TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
SPECIAL TOWN MEETING
APRIL 27, 2006
11 RYE STREET
BROAD BROOK, CT 06016
7:30 PM Linda Roberts, First Selectman called the meeting to order.
Marie DeSousa nominated George Butenkoff as Moderator. Second by Tom Sinsigallo.
Linda Sinsigallo moved nomination be closed. Second by Towm Sinsigallo.
Linda Roberts called for all those in favor of nominations to be closed. Aye have it.
Linda Roberts All in Favor of George Butenkoff? Aye have it.
George Butenkoff, Moderator called for the Acting Town Clerk Elizabeth Burns to Read Notice of Meeting.
George Butenkof, Moderator read statement of Eligibility to Vote.
George Butenkoff, Moderator then asked for the reading of Resolution #1.
To adopt an ordinance entitled, "TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR CODE OF ETHICS". Copies of the proposed ordinance are available in the Town Clerk's Office.
Item #1
The following resolution was introduced and read by Noreen Farmer, 247 South Water Street who moved that the foregoing resolution be adopted.
Second by Steve Knibloe, 14 Ellsworth Road, Broad Brook.
George Butenkoff, Moderator called for a discussion.
Marie DeSousa, 10 Rice Road, East Windsor.
I have a concern with the going back five years as a lot of information is going to be miscommunicated or remembered incorrectly. I feel it should be within a year while it is fresh on everybody's mind. The second concern I have is it does not say who is going to have the authority to collect the $1,000 What happens if the $1,000 isn't paid and even if that fine should be imposed. My third concerns is in a small town if a Town official who may have a son or daughter that works parttime for the town in the summer for an example Park and Recreation. It has been going on for years. Does that mean in the future your child would not be able to work for Park and Recreation? I don't think it is fair if the Fire Department decides to go to a paid Fire Department
that down the road because it is a paid enity. I want to volunteer my time then my son could not become a fireman in town. I don't find that fair I think we need to take a look at this.
Bill Loos, 44 Melrose Road, Broad Brook.
I would like to propose an amendement to Paragraph 3.3 Gifts and Favors. It says gifts in excess of a $100. I think the $100 is way to high. I think it should be changed to $10. I would like to propose an amendement to change that to the $10.
Second by Tom Sinsigallo, 26 Mahoney Road, East Windsor.
George Butenkoff, Moderator Is there any discussion on change 3.3? This is Gifts and Favors reduce the $100 to $10. I have a motion to amend.
Dale Nelson Chairperson of the Board of Ethics. I would like to address first of all $10. One of the issues was if a department received a basket of fruit that the basket of fruit may be more than $50 maybe more then $60. It is to the department. It is shared by all. It is not a one on one thing when you look at the cost of everthing the way it is today . Ten Dollars isn't fair. The old statement was $50. We updated it. We also went over this with the Board of Selectmen and, it was decided at that time to change from the $50 to the $100. We wrote that down. If that is a real sore spot we can go back to the $50 but $10 is just unreasonable.
Also I would like to address the five year concerns. The reason why we went five years is because some officials in town are elected for four years. The one year after is just not enough time if something is found to be in violation. Maybe being within their position for four years, something happens in the third year you still have the five years from that time. It has to be substantiated, It has got to be signed. Everything has to go to the Board of Selectman to be determined whether or not it is in fact a real true violation of the Code of Ethics. It has to be pointed out exactly which one of the Code of Ethics has been violated. The Board has received a couple of complaints that were complaints but did not fit into the Code of Ethics. We just
dismissed them as that what you have to do.
Bill Loos 44 Melrose Road, Broad Brook CT.
I worked for a company 35 years and the amount was $5. I think if you look at Governor Rowland, Town officials, State officials and see what they are going through right now. It does not take much to give a $100 gift from a lawyer to the town. That is wrong. We should not accept any gifts from any lawyer or anybody like that who does business in town. What you are expecting is that anybody wanting to do business in town would have to come in and give a gift to get that business done.
That should not be, it should be nothing. If it were me I would say it should be zero but I am willing to go with $10 in a Christmas card or an Easter card, Hanukkah card, maybe a cup of coffee but not a lunch because things happen at lunches. An inspector goes out and inspects a building. A guy gives him a free meal. That should not be, there should be no money, no influence at all. Cut it down to $10.
