Zoppo-Sassu KO'd for service on two key panels

The city's Board of Ethics told city Councilor Ellen Zoppo-Sassu this week that she cannot serve on two key city panels: the Salary Committee and the Bristol Development Authority.

Acting in response to her query about serving, the panel said it would pose a conflict of interest for her to be on the three-person Salary Committee because her husband, Peter Sassu, is a city police officer. It ruled she could not serve on the BDA because she writes grant proposals for the Bristol Historical Society that aim to collect Community Development Block Grant money that the BDA doles out each year. Taken together, the two decisions slice into the issues and policies Zoppo-Sassu can take a direct role in. They also appear to mark a more heightened standard for potential conflicts than the city has had over the years. The rulings may wind up limiting the roles that other councilors can play if they or their spouses work for city government. In recent years, at least four city councilors worked for the city themselves -- Mayra Sampson, Kevin McCauley, Tom Lavigne and Al Myers. Others have had spouses, children or other close relatives on the city payroll. For now, the ruling simply means that Mayor Ken Cockayne will have to pick another Democratic councilor for the BDA, either Mary Fortier or Calvin Brown. But Fortier generally cannot make meetings in late afternoon so Brown is likely to get that role. Cockayne will likely tap one of them for the Salary panel, too, though I don't think he has to pick a Democrat for that committee.
Copyright 2013 All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Gingrich socked with 'most severe penalty' as Speaker by ethics panel

With former House Speaker Newt Gingrich rocketing to the top of the polls in the Republican presidential race, it may be a good time to look back on a story that consumed the area's GOP congresswoman for a couple of years during his tenure as a congressional leader.

Here is a story that ran in The Bristol Press and New Britain Herald when U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson, a New Britain Republican, got the House to sanction and fine Gingrich over an ethics violation:

January 21, 1997

By STEVE COLLINS

After a plea from Rep. Nancy Johnson to put aside ''the crippling partisanship and animosity that has surrounded us,'' the House Tuesday overwhelmingly backed her ethics committee's reprimand and $300,000 fine for Speaker Newt Gingrich.

''It is the most severe penalty ever against a sitting speaker,'' said Johnson. ''It is also appropriate. No one is above the rules of the House of Representatives.''

Her colleagues voted 395-28 to sanction Gingrich for his admitted ethical lapses. But the move won't force the speaker to give up his post.

The bipartisan decision Tuesday capped a two-year battle over Gingrich's conduct that often dissolved into political feuding of startling dimensions - including bare-knuckled battles in Johnson's northwestern Connecticut district.

Johnson, a New Britain Republican, called on lawmakers ''to learn and grow from this solemn occasion'' and ''end the partisan rancor that has come to surround this case and this House.''

Though other charges against Gingrich remain on the ethics committee's agenda, Johnson will no longer have to deal with them. She finished up her service on the panel Tuesday.

Johnson said her panel ''found that Rep. Gingrich brought discredit to the House by failing to get appropriate legal advice to ensure that his actions would be in compliance with tax law and to oversee the development of his letters to the committee to insure they were accurate in every respect.''

''Each member of Congress, especially those in positions of leadership, shoulders the responsibility of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety,'' she said. ''Rep. Gingrich failed to exercise the discipline and caution of his office and so is subject to penalty today.''

Johnson pointed out that the ethics panel has never before reprimanded a member for making false statement to it unless it found an intent to mislead. In Gingrich's case, it stopped just short of saying he knowingly lied.

Monetary sanctions have never before been slapped on a member who was not personally enriched by his actions, said Johnson, adding that no findings indicated Gingrich made any money from his political dealings.

Johnson said her committee never lost sight of the need for ''full and complete disclosure of every fact in this case and a bipartisan recommendation. We accomplished both, even though it would have been easy for Republicans or Democrats to walk away from the process at many stages. We didn't because we believe in this institution and in the ethics process.''

The ethics committee ''was forced to conduct its work against a harsh backdrop of political warfare,'' said Johnson.

