CITY OF NORWALK
COMMON COUNCIL ETHICS COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING AND HEARING
OCTOBER 9, 2007

ATTENDANCE: Michael Coffey, Council President, Council Member Richard McQuaid, Council Member Carvin Hilliard

STAFF: Attorney Peter Nolin, Corporation Counsel

OTHERS: Council Member Kevin Poruban, Council Member Nicholas Kydes, Attorney David W. Rubin

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Coffey called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. He then called the roll and announced that everyone was present.

Let it be noted that the following comments and remarks by all speakers have been summarized and are not necessarily verbatim.

Chairman Coffey stated that he wished to note that there were exhibits from Mr. Poruban, which were numbered 1 through 7. Chairman Coffey then asked Mr. Poruban if there were any additional exhibits that he would like to submit at that time. Mr. Poruban said that he was not aware that he would be allowed to submit additional material.

Chairman Coffey then noted that there was a letter from Attorney Rubin and exhibits in support of Mr. Kydes’s response to the ethics complaint filed by Mr. Poruban.

VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSIDER ONE OR MORE ETHICS COMPLAINTS AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.

Chairman Coffey said that pursuant to the Connecticut State Statute, he was asking Attorney Rubin if it was his client’s intention to waive the confidentiality provisions that were afforded to him under the State Statute. Attorney Rubin replied that it was.

HEARING ON ETHICS COMPLAINT UNDER NORWALK CODE SECTION 32-8b, TO BE HELD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES, SECTIONS 7-148h AND 1-82a,
UNLESS WAIVED BY RESPONDENT.

Chairman Coffey invited Mr. Poruban forward. Mr. Poruban greeted everyone. He then stated that he had been made aware of a potential conflict of interest based on an article that was published in The Advocate on September 3, 2007. Mr. Poruban said that there was a downloaded copy of the article labeled as Item #2 in the packet. Mr. Poruban drew the Committee’s attention to the second and third to last paragraphs, which stated that there had been no complaints received regarding Mr. Kydes’ comments at the meeting.

Mr. Poruban then quoted from the article:

“When Kydes went to city attorney Peter Nolin last month for advice, Nolin said that if the councilman knew the property was included in the redevelopment plan, he should disqualify himself from the process.

If all the facts were known during those previous meetings, Nolin said that he would have advised Kydes to have recused himself then as well.”

(“Council Member to keep quiet on development plan” by Tim Stelloh. The Advocate, September 3, 2007. Copyright © 2007, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.)

Mr. Poruban said that in researching the various Planning Committee minutes, he had requested that the minutes be transcribed. Unfortunately, Mr. Poruban continued, the tapes had already been reused. He said that he had included the “crude minutes” that were posted on the website. In each set of minutes, Items 3 and 4 pertain to the discussion in which Mr. Kydes’ participation and the fact that he moved the agenda items for the POKO plan, participated in the discussion and later voted on the items. Mr. Poruban stated that he believed that the ordinance required at least a disclosure of a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Poruban said that in discussions of those meetings with Mr. Miklave in particular, that Mr. Miklave had never been made aware of a disclosure or the fact of Mr. Kydes alerting the committee of a potential conflict of interest.

Chairman Coffey then asked the Ethics Committee members if they had any questions for Mr. Poruban.

Mr. Hilliard then asked Mr. Poruban about obtaining copies of the minutes from the Planning Committee meetings. Mr. Poruban replied that he had requested that the minutes of the meetings be transcribed in order to have the exact conversation that had taken place. He was told that the tapes are reused at subsequent meetings and therefore all that was available was the documents posted online.

Chairman Coffey then asked Mr. Poruban if he had received copies of the items submitted by Atty. Rubin. Mr. Poruban said that he had just received a copy of them. He then said that in the October 8, 2007 letter from Atty. Rubin, that Mr. Poruban disagreed with the statement on page 1 in the second paragraph that he was not aware that the new ordinance until November 2007. Mr. Poruban said that his contention there was that Mr. Kydes participated in the vote for the new Ethics Ordinance and should have read the back up material regarding conflicts of interest. Mr. Kydes should have also been aware of what was in the current ethics ordinance, also.

Chairman Coffey then asked if it was Mr. Poruban’s opinion that the revised ethics code has any binding effect on the Ethics Committee at this time. Mr. Poruban said that the revised code did not have any binding effect on current meeting.

Chairman Coffey then allowed Atty. Rubin to make a statement. He introduced himself and stated that he represented Mr. Kydes. Atty. Rubin said he would make a statement and that following that, anyone who had a question for Mr. Kydes would be free to ask Atty. Rubin. He also said that he would like to take the opportunity to ask Mr. Poruban several questions as well, since Mr. Poruban had filed the complaint against Mr. Kydes. Atty. Rubin said that he believed that this would be a matter of due process and that his client would also have the right to inquire of Mr. Poruban.