Gil Hayes, 143 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Today it is hard to get a thank you note for less than $5. We are looking at a person who wants to give a gift in gratitude, because the building department has helped them work their way through something. Not to get their business but to say thank you for your help, for your extra help. $10 just won't do it. You might get a Thank you note for $5 but I think the $100 is just fine.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Any further discussion?
Tom Sinsigallo, 26 Mahoney Road, East Windsor.
The State is zero, Mr. Chairman, the State is zero.
Steve Knibloe, 14 Ellsworth Road, Broad Brook moved the question Mr. Chairman.
Second by Robert Lyke, 80 Rye Street, Broad Brook.
George Butenkoff, Moderator.
All those in favor of moving the question signify by saying Aye. Those against Nay.
The Ayes have it.
George Butenkoff, Moderator, we are now voting on the amendment 3.3 from $100 to $10. We are going to have a hand vote. I need people to count on either side. We will split the room in half. Counting are Linda Sinsigallo and Bob Lyke.
Aye 22
Nay 20
The amendment passed the $100 is now $10.
Marie Desousa, 10 Rice Road, East Windsor.
I would like to make a friendly amendment Section 4.4 #3. I would like the five years to be changed to a year. I make that motion. Second by Bill Loos, 44 Melrose Road, Broad Brook.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. We have a motion on the floor to change the five years Statute of Limitation to one year. Discussion.
Dale Nelson, Chairman of Board of Ethics, stated the reason again for the 5 years is strictly for the fact that the election process allows us to put the First Selectman in office for a 4 year term. If something happens while the person is in the position it gives an adequate time frame so someone could file a complaint. We also went to a meeting at Connecticut Conference of Municipalities that 5 years was also recognized by them strictly for the fact you are able to have more control. Now when I say control what I just mean is if there is a violation it needs to be addressed and you are given time.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Is there anybody else who would speak in favor of the 5 years or against the 5 year?
Bill Loos, 44 Melrose Road, Broad Brook.
I would like to speak in favor of the 1 year. In 5 years one forgets an awful lot when you try to get witness to do something within 5 years. I don't know how you can get somebody 5 years down the road to remember what they did. Some of us old people can not remember what we did yesterday. I think 5 years is to long. One year is plenty long enough to bring a violation for this Ethics Code to address. You don't need to wait 5 years down the road. Somebody is not even in sessioned for 5 years only in session for 4 years. We have selectmen in here. But only one selectman has a 4 year term the other selectmen are 2 year terms. One year after they get out you have a chance to do something with them. You don't need 5 years down the road. These people have
to live for 5 years worrying about whether something is going to happen to them or not, for the time they were in office. Or if you are a chairman on a Board somewhere you have to worry about whether somebody 5 years down the road from you is going to bring you up for charges that you did 5 years ago. You don't even remember what you did 5 years ago. We are trying to get laws here. We are trying to get justification for these things We don't need to wait like a robber some of these things talk about robbery. People stealing out of town funds and stuff like that it should be brought up right away. Don't wait 5 years need only 1 year.
Noreen Farmer, 247 South Water Street, East Windsor.
I think 5 years is a long-time to have the ability to go back, to go after someone. Although I think a year is not/maybe enough time because it is from when the act occurred so if the act occurred today and you don't find out about it for thirteen months you can not go back and do anything because the 12 months has expired. So if it occurred on the first year that you were on board as selectman but no one discovered it until your third year you got away with it because you only had 1 year from when the time it occurred not from the time it was complained about I guess. I am not sure a year is quite enough time and I understand the concern about 5 years being way to long to go back and get somebody. But I don't know think back to what happened to the State of Connecticut I don't think it was a
year. It was much more than a year when the acts had occurred before anybody discovered them and complained about them.
Bob Lyke, 80 Rye Street, Broad Brook.
I concur with those feeling but there is an amendment on the floor to make it one year instead of 5 years. I guess we have to vote on that before somebody makes another amendment which says 2 or 3 years. But isn't it interesting that there are only certain penalities that would fit the violation that is already committed 5 years after the person is out of office. One of them is suspension or something like that. It is to late.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Any further comments?
David Walsh, South Water Street, East Windsor.
I think 5 years is a bit to much. I think if the ethics violation is serious enough after 1 year you have criminal charges. I don't think this is a court just an oversight or to over see the town employees if it is that bad there are other options.
Steve Knibloe, 14 Ellsworth Road, Broad Brook.