''It's the first time ever that members of the ethics committee have been the target of coordinated partisan assaults in their districts. Coordinated political pressure on members of the ethics committee by other members is not only destructive of the ethics oversight process but it is beneath the dignity of this great institution and those who serve here,'' Johnson said.

Johnson has come under withering criticism from two potential opponents in 1998 for her handling of the case. They say she delayed proceedings and sought to help Gingrich survive the probe.

But Johnson has frequently praised her committee's work and taken credit for pushing the case to completion despite the atmospherics surrounding it.

Johnson called on legislators before Tuesday's vote to reject ''the partisanship and animosity that has so deeply permeated the work of the House'' and back the ethics recommendation.

''We cannot afford the harsh partisanship that has become too much a part of our lives,'' Johnson said.

Johnson, elected in 1982, represents the sixth district, which includes Bristol, New Britain, Torrington, the Litchfield hills and the Farmington River valley.

Here's an earlier story that lays it out a little more:

January 17, 1997

By STEVE COLLINS

The surprisingly cohesive House Ethics Committee displayed on national television Friday agreed on a deal with Speaker Newt Gingrich that will almost certainly lead to his reprimand and a $300,000 penalty.

The sanction, considered harsh by lawmakers, will allow Gingrich to remain as the top congressional leader for another term if the rest of the House endorses it Tuesday.

U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson, the New Britain Republican who heads the ethics panel, said there had been ``some serious misunderstandings'' before the hearing but her eight-member panel came together for its finale.

``The speaker of the House must be held to the highest ethical standards,'' said a stern-looking Johnson. ``No one is above the rules of the House.''

The ethics panel voted 7-1 to recommend the reprimand and fine to their colleagues. The only dissenter, Republican Lamar Smith of Texas, was a last-minute addition to the committee who likened the speaker's conduct to running a yellow light.

Gingrich admitted he created tax-exempt foundations to fund programs aimed at advancing his political agenda. He also confessed to providing ``inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable'' information about his activities to the ethics committee.

Johnson said she found it ``deeply disturbing'' that Gingrich's extensive letters to her committee contained ``glaring, even stark, contradictions of fact.''

The speaker's lawyer, Randy Evans, blamed Gingrich's busy schedule and his other attorneys for the errors. But Johnson said she is stunned the speaker exercised ``such a casual degree of oversight.''

Special counsel James Cole said the bipartisan, four-member investigatory subcommittee believed the proper penalty for Gingrich's conduct fell somewhere between a reprimand and censure. A censure would force the speaker from his powerful perch.

It opted to support a reprimand with the additional requirement of $300,000 reimbursement from Gingrich to cover a portion of the tab for the costly ethics investigation. Cole said misinformation from the speaker delayed the probe and added to its expense.

Cole said Gingrich ``should make sure he pays it in an ethical manner. It is up to him to do it in the right way.'' He said if the speaker fails to raise the cash properly ``there's a chance of being back here.''

Johnson called the penalty ``tough and unprecedented compared with past cases.''

``We have come up with a fair result and a fair resolution of the matter,'' said Cole. He said if proof exists that Gingrich lied, he would urge censure or more.

Summarizing the panel's findings, Cole said, ``Over a number of years and in a number of situations, Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the standards of conduct that applied to his activities.''

Cole said that while ``bells and whistles'' of warning were going off, ``Mr. Gingrich ran a very lot of yellow lights, some orange lights.''

Rep. Steve Schiff, a New Mexico Republican, said the subcommittee succeeded in ignoring ``the political currents swimming around us.'' He said the ``reprimand plus'' penalty is appropriate.

But Schiff added that Gingrich's friends will think the panel's recommendation unduly harsh and the speaker's foes won't be satisfied unless the Georgia Republican ``is drawn and quartered after being boiled in oil.''

The six-hour hearing featured lengthy statements by Cole and lawyers for Gingrich presenting their respective takes on the case, then short comments by members of the panel, then a period of questions and answers. After retreating behind closed doors briefly, the panel voted on sanctions late Friday.

