Council Official Wants Ethics Probe

Handled In Public

By John Voket

Facing an ethics complaint from the husband of Newtown’s school board chair, Legislative Vice Chair Mary Ann Jacob has requested all fact-finding and related investigations to determine the complaint’s merit be held in public.

Following her request to the local Board of Ethics for a public investigation, Ms Jacob provided The Bee a copy of the original complaint letter from Tom Bittman, husband of Board of Education Chair Lillian Bittman.

In that July 12 correspondence, Mr Bittman states Ms Jacob “lied about an elected official on another board, attacking her character through a post on the Internet.”

Saying he voted for Ms Jacob in the last election, Mr Bittman wrote in his memo to the ethics board that he “did not want to submit a formal complaint.” And in an email response for comment on the matter, Mr Bittman further stated that he knew his wife would not want such a complaint to be filed, “so I filed the complaint without her knowing.”

He said his wife has since learned of the complaint.

“As a Republican, as a Newtown citizen, and as a husband, I am offended and angered by this,” Mr Bittman wrote in his charge to the ethics board. “Character attacks — even if true (and in this case it is not) — should have no place between our elected officials, and are serious ethical violations.” [Ms Bittman, the school board chair, is a Democrat.]

Mr Bittman’s complaint hinges on a 51-word post on a Facebook social network page Ms Jacob administers on behalf of the local Republican Town Committee, which was also circulated as part of an RTC email bulletin and post on the local GOP website.

According to the complaint, the statement in question reads: “Did you know the Board of Education was asked to share in the reduced revenue losses and the Board of Education Chair told the Board of Finance they would discuss the issue in public? Did you know only the Republican members of the Board of Education voted to discuss the issue?”

Mr Bittman says in his complaint, “Fundamentally this post calls my wife a liar. It can’t be read any other way, and can’t have any other purpose.”

Challenging anyone to show where she accused anyone of lying, Ms Jacob said she decided to request all proceedings be made public because she feels Mr Bittman is trying to “bully” her into removing the reference from the RTC Facebook page.

Background

The assertions in the RTC posts are rooted in budget deliberations from earlier this year, when it was learned the town was facing a revenue shortfall. That shortfall eventually resulted in an unprecedented budget amendment to keep last year’s spending plan on track.

During discussions on that issue at a Board of Finance meeting, it was suggested that both the town and school district share the burden of the overall shortfall. Finance board officials had pointed to surplus funds in the school board budget at the time as evidence that the district could afford to share the burden.

On February 25, the finance board tendered and subsequently delayed voting on a resolution calling for the school district to freeze spending of any surplus dollars in consideration of sharing the financial burden of the shortfall. The finance board vote on the motion was postponed in order to give Ms Bittman an opportunity to bring the proposal to the school board, and Ms Bittman publicly agreed to discuss the issue with her board.

Ms Jacob said that while the revenue shortfall and related budget matters were part of various discussions by the school board, the issue reflected in the RTC post exclusively refers to a motion on March 16 to add to the school board’s agenda discussion about the postponed finance board resolution.

According to Ms Jacob, the majority of the school board, including Ms Bittman, voted against adding that item to the agenda

“None of the discussion at any board of ed meetings was relevant to the postponed motion made by the board of finance,” Ms Jacob said.

Specific Sections Defined

 Mr Bittman’s complaint accuses Ms Jacob of violating Sections 36-2, 36-4, and 36-10 of the local ethics code.

The preface to Section 36-2 states: “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.”

Section 36-10, in part, states: “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.”

Referring to the pending complaint, Ms Jacob referenced Section 36-4, which states in part that: “Everyone, no matter what his or her status, deserves to be treated courteously, impartially and fairly.”

Ms Jacob said she was particularly drawn to language in Subsection E, which states: “While this section deals with the treatment of the public by officials and employees, the relationship between the former and the latter is recognized to be a two-way interaction. It is therefore urged that the public also conduct itself with the same propriety expected of town officials and employees.”

Ms Jacob said it is ironic that in relation to that section of the code, it was she, and not the school board chair, who has been the subject of repeated, inappropriate comments by Mr Bittman. The council official provided six pages of excerpts from various public Internet postings and emails in which she says Mr Bittman is “attacking” her.

According to a letter from ethics board Vice Chairman Brian Ochs, at the conclusion of the board’s fact finding, Ms Jacob will be notified of its findings.

If the complaint warrants a hearing, Ms Jacob or any appointed legal council has the right to cross-examine anyone testifying against her, and to present any evidence on her own behalf.

The ethics board has a scheduled meeting posted on the municipal meeting calendar for August 5 at 7 pm, although no agenda was included at press time.