(Although I missed the first part I picked uop around 7pm)
The usual Norwalk political flunkies were out in force for the ethics hearing. In the audience were Gewn Briggs, Doug Hempstead and Art Scialaba who is managing Moccia’s campaign. Kydes was represented by a lawyer [Rubin]. The lawyer was busy discounting all of the allegations that Poruban made going as far as doing a title search.
Wall 71 LLC has one member John C. Donnegan. Kydes cast two votes that Poruban highlights that Kydes cast votes when John C. Donnegan was the sole owner. The lawyer alleges that Prouban didn’t bother checking out the land records because this was all public info.
On May 9th of last year, (2007) that his sister in law bought an interest of the Globe theater and that there haven’t been any votes on the Wall street redevelopment plan or the Globe Theater. THe lawyer says also that Kydes’ brother is a contractor on the Globe Theater, and that has Kydes made an effort to recuse himself.
[lawyer pulled the land records two weeks ago, and submitted all that he found to the ethics committee]
Mr. Kydes brother was never a member of the Wall 71 LLC.
Votes in March were about the eminent domain decisions on a case by case basis. It was a vote on procedural action by the common council and not on a specific property. Lawyer draws a distinction between votes of personal interest and general application. He cites an example that all common council members vote on the spending cap which all have an interest in, but do not recuse themselves from voting on.
There’s some back and forth on whether the lawyer will read the minutes out loud, instead of just referring to the exhibits. Coffey says that the committee members have read all the exhibits. The specifics are over the West ave redevelopment plan and includes a statement made by Kydes about personal property rights and eminent domain.
The initial argument the lawyer is making is that at the time the votes were cast Kydes brother in law was not an owner of the Globe theater but was a potential contactor of the Globe Theater.
Coffey addresses Poruban about the land use record filings. He points out the the title searches and asks Poruban for comment. Poruban says that the recorded dates, 5/15/07 in exhibit B ….
Coffey says the first one is recorded 10/20/06, a warranty deed and the second is May 9th. Poruban says look at the second itemwhich the recorded date is 5/15/07. Claims that the Advocate made claims of potential conflict of interest.
Poruban stumbles on answering Coffey’s line of question.
Lawyer continues, “Sometimes the papers gets things wrong, and if you are going to file an ethics complaint you should get your facts before.â€
Poruban says he did an online search of a tax assessment that showed in 2006 that M. Karakydes was listed as a property owner.
Now they go on the second vote. The vote was on something to do with soil borings and geotechnical analysis. It has nothing to do with the Globe Theater. “There is nothing to connect the dots to the Globe Theater with this,†the lawyer said. He criticizes the validity and legitimacy of the complaint.
Coffey asks Poruban.
Poruban, it concerned the property within the POKO development.
Coffey asks where the financial interests are.
Poruban says if there was contamination there would be some sort of financial interest.
Coffey questions this, by citing an example that occurs on the common council, where members recuse themselves without disclosing the interest.
Poruban replies that in previous years that such matters were disclosed in caucus.
Lawyer claims that Kydes recuses himself whenever his brother has come before the council. Kydes has had his name sullied by someone who is a direct opponent in this upcoming election. Client has had to do this in an open forum, and cites a state statute concerning confidentiality pending a determination.
“You don’t want ethics claims a few weeks before the election to cause a change in votes.â€
“Mr. Poruban violated that statute, that section of state law.†[7-1488H 1-42A]
They are not cross moving an ethics complaint, but that it is part of looking at the credibility of the complainant to the validity of the complaint.
Poruban responds, at the time he submitted the statement, the lottery lineup had not been determined so he is not a direct opponent of Kydes. Claims that he was questioned by someone who maintains a political blog (must be me) at the end of the night of 9/11.
It is disingenuous that that are not opponents, there are 2 positions for 4 people.
Mr. Kydes, became aware of this complaint by a reporter of the Advocate who telephoned him on 9/5. And Mr. Stelloh read the letter to Mr. Kydes. Mr. Stelloh claimed that the got the letter from Mr. Poruban. The lawyer claims that there was no due diligence to dtermine the validity of the complaint.
