Clarification by the Newtown Board of Ethics as to how the breakdown of names and votes in the Board of Education Freedman/Hamilton issue came about - ironically, as they judged others in a Freedom of Information action - has been lagging.The Newtown Bee have been ignored, to date.

The Board of Ethics' voting ballots on the alleged violations by former Board of Education member David Freedman and recently resigned Board of Education member Kathy Hamilton were counted and collected at an April 18 special meeting. They remained in the possession of the board clerk, Arleen Miles, in a sealed envelope, until at least May 26. At the May 18 Board of Ethics meeting, the names of board members were added to the vote counts as amendments to the April 18 minutes.

It is not so much a concern of who voted in which way; rather, it is the secrecy regarding those votes. The board eventually deemed it important for the public to know the breakdown of the votes; but the April 18 ballots, when opened in late June, reveal the ballots were not inscribed with any names. When and how were the names collected?

Did ethics board members meet out of the public eye between the April 18 meeting and that of May 18 to provide the details included in the amended minutes? Was the determination of where members stood on each potential violation tallied during deliberations in the executive session at the April 18 hearing - and not divulged to the public?

These are not petty questions nagging an issue that is now part of the town's history. This is a board charged with seeing that the public has "confidence in the integrity of its government," as spelled out in the Newtown town ordinances. What could be viewed as a small transgression points to a discrepancy in proper practices.

Board of Ethics Chair Jackie Villa has assured this paper that the issue will be addressed in public at the next Board of Ethics meeting, scheduled for August 4. Hopefully, why it has taken so long for an answer to be formulated will also be shared. Repeated requests from

"Should an official or employee be requested or ordered to perform an illegal act or an act that conflicts with this Code of Ethics, that individual should be guided by standards of morality rather than by standards of expediency and should refuse to comply with such a request or order," seems to guide board members to question a secret vote on a public matter or the addition of mysteriously obtained information to minutes.

The Freedman/Hamilton issue may be resolved, but the ethics board's questionable tactics on the vote and subsequent lack of response for clarification is more than being "wrong-headed," as First Selectman Pat Llodra kindly named the actions of this board.

An ethics board is made up of people entrusted to determine what is good and bad behavior, and how it affects the town. Before they look at any other human errors of judgment, members of the Board of Ethics might want to ascertain that they are meeting and making decisions in manners that are a proper discharging of duties. The public deserves to have an ethics board that is a true moral compass for the town, and be assured that going forward this is a board in which it can have confidence.