Legislation & Administration Standing Committee of the RTM

PHONE: Baths} 20553
FIETEEN ROPE FERRY ROAD
wwivwowatertordelorg
WATEBEORD, OT 06385-2800
Legislation & Administration Committee of the RTM
Meeting Agenda
January 21, 2026 | 6:00PM
Appleby Room, Waterford Town Hall
1. Confirmation of Quorum and Call to Order
2. Public Comment
3. Consideration and Action on Minutes of the February 13, 2025 Special Committee Meeting
4. Committee Orientation and Role Overview
5. Review of Matters Currently Referred to the Committee (Informational Only)
Review of YFSB/Senior Citizens ordinances (RTC 8/5/24)
Review how RTM considers recommendations for committee assignments (RTC 6/6/22)
Public Act 22-3, AAC Remote Meetings Under the FOI Act (RTC 2/6/23)
Review of a “Public Comment Ordinance” (RTC 2/6/23)
Police Commission expansion to seven members (RTC 10/2/23)
Review of Chptr 3.08 to reflect Public Act 25-92 (RTC 10/6/25)
mono oP
6. Prioritization of Committee Work
7. Future Meeting Schedule >
=
8. Adjournment 4 sd =m
40 2 ga
ey — 29
as o 35
: =| 1
aX og BS
Re Ee -Id
- = sz
\ =) o
encl: L&M Meeting Minutes 2/13/2025

WATRHRGRD.
Legislation & Administration Committee
: rn Re | ae
Members Presents Susan Driscoll, Tor Dembek, Matk-Campo, Ursula Moreshead ago bed cans
Menrbers Absent: Chtistina Jessuck : nes ‘a
Also Present: Towa Attorney Rob Avena, Ethics Commission Chair Betsy Ritter, Adam Stone (Ethics Costas i
Human Setvices Adniinistrator Dani Gorman a N oa a
B
4. Call to order: Chair called the meeting to otder at 7:05 p.m.
2. Public comment:
+ HS Administeatot Gorman addressed her concerns with the Committec’s charge to teview the YFSB and Senior Citizens
Commission ordinances, stating that éveryohe, inchading hei union, was happy with the ceorganization; L&A should defet to
how the ‘two groups have performed over the past 2:5 years and be:aware that they saw-a$150,000 savings in FY24; attorneys
were present throughout the process; both groups Have remained autonomous; and that Childs'and Driscoll were challenging
the authority of the First Selectrian. She noted that the new aitangemenit is considered a model by othe? towns and that when
she retires we will retutn to the ofiginal model of-two directors. (She. declined offer to include fill wvitten comavents in the record)
* Row Elkin addressed his concerns with the three changes proposed by the Ethics Commission. (Fill comments attached)
* Mindy Stone asked the Committee to consider révising otdinaneé to specify that, if multiple tespondents were subject of a
single-incident complaint submission, separate complaint forms should be filed for each respondent. Such 4 tevision should also
address confidentiality issues if multiple respondents were allegedly involved in.a single incident—eg., would one respondent
opting to allow the investigation to be public (rathe: than closed) niake rélated investigationis public of would investigations
xemain confidential unless all respondents involved requested public heatings. She would also like to add language that requires
the Ethics Commission, once a complaint is xesolved ot dismissed, to issue public notification of a decision finding that a
respondent did not commit a violation.
3, Previous Minutes: Motion by Campo, second by. Moreshead, to approve the ‘Aug, 15, 2024, minutes as piesented.
Voice vote: Unanimous
Initial consideration of Review of Ethics Ordinances (RTC 10/07/24):
Ethics Chaix Ritter explained that the Commission was requesting the 1 and 3+ revisions in an effort to clarify the-need for
confidentiality from the moment of filing the complaint through, at least, the preliminary heating to determine whether probable
catise exists. Should information about the complaint become part of public discussion (cf, social ot siews media) before the
respondent (individual named in complaint) formally cedes the protection of confidentiality, the Ethics Commission js sequired
to dismiss the complaint outright and/or terminate the investigation.
Upon recéipt of any complaint, the Ethics Commission sends the tespondent 4 copy of the complaint, asks fora written
response, and schedules the first private intetview, 'The respondent is also informed that all Ethics Commission hearings/
interviews /discussions/documents remain confidential unless the resporident tequests that hearings be-open to the public.
