Since the November election, the three-person Board of Ethics has been busy.
From then till now, the Board of Ethics has handled issues surrounding three town officials: the former First Selectman Bill Davidson, who is unaffiliated but was elected as part of the Democratic Toiwn Committee; A Brookfield Party Board of Education member Greg Beck, also a town emergency services dispatcher, and new Republican First Selectman Bill Tinsley.
The ethics board dismissed the complaint against Davidson that related to the theft of a campaign sign on election day after the board determined there was no probable cause in that case. A formal hearing on two official complaints against Beck was scheduled, but the complaints deemed moot when Beck resigned his seat.
A week ago Friday, the board again was scheduled, this time for four complaints that sources were connected to Tinsley’s conviction on a misdemeanor charge of larceny in Vermont just after he was elected. The ethics board had previously scheduled a meeting on a particular complaint, and that was then postponed and other complaints apparently were later filed related to the same complaints.
To be clear, the Board of Ethics Chairman Alice Carolan has stated from the start that the board’s sole authority to discuss these complaints is rooted in state law and town charter, and information is kept confidential until such time as probable cause is determined. At no time did the board indicate who the complaints were filed against; only when probable cause was found for a hearing on Beck was that announced and the complaints made public. The board retained attorney David Atkins to advise them on proper legal protocol, and followed that advice from the start.
The difference in this case from other complaint processes is the public speculation factor.
As these have all been related to high-profile figures and incidents, the Board of Ethics’ meetings have been under closer scrutiny, and their actions the cause of more speculation.
At this time, the Board of Ethics has deemed that the four complaints against an unnamed, specific individual who was not the subject of prior hearings or meetings, lack probable cause and the complaints will remain confidential, and the individual complained about will not be named. However, Atkins has made it clear that is the board’s responsibility; any individual who has been the source of a complaint or who filed a complaint can make that information public.
Whether or not that happens remains to be seen.
The News-Times will be following this story. See more in print and online.
