Ethics Commission - Minutes - 01/06/2026

RECEIVED FOR RECO
WATERFORDAG TO
2b JAN TUPI 14
arrest: PieD LZoagae—
TOWN CLERK
ETHICS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 6, 2026
CALL TO ORDER. Chair Ritter called the Ethics Commission Regular Meeting of January 6, 2026
to order at 7 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. The Pledge of Allegiance was observed.
ATTENDANCE AND SEATING ALTERNATES. Betsy Ritter, Adam Stone, Christopher Nailon, Alan
Messier, Paul Helvig, and Cathy Patterson. Sara Mallari was absent.
MOTION (1): Ms. Patterson moved to seat alternate Paul Helvig.
Seconded by Mr. Nailon. Mr. Helvig abstained from
voting. (4-0-1) Motion carried.
Commission member Cathy Patterson joined the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2025. The following
corrections were noted: On page 3, the fourth paragraph, line 6, delete “perceived” and on page
3, the seventh paragraph, delete the first sentence.
MOTION (2): Mr. Messier moved to approve the December 2, 2025 Meeting Minutes,
as amended. Seconded by Mr. Helvig. (6-0) Unanimous.
CORRESPONDENCE.
1.Email letter dated January 5, 2026 to Elizabeth Ritter from Nicholas F. Kepple, Waterford Town
Attorney.
2. To date Financial Report.
PUBLIC COMMENT. Mr. Goldstein, previous RTM Moderator, of 34 Fifth Avenue, Waterford,
Connecticut gave copy of the Day newspaper dated March 5, 2020 regarding the resignation of a
member of the Waterford Board of Finance.
He expressed concerned that it took six months to go through the process and there was no
information on how this Commission decided on the Advisory Opinion. He agreed with an article

in the Day newspaper dated December 14, 2020 regarding Kevin Reardon's resignation from the
Board of Finance and he asked that it be attached to these minutes.
Mike Rocchetti expressed his disappointment and suggested that each case be handled
individually. He did not think this Commission is instilling confidence. in his opinion this
Commission needs to rely on the Ordinance not the Advisory Opinion.
Danielle Steward Gelinas stated she is frustrated with the decision of this Commission. Her job
was not to provide a burden of proof. This Commission was appointed to make very difficult
decisions. This Commission has an Advisory Opinion and a Code of Ethics. This time probable
cause was not found. We all make mistakes. She added you left everyone unprotected.
REPORT FROM THE CHAIR. Ms. Ritter reported it is now budget season and she suggested that
the budget be $900 the same amount as has been for the last five or seven years.
MOTION (2): Mr. Stone moved to submit the Ethics Commission budget for 2027
in the amount of $900. Seconded by Mr. Messier. (6-0) Unanimous.
COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF FUTURE ACTIONS REGARDING THE ADVISORY OPINION
AND THE TOWN ORDINANCES. The Commission reviewed a letter dated December 11, 2025
from Nicholas Kepple, Waterford Town Attorney, in response to questions from Ms. Ritter on
behalf of the Commission.
Mr. Messier reported he felt the Advisory Opinion and the Ordinance were in conflict. The delay
on this Commission was intended to delay some time before or after the election. He stated he
was unable to attend the October meeting, and it was necessary to reschedule the meeting. This
Commission took the matter very seriously and spent late nights on it. if we eliminate the
Advisory Opinion we can use the Ordinance.
Ms. Ritter added the Ethics Commission is a Commission governed by the Ordinance. The
Advisory Opinion steps outside of what is in the Ordinance. The RTM can change it.
Mr. Messier reported this Commission was given a set of facts and circumstances and it would
only apply to this set of circumstances. This Advisory Opinion seems to be based on a certain set
of facts and circumstances that came up with the Advisory Opinion. The Advisory Opinion
contradicted the Ordinance. We had two attorneys review it.
Ms. Ritter reminded the Commission that our charge is to react to specific circumstances
brought to our attention on an individual basis.
Ms, Patterson stated she feels clear the terms of the Advisory Opinion and Ordinances are in
conflict.
Mr. Helvig reported it came down to the question of which document will prevail. We have two
contradictory documents.
Ms, Ritter stated we do not have the authority to change the Ordinance. It has to take
precedence of the Advisory Opinion.

