Ethics Public Hearing Continuation from 10/07/25 with correspondence (linked)

RECEIVED FOR RECORD
WATERFORD, CT
205 CT 1u A 43
To the members of the Ethics Commission,
Thank you for offering a public hearing on the Ethics complaints filed on May 7" and May 15". Probable cause for this
hearing was determined on September 8". Would you please share the timeline from when everyone received the
complaint to when a determination was made? If 8 complaints were received in May, why didn’t the commission meet
until July? I would think that receipt of any complaint would prompt a special meeting and prevent some of the political
commentary seen about this happening right before an election.
Much of the discussion from the Respondents on Tuesday, October 7" focused on the process of budget hearings of the
RTM. The content of the budget process and discussion is irrelevant to this complaint. Glenn Patterson, who is not
named as a specific witness, was allowed to speak to the transfer of funds from operating to capital. There was no public
comment, and his insight was not relevant to the question at hand. Why wasn’t the Moderator (who was also present)
asked about the process of the RTM and/or allowed to comment on the validity of some of the Respondents’ comments
about the RTM?
Similarly, you questioned the Complainant about sharing the Advisory opinion. The Majority Leader shares that
information with the caucus. Does the Minority Leader do the same? Why wasn’t that question asked? Again, why
didn’t you ask the opinion of the Moderator? It is not the responsibility of the Majority Leader to share that opinion on
the floor of the RTM. It is also not the responsibility of the Majority Leader to stop a vote in process. Attorney Avena’s
advice about voting is included in the May 11, 2020, RTM meeting held via Zoom around the 1:58:30 mark (transcript
attached). One of the Respondents claimed they only voted because they didn’t agree with the process and the vote was
contentious. Clarification from Moderator would have helped explain there are other ways to voice disagreement with the
process than voting on budgets where one usually abstains.
A question was repeatedly raised by Paul Helvig about the qualifier of “substantial”. One of the Respondents was a
Substitute Paraeducator and not part of a Bargaining Unit at the time of the vote. This person was subsequently hired as a
Full Time Paraeducator. Was the hire based on merit as a Paraeducator, or was some level of preference shown because of
this person’s position on the budget? An across-the-board abstention from all employees would essentially prevent this
perceived conflict. In my opinion, this is a clear example of what the Complainant was referring to when stating that the
intent of filing this violation was to protect all Town employees who choose to serve in volunteer elected positions.
During your deliberations prior to the public hearing, you determined that there was probable cause to substantiate these
violations. All Respondents stated the information included in the complaints was accurate. That information includes
that they violated specific sections of the Ethics Ordinance. All Respondents have admitted that they did vote on the BOE
budget, and they are all BOE employees. Three of them have a pattern of abstaining. There is discussion that happens on
the floor of the RTM. At any time, these Respondents had the opportunity to share their displeasure with the process.
Participation in that discussion is encouraged. Voting yes or no is a conflict.
In an effort to protect all of our elected volunteers and Town employees, I ask that you uphold your determination of
probable cause. I honestly don’t understand why it is so hard to just abstain on the budgets you or anyone else living in

