New Haven Independent

John Smith, the Democratic Majority leader of the RTM, who initiated the complaint back in December, appeared dumbfounded when the five-member board announced its decision after discussing it in private.

“Time out,” he declared as he sought to absorb what had happened. “There was a complaint filed against Fowler,” he asserted from the floor. The Board, which had gone into executive session precisely to discuss the matter without identifying the person, looked incredulously at Smith. He seemed not to understand the import of having disclosed her name.

Smith had arrived at Canoebrook Center after the meeting began in order to check on the Fowler case. He learned the meeting was then in executive session. He waited. When the public portion resumed, he quickly dropped Fowler’s name in public. Then he asked if the Board of Ethics had received a letter concerning Fowler from Marianne Kelly, the town clerk. It had not, he was told. Why Smith needed the town clerk’s involvement is unclear. She may be a notary public, of course. But so are many others.

Smith left, visibly angry.

The way the Board of Ethics is supposed to work is that a complainant signs a sworn statement that outlines the nature of the complaint. The Board gets the complaint first.

But from the outset this is not the process that Smith and RTM moderator James Bruno used. Their complaint was not made privately as the Branford Code says it should be. Perhaps they had not consulted the Code.

Instead they chose to announce the complaint at the December RTM meeting and to place an RTM member they initially did not name under investigation. Bruno began by saying he was “handed something,” and ended by saying Rep. Smith “requested that it go to the Ethics Committee.” To do that it was necessary to convene the town’s dormant Ethics Board. They made a big production of it as they described the issue on BCTV, the cable television broadcast that is beamed into the homes of town residents.

It soon became clear that it was Fowler when she stood and asked Bruno if he had notified the Representative in question. “You know I have,” replied Bruno. Before long other RTM members began questioning whether Smith and Bruno’s motives against Fowler were political in nature. Fowler has been a thorn in the side of town counsel Ed Marcus whose bills she has sought and received under her Freedom of Information Act requests.

It seemed odd that Smith would be bringing a conflict of interest charge against Fowler to remove her from the RTM’s education committee more than a year after she had been appointed. Surely he knew when she was appointed that she worked for the school system.

So what was the conflict? Well, said Smith, she was a school aide at the John B. Sliney School. He didn’t point out that she was a non-union school aide, that she was non-certified and that in the past, while rare, other town employees have served on RTM committees.

RTM member Lonnie Reed, the education chair, defended Fowler at the December meeting, saying she wanted her to stay on the committee. An accusatory letter against Reed and other Democrats also had been read openly, this one at the beginning of the January RTM meeting. Again, Bruno said he had just received a letter he felt compelled to read.

Reed said Fowler was being punished because she had taken on the Morris- Marcus operation. In what way, the Eagle asked Fowler.

Fowler said there were several defining actions besides seeking the Marcus Law Firm’s monthly bills. One centered on an FOI complaint about the failure of the Board of Selectmen to fully inform that public about a key Stony Creek Quarry lease meeting last summer. An FOI commissioner recently held a hearing on Fowler’s complaint along with a similar one brought by New Haven Register reporter Mark Zaretsky. Ed Marcus represented the town. This hearing will be the subject of a future Eagle column.

Fowler said the effort to remove her from the education committee was a way of “embarrassing me, of trying to intimidate me, of trying to shut me up.”

After the December meeting, two reporters asked to see the Fowler letter that Bruno was talking about. But there was no letter, even though a “written complaint” is what triggers a Board of Ethics investigation. So the leaders of the RTM had managed to impeach the integrity of a sitting RTM member apparently without a letter in hand.

When the letter finally arrived at the Board of Ethics, it had not been sworn to under oath. We do not know who signed it, whether it was Smith or Bruno, but it may have been Smith because he was told before he left the meeting that he would be sent a letter explaining the Board’s actions. Nor do we know who actually wrote the letter. In dismissing the complaint, the Ethics Board was brief. It cited section 38.9 of the Town Code, and tossed it out because it had not been signed under oath.

So here is what we have learned so far. The Morris -Marcus Democrats not only shoot their own”“witness Reed and other Democrats they perceive as disloyal “”they have now added a Republican to their enemies list. But Fowler, who is a first term RTM member, is tenacious, too.

The public attacks mounted by Smith against Fowler and other RTM members suggest a serious erosion of respect for fellow RTM members, Fowler said in an interview. “It is an anything goes mentality. And that does not foster trust. Everything becomes suspect.”

The Board of Ethics met for an hour last night with its newly appointed chair, Jeff Clark. Clark introduced Board counsel Kevin Shea of New Haven, who during the 45 minute executive session undoubtedly brought the new members up to speed on the long Ethics section in the Town code. Shea had advised the Ethics Board for six years and came well recommended for the position, Clark said, adding that Shea’s hiring had been approved by the First Selectman’s office and Town Attorney Ed Marcus. One of the board members expressed relief that the town attorney was not aboard.

What will happen next? Well, if the Keystone Kops get their acts together they will probably get a letter signed under oath and send it back to the Board of Ethics.

Then the Board will have to decide if a complaint against Fowler already made public at the RTM meeting and then made public again at the Board of Ethics meeting through Smith’s bungling, should be reviewed on its merits, even though its confidentiality has been breached by the complainants in violation of the Town Code.

The Board of Ethics has the power to dismiss the complaint if it does not allege sufficient acts to constitute a violation. It also has the power to compel a hearing to take testimony under oath. Ms. Fowler would be entitled to be represented by an attorney, to present evidence and to cross- examine witnesses.

The Board will then file its decision, which may include a recommendation for appropriate actions against one party or the other. If the Board decides that a complaint was made without foundation, then Ms. Fowler, for example, could sue Smith and Bruno in court, and possibly collect damages as well as attorney’s fees.

And who might pay for that, we wonder.

###
The Branford Eagle is a not-for-profit labor of love. If you’d like to help support independent community journalism, please click here to contribute, then click here to send us a note to let us know you want the contribution directed to the Branford Eagle.

Sign Up for Email AlertsEmail This Story Email the Author

Your Email:

Recipient's Email:
Your Email:
Message (optional):

Your Name:
Your Email:
Message: