Saturday, March 17, 2007

Conflicts of interest

At this point, I can't even recall all the reasons that people are suggesting that there are "conflicts of interest." But here's the Charter's explanation:

Section 9-3

Any elected or appointed officer or any employee of the Town who has a conflict of interest, as set forth in Section 10-1, “Conflicts of interest and standards of conduct”, of the Town’s Code of Ordinances, as amended, shall, in addition to the requirements of Section 10-1, disclose that interest to the Council who shall record such disclosure upon the official record of their meetings. Violation by any such officer or employee of the provisions of this section shall be grounds for his removal. Violations of this Section with the knowledge, express or implied, of any person or corporation participating in such contract, transaction, or decision shall render the same voidable by the Council or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Sec. 10-1. Conflicts of interest and standards of conduct. (click it for the complete text of 10-1)

And some of the highlights of Section 10-1...

(a) Declaration of policy. The proper operation of the government of the Town of Cheshire requires that public officers and employees be independent, impartial and responsible to the people; that governmental decisions and policies be made in the proper channels of the government structure and free of coercive or other improper influence; that public office and employment not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its government. The purposes of this section are to set forth standards of ethical conduct, to assist public officers and employees and persons dealing with them in acting in the performance of their duties, and to maintain and enhance a tradition of responsible and effective public service. In recognition of these goals, there is hereby established for the Town of Cheshire the following standards.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section, the following words or phrases, unless a different meaning is required by the context or is specifically prescribed, shall have the following meanings:

(1) Financial interest shall be defined as any ownership of stocks, notes, bonds, obligations or other pecuniary interest in or with any person, partnership, firm or corporation which is involved in any matter, contract, subcontract, service, transaction, administrative decision or controversy directly or indirectly with the Town of Cheshire and which is not in common with the other members of the agency and the citizens of the town. Financial interest shall include the financial interest of any person related to any officer or employee by blood or marriage in a degree closer than the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity (determined by the civil law method). A divorce or separation between spouses shall not be deemed to terminate any such relationship. In the case of members of the town council, financial interest shall also include any interest direct or indirect in any labor contract to which such council member may be a party or in any appropriations to any town department or agency through which the council member may beemployed.

(2) Improper influence shall be defined as: "coercion," as that term is defined in section 53a-192 of the Connecticut General Statutes; "bribery," as that term is defined in sections 53a-146 through 53a-147 of the Connecticut General Statutes; and as communications or attempts to communicate privately either in person or by an agent with any public officer or employee concerning the substantive details or wisdom of any proposed or pending application or appeal before that public officer or employee wherein a decision will be made approving or denying any permit, license, regulation, appeal or enforcement proceeding after a public hearing. Communications by the town attorney, special counsel, town engineer, town planner and other staff members or consultants hired to advise and assist public officers and employees in their duties as permitted by law shall not be considered an improper influence.

(3) Personal interest shall be defined as any interest which is incompatible with the proper discharge of one's official duties in the public interest or which would tend to impair one's independence of judgment or action in the performance of one's official duties. It is either an interest in the subject matter or a relationship with the parties before the public officer or employee which impairs or reasonably might impair the impartiality expected to characterize a public officer or employee. A personal interest can take the form of favoritism or hostility. It is a personal bias or prejudice which imperils or reasonably appears to imperil the open-mindedness and sense of fairness which a public officer is required to possess.

(c) Conflicts prohibited. No public officer or employee of the town shall:

(1) Have any financial interest or any personal interest, either directly or indirectly, in any matter involving a decision pending before him, or in any contract or purchase order for any supplies, materials, equipment or contractual services furnished to or used by the Town of Cheshire which contract or purchase order is to be recommended, made, granted or awarded by such public officer or employee or by an agency of which he is a member.

(2) Accept or receive, directly or indirectly, from any person, partnership, firm or corporation to which any decision, permit, license, contract or purchase order may be awarded by the town, by an agency or by a public officer or employee any money or anything of value whatsoever (by rebate, gift or otherwise), or any promise, obligation or contract for future reward or compensation as consideration for awarding or influencing the award of such decision, permit, license or contract or purchase order.

(3) This section shall not prohibit the acceptance of reasonable and customary dinner favors in the course of town business by public officers or employees.

(4) A public officer or employee shall prima facie not be considered to have a prejudice or bias as to issues pending before him or his agency merely because of his personal expertise in any field of endeavor, and this shall be especially so where by virtue of the Cheshire Charter, a state statute or a Cheshire ordinance a special expertise or philosophy is desired or required as a qualification for appointment or election of a public officer or employee.