same house may benefit or be penalized by voting or not voting. Yes, I say penalized because other employees who want
to abstain could be viewed as not supporting their boss like others who vote. I believe at the very least this commission
should advise to abstain from votes involving their employer. Just as town attorney did with his statement to the RTM in
May of 2020 (again transcript attached). I was also on the RTM when the town attorney made the statement and I’m
available for questions if needed.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Rocchett
Transcription is taken from an AI service and edited by listening to the recording of the meeting.
Avena: Okay folks, this is Town Attorney Rob Avena. Before there's any substantive votes, I just wanted to
state that I have got several requests this week to go over voting procedures within the general budget of the
town, both on the Board of Ed side and all town agencies. We have a wonderful RTM, and it's made up of many
members. We don't have any rules that require that any town employees or any Board of Education employees
not serve on the RTM. Over the years, we've had policemen, we've had firemen, and I understand we have also
school teachers who work in the Board of Education. I just want to go over again that the way we have done it
in the past, and I can go over the ethics standards in the Town, is that there are these sub-motions that directly
reflect the individual budget that you may or may not be compensated by.
The second vote is the general vote at the end of this session on the entire budget of the town, in which many
issues are intermingled. The way we have traditionally approached it is, if it is more than likely possible that
you're facing a bit of a personal conflict when you attempt to vote on the sub-budget that directly relates to your
employment or that of a near relative or family member. I know some of you are new this year, so I wanted to
go over that. It is a personal decision of the the member, the body, as a whole, cannot instruct you. I do try to
advise people on an individual basis as to what that conflict can entail. I would advise that in a traditional sense
that when you're in the sub-budget process, you not exercise and you can abstain voting. It does not mean that
you have to abstain from entering into the debate. That’s called a recusal. You're not required to recuse yourself
from the entire debate. You are, in certain instances, required to abstain from if that matter appears to be a
personal conflict. So, with those instructions, that will carry through for the entire four days you go over every
budget and sub-budget in the Town. If you're particularly affected by that sub budget, I would recommend
abstention the very end of the budget process when they're all commingled, you're rather distant at that point,
from any involvement, and you can cast a vote for the general total town budget of the Town of Waterford. I
hope that's so. With those admonitions, I would ask that you begin the first substantive vote of the town budget
tonight. And I'll answer questions.
(Comments by Nick Gauthier unrelated to this discussion were removed for purposes of this transcript)
Dembek: Mike Bono, I think you raised your hand during the town attorney's comments.
Bono: Yes. Mr. Avena, being a new member of the RTM, I have a question. I hope you can help me. out with a
simple yes or no because that was kind of I was a little confused at your statement there. Is there a case for an
ethics violation if you vote on a budgetary matter affects your personal financial interest?
Avena: Yes, we do have an ethics ordinance in town. It’s section 2 50 of our chapter of ordinances. The issue of
whether or not someone has ethically violated by voting in their personal interest has to be advanced to that
commission. And it is only the commission's decision determines whether or not there's been an ethical conflict
that occurred. The sections that I am referring to tonight are from those ethical ordinances. they're basically
saying that if you have an immediate connection to your vote, it's different than whether it's a distant connection
to the vote. And that's up to the ethics commission to decide that distinction. Generally speaking, if you are

voting and a general group of which you are part of will or not benefit, that's part of the consideration. In other
words, there is no easy answer, but I have always traditionally taken the position, as I do on every board,
including our planning and zoning commission, that when in doubt, when you think you have any personal
interest involved, abstaining is perfectly fine. That's why we've got more than like three members on every
board. So, abstaining is a fine action to take in certain instances. And I try to advise people individually if they
contact me.

10/16/25, 9:30 AM Gmail - Questions for Ethics a et Meeting on Thursday
vestan ta Avena ta
hey Gmail Elizabeth Ritter <betsyritter24@gmail.com>
Questions for Ethics Commission Meeting on Thursday
5 messages
Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Elizabeth Ritter <betsyritter24@gmail.com>
To: Robert Avena <ravena@sswbgg.com>
Cc: Adam Stone <astone@breezeline.net>, Alan Messier <amessier@messiermassad.com>, Chris Nailon <Substewy@outlook.com>, Paul
Helvig <plhelvig@sbcglobal.net>, Elizabeth Ritter <betsyritter24@gmail.com>, Sara Mallari <saramallari@gmail.com>, Cathy Patterson
<claropatterson@gmail.com>
Hello Rob,
| have a few questions for you for our Ethics Commission meeting on Thursday. That meeting is a continuation of the Public Hearing we
held on October 6th. We are meeting at 5:30 on Thursday. If you are not able to attend would you be able to answer them here and | can
get it to the Commission members?
As always, thank you.
Here is the message from Cathy Patterson:
Cathy Patterson 4:57 PM (6 minutes ago)
to me, Adam, Alan, Chris, Paul, Sara
During our hearing | did not realize that the town attorney routinely attends RTM meetings.
f
Uv
Sesh Vo 91 1390 $202
JJd 03u
What is the role of the Town attorney at RTM meetings?
Is he there as a legal advisor to the RTM ?
Was the attorney at both/ or either of the meetings in question?
Betsy Ritter
Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 9:18 AM
Robert Avena <RAvena@sswbgg.com>
To: Elizabeth Ritter <betsyritter24@gmail.com>
Hi these are pretty straightforward let me check with Nick | believe he attended one night of the RTM budget hearings and | did the
second one last May ...
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 13, 2025, at 5:10 PM, Elizabeth Ritter <betsyritter24@gmail.com> wrote:
[Quoted text hidden)
Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 4:35 PM
Robert Avena <RAvena@sswhgg.com>
To: Elizabeth Ritter <betsyritter24@gmail.com>
Hi Betsy: | have an appointment tomorrow evening. However, to answer the Commission member's question the town
attorney ( Nick or me ) is assigned under the Charter/Ordinances to attend meetings of the RTM when requested and to
reply to legal questions directed through the Moderator of the RTM during the meeting. We did not doa search of the
May Budget meeting minutes for May, 2025, but | believe Nick was at one or more of the budget meetings and | also
attended one meeting.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?7ik=672687fdc1 &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-4 126118303351 284238&simpl=msg-a:r107703089421339... 1/2

