Orosco Floats APT-Focused Ethics Complaint Against Elicker

Republican mayoral candidate Steve Orosco and his campaign chair Jason Bartlett want to file a formal ethics complaint against Mayor Justin Elicker over a now-paused proposed property deal that they claim shows improper favoritism towards the APT Foundation.

But under current city rules, they can’t submit that complaint themselves.

That’s because, per the City Charter, New Haven’s Board of Ethics conducts investigations and issues advisory opinions only in response to written requests from the Board of Alders, aldermanic committees, public officials, and city employees, or upon its own initiatives. 

Neither Orosco, a mixed-martial artist and frequent Republican candidate for office, nor Bartlett, a former City Hall youth services director and mayoral campaign veteran, fits any of the criteria for who is allowed to file such a complaint. 

So they can’t file the complaint themselves.

“In a city dominated by one political party, with no elected opposition, this process discourages accountability and hinders transparency,” Orosco and Bartlett wrote in an open letter attached to the proposed complaint. ​“We are therefore reaching out to any city employee or public official who is willing to stand up for ethical governance and submit this complaint on behalf of the public. Your identity and actions are protected under Connecticut’s whistleblower protection laws, which safeguard those who report misconduct in good faith from retaliation.”

The Board of Ethics is responsible for providing broad oversight of potential conflicts of interest involving city employees, appointees, and elected officials.

In an email press release and draft complaint submitted to the Independent on Friday, Orosco and Bartlett allege that Elicker gave the APT Foundation unduly favorably treatment when his administration brokered a proposed deal that would see the city acquire a state-owned parcel on Sargent Drive and then sell that same lot to APT. 

That proposed land deal is designed to facilitate the construction of a new methadone clinic and healthcare office building atop a surface parking lot separated from the water by the I‑95 highway. The deal would also see APT relocate its existing Congress Avenue methadone clinic from the Hill to the proposed new Long Wharf building.

The Elicker administration recently put this plan on hold amid growing backlash from Hill neighbors and elected officials.

Now, Orosco and Bartlett are pressing for the Board of Ethics to look into whether or not the deal itself was unduly favorable to APT.

They point in particular to language that wound up being included in state legislation in 2023 that connected the state’s transfer of this Sargent Drive property to the city to a separate memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by APT and the city. 

“Mayor Elicker acted improperly by advocating for the inclusion of the APT Foundation in the conveyance bill and facilitating a reversion clause that bound city officials to transfer city-acquired waterfront property to this private non-profit, under threat of the property reverting to the State if not transferred as stipulated,” the proposed complaint claims. 

Orosco and Bartlett argue that the proposed city-APT deal violate two sections of New Haven’s Code of Ethics — Section 2 – 826, which prohibits the use of city property or funds for the benefit of others unless specifically authorized by law, and Section 2 – 827, which bars city officials from representing private interests before city agencies.

They argue the clause in the state bill that mentions the city-APT MOU was inserted at Elicker’s urging and bound the city to a deal that bypassed normal public processes like aldermanic review and competitive bidding. They also point out that an earlier version of the 2023 bill did not include any reference to APT.

In an interview Friday, Elicker dismissed the ethics complaint as a campaign-season stunt.

“It’s election season in New Haven, and therefore, it’s silly season in New Haven,” he said. ​“This is a typical thing that a candidate does when they’re trying to create controversy where there is not.”

Elicker defended his administration’s handling of the APT land deal, saying the process was transparent from the start.

“We had lengthy interactions with the alders in the Hill, [and] the state representative about it,” Elicker said. ​“To insinuate there’s some ethical issue here is just silly and a waste of time.”

The APT proposal has become a flashpoint in the 2025 mayoral race. Elicker has framed the relocation as a measure to move addiction treatment services out of residential neighborhoods and into a more appropriate location. The agreement would allow APT to relocate its Congress Avenue headquarters to Long Wharf. 

Orosco, while agreeing the clinic should leave the Hill, opposes placing it on Long Wharf. He called the Sargent Drive area ​“one of the city’s most valuable economic zones” and argued the land should be reserved for commercial development, not ​“high-impact social services.”

Elicker also argued Friday that Orosco’s ethics complaint was meant to distract from Orosco’s refusal to join New Haven’s public campaign financing program, the Democracy Fund. The program aims to limit the influence of large private donations by providing public matching funds and grants to candidates who cap individual contributions and reject special interest money. Elicker is a participant; Orosco is not. 

Ethics Board Chair: "The Board Of Ethics Doesn't Go Chasing Political Press Releases"

In an interview Friday, Board of Ethics Chair Matthew Watson emphasized that campaign-season allegations — even detailed ones — do not automatically prompt an investigation.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for the Board of Ethics to weigh in on a political campaign’s press release,” Watson said. ​“There is a process that is established by ordinance for how these complaints are supposed to be filed. The Board of Ethics doesn’t go chasing political press releases.”

He explained that while the board will not independently pursue claims raised during a campaign, it will consider any properly filed complaint.

“As the Board of Ethics, we believe process and due procedure are important for upholding the integrity of the board,” Watson said. ​“The processes that are established by law are the paramount things that allow the board to maintain its integrity and effectiveness.”

Orosco, for his part, has promised to overhaul the city’s ethics process if elected.