Panel OKs Ethics Reform

by Melissa Bailey | November 27, 2007 8:03 AM | | Comments (7)

DSC02181.JPGAfter two years, a panel of aldermen agreed to “bite off the gum” and start chewing on a new ethics code.

The joint Aldermanic Affairs and Legislation Committee approved the proposal for sweeping ethics reform at a City Hall meeting Monday night.

Hill Alderman Jorge Perez (pictured) introduced the proposal in December 2005 to catch the city up with state ethics reform passed in the wake of Connecticut’s Rowland-era scandals. Click here and here for background.

The new code of ethics applies not only to aldermen and department heads, but also to contractors doing business with the city (such as the former budget director Frank Altieri), as well as those who sit on boards or commissions. The proposal poses new rules for accepting gifts and lobbying.

Gifts

Aldermen agreed on a free ticket cap: Free tickets to nonprofit events are OK as long as the value is up to $100 per event. Downtown Alderwoman Bitsie Clark, seeking total transparency, asked what she should do if she gets offered a free ticket to a $275 non-profit gala by a group wishing to fill a table. Was the item considered a $100 gift if the actual food wasn’t worth $100? she and others pondered aloud.

Clark was open to seeking an opinion from the city ethics board if another high-priced gala came along. She said she would welcome public comment on the issue, and was “shocked” to see no public (except the press) in attendance. Those who comment avidly on the Independent’s comments section “should have guts enough to come before all of us and say what they think,” Clark said.

External Eyes

After the board debated the value of a gala meal, East Rock Alderman Roland Lemar voiced a concern: Why is the Board of Aldermen setting its own ethics rules? “It seems to be a conflict of interest to determine what our conflicts of interest are.”

Guidelines, such as how many free tickets aldermen can get and whether they can receive honorariums, should be set by an external body, he said. He introduced a motion, which passed unanimously, to have the city ethics board examine the guidelines of the new proposal and return to the board each year with recommendations and advice.

Revolving Door Compromise Struck

Aldermen and the administration struck an agreement on one point of debate: A “revolving door” clause requiring municipal employees to wait a year before going to work for an organization whose contract they had directly overseen.

While Perez’s ordinance was passing through the sinuous legislative tubes, Mayor John DeStefano in February introduced a new ethics pledge for department heads to sign, addressing in part the revolving door. According to the pledge, department heads agree to wait one year before returning to lobby the city or aldermen. The city pledge prohibits lobbying only on behalf of private for-profit interests.

Perez had wanted to expand that to prohibit outgoing officials from lobbying also on behalf of non-profits, community-based organizations and government entities such as the city housing authority and Board of Ed. He won prohibition of the first two but agreed to permit the third, so that a former mayoral staffer, for example, may go directly to work for the housing authority.

Unlike the mayor’s ethics pledge, the ethics ordinance would be set in stone regardless of who’s in the mayoral seat.

Biting Off The Gum

After an hour of discussion, aldermen agreed to approve the new rules by a unanimous vote, with two newcomers abstaining.

West River Alderman Yusuf Shah had some lingering concerns about enforcement. Once the rule are set, “Who is going to find out? Is there going to be a watchdog group? Are people going to watch your mail?”

Aldermanic President Carl Goldfield responded that the new rules are most effective as a guideline for honest people who are seeking to act ethically. But the watchdogs may be out, he warned: “There are people who will be watching and waiting to ‘slam’ someone” on an ethical violation. “You’re going to have to be very careful and abide by these things.”

Shah said he was concerned he’d have to say “no” to a non-profit group that might invite him to “break bread” over a more-than-$100 meal. Wary but resigned to voting for the new rules, he issued his own form of warning as the meeting closed:

“If we bite off this gum, we gonna have to chew it,” said Shah. “And when the sweetener goes out of it, we’re going to have keep chewing, or spit it out.”

The proposal now passes to the full board for a vote on Dec. 17.







Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 27, 2007 8:38 AM

Bitsie
I was at the last one and I wish I could of been at last nights, (Avery had a city wide Block Watch Forum).
But I had figured that most was settled in the last meeting (with a few changes). I as a citizen have no problem with the tickets, you are your areas rep. and I (as a citizen) want the alderman to rep. us at these events. The only thing that concerned me (as a citizen) was the honorariums. Which I would love to know how that part of the meeting turned out?? Melissa...what was the agreement on the honorariums??

That and I think the the alder's are due for a cost of living raise. But that is a whole other issue.

Posted by: Bruce | November 27, 2007 9:36 AM

While I appreciate the efforts of Perez and others, these rules are still way too lenient. I would venture that a significant portion of city residents have never enjoyed a $100 meal. That's a lot of money to a lot of people and obviously a potential for persuasion exists.

Posted by: Bruce | November 27, 2007 9:41 AM

...and I should add that these gifts are not part of the responsibilities or duties of aldermen. They are "perks" that the alders enjoy and do not want to give up.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | November 27, 2007 9:41 AM

If The Alderman Want A Meal Go To Subways Monday
To Friday And You Can Get A Sub, Drink And Chips For Five Dollars!!! Because That Is All You Are Worth Anyway!!!

Posted by: Gary Doyens | November 27, 2007 12:47 PM

Bitsie may be shocked that I and other working families weren't there in force last night to watch over the deliberations, but I think I've made my views well known in the NHI, and under my own name I might add. Besides, I had other priorities last night and public input such as I proffer is rarely if ever appreciated.

Nonetheless, I would have liked to have attended but as a member of the working class struggling to pay ever escalating taxes, utilities, gas, insurance and groceries, without the benefit of a double digit pay hike, in addition to raising a family, improving my home (which increases my taxes), attending a plethora of non-profit events to support a wide variety of worthy causes in New Haven and across the state, plus school events, my children's activities, and commuting two hours a day to work, I'm a little busy and priorities have to be set and kept.

Last night in particular, I got home at 6p - dinner in the oven by 6:20p, talked over the day's events with my children and wife, who arrived at 645p, and started helping with homework assignments until 7:10p. We collectively set the table, sitting down to eat at 725p. As the kids were clearing the table and my wife was wrapping up the homework review, I washed pots and pans, loaded the dishwasher, took out the garbage, reviewed the day's mail, went over the ground rules with my son on his new retainer and how he needed to gin up his personal responsibility for the new replacement of the one he broke. We also talked about why Air Jordans are a status symbol that has nothing to do with how well he plays basketball at the Farnham Community Center league and why there is not an Xbox 360 in our family budget but it is important to provide Christmas gifts for a family of 5 suffering from Aids. About 930p, I checked my email, the NHI, paid bills and added my touches to the sugar cookies the kids and my wife made before hustling them off to bed around 10:15p.

By then, you were long done worrying about your complimentary tickets to the Shubert or a meal worth a $100.

Bitsie: You are one of 30 "leaders" who oversee a whole city full of people just like me doing many of the same things. You chose to be an alderwoman and we, the public, expect you to do the right thing whether we are in those chambers or not - in force, in a small group, or one person standing at the podium, or posting comments here seeking some small measure of relief, openness and transparency in government. Guts, Bitsie, isn't defined by coming to a meeting and speaking for the allotted 3 minutes. It's defined by how we raise our families, take care of our children, support the common good and advocate for change when needed.

It is past time for the ethics of this board and the city to be updated and revised. What's under consideration is a diluted version of ethics reform - it's a good start, but make no mistake, it doesn't ask much; it requires little "sacrifice" and while some may characterize it as merely a "prophylactic," it's still the right thing to do.

Posted by: -FairHavener- | November 27, 2007 2:48 PM

"Downtown Alderwoman Bitsie Clark, seeking total transparency, asked what she should do if she gets offered a free ticket to a $275 non-profit gala by a group wishing to fill a table. Was the item considered a $100 gift if the actual food wasn't worth $100? she and others pondered aloud."