(d) Improper influence prohibited. No person, partnership, firm or corporation shall improperly influence or attempt to improperly influence either directly or indirectly any public officer or employee of the town.

(e) Solicitation of private communications prohibited. No public officer or employee shall encourage, make or accept any private communications concerning any matter where a decision is to be made after a public hearing. If a public officer or employee inadvertently receives such a communication, he shall make the contents of the communication a part of the record of the public hearing.

(2) In the case of a single public officer or employee of the town:

a. Disclose such interest to the town manager or the superintendent of schools, as the proper case may be, or, in the case of the town manager, to the chairman of the town council, or, in the case of the superintendent of schools, to the chairman of the board of education; and

b. Abstain from participating in any relevant hearing, discussion, debate or decision on any matter to which he or she has control or decision-making power over as such public officer or employee.


Anyway... there's quite a bit more to the whole "conflicts of interest" section 10-1 in the Charter, but I provided the link above. So feel free to research it more. Personally, I found the boldface section interesting. While I didn't re-read this whole section today, that one part does seem to hold the background and experience of the Town Planner in a good light.

Tim White
Town Council, 4th District

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey Tim
If a council person was part of the Cheshire Land Trust should that council person obstain from voting on the open space stuff>

Anonymous said...

Who are we talking about? I am not sure what I think about that. Much more of a conflict than a teacher from another town voting on our BOE budget.

Anonymous said...

"A personal interest can take the form of favoritism or hostility. It is a personal bias or prejudice which imperils or reasonably appears to imperil the open-mindedness and sense of fairness which a public officer is required to possess."

CAVE men have no conflict.

Open-mindedness and sense of fairness were never there way.

Tim White said...

7:11 I believe that all nine of us pay taxes. So, in a broad sense, you could argue that we should all recuse ourselves from the budget vote. But by that definition, virtually no elected official could ever vote on anything. I encourage you to write a letter to the Herald and start a public dialogue.

Anonymous said...

1100 I think is talking about Schrumm-he is on the board of the Cheshire Land Trust-I think the question that should be asked is if he is and the topic of open space comes up and the town wants to buy land does a conflict exist between a person who is on a private board and a council person-I have no idea either way
Tim what do you think?

Anonymous said...

The Cheshire Land Trust is a non-profit land conservation organization funded by member donations, bequests and dues. It is not taxpayer supported at all though it is able to seek government grants for acquisitions.

see www.cheshirelandtrust.org


Taxpayer funded open space acquistion by towns can be used for a variety of municipal purposes including public building, the reduction of buildable land available for new housing development, public recreation purposes and conservation. The town plan of conservation and development incorporates this as a function of the town's responsiblity to the public.

Land Trust members are taxpayers. Some members also serve on town boards and commissions. They share the concerns of typical residents about many things including the war in Iraq, school budgets, soup kitchens and balanced land use. CLT members also appreciate the changeable nature of government needs and therefore concentrate through their private endeavor to conserve open space and farmland with volunteer service & fundraising.

Anonymous said...

Then there is a conflict?

Anonymous said...

If the land trust and the town are both purchasing land in town, then yes there is a conflict since one person is on both the trust and the council. A major issue.

Anonymous said...

Have any financial interest or any personal interest, either directly or indirectly, in any matter involving a decision pending before him, or in any contract or purchase order for any supplies, materials, equipment or contractual services furnished to or used by the Town of Cheshire which contract or purchase order is to be recommended, made, granted or awarded by such public officer or employee or by an agency of which he is a member.

Anonymous said...

If a member of a board or commission has an opportunity to act on an application or funding request that may directly benefit an organization that they serve as a director for they should recuse themselves from the discussion and the voting. This occurs in local governemnet and occasionally on the PZC where I serve some members have occassionally had a relationship of some kind to an applicant and recused themselves.

If the standard many of you are suggesting existed then there would be no one ethically qualified to serve on a board or commission other than a recluse. I don't think a recluse would care to get involved.

The appropriate standard is full disclosure and recusal when a conflict presents. This policy has served the community interest well and has been steadfastly restated by John Knott for his long tenure as town atty. I have heard nothing different on the policy since the new firm came on board.

Anonymous said...

So David Schremm does have a problem very interesting.....

Anonymous said...

The land trust has not received any direct benefit from any actions by town council. Any tax advantages, ie property tax exemptions, are governed by state and federal law. A direct benefit would involve funding assistance, etc. on a co-owned property. There are no such direct connections.
You seem to have other questions with Mr. Schrumm which are best dealt directly with him since your inquiries here are clearly in disregard of any fact finding.
In the interest of full disclosure, the town has provided a link on its website to CLT at no charge.

