Instead of accepting or rejecting a package of recommendations, local selectmen last week publicly criticized the local Board of Ethics for its process and maintaining an assumption of guilt without doing appropriate fact finding before ruling a current and past member of the Board of Education were guilty of numerous ethics code violations.The Newtown Bee she was not inclined to comment on the selectmen's action because of an ongoing Freedom of Information appeal she recently filed with the FOI Commission against the ethics board. (The Newtown Bee has also filed several appeals against that panel, which is chaired by Jacqueline Villa.)Freedman Response'Personal Vindictive' Behaviorspecial meetingPrior to the selectmen's directive, the ethics board invited a FOI representative, Tom Hennick, to a June 1 for an abbreviated information session. Ms Villa, Thomas Fuchs, Parker Reardon and Laurie Kilchevsky were present, while Kristen Provost Switzer listened in via a telephone link."personal and vindictive" behavior.

First Selectmen Pat Llodra, along with Selectmen Herb Rosenthal and Will Rodgers, also acknowledged that members of the ethics panel appear to have violated Connecticut's Freedom of Information law during the course of handling a complaint filed by several school board members against colleagues Kathryn Hamilton and former board member David Freedman.

At the same time, selectmen found that the respondents, in the words of Mrs Llodra, acted inappropriately - using the term "wrong-headed" to describe their actions - which the first selectman said were "well-intentioned but landed with the wrong solution."

Mrs Llodra said the "right-headed response" to the situation facing Mr Freedman and Ms Hamilton would have been to appeal to the state Freedom of Information Commission. Mr Rodgers and Mr Rosenthal agreed that there were opportunities available for the respondents to publicly introduce concerns about apparent illegal meetings occurring via e-mails and text messages among school board members, but respondents inappropriately released the evidence to other private parties.

That evidence of illegal school board meetings and FOI violations eventually appeared in posts on social network sites last fall. As a result, Board of Educations Chairman Keith Alexander, board members Michelle Ku, John Vouros, Debbie Leidlein, and former board member Laura Roche filed a complaint about the matter to the Board of Ethics.

After a number of meetings, both public and secret, ethics members said both respondents had violated the local ethics code and issued a number of recommendations to selectmen for metering out punishment.

Instead, selectmen issued a written statement suggesting Mr Freedman and Ms Hamilton prepare and publish a statement acknowledging their handling of documents eventually published on social networks were "inappropriate and wrong-headed." The selectmen additionally stated that Mr Freedman would be required to complete FOI training as a precondition of accepting any appointed or elected position in town government, and that Ms Hamilton should also complete an FOI workshop.

The selectmen noted that they have no power to order the respondents to follow their suggestions, but they do reserve the right to censure either or both individuals in the future.

In closing, selectmen stated: "We see no public good being served in the continuation of the conflict, and the cost to the taxpayer well exceeds any benefit to be achieved through further pursuit at any level."

Ms Hamilton told

As of June 9, Ms Villa, Ms Roche, Mr Alexander, and Ms Leidlein had not responded to a request for reactions to the selectmen's action. Ms Ku said, "I would just say that I appreciate that the Board of Selectman were in a tough position and am pleased that they could find a resolution." Mr Vouros stated that it was best he not comment on the issue.

Mr Freedman replied, saying, "If I had to do [it] over again, I would have gone straight to FOI to file a complaint.

"I am still befuddled as to how the release of public information that could have been requested by any member of the public resulted in these events; but hindsight being what it is, I ask myself the same question you asked… Why did I choose to not approach the FOIC or to question your school board colleagues in a public venue?"

Mr Freedman said he "was torn between filing a formal complaint versus a subtler way to get these issues to stop."

"Unfortunately, erring on the side of subtle in an attempt to end the practices without too much fanfare resulted in the situation we are facing today," Mr Freedman said. "In many ways I feel like a condemned whistleblower, but recognize that I should have taken the official route instead of worrying about my board's reputation. This has been a learning experience for me. I hope that current and future public officials reflect on how important it is to follow process and keep the voters informed at all times."

Following the meeting, Mrs Llodra said she wants "to stress the importance of recognizing and respecting the fact that both Kathy Hamilton and David Freedman served the public, and that their actions in this regard should not erase our valuing for the good they did on our behalf."

"Especially in the case of Kathy Hamilton, it is important to recognize the many years she has dedicated to Board of Education and Legislative Council," Mrs Llodra said. "I know her greatest passion to be for our education system. She worked tirelessly to improve policy and practice in that function. There is no doubt in my mind about her integrity, sense of commitment, and honesty."

Clarifying their actions as a "misstep," the first selectman recognized the respondents' efforts were "borne out of frustration about what they perceive as a lack of compliance of their own board for open meetings and public discussion as required under [CT] FOIA."

"It is unfortunate that the route they chose to achieve a 'correction' has resulted in personal consequences. No one among us has a perfectly clean slate. Each and every person makes mistakes along the way. Let's right the ship and move on. Kathy and David are good people, public servants, willing to work to improve circumstances for others, and deserve our respect."

A draft of the selectmen's statement presented at their June 6 meeting originally included an observation about Board of Education members who communicated outside the public eye in violation of the FOI laws, and requested that the board also complete an FOI workshop. But that passage was eventually dropped after strong opposition by Mr Rosenthal who said it would single out the school board when he knows of other elected and appointed boards and commissions that also occasionally violate state FOI laws.

Mrs Llodra defended her inclusion saying the basis for the entire matter was rooted in the school board's apparent failure to adhere to FOI laws, but eventually agreed to remove the directive to the school board from the final statement.

The selectmen's strongest rebuke, however, was reserved for the ethics panel.

While the selectmen noted that they value and supports the role of a municipal Board of Ethics, "we trust also that such Board executes on its responsibility with great care, adherence to established and documented protocols that support the rights of respondents, and, at the same time, provide a venue for issues of concern to be raised and reviewed.

"A Board of Ethics must be ever-cognizant of its power to do good, as well as harm, and to adjudicate all matters with rigor and diligent attention to the facts of a matter," the final selectmen's statement continued. "We find, however, in this matter that there have been a number of significant process and procedural errors in this particular investigation and adjudication. Further, we find that the conclusions of the board do not emanate from basic fact-finding concerning the confidentiality of the information made public by the respondents.

"The Board of Ethics did not conduct fact-finding to determine if the release of the information was a violation of confidentiality, but, rather, accepted that premise as a 'fact' without the necessary investigation. In so doing, the matter at the core of the issue was never fully reviewed or resolved," the selectmen's statement continues. "We recommend, with due respect and support…that the [ethics] board itself participate in FOI training and, further, that board members carefully review their internal protocols and that they fully document and submit to prior legal review the processes to be followed in any future investigations, as well as all drafts of proposed actions."

Asserting one of her greatest concerns, Mrs Llodra said in reviewing minutes and audio of ethics board meeting that were not improperly conducted in secret, she became extremely concerned that board members proceeded under the assumption complainants' assertions were fact. The first selectman also noted that certain ethics board members appeared to target Ms Hamilton and Mr Freedman with

She also reiterated that at no point did the ethics board (in public) ask itself the basic question about whether the core documents that generated the ethics complaint were public. Ms Villa, during an April 18 hearing, refused to entertain a preliminary ruling from a state Freedom of Information hearing officer that the content of both the text and e-mail shared by the respondents were public information.

"There was never any evaluation of that core issue," Mrs Llodra said. "There was an assumption of violation without ever looking at the core elements; that never happened."