Ethics Board Now Memberless

Olivier Le Moal/Adobe Stock

The Town of Weston no longer has a Board of Ethics, at least not one with members. The last two, Ruth Israely and Sarah Grigerick, resigned on May 30, in letters sharply critical of months of talk about removing them — or subjecting them to public shaming — and online abuse propagated on fringe social media groups.

Ms. Israely’s letter can be read here. Ms. Grigerick’s letter can be read here.

The Selectmen had already canceled a planned hearing to consider removing members of the Board of Ethics, although the purpose of the hearing appears to have changed over time, at least in the minds of Martin Mohabeer and Amy Jenner.

Ms. Jenner is the subject of the only two charges that remain standing before the now vacant board.

On May 18, Mr. Mohabeer insisted, and Ms. Jenner agreed (forgetting that she had recused), that the purpose of the hearing was not to remove members, only to hear opinions from the public. But on February 2, a different ball had begun rolling when Mr. Mohabeer requested that Ethics Board members appear for a discussion where the Selectmen could have “a vote of no confidence, at the very least.”

And since then, the Selectmen’s agenda has contained, six times, consideration of a “public hearing pursuant to Section 8.5 and 7.7 of the Town Charter for purposes of potential removal of current members of the Board of Ethics.”

An impact on volunteerism

In her resignation letter to First Selectwoman Samantha Nestor, Ms. Israely said, “I have been surprised and disappointed in what I perceive as a complete absence of good faith by your colleagues on the Board of Selectmen.” She said she had asked for a statement of violations allegedly committed by the remaining members of the Ethics Board so they could defend themselves, but “was informed that we would not receive one.”

In her letter, Ms. Grigerick said the two Selectmen have “allowed a select few citizens to publicly demean and disparage me. It has reached a point where I can no longer jeopardize my reputation, my career, and the well-being of my children.” She said an attempt by the two Selectmen to “shame and publicly humiliate me for a mistake made by someone else was wholly unwarranted.”

A lingering issue

Everything about the mishandling of the ethics complaint against Ms. Jenner was aired months ago, at a Selectmen meeting on February 2. The origin story, the complaint about Ms. Jenner’s baseless accusations against a Town employee, was tabled last November and remains there.

The February 2 meeting began with the Town Administrator and Town Attorney describing their findings about how things had gone completely awry, concluding that there was no intent and no conspiracy, but that the board’s chair (who later owned up to erring, apologized, and resigned) made a colossal, inexplicable blunder.

An unapproved draft finding against Ms. Jenner had been transmitted as if the board’s members had met to discuss, revise, and finalize it, which they had not. In addition, Ms. Jenner had neither been notified of the complaint nor given an opportunity to respond.

On February 2, Ms. Israely also spoke at the Selectmen meeting, adding detail to the account of the Town Administrator and Town Attorney and expressing regret and dismay at what had transpired. When she told Ms. Jenner, who once again did not recuse, “I can see how this is upsetting,” Ms. Jenner replied, “I’m not upset, I’m angry.”

Ms. Jenner did not disclose that, two months prior, she had filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission, asking the Commission to impose fines on the Board of Ethics members.

Other public input

Also on May 18, the Selectmen were set to discuss a Change.org petition calling for cancelation of the hearing and in support of Town volunteers.

First Selectwoman Samantha Nestor moved to table that item, and Ms. Jenner asked why. Ms. Nestor replied that Ms. Jenner had asked her to in executive session, but that she was happy to discuss it if Ms. Jenner had changed her mind.

“I think I will handle my issues with the people who are involved personally,” said Ms. Jenner, without explanation. Mr. Mohabeer said he did not want to “give it oxygen.” But then they discussed it, before deciding not to discuss it.

Ms. Jenner and Mr. Mohabeer echoed claims that a petition to the Selectmen must conform to a section of the Town Charter and that it should not be considered unless the Town, by some means, verifies signatures and its “accuracy.”

Without comment on the petition itself, its text appears respectful, uncomplicated, and likely an accurate reflection of the opinion of its originator and signers. This reporter sees none of the “mischaracterizations” Ms. Jenner claims were present.

The Selectmen appear to have misread the Charter provision. It defines a certain circumstance, the way citizens with enough petition signatures can require the calling of a Special Town Meeting for some official business. That is all, and it doesn’t happen very often.

The petition, an expression of support for volunteers, made no call for a Special Town Meeting.

Citizens are free to create, circulate, sign, and send petitions to their government any way they want, online, on the back of napkins, and on any matter they desire. The right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is spelled out in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

At the same time, office holders are free to accept whatever public input pleases them and reject that which does not.

Predictably, the organizer and signers of the petition have been pilloried on those fringe social media pages.

Also in Weston Today...