For the first time in memory, the Newtown Board of Selectmen unanimously voted to make a referral to the local Board of Ethics after meeting in closed session garding what was described on their agenda as: “Attorney-Client privileged communication and discussion of employer rights and responsibilities regarding employee non-work related behaviors.” The closed session preceded the board's open meeting on Monday, November 2.

The issue involves the leaking and subsequent social network posting of a 2014 e-mail that contained information related to proposed terms of the school superintendent’s contract. That e-mail, from the attorney, was copied to Board of Education members, thereby suggesting the information was private and subject to attorney-client privilege.

There was also an issue involving a separate text message from June 2015 shared by school board member Katherine Hamilton and posted on a social network containing apparent communication among Board of Education members with content related to separate superintendent contract negotiations.

Following the closed meeting, which was held in First Selectman Pat Llodra’s office, the selectmen re-convened the meeting and heard the following motion: “While it is not in the normal purview of the Board of Selectmen to file an ethics complaint, certain information has been brought to the attention of the board which should be investigated to determine whether there are any violations of the Newtown Code of Ethics. As such, the board authorizes the first selectman to make a referral, versus a complaint, to the Board of Ethics for processing and conformance with Section 36-16 of the Town Code and the Board of Selectmen authorize legal counsel be made available to the Board of Ethics.  Furthermore, the Board of Selectmen does so reserving the right to take any and all further action that may be appropriate, including actions beyond the Code of Ethics.”

Selectman James Gaston seconded the motion.

Public Comments

The motion and vote was followed by public participation, during which a number of residents, as well as two members of the school board and one member of the Legislative Council, spoke.

Karen Pierce, Laura Terry, Karen Holden, Michelle Assante, and Dan Wiedemann each took turns at the microphone. They were joined by Councilman Phil Carroll, and school board members Laura Roche and Debbie Leidlein.

Ms Pierce read a letter she had submitted to The Bee.

“The gravest concern, in my opinion, is the impact of how this is handled [and] on how we move forward as a functional municipal government,” Ms Pierce stated. Referring to the e-mail, which The Bee initially reported was supplied by school board member David Freedman, Ms Pierce stated, “With this new precedent, the flood gates will be open to all who feel a need to expose perceived wrong-doing in a public venue. Governance in our community will become nothing more than rule by gossip and innuendo.”

Ms Terry told selectmen that she believes there is an ethics violation involving Section 27-6(b) of the Ethics Code, a concern also shared by Ms Holden. Ms Terry also inferred involvement by part-time town employee Carey Shierloh, who is also secretary to the Newtown Republican Town Committee, saying her “actions [are] a clear violation of our ethics code.”

“We need to understand where she received it and why she put it out there,” Ms Terry said, referring to the e-mail.

Ms Holden also expressed concern because although Mr Freedman had admitted to sharing the e-mail, he did not publicly apologize for his actions. She was also concerned because the publication of the document was apparently shared “in an attempt to discredit another elected official.”

Ms Assante demanded closure to the issue to help protect the public trust in government officials and their communications, while identifying any or all parties involved in leaking the information to the public.

Mr Carroll said he reviewed all the related information on the social network and determined that “the court of public opinion” had convened and found everybody guilty. He added that it was a “ridiculous” pursuit to “persecute” people involved.

Ms Leidlein told the selectmen she did not understand the motion, but Mrs Llodra replied that the board could only reiterate the motion, and was not going to get into a dialog during the public comments segment of the meeting.

Ms Roche said the issues related to the ethics referral were affecting local board relations, that she respected both Mr Freedman and Ms Shierloh, but those responsible needed to come forward to address their actions publicly.

Ms Terry returned, asking for a clarification between an ethics complaint and a referral. This generated comments from the selectmen that Mrs Llodra later recognized as probably speaking to Ms Leidlein’s question.

Clarifying Motion

Selectman Gaston explained that a complaint would presuppose a judgment was already made, and that a referral would initiate a fact-finding process that could result in advisory details coming to the Board of Selectmen, who might then act beyond any recommendations of the ethics board, if any finding or sanctions were eventually suggested.

Selectman Will Rodgers further clarified that since the selectmen are the individuals ultimately receiving the ethics board findings, they could not lodge a complaint and then expect to receive any resulting unbiased response without the appearance that guilt was predetermined.

Recognizing that the following day was Election Day, Mr Wiedemann simply conveyed that the entire incident was “unnerving,” and that the actions of any individuals should not reflect on members of the political party to which they belong.

Following the meeting, Mr Rodgers told The Bee that it was the selectmen’s intent to ask the ethics board to examine the entire situation, and not the actions of any individual who may be involved. He also reiterated that the language in the motion gives the selectmen the option of taking further employment action, even if the ethics panel finds there is no violation of the local code.

He clarified that “confidential information” as relating to the code of ethics refers to information an individual received because of their town position. The ethics panel may determine it does not have jurisdiction in this case, because the confidential information in question did not come to any party in the course of their employment or service to the town.

Contacted by e-mail for a comment, Ms Shierloh responded: “On the advise of legal counsel, I can’t discuss the issue with the press.”