10/16/25, 9:30 AM Gmail - Questions for Ethics Commission Meeting on Thursday
Robert A. Avena, Esquire Quesiisn Se heen 2 a 2
Suisman Shapiro
20 South Anguilla Road:
P.O. Box 1445
Paweatuck, CT 06379
Direct Line: (860} 650-8608
Main Line: (860) 442-4416
Facsimile: (860) 599-3778
E-mail: ravena@sswbgg.com
www.suismanshapiro.com
This law firm is a debt collector and may be atternpting to collect a debt. If this communication relates to a debt owed to one of our cilents, any information obtained will be used for
that purpose, Please note, however, that if you have previously received a discharge in bankruptcy, this law firm is not attempting to collect a debt, but Is only enforcing a lien against
the stibject property.
Please note: the information cantained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipients. The message
may be an attorney-client communication and as such, is privileged and confidential. If the reader/recipient of this message {s not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
you have received this e-mail and all attachments hereto in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or any of its attachments Js strictly
prohibited, if you have received this communication jn error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and destroy the original massage received, Thank you.
WIRE ALERT ~ Please contact me by telephone for specific wiring instructions BEFORE wiring funds. if you ever receive an email appearing to be from me or our firm stating that
our wire instructions have changed or requesting a wire transfer, please cantact us immediately at 860-442-4416 as you may have fallen wictim of a scam. Law Firms, realtors and
other professionals are being targeted by sophisticated hackers in an attempt to steai funds by initiating fraudulent wire transfers.
From: Elizabeth Ritter <betsyritter24 @gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 5:10 PM
To: Robert Avena <RAvena@sswbgg.com>
Cc: Adam Stone <astone@breezeline.net>; Alan Messier <amessier@messiermassad.com>; Chris Nailon
<Substewy@outlook.com>; Paul Helvig <plhelvig@sbcglobal net>; Elizabeth Ritter <betsyritter24@gmail.com>; Sara Mallari
<saramajllari@gmail.com>; Cathy Patterson <claropatterson@gmail.com>
Subject: Questions for Ethics Commission Meeting on Thursday
[Quoted text hidden)
Elizabeth Ritter <betsyritter24@gmail.com> Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 5:37 PM
To: Adam Stone <astone@breezeline.net>, Alan Messier <amessier@messiermassad.com>, Chris Nailon <Subsiewy@outlook.com>, Paul
Helvig <plheivig@sbcglobal.net>, Elizabeth Ritter <betsyritter24@gmail.com>, Sara Mallari <saramallari@gmail.com>, Cathy Patterson
<claropatterson@gmail.com>
| received the following from Atty Avena in response to the questions | sent on to him.
[Quoted text hidden]
Betsy
Elizabeth Ritter <betsyritter24@gmail.com> Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 5:39 PM
To: Robert Avena <RAvena@sswbgg.cam>
Thanks Rab. | shared your response with the Commission members.
[Quoted text hidden)
Betsy
hitps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=672687 fdc1 &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-4 126 118303351284238&simpi=msg-a:rt 07 703089421339... 2/2