Atty. Rubin then said that it was curious that the Committee was present to address an ethics complaint filed by Mr. Poruban against his direct opponent in an election that will be held in four weeks time. It was also notable that Mr. Kydes had no alternative but to conduct the hearing in a public forum. Although Mr. Kydes had a statutory right as set forth by the Connecticut legislature, to a confidential hearing and the matter being held in confidence pending a determination by the Ethics Committee as to whether or not there was probably cause to even be here. Mr. Kydes had no alternative but to have a public hearing because Mr. Poruban had violated Mr. Kydes’ rights to the confidentiality by disclosing the complaint and the content of the complaint to the press. In order to clear his name, Mr. Kydes has no alternative but to have this done in a public forum rather than a private forum.

The fact was, Atty. Rubin said, that this was politics and he would like to move that issue off the table because an ethics complaint had been filed. An ethics complaint in general will rise or fall on the facts, the evidence, and the law. Atty. Rubin said that when the Committee reviewed the facts, the evidence and the applicable law, it would become clear that Mr. Kydes did not commit any violation of the Ethics Committee. Mr. Poruban’s complaint is factually inaccurate, Atty. Rubin said, and Mr. Poruban failed to perform any investigation or due diligence prior to filing a complaint and sending it to the press. Mr. Poruban did so inaccurately because the underpinnings of his complaint are factually wrong. Any analysis will reveal that Mr. Kydes had not cast a single vote in which he directly or indirectly had any personal or financial interest.

Atty. Rubin then directed everyone’s attention to the Code of Ethics in order to determine the law in order to apply the facts to the code. In Mr. Poruban’s letter of September 5th, he did not cite the Code of Ethics or any particular provision of the Code of Ethics.

Atty. Rubin then said that he believe that Mr. Poruban violated Section 32-4, which is a section that provides for conflicting interest. Atty. Rubin then read the following section:

“No Councilman, the Mayor or other officer or member of a commission,
board or agency or employee shall participate in hearings, deliberations, or
decisions connected with his office, commission, board, agency or department
upon any matter in which he is directly or indirectly interested in a personal
or financial sense.”

(Code of Ethics, Section32-4 conflicting Interests)

Atty. Rubin then asked if Mr. Poruban’s allegations of ethics violation by Mr. Kydes are tantamount to hearings, deliberations or decisions by Mr. Kydes in which he directly or indirectly has a personal or financial interest. Atty. Rubin then said that there was none.

Looking at the September 5th complaint filed by Mr. Poruban, there were two allegations of wrongdoing. The first was that “Council Member Nicholas Kydes of District C attended meetings of the Planning Committee of the Common Council and participated in discussion of the Wall Street redevelopment plan while he knowingly withheld his disclosure that his brother is an owner of a property being discussed in connection with that plan. Secondly, “it appears that he also participated in Common Council votes which affected or could affect his brother’s property interest.”

When requested to provide back up documentation of what he was referring to, Atty. Rubin said that Mr. Poruban submitted documents regarding only two votes. The Ethics Committee needed to determine whether these two votes fell under the parameters of participating in hearings, deliberations or decisions, or whether Mr. Kydes had a direct or indirect personal or financial interest in those votes.

There were two votes involved with the issue of eminent domain, one on March 1, 2007 at the Planning Committee of the Common Council and a second vote on March 13, 2007 at the Common Council regular meeting. The votes were to vest the authority for condemnation of property within the Wall Street Redevelopment Plan with the Common Council on a parcel by parcel basis rather than vesting that authority with the Redevelopment Agency. That vote passed unanimously in committee and passed with fourteen to zero in the Council with one abstention.

The second instance was a vote on April 5, 2007 for the Planning Committee by Mr. Kydes that related to approving a license agreement for soil boring and geotechnical analysis for the Isaac and Leonard Street Parking Lots in the Wall Street Redevelopment Plan. A determination needed to be made as to whether Mr. Kydes had a direct or indirect personal or financial interest in any of those votes.

Atty. Rubin then asked what the basis of Mr. Poruban’s claim. He explained that the claim was based on the fact that the Globe Theater was located in the Wall Street Redevelopment Plan, which involves 371 residential units, 61,355 sq feet of commercial space, 876 parking spaces, and 28 parcels approved for condemnation. One of those parcels is the Globe Theater. Mr. Poruban’s allegations are that Mr. Kydes participated in a vote in respect to the Wall Street Development Plan in which he had a personal interest because his brother is an owner of the property in connection with that plan.

That argument is false on several levels. First it is wrong because Mr. Kydes brother is not an owner of the Globe The