Revisiting the idea of a regional ethics commission
In 2012, the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments, following up on an idea promoted on these editorial pages, approved the creation of a Regional Ethics Commission. Unfortunately, COG had to abandon the plan because it lacked statutory authority to create such a commission, even if participation by towns was voluntary. Under existing law, only municipalities can create such commissions.
We call upon our region’s state legislators, when they return for the next regular session in 2016, to introduce legislation that would allow for a Regional Ethics Commission. While at it, the legislature could create a universal standard as to what constitutes an ethical violation.
The problem of handling ethics locally was once again demonstrated in New London, with the Board of Ethics for that city voting to pursue a possible ethics violation because Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio called one of his harsher critics “homophobic.”
We don’t understand why that topic comes under an ethics law. It may or may not have been appropriate to make that charge against a critic — that is a very subjective assessment — but we don’t see where it is unethical. Furthermore, the board members voting to proceed on the complaint all happen to be Republicans, their announcement of the finding against the Democratic mayor coming in the midst of his re-election campaign. Mayor Finizio lost the Democratic primary Sept. 16.
Add in apparent disregard for Freedom of Information rules by the Board of Ethics — for example, the notice of a Sept. 25 meeting was stamped as received Sept. 28 at City Hall in case someone wanted to climb in a time machine and attend — and you have a real mess with little faith in any outcome that the board arrives at.
When he studied the idea in 2012, COG Executive Director James S. Butler concluded "the time is ripe for the SCCOG to form a Regional Ethics Commission."
Mr. Butler noted then that COG members have "indicated they wanted it to be the 'go to' regional agency on a number of issues. I view the formation of a Regional Ethics Commission as one example of the SCCOG stepping up to effectuate that goal."
As stated here before, there are a number of reasons a Regional Ethics Commission makes sense. Southeastern Connecticut is a place of small towns and cities. The number of people who become involved in public policy, from elected officials to those serving on appointed boards and commissions, is small. In our communities, the odds are great that an individual who faces an ethics complaint or raises an ethical question will have some personal, political or professional connection with individuals on the local ethics board. Turning to a regional commission greatly reduces these potential conflicts.
In many smaller communities, there are not enough ethical complaints or questions to keep a board busy. This has led to ethics commission failing to meet regularly, with members becoming inactive and vacancies left unfilled, and when needed unprepared to act.
The state legislature can provide to regional commissions standard ethical canons, providing a universal understanding of appropriate ethical standards and clear codes of conduct, and assuring that when questionable actions involve officials or employees in multiple towns, all will be playing by the same rules.
State law could give towns the power to cede ethics authority to a regional panel. Towns and cities that want to retain their own ethics commissions could have the option of asking the regional commission to undertake a review should they confront a matter that because of some inherent conflict is best reviewed by an outside group.
This is an idea that makes sense and deserves serious consideration by lawmakers. COG has already provided the groundwork.
Comment threads are monitored for 48 hours after publication and then closed.