First Selectman Candidate

Facing Formal Ethics Complaint

By John Voket

A former Newtown councilman and school board employee, who now serves as the chairman of the Democratic Town Committee, has filed a formal ethics complaint against the Republican first selectman challenger Joseph Borst. Earl Smith said he was seeking both transparency and clarity in making his complaint and by providing a copy of his two letters to The Newtown Bee.

“In the interest of bringing resolution to this issue both in fairness to Mr Borst…and for the wider public who will be considering Mr Borst’s candidacy for first selectman, I formally request you investigate this matter and render an opinion,” Mr Smith wrote in an October 5 letter to Peter Van Buskirk, the ethics board chair.

Mr Smith then addressed a second letter October 13, clarifying that he was making a formal complaint against Mr Borst.

“The reason for this complaint is to have the Board of Ethics render an opinion regarding Joe Borst’s conduct as both a member of the Legislative Council and an employee of the Board of Education,” Mr Smith wrote in his follow-up memo.

In a July 28 letter to ethics board member Mitchell Bolinsky, Mr Borst wrote asking if his actions as a Legislative Council representative were in conflict with the Newtown Code of Ethics. Mr Bolinsky has since recused himself from any participation on matters related to Mr Borst’s inquiry because he subsequently agreed to become the manager of Mr Borst’s first selectman campaign.

In his July letter, the first selectman candidate requested an evaluation of his actions because during Mr Borst’s tenure on the council he also was a paid employee of the Board of Education as a bus driver. At the same time, as a Legislative Council member, Mr Borst deliberated on numerous school board budget requests. Going back several years, Mr Borst’s voting record repeatedly reflects votes against budget cuts to both the school district and the town’s operating budget.

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.”

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 previously told The Bee the suggestion to add money to the school transportation budget was tendered by his employer and immediate supervisor, Transportation Director Anthony DiLonardo.

Mr Borst said over the course of numerous discussions with his “boss,” he determined there was a “real need” for the extra funding. “I have discussions with Tony [DiLonardo],” Mr Borst said, “He indicated he needed these buses to keep parents happy.”

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.”

During 2006 council budget deliberations, following the failure of a first budget referendum, Mr Borst seconded a motion by fellow councilman Keith Jacobs to put funds previously cut by the finance board back into the school board budget. And during a contentious council budget session earlier this year, Mr Borst proposed a $250,000 increase to the Board of Education’s budget to specifically fund additional bus routes and transportation department fuel purchases.

Mr Borst insisted the tie between his employment as a school bus driver was not directly related to any advocacy for the school’s transportation department, or the $250,000 budget increase that he proposed specifically to help underwrite additional bus routes. Described as a “three-year tour,” as a bus driver, Mr Borst wrote in his July ethics query that he works “part-time,” that he receives no health insurance benefits, and that he considers his compensation by the school district to be “adequate.”

According to school district records, Mr Borst is classified as a “bus driver,” has been employed since September 8, 2003, and drove his last school bus run October 12 of this year.

Since he began his employ with the school district, his earnings have totaled $39,427. According to the report furnished by the school business district, Mr Borst earned $10,032.93 this year, an eight percent increase over the previous year and more than three times the $3,052 he earned his first year on the job.

During an October 4 ethics board meeting, board member Sara Frampton asked the panel to initiate action to determine if comments Mr Borst made in the newspaper since he wrote for clarification were grounds to open an ethics investigation. After some discussion, the board determined they had no power to initiate an inquiry without a formal complaint or specific clarity from Mr Borst on exactly what actions he believes may be in conflict of interest.

The action caused enough concern to Selectman Joseph Bojnowski that he sought a ruling from fellow selectmen on the matter. But this week, the Board of Selectmen ruled they may not take up the matter unsolicited.

During the selectmen’s meeting Monday, First Selectman Herb Rosenthal said he does not believe the Board of Selectmen has authority to investigate these kinds of matters, unless the Board of Ethics brings a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen. 

Mr Rosenthal said even if the Board of Ethics had done that, he would excuse himself since Mr Borst is a candidate for first selectman.

Earlier in the meeting, during a public hearing, it was Mr Borst who asked to clarify whether or not Fairfield Hills Authority member Andrew Willie was in violation of ethics rules because his son-in-law has negotiated a lease for duplex office space at Fairfield Hills.

During that meeting, both Mr Rosenthal and authority Chair Robert Geckle insisted Mr Willie recused himself from all votes and discussion on the matter, because of his connection to the tenant by marriage.

It is possible the ethics board will entertain Mr Smith’s ethics complaint in a special meeting as early as next week.