I think you are getting the wrong idea but the way I read it here. Is that you don't wait 5 years after an item has happened. You take action as soon as possible. But you have 5 years in which to go back to and take the action if you heard about today. You can go back 5 years. A lot of the times people do not want to come forward because the person is in office and could bring pressure to bear. Once the person is out of office that is when people do come forward. I take exception Ed, I do remember what happened yesterday. Okay not very often but I do. Even in police work we solve crimes that are 25 or 30 years old. So I think the 5 years is very reasonable and like I say it is not that you are going to wait 5 years you are going to take an action as soon as
possible but you have 5 years in which to go back.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Is there any further discussion? Move the question.
Move by Steve Kibloe, 14 Ellsworth Road, Broad Brook.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Second on moving the question.
Second by Betty Ann Sheridan, 59 Main Street, Broad Brook.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. All those in favor of moving the question say aye.
The Aye have it.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. The question is in two sections 3.3 and 4.4 sentence 3 change from 5 years to one year. We will have a hand vote.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Calls for the motion.
Aye 20
Nay 23
George Butenkoff, Moderator. The Amendment Fails.
Tom Clynch, 91 North Road, East Windsor.
Does this mean if this passes today you cannot go back 5 years?
George Butenknoff, Moderator. Yes
Steve Knibloe, 14 Ellsworth Road, Broad Brook, Mr. Chairman move the question.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Is there a second in favor of moving the question?
Second Dale Nelson, 51 Omelia Road, Broad Brook.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. All those in favor of moving the question sigify by saying Aye.
Aye. Unamouious.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. The Aye's have it so ordered.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. This is on the complete resolution we are going to have another hand vote.
Gil Hayes, 143 Rye Street, Broad Brook.
I have a concern like Marie DeSousa on employee having their children working at the Park & Recreation. I was not clear what the message was on that. Could you clear that up please?
Linda Roberts reqeust a point of order to response to Gil Hayes question.
Linda Roberts indicated to Mr. Hayes that Marie DeSousa had expressed that concern at the last public hearing for this Ethics Ordinance. We send it to the Town Attorney who reworked that section. What it says now is if you are public official you could not vote to give your child a job but it doesn't say your child can not have a job. It just say you would have to recuse yourself from any vote that would award a contract to a member of your family and you would have to make known that there was an interest involved there. That you did have what is known as a conflict of interest but it does not exclude anyone from having any public officials children working for the town nor does it excuse anyone from having a contract with the town. You would have recuse yourself from the vote that awarded
that contact or gave that job to someone.
Bill Loos, 44 Melrose Road, Broad Brook.
I have a question on Penalities for Violation #3 there it says $1000 civil penalty. Does that mean that any violation could get fines of a $1000. Shouldn't that say up to $1000 or something like that not just right off a $1000. I don't know why that if I did something wrong. I would be fined a $1000 right away. If I only did a $5 thing wrong. Maybe it should say up to a $1000.
Dale Nelson, Chairperson of the Board of Ethics.
The $1000 civil penalty and/or say Public censure or reprimand those are all actions the Board of Selectman would make to the Town Attorney on whatever the issue may be it. It may be restitution for money taken or if it cost the Town money to fix whatever the issue was that maybe the restitution that has to happen. No one is saying that the only thing they are going to do is fine you a $1000. There are other penalities in there to cover whatever the other issues maybe.
Bill Loos, 44 Melrose Road, Broad Brook.
I think it should be changed. Take the $1000 right out of there.
Steve Knibloe, 14 Ellsworth Road, Broad Brook.
Mr. Moderator I move the questions. It is not debatable.
George Butenkoff, Moderator, It is not debatable. All those in favor of the Town of East Windsor Code of Ethics signify by saying aye. Those opposed nay. We need to have a hand vote. All those in favor sigifity by raising your right hand. We have 25 in favor . Those opposed. Raise your right hand 16 nays.
George Butenknoff, Moderator. We have a Town of East Windsor Code of Ethics
Item #2 to be considered upon approval of Item #1 to adopt a new “TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR CODE OF ETHICS” ordinance.
To repeal an ordinance (92-1) entitled: Town of East Windsor Code of Ethics Ordinance” adopted at a special town meeting on February 19, 1992 that was tabled to the Annual Town Meeting held on December 30, 2004. Copies available in Town Clerk’s Office.