In redponse to L&A ihembers’ quéstions, Ritter and Attotney Avena explained that confidentiality is the standard throughout
any complaint investigation, and applies to Commission members, the complainant, the respondent, and anyone contacted for
information or documents ducing the investigation..1£ the Commission finds there was no probable cause, ot that the activity
desctibed in'the complaint did not constitute 4 violation described int ordiriances, the Case is closed and all recotds lockéd in
special confidential file—~unless the respondent asks that the opinion be made public.. Should the Commission determine that
there «was an ethics violation, the decision is made public when the Commission submits its findings and recommended penalty
actions to the tespotident’s depattment head, appointiig body oi; if the respondent is ait elected official, to the RIM.
The 3rd revision is.aimed at situations where-multiple respondents are named_as participants in an alleged violation. Currently,
an individual named as a resporident who felt their name could be “cleared” by public disclosure cannot cede confidentiality alone;
4

all respondents must agree to public disclosure or the complaint remains confidential. Questions from L&A membets included
whether complaint form would/should be changed to specify that sepatate forms are required for complaints against individual
tespondents, and how would this affect the respondents who did not want the issue made public—e.g., would the complainant
and the respondent who wanted to go public be restricted from mentioning the others involved?
Ritter noted that the Commission has decided to revise the violation complaint form to include a watning that the “complaint
will not remain viable” if confidentiality is breached, and that they ate holding off on the final revisions so they can teflect any
ordinance revisions. Moreshead suggested that stronger phrasing, such as “complaint will be dismissed” might be more effective.
Attorney Avena assisted Ritter with the discussion on the Commission’s 2 request, since it is relatively uncharted tertitory.
The Commission is requesting “appropriate enforcement language” out of concerns that the cuttent process could by abused by
individuals with a personal agenda or for purposes not intended by the ordinances with no negative consequences. Ritter
offeced an imaginary scenario where a woman filed a complaint claiming that a local landscaper had violated the public test by
making personal gain from his service on the town’s Parks Commission. The woman has her own reasons for not wanting the
landscaper to be successful and, despite being instructed on the confidentiality requicement, posts information on het complaint
on social media, The Ethics Commission must terminate the complaint and refuses to discuss the matter in public; but social
media comments harmed the landscaper’s reputation and his business suffered; the woman intentionally used the ethics process
to cause harm, with no retribution.
L&A members agreed that that was an abuse of the system, but suggested that there was, if one was so inclined, another way
to warp the system for personal benefit—for example, a tespondent who had actually committed an ethics violation could
decide against ceding confidentiality and thea breach it or enlist a friend or relative to leak the complaint. The Ethics
Commission would then be forced to dismiss the valid complaint.
Attorney Avena stated that attempts at enforcement would involve walking a fine line. Confidentiality is critical, since it
protects respondents who might be absolved of all claims and eliminates the risk of a dismal of a valid claim. While the officials
in the room don’t want to enable someone to weaponize the ethics process, he said, we all want citizens to have the right to file
what they consider a legitimate complaint without fear of retribution or punishment. Discussion included questions on types of
penalties envisioned (e¢.g,, fines, public statements by Ethics Commission) and how would the “crime” be adjudicated or would
people be arrested? Driscoll noted that a state legislative report showed that only half of CT towns have Ethics Commissions,
and that only a handful of them had some sort of enforcement ptocess—and most seemed to cede that responsibility to other
parts of their town government, She added that Waterford has an enforcement process for parking violations, but that involves
a heating officer or coutt, and violations are cited for laws based on state regulations. Ethics Commission membets noted that
they had aot yet found a case where an effective enforcement process was in place. Attorney Avena pointed out that
enforcement was not currently with the Commission’s purview and he anticipated that it would be difficult to accomplish.
5. Update of issues previously referred:
* Review of YFSB/Senior Citizens Commission otdinances (RTC 8/ 5/24)
HS Administrator Gorman telterated some of her concerns stated in public comment, and urged the Committee to report the
YFSB/SCC ordinances issue out of committee because they did not have the authotity to overrule the First Selectman.
Moreshead explained that RTM is a separate government branch established under traditional checks-and-balances system;
Daiscoll noted that the RTM is the legislative body charged with not just reviewing ordinances, but with writing them; and
Carnpo pointed out that we are simply following the request to determine the organizational changes that have taken place and
then consider whether ordinance tevisions are needed to accutately reflect the current operations. Chair added that YSFB staff
and Senior Citizens Commission members would be invited to future meetings to provide information and ask questions and, if
the Committee decided revisions were needed, they would continue to be involved throughout the public hearing on the
proposed revisions, as well as at the RT'M meeting to consider proposed changes.