Letter to Ethics Commission
3:41 PM (33 minutes
mS
aS ag
QQ >
So s<
Laurie Wolfley
9 9]
g
y
Please see this message for the Ethics Commission:
To the Ethics Commission—
Some months ago, when an RTM member called for a vote to reduce Board of
Education increases for Chromebooks/iPads and health insurance, several members of
the RTM were extremely concerned; they were aware that the RTM does not have the
authority to target specific line items in such a move. Those members promptly voted
against the modified budget, as they felt it was their only recourse to call attention to the
inappropriate motion. If anyone should have been cited for an ethics violation here, it’s
certainly the folks who disregarded the rules and circumvented protocol to make the
motion in the first place.
The rules and protocol are in place for a reason, and that reason is that the Board of
Education is responsible for determining the way in which its funds are to be allocated.
That responsibility is not taken lightly: In the months leading up to the spring 2025
budget hearings, Waterford’s Board of Education members worked tirelessly to keep
BOE budget increases as low as possible. As part of that work, they carefully examined
cost-analysis spreadsheets that estimated the need for expenditures on such items as
Chromebooks and iPads, as well as on health insurance. The increases in the
2025-2026 budget for these items were then agreed upon by the bipartisan BOE
members who partook in that rigorous work. There is no room for interference with
last-minute reductions in those line items—and certainly not by RTM members who
were not part of that process.
All of us in municipal government volunteer our time and energy toward a single shared
goal: to provide excellent services at as low a cost as possible. The RTM should have
trusted that the Board of Ed had taken its responsibility seriously when it determined a
final budget. | am grateful to the RTM members who attempted to call out the
inappropriate line-item reductions.

Waterford Code of Ordinances:
https ://library.municode.com/ctiwaterford/codes/code of _ordinances?nodeld=TIT2ADP
E_CH2.50ETCO
“(note there is no link or attachment conne
Advisory Opinion.)
cting to the Ethics Commission
Ethics website:
https://onboard.waterfordct.orq/board/31 92
“(Ethics Advisory Opinion not available here.)
O'QYOSNSLVA _
ayog3u ¥03 G3AIZ954Y
Ethics agendas and minutes:
httos://www.waterfordct org/AgendaCenter/Ethics-Commission-9
*(note there is no meeting in or around the 9/24/2021 stamp date for receiving
the Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion. Meeting minutes from June 3rd reflect
a discussion regarding an Advisory statement, however one is not attached. June
29 and November 16, 2021 do not include this guidance document nor does it
appear to have been approved by the commission.)
LZ: Vt 190 §
2.50.010 - Preamble and declaration of policy and purpose.
A. Public office is a trust conferred by public authority for a public purpose. The trust of the public is
essential for government to function effectively. Public policy must be based on honest and fair
deliberations and decisions. Policy development must be free from threats, undue influence, and all
forms of impropriety, so that the confidence of the public is not eroded. By enacting this code of
ethics, the Town of Waterford seeks to maintai
integrity and fairness of their government.
B. The proper operation of town government requires that all public officials and town employees
shall be impartial and responsive to the public interest, that public office and employment should
not be used for personal gain or advantage, and that public officials and town employees should
not place themselves in positions where private interest conflicts with public duty.
C. In recognition of these principles and pursuant to Sections 7-148(c)(10)(B) and 7-148h of the
Connecticut General Statutes, there is established a code of ethics for all town public officials and
employees, whether elected or appointed, paid or unpaid.

