Parker - The Ethics Ad Hoc Committee - Brookfield Board of Selectmen

Friends of Brookfield

Has Ethics in Brookfield yet to find a way almost 16 months after the Great Debate ensued lost in the wilderness? Is Parker innocent based on the original Ethics Ad Hoc committee's failure to recommend an enforceable Ethics Ordinance and it failure to correct it in a timely manner? Does he deserve a timely resolution from the Brookfield Board of Selectmen?Brookfield selectmen delay action on $7,500 legal bill

By Ethan Fry - Danbury News-Times
Updated: 06/05/2009 10:35:13 PM EDT

BROOKFIELD -- The Board of Selectmen opted Monday to delay deciding whether to pay a $7,500 legal bill from a lawyer who represented the chairman of the Zoning Commission before the Board of Ethics in February.

The charges, from Danbury attorney Martin Rader, were incurred as Rader defended Zoning Commission chairman Stanley Parker against allegations that Parker obligated the town to pay a $1,000 legal bill without following the town's charter.

The ethics board concluded he had, but selectmen rejected the Board of Ethics' recommendations in the case after Town Attorney Thomas Beecher advised them the ethics board didn't have jurisdiction over charter violations. <Wait just a minute. Is this the same law firm that helped set up the Ethics Ordinance with Howie "The Mailman" Lasser LAST TIME? Seems THEIR legal fees are going up to help correct THEIR oversight from last time, right? And wasn't it the Board of Selectmen who filed the Ethics Complaint in the FIRST PLACE?>

Town Attorney Francis Collins said at the selectmen's meeting Monday that a state law provides for the reimbursement of town officers who incur legal expenses in the scope of their work for the town. <Under the laws and ordinances in effect AT THE TIME of the occurrence, right? There's a thing called Ex Post Facto, right?>

First Selectman Robert Silvaggi then referenced a case in New Milford -- that town ended up paying $90,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a former finance board member for legal expenses he incurred to defend himself against an ethics complaint -- and asked Collins whether the town could set guidelines for such eventualities.

"I don't want to set a bad precedent where things go crazy," Silvaggi said. "Is there some way we can establish some parameters, or is that not doable?"

Collins responded the town could try to negotiate a settlement on the $7,500 bill or just vote on paying it. <Certainly not a tyranny of good intentions...for it is the law in place, and not intentions, that is the justice to be measured, no?>

Howard Lasser, the chairman of an ad hoc committee charged with revising the town's ethics ordinance, said during the public comment portion of Monday's meeting that selectmen should wait to take action because the complaint against Parker hasn't been fully resolved. <So Howie "The Mailman" Lasser is going to CHANGE the ethics rules AFTER THE FACT and THEN hold Parker to account AFTERWARDS? Isn't the ad hoc committee charging with REVISING the ordinance? That would be like changing the speed limit on a road after the fact and having everyone who violated the new speed limit for the last 10 years get speeding tickets!">

"You still have an allegation of wrongdoing and no resolution to that," Lasser said. "I think there needs to be some facts established first, before you can make a determination as to who pays the bill." <So Howie wants to judge Parker under the NEW RULES even though what he did happened under the OLD RULES?>

Lasser also argued that the state law cited by Collins lets the town escape paying legal fees when a town officer is found to be culpable of wrongdoing. <Wrongdoing? Really? According to that SAME LAW FIRM, the Ethics Committee could not find Parker guilty under the Ethics Ordinance since the Ethics Committee cannot review violations of town charter...the very reason the Ad Hoc Committee on Ethics is back revisiting that subject. Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing???!!!>

The law says that a town, in the event an officer has a judgment entered against him, shall be "reimbursed ... for expenses it incurred in providing such defense."

Lasser said the wording of the statute indicates an employee or officer should get prior approval for town money to be spent on his or her defense before the defense is mounted, not after the fact. <Except that it the TOWN that is prosecuting Parker. They should pay it unless PARKER is found guilty of the ethics violation which according to the law firm the Ethics Commission...under the CURRENT ORDINANCE...CAN NOT DO per Beecher, right?>

Another resident, Scott Wallman, pointed out that the ethics complaint against Parker -- for allegedly spending $1,000 on legal fees without authorization -- was similar to the item on the selectmen's agenda Monday.

He said Parker should have known the charter prevented him from spending the original money.

"I'm not sure why the chairman needed an additional $7,000 worth of legal fees to answer that same question," he said. <The same reason the town has had to have repeated town meetings on issues...a case of bad legal advice perhaps?>

At the end of the discussion, Selectman Jerry Murphy said too many issues remain unresolved for selectmen to act. <Is he saying "Don't confuse me with all these facts when I've already made up my mind!"?>

"There are too many question marks for me," he said before selectmen voted unanimously to table the item. <Aren't there always?>