10.
11,
12.
Discussion of previous Commission actions was repeated from the December 2, 2025 meeting..
MOTION (3): Mr. Helvig moved to remove from the table motion #5 from the December 2,
2025 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Patterson. Mr. Stone abstained from voting.
(5-0-1) Motion carried.
Mr. Helvig stated he believes the public deserves clarity on the Advisory Opinion. If we make a
decision to vacate it, it adds clarity that could be relied on. Mr. Messier added we follow Town
Attorney’s opinion.
Discussion followed concerning the language for a motion to vacate the Advisory Opinion.
MOTION (4): Ms. Patterson moved to amend the Advisory Opinion in accordance
with Town Attorney's advice of January 5, 2026 to this Commission.
Seconded by Mr. Messier. No vote. The motion was restated as follows.
MOTION (5): Ms. Patterson moved that following the Town Attorney’s email of
January 5, 2026, we move to vacate the Advisory Opinion of September
21, 2021 and notify the public. Seconded by Mr. Messier. Mr. Stone abstained
from voting. (5-0-1) Motion carried.
The Town Attorney advised that we need to advise the public in the same manner as the original
Opinion was publicized.
MOTION (6): Ms. Patterson moved that the Town Clerk be asked to advise town boards,
commissions, departments, employees and the public via notice and the
Commission’s website with the attached language. Seconded by Mr. Messier.
Mr. Stone abstained from voting. (5-0-1) Motion carried.
DISCUSSION ON FORMALIZING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE COMMISSION. Ms. Ritter
reported at our December 2 meeting we discussed doing a better job. A subcommittee will be
formed and its recommendation be brought back to the entire Commission.
OLD BUSINESS. There was no discussion of old business.
NEW BUSINESS. Mr. Nailon, who chose not to be reappointed, was thanked for his thoughtful
and steady work on this Commission.
ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION (7): Ms, Patterson moved to adjourn the Ethics Commission Regular
Meeting of January 6, 2026 at 8:15 p.m. Seconded by
Mr. Nailon. (6-0) Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Frances Ghersi, Recording Secretary

Waterford Ethics Commission
January 7, 2026
NOTICE
Waterford officials, boards, commissions, and the public are notified that, at the advice of the
Town Attorney, the Advisory Opinion issued by the Ethics Commission on September 24, 2021,
is no longer in force and effect. It is no longer a basis for a complaint. If a complaint relying on
the Advisory Opinion is filed it should be summarily dismissed.