Consensus that discussion on the four other issues referred to L&A before this term could be deferred to a future meeting.
Chair will make another attempt to determine former RTM member's intended focus ot continued interest in the request
regarding PA 22-3, Before the next meeting, L&A members will review the ethics ordinances and their notes on information
provided during this meeting’s discussions in order to determine language and placement of revisions for the first draft.
6. Tentative date for next mecting/ Adjournment: Date of next meeting to be determined after Atty Avena returns in March,
Mation by Moreshead; second by Campo to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. Voice vote: Unanimous,
Submitted by
Susan Driscoll, L&cA Chair
enc Elkin public comment

Madame Chair person, ! would like to discuss the three request to changes to the Waterford code of ethics violation form.
Please be advised that | am not going to list them in order that is listed on Chalrperson Ritter’s form.
Concerning requested changes number 2.
“Be amended with addition of appropriate enforcement language to pratect the confidentiality of complaints”. When a
person or a person‘s make a valid ethics complaint, they should be celebrated, not silence by the threat of imprisonment or
monetary fine. That person or person should be thanked for standing up, having the ethics and courage to file a just
complaint and not be afraid that the rules will be used against them. Do you want to arrest them and throw them in jail or did
you want to put a financial burden on an ethical person who stands up for what is right and just. You cannot threaten ethical
people with a fine or Imprisonment. We do not live in Nazi Germany nor do we live in a communist society.
Concerning requested change number 3.
“Be amended with the addition of the following complaints alleged against more than one individual with the same violation
must be made separately. “
'wonder what motivated the ethics commission to even think of something like this. Has there been a rash of multiperson
violations that has stymied the ethics Commission? When a person or persons have the courage of doing what is right in filing
an ethics complaint now you want them to file several ethic complaints burdening the commission with multipie violations to
investigate. Listing multiple people on a single form and filing a single complaint of the unethtcal or itlegal topic will serve the
purpose In the same manner and not over burden the ethics commission with a multitude of the same single complaints.
Concerning requested change number 1.
1am curlous why the ethics commission and full RTM have had so many meetings on the topic of ethics complaints ta be
filed. They have spent countless legal hours discussing this for no apparent reason. The legislated and legally approved state
of Connecticut form is the “States Standard” for most of Connecticut s towns and cities. The verbiage is clear and concise. It
has been legally approved and time tested. The town of Waterford has wasted your time and countless hours of Attorney
fees looking over the state of Connecticut approved regulations. If the ethics commission has a problem with the complainant
or complainants not knowing the rules, All that has to be done is attach a copy of the rules. Have that person or persons read
it and sign it. This would also apply to the respondent or respondents as well. Simple solution to a toptc. The town did not
have to have an ethics board member act as a dime store attorney and question the town hired attorney over the validity of
the approved state of Connecticut formate,
If the ethics commission wanted to tweak the rules of filing a complaint why did they not address the opposite. Let’s try this
scenario, What if the respondent or respondents tells a friend or associate that they did something unethical or illegal and
wants it known to a public official or an elected official just in passing . What if the unethical behavior or illegal behavior was
seen by others who did nat file a complaint that just mentioned in passing to a town official or a town resident or to
somebody at the New London Day Newspaper that they saw something that looked odd. Then what would happen? The
answer is CASE CLOSED. Complaint closed,
Should not the ethics commission be more upset that they could not rule on just complaint instead of wanting to imprison or
fine a person or persons that are ethical enough to stand up and make a complaint. Why have they not addressed that? Why
are the complainant or complainants being hung out to dry and not the respondent or respondents that have caused the
action? They go Scott free on their merry way while he ethical complainant or complainants are fined or jailed. Doesn't sound
too fair does it?
In chairperson’s Ritter’s note dated October 3, 2024, | quote “these changes come from the result of experiences In
conducting the business of the commission”. Where does it say that the commission was upset that they could not do their
job and Investigate an alleged issue. if there is truly transparency, the ethics commission should have requested changes that
the commission can Investigate for the good of the town, for good of the townspeople a violation even if confidentiality ts
breached in error by the complainant or complainants or on purpose by the respondent or respondents or Just by a casual
bystander,
I strongly urge the RTM legislative committee Chairperson Driscoll to not open this discussion and send this ill thought out,
extremely bias and politically motivated changes back to the Waterford Ethics Commission without bias,
Submitted on 2/13/2025
Ronald Elkin
Waterford CT