New Haven Independent

Alders and city staff debated these questions as the city crawls to catch up with state ethics reform passed in the wake of Connecticut’s Rowland-era scandals.

One year after Hill Alderman Jorge Perez (pictured above at right) submitted a sweeping proposal for ethics reform, Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. proclaimed ethics a top priority in his State of the City address. A new “ethics pledge“ for city department heads moved along some of the reforms Perez was seeking.

Monday, a half-dozen aldermen met with mayoral staff and City Hall’s top lawyer in an “ethics working group,” hashing out details of Perez’s proposal.

The Revolving Door

As the city seeks to translate state-wide ethics laws into terms appropriate for the city, discussion stumbles most over the so-called “revolving door” through which public officials return and lobby the city on behalf of private interests.

At the mayor’s request, city department heads have pledged to wait one year before returning to lobby the city. Perez’s proposal would expand that pledge to include aldermen and everyone in executive management, as well as “city contractors.” He would also establish penalties in a more defined way than the mayor’s pledge, which promises only “corrective action being taken by Mayor John DeStefano.”

Scenario: An attorney who works in City Hall leaves her job and returns to lobby on behalf of businesses in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals. “That’s wrong,” said Perez. Lobbyists shouldn’t be using insider knowledge of City Hall to further private interests.

But what about Mike Morand? asked Aldermanic President Carl Goldfield, who represents Westville. Morand was a former alderman who now pops up in aldermanic chambers working on deals for Yale.

“I always thought there was a real value” in Morand’s aldermanic experience, said Goldfield. “He understood the way we work, and we understood him.” When the time came to work out a deal with Yale regarding a possible residential college development plan, “I felt freer” asking Morand for $10 million in benefits in exchange for the rights to develop a few streets.

Perez’s proposal wouldn’t condemn Morand’s recent actions “” he would only have been prohibited from lobbying the city for one year after he left the aldermanic board. But Goldfield used the example to illustrate how he thought new revolving door restrictions might inhibit city business.

“Do we lose more than we gain?” he asked. Goldfield was also concerned outgoing City Hall attorneys would be out of work for a year if they were restricted from engaging in city business: “We have some lawyers who would have to leave the city” to find work. Corporation Counsel Tom Ude, who has hired or supervised many local firms through his official capacity, might fall into that category.

Back to Cheap Seats at the Pilot Pen?

Aldermen get free tickets to the Pilot Pen tennis tournament. Should that perk be taken away?

“Every year, we get tickets. I get them, and I give them away,” said Edgewood Alderwoman Liz McCormack.

“All of us have turned around and given the tickets to someone that we like, to say thank you,” added Goldfield. Is that wrong?

One proposal would ban gifts under a certain dollar amount. Someone suggested $50.

“Why are you being so stringent with the fifty dollars?” asked Alderman Charles Blango. Perez said he was open to changing the figure.

“In my 19 years [on the board], the ability to give away the tickets has not influenced me a bit,” said Perez. But he said he’d be open to a total gift ban, plain and simple.

Coal For Christmas

Some exceptions would still be made, to save this scenario posed by mayoral staffer Rob Smuts: His mother works for a state agency that does business with the city. Under a gift ban, could she still give him a present for the holidays?

“No Christmas socks for Rob!” joked Goldfield as alders adjourned the workshop, planning to consider various exceptions to the total gift ban, such as gifts by family members who aren’t trying to influence city business.