Robert A. Avena
Raymond L., Baribesult, Jr.
James P. Berryman
Michael A. Blanchard
Sic W. Callahan
Michael P, Carey
Richard S. Cody
Joba A. Collins, IF
Bryan P, Flengo
Linds ©. Gretotti
Theodore W. Helter
Michael A, Heapeter
JelTrey W. Hult
Krist D. Kelly
Nicholas F. Keppte:
Jittian K. Miller
‘Sanmei M, Nassetua
Marjorie A. Richardson
Roger T. Scully
‘Martha Singer
Rayte M. Wright
Kyle). Zrends.
Ia Memoriam
Andrew J. Brand
James F. Brennan
James J. Courtney
L, Patrick Gray, IT]
Michael V. Sage
Matthew Shatner
Chaties J, Suisman
‘Thomas B. Wilton
Louis C. Wood
Of Counset
Hinda K. Kimmel
Jay B. Levin
Richand A. Scha
Nicholas F. Kepple
20 South Anguilla Road | Pawcatuck, CT 06379
nkepple@sswbgg.com
860-650-8007
January 5, 2026
Sent via Email: betsyritter24 ail.com
Elizabeth Ritter, Chairperson
Town of Waterford Ethics Commission
15 Rope Ferry Road
Waterford, CT 06385
RE: Advisory Opinion
Dear Chairperson Ritter:
I am writing in response to your December 11, 2025 email (attached hereto). I
will address your questions in the order they were posed in your email:
1) Though you would be authorized to vacate or rescind the adoption of the
Advisory Opinion of September 2021 (hereinafter “the Opinion”) I do not think it is
necessary to do so for two reasons: First, in retrospect I believe the Opinion was “void
ab initio” meaning void from the beginning because it imposed a new standard of
conduct for Waterford officials which was not based on the ordinance and was,
therefore, invalid. The Ethics Commission’s only job is to interpret and enforce the
existing ordinance. Modifying the standard of conduct under the ordinance is the
purview of the RTM, Waterford’s legislative body. It so happens the ordinance is
currently under review by the RTM’s Legislation and Administration Standing
Committee. Second, no further action by the Commission is necessary because last fall
the Commission itself found it to be unenforceable and therefore of no force or effect.
Nevertheless, since the Commission adopted the Opinion it has the authority to rescind
or vacate it if the Commission sees fit to do so.
2) For reasons stated above the issue of “keeping” or not keeping the Opinion
is moot because it is a nullity (something that is completely void, without legal force
and treated as if it never existed),
3) For the reasons described in 1) and 2) above, this question is moot.

Nicholas Kepple
From: Elizabeth Ritter <betsyritter24@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 3:05 PM
To: Nicholas Kepple
Subject: Waterford Ethics Information
Attachments: Waterford Stationery Ethics Commission Special Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2025
(3).docx; From_ Danielle Gelinas _steward-gelinas@sbeglobal - Google Docs.pdf; From
Goldstein to Ethics Comm 12022025.pdf; Proposed Ordinance Change for Capital Funds
04242025.doex - Google Docs.pdf; Rocchetti Ethics Commission Notes.pdf
Hello Nick,
As agreed, here are the files that represent the minutes from the December 2 meeting of the Ethics
Commission. The first file is the draft minutes and the following five are attachments to those minutes
requested to be recorded with the minutes during the public input part of the meeting.
tam looking forward to meeting with you on Monday at 10 at the Town Hail. And you may want to note
our next Ethics Commission Regular Meeting Is on January 6 at 7PM.
At the Commission meeting on December 2, the Commission discussed three questions for you to help
guide us. Here they are:
« lsit permissible to "vacate" the Advisory Opinion of September, 2021?
e |g there a reason to keep the Advisory Opinion?
e Are we currently in violation of our own Advisory Opinion?
And three more questions from me:
+ Doyou see wisdom in pursuing further this issue of “actions which may create among the public a
perception of conflict of interest” that the Advisory Opinion tried to address? [f so, how might we
do that? .
« Are you aware of any other municipalities where this has been acted on or any sources of
guidance in the state regarding this concern?
« Is this Commission acting beyond its scope in any of these actions?
Thank you - see you on Monday.
Betsy Ritter

E. Ritter
January 5, 2026
Page 2
4) The Ethics Commission as a whole or its members individually will be afforded the
same opportunity as the rest of the public to participate in the RTM’s review of the current
ordinance. You and your colleagues may advocate for it to remain unchanged or modified, as
you see fit.
5) Ihave not yet conducted legal research (beyond other research over my thirty-five
years of being a municipal attorney during which I have routinely examined various ethics issues)
on the specific issue you raise regarding “perception of a conflict of interest” but will of course
__ do so if requested by the RTM as part of its review.
6) Since I do not see any substantive actions arising from the Commission on this issue,
I do not see any ultra vires (beyond its scope) conduct issues for the Commission beyond my
initial opinion in item #1 above.
I do think the Commission has a responsibility to advise Waterford officials in the same
manner it originally notified elected and appointed officials about the Opinion, that it is no longer
in force and effect. Many are probably aware but an effort should be made to inform these
officials and the public that the Opinion is no longer a basis for a complaint and if one is filed
relying on it the complaint should be summarily dismissed.
Sincerely, .
Acheter D Srgyphe
Nicholas F. Kepple
Waterford Town Attorney
NFK/pmn
Attachment

