Waterford Ethics Commission Wrestles With Conflict-of-Interest Conundrum

Wednesday night, Waterford’s Ethics Commission was hesitant to make a decision on a letter by two Board of Finance members asking if fellow board members with possible conflicts of interests should vote on certain budgets, saying they needed more information.

Earlier this year, Board of Finance members J.W. “Bill” Sheehan and Cheryl Larder sent a joint letter to the Ethics Commission asking if members with immediate family members who work in a town department should vote on that particular department’s budget. Fellow Board of Finance members Ron Fedor and Mark Wiggins both have immediate family members in town departments and both vote on those departments' budgets.

However Kim McGee, a lawyer from the firm Waterford uses to represent itself, said the letter was most likely too broad to make a decision on. The letter asked for an advisory opinion on if a Board of Finance member could vote on a department’s budget if their immediate family member works for that department, but McGee said more would have to be known to make a decision.

“We need more specifics before we can render an advisory decision,” McGee.

Ethics Commission member Don Blevins disagreed, saying that the question was specific and the commission should make a decision. After about an hour of back-and-forth between members of the board, the group agreed to table the decision to their next meeting.

Fedor’s wife is a principal in the Waterford School District and his two sons are Waterford Police officers and Wiggins’ wife is a paraprofessional in the Waterford School District. When asked, Sheehan and Larder both said they do not think Fedor should vote on the police budget or the schools’ budget and Wiggins should not vote on the schools’ budget, but said they were looking to the Ethics Commission for clarity. 

The Exact Ordinance

Waterford has an ordinance that deals directly with this issue. Here it is:

A public official or town employee has an interest which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of duties or employment in the public interest and of responsibilities as prescribed by the laws of this state, if the public official or town employee has reason to believe or expect that the public official or town employee, his spouse or a dependent child, or a business with which he is associated, will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss, as the case may be, by reason of the public official or town employee's official activity.

The public official or town employee does not have an interest which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of duties in the public interest and of responsibilities as prescribed by the laws of this state, if any benefit or detriment accrues to the public official or town employee, his immediate family, or a business with which he or his immediate family is associated as a member of a profession, occupation or group to no greater extent than any other member of such profession, occupation or group.