2.50.020 ~ Definitions
wi
E."Town employee" means an individual working for salary or wages from the town, including board
of education employees, whether on a part-time or full-time basis and whether the position is
reviewed by personnel review board or not, but does not include the town attorney or any public
official.
2.50.030 - Code of ethics.
A. Public officials or town employees have an interest that is in substantial conflict with the proper
discharge of duties or employment in the public interest and of responsibilities as prescribed by the
laws of this state if they have reason to believe or expect that they, their immediate family, or a
business with which they are associated will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct
monetary loss, as the case may be, by reason of their official activity.
2.50.030 A was cited in the complaint of violation paperwork:
*As an elected RTM member, my role is to participate in discussions, read materials, and vote on
motions before the body. As an employee of the Board of Education, it is impossible for me to
derive direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss, as the case may be by reason of my
official activity.
B. Public officials or town employees do not have an interest that is in substantial conflict with the
proper discharge of duties in the public interest and of responsibilities as prescribed by the laws of
this state if any benefit or detriment accrues to them, their immediate family, or a business with
which they are associated as a member of a profession, occupation, or group to no greater extent
than any other member of such profession, occupation, or group.
*As a Board of Education employee it is not possible for me to accrue a benefit or detriment to a
greater extent than any other member of such profession, occupation, or group.
C. A public official or town employee may not take official action on any matter in which a
substantial conflict (as defined in subsection A of this section) exists. If the contlict is disclosed, a
public official or town employee may participate in discussions with or give opinions or
recommendations to a town board, agency, commission, committee, department, or another public
official or town employee.
2.50.030 C was cited in the complaint of violation paperwork:
* As stated above there is no possibility of me deriving a direct monetary gain or suffering a direct
monetary loss due to my casting a vote.

Chilols
2.50.060 - Advisory opinions
A. The ethics commission shall issue advisory opinions with regard to the requirements of the code
of ethics of the town upon the written request of any public official or town employee. Advisory
opinions rendered by the commission, until amended or revoked, shall be binding on the
commission and shall be deemed the final decisions of the commission.
B. Any advisory opinion concerning the public official or town employee who requested the opinion
and who acted in reliance thereon, in good faith, shall be binding upon the commission. It shall be
an absolute defense in any action brought under the provisions of the code of ethics (Section
2.50.030 of this Code) that the accused party acted in reliance upon such advisory opinion,
assuming there are no relevant facts of which the commission was not aware when the opinion was
rendered that would change the opinion of the commission.
C. Each opinion of the ethics commission shall include a disclaimer to the effect that the opinion
may be different if different facts are presented to the commission at a later date.
*Heavily referred to “Town of Waterford Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion is not
included as a link from the Chapter 2.50 section of the Town of Waterford Ordinances.
This document is not included in our Town Ordinances. This document is not contained
in any of the 2021 meeting minutes for June or November.
The fourth paragraph states “...is adjusting it’s posture on the question of family relative conflicts,
and is taking a specific position on this question - one that we have long debated.”
Paragraph six states:
“These sections of the Code preclude public officials from taking actions where a conflict of interest
exists, Such conflict includes circumstances where a benefit - real or perceived - would accrue to
the official, their family or their business relations as result of such action. Public officials take
official actions when they vote “yes” or “no” where this type of question is before them. This
Advisory Opinion does not intend fo restrict or limit any representative from full and active
discussion and examination of any and all issues that come before them, as is provided in Sec.
2.50.030, it is, however, our opinion that public officials must abstain from voting in situations in
which circumstances exist that give rise to a conflict of interest or a public perception of such a
conflict. Examples include situations when the Board or Commission member is employed by the
Town, or is in a circumstance that gives rise to a perception of conflict of interest.”
*With this statement the First Selectman cannot vote on any item that would benefit him
even if it was a perceived benefit. A spouse of a firefighter would not be able to vote on
any fire services or emergency services item.
3)

Crs Lals
Paragraph seven includes: ws
“For example, a town official is not immune or exempt from a real of perceived conflict of interest
when voting on issues affecting a family member in a collective bargaining unit. Actions taken by
public officials that appear to the public as improper will determine the existence of a conflict and,
subsequently, determine the appropriateness of the behavior.”
“With this statement, no family member of a town employee could ever vote as a
member of a town board or commission.
*Board or Commission members who have godparents of their children would be
excluded from voting in their favor.
*Board or Commission members who reportedly live at a fire house would need to
abstain from all Fire Services and Emergency services items
*Any parent who has children in the school system or recreation programs would need
to abstain from voting on Recreation and Parks and Board of Education items
*This restriction of voting removes 20% of the RTM from voting on the largest
component of the town’s budget.