It represents the culmination of a case filed in Sept. 1994 and in the hands of a special counsel for more than a year. In the past month, the ethics committee almost splintered, with its members holding competing press conferences and dueling almost daily about the proper procedures to follow.

Johnson, who had come under harsh criticism, diplomatically called it ``a difficult environment.''

``We've had our storms,'' said Rep. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the panel since a Washington congressman resigned this week amidst allegations he turned over an illegally obtained tape recording of a cellular phone conversation to two newspapers.

Rep. Porter Goss, the Florida Republican who led the investigatory subcommittee, praised Johnson for her ``extraordinary perseverance, patient and commitment'' in bringing the ethics panel through its troubles.

Schiff complimented Johnson simply ``for getting us here.''

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, criticized Johnson and the GOP for preventing a full hearing where Cole could present witnesses and explain the case in detail. But she also thanked Johnson for the cooperative spirit on display Friday.

Johnson appeared relieved to have the hearing behind her. Her service on the ethics panel ends Tuesday.

Another story, focused on Johnson:

January 10, 1997

By STEVE COLLINS

In her two decades of political life, U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson has never attracted the kind of attention she's getting these days.

And she surely wishes it wasn't so.

Two potential rivals for the New Britain Republican's congressional seat are already on the attack - and Democrats across the country have Johnson in their crosshairs.

Plainville professor Charlotte Koskoff, who nearly upset Johnson at the polls last year, called her leadership of the badly split House Ethics Committee ``very, very sad.''

``She's really blown it,'' said Bristol businessman Jim Griffin, who lost to Johnson in 1988 but hopes for a rematch in 1998.

Johnson has guided the ethics panel the past two years as it maneuvered through a political minefield to issue rulings on a series of complaints about House Speaker Newt Gingrich's conduct.

Most were settled unanimously behind closed doors after much wrangling, which Johnson insists is evidence of her strong, fair  leadership.

But one last complaint remains - and history may hinge on it.

The pace of the assault against Gingrich has quickened as the stakes have risen. Now the partisan rancor that has long infected the House has publicly riven Johnson's 10-member committee as well.

Paul Gigot, a conservative commentator for The Wall Street Journal, called it ``a public blood feud.''

``What you have is total, global, nuclear war. It's impossible to overestimate the poisonous air in the Ethics Committee,'' Gigot said.

At least three Democrats among the five serving on Johnson's ethics panel have sharply criticized her in recent days.

Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington said Johnson's willingness to buckle to Gingrich's needs indicate she is ``throwing herself on a hand grenade for the speaker.''

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California charged Johnson with abusing her power when she canceled a week-long hearing into the case after Democrats griped about details.

Rep. Ben Cardin of Maryland joined Pelosi in telling Johnson he was ``particularly troubled'' by her abrupt decision to cancel the hearings.

Whatever the merits of the Democrats' arguments, Johnson has certainly failed to keep her committee from falling apart. Its five Democrats and five GOP members have been dueling in public for days now.

Journalist John Barry, who wrote the definitive book on the downfall of former Democratic Speaker Jim Wright, once described the ethics panel as possessing ``vast power.''

It serves, he said, as ``investigator, grand jury, prosecutor, jury, judge and appeals court.''

With the kind of clout, Johnson's committee holds Gingrich's political fate in its grasp.

Soon, probably next Sunday, the panel will recommend a penalty  for the misconduct the speaker admits he engaged in. There may a public hearing Friday and perhaps Saturday.

It is likely the committee will urge a reprimand that would let Gingrich retain his position. But it can urge censure or ouster and thereby toss Gingrich from the nation's third highest political office.

Griffin said the ethics hearing on Gingrich this week and the subsequent decision on sanctions ``may be Nancy's last chance to salvage respectability for her chairmanship, but I don't think she's up to the task.''

He said he expects ``a grotesque finale'' to a case Johnson has mishandled from the start.

``There will be no redemption for her,'' said Griffin, ``because she's made up her mind. You have to be an idiot or Nancy Johnson to believe what Newt is saying.''

Koskoff said Johnson has been on ``the wrong side'' of the Gingrich case all along and won't switch now.