Waterford Board of Finance member resigns
Published: Mar 05, 2020 11:00 PMUpdated: Dec 14, 2024 4:42 AM
Waterford —_ Kevin Reardon has resigned from the Board of Finance.
He said he did so because he believes there is a conflict of interest he couldn't stomach: Board Chairman
Ron Fedor has two sons on the Waterford police force, and Reardon was shocked Fedor voted to approve
the police department budget on Monday.
"I was surprised that the chairman would've voted on the budget that contained the payroll of two of his
sons," Reardon said Wednesday. "I have a difficult time of accepting that as being appropriate. I was left
with two choices at that point as a very freshman member of the Board of Finance: to complain and go to
ethics, or distance myself from the situation."
Reardon said he made his decision to resign during the meeting when Fedor neglected to abstain from the
police department budget vote.
During the meeting, his last as a board member, Reardon was the only "no" vote on the contingency
budget, the information technology budget and the police department budget. He read a statement at the
beginning of the meeting urging Waterford to rein in spending.
Fedor has dealt with conflict of interest claims before. He said he sought an advisory opinion from the
town's Ethics Commission in 2007, and was given a letter stipulating that as long as he didn't vote on
contract language or pay, he could vote on such budgets for the Board of Finance.
Board member Bill Sheehan said he didn't necessarily agree with the Ethics Commission's opinion, but he
accepted it.
"For yeats he (Fedor) also voted on the Board of Education budget while his wife was principal at various
schools, and basically they (the Ethics Commission) said there was no problem," Sheehan said.
Fedor is unfazed by Reardon's resignation.

"He (Reardon) knows that I have relatives who work in different departments in town, despite the fact
that he understands I have a letter from the Ethics Commission, personally, he did not agree with that and
as such he could not continue on the Board of Finance," Fedor said. "We have six members, so we have a
quorum. I'm sure the first selectman will act quickly in finding a replacement."
Reardon was regretful of a move he felt he had to make.
"I've got nothing against Ron Fedor, I was just very surprised, I was taken aback by it. I was hoping he
would abstain," Reardon said. "I feel very badly that I'm pulling out from the Board of Finance in the
midst of budgetary review."
Sheehan said he's going to miss Reardon's tough questioning. Reardon has been the owner/president of
the Reardon Agency, an insurance company in Waterford, since 1979.
s.spinella@theday.com

O4/
4 Safari
Waterford CT Democrats
Mar 7, 2020 -@
eos
theday.com
Waterford Board of Finance member resigns
.
‘e
>.
>
Most relevant v
Leah Stillman
That's what's been wrong with this town
for years! It stinks it had to come down to
this. Maybe more will take notice of the
shadiness.
by Like Reply
Joanna Lecce @
Not really shocked that people in this town
do less than above board moves. No
matter if they have a “letter” from the
board of ethics or not it’s a bad look. Not
surprised though.
5y Like Reply
Tim Fioravanti
Waterford voters take notice.
5y Like Reply
Erica Anne
The plot thickens
by Like Reply
Comment as Paul Goldst...

No elected official may vote on a departmental budget in which
that elected official, or a relative of that official, receives any
benefit either financial or non-financial. This provision shall not
apply to the approval of the Board of Selectman’s budget by the
Board of Selectmen nor shall it apply to a vote on the overall
final approval of the entire Town budget by the Board of
Selectmen, the Board of Finance, or the Representative Town
Meeting.