PRESS RELEASE
Contacts:
Dana Evans 633-0000
Karen Emerick 633-7667
March 21, 2006
TWO LAWSUITS (WRITS OF MANDAMUS) FILED
AGAINST GLASTONBURY’S
ETHICS COMMISSION
Writs of Mandamus
Two lawsuits were filed today in Hartford
Superior Court against the Town of Glastonbury’s
Ethics Commission. The suits allege the Commission violated the Town’s Code of
Ethics and refused to allow members of the public to file an ethics complaint
and a request for an advisory opinion. The Writs of Mandamus were filed by
lifelong Glastonbury
residents Karen Emerick and Dana Evans. A Writ of Mandamus is a court action
that is brought to enforce legal rights. Emerick and Evans were forced to file
the Writs as they have exhausted every effort to bring the Glastonbury Ethics Commission into compliance
with the Town’s Code of Ethics. Their efforts include numerous complaints and
related hearings before the State’s Freedom of Information Commission, as
explained below.
Code of Ethics
The Code of Ethics was adopted by Glastonbury’s Town Council on July 8, 2003. The Code mandates that the Ethics Commission
establish procedures that “specify how the public may initiate complaints
alleging a violation of the Code or requests for advisory opinions.” On March 8, 2004, the Ethics Commission
adopted “Procedures of The Ethics Commission”. Subsequent to March 8, 2004, the Ethics
Commission amended their Procedures seven (7) times, with the latest amendment
on January 9, 2006. Nowhere within their
Procedures can the public determine what and when specific amendments were made
by the Ethics Commission. What is apparent, however, is that to date, the
Ethics Commission has failed to incorporate within their Procedures any
provisions for members of the public to file complaints or requests for
advisory opinions. The only access the
public has to the Ethics Commission is through an “inquiry” process.
Ethics Complaint and Request for Advisory
Opinion
On August 23, 2004, Emerick filed an ethics complaint. Subsequently she received a letter from
Commission Chairperson Alexandrina Sergio stating that the Commission would not
accept complaints directly from the public.
On October 15, 2004, Evans requested an advisory opinion
concerning the newly adopted Code. She wanted to know if a particular section
of the code would allow public officials to represent developers and others
doing business with the Town. Like
Emerick, Evans subsequently received a letter from Commission Chairperson
Alexandrina Sergio refusing her request and stating that requests for advisory
opinions are limited to employees, officials or those doing business with the
town of Glastonbury.
Executive Session
Both Emerick and Evans attempted to attend the Ethics
Commission meetings where their matters were discussed, but were prohibited
from doing so, as the meetings were held in executive session, which excluded
the public.
Freedom of Information Commission Rules
Executive Sessions Illegal
Emerick and Evans both filed Freedom of Information
complaints concerning the executive session meetings alleging the discussions
of their matters were improperly held in executive sessions and should have
been open to the public. They won their cases before the Freedom of Information
Commission. The Glastonbury Ethics Commission was ordered to
disclose what transpired during the illegal meetings to the same extent as if
the public were present.
Glastonbury Ethics Commission Fails to Comply with FOIC Order
Emerick and Evans have recently filed non-compliance
complaints with the Freedom of Information Commission alleging that the Ethics
Commission did not comply with the orders of the FOIC directing complete
disclosure of the two illegal executive sessions.
Emerick and Evans have consistently won FOI
complaints Against the Ethics Commission
The Freedom of Information Commission has repeatedly ruled
in favor of Emerick and Evans, who have filed additional FOI complaints against
the Glastonbury
Ethics Commission over the course of several months. According to the FOIC
decisions, the Ethics Commission or its sub committees have held more than 60
secret illegal meetings, several illegal executive sessions or closed meetings
where the public was not allowed to attend, failed to provide access to public
records, conducted illegal voting in executive sessions and failed to file
minutes of meetings.
Last Recourse, Writs of Mandamus
As the aforementioned illustrates, over the course of nearly
three years, Emerick and Evans have repeatedly attempted to bring the Ethics
Commission into compliance with Glastonbury's Code of
Ethics as adopted in July, 2003. Having
exhausted nearly all recourses available to them, they now are seeking the
Writs of Mandamus which they believe will successfully mitigate this matter in
the interest of all Glastonbury citizens who are entitled to file a complaint
against any public official/employee or request an advisory opinion concerning
any public official/employee.
Emerick and Evans believe that all citizens have the right
to honest and open government through the implementation of reliable Ethics
Laws.
For Glastonbury
Code of Ethics:
http://www.glasct.org/Public_Documents/GlastonburyCT_WebDocs/ethics?textPage=1
For Freedom of Information Decisions:
http://www.state.ct.us/foi
See Docket #FIC 2004-386 Emerick v. Glastonbury Ethics Commission
#FIC 2004-406
Emerick v. Glastonbury
Ethics Commission
#FIC 2004-447
Emerick v. Glastonbury
Ethics Commission
#FIC 2004-513
Evans v. Glastonbury
Ethics Commission
#FIC 2005-004
Emerick and Evans v. Glastonbury
Ethics Commission
#FIC 2005-053
Emerick and Evans v. Glastonbury
Ethics Commission
#FIC 2005-102
Emerick and Evans v. Glastonbury
Ethics Commission
For Freedom of Information Non-Compliance Complaints:
See Docket #FIC 2005-576 Emerick v. Glastonbury Ethics Commission
Docket #FIC
2006-069 Evans
v. Glastonbury
Ethics Commission
Docket #’s
pending for 3 additional non-compliance complaints
filed March 21,
2006 Emerick and Evans v. Glastonbury Ethics
Commission