She said her former foe's refusal to extend the ethics committee's deadline despite a request from most of its members and the special counsel it hired is ``frankly unfathomable. It's all mind-boggling.''

Johnson has perhaps shown too much haste.

But she only agreed to stay on the panel into the new year, when her term expired, because Democrats agreed the matter would be over by Jan. 21. At that point, Johnson could finally quit.

Any delay and the case could go on forever, as Republican ethics panel member David Hobson of Ohio said.

What happens next in the tangled matter is, of course, impossible to predict.

Johnson could yet shock everyone with her ruling on Gingrich. Or perhaps she can break through the political fog and convince the mainstream of America that a chastened Gingrich deserves no more than a reprimand.

But one thing is sure: that Johnson will be mighty happy to leave the ethics committee behind.

She said there are plenty of more pressing issues her constituents would like to have her working on, from tax policy to health care. The Gingrich case is, for her, just a terrible distraction.

Johnson has represented northwestern Connecticut's sixth district since 1982. The district includes Bristol, New Britain, Torrington, the Litchfield hills and the Farmington River valley.

Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

City Council ignores charter requirements on ethics

When a city official has a conflict of interest, whether personal or financial, the city charter requires him to “excuse himself from the proceedings and refrain from voting’ or participating in discussion of the issue.
It also mandates that within seven days after citing his conflict, he “shall file written disclosure” of it with the city clerk.
Though the requirement has been part of the charter for years, City Clerk Therese Pac said nobody has ever filed any written disclosure.
“No one has ever done it,” said James Donovan, chairman of the city’s Ethics Board.
Another part of the charter’s conflict of interest section requires the City Council to “establish a policy for disclosure of financial or personal interests of elected and appointed officials and employees,” including a list of offices or positions that require disclosure of potential conflicts.
That, too, has never been done. Click here for the full story.


Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Leone's tenuous position

I can't quarrel with former Mayor John Leone's view that he can't ethically take part in the Bristol Downtown Development Corp.'s decision about who should develop the Depot Square sit. If Leone thinks the situation is such that he can't vote, then he clearly shouldn't vote. He's got a better handle on the ethics of the situation than I do.
But if he can't cast a vote on the developer because his role in finding a place for the new Bristol Boys and Girls Club somehow got mixed up with Renaissance's mall site proposal -- the details remain hazy -- then how can he serve on the BDDC at all if Renaissance is chosen? The conflict won't go away.
There's kind of an obvious issue: is Leone's service to the club, admirable as it is, making it impossible for him to be an effective, useful board member for the BDDC? Certainly he's contemplating that issue just as many others are.
*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Ethics probe at housing authority

I've lost count of the meetings the Bristol Housing Authority's Ethics Review Committee has held behind closed doors in the last few weeks to investigate some sort of ethics complaint.
All I've been able to discern is that the sessions are meant to probe an alleged breach of the authority's ethics policy.
On Tuesday, I actually went over to one of the meetings, even though I knew they would simply vote to go into executive, or secret, session. It was slated for 6 p.m.
Nobody showed up. No signs were posted explaining what had happened to the meeting. It simply wasn't.
I've asked around a bit about this thing and come up dry.
If anybody can fill us in on what's happening, even in the most general way, I'd sure like to know. I hate secrets.

*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Wright calls for ouster of a state lawyer

This just in from 77th District Democratic candidate Christopher Wright:

State Representative candidate Christopher Wright (D 77th) has called on Governor Rell to take action against Maureen Duggan, the former Ethics Commission attorney who wrote a fraudulent “anonymous” letter criticizing her then-boss which led to his dismissal.
“Here is a case where we have no question of guilt since Ms. Duggan has admitted under oath to her actions. So far, the only response from the Governor is that her office will look into it. The people of Connecticut deserve public servants that are held to the highest ethical standards. Allowing an attorney to fabricate evidence, lie about it and still keep her job is simply not acceptable.”
Wright said that the tepid response from the Governor’s office was extremely disappointing. He also indicated that as a member of the Legislature, he would investigate whether Ms. Duggan could be sanctioned under the proposed state law which would strip state employees who act in an illegal or unethical manner of any post-employment benefits.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Ethics panel sympathetic to Cockayne's request, but doesn't take his side

