An email from Selectman Carol Manning to First Selectman Michael Pace asking that he "obtain an advisory opinion from the Old Saybrook Ethics Commission before the Board of Selectmen has discussions on CRRA [Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority]" led Pace before the town Ethics Commission meeting last week. At issue was whether or not Pace's dual roles as both first selectman and member of the CRRA board present a conflict of interest.

The Ethics Commission voted to continue discussion of Pace's request for an advisory opinion at the group's next public meeting, scheduled for the third Tuesday of October.

What Is CRRA?

CRRA is a quasi-public state authority that provides "solid waste disposal and recycling services to more than 100 municipalities in the state." The Town of Old Saybrook is one of 70 CRRA member-towns that financially supported construction of the CRRA trash-to-energy plants as a waste-disposal solution. With the construction costs now paid, CRRA is seeking to renew contracts with its 70 member towns under new, more flexible contract terms.

Under the new CRRA contract terms, towns can set the length of time for their contract based on local needs and interests; previously, the contracts were set at 20 years. And no longer must towns pledge "the full faith and credit" of their communities since the construction bonds for the trash-to-energy plants will now be retired. No tonnage minimum will be required under the new rules, either, and CRRA is seeking to lower the costs of its services by getting competitive bids for CRRA contract services providers.

Among CRRA's current service providers are the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), a quasi-public sewage treatment, water, and electricity provider based in the Hartford area. MDC has for years held the CRRA contract to operate waste disposal at the CRRA Mid-Conn Trash-to-Energy plant. MDC, whose commission chairman is Old Saybrook resident William DiBella, and CRRA, whose board chairman is Michael Pace, have had at times a contentious business relationship.

In one example, a seven-year-long dispute over MDC billing practices for services rendered to CRRA had to be settled first by arbitrators, who ruled in favor of CRRA, and then with an out-of-court settlement in 2006 when MDC was set to challenge the arbitrators' ruling in court.

Within the next few months, each CRRA member town will decide if renewal of CRRA waste disposal contracts under the proposed, more flexible terms is the town's best option for future waste disposal.

At the last Old Saybrook Board of Selectmen meeting, Manning asked Pace to table discussion of whether Old Saybrook should approve a letter of intent to renew with CRRA. This action-and her decision to ask Pace to get an advisory opinion from the Ethics Commission on whether conflict of interest exists-has put action on a waste disposal contract on hold.

Resident Donna DiBella, wife of William DiBella, supports the slowdown of the process to allow time to weigh the waste disposal options.

"What is it going to cost the town? We don't know what the [CRRA] tipping fee is yet. How can you vote on something without knowing the final cost? It's prudent to ask questions about the costs," said Donna DiBella.

Both DiBella and Manning were in attendance and made public comments at the Ethics Commission meeting last week.

Pace's Case

Last week's Ethics Commission meeting gave Pace his first chance to explain why he believes his dual roles as first selectman and board member at CRRA, roles he's held for nearly a decade, do not present a conflict of interest.

Pace said, "I've asked to come here tonight. Ten years ago, when CRRA had the Enron [-induced loss], I was asked by the governor to go on the CRRA board to protect the assets of the 70 member towns of the Mid-Conn project. For six months [until a new president could be hired], I was president and [worked on] recovery of fees, cut costs, and reduced [projected] tip fees. The towns all benefited.

"[As CRRA board member], I make sure that the town's interests are represented. I have never taken a dime [for my service]," Pace stated. "I have fulfilled all my obligations to run the town and CRRA."

Among the documents that Pace and attorneys representing him in his role as both first selectman and CRRA board member presented was a letter written by state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to CRRA Director of Legal Services Laurie Hunt in November 2006. In the letter, Blumenthal concluded that "the legislature intended that there is no conflict of interest or duties when municipal officials serve as both CRRA board members and municipal officials and decide matters affecting the CRRA and their municipalities."

Earlier in the letter, Blumenthal also writes, "Since numerous actions by the CRRA board may affect the towns of all the municipal CRRA board members, the legislature would not have mandated the inclusion of such municipal officials on the CRRA board if such board members were required to continually recuse themselves from matters that could affect their municipalities, thereby impairing the ability of the CRRA board to fulfill its responsibilities."

Attorney Richard Goldstein, speaking to Pace's role as first selectman, noted that the Town Charter states, "the first selectman shall preside over the Board of Selectmen and shall exercise powers of general statutes and town ordinances" and that under the conflicts of interest provisions "shall not have any financial interest that is in conflict with performance of his official duties."

Attorney John Farley, representing CRRA, said, "All of the members of CRRA boards serve on a volunteer basis. Mr. Pace has no financial interest with respect to service at CRRA. There isn't an issue under your local code of ethics, but if there were, the state statutes [would prevail]. Courts have found that a local ordinance in conflict with a state statute must give way to the state statute."

After Pace's team presented, several members of the public offered comments.

Donna DiBella asked Pace who was paying for his legal support. Pace said that CRRA was paying for attorney Farley's support and that Richard Goldstein was being paid as a town attorney since his role was to speak to Pace's role as first selectman.

Another resident said of the town's upcoming decision about waste disposal solutions, "It's not just for the first selectman-the town needs to discuss and decide."

The Ethics Commission will continue the public discussion on the conflict of interest question at its next meeting, scheduled for Oct. 19.