Selectman Bojnowski Wants Clarification On Borst Ethics Matter

By John Voket

Despite the apparent lack of authority for any town agency or body to initiate an inquiry, Democratic Selectman Joseph Bojnowski said he wants the Board of Selectman to clarify whether or not Republican Councilman and first selectman candidate Joseph Borst violated the town’s Code of Ethics in matters related to his office and employer.

On July 28, Mr Borst, who had not yet declared his candidacy for the town’s top elected seat, sent a letter to town ethics board member Mitchell Bolinsky. The letter asks for a response in writing on ethics board letterhead, as to whether Mr Borst had ever been, or in the future will ever be, in conflict of interest because he has deliberated and voted on school district budgets while serving as a part-time employee of the school system as a bus driver.

After receiving a copy of the letter, The Newtown Bee interviewed Mr Borst, specifically questioning why he never recused himself from deliberations on the school district portion of the municipal budget package, which is funded by almost 70 cents of every local tax dollar collected. The newspaper also referenced council budget deliberations earlier in 2007, prior to the local budget referendum failing three times, during which Mr Borst moved to increase the school budget by $250,000 specifically to underwrite additional school bus routes and transportation department needs.

During that brief interview, Mr Borst said he decided to ask for the additional funds from the council after numerous “discussions with Tony [DiLonardo],” the district transportation director and Mr Borst’s immediate supervisor. When asked directly if he was the one who came up with the idea to request an additional quarter-million dollars for the transportation department, Mr Borst told The Bee the suggestion to add money to the school transportation budget was tendered by Mr DiLonardo.

While Mr Borst has downplayed the matter, he did address a letter through Mr Bolinsky to the full ethics board. Mr Bolinsky has since recused himself from deliberations on any related matters because he subsequently became Mr Borst’s and selectman candidate Paul Mangiafico’s campaign manager.

The Board of Ethics first entertained discussion on the Borst request Thursday, August 2. But that meeting was ruled illegal because the ethics board failed to advertise or provide adequate public notice of the meeting and agenda matters pursuant to Connecticut Freedom of Information statutes.

The ethics panel convened again October 4 to rehold the meeting, but after discussions, determined Mr Borst’s letter lacked the specificity to compel the ethics members to render a ruling on his behaviors. The board also determined that lacking a complaint on the matter, it could not initiate an inquiry.

This decision did not sit well with ethics board member and Democratic school board candidate Sara Frampton. During discussions, Ms Frampton repeatedly asserted that the ethics board should act to determine whether Mr Borst was in conflict of interest because he indicated in the newspaper article that he carried out elected duties under the alleged directive, or in alleged concert with, a town employee, his direct supervisor.

Mr Borst did not attend the meeting nor did he respond to a request for clarification from the commission made at its illegal August meeting.

According to Section 8.1 of the Newtown Code of Ethics, “Officials and Employees have a responsibility to perform their town duties unencumbered by conflicting demands placed upon them by virtue of their commitment to other employment.”

Section 5.2.5 states, “An official or employee who has any financial or other private interest in any official action under consideration shall disqualify himself or herself from participation in the deliberating and decision-making thereupon.”

The ethics rules go on to state in 8.2.2, “Officials and employees shall disqualify themselves from all discussions, attempts to influence the views of others, and decision-making with respect to any issue in which their employment may conflict with their town position.”

Section 5.1 indicates, “It is expected that officials and employees will be acutely sensitive to possible conflict of interest issues and that they will conduct themselves in a manner that will scrupulously avoid any conflict of interest, or the appearance of conflict of interest.”

Upon hearing her concerns, ethics board member Stephen Sedensky asked Ms Frampton how she knew the newspaper article was correct. Ms Frampton answered that the article did not assert Mr Borst’s involvement, but reported direct and attributed quotes from the councilman about how he carried the financial request forward after discussing the issue with his immediate supervisor.

“If he was misquoted, he never asked for a correction,” Ms Frampton said. After voting to send a letter to Mr Borst indicating the ethics board could not act on Mr Borst’s blanket request for immunity on all past and future matters related to his council actions and potential conflicts of interest, Ms Frampton moved to request clarification on the ethics conflict from the Board of Selectmen.

Her motion failed. But Selectman Bojnowski, who was in attendance at the meeting, said he felt “a level of discomfort,” about a possible conflict of interest, that he was planning to ask fellow selectmen to “look into the matter further.”

If the Board of Selectmen decides to entertain discussion on the issue, it is unclear whether or not First Selectman Herb Rosenthal will withdraw from participating because he is currently running against Mr Borst for the town’s top elected seat. Following an inquiry to the town attorney, it appears that neither the ethics board, nor any town agency or official is empowered to initiate an ethics inquiry without a formal complaint, or a request about certain actions coming from an individual elected official or town employee.

During the latest ethics board meeting, however, chairman Peter VanBuskirk invited Ms Frampton to submit a complaint herself. Ms Frampton could not be reached at press time about whether she planned to file a complaint.

If a complaint is filed, it may not be made public until the ethics board determines the complaint’s validity, and determines if the complaint has merit. If such a complaint is filed, the board of ethics may not entertain the matter until its next scheduled meeting in December, after the elections are held and a newly elected or reelected first selectman is seated.

The ethics board, however, may call a special meeting on any matter at any time, as long as that meeting is advertised appropriately under state FOI guidelines. Contacted at home October 11, Mr Borst said once he receives the letter from the ethics board he will consider the matter closed.