In response to a complaint filed by freshman Republican city Councilor, the city’s Ethics Board has ruled that several officials won’t violate ethics rules if they participate in votes on whether to shift pension funds into a new health benefits account.
However, panel members “do have concerns about the appearance of any such vote,” said Jim Donovan, the chairman of the board, wrote in an email to Mayor Art Ward.
Cockayne had questioned whether Ward and city Councilors Frank Nicastro and Kevin McCauley would have an ethical problem if they voted on a proposal to move the money from one fund to the other because they are either receiving or likely to receive pension money.
Donovan wrote to Ward that the ethics code “does not prevent” the three from participating in the issue.
Cockayne said he still believes there is an ethics problem that should make the three abstain from the matter.
But, he said, the ethics panel “took the time to understand my issue”and discussed it seriously.
“That’s why the Ethics Board is there,” Cockayne said. “Now we move forward.”
“The rule is the rule and hopefully the people involved will vote in the best interests of the taxpayers,” Cockayne said.
He said he intends to keep looking out for taxpayers, even if it troubles some of his council colleagues. Cockayne added that he won’t hesitate to seek opinions from the ethics panel in the future if the situation calls for it.
The city needs to sock away about $77 million to pay health benefits for its workers when they retire, city Comptroller Glenn Klocko said.
The best way to get the money, he said, is to tap the overfunded pension trust fund.
The most obvious alternative is to hit up the taxpayers for more money every year, which finance officials view as a poor choice since there’s more than enough money in the pension fund to cover both obligations.
City unions are pushing for a negotiated policy change that would reward their members for going along with the fund shift.
It is unclear what’s going to happen next on the issue, but several city leaders have said they anticipate the question may reach the front burner soon.

Update on April 1:

Here's the text of the Ethics Board decision, courtesy of Donovan --

ADVISORY OPINION No. 2008-006 KC
Interpretation of Article V Section 2-126, 2-129 (c) & 2-132 Definitions

INTRODUCTION

The City of Bristol’s Ethics Board issues this advisory opinion in response to a request for an opinion submitted by a current Councilman with the City of Bristol. This is in concert with the spirit and intent of Section 2-130 of the City of Bristol Code of Ordinances. In the request a Councilman with the City of Bristol asked for an interpretation of whether a conflict of interest would exist regarding GASB45 and future votes related to Pensions and Post employment benefits (OPEB) presented to the City Council and Mayor.
Within the 3/3/2008 documented request the Councilman, Ken Cockayne of the City of Bristol asked for an interpretation of whether a conflict of interest could exist and questioned the participation when called upon to vote of Councilman Kevin McCauley, Councilman Frank Nicastro Sr and Mayor Art Ward (hereinafter “Respondents”) regarding the aforementioned topics. Before discussion of the issue two matters pertaining to the request need clarification.

1) Kevin Ward, the Mayor’s policeman son, is not relevant under the code
(Sec. 2-132) as he is not a member of the mayor’s “immediate family”.
2) GASB45, OPEB & GASB25

(a) GASB is the Government Accounting Standards Board, (b) 45 is the specific statement number assigned to an accounting and financial reporting provision requiring government employers to measure and report the liabilities associated with other than pension post employment benefits, (c) 25 is the specific statement number assigned to an accounting and financial reporting provision for Defined Benefit Pension Plans and (d) OPEB is Other Post Employment Benefits.
GASB45 and GASB25 establish standards for accounting and financial reporting with the goal in mind to more accurately reflect the financial effects of Defined Benefit Pension Plan(s) and OPEB transactions.

BACKGROUND

Under the code of Ethics Section 2-126. Responsibilities of Public Office
(a) It shall be the responsibility of officials to carry out their duties to the best of their abilities and with the highest moral and ethical standards, regardless of personal considerations. Their conduct should at all times be for the public good and within the bounds of the law, should be above reproach, and should avoid a conflict between public and private interests and responsibilities.

