Contracting board tables code of ethics discussion after apology

The State Contracting Standards Board (SCSB) met today to discuss numerous topics, most notably the adoption of a revised code of ethics. The conversation occurred in light of a recently proposed ethics code that members thought would remove their ability to communicate with the media . Ultimately, the Board agreed to table their discussion, making no decision on which new ethics code, if any, it would adopt. The conversation between Board Members and their Executive Director, Greg Daniels, who have had a longstanding rocky relationship , was often contentious.

Perhaps the most significant moment of the meeting was Daniels’ addressing and apologizing to the board for the first draft ethics policy. The policy would have restrained members’ ability to “report independently” to anyone outside the agency without his approval, which Members took to assume would essentially act as a rule prohibiting them from discussions with media.

“Recently, there was an article in the papers regarding this so I would like to speak to that topic first before we go into the business of the board,” said Daniels. “Let me begin first by saying, that some of the concerns that were raised by the [news] articles, with respect to the language in the actual policy, that we were attempting to limit communications or limit the speech of the board and its communications with the media, that was not the intent at all in drafting that document.”

Daniels blamed the inclusion of the language on him and other staff members being too busy to double-check the document’s language before releasing it.

“It was something where we had multiple documents that we were transposing different policies, and unfortunately for me I failed to double back and do a final read of the document before it went out,” said Daniels. “And that happens, sometimes we’re doing a lot. My practice has always been to look at every document before it goes out but sometimes that doesn’t happen, and I take full responsibility.”

Daniels said that the document was actually a second draft of one he had started in Sept. 2023 and that he and other staff members intended for it to “simply address some basic issues that we thought needed to be addressed.” Daniels said that the document unfortunately ended up being too simple, and wasn’t “comprehensive enough” in outlining specific concerns or how to properly solve them.

“During my many years of public service, I’ve been a staunch advocate for transparency and the First Amendment,” said Daniels. “And so it deeply saddens me that this happened and I’m terribly embarrassed, to be quite honest, that I find myself in this place. So again, I apologize, it was an oversight on my part, we were rushing and I really want to say to each of you, there was no intent from any of us to take away any of your authority or ability to communicate on any issue, was not the intent.”

Daniels moved the discussion to the present, highlighting the two proposed ethics policies he had brought before the board in hopes of rectifying the situation. He said that the first option sent out was the original policy, which had been drafted and vetted by the Office of State Ethics in Sept. 2023. The second was his latest revision of this draft.

This revision is notable in that it changed existing language in an attempt to try to streamline any future ethics complaints through the Office of State Ethics, or the Chairperson and Executive Director of the SCSB, without input of the board. Under Section 4. Enforcement, the original passage reads, “Any questions or concerns regarding violations or suspected violations of either the Code of Ethics for Public Officials or this Ethics Policy shall be brought to the attention of the Executive Director of the SCSB, in writing, who shall then transmit such questions or concerns to the SCSB.”

Daniels’ revision is as follows; “Any questions or concerns regarding violations or suspected violations of either the Code of Ethics for Public Officials or this Ethics Policy shall be brought to the attention of the Chairperson, Executive Director of the SCSB, or the Office of State Ethics, in writing.” Worth noting is the fact that both Daniels and the Board’s current chairperson, Rochelle Palache, are Lamont appointees.

Board Member Salvatore Luciano, who has long been critical of Daniels’ decisions, accepted his apology, but dug into him on his latest revised proposal.

“First, I’d like to say that I accept your apology,” said Luciano. He then spoke of his past experience working for 20 years as an executive director for a board, presumably during his time at AFL-CIO. Luciano said he served mostly in an advisory capacity, letting the board proceed and make decisions as it wished, and that over time it began to defer decisions to him.

“They very often deferred to me because they trusted me, and they valued my opinion,” said Luciano. “Going forward, I think it would be helpful [for you] to understand that.”

After laying the bait, Luciano sunk his fangs in.

“Earlier you said you’re not sure what your job is or what the evaluation process is, I think that may be true, because even in this newest one, you make yourself the ethics enforcer of the board,” said Luciano. “That’s simply not appropriate, and it convolutes the situations to where you want us reporting to you, and that’s not how it works, thank you.”

Daniels took immediate issue with this interpretation of the revision.

“I didn’t make myself the ethics enforcer of the board,” said Daniels. “I inherited the role, so I’m not exactly sure where your allegations are coming from.”

“It comes from the document,” said Luciano.

Beyond disagreements over how future ethics complaints would be handled, the board also could not come to a consensus on the necessity of making the ethics code longer and more specific. Daniels added several paragraphs of revisions outlining specific policies on topics such as trade secret non-disclosure, ex parte communication guidelines, and other orders of business regarding how the board interacts with outside parties. Board Member Lauren Gauthier noted that the inclusion of these additional specificities would be redundant, as they are already outlined in existing Office of State Ethics policies that the Board falls under the purview of.

“As in any other document, set of documents, there’s always an order of precedence. I would think that the Office of State Ethics policy that’s written in the state statute takes precedent over anything we pass as a board right?,” said Gauthier. “I guess I’m failing to understand why we just follow the state statute. I don’t see either of these as an improvement on the statute and I don’t think, I’m concerned that anything above and beyond the statute won’t even be enforceable.”

Daniels acknowledged that while the protections he added in his revisions are already outlined in the State Ethics policies, that it is useful to include in their own code of ethics for means of reinforcement.

“Technically, without that policy, we’re already required,” said Daniels. “But, because we’re required to do something doesn’t mean we’re doing it. It’s the enforcement piece.”

Luciano took issue with the additions, claiming there was no need for a board’s code of ethics to be five pages long. Ultimately, Chairwoman Palache moved to table the matter once it became apparent that no headway would be made on agreeing on a revised code of ethics.

“I think this item should be tabled,” said Palache. “We’re not ready to make a decision on anything today, we should table this and then we will revisit.”

The Board quickly motioned in agreement, and the meeting concluded soon thereafter.

The post Contracting board tables code of ethics discussion after apology appeared first on Connecticut Inside Investigator .