out till its tested in a law suit. There has been plenty of time that people have had to discuss it and make changes to it.

Poruban: My colleagues are supporting inferiority. Corrections, we’ll take it later. Wants Norwalk to be a model for other communities, not just a cut and paste.

UPDATE

Poruban: Makes motion to refer to ordinance committee.

Motion fails to refer to ordinance committee: Poruban, Briggs, Krummel, Sutton and Miklave voted to table it.

Motion to approved the ordinance:
Poruban votes against it Krummel votes against it

Moccia: speaks to the fact that Norwalk has not had the types of problems that other cities have had with even stronger codes. This code applies to not just elected officials but of department workers and people on boards and commissions. He’s going through many counsels and that he has never questioned the integrity of the counsel. Thanks every for working on it.

Consent Calendar:

Krummel: Wants to take off 7 C 5 the visitors dock at veterans park and 7 3 e and B about the telephone contract.

Miklave: Amended resolution that Hempstead and he worked and add a consent table to the next council meeting.

Hempstead: The consent to move item to 6 A 1 to the end of the agenda because they need to clear out the chambers.

Approved unanimously.

Miklave: recuses himself despite ethics does not take effect until November. On the finance committee item.

Moccia: you SHALL be recused.

Krummel: Reads the DPW item about the silvermine bridge item.

Straniti: very excited to be voting on it and thanks Hal Alvord and the citizens there to resolve the issue. Very happy that the bridge will still be registered as historic.

Hempstead: Ditto. But also wants to thank the Mayor. Its been a focal point of the Silvermine Tavern and that they are getting the trolls out from under the bridge, and that the standards were tweaked to accommodate the historical significance.

UPDATE

Voted Unanimously.

Krummel: is there a fee?

Bondi: Turn the paper over and the fee is there.

Krummel: Couldn’t figure it out

Bondi: It depends on the time of day and size of boat.

Mike Moccaie: explains fees

Romano: Said that it was a great idea, and that it will bring more people into the area and enhance the business in SoNo, and other parts of Norwalk, and that the fee structure is reasonable. Will be voting to support it.

Bolden: very excited about this and that it was a learning experience and that it will be a very good economic boost for Norwalk. It will be good for people to come in form elsewhere by boat and to come explore Norwalk.

Krummel: Wants to have it in the motion that a fee that is required so there is no appearance that commercial use is not paying for public space.

McQuiad: Questions what fees Krummel is talking about.

Bondi: Refers to corp counsel on necessity.

Miklave: makes language amendment.

Voted unanimously both the amendment and the item.

Voted unanimously on land use item for …

UPDATE

Krummel questions the backup material missing on the IT item and says that there shouldn’t be precedent on voting on something without the backup.

Coffey: Commends Carvin and Phyllis for bringing this item to the attention of the counsel.

Voted unanimously.

They then go to executive session.