After 30 days and several Newtown Bee reports calling attention to process issues and possible Freedom of Information violations, Newtown's Board of Ethics has revealed the contents of secret ballots cast during a public hearing April 18.The Back StoryThe Bee that they shared the e-mail and text out of frustration after, they say, a number of illegal meetings were conducted by school board members electronically through e-mails instead of holding discussions at public board meetings.Alleged Vote Breakdown

But the board's Chair Jacqueline Villa may have conducted an illegal meeting in order to produce those details, which were amended into hearing minutes approved on May 18 with no discussion.

The latest action further complicates the matter of a former and a current Board of Education member who were found in violation of town ethics policies April 18, after ethics board members were ordered by Ms Villa to provide their votes supporting or rejecting those violations by secret ballot. Deliberations on the violations and charges were also held out of the public and respondents' view April 18 in a closed executive session

It is unclear how Ms Villa ascertained which members of her board voted for the various charges being leveled against former school board member David Freedman and current member Kathryn Hamilton.

Ms Villa was asked via e-mail to explain how and when the sentiment of each board member was derived from sealed ballots that were collected during the April 18 hearing. Since that April hearing, there appear to be no minutes nor any record of a public meetings where she polls each member to produce the document labeled "Attachment A."

The envelope containing those secret ballots of votes cast on April 18 was never opened and remains sealed, according to the hearing clerk, Arlene Miles, contacted by the newspaper on May 26.

Board member Joyce Murty moved to attach to the previously drafted meeting minutes, and an audio recording of the May 18 meeting contains no public discussion or polling on the hearing results.

In view of the lack of public action to produce the information being amended into the month-old minutes, Ms Villa was specifically asked how and when she gathered or ascertained which board members cast votes on the various violations. She was also asked why the votes were amended into April 18 minutes, when no public vote occurred.

Her response was: "The goal of the Board of Ethics was to ensure that the information regarding the votes on the Freedman and Hamilton complaints was made available to the public."

A follow-up to clarify her response to the questions had not been returned as of press time.

The matter involves separate complaints or "referrals" filed by Board of Education members Keith Alexander, John Vouros, Debbie Leidlein, Michelle Ku, and Laura Roche alleging violations of the Code of Ethics by Mr Freedman and Ms Hamilton.

The complaints were generated after a separate text message and e-mail containing what appear to be public documents were circulated on social networks by one or more unidentified third parties.

Mr Freedman and Ms Hamilton have told

There was no public meeting during which ethics board members were polled to verify their hearing votes, so the accuracy of "Attachment A" cannot be verified.

In the matter of Mr Freedman, the ethics panel referred violations of Sections 27-2a, 27-2b, 27-6a and 27-6b of the local ethics code to the Board of Selectmen. In the matter of Ms Hamilton, the ethics panel referred violations of Sections 27-2a and 27-2b.

By charter, the Board of Selectmen must act to uphold or reject any or all of the ethics board findings. That deliberation may occur when selectmen meet on June 6.

Parts A, B and D of Section 27-2 direct Newtown officials and employees to recognize and maintain "a special responsibility, by virtue of the trust invested in them by the town's residents, to discharge their duties conscientiously, impartially, and to the best of their ability, placing the good of the Town above any personal or partisan considerations."

Parts A and B of Section 27-6 involve officials' access to certain or confidential information that may not be in the public domain, or that may be detrimental to the public interest.

The document amended into the April 18 hearing minutes states the ethics board members' votes as follows on violations leveled at Mr Freedman:

27-2a - 4 Yes (Ms Villa, Ms Murty, Suzanne Copp, Thomas Fuchs), and 2 No (James Stringer, Parker Reardon)

27-2b - 4 Yes (Ms Villa, Ms Murty, Ms Copp, Mr Fuchs), and 2 No (Mr Stringer, Mr Reardon)

27-2d - 1 Yes (Mr Reardon), and 5 No (Ms Villa, Ms Murty, Ms Copp, Mr Fuchs, Mr Stringer)

27-6a - 6 Yes

27-6b - 4 Yes (Ms Villa, Ms Murty, Ms Copp, Mr Stringer), and 2 No (Mr Reardon, Mr Fuchs)

27-10a - 2 Yes (Ms Villa, Ms Murty), and 4 No (Ms Copp, Mr Stringer, Mr Reardon, Mr Fuchs)

The ethics board members' votes regarding Ms Hamilton are as follows:

27-2a - 5 Yes (Ms Villa, Ms Murty, Ms Copp, Mr Fuchs, Mr Reardon), and 1 No (Mr Stringer)

27-2b - 5 Yes (Ms Villa, Ms Murty, Ms Copp, Mr Fuchs), and 2 No (Mr Stringer)

27-2d - 6 No

27-6a - 3 Yes (Ms Villa, Ms Murty, Mr Fuchs), and 3 No (Ms Copp, Mr Stringer, Mr Reardon) tie vote fails

27-6b - 3 Yes (Ms Villa, Ms Murty, Mr Fuchs), and 3 No (Ms Copp, Mr Stringer, Mr Reardon) tie vote fails

27-10a - 2 Yes (Ms Villa, Ms Murty), and 4 No (Ms Copp, Mr Stringer, Mr Reardon, Mr Fuchs)

Also attached to the May 18 ethics board minutes is an FOI request made four days earlier by Ms Hamilton, who has also filed one or more Freedom of Information appeals against the ethics board. She has requested copies of all communication including text messages and e-mails to, from, and between ethics and school board members concerning the ethics, as well as FOI, complaints filed against her and Mr Freedman.

She is also requesting records of correspondence on those matters that may have originated from or include former school board member Laura Roche and resident Laura Terry, who currently have an FOI appeal pending on the FOI Commission docket in Hartford related to the text and e-mail released by the respondents.

The newspaper has since filed an FOI appeal of the April 18 hearing because of the apparent illegal use of blind votes and closed deliberation sessions.