“PBenven U La
RTM public comment 5/14/25 RECEIVED FOR RECORD
WATERFORD, CT
| want to address the haphazard, inefficient way our town;seems,to
be handling the recurring expenses of the BOE-like chrome books,
capital improvements in general, and the burdens:andBenlefits of.a
fully funded education budget. aa
First the sad saga of the chrome books. The BOE followed town
instructions and placed the chrome books in capital improvernents
only to be denied and told to put them back in the operating budget.
This occurred after the BOE finance committee started to fine tune
and set the operating budget. It pushed the BOE budget up
unexpectedly, making the budget higher than preferred. The
administration and BOE found some savings and agreed upon a
budget under 5%. One of the lowest in Southeastern Ct.
Now at the eleventh hour, the RTM decided the chrome books should
be put back into the capital expenditures. This will require the BOE to
go to the BOS, then the BOF, and then back to the RTM and request
the funding. This flip-flopping mess has cost the taxpayers countless
wasted hours of preparation and revision, will delay purchases, and it
will make the BOE budget seem lower than it really is.
It and the the insurance cut artificially put the BOE budget at 3.85%
and misleads the taxpayers. Next year when the BOE adds the
chrome books back in the operating budget, because it is a recurring
expense, it will automatically look higher when in reality it is not.
The 3.85% is just an illusion to fool the public. The BOE budget is
really 4.85% and should reflect that.
Mr. Giard presented real data that shows that Waterford public
schools are excelling in every way and out ranking many of our
neighboring communities, while our costs are below those of our
neighbors. WPS are doing an exceptional job with below average
funding.

lama senior. | am ona fixed income. | have lived in Waterford for
over 65 years. | regularly volunteer in the preK-fifth grade classrooms
at Great Neck School. | see the needs and the great lengths the
administration and staff go to to do the best they can with less
money. The benefits we reap from an exemplary school system far
outweigh the few dollars saved by lowering the budget. We must be
transparent and realistic about the process, the needs, and the costs
of town business.
! urge you to stop this shell game, return the chrome books to the
operating budget, and nelp keep WPS on top, by fully funding the
BOE budget.
Sub nertte ty be . vuclided LA
the KE cov | |
by Ma KC LA Bede
UJakerPeed » CT
io

Sleamon} lTersoo | [3
May 2, 2025
John W. “Bill” Sheehan
19 Laure! Crest Dr.
Waterford, CT 06385
Glenn Patterson
7 Leary Dr.
Waterford, CT 06385
Mr, Paul Goldstein
Moderator
Waterford Representative Town Meeting
15 Rope Ferry Road
Waterford, CT 06385
Mr., Goldstein
According to the Agenda of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) for the Annual Budget
Hearing and Special Meeting, the RTM will be considering a resolution for a pilot program for
approved Capital Projects within the FY26 budget.
Rather than approving that resolution, in our capacity as individual menibers of the Board of
Finance (BOF), we propose that the RTM send to a Standing Committee (possibly the
Legislative and Administration Committee) the attached proposed change to the Code of
Ordinances.
There is sufficient time between now and the FY2027 budget fo pass the proposed ordinance and
be ready in the FY2027 budget to have the best of both the designation procedure and the direct
appropriation procedure.
We are sending this letter and proposed ordinance as individual members of the Board of
Finance and not as a request or recommendation of the BOF.
Sincerely,
KG Sheehan Glenn Patterson,
Copy to (with encl): Town Clerk Campo
First Selectman Biule
BE 2 dS AH
LO O80 383 TVA
QUOI933 SOA GAAIZISY