Section 2-129 Conflict of Interest;
(c) No official who has a financial or personal (beneficial) interest, either individually or as a member of a group that has a financial or person interest, direct or indirect, in any transaction or contract with they city, or decision or board, body or commission, or in the sale of real estate, material, supplies or services to the city, on which he may be called to act upon in his official capacity, shall vote upon or otherwise participate in the transaction or contract or decision and shall excuse himself from the proceedings in accordance with Section 55 of the Charter of the City of Bristol.

Section 2-132 Terms & Definitions;
A financial interest means any interest that is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of the official’s duties or employment in the public interest and of the official’s responsibilities as prescribed by the laws of this state and city, if the official has reason to believe or expect that the official, the official’s spouse or dependent children or a business with which he is associated, as defined herein, will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss as the case may be by reason of the official’s official activity.
Any such official does not have an interest that is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of the official’s duties in the public interest and of the official’s responsibilities as prescribed by the laws of this state and city if any benefit or detriment accrues to the official, the official’s spouse or dependent child, or business with which he, his spouse or such dependent child is associated as a member of a profession, occupation or group to no greater extent than to any other member of such profession, occupation or group. This section was taken intact from the State Code of Ethics
Immediate family means any spouse, children or dependent relatives who reside in the individual’s household.

QUESTION

If the transfer of money from a pension fund to a new post employment benefits health insurance fund for current and former city employees was presented to the City Council members and the Mayor for a vote, would an active vote by Kevin McCauley, Frank Nicastro, Sr. and Mayor Art Ward result in a conflict of interest?

ANALYSIS

After hearing comments and input from Councilman Ken Cockayne it was clear in his remarks that he believed there to be a genuine need to raise the awareness regarding this subject matter.
All three of the “Respondents” are either receiving their pension, beneficiaries of the fund, are contributing to their pension or have an immediate family member who is doing so. Clearly all three “Respondents” “have a financial interest” in the pension as stated in Section 2-129. In addition, as elected city officials, all three have a duty to the taxpayers and voters of the City of Bristol. Absent the highlighted language of Section 2-132 this situation would clearly present a conflict of interest for the “Respondents”. However, the following must be considered...
Kevin McCauley, Frank Nicastro, Sr. and Mayor Ward, thru his wife, are all members of a group or profession that will not be affected, to any greater extent, than they themselves will be, by voting on this issue. That group consists of City Employees who are beneficiaries of the City pension. Upon the advice of the State Ethics Commission, this is how the State would interpret this question. As the highlighted language of Section 2-132 was taken right from the State’s code, we reasonably concluded that the writers of the Bristol Code intended it to be interpreted the same way.

CONCLUSION

It is the opinion of the City of Bristol’s Ethics Board that the absence of a financial benefit would not preclude the aforementioned officials from voting on the topic of GASB45 or GASB25. A policy decision on “how to “ fund a Defined Benefit Pension Plan(s) or Other Post Employment Benefits would not change the actual benefit received by the aforementioned individuals in the present or in the future to any greater or lesser extent than any other beneficiary of the pension..

Despite the Code allowing the “respondents” to vote on this matter, the Ethics Commission would strongly recommend that City officials remain cognizant of Section 2-126 “Responsibilities of public office”, prior to casting any vote so as to avoid a public perception of a conflict of interest.

Submitted by Helen G. Sneed and Jim Donovan on behalf of the City of Bristol Ethics’ Board

Attorney Jim Donovan, Chairperson

Dated 3/28/2008


*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Ward's flight to be paid for by the city

After some anonymous posters on this blog questioned whether it was ethical for Mayor Art Ward to have the American Legion pay for his trip to Indianapolis to make a pitch for the 2010 American Legion World Series, the mayor asked about the issue.
Ward said today that he asked the city attorney for an opinion. He said that Ed Krawiecki, the city attorney, told him that all of Bristol's lawyers agreed it would be best if the city paid for the travel by the mayor and Park Director Ed Swicklas.
Ward said that he had thought it made more sense for the Legion to pick up the tab, since it was the applicant, but that if taxpayers have to shell out the money, it remains well worth it.
Ward said both he and Swicklas are still planning to go to Indiana in early May and do exactly what they would have done. But their travel costs will be paid by the city, the mayor said.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Don't hit taxpayers up for cash the city already has in its pension fund, Cockayne urges

