Letter of the week, 2/11/08: Conflict of interest?

[David]

Conflict of interest?
Editor:
I was discouraged reading the January 9th Record-Journal article, "Ideas differ for vacant lot in Meriden." Discouraged because Councilor David Salafia was quoted as saying: "he doesn't have a conflict of interest in supporting the lot, which would be adjacent to his building."

The lot in question is the site of the former Legere Building at 25 Colony Street, right next door to Salafia's business. Salafia has joined five other city councilors in sponsoring a resolution that will convert the empty lot into a parking lot paid for by the city. It seems to me this parking lot would directly benefit Salafia's business.

In my opinion, he should not have been involved in sponsoring the resolution, let alone voting on it. It certainly looks like a conflict of interest to me. I don't suppose anyone will do anything about it, though. By City Charter, a citizen who wishes to raise an ethical question has to submit a petition to the Ethics Commission and must have four other citizens sign it. An elected official needs only their own signature to raise a question. And with Karen Scala having resigned as Chair of the Ethics Commission, apparently out of pure frustration, I really don't expect much initiative on their part.

If they were in fact dedicated to the cause of municipal ethics here in Meriden, I would have expected they would have publicly questioned Salafia's participation in the Colony Street parking lot resolution. Perhaps that's not the way the "system" works but when questions like this are not asked, I'd say the system is broken. Much in the way the superdelegates expose a farce of democracy.

COLLEEN CYR, MERIDEN

[eds]

I disagree. Other businesses would benefit as well from that parking lot. There are other places within walking distance that one might go to when parking there.

It is not the goal of ethics to maintain zero benefit to councilors providing a vote for or against a council measure. Many councilors are residents of Meriden and any resolution they vote for or against would stand to benefit them in some way. Unless we require councilors to be non-residents there will always be some degree of benefit received from being a councilor in the city they live in. I would think a requirement of residency goes to help make more good decisions than bad.

[Fit 2 Print]

Public perception on this point is important. It's generally not wise to vote on that which feathers your own nest, in the eyes of many residents.

[Eastside Bill]

This is a blatant conflict of interest and it is not only troublesome that Salafia doesn't recuse himself, but that he doesn't even see the obvious conflict. It is frightening that someone who doesn't grasp the very basics of ethical behavior and appearance (just as important) of ethical behavior is on the city council. Now is putting a parking lot a bad thing? No. It is Salafia's clear conflict between his role as city council member and as private businessman who will benefit from this resolution (and whose business will probably benefit the most from this lot), that is the problem.

I appreciate the letter that pointed this out to us.

[eds]

Ok so what? Even if he removed himself from the vote, would it change anything? Remember the vote is not just his singular vote. Its a vote of many councilors. No one councilor can just vote something in without the approval of the majority of the council. Right? OR did Salafia just vote this himself without any other involvement whatsoever from the council? I think not.

So it is immaterial whether Salafia votes or not. The parking lot is a good idea on the whole and it makes sense. The other council members agree as well, right? Who doesn't think this is a good idea? It is patently obvious that this parking lot is going to benefit Meriden on the whole and not just Salafia singularly. We need more parking downtown if we ever are to make that area a destination. So what's the difference?

This resolution would have been approved with or without Salafia's involvement.

The outcome would be the same either way.

[Fit 2 Print]

It's not about the "outcome"! It's about Salafia's ability to render an impartial vote on an issue directly tied to his source of earnings.

[eds]

If it's not about the outcome then why would his vote matter?

[Eastside Bill]

If it's not about the outcome then why would his vote matter?

eds, this is about common sense and elementary ethical standards. No city councilor should be voting on any tax payer funded project that impacts his own business. Salafia is not on the city council to feather his nest but to be sure that the right thing is done for the city and to be sure that there is no appearance of impropriety. This is a clear appearance of a conflict of interest and why his actions are going unchecked by the city is the next question.

[eds]

maybe his actions are going unchecked because there is no ethics issue to check.

[Tino3]

I agree that Salafia in no way or shape has behaved unethically but it would also make sense for him to refrain from voting on this issue since it does bother some people. He has already given his opinion and shared opinions of citizens who have shared with him. That should be enough. Everybody knows that there is a need for parking downtown. On another note, I think that his new restaurant idea sounds good. I've been to one of his special evening dinners in the past and the food was good. I'm hoping for a revival of downtown Meriden.

[eds]

Wow! Couldn't have said it better myself...

[Tino3]

Thanks you!

[Eastside Bill]

The acid test will be what the Ethics commission decides. If the commission determine that it is fine for Salafia to vote on a project that directly benefits his business, there goes any chance of ever convincing the citizens of Meriden that local government is on the up and up. May the Ethics Commission not let us down!

[alwaysright]

There is absolutely no reason why Mr. salafia should be banned from entering the debate on the parking lot. Sure, his business might benefit- but so would the few others who have managed to hold on by a thread as the city continues to botch revitalization efforts and concentrates on pie in the sky multi-million dollar dream projects.
No developer in his right mind would choose that site to build a brand new building in a dteriorating downtown. And, if one did, where on earth would his tenents and their clients park?

[prince]

First of all, we need the parking in downtown now!!! Salafia should be allowed to speak and vote. He is not feathering his own nest, all of us in Meriden will benefit. Eds you are right on the money. Eastside Bill your opinion might me more if you were Downtown Bill. By the way Bill speak for you self all you want, but leave us out of it. Colleen Cyr are you ever positive about any thing? Is the glass always half empty? Downtown needs HELP! Salafia is leading the charge. Anything that benefits any of the businesses or their customers is long over due. To imply that because he was elected into office by us citizens, he should not be allowed to speak or vote on a public parking lot in our downtown is moronic. Freedom of speech, ever hear of it? Mr. Salafia is showing City staff the the peoples opinion does count. He lives Works and Serves here. I for one thank him for sticking to his task. He has always said he was for Downtown coming back.

