Legalities Still Questioned—

Town Clerk Exonerated On Single Violation

After Ethics Board Deadlocks

By John Voket

Town Clerk Debbie Aurelia was cleared Thursday after a 3-3 vote defeated a motion to find her in violation of a single violation of the local ethics code. Meanwhile, the handling of complaints against her by the ethics board remains under fire by Ms Aurelia’s attorney, who contends the decision to keep all proceedings public was not only personally and politically motivated, but illegal.

That aspect of the case is also under investigation by the town attorney, who noted that the ethics board’s action may have violated state statutes and the town charter because its members failed to keep the matter confidential until a formal hearing was convened.

The situation came to a head January 14 as the current ethics panel, minus its former chair and a former political opponent of Ms Aurelia’s, took up a complaint initiated in December. The board was originally exploring possible violations of two aspects of the code, following a complaint by Diane Guilfoil, the wife of Ms Aurelia’s ex-husband.

Ms Guilfoil said during the hearing that she bore personal animosity toward the town clerk. Under cross examination, Ms Guilfoil also told the ethics panel she was a vocal supporter of Sara Frampton. Ms Frampton was the town clerk’s unsuccessful adversary in last November’s election, and one of the former ethics commissioners who discussed the original complaints publicly and voted to send the matter to a full hearing.

Ms Frampton resigned from the ethics board a few days after voting to find cause to send Ms Guilfoil’s complaint to a formal hearing. The board’s former chairman Peter VanBuskirk also left the board in January after he fulfilled his two-term limit.

During the hearing, Ms Aurelia’s attorney Robert Hall was quick to establish there was an ongoing and amicable relationship between the town clerk, her son Vincent and his fiancé Angelina Carney who were married in November, coincidentally by Justice of the Peace LeReine Frampton, Sara Frampton’s mother.

Mr Hall also prompted the complainant to disclose that she and her husband had told the young couple the Guilfoils would not participate in their wedding if they proceeded to include Ms Aurelia in the ceremony. And since it was established that Vincent and Angelina resided with the complainant and Ms Aurelia’s ex-husband and planned their wedding ceremony at the Guilfoil home, the decision to include both parents would have left the couple without a venue to hold their private ceremony.

Calls, Visits Prohibited

Ms Guilfoil was also prompted to tell the panel that she previously arranged to block phone calls from Ms Aurelia to her son, and sought a legal remedy to bar Ms Aurelia from coming on the Guilfoils’ property to visit her son, his fiancé and their infant daughter in person.

Mr Hall then used this information to illustrate why Ms Aurelia felt justified in her attempts to strike up a conversation with the complainant when she accompanied Ms Carney to the town clerk’s office on the morning of November 10 to pick up her wedding license.

That interaction, during which Ms Guilfoil refused to discuss or entertain the possibility of allowing Ms Aurelia to see her son get married, instigated an emotional outburst from the town clerk in the hallway of the town Municipal Center.

In her own testimony, Ms Aurelia admitted that she became so upset she called Ms Guilfoil “a cow,” “a moron,” and was accused of questioning Ms Guilfoil’s faith by asking her, “What would Jesus do?”

It was this admission that seemed to resonate with several ethics panel members, who then deliberated as to whether such action violated Section 36-4b, which states in part: “Officials and employees will treat the public with tact and courtesy and give proper and expeditious consideration to the public’s needs. They must exercise self-restraint even when stressful situations arise.”

While board members Stephen Sedensky, alternate Ronald Wilcox, and chairman Brian Ochs argued that the confrontation and Ms Aurelia’s admission warranted finding her in violation, alternate Neal Young, and board members Suzanne Copp and Addie Sandler countered that the interaction was borne out of a deeply personal and longstanding conflict, exacerbated by Ms Guilfoil’s refusal to engage Ms Aurelia when the town clerk pleaded with the complainant to attend her son’s wedding.

After several minutes of deliberation, it was clear that the members had reached an impasse, and that difference of opinion resulted in the tie vote to find Ms Aurelia in violation on the single complaint. As part of the motion, the panel agreed that in the event Ms Aurelia was found in violation, they would not recommend any further action against her.

Verbal Reprimand Given

Among other witnesses called to the hearing was former first selectman Joe Borst, who said he was shocked when told by Ms Aurelia after the incident, that she had become so emotional that she had lost her temper.

“Ms Aurelia came into my office and said to expect a complaint,” Mr Borst said, adding that despite the fact that he had no supervisory power over the town clerk, that he verbally reprimanded her for her action.

“I told he that her behavior was rather unprofessional, but after what I’m hearing tonight it’s understandable,” Mr Borst said in Ms Aurelia’s defense. “I never saw her act unprofessionally, so I was surprised [to hear Ms Aurelia’s admission].”

Another complaint that Ms Guilfoil lodged was summarily dismissed. The complainant alleged that Ms Aurelia acted and directed her staff to delay the issuance of Ms Carney’s marriage license on the day in question, until Ms Aurelia was on hand to sign it.

In testimony from Ms Carney, the board learned there was a prearranged agreement struck between the town clerk and the young couple so Ms Aurelia could be honored by signing the license. Ms Carney also told the board that there was no substantial delay in delivering the license November 10, even though Ms Aurelia was not immediately available to authorize the license that morning.

The question of legality that was raised by both Mr Hall and Town Attorney David Grogins involves the overarching state ethics statute, which compels local ethics boards to keep all accusations confidential until such a time a hearing is convened.

Ethics meeting minutes show that during two previous meetings earlier in January, and in December, members of the board allowed Ms Guilfoil to voice her allegations against Ms Aurelia publicly, and subsequent discussions among board members also played out in a public format with no regard for the confidentiality clause in the law.