Rep raps ethics board on secrecy
McMullen questions why some of panel’s findings are kept confidential
STAMFORD — City governments create ethics codes to push officials toward the highest democratic ideals.
Codes are designed to ensure that officials put public service above themselves, treat people equally, and adhere to standards of conduct.
Stamford’s ethics code begins, “Public service is a public trust.” It says “proper operation of the city” requires that all “officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, paid or unpaid, be impartial and responsible to the public,” and not use their offices for personal gain.
Now a city representative is questioning why — when the code repeatedly references the word “public” — the city’s Board of Ethics keeps some findings private.
J.R. McMullen, a Republican representing District 18, filed a complaint with the Board of Ethics a year ago, alleging a possible conflict of interest involving a city official.
Everything at first seemed to go according to the rules, McMullen said. The ethics board acknowledged receipt of his complaint, interviewed him, and as far as he knows, interviewed the subject of his complaint, he said.
His questions arise from what happened a few months later. He got a letter in the mail from the ethics board chair, Cheryl Bader. An investigating panel had “reached a resolution,” Bader wrote, according to a copy of the email obtained by the Advocate.
“The board’s action has been taken, the matter is closed and the complaint remains confidential,” Bader wrote. Bader did not respond to emails from the Advocate for this story.
The letter does not say what action the board took, whether the complaint was valid, or what happened as a result. McMullen said he was taken aback.
“Does this mean that you if you file an ethics complaint, you may never know what comes of it?” McMullen said. “My concern is that if that’s true, people in government will never come to understand what constitutes an ethics violation
“By keeping things secret, we set ourselves up to fail in the same ways again and again.”
City Rep. J.R. McMullen
and what does not. It doesn’t help us follow the rules, which is what the code is supposed to do.”
He does not want to name the official in question because the person is out of office, McMullen said.
“I think he was not being malicious in any way,” McMullen said. “I think he believed he did not have a conflict of interest.”
But the matter came up during public meetings and presented an opportunity to clarify ethical standards, he said.
“It seems to me the ethics board should say what their finding was, and give an explanation for why they did what they did,” McMullen said.
According to the code, ethics board members who receive a complaint hold informal hearings to look for probable cause, which is “more than mere suspicion.” They must find trustworthy information that justifies a reasonable belief that a violation occurred.
If the board does not find that, the case is dismissed and remains confidential to protect the reputation of the person named in the complaint, unless the person wants it made public, the rules state.
If the board finds probable cause, the case goes to public hearings and the complaint is aired.
There is a third option. The board and the person named in the complaint may reach a “stipulated agreement” to resolve it.
McMullen said he looked up the law and learned that the state ethics board handles results differently.
“The state publishes its stipulated agreements and findings of probable cause on its website,” he said. “I don’t understand why Stamford wouldn’t do something similar.”
He contacted the state and was told they have no jurisdiction over a city board, McMullen said. He asked the Stamford Board of Representatives to review it but the Legislative & Rules Committee chair told him it can’t be done because of confidentiality, he said.
He wrote Stamford Director of Legal Affairs Kathryn Emmett, saying he thinks the city is violating state law by keeping ethics board decisions quiet.
Emmett wrote back that no laws were broken.
“Because the Stamford Board of Ethics reached a resolution prior to making any findings, (state law) requires that confidentiality be maintained,” Emmett wrote, according to a copy of the email. “The board did not make a finding of
probable cause or no probable cause. Therefore, there was no finding about which to inform you.”
The letter implies that a “stipulated agreement” was reached, McMullen said.
“It looks like the board made a secret agreement that made it all go away,” he said. “How often does that happen?”
In 2010 the Stamford Board of Ethics began what ended up to be years of hearings involving city employees and elected officials. It started with missing city scrap metal and ended with accusations of harassment, slander, improper use of influence, and more.
The ethics code came under fire. Some said it was too broad, too murky, even incomplete. There were dragged-out fights over what was an ethical violation and what was not.
That’s his point, McMullen said.
“This is not just to find out whether a person was in violation of the ethics code,” he said. “It’s about letting people know — here are the rules, here’s how they work. By keeping things secret, we set ourselves up to fail in the same ways again and again.”
Emmett did not respond to emails from the Advocate for this story.