This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.

Proposed Ethics Code Up to Vote This Election Season

A full copy of a proposed Code of Ethics by the Municipal Ethics Commission was posted on the Town of Deep River website on Sept. 1, after having been approved by both itself and the Board of Selectmen at a meeting for the latter group on Aug. 23. The Code will be a line item on the ballot come Election Day on Tuesday, Nov. 8, with its potential implementation applying to all Town officials and employees.

The Code would serve as a statute for appropriate conduct for officials and employees of the Deep River municipality and outlines numerous provisions revolving around the issue of conflicts of interest, while defining language for the appropriate application of its rules, according to Luther Moen, a regular member of the Commission.

The establishment of the Commission was the result of a ballot initiative during the 2019 election. It also serves to meet state requirements that all Connecticut municipalities incorporate an ethics commission into town operations, according Moen. Passed by the General Assembly in 2019, S.B. No. 1095 concerned all towns in the state, and required that “not later than Oct. 1, 2020, each municipality shall adopt a code of ethics,” to be integrated into municipal services. A special election in Deep River the following year was held to vote for the candidates presenting sitting on the Commission and was officiated with the signing of an ordinance by the BOS.

According to the ordinance, the “Code of Ethics shall be established pursuant to the provisions of CGS 7-148h,” which refers to the state level framework and the boundaries established by it for all municipalities in the state looking to form an ethics group, and served as a base-level understanding for the Commission in developing the Code.

While Moen acknowledged the Commission is a “ragtag bunch” that includes no person holding a law degree, the group members nonetheless received assistance from experts and did their research on the principles and responsibilities for a town body with the mission of preventing conflicts of interest. He also said that in the case of any complaint brought to the attention of the Commission, the body would “probably retain our own consul, if that became necessary.”

The Code begins with the conviction that, “Public service is a public trust. The trust of the public is essential to function effectively,” further postulating that ensuring the public trust in town service will be bolstered through a defined understanding of ethical conduct for all municipal “officials, officers, employees, and individuals” as to avoid potential conflicts of interests by town officials.

“We started out by talking to a lot of industry experts and people with experience with ethics commissions. We did some observations with research on what other municipalities had done, but it took us a while to find our groove,” said Moen.

According to the ordinance, the seven-member body, including two alternate members, will serve four-year terms beginning on Dec. 1 after municipal elections are held for members, who can serve a maximum of three terms. While sitting members are allowed to have a partisan affiliation, no more than three can be of the same political party, and are prohibited during their tenure to hold or run for any other public office, serve concurrently as a member of another agency, publicly endorse any candidate for any Town office, or contribute financially to any candidate as to indicate support. Commission members are also prohibited from volunteering for a political candidate within the jurisdiction of Deep River or plant or hang signs of support for a candidate. Moen, who is unaffiliated with any party, said that one of the concerns in balancing the number of party-affiliated members on the Commission is to prevent political retaliation.

The Code of Ethics language primarily focuses on issues of conflict of interest, defining 12 terms as to be applied to any case brought forth to the Commission. Definitions include those for financial interest, personal beneficial interest, and business. The Code, which applies to both currently serving and formerly serving town officials and employees, includes a nuanced definition of the term “gift,” which broadly refers to “anything of monetary value including services in excess of $100.00 cumulative in a calendar year,” while including 11 different possible “gifts” scenarios that would not violate the Code. These range from political contributions to donations of goods and services meant to facilitate town actions and functions.

Section VII of the Code spells a general outline for future plans by the Commission to “adopt procedures and regulations for the initiation and handling of complaints, including those initiated by private citizens.” The section is serving as the basis for a separate document the Commission is currently drafting entitled the “General Procedures” document. According to Moen, the document will establish a “complaint forum” and further outline the process by which private citizens are invited to follow if they believe they have a legitimate complaint to bring forth to the Commission for greater evaluation.

As part of the complaint forum, the Commission would ask concerned citizens to submit a document to the group detailing the specifics of the complaint, after which the Commission would receive and investigate the raised complaints and ultimately determine probable cause that would warrant “a reasonable person to believe that a town official, officer, or employee violated this Code,” according to the definition of the term in the Code.

Moen expressed his belief that the Town will not receive many complaints from residents, characterizing its officials and employees as an ethical collective and said that any complaints brought to the Commission are likely to be trivial in nature, according to his experience talking with ethic groups in other municipalities.

“I don’t anticipate getting a lot of complaints, to be perfectly honest. I think Deep River’s pretty ethical. That’s been our experience talking with other municipalities. They get very few; some of the complaints they do receive don’t really constitute an ethics violation,” said Moen. “Based on what’s been happening in other towns in the area, a lot of them are not ethics violations; they’re ‘I disagree with this person on a position,’ or ‘I’ve got an issue with noise,’ or whatever it is. They’re more or less other issues.”

The Commission is also currently in the process of drafting an FAQ-style document called a “citizen’s guide,” which is meant to be a vehicle for greater understanding of what constitutes an ethics violation.

If the Code is to be supported by the majority of Deep River residents come Election Day, the process of the “complaint forum” may be subject to change and recertified as a part of the Code if any altercations need to be made after the complaint process has been run through several times, according to Moen. Following these changes, the Code would reappear on a town ballot, again determined to be official by vote. Moen mentioned Old Saybrook as an example of municipalities that have practiced the same kind of method, following in their lead.

Residents are welcome to approach the Commission before Election Day for further information on the Code and its application to the Town, before deciding on its implementation as a line item on the ballot on Nov. 8.

A copy of the proposed Code of Ethics can be seen here.