Not Withdrawing As a Responsible Way to Deal with a Conflict in Stamford, CT

There are times when withdrawing from a vote is in fact not a responsible act, but rather an act in one's own self-interest. In such a case, a responsible official should participate and do what is in the public interest.

According to an article in Saturday's Stamford (CT) Advocate, one such instance occurred in Stamford on Friday. I've written about this ugly situation on a couple of occasions (see below) and made a three-part recommended resolution which has, of course, been completely ignored.

Since I last wrote, according to another Advocate article, the board of finance member against whom two ethics complaints were filed has begun a federal court proceeding claiming that those who filed the complaints broke the law. He also named two other top officials, the city's board of ethics, and the city itself. He unsuccessfully sought an injunction to prevent the ethics proceeding from going forward.

With no sign of a settlement in sight, the ethics board was forced to ask the finance board for funds to pay for an attorney to represent it in the ethics proceeding. The ethics board breaks into two panels, one to hear a case, the other to investigate and prosecute it. The hearing panel has counsel, as do the respondent and the complainants. But the prosecuting panel does not.

The finance board rules require a supermajority vote to approve new appropriations. That means four votes, since there are six members. The respondent in the ethics proceeding recused himself and left the room. A member of the finance board who had been involved in another ethics proceeding abstained, saying later that he did not want the appearance of a conflict; but he did participate in the discussion about the ethics board request, opposing it.

According to another Advocate article, both members voted back in September to hire an attorney to advise the finance board on ethics issues when these two members were involved in ethics proceedings, even though the city attorney suggested that it would be a conflict of interest for them to vote. The other finance board member involved in an ethics proceeding is quoted as saying, "We need a legal opinion from an impartial legal scholar to evaluate the city ethics code and decide whether it is constitutional, because it restricts the First Amendment right of elected officials to ask questions." This is not general advice, but specific research to help the two finance board members.

In fact, the meeting to pay for finance board counsel was a special meeting with two days' notice, and the two opposition members could not attend. The above-quoted member said, "The allegations against me are completely false and I'm not giving up my right to vote on this board because of false allegations." Had either member withdrawn from participation, there would not have been enough votes to hire an attorney.

But when it served their interests, and when their votes were once again needed to fund an attorney, both board members showed that they would happily give up their right to vote.

By not voting, the board member currently involved in the ethics proceeding effectively was voting to prevent the prosecution against him from having counsel (the other board member had no conflict and, therefore, no excuse not to vote). No one would say this is fair. Since the reason for withdrawal is to make things fair and make them look fair, withdrawal was not the responsible way to handle the board member's conflict in this situation.

The finance board's attorney should have advised the board of this, but I doubt that anyone asked or, if someone did, I doubt that the attorney looked beyond the law, as if laws were all there was to ethics.

The ethics board should go before the finance board again and give its members a little lecture on the purposes behind government ethics, including withdrawal. And the finance board's counsel should confirm that the finance board members should not stand in the way of giving the prosecution panel the counsel it needs.

The ethics board should also consider how best this case can be settled, because this messy case is fueling enmities and undermining trust in the government. It's going to be hard to negotiate with someone as pigheaded as the finance board member, but the ethics board should try its best.

My earlier blog posts on this situation:
A Stamford Ethics Controversy Involving Time Limits, Enforcement of Policy Declarations, and More
Stamford Official's Attempt to Prevent Government Employees from Filing Ethics Complaints Is Nipped in the Bud

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---