With city pension funds bulging, a Republican city councilor says it doesn’t make sense to sock taxpayers to fill a new trust account to cover the future health care of municipal retirees who won’t ever need all the cash that’s already piled up in City Hall’s retirement funds.
Shifting the excess retirement money into the health care account would create “a huge savings for the taxpayers,” said city Councilor Ken Cockayne.
He said he asked the city’s Ethics Board about whether three council colleagues who might collect from the account whether the trio should be allowed to participate in the decision about whether to make the change in large part to push the whole issue onto the front burner again.
The city needs to sock away about $77 million to pay health benefits for its workers when they retire, said city Comptroller Glenn Klocko. It has only $1.1 million in the account so far and plans to add $200,000 more this year, a figure that’s slated to rise 25 percent annually for the next three decades, he said.
Cockayne said that in the long run, the new fund would cost taxpayers about $2 million annually, and for no good reason.
The consultant from Merrill Lynch who has overseen the stunningly successful investments that have led city pension funds to be so flush is among those who have advocated taking money from the more than $500 million in pension accounts and paying what’s needed into the new health benefits account, an idea that Klocko has also supported.
But Mayor Art Ward said he’s not sure it would be the right move.
“Are we in essence robbing Peter to pay Paul?” the mayor asked.
He said the city needs to “proceed cautiously” because the funds have the potential to make such a difference to taxpayers, city workers and retirees, particularly if the pension funds were to take a big financial hit someday.
“We need to make sure we make a qualified decision and it’s not an emotional one,” Ward said.
Cockayne said that all of the experts who look after the city’s money – actuarial professionals, consultants, labor lawyers and others – have told him that shifting the excess pension money into the new account is the best move.
“The opposition is coming from the unions. The unions are bucking it, saying this needs to be negotiated,” said Cockayne, who points to federal and state rulings that say the city can make the change without union consent.
City union officials have said they’re not necessarily opposed to the idea pushed by Cockayne, but they believe that it can’t be done without the union’s consent. They concede that getting a green light from the unions almost certainly means the city would have to offer something in return.
Among the possibilities, they said, are guaranteed cost-of-living increases in pensions or an extension of the 10-year period in which retirees get municipal health care. But nobody’s locked into anything in particular.
Cockayne said he doesn’t think the unions should get anything. He said it’s up to the city alone to decide whether to pump retirement cash into the new health benefits fund required to meet the GASB 45 accounting standard.
“I have every intention of forcing this issue,” Cockayne said. “This is an issue we need to address.”
Cockayne said that families in Bristol are living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to cope with rising utility costs and tax bills that keep rising. This is one way, he said, to ease their burden a bit without hurting anyone.
The unions “are trying to hold the city hostage,” Cockayne said, with their demands to get something in return for their agreement.
“It’s time for them to give back a little and do what’s right for the taxpayers of this town, the taxpayers who are paying their salaries,” Cockayne said.

