New Haven Independent

The debate came as the joint Aldermanic Affairs and Legislation Committee met to consider an ethics ordinance proposed by Hill Alderman Jorge Perez (at left in picture). At Monday’s hearing in City Hall, two years after Perez’s initial proposal, several aspects still met resistance on the board.

Among the changes fought was a proposal to prohibit aldermen from taking honorariums for making public speeches — a token of appreciation that no one at the table said they had ever been offered.

Perez’s proposal aims to bring city law up to speed with state ethics reform made in the wake of the former Gov. Rowland’s corruption scandals. The ordinance applies to public officials (aldermen, the mayor and department heads) as well as city contractors (like the former budget director Frank Altieri). (Click here for a background story).

One section limits the gifts that these municipal employees and their immediate family members can accept from someone who does business with or is trying to do business with the city. Perez’s original proposal, which has since been modified through collaboration with an Ethics Working Group and city attorneys, called for these officials to give up accepting gifts entirely.

“Aldermen shouldn’t get anything the general public doesn’t get,” was Perez’s original thought.

That would have meant no more nights out at the Shubert, and no more free tickets to the Pilot Pen tennis tournament, for aldermen. Both organizations are given city subsidies in the annual budget, which is approved by aldermen.

Shubert Seats Saved

Downtown Alderwoman Bitsie Clark described how such a clampdown would have hampered the theater’s livelihood. The theater often gives tickets away for less popular shows in attempt to fill seats and get the word out about the show.

“They are not trying to butter anyone up,” said Clark, “they are trying to get more people in the door.” Aldermen, often too busy to go to the theater every week, often give the tickets away to constituents. Clark said she used recent free tickets to rally a large group from Ninth Square public housing to attend a show of Gypsy.

Clark and others won that debate, and the ethics proposal was modified to allow an alderman to accept tickets from non-profit organizations, as long as they cost no more than $100 per event. That’s enough to cover two tickets to most shows — just not always the best seats in the house.

Goodbye Steak And Champagne

A cup of coffee may be an innocent way to facilitate conversation, but could a steak dinner, bottle of bubbly and molten chocolate cake at, say, the top of the Omni Hotel, sway an alder’s vote?

The latter scenario is reportedly not the reality for these public servants, who are more likely to get a phone call berating them about an unswept street than an invite to a lavish dinner. The position is essentially a volunteer job, with a humble $2,000 stipend per year for hours spent in meetings and on the phone.

But to set the rules straight, aldermen settled on a price: Meals under $25, once every 60 days, would not be considered “gifts.” Those over $25 would be off-limits.

Would Be Nice If They Did Call

A proposal to ban honorariums, while much less likely than the Omni woo, met greater resistance.

The new ethics law would ban alders from getting paid to write an article, make an appearance, or give a speech in their official capacity. Perez said in his two decades on the board, he hasn’t heard of anyone actually getting paid in this manner.

But Westville Alderman Sergio Rodriguez (pictured) hadn’t given up hope.

“What if someone calls me and says, we want you to do this speech?” asked Rodriguez. The mayor or other department heads get a full salary and benefits for their jobs, so they can easily turn down the fee. But aldermen don’t get paid much— what’s wrong with getting a little change for sharing their wisdom? Rodriguez’s logic went. “I don’t see a problem with it!”

Westville Alderman Tom Lehtonen suggested making a special exception for aldermen, allowing them to accept the honorariums, since they don’t get a salary.

Perez cringed at the idea. “The worst thing you could do is exclude aldermen and apply it to everybody else.”

“If you want to be squeaky clean,” agreed Alderwoman Clark, refusing honorariums “is the way to be squeaky clean.”

“I don’t believe it makes you dirty!” responded Rodriguez.

East Rock Alderman Roland Lemar jumped in with an explanation. Suppose an energy company offers you $1,000 to speak at a conference on energy reform. It would give the appearance that you’re not just getting paid for that speech, but that you would be beholden to that company’s wishes when it came time to vote.

Almost any honorarium would easily outweigh an aldermen’s monthly stipend, making the offer a significant force tugging against the alderman’s commitment to the city.

That’s how companies funnel money to politicians in exchange for votes, added Aldermanic President Carl Goldfield.

West River Alderman Yusuf I. Shah still had concerns. What if someone wants me to speak about social activism? he asked.

Perez assured him that the rule would only affect speeches made in an official capacity — alders could give talks on areas of their professional expertise without the new ethics guillotine chopping off their heads.

Revolving Door Compromise

Perez came to a compromise with the city administration on another key aspect of his plan — a “revolving door” clause requiring municipal employees to wait a year before going to work for an organization whose contract they had directly overseen.

That means, to take a hypothetical example, the person who negotiates a school construction contract with Gilbane could not immediately leave and work under that contract for Gilbane.

Goldfield maintained concerns that the city would be “cutting ourselves off from a pool of talent” by making it hard for people to get jobs after they left city government, thus making public service a less desirable profession in the first place.

“Where is the revolving door?” asked Shah, pressing for specific situations.

Clark came to Perez’s side: It’s not about any one person’s misdeeds, she said. “It’s a great idea, when you don’t have anything going wrong, to look ahead and make sure they don’t do anything wrong.” It’s a “responsible position.”

The city administration had originally asked for a wide range of exclusions to this revolving door rule— government entities, non-profit groups and community-based organizations. Perez asked for none.

The mayor’s team and Perez settled on allowing government entities (such as the Parking Authority, Housing Authority and Board of Ed) to be exempt, but not the others.

Perez left content he had at least come to an agreement with the city administration and most aldermen on key changes. “It’s a start,” he said.

The proposal was tabled another month until a Nov. 26 public hearing at 6 p.m. in City Hall.