ATTENDANCE: Michael Coffey, Chair; Douglas Sutton; Carvin Hilliard; Kelly Straniti; Douglas Hempstead; Gwen Briggs

STAFF: Peter Nolin, Corporation Counsel

Mr. Coffey called the meeting to order at 8:13 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Ethics Code

Noting that there were not many members of the public present, Mr. Coffey said that he would give speakers a five minute limit, rather than the traditional three minutes.

Mr. Gordon Tully, Walnut Avenue, provided the history of how he became involved in the ethics issue. He said that elected officials can not oversee the ethics code. He said that Norwalk was the only City that does not have an independent ethics commission. He said that Norwalk must have an independent ethics commission made up of members who are not affiliated with the City.

Mr. Tully said that in reviewing the ethics code, he found three missing pieces: an education component, disclosure forms and a whistle blower protection statement.

Mr. Rob Wechsler said that when politicians are involved in the process it politicizes the process. He said that Norwalk needs to set up an ethics commission that is independent and has authority. He said that the primary purpose of an ethics commission is to advise. If people know they can go to an ethics commission for advice and be told what to do, they will do the right thing. Connecticut is behind the rest of the country in municipal ethics and Norwalk is behind Connecticut cities because we do not have an ethics commission.

Mr. Wechsler said that an ethics commission is not accountable the way elected officials are. Mr. Wechsler said that the three areas that do not appear in the ethics code are education, disclosure and whistle blower protection. He said that these issues should be discussed in an open process.

Ms. Diane Lauricella, spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters. She said that having and independent commission may require more study. She said that the issue of revolving door senior staff who end up working for contractors should be discussed. She said that it would be important for anyone working under the code to know what is expected of them.

Mr. Joe Robidoux, Dariy Farm Court said that there have been many opportunities to get the point across. Politicians get a bad rap, but they are elected to represent the residents. They need to be above reproach and transparent.

Mr. Robidoux asked to look at having local officials along with Common Council members make up the board.

Mr. William Krummel, Little Fox Lane said that people are aware and expect to see something. He said that he looked at the draft ordinance and submitted an e-mail to the Mayor objecting to three major areas that need to be looked at. They are perception, timing, and availability of counsel for the person being targeted. Mr. Krummel said that the minimum objective has been reached with this draft.

Ms. Sara Sikes, commended Mr. Coffey and the Common Council for coming up with this new proposal. She added that without an independent commission the process will loose the confidence of the residents.

Mr. Kenneth Slapin, Bettswood Road said that he concurred with the previous speakers. A truly independent body will give the ethics process the credibility it deserves. He said that he wanted the public officials to be accountable, but an ethics decision should not be accountable to the voters; it must be right.

Mr. Slapin said that there is a lot of talk about the model code of ethics. He pointed out that this draft is modeled after the Stamford code of ethics, but some important parts of the Stamford code are missing.

Mr. Slapin reviewed the items he felt were important to add to the ordinance. He said that he has never known an ordinance to require guaranteed minimum funding. Mr. Nolin said that they can’t start an investigation without funding.

Mr. Slapin suggested they start thinking about increasing the six month statute of limitations; in Stamford it is three years. He said that the proposed ordinance needs further contemplation. He suggested holding a public hearing if they are going to depart from the model, since time is not of the essence.

Mr. Hal Alvord, Director, DPW suggested that section 7, part L that the word less was intended to be more. He said that his observation since he joined the City 3 ½ years ago is that he is very impressed with the ethical environment. He said that there is still a need for a policy code document.

Mr. Alvord made some suggested corrections to the policy.

Mr. Coffey asked the members of the public three times if they had any further comments. Hearing none. The public hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rosemarie Lombardi
Telesco Secretarial Services

Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page