I move the foregoing resolution be adopted by Marie DeSousa, 10 Rice Road, Broad Brook.
Second by Bill Loos, 44 Melrose Road, Broad Brook.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Any further discussion? Hearing None. Call for Vote. Ayes have it.
Item #3
To adopt an ordinance entitled, “ABANDONED MOTOR VEHICLE ORDINANCE”. Copies of the proposed ordinance are available in the Town Clerk’s Office.
The following Resolution was introduced and read by George Gaudreau who moved that the foregoing resolution be adopted.
Second by Charles Knight, 39 Rice Road, Broad Brook.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Called for discussion.
Joe Roberts, 140 South Main Street, East Windsor.
I have been towing vehicles for 25 years understand that everything here that has been said is covered under State Statutes and this is kind of redundant other than the part of tractors. I don't see why towing tractors unless you are a farmer. I see tractors on lawns as our historical heritage. Some people keep them as museum pieces. I don't believe I would be sending a tow truck to pull a tractor. This is a lot of teeth for nothing because we already take private property tows. The VIN number is already covered by State Statutes 15 pages of them. Yes we fill forms for police tows off the side of the street. We file H100 forms within 48 hours. They are down at Motor Vehicle. Anybody that abandons a motor vehicle by the side of the street today we go after them
with the courts because you can not abandon a motor vehicle. I don't know where this statue is heading. It certrainly has to many words and I oppose it.
Steve Knibloe, 14 Ellsworth Road, Broad Brook.
I am the enforcement officer with the Housing Code in Town. I know we surely need an ordinance to tow abandon or junk motor vehicles on private property. I do have a few inherent probelms here. First and foremost two or three months ago there was an incident in East Hartford on just such an abandon motor vehicle on private property or junked motor vehicle. It was towed. The police went on the property. Evidently the property owner sued the town and the police department and won. And there were court opinions that effect the State Statutes. This refers to that they violated the person rights.
Second of all as Joe Roberts said there is a lot of ambiguity in the ordiance. The Statue is very plain. If you just refer to it and instead of going through all this ambiguity. If you looked at the property maintenace ordinance and if we find people in violation we send it to the Town Attorney. And it is written in there should we win in court or that the person is found guility in court that they pay all cost of the attorney and any other expenses that are connected with that action. Rather than there is no recouping of any expense here unless you take them to civil court. I would therefore simply because of the court ruling move that this ordinance be held in abeyance until those court rulings can be researched and found what effect it does have on this document. I make a motion to
table this until the current laws can be researched again.
Steve Knibloe, 14 Ellsworth Road, Broad Brook. Made a motion to table due to court ruling.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Do I have a second?
Second by Bill Loos, 44 Melrose Road, Broad Brook.
Linda Roberts. Moved the question.
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Motion to table all those in favor raise your right hand?
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Motion to table wins.
Item #4 to be considered upon approval of Item #3 to adopt a new “Abandoned Motor Vehicle Ordinance.
To repeal an ordinance (89-3) entitled “Ordinance Concerning Discarded Motor Vehicles, Discarded Motor Vehicle Parts and Other Unsightly Material” adopted November 15, 1989. Copies available in Town Clerk’s Office.
The following Resolution was moved to table by Linda Sinisgallo, 26 Mahoney Road, East Windsor
Second by Bill Loos, 44 Melrose Road, Broad Brook.
George Butenkoff, Moderator called for a vote – Unanmious Aye.
Item #5 To consider and act upon a resolution entitled “RESOLUTION APPROVING OPERATING ASSISTANCE GRANT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GREATER HARTFORD TRANSIT DISTRICT AND THE TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR”. Said contract authorizes participation in the Greater Hartford Transit District and provides for transportation services for the elderly and/or handicapped.
The following Resolution was introduced and read by Linda Sinsigallo, 26 Mahoney Road, East Windsor who moved the forgoing Resolution be adopted.
Second by Bill Loos, 44 Melrose Road, Broad Brook
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Any discussion? Hearing None .
George Butenkoff, Moderator. Called for a vote. All those in favor. Unamious, Aye's have it.
A motion declared adjourned at 8:50 PM by Linda Sinsigallo, 26 Mahoney Road, East Windsor
Second by Steve Knibloe, 14 Ellsworth Road, Broad Brook.
Unamiously
Respectfully Submitted
Elizabeth Burns
Acting Town Clerk
| 