Areehon | ONErson ab
Proposed Ordinance Change for Capital Funds
3.04,020 - Reserve fund for capital and nonrecurring expenditures and
Current Capital Fund established.
/. There is created a reserve fund for capital and nonrecurring expenditures,
a. The Reserve fund for capital and nonrecurring expenditures will have two types of
funding- Appropriated and Designated.
1) if the expenditure requires accumulating funding over multiple years, the annual
funding will be designated for the project After the total funds needed for the expenditure are
- accumulated, the funds will be appropriated by action of the Board of Selectmen, the Board of
Finance, and the Representative Town Meeting.
2) if the expenditure is well-defined and funding is complete in the initial request,
the Board of Selectmen, the Board af Finance and the Representative Town Meeting shall
appropriate the funds at the initial presentatian.
3) if the expenditure is nat well defined in the initial presentation, it will be
designated and the Department or Board will have to return to the BOS, BOF, and RTM to become
appropriated, This ts likely to occur for an expenditure proposed in the First Selectman’s Capital
Plan,
b. The Current Capital Fund is established for expenditures that are expected to be
completed in the Fiscal Year Proposed and funding will be considered appropriated when approved
by the Board of Selectmen, Board of Finance, and Representative Town Meeting.
1) if the expenditure is not complete in the fiscal year proposed, it should be
transferred to the Reserve fund for capital and nonrecurring Fund by action by the Board of
Selectman, Board of Finance, and Representative Town Meeting before the end of the fiscal year.
2) if the expenditure is not complete in the fiscal year proposed and It is not
transferred to the Reserve Fund, the remaining expenditure will be transferred to the Unassigned
Fund Balance of the General Fund at the end of the fiscal year. If all that remains of the
expenditure is final invoicing and payment then the funds may be encumbered to make those final
payments in the next fiscal year.
b, The Board of Finance shall review the progress of projects in both funds quarterly.
c. Funds left after the completion of the expenditure shall be returned to the Unassigned
Fund Balance of the General Fund if from the Current Capital Fund and to the Undesignated fund

atlersar
Balance of the Capital and Nonrecurring Fund if from the Reserve fund for capital and
nonrecurring expenditures.
2, Implementation
a. This ordinance change will be effective with the fiscal year 2027 budget,
bh, In June 2026 the Board of Finance will transfer any outstanding projects from the
Capital Improvement Fund to the Capital Nonrecurring Expenditure Fund.
¢. The Capital improvement Fund will be renamed the Current Year Capital Fund,

Timothy Fioravanti
RECEIVED FOMaterford, CT, RTM District 3
1025 OCT Ib P i213
As, a thember ¢ of the Waterford Representative Town Meeting (RTM) and
ATTESTaxi/ vemployes’ Of the Board of Education, I want to address recent
concerns régarding my vote on the Board of Education budget.
On May 5, I voted against the proposed Board of Education budget. I did
not take this decision lightly. My vote was not made out of self-interest,
but rather out of a deep concern for the integrity of our town’s budget
process and the precedent being set by the actions taken during those
meetings.
Specifically, the motions introduced by the Majority Leader, Danielle
Steward-Gelinas, sought to make line-item reductions within the Board
of Education budget — targeting recurring purchases of essential
technology and increased health insurance costs. These motions not only
deviated from past practice but also violated long-standing
principles that prohibit the RTM from dictating specific line-item cuts or
exact dollar amounts in the Board of Education budget.
The Board of Finance Chair explicitly stated that this was not an
appropriate or responsible way to fund education, and I agreed. Allowing
these reductions to stand would have compromised the autonomy and
operational integrity of our schools.
Let me be clear:
eI did not vote to increase my own compensation or benefits.
eI did not vote to shield the Board of Education from accountability.
eI voted against a flawed and procedurally inappropriate budget
proposal that would have harmed our schools and ignored the
proper role of the RTM.
I recognize that, as a public employee and elected official, I am held to
high ethical standards — and I welcome that scrutiny. But I also believe
that ethical governance includes standing up against improper actions,
even when it is politically uncomfortable to do so.
I remain committed to transparency, fairness, and good governance. My
record reflects that — and I will continue to uphold the trust placed in
me by the people of Waterford.