DiLonardo Denies Involvement—

Borst Clears Ethics Review,

Despite 3-1 Vote Against Him

By John Voket

Even though three of the four board members conducting a Board of Ethics hearing December 6 found First Selectman Joseph Borst violated the town’s Code of Ethics, a move to formally declare him in violation of the code fell short since ethics board rules required a unanimous vote.

The board was considering whether Mr Borst had a conflict of interest when as a councilman he moved a $250,000 appropriation intended for the local school district’s transportation department. Mr Borst was an employee of that department when he advocated that appropriation.

The motion to find Mr Borst in violation of the code failed because of a dissenting vote by ethics board member Brian Ochs. During more than an hour of deliberations, Mr Ochs maintained there was sufficient distance between Mr Borst’s financial or private interests and the district’s transportation department to reject chairman Peter VanBuskirk’s interpretation of section 36-5e of the code.

That section compels any town official or employee to disqualify himself from deliberations or decisionmaking on any official action, if that official or employee has any financial or private interest in the action under consideration.

Mr VanBuskirk maintained Mr Borst had a personal or financial interest because he was compensated by the transportation department.

In his original letter to the Board of Ethics and throughout the proceedings, Mr Borst maintained 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 underwrite additional bus routes. During his five-year span of employment by the school district’s transportation department, Mr Borst was compensated a total of $39,427 and received no benefits.

Mr Ochs also disagreed with board member Stephen Sedensky’s contention that Mr Borst was in violation of section 36-8b of the code. That section states: Officials and employees shall disqualify themselves from all discussions, attempts at influencing the views of others, and decisionmaking with respect to any issue in which their employment may conflict with their town position.

Ethics commissioner Sara Frampton who also voted supporting the motion, saying there was sufficient evidence to find Mr Borst in violation of the code.

Since the bare quorum of four commissioners required a unanimous consensus, 3-1 vote in favor of finding Mr Borst in violation died.

Before the meeting, Mr VanBuskirk said he was expecting commission alternate Neil DeYoung to attend, but Mr DeYoung never arrived. Commissioner Mitchell Bolinsky was on hand sitting in the audience. Mr Bolinsky previously recused himself from the proceedings because he served as Mr Borst’s campaign manager during the recent first selectman’s race.

Mr Borst first came before the ethics board voluntarily after raising concerns over a potential conflict of interest. He first issued a letter to the ethics board July 28 in which he stated: “Concerned citizens may, during the forthcoming campaign, allege that I as a member of the Legislative Council and employee of the Newtown Board of Education as a part-time bus driver, had a conflict of interest when voting on the school budget.”

In the initial letter, Mr Borst asked, through Mr Bolinsky, for “due diligence on the matter,” and requested a response from the ethics board “on official letterhead.” Some ethics board members early-on interpreted that as a request for past and future absolution based on a perceived conflict of interest, which the board refused outright and repeatedly.

During that hearing, however, Ms Frampton pointed out statements attributed to Mr Borst in a newspaper article, which led her to believe his council motion and his employment status were in conflict. But since the Board of Ethics is only able to provide advisory information or call hearings based on qualified complaints, no action was taken at the time.

Following that meeting, a complaint against Mr Borst was filed by Newtown resident Earl Smith, who is also chairman of the local Democratic Town Committee. Mr Smith justified his complaint, asking for the ethics board to resolve whether or not a conflict of interest existed, and attributed his concerns to articles he read in The Newtown Bee.

The content of the articles became a point of issue during Mr Borst’s cross examination of his former supervisor Anthony DeLonardo. Mr Borst originally told The Bee he was motivated to propose appropriating the $250,000 for the school district after several conversations with the transportation director.

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.”

In cross examination at the ethics meeting, Mr DiLonardo said that conversation never happened.

While the news items were also discussed by Mr Borst and by members of the public in attendance at the hearing, both Mr Sedensky and Mr VanBuskirk downplayed the role of the articles in relation to the complaint. The board members instead chose to use council minutes from the meeting in question, which reflected Mr Borst’s actions, and his employment status with the school district as the basis for their findings.

During the course of the hearing, council members Patricia Llodra and Francis Pennarola both provided input. Under questioning from the panel, Ms Llodra confirmed that in her tenure, Mr Borst never recused himself from any proceedings involving deliberations or voting on issues related to the school district or the transportation department.

Mr Pennarola, who is an attorney, told the commission that he recused himself on several occasions during his six years of council service, when issues related to his legal clients or deliberations about Newtown teacher contracts were on the agenda. Mr Pennarola’s said he felt justified in recusing himself from the latter because his wife is a local teacher, but said he did cast votes regarding the overall school district budget.

Attorney Robert Hall told commissioners he could not see how Mr Borst’s motion to the council affected any personal financial interests. Resident Robert Hennessey told commissioners he had never met Mr Borst, but thought he was a good individual.

Mr Hennessey called the hearing a “political witch hunt,” noting Mr Borst’s accuser Mr Smith did not bother to appear at the hearing to clarify his charges. Guy Howard told commissioners that during his service as a Charter Revision commissioner, he refused to recuse himself on discussions and votes regarding school matters even though his wife was a local teacher.

School board vice chairman Lisa Schwartz defended Mr Borst’s integrity and character, adding that in her years of service with Mr Borst on the council, a former chairman, Joseph Mahoney had repeatedly ruled Mr Borst was not in conflict voting on school district matters. During that period, Mr Borst’s wife was an employee of the district.

Citing the appearance of conflict, resident Philip Dinielli called for all the members of the ethics board to recuse themselves saying the board members were all appointed by former first selectman Herbert Rosenthal.

“People voted for change, all of you people were part of that request for change,” Mr Dinielli said referring to the November elections. “People making the decision were all voted in by the previous administration, which was voted out of office.”

Mr VanBuskirk responded, clarifying the varied sources of board political appointments, which included the Democratic and Republican Town Committees.

Following the failed motion Mr Borst was upbeat, shouting out, “Government in action,” as the hearing adjourned. He told The Bee later that enduring the process of an ethics hearing, “comes with the job.”