New Haven Independent

When he took the job, Smith refused to step down as Democratic leader of the RTM, apparently not understanding or believing there was any conflict of interest in taking a town job while serving as a key elected official and Democratic RTM leader. He ignored the reality that his actions constitute a merger of the administrative and political functions within a town. Nor, apparently, did Morris believe that even the appearance of preferential treatment undermines trust in government.

Tomorrow night is John Smith’s final RTM meeting. The voters of his district did for him what he wouldn’t do himself. They refused to nominate him and that means an end to his 16-year long political career. Smith was reduced to begging someone, anyone in the audience, to nominate him to the ticket, but the 175 voters who crowded into the room that July evening refused.

The Branford RTM, unlike other RTMs in the state, is a partisan legislative body and Smith’s appointment evoked outrage across party lines. First was the principle of separation of powers as Rep. Anthony Giardiello put it when he asked that a vacancy be declared for Smith’s seat. Then there was the process. It soon became clear that Cindy Coville, the town’s Human Resources Director and Janice Pleziak, former facilities manager, had not selected Smith, but another candidate they felt more qualified for the position. But Morris had another plan.

Town Attorney #2, Shelley Marcus, was firmly on Smith’ side, maintaining he could hold both posts and citing her interpretation of state case law as proof. But other RTM delegates who are attorneys disagreed. The end of Smith’s term will provide a way to do what his constituents were unable to do ——get him to voluntarily resign from the RTM.

Over the past four months the RTM committee and the town’s Board of Ethics have spent many hours reviewing the John Smith case. Last week, after hearing from former First Selectmen Unk DaRos and John Opie, and former Personnel Director Priscilla Bolack, the committee concluded that Cheryl Morris did not follow standard operating procedures for town hiring when she appointed Smith to his post. The committee will announce its findings to the RTM tomorrow night. Democrat DaRos and Republican Opie are seeking Morris’s position and she is running as an Independent.

While the directive to the committee initially centered on Smith, the committee decided to focus on the process of hiring and whether that process was followed, not only for Smith but for others previously hired during the Morris administration, as well as for new appointees Morris might appoint before the First Selectman’s election takes place Nov 6.

Like the Granite-gate hearings, key town officials declined to appear. Coville, whom Mrs. Morris hired last year as the town’s Human Resources Director did not come forward because she felt it unwise to do so. Janice Plaziak, now the town engineer, had testified at the Granite-gate hearings, but this time, she, too, stayed away.

According to well-placed sources, Coville and Plaziak, who was the first to hold the facilities manager position, did not support Morris’s choice. Smith was supposed to report to Plaziak, but she informed Mrs. Morris she was not comfortable with that arrangement. As a result, Mrs. Morris has Smith reporting directly to her, a fact that reinforces the cronyism connection.

Without Coville and Plaziak, Gail Chapman-Carbone, the committee chair, could not pose key questions. Instead she invited the immediate past two First Selectmen, John Opie and Unk DaRos to explain their hiring practices. She also invited Priscilla Bolack, who served for nearly 12 years as the town’s personnel director, beginning with Judy Gott and ending in the middle of DaRos’s term in 2001.

DaRos described how they worked together. “When it came to hiring department heads, Priscilla did all the work. ‘I will let you know when we get down to a short list,’ she would say. And she would. She might say ‘we have two real good candidates and you know what, we need to interview both.’ It made my job easier,” DaRos told the committee. Opie, who spoke to the committee the week before, gave similar comments. Essentially, the town employee would be hired based on qualifications and the ability to work with others, the prior First Selectmen said.

Meanwhile, in the same building several rooms away, the five member Board of Ethics met for 90 minutes in executive session. Since the topics were virtually the same, it would have been instructive if the Ethics Board could have been a fly on the wall at the Administrative Services Committee.

For the second time in four months, the Ethics Board had trouble with a citizen complaint on whether the Morris-Smith case constituted a conflict of interest. The complaint was written by Branford resident Sandra Browne. The Board said her letter of complaint did not allege “sufficient acts to constitute a violation.” In short, it was not fact specific; it was too general.

Perhaps town residents, who are not lawyers and do not think like lawyers, ought to be given an outline, say on the town’s website, of how to write a complaint sufficient for the Board of Ethics to review. Browne’s complaint did not outline specific acts that would lead the Board to hold a hearing.

Now when Smith brought ethics charges against RTM member Pam Fowler, he was fact oriented. The Board found sufficient evidence to hold a hearing. Fowler was exonerated. But somehow in this case the board could not find a way to get to the hearing stage.

Browne’s first complaint, dated July 20, and signed by seven other town residents, did not refer to any specific violation under the Town Code and did not cite a specific fact pattern. It said only that in reporting to Mrs. Morris, Smith’s allegiance would be to Mrs. Morris and not necessarily to the voters of the 3rd district. Browne thought that in holding key positions in both the legislative and executive branches, Smith’s conflict was obvious on its face. Not to the Board of Ethics.

She decided to try again, writing a new letter dated Sept 5 and signed only by herself. This time she cited the sections of the Code that apply. She also said “for some time it has been clear to voters in the 3rd District that Mr. Smith’s actions on the RTM were closely linked to his lobbying for and receiving a position as Facilities Manager for the town.” In fact, Smith did apply for two separate town jobs before he was hired for the third one. According to his resume, at the time he applied he was unemployed.

At the end of the October 2 meeting, the board again said it needed more specifics, more facts. They dismissed the complaint unanimously. Then they adjourned and left the Canoe Brook Center.

But if they had wandered into the administrative services committee meeting up the hall, they would have heard Priscilla Bolack’s take on the same conflict of interest issue the Board of Ethics had just wrestled with.

“If I were still working for the town, I would have told any of the First Selectmen I worked with, I would have said, ‘think this through. It is a definite conflict of interest.’ And you are not being fair to the other 250 employees in the town,” Bolack told the RTM committee.

“In my 12 years, I know of one person who sat on the RTM and worked for the town. She was a bookkeeper for the counseling center. She left the RTM when she was hired. That’s not somebody making all these decisions,” she said. “He is voting on things that pertain to the town…I am sure as an employee they are not going to say certain things in front of him. They know where it is going to go. It must be very intimidating.”

Kurt Schwanfelder, the RTM Republican minority leader, who is running for the Second Selectman’s post, told the committee: “Right now we have a morale issue; we have a productivity issue, and it’s not just because one person got hired. We need to clean it up so that future administrations know what happened and won’t let it happen again.”

Bolack replied: “It is difficult because technically the First Selectman is the Human Resource Director’s boss. So if they said to them ‘hire this person’ I mean I would argue it and I would say I don’t think it is a good idea, but I would have had to do it. It didn’t happen to me but I understand it is happening now. I think the person who has the job now (Coville) can’t do anything.”

Will Sandra Browne come back with a third letter? Unlikely given that the issue will be moot when Smith’s position on the RTM comes to an end.

The recent cases the Board of Ethics has examined have revealed persistent conflicts between state and local law. Jeff Clark, the Chairman of the Ethics Board, has said publicly that the town’s Ethics code needs to be revised. He plans to start the process to achieve change soon.

But the Board of Ethics could still act. Any official or employee may ask the Board to render an advisory opinion “concerning town officials and employees with respect to the Code of Ethics.” This item falls under section 38-7 of the Code and it might be a way to have the Board look at the broad patronage and conflict-of-interest issues presented by the Morris-Smith case and that could apply to any acts Morris plans to take in the immediate future.

Whatever is found may help provide answers when Smith is evaluated. His probationary period ends sometime in December.
###