If I go over at a meter downtown and I get a ticket, should I pay the whole thing or just the 10 cents that I went over in time? Obviously 10-20 cents isn't worth $15 (or whatever it is). If my house really isn't worth $10,000 dollars a year in taxes, should I just pay what it is really worth?

I think the real question is whether $100 is even OK. (It is not even $100 dollars, it is $100 X infinity - because there is no limit on the total number of $100 dollar transactions (at least as far as I have read).)

"She said she would welcome public comment on the issue, and was "shocked" to see no public (except the press) in attendance. Those who comment avidly on the Independent's comments section "should have guts enough to come before all of us and say what they think," Clark said."

Shouldn't she be more "shocked" that no one in New Haven, besides Vito and McGrath, voted last election? I don't think it's a matter of "guts", rather, conflicting schedules. I promise to appear next time. Anyway, even if I could have shown up, it is hard to sense the urgency, since it has been Two Years to get this far.

BTW, if aldermen are that concerned about the public showing up to "say what [we] think", maybe they shouldn't vote against public input:

http://www.nhcan.org/boa-accountability-project/

Did I see Clark's name on that list?

Or maybe the aldermen should entice us with $100 dollar meals and gala tickets.

Posted by: Chris Gray | November 28, 2007 2:58 AM

As I wrote in my last post on this subject,

"For over ten years I helped produce the cablecasts of each and every one of their (BOA) meetings and, in those days, if they'd had members convicted at the rate these folks have sustained, this would have passed as a unanimous consent item."

I also attended many, many committee meetings and public hearings, frequently testifying to the dismay and alarm of alders.

I have experienced having my testimony cut-off and ruled out of order (such as when, at a hearing on police brutality, I tried to point out that the use of 'horse soldiers' for crowd control was a danger to public health using the example of an elderly woman trampled by a wedding carriage when the horse was spooked by a stray piece of paper floating by, though I later saw one of our horses nearly trampling folk on the Green because it was attacked by a Rotweiller on a May Day).

I have had alders walk out en masse while testifying on their ethics at a committee meeting.

Before that, I spent years shocking and dismaying the Arts Council (before Ms. Clark's time in control there), as I did to the Arts & Ideas elite with my tales at the storytelling program two years back (and which I did not find advertised in last year's program).

I have shown plenty of guts and had it returned with disdain.

Now, I am older, poor, infirm and disabled and spend much of my time caring for and assisting my even older and infirm mother.

Moreover, I saw that, in Mr. Perez, the public already had an adequate advocate on site.

Many alders from past days, who saw the sense and purpose of my hyperbole and theatrics, came to find me a charming ally and a polite opponent. Liz McCormack, against whom I once ran, never failed to invite me over to her and Joe's tailgates at the Bowl and went out of her way to introduce Dick Lee to me on Election Day at the Ward 24 poll.

Vinnie Mauro did not live to see the Recycling Program kick off or CTV on the air, but he came to realize that, when he asked a Register reporter, "Chris Gray, what did he build?" he was speaking from ignorance.

I had built a format at the Yale radio station that swept the city, jazz, and a fifth column there that Yale could end only by shutting it down. I had built the Citizens Cable Coalition which exposed Board machinations to the public. I was serving the states older population at the Elder Newspaper, the founder of which I had counseled on it even before it had a Board. I had begun building a political party that would influence city and, even, national politics for a generation and that more was coming.

Now, even the cities of Texas are competing to be the most eco-friendly, while wind turbines sprout across the rural plains. So much for the "Hammer".

I did not work alone, but Ms. Clark might end up mightily unhappy if, even alone, I decide to forego some of my personal responsibilities and show her my guts.

Meanwhile, three cheers for Mr. Perez and the Independent, gutless posters and all!

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35