Anonymous said...

or any personal interest, either directly or indirectly, in any matter involving a decision pending before him, or in any contract or purchase order for any supplies, materials, equipment or contractual services furnished to or used by the Town of Cheshire which contract or purchase order is to be recommended, made, granted or awarded by such public officer or employee or by an agency of which he is a

Anonymous said...

How carefully you misread.
Why don't you take on the Historical Society next? They're a non profit interested in preserving local history. That must create some conflict now that the town has a Historic District Commission. It will be terrible if they share common goals and somehow cooperate and preserve something together.

I hope this exchange has been brought about by your desire to point out the of ethical landmines of public service and to highlight some of the interpretation concerns that can come into play.

But sadly, Mr. Sidelines, I must conclude you are a sorry individual with no clue as to how public officials strive to serve their town honorably.

Tim White said...

During the prior local term (Nov 03 - Nov 05), there was a Council member (D) and a BOE member (R) who (at that time) each had a spouse employed by the Dept of Education.

Both members voted on finance-related school matters during that period.

Anonymous said...

or any personal interest, either directly or indirectly, in any matter involving a decision pending before him,

Anonymous said...

Big issue can't believe that the CAVE men would be in this position.

Anonymous said...

The public should know who owns the land where the North End development is scheduled to go. The Town does not own the land. That needs to be made clear.

Who does own the land? Calgagni, Dinnatali, Bowman. The land records show LLC's, but these individuals own the LLC's.

Now you know why certain people want residential in it? They sell the land, then get the contract to build and sell the house, condo's etc.

Follow the money

Anonymous said...

Who brought in the idea that bill volker had a conflict of interest
Must have been someone who did not want it to be known that they were trying to u-boat the North End project
I wonder who that could be

Anonymous said...

THE LAST THING I WOULD WANT TO BE IN THE NEXT ELECTION IS A DEFENDER OF DAVID SCHRUMM

Anonymous said...

My God, someone might make money buying a selling real estate? The only problem that I have with that is that I didn't buy the property. Free markets, anyone could have bought it. If your infomation is correct all the power to them, I could have done it and so could have you.

Anonymous said...

The same people running around advocating markets and free enterprise are the same against the north end deveopment. How can that be? Why so inconsistant? Have they changed their minds?

Anonymous said...

I'm not hiding during the upcoming election process because I think Dave Schrumm hurts the town. For the record, A few of us in town agree with Dave Schrumm on a number of issues. His delivery may wear on some of you. Unfortunately he has to repeat himself over and over to the likes of those who only see a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow. It gets very tiresome.

Sadly too many folks give in and go for the over the rainbow bunch which includes members of all political stripes. The town gains nothing when nothing is challenged and debated.
I make no predictions about the upcoming election but I don't think any political party in town has a lock on anything nor should it. Republicans will be working hard to win back council as we expect the Democrats to do the same.

Look at it this way if you must. We have Schrumm, they have Visconti.

Anonymous said...

If the Dems have Visconti and the Rs have Schrumm then the score is 1-0 Dems
Its not that the delivery wears you out it is the inconsistant statements as well as a personal vendetta vs the board of ed which comes across as a crusade rather that reasoned approach to an issue.

Anonymous said...

Those who support the north end are not doing so for pot of gold. we know that there might be a slight uptick of money going to the town-not enough to write home about yet not to be sneezed at. it is something that supporters are going into knowing all factors-it could be a hit with or without resedential. Most of dave's objections are personal-he does not like to shop and he does not think you should like to shop-
Ok fine-but if we can put something up there that has more than money value why not at least listen to the developer-Dave did not even want to do that-
And the comments about the seniors trying to game the system? Where did that stem from?

Anonymous said...

People who attack others who serve us in our town government, without compensation, should have the decency to post their name, rather than hide behind anonymous. Why do they attack people who spend so much time working us?. They should be ashamed of themselves. If they can't tolerate different points of view then maybe they should go someplace where everyone thinks alike. Most people want different opinions. So, if you have a vendetta or until you have something to say that is constrctive or you finally have the guts to slander and post your name, you should shut up.

Anonymous said...

Nice going Al! I totally agree, there are way too many personal attacks being made and not enough constructive dialogue.

Anonymous said...

It is easy to criticize, difficult to be constructive.

Anonymous said...

The only one on the Council with any testicular fortitude is David Schrumm. How we can have that arrogant & conceited Matt Hall as Mayor is beyond comprehension...