Board of Ethics Chair Jacqueline Villa directed her panel members to "pile on what we can," when recommending charges against past school board member David Freedman and current board member Kathryn Hamilton during a May 4 meeting.The Newtown Bee, and follows prolonged discussion about how to precisely word recommendations for punishment against the school board respondents to the Board of Selectmen.The Bee previously reported that neither respondent recalls being made aware they could request all business related to their cases be held in public. But among correspondence Ms Villa submitted May 4 are letters to each respondent dated December 4, 2015, reminding them they each had a right to request the investigation be conducted in public.The Bee that upon a finding of probable cause, all subsequent handling of ethics matters was bound to be conducted publicly.Allegations DetailedSelectmen On HoldThe Bee that she had received the recommendations, and was "just starting to process the report from the Board of Ethics and have had no opportunity to consult with town attorneys, as counsel to the Board of Selectmen."

That directive shows up in an audio transcript obtained by

Ms Villa acknowledges that all possible charges should be leveled against Mr Freedman and Ms Hamilton because selectmen may pick and choose which, if any, of the ethics board directives to follow. This directive is the latest in a contentious sequence of events stemming from a complaint generated by five other current or past school board members against their colleagues.

The matter dates back to a text message that was shared by Ms Hamilton and an e-mail shared by Mr Freedman that eventually found their way onto social network sites. Board of Education Chairman Keith Alexander, members John Vouros, Debbie Leidlein, Michelle Ku, and former member Laura Roche filed a complaint or "referral" claiming the two other board members violated Newtown's Code of Ethics because they were the original sources of the shared correspondence.

During that May 4 meeting, according to minutes, the ethics panel also apparently accepted letters that were to be part of a package of evidence to be considered at a April 18 hearing. During that meeting, and despite a memo from Ms Villa inferring all deliberations and relevant business related to the cases would be conducted in public, violations were voted on by secret ballot following separate secret or executive sessions.

Those secret votes resulted in both Mr Freedman and Ms Hamilton being charged with violations of a number of points in the ethics code.

Two subsequent letters to Ms Hamilton and Mr Freedman dated February 15 validate that the ethics board found probable cause to carry the complaints against them to hearings and states: "Hereafter, all proceedings regarding this complaint shall be public with the exception of procedural discussions."

A state Freedom of Information spokesman confirmed to

In the matter of Mr Freedman, the ethics panel referred violations of Sections 27-2a, 27-2b, 27-6a, and 27-6b of the local ethics code to selectmen. In the matter of Ms Hamilton, the ethics panel referred violations of Sections 27-2a and 27-2b to selectmen.

Parts A, B and D of Section 27-2 direct Newtown officials and employees to recognize and maintain "a special responsibility, by virtue of the trust invested in them by the town's residents, to discharge their duties conscientiously, impartially, and to the best of their ability, placing the good of the town above any personal or partisan considerations."

Parts A and B of Section 27-6 involve officials' access to certain or confidential information that may not be in the public domain, or that may be detrimental to the public interest.

Following their chairperson's order to "pile on" charges, ethics board members James Stringer, Joyce Murty, Suzanne Copp, Thams Fuchs, Laurie Kilchevsky, Parker Reardon, and Ms Villa unanimously recommend selectmen:

*Shall officially censure both respondents;

*Shall not endorse or approve any proposed endorsement of either respondent to any town board, commission, or committee for a period of four years.

Additionally, in the matter of Mr Freedman, the ethics board unanimously recommends selectmen:

*Direct or prevent him from seeking any elected position representing the town for a period of four years;

*Direct him to resign as a voting delegate to the state Republican nominating convention, and the State Senate District 28 Convention, both of which have already occurred; and

*Require him to undergo state FOI training before seeking any future elected or appointed public office representing the town.

Additionally, in the matter of Ms Hamilton, ethics members voted 5-1 to recommend she complete FOI training within 90 days (with Mr Reardon opposing); unanimously recommend selectmen direct or prevent Ms Hamilton from seeking any elected position in town for four years; and that she resign from any appointed or volunteer town committees or commissions effective immediately.

Ms Murty then requested the ethics board amend the two specific recommendations for Mr Freedman be extended from four to six years - and received unanimous endorsement.

On May 6, First Selectman Pat Llodra told

Regarding whether she was inclined to call a special selectmen's meeting to expedite acting on the recommendations to remove Mr Freedman from his delegation post before the separate May 9 and May 11 conventions, Mrs Llodra replied, "I do not intend to call a special meeting of the BOS for action associated with Mr Freedman's role as a delegate to a political convention."

Later that evening, Mrs Llodra said she was interested in reviewing all pertinent audio transcripts of ethics board meetings before adding the matter to a future Board of Selectmen agenda. Upon review of those audio files, Mrs Llodra said she is soliciting and following the advice of counsel - and that there are still lingering matters needing to be resolved related to the ethics board's process handling the complaints.

Attorney Mark Sommaruga, who represented both respondents before the ethics board, called the recommendations "laughable," and said, "We vigorously disagree with the recommendations.

"Frankly we believe both the process and the decision are fatally flawed, and are contrary to state Freedom of Information [statutes] and the Town Charter - I could say anti-American and anti-Democratic but I won't go that far," Mr Sommaruga said. "It is laughable and ironic that my clients brought to the attention of the world a violation [of FOI on the part of the school board] and as a result, they're being asked to submit to FOI training by a body that doesn't know how to comply with the FOI apparently."