“It was shoot first and ask questions later.â€
Hilliard questions the records Poruban used.
A 2006 appraisal was used.
McQuaid’s alarm goes off too a Looney Toons clip (how appropriate)
Lawyer questions who and when Poruban prepared the complaint.
Poruban claims that he did it by himself, without “human assistanceâ€
Reveals that Alex Knopp was consulted to the way to submit the complaint.
Poruban says no one else helped him.
Poruban stops answering and says he felt like he needed to have a lawyer since he was being interrogated.
Nolin says that Poruban was advised that he had a right to counsel.
Poruban says it was in a rude email.
Lawyer keeps drilling on the timeline of when the research was done.
At the time he was preparing the 9/5 letter he reviewed the minutes used as backup material. Prouban keeps referencing his googling Kydes name.
“Outside of people that I had asked and getting minutes transcribed, No†said Poruban.
Poruban admits to having Mr. Burritt transcribe the meeting minutes.
Lawyer asks: “Can you explain what you did in preparation of filing this ethics complaint?â€
Poruban responds that he researched online, used his council packets
Lawyer asks about email Nolin sent to both regarding backup documentation.
What investigation did you do in respect to the ownership issue.
Poruban: said he want to city records online …
Lawyer, you did not pull the deeds. You didn’t look at it, you didn’t look at the dates.
Poruban did not include the tax record item that he used to make his determination of ownership of the property.
Lawyer continues grilling Poruban over the effort he made
Lawyer asks if he gave a copy to the advocate.
Prousban says he did on 9/11.
Coffey asks about the confidentiality in the state statutue.
Poruban says he didn’t think
McQuaid: Did the Advocate receive a copy before I got it.
Prouban: yes.
Lawyer: So let’s get a timeline.
Poruban: 9/11 after the ceremony provided Coffey and Hilliard the complaint letter.
Poruban: Claims that I queried him at the end of the council meeting about the complaint.
Lawyer: So you were contacting Mr. Stelloh prior to filing the complaint. Says did not give him the letter.
“Mr. Poruban this is not a difficult timeline.â€
Lawyer tries to establish the timeline that the phone conversations occurred and Poruban is essentially evasive. Hes trying not to answer that he gave Stelloh the info before he delivered the complaint to the ethics committee.
Claims that he called Stelloh to get more background information about the complaint.
McQuaid: Why is the letter dated Spetember 5th why did we get it on 9/11.
Poruban: Wasn’t sure who to send it to. And when he consulted past council members he found
Coffey: Who were the past council members.
Prouban: Ken Slapin.
Hillaird: Did you understand that you were going to be questions to the extent you were.
Poruban: No, I was not aware that I was going to be questioned.
Coffey asks to read the email from Nolin.
Hillaird: “I asked the question because it seems that you are not prepared and it should be a level playing field.â€
Coffey reads the email.
It sounds like Poruban was advised he would be questioned.
Hilliard asks to reread the email.
Coffey closes the hearing, and asks for discussion or questions or to vote on the counts.
Count 1 is the eminent domain vote:
McQuaid: It doesn’t look like the property wasn’t in the hands of the family member.
Hilliard: Not ready, and still has questions, not ready to vote. Was on planning committee, and doesn’t see discussions that he recollects that are not in the minutes. He struggles with the dates, and gets confirmation that it was May 9th that the sister in law became an owner.
Coffey: Thanks everyone who participated, and says that due process and exhibits were supplied. By looking at the documents that were provided, there does not seem to be any evidence that prior to May 9th that Mr. Kydes sister in the law was a property owner.
Hilliard abstains, Coffey and McQuaid vote against the finding of an ethic complaint.
On second count Hilliard abstains, McQuaid votes against, and Coffey votes against because he does find that there was a conflict if interest that possession of the property did not vest till after the votes.
And the meeting was over.
