Proposed Ethics Bill Seen As A Threat To Local Governments

By Jan Howard

Proposed legislation under consideration by state lawmakers that would require elected and appointed municipal officials to disclose all financial interests is raising some local concern.

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal said House Bill 5023, which addresses ethics at the local level, might affect the town’s ability to get people to run for elected office or to volunteer on boards and commissions.

Though he noted the content of the bill makes it difficult to oppose “because it sounds like you’re afraid of disclosure,” this is not the case. He said the Town of Newtown has a Board of Ethics and a Code of Ethics that requires disclosure of conflicts of interest and addresses other issues. Under the proposed legislation, if it were approved, a local code of ethics would be required to be as strict as the state law.

Training commission members about what would be a conflict of interest is fine, Mr Rosenthal said, but the proposed bill is “overkill.”

“It’s hard enough to get volunteers,” he said.

While it would do nothing to stop an unethical or dishonest person from doing business as usual anyway, he said, it could make it difficult for honest people to serve the town.

“It’s equivalent to killing a fly with a shotgun,” Mr Rosenthal told members of the Board of Selectmen recently.

Mr Rosenthal said there have been instances where people who serve on local boards and commissions, who feel they might have a conflict of interest, have recused themselves from board decisions.

The proposed legislation, which requires every municipality to create an ethics commission with subpoena powers, also requires that all local elected and appointed officials fill out an affidavit that would be kept on file listing all financial interests, including the assets and debts of their spouses and dependent children, which would be subject to freedom of information inquiries.

A similar bill was raised last year, but did not pass. “It was a knee-jerk reaction with the situation in Waterbury and Bridgeport with the mayors,” Mr Rosenthal said. This year’s bill may stem from ethics questions being raised about Gov John Rowland.

Mr Rosenthal is particularly concerned about a definition in Section 2 of the proposed bill, that reads as follows: “Public Official means an elected or appointed official, whether paid or unpaid or full or part time, of a municipality or political subdivision thereof, or a special district, including candidates for the office and shall also include a district officer.”

Mr Rosenthal said the proposed bill does not adequately address a definition of public official. “It’s pretty broad,” he said, questioning whether volunteer firemen, for instance, would be considered public officials.

Because most of Newtown’s elected and appointed officials are unpaid volunteers, Mr Rosenthal said, “It might discourage some honest people who don’t want to disclose personal information” and open themselves up to scrutiny from the public.

The proposed bill would require that the individual, spouse, and dependent children within the household provide names of all businesses with which they are associated; income in excess of $2,000; securities in excess of $10,000; blind trust and names of trustees; all real property and its location, even if held in a corporation, trust, or partnership; names and addresses of creditors holding debts of $10,000 or more; and leases or contracts with the public entity entered into by the individual or a business with which he/she is associated.

Mr Rosenthal said he has circulated copies of the proposed bill to members of boards and commissions, and some have indicated concerns about it.