In Aurelia Complaint—

Ethics Board Actions Raise Statute, Charter, FOI Questions

By John Voket

The town attorney is looking into whether the local Board of Ethics violated, or is working in conflict with, state statutes in the handling of an initial complaint lodged against the town clerk. The board’s new chairman told The Bee this week that confusing language in the town Charter about using executive sessions or private meetings to conduct initial fact finding may have inadvertently caused the panel to dismiss another local provision aimed at ensuring privacy for an accused individual until the board votes to conduct a formal hearing.

There is also some concern that an extended public discussion of business on the agenda among members before the board’s last meeting convened violates the state Freedom of Information Act.

According to the minutes of a December 3 Board of Ethics meeting, Chairman Peter VanBuskirk permitted two individuals to publicly register allegations of specific ethics violations against Town Clerk Debbie Aurelia before the board ever considered whether a written complaint from one of the same individuals warranted a hearing.

Then during a January 7 meeting, the board’s newly elected Chairman Brian Ochs publicly read additional charges from a separate complainant, which the board then determined by consensus would be considered along with the original charge if the accuser appears in person at a hearing set for January 14, after The Bee went to press.

In reference to ethics charges, Section 4-60(d) of the Newtown Charter states that “complaints made to the Board of Ethics shall not be made public unless and until the complaint is found to warrant an investigation.”

Section 1-82a of the statutes regarding the confidentiality of complaints states: “An investigation conducted prior to a probable cause finding shall be confidential except upon the request of the respondent.’

The statute goes on to say that if the respondent — in this case the town clerk — does not call for a public investigation, any allegations in the complaint and any information supplied to or received from the ethics board “shall not be disclosed during the investigation to any third party.”

Mr Ochs said the board’s December minutes accurately reflect that public discussion of the allegations against Ms Aurelia did occur before the board “moved on to discuss what ethics codes had been violated if any,” and before the board made a motion to open any such investigation.

 

Open Meeting Violation?

The ethics board chairman also acknowledged that ethics board alternates Neal DeYoung and Ronald Wilcox engaged in a discussion regarding matters on the agenda of a January 7 meeting in his presence, and in the presence of newly appointed board member Addie Sandler before the meeting convened, and before all members of the board were present.

According to Mr Ochs, Mr DeYoung was engaging other members about whether or not to move forward after reviewing new evidence that that arrived since the board sent the matter to a hearing. That discussion was slated to occur before the full board later that evening.

Legislative Council member John Aurelia, Registrar of Voters Karin Aurelia, and Town Clerk Debbie Aurelia told The Bee they saw what was a quorum of ethics board members openly conferring, and who appeared to reach some consensus on matters listed in the meeting agenda. Both John and Karin Aurelia said they are considering filing a Freedom of Information appeal to determine if such a discussion violates FOI statutes.

Mr Ochs said he became more focused on the conversation between Mr Wilcox and Mr DeYoung after a newspaper reporter questioned whether the meeting had convened, and that he recalled “feeling sensitive about the fact that discussion was occurring without the full board being present, or the meeting being called to order.”

The January 7 open meeting was called to continue the review and approval of process for a hearing scheduled January 14, to hear witnesses and cross-examination regarding both an original complaint, along with an additional complaint filed by Sandy Hook resident Diane Guilfoil, and a statement from Angelina Carney Guilfoil.

Diane Guilfoil is married to Debbie Aurelia’s ex-husband, and Angelina Carney Guilfoil was recently married to Ms Aurelia’s son, Vincent. The original complaint, and the related correspondence, are all tied to an alleged interaction between the complainants and Debbie Aurelia, which occurred on the day the complainants visited the town clerk’s office to pick up Ms Carney Guilfoil’s wedding license.

The town clerk has maintained that the complaint arose from “a family issue that should have remained private.”

In a statement read into the record January 7, Debbie Aurelia said she struck a prearranged agreement with Ms Carney and her son, that in her capacity as town clerk, she would be permitted by the couple to sign their wedding license.

Was License Delayed?

The December meeting minutes reflect that on the day in question, Ms Aurelia was accused of delaying the issuance of the marriage license for her son and the then-Ms Carney, by reportedly directing her staff to not issue the document until she was present.

Those minutes also allude to a verbal interaction that may have originated in the town clerk’s office, and which may have moved directly outside the Municipal Center on the day in question.

The former ethics board chairman, Mr VanBuskirk, confirmed that the board would have two issues to focus on: to understand the responsibilities of the town clerk and to determine what happened. It was also determined that Assistant Town Clerk Monica Duhancik, Assistant Town Clerk Ann Benore, Ms Carney Guilfoil, Diane Guilfoil, and former first selectman Joe Borst would be invited to the January 14 hearing.

A subsequent letter of complaint received after the December meeting and signed by Ms Carney Guilfoil alleged that she was contacted and “intimidated,” by Debbie Aurelia prior to the January ethics meeting. This precipitated a second complaint from Diane Guilfoil.

During the January 7 meeting, the board concluded that by Charter, Debbie Aurelia and/or her representative council had the right to face and cross examine Ms Carney Guilfoil, and that the complainant would have to be on hand at the hearing to face cross examination.

The board determined that in the absence of Ms Carney Guilfoil, the board would have no mechanism by which to carry forward hearing her complaint or the related second complaint filed by Ms Guilfoil. The board also questioned in the absence of Ms Carney Guilfoil confirming or denying the prearranged agreement to have Debbie Aurelia on hand to sign the marriage license, whether the initial complaint could be considered valid.

If that agreement occurred, any actions on the original complaint might be moot because they were all rooted in Ms Guilfoil’s allegations that Debbie Aurelia purposefully delayed issuing the marriage license.