Groton — The town will be taking a fresh look at its ethics ordinance.

The Town Council this week passed a resolution to direct the town manager to schedule training for the town’s Ethics Commission members, who would then review the town's ethics ordinance to “ensure it is sufficient for the needs of the Town” and make potential recommendations to the Town Council.

The vote, at the council's meeting Tuesday at Thrive 55+ Active Living Center and virtually via Zoom, comes after councilors discussed the need to potentially update, clarify and broaden the scope of the ordinance, which went into effect in early 2019 after the council approved it in late 2018.

The council adopted the ethics ordinance, which applies to all town officials, officers and employees, because having an ethics ordinance is a best practice, and the lack of one had come up several times over the years, Town Manager John Burt said. At the time it was adopted, the idea was that the ordinance would be tweaked over the years.

“There have been questions on what constitutes a violation, with the current ordinance centering on monetary violations,” Burt said. “The council is looking to have the Ethics Commission weigh in on what they think should constitute a violation, along with any other changes they may think are needed.”

He said the town has existing policies in addition to the ordinance, so the town attorney will explain to the commission which sections of the ordinance can be changed if desired.

The Ethics Commission is a five-member board with three alternate positions, and members are appointed to two-year terms by the Town Council, according to the ordinance.

Town Councilor Rachael Franco, who made the referral to the council, said at the June 14 Town Council Committee of the Whole meeting that the idea is for the Ethics Commission to take an ethics training class, such as through the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, and then review the ordinance and make recommendations to the council for potential changes. She said questions have come up over the years, such as regarding potential, perceived or actual conflicts of interest and issues of recusal, so the idea is for the commission members to clearly state when they think there might be an issue with ethics and then clearly state it in the ordinance.

The existing ethics ordinance includes, among its components, a prohibition on accepting a gift, defined as having a monetary value of more than $100, "that could reasonably be expected to influence or create an appearance of influencing the actions or judgment of such person in connection with his/her public position, office, duties or employment."

Franco said people tend to perceive ethics as only applying to a prohibition on such monetary gifts, but there's a lot more to ethics than that. She'd like the commission to conduct the review and give recommendations and then the council can have a full conversation on the recommendations.

Town Councilor Aundré Bumgardner supported the idea and said it should be a bipartisan effort.

Town Councilor Portia Bordelon said she thinks it's great and suggested public outreach should be part of the process. "I think it's good to have public input on this and review," she said.  

Town Councilor Melinda Cassiere also spoke in support of a review of the ordinance. "I know it's only a couple of years old but the language already kind of seems archaic because if you do take the CCM training, there are so many more perceived conflicts of interest than just a monetary gain of $100," she said. She explained that the training mentions appearances of impropriety.

"I think it's a great thing to look at something like this and just make sure that we're on the right track," Cassiere said.

When Bordelon asked Franco on Tuesday if there are any particular violations she is concerned about or if she just generally thought the ordinance needs to be reviewed and strengthened, Franco said she didn't want to add her own opinions and "poison the well" of anybody's mindset going into this, but would like the commission to come to the council with its own thoughts.

She said when the council first adopted the ordinance, it was the town's first ethics ordinance and it was a start. She thinks it's now time for it to be reviewed again and to see if the commission members think there is anything that potentially should be changed.

Bumgardner thanked Franco for making the referral: “Whenever we have the opportunity to talk about ethics, I think that’s great for our residents and taxpayers,” he said.

Bumgardner added that one ask he has for the Ethics Commission is to look at how complaints are made to ensure that the commission will not be a tool for “any political gamesmanship.” He said he wants to make sure that the ordinance doesn’t create those avenues.

k.drelich@theday.com