Salafia seeks ethic opinion on facade program

[collie]

I don't know what happened but on Friday the R-J website reported (on the stories we're working on mediaplayer and also an article under latest headlines) that Meriden City Councilor David Salafia was seeking another ethics opinion, this time on the downtown facade improvement program. I expected to see the article in Saturday's paper but today is Sunday and still nothing. I don't know what's up with that, but this is going to be really interesting. For one thing, this is not a resolution that five other councilors signed onto, this is a resolution that reporter Adam Wittneburg described as a downtown facade improvement that Salafia recently put forth. The article said: "Salafia first drafted plans for the facade program last September, but it didn't make it onto the council's agenda until this year. The program is intended to help improve the look of their buildings, but Salafia is concerned because John A. LaRosa, who owns his building, could potentially apply for a grant. The city placed 21 Colony Street on the blight list last summer. The rear side of the property, which faces the railroad tracks, has boarded up and broken windows and other problems. City money could help fix the property, but Salafia wants to avoid a conflict of interest."
The Building Facade Program came before the Housing, Economic Development Zoning Committee on February 27th and Salafia abstained from the discussion, which is kind of weird if he originally brought the resolution forward in the first place!
Is this the same, as people on the forum have called it, "rookie error" on Salafia's part that the parking lot resolution was? Does anyone think the Ethics Board might be a bit irritated with Salafia? He was quoted in the paper, re the first ethics ruling, as saying: "I'm going to keep them busy through the remainder of my term," which sounded kind of fresh to me. Salafia sent a letter requesting a hearing last Thursday and wants a decision before the rapidly approaching March 18 HEDZ meeting in which the facade program will be again on the agenda.

[jma]

I gave him the benefit of the doubt by calling it a rookie error. If he plans on keeping the ethics committee busy, he's either an idiot or a smart ass. If he honestly can't figure it out for himself, he's an idiot. If he's asking the ethics committee to make decisions for him, he's being a smart ass by using them. The ethics committee isn't Dave's personal sounding board, and shouldn't be used as such.

[eds]

What's obvious to me is that if we had more politicians on staff like who were as concerned with ethics as Dave is, we would be better off. At least he is taking the time to determine what is and what is not a violation. Remember, there was, is and never will be any fact based finding which will prove any conflict of interest. It is only an opinion of a group of a people. Change the group and you change the opinion. Besides, last time it was nearly a split decision which means that there were people who did not think any conflict existed.

I want to see the building fixed using any means necessary.