By John Voket and Eliza Hallabeck

Newtown's Board of Ethics voted February 29 to grant a continuance, resulting in a postponement of two hearings previously scheduled for Thursday, March 3.

In a 5 to 1 vote, with James Stringer opposing, the panel - on advice of its attorney - supported granting the continuance of approximately 30 days, and sending a choice of possible dates to reconvene.

The matter involves separate complaints filed by Board of Education members Keith Alexander, John Vouros, Debbie Leidlein, Michelle Ku and Laura Roche alleging violations of the Code of Ethics by respondent and former board member, David Freedman, and current board member Kathryn Hamilton.

In other business during the February 29 special meeting, the ethics panel discussed crafting a response to the subjects of the ethics complaints, who requested more clarity about the grounds and justification for the complaint.

In the matter of the two respondents, according to a Legal Notice filed in

The Newtown Bee's February 26 print edition, the ethics board plans to determine whether either or both violated elements of Section 27.2 (Standards of Service); Section 27.6 (Disclosure of Confidential Information); and/or Section 27.10 (Political Activities).

While the case was not discussed at length, Ethics Chair Jacqueline Villa mentioned an attorney for at least one of the respondents requested more time because of an anticipated state Freedom of Information action that could have some bearing on the ethics case.

However, Mr Stringer stated that the FOI matter and the ethics cases are separate, and that he felt the commission could move on with the hearings immediately.

In correspondence between legal counsel for the respondents and the ethics board, a request was made to provide further "clarity on the charges," along with any rules related to the hearing. Ms Villa stated that there were no rules beyond specifics in the code, except that she would demand the proper "decorum" among those attending planned hearings.

The ethics board members the reviewed specific elements of the code they believe are of issue - and voted to send the language of those aspects of the code back to the respondents as a means of clarifying the charges.

The panel determined that sections A, B and D of Section 27-2 would be considered. Those sections of the code read as follows:

"Officials and employees have a special responsibility, by virtue of the trust invested in them by the town's residents, to discharge their duties conscientiously, impartially, and to the best of their ability, placing the good of the Town above any personal or partisan considerations.

A. Officials and employees have an obligation to act morally and honestly in discharging all assigned responsibilities.

B. Officials and employees will conduct themselves with propriety, discharge their duties impartially and fairly, and make continuing efforts toward attaining and maintaining high standards of performance.

D. No official or employee shall use, or attempt to use, either directly or indirectly, his or her town position to secure any preferential right, benefit, advantage or privilege for himself or herself or for others, including without limitation in relation to his or her occupation or source of income.

The panel also agreed that sections A and B of Section 27-6 would be considered. Those sections of the code read as follows:

"Because of their position in town administration, officials and employees have access to information that may not be in the public domain. A delicate balance exists between the public's right to know about town affairs and the actions of elected and appointed officials and officers on the one hand, and the rights of the individual to privacy with respect to matters that are not in the public domain on the other hand. Additionally, during the course of certain preliminary procedures, such as town negotiations with bargaining groups, the premature disclosure of specific positions would be detrimental to the public interest. Such information as is cited above is confidential. Confidential information is any information not in the public record and which is obtained only by reason of an official's or employee's position. Therefore, the interests of the public, the town, and the individual must all be preserved and maintained in proper harmony with one another."

A. No official or employee shall, without prior formal authorization of the public body having jurisdiction, disclose any confidential information or divulge personal matters pertaining to others that do not bear upon the official's or employee's discharge of official duties.

B. Whether or not it shall involve disclosure, no official or employee shall use or permit the use of confidential information to advance his or her financial or personal interest or to advance or to damage the financial or personal interest of any other person.

Finally, the panel determined that sections A and B of Section 27-10 would be considered. Those sections of the code read as follows:

"All officials and employees are free to engage in political activity to the widest extent consistent with the proper discharge of their official town duties and fair and equal treatment of all town people. The achievement of this objective does, however, require certain limitations."

A. Officials and employees shall not allow partisan political activities to interfere with the proper discharge of their official duties.

B. No official or employee shall be ordered to participate in political activities.

The complaint against Ms Hamilton resulted from an admission that she shared a text message correspondence among school board members that eventually showed up on local social network sites.

A leaked e-mail, from January 2014, revealed communications related to the superintendent's contract that was shared among board members and the board's attorney at the time. In a letter to

The Bee, former school board member David Freedman announced that he had released details from that e-mail, which also eventually appeared on social media.

School board Chairman Keith Alexander told

The Bee in early November 2015, that the e-mail included attorney-client privileged discussion and would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, but he later said the text message is not exempt.

The text message, from June 2015, referenced a planned executive session about non union employee increases, according to Ms Hamilton. The information is on the public record according to Mr Alexander.

After Mr Alexander sent the June text message, and a separate e-mail about the superintendent's salary negotiation, Ms Hamilton said she asked the chairman to refrain from sending messages to the school board as he was holding the equivalent of an online meeting.

Ms Hamilton said she spoke with Mr Alexander prior to an October 26 (2015) executive session, noting that nothing in the text message was private or confidential.

"People have to know that what I did was not unethical," said Ms Hamilton. "I shared a text of a message he sent to the whole board, and it is an example of improper [communications]."

The ethics board will send a choice of hearing dates to the respondents, and will secure meeting space and a qualified secretary and official who will be charged with swearing in anyone providing testimony, or who will be called under cross examination during the hearings.

This story has been updated to more accurately reflect the separate communication complaints.