New Haven Independent

At issue are the events of December 8, 2005”“a year ago today”“when Ed and Shelley Marcus, the town’s attorneys, helped State Rep. Peter Panaroni out of a financial crisis by ordering the lifting of a town order against Panaroni’s business at 44 Tabor Drive so that he could refinance the property. That lifting took place just 17 days into the new Morris-Marcus Administration. RTM member, Republican Peter Black, an attorney, disclosed the lifting of the order during the final days of his recent bid to unseat Panaroni, a ten year incumbent.

From Black’s point of view, the town needs a different attorney to represent it against a lawsuit Panaroni has filed against the town. Last month, Black sent a letter to the RTM, signed by six Republicans and one Democrat. Marcus, they said, had a conflict of interest because he went to bat for Panaroni with Inland Wetlands regarding the same piece of land over which Panaroni is now suing the town. Also, the two are old political friends.

The RTM voted to send the matter to this committee which, according to the Branford Code, may study and recommend action on any matters related to law. The last time the Marcus Law Firm was in the hot seat, Ed Marcus was the spokesman, answering questions about Granite-gate. Now his daughter Shelley was front and center. Her opening presentation was sharp and bitter. She began by reading aloud a patronizing and derogatory letter from her colleague David Doyle, who apparently took the view that Black’s letter was addressed to him personally as the attorney of record in the Panaroni case, rather than, as Black had stated, against the Marcus Law Firm as counsel for the town. Click here to read the letter.

Doyle is not a partner in the firm. According to the firm’s web site, he is an associate, and as such would presumably have to consult the only partners, Ed and Shelley, about case strategy and decisions.

Doyle’s letter does not address the conflict of interest issue; instead it renders a frontal attack on Black’s intelligence and legal ability. Doyle accuses Black of having “no familiarity with how administrative law cases are handled. This matter will be called at a calendar in December. There is no status conference scheduled,” Doyle wrote, responding to Black’s assertion that a status conference was scheduled. In fact, the judicial web page lists a status conference for the case in December.

Section 7.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct governing CT. attorneys, says the party must formally waive the conflict of interest concern. Black asked if the ZBA had done so. He didn’t get a straight answer. But Doyle’s final words to Black were memorable: “You have now cost the Town of Branford my fee for the last ten minutes of my billable time. These ten minutes are all the attention you will get from me.”

The letter was so patronizing, so out of line, so demeaning and childish, that folks in the room gasped. To think that the taxpayers would have to pay for this letter upset many. Republican Robert Cromer, who sits on the committee, told Ms. Marcus he found the Doyle letter “offensive.”

Shelley didn’t think so. She said she agreed with the letter and then shot back: “Perhaps you found a letter read in front of the RTM and a television camera about a conflict of interest that doesn’t exist, perhaps you found that offensive,” she said of Black’s letter that was read at the RTM meeting last month.

After the meeting, Gail Chapman, the chair of the committee, said that “In my opinion, this letter is extremely unbecoming to The Marcus Law Firm as I know them. It strongly encourages me and select members of my committee to want to investigate this matter further in the best interest of the Branford taxpayers.” Ms. Marcus insisted there was no conflict.

However, it became clear after Daniel Shapiro, the IWC chairman, began to describe what happened to him and to Diana Ross a year ago that both had been put in untenable positions by this Administration. Shapiro told Kurt Schwanfelder, the Republican Minority Leader, in answer to a question, that he would take full responsibility.

He disclosed that Diana Ross called him on December 8, 2005 and he agreed to go along, a decision he now regrets. He said this was the only time he had ever done something like this and that he acted without the consent of the Commission even though the Commission was scheduled to meet that night. Ms. Ross had told Marcus that. But Marcus wanted it done that day. Shapiro said it was an action he would not take again. His commission rebuked him.

One can understand his frustration, however, as he described the difficulties the Commission faced over three years in getting Panaroni to act to correct the ongoing damage to the wetlands.

“I didn’t know why Town Hall wanted to do this. I suspected that it was for a transfer. I thought in my heart of hearts that the sale of this property would not be a bad thing because we had our frustrations going around and around on this property since 2002. It ties up an inordinate amount of our meager resources— Diana going out there time and time again, the Commission going on repeated site walks, trying to get remedial action, and it involved a disproportionate use of the Commission’s time.”

Shapiro said Pararoni had known about the wetlands problems since before 2002 and had done nothing until he was fined $1,000 a day in December, 2004. Then it took only two days to erect a buffer to protect the wetlands. As far as Shapiro was concerned, at the time he agreed to lift the order most of the violations had been cured and he thought it was “a good idea to get the Panaroni property off our records.”

Then Panaroni rented out the same piece of property to Sani-Can, a portable toilet company, and there are now scores of port-o-potties on the property. In his complaint filed in Superior Court, Panaroni says he has a “valid, non- conforming right to use the property as it is currently being used which predates the enactment of the relevant zoning regulations in Branford.” Panaroni told the New Haven Register that “I didn’t do a thing wrong”¦ it is character assassination.” But Shapiro and Ross as well as the public minutes of the Commissions show a vastly different reality.

Panaroni’s supporters”“John Smith, the Democratic RTM leader and RTM members Lisa Avitable and Jan Doyle, said Panoroni should have been invited to the meeting to speak. But as John Opie, the former First Selectman, said, “This isn’t about whether Panaroni and his attorney feel comfortable with the Marcus Law Firm. It is whether or not you folks feel comfortable about the relationship between the Marcus Law Firm and Panaroni.” Opie also questioned Shelley Marcus closely about whether she had actually begun foreclosure proceedings against Panaroni and she finally said she had not. The taxes could have been collected that way.

Nor was Pam Roy of Stony Creek going to let Shelley Marcus get away with usurping the authority of the town’s commissions. In a steamy exchange, she asked Shelley Marcus if she knew she had bypassed the IWC. Ms. Marcus began to dance around that question.

“We went to the inland wetlands officer. Did I know that we had to go to the Inland Wetlands Commission? Not necessarily. Diana called the chairman and she did what she thought was necessary in having a conversation with the chairman. Had the chairman said we have to take this to the commission, she would have said that to me: ‘Shelley, we need to go to the commission”¦.’” Then she trailed off.

In fact, Diana Ross told Ms. Marcus and her father that only the Commission could act to lift the order. “It was a brand new request. I was a new counsel,” Ms. Marcus said in her defense, her voice dropping. Of course, she might have called prior attorneys familiar with how town commissions work. Or she could have let the Panaroni matter go tothe IWC that night.

Instead, using their position as town attorneys and perhaps spokesmen for the new Administration, Ed Marcus told Diana Ross that it was okay, he would be responsible. What Mrs. Morris said is not known. Her name did not come up at this meeting. Nor was she present.

Throughout the evening, Ms. Marcus justified her decision by saying the town collected $57,000 in back taxes. She had announced at the RTM meeting last month that she would do this for any taxpayer, though at this meeting she amended her policy so that the Commissions issuing these orders would first be consulted. Finally, Opie had had enough.

“All this talk about getting property taxes out of this property is just nonsense,” he said. “You are going to get your property taxes one way or the other,” he said, citing foreclosure as the most obvious path. “And if you don’t get them right away you are getting 18 percent interest on them. It is not a bad investment on the part of the town.

“Frankly it is a poor excuse to put yourself in this situation,” Opie said looking right at Ms. Marcus. “This is a bad policy.”
###