[eds]

The acid test will be what the Ethics commission decides. If the commission determine that it is fine for Salafia to vote on a project that directly benefits his business, there goes any chance of ever convincing the citizens of Meriden that local government is on the up and up. May the Ethics Commission not let us down!


You know statements like this are funny. When people like you get the result they want, they think the Ethics Commission can do no wrong. If they don't get the result they want they say Ethics Commission is corrupt. Why is the corrupt-ness of a commission dependent upon the result you think they should deliver base upon your own wisdom. You just want things to go your way no matter what, eh? You must have wisdom that goes way beyond even Solomon's.

[alwaysright]

there is NO conflict. perhaps Ms Cyr should stick to her other pet projects. Would we all rather see a business go under, as so many have?

[collie]

Oh really, Alwaysright, like the pet project of Ms. Cyr's three or four years ago when she filed a complaint with HUD over the City's misuse of CDBG funds? You remember, or do you, the city intended to delve into federal funds given and allocated for first time homebuyers projects on Lewis Avenue and the city council wanted to use the money to tear down occupied and certified for occupancy homes on Lewis Avenue for a linear park? Perhaps you forgot that Ms. Cyr turned out to be right in that case, today there is no linear park but there sure the heck is a first time homebuyer's finished on the involved properties.

[Eastside Bill]

You know statements like this are funny. When people like you get the result they want, they think the Ethics Commission can do no wrong. If they don't get the result they want they say Ethics Commission is corrupt. Why is the corrupt-ness of a commission dependent upon the result you think they should deliver base upon your own wisdom. You just want things to go your way no matter what, eh? You must have wisdom that goes way beyond even Solomon's.


Eds, who ever said the Ethics Commission was corrupt? The Ethics commission does need to see if there is an existing conflict, if Slafia's vote will benefits his business. It is pretty obvious that it will, so he should refrain from voting. This is not a complicated scenario. It doesn't meet that we don't need parking downtown, just that Salafai should not vote to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I don't think you understand the significance of the appearance of impropriety is

Thanks, though, for saying I must have the wisdom of Solomon. I appreciate that!

[eds]

...there goes any chance of ever convincing the citizens of Meriden that local government is on the up and up.


So then could you explain this statement? This is what made me think that if the commission didn't vote the way you think they should, that means that local government is corrupt...i.e. no chance of convincing the people of Meriden that is on the "up and up".

Appearances of impropriety are in the eyes of the beholder. Perception and reality are totally different things. The reality is that Salafia's vote is but one on the council. Its not like its his sole decision. He is not acting alone for his sole benefit. That's how I see it.

[Eastside Bill]

Eds, we just have different views on the importance of ethical behavior and on the appearance of unethical behavior with public officials. Having read the ethical guidelines for state officials, I know that Governor Rell would strongly disagree with your "so what?" position. However, if you think it is fine for public officials to influence and vote on projects that directly impact their checkbooks, (i.e. John Rowland) then you deserve that kind of representation.

[eds]

Eds, we just have different views on the importance of ethical behavior and on the appearance of unethical behavior with public officials. Having read the ethical guidelines for state officials, I know that Governor Rell would strongly disagree with your "so what?" position. However, if you think it is fine for public officials to influence and vote on projects that directly impact their checkbooks, (i.e. John Rowland) then you deserve that kind of representation.


You still don't get it do you. Rowland was getting personal services for his home. That's a little different than "supposed" value for a parking lot which the city will continue to own, eh? I don't see any indictments coming down for Salafia either, do you? So those incidents are totally different, eh?

[Eastside Bill]

Eds, I just think you don't grasp the inherent problem of an appearance of impropriety by government officials. Luckily, I think Mr. Salafia now does.

[eds]

No I guess I don't. I don't look at deceptive appearances. Appearances are always deceptive. I look at intentions. I look at the fruit of the tree to determine its value. I do not simply look at sterile facts without the humanity associated with them. I look at people. I keep the context of the situation in mind.

Part of my training as a firefighter was learn to asses the situation and make a gut determination. You just can't look at facts in a vacuum. It's called situational tactics. My training in armed personal protection has taught me to be situationally aware. You can't provide a hard core set of hard and fast rules to always follow in every situation. Every situation is dynamic, fluid, and never before seen.

So not every situation will be an ethical conflict simply because the situation appears to be that from a cursory glance at the facts. It's the facts you don't know, those that you do not see, that can get you killed, so to speak. There are no unknowns, just facts yet to be discovered. Guidelines are given for those without the situational awareness and tactical training to solve complex problems. That is a "by the book" mentality that will end in disaster.

Being up front and honest about what one is doing, indicates no improper behavior. What one does in the light is good. What one does in the dark is bad. What Rowland did was in the dark. No one knew until later. Salafia's actions were in the open, all cards on the table, and not in the dark.

But you see, to obtain an understanding like this takes a certain aptitude. It takes skill to see the situation from the inside out. To look into a person and see what they are for who they are and understand what they are at a level that even that person may not see.

Ask any police officer if they know how to read people. They read people to save their lives. If they relied on their senses, on what the situation appears to be on the surface, they'll end up dead in a short time.

Some people just don't know how to read people well enough to see the value of who they are and what they are trying to accomplish. They rely on appearance and snap judgments. I guess you are right. That is not me.

[alwaysright]

sure, with one party in office(even if it's mine) we can only be sure of backroom deals, false fronts and liars, cheaters and thiefs.

[eds]

and Martians too...