Ethics ruling sought

A freshman city councilor said he fears “there may be conflicts of interest” for three of his more senior City Council colleagues to vote on issues related to the transfer of money from municipal pension accounts into a new health benefits fund.
Republican Ken Cockayne said the trio – Mayor Art Ward and Democrats Kevin McCauley and Frank Nicastro – are “directly affected by the outcome” of the issue because they or family members are set to collect some of the money.
McCauley is a city firefighter. Ward’s wife works for the Board of Education. And Nicastro, a retired mayor and truant officer, collects a city pension.
While McCauley denied that he has a conflict, Ward sidestepped the question.
“I’ll await the decision of the ethics board and I’ll abide by that decision,” the mayor said.
Nicastro, who collects a city pension, has avoided for years voting on issues that might raise questions about a conflict.
The other three councilors, including Republican Mike Rimcoski, said they don’t see a problem.
“I don’t know where Kenny’s going with this, but it has nothing to do with benefitting any of us,” said freshman city Councilor Cliff Block.
Block said the new trust fund is a mandate the city has to obey. But it doesn’t change any benefits that anyone, including councilors, will receive.
Block said that Cockayne received “a little bit of bad information on this one.”
City Councilor Craig Minor said the city “has a contractual obligation to provide certain post-employment health benefits to its employees. How it manages the cost of meeting that obligation is mere bookkeeping. I don’t think Ken understands this.”
“I’m sure all the council members know when to excuse themselves,” said veteran Republican Councilman Mike Rimcoski. “I really don’t see a problem.”
McCauley said his 2nd District colleague “has not done his due diligence on this issue and is confusing the facts.”
He said that because the fire and police retirement funds are separate and “not under consideration,” he doesn’t have a conflict.“ This is a taxpayer issue, however not the way he is presenting it,” McCauley said.
“The policy under consideration is to evaluate setting up a mechanism to allow for the funding of future liability of retirement health benefits in a way that can benefit the taxpayers,” said McCauley, a second-term Democrat. “Whether the city decides to negotiate down the road concerning the fire and police retirement funds is a whole other subject.”
Cockayne said that McCauley’s statement “is absolutely incorrect” because money would also come out of the police and fire retirement accounts, an assertion that city financial officials confirmed.
Cockayne said he figures he’s going to wind up getting yelled at again.
“I’m wondering if I’m going to get called into the principal’s office. I’ve already been called in twice” to talk with Ward, Cockayne said.
“He’s yelled at me like a 5-year-old kid because I do things in public,” Cockayne said.

Cockayne's letter to the Ethics Board

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Cockayne seeks ethics ruling on three council colleagues

City Councilor Ken Cockayne filed this with the city's Ethics Board today:

March 3, 2008

To: Ethics Board, City of Bristol, Connecticut

Re: Ethics Ruling for Councilman Kevin McCauley, Councilman Frank Nicastro, Sr. and Mayor Art Ward.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am requesting an Ethics Ruling regarding the ability of the aforementioned individuals, to participate in votes regarding GASB45/OPEB. Simply put, an issue that is being considered is the transfer of money from an over funded pension fund to a new post employment benefits health fund for current and former city employees, as allowed for by IRS regulations. The transfer of these funds can save the tax payers of Bristol approximately two million dollars per year. I fear that there may be conflicts of interest for these individuals as they or their immediate family will be directly affected by the outcome of any decisions made regarding this issue.

In regards to Councilman Kevin McCauley:
As a firefighter he is currently in the Fire Fighters Pension and at retirement will receive a retirement pension as well as post employment health insurance from these funds. He is also a member of the local Firefighters Union.

In regards to Councilman Frank Nicastro:
As a retired Truant Officer and former Mayor he is currently receiving retirement benefits as well as post employment benefits of 10 years of health insurance from these funds.

In regards to Mayor Arthur Ward:
Mayor Ward’s wife is a former city employee, retired from the Bristol Board of Education, while his son is a Detective in the Bristol Police Department and a member of the Bristol Police Union. Both of these individuals will be affected by any decisions made on this issue as they will be beneficiaries of post retirement benefits from these funds.

In Sec. 2-129 Conflict of interests ( c ) it states,

“No official who has a financial or personal interest, either individually or as a member of a group that has a financial or personal interest, direct or indirect, in any transaction or contract with the city, or decision of any board, body, or commission, or in the sale of real estate, material, supplies, or services to the city, on which he may be called to act upon in his official capacity, shall vote upon or otherwise participate in the transaction, contract or decision and shall excuse himself from the proceedings in accordance with Section 55 of Charter of the City of Bristol.”

I do not require confidentiality on this matter and will be happy to meet with your board to answer any questions you may have. Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Ken Cockayne
1st District Councilman

Click here for more about the GASB 45 fund

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com