TOWN OF DUNBARTON

Ethics Committee

Minutes of Pre-Hearing Conference

13 May 2003

 

 

Present:  Jackie Kennedy, Nick Holmes, Scott Ives, Brett St. Clair, Gayle Troy

 

Also present:  Complainants (Town Residents) Debbie Auger, Donna Dunn, Paula Mangini, Judy Petersen; Town Residents Andrew Dunn and David Breault; Raymond Ethics Committee members Gretchen Gott and Marilyn Semple

 

Meeting called to order at 7:30 PM by Co-Chair Brett.

 

Jackie moved, and Nick seconded, that the minutes of both meetings (public and non-public) held on 1 May 2003 be approved, with the correction that no meeting was scheduled for 12 May 2003.  Unanimously approved.

 

Nick explained the purpose of the meeting:  to discuss the procedures and related issues pertaining to the Hearing scheduled for 22 May 2003.  He also explained that no evidence or testimony would be heard until the Hearing on 22 May.

 

Brett announced that all parties to the Hearing were mailed certified letters on 30 April 2003, notifying them of the pre-hearing conference.  Brett has acknowledgements that all parties received these letters.

 

A second letter, also via certified mail, was sent on 2 May 2003.  Brett has certification that all parties except Paula Mangini and Lori Davis have received these letters.

 

Brett also checked the Committee’s mailbox at the Town Offices at 7:15 this evening, and there were no items for the Committee.  He did, however, see that Lori Davis was present in the Town Offices at that time.

 

Nick moved, seconded by Scott, that we proceed even in the absence of the Respondent (Lori Davis), because proper notice had been given of the meeting.  Unanimously approved.

 

Nick went over the recent changes that were made to the Committee’s “Rules Regarding the Conduct of Hearings,” and distributed copies to the Complainants.

 

Nick and Jackie disclosed their possible conflicts of interest regarding Debbie Auger and Lori Davis (respectively).  The Committee asked the Complainants whether they had any concerns about either of these.  All four Complainants indicated that they were willing to accept Nick and Jackie’s assurances that they would impartially judge the facts of the case.

 

Nick asked that the minutes reflect the fact that the Respondent, Lori Davis, has been offered the opportunity (via a letter dated 5/2/03) to read the unredacted complaints.  She has not contacted anyone on the Committee to do so.  This offer remains open until the date of the Hearing.

 

Nick explained that the Hearing will be a semi-formal process, and that the goal is to have all relevant information presented as accurately and succinctly as possible.

 

The Committee determined that it would be difficult to narrow the issues to be discussed, due to the absence of the Respondent.

 

The Committee suggested to the Complainants that, in the interest of using time effectively, they might want to consider using a single spokesperson for various parts of the Hearing (i.e., opening and closing statements).  However, the Committee made it clear that we expect each person to have ample opportunity to present the evidence and witnesses that they felt necessary for their case.

 

Nick asked whether the Complainants were specifically concerned about the first or second paragraph of Provision E of Dunbarton’s Code of Ethics.  The Complainants replied that they have concerns that fall under both paragraphs.

 

Nick distributed copies of a paper titled “Dunbarton Ethics Hearing Procedure” to the Committee and the Complainants.  He then discussed the various parts of the Hearing and answered questions about the format and terminology.

 

The Complainants stated that the believed Police Chief Jeff Nelson might be able to provide relevant testimony, and they would like to have him present at the meeting.  Nick moved, seconded by Gayle, that the Committee send a letter to Chief Nelson requesting his presence at the Hearing.  Unanimously approved.

 

The Complainants were asked whether there were any other Town Officials, Board Members or Employees whose presence should be requested by the Committee.  There were none.

 

Nick asked the Complainants to detail for the Committee what other avenues they had already explored before bringing their Complaints to the Committee.  They responded that they had spoken to the Respondent, and when they did not get the response they were seeking, they went to a regular Selectmen’s meeting and requested to speak to them in non-public session.  The Respondent was present in the Town Offices that night and was asked to join the non-public session four times, and refused.  The Selectmen did not resolve the issue to their satisfaction and recommended that they file a Complaint with the Ethics Committee.

 

Donna Dunn asked how a decision would be communicated and published.  The Committee explained that it would be part of the Minutes of our meeting and would be available on the Town website.  In addition, a copy of the minutes is sent to the Town Administrator and would be kept on file there.  Also, both the deliberation and the decision made by the Committee would be done in public session, and would thus be available to anyone present during the Hearing.

 

Donna Dunn asked whether a Complainant needed to serve as spokesperson, or whether some other person could be substituted.  The Committee decided that the Complainants should bear this responsibility.

 

Debbie Auger asked how discussion could reasonably be held, given the restrictions of the redacted complaints.  After some discussion among the Committee, Nick moved (seconded by Scott) that we refer to “the victim” as “J. Doe” and use the term “the inquiry” to generally describe the situation allegedly referred to by the Respondent.  Unanimously approved.  Brett and Nick will explain these references at the beginning of the Hearing.

 

Nick further explained the “Evidence” section of the “Rules Regarding the Conduct of Hearings.”

 

The Committee discussed how questioning of the opposing side should be done.  Questioning should not be argumentative (designed to make the questioner’s point, as opposed to elicit information); should be respectful; should be aimed at getting to the truth or revealing information without being harassing or insulting; and should use simple terms and avoid compound questions.  There is no requirement for either the Complainants or the Respondents to ask any questions, but the opportunity is available to both.

 

After discussing the potential number of witnesses with the Complainants, it was determined that we would keep the time for the Hearing as already published:  7:30 PM, 22 May 2003, Town Offices.

 

Judy Petersen asked what would happen if the Respondent did not attend the Hearing.  Paula Mangini asked whether the Committee would communicate with the Respondent about what occurred at this meeting.  The Committee responded to both that we would be making decisions about these issues, but that they did not fall under the Pre-Hearing Conference portion of our meeting.

 

Brett moved, seconded by Nick, that we conclude the Pre-Hearing Conference and continue with other business.  Unanimously approved.

 

Brett requested that the minutes reflect the following facts:

 

ü      The Respondent (Lori Davis) received notice on 1 May 2003 (evidenced by a Certified Mail Receipt) of this Pre-Hearing and the Hearing scheduled for 22 May.

 

ü      Alan Rockenback, husband of the Respondent, was present for the Committee’s meetings on April 24th and May 1st.

 

ü      Brett personally saw the Respondent at the Town Offices at 7:15 this evening.

 

ü      Brett’s interpretation, as Co-Chair of the Committee, is that the Respondent chose not to attend this Pre-Hearing Conference.

 

Nick moved, seconded by Scott, that the Committee send another letter to Lori Davis informing her that the Pre-Hearing Conference had taken place and that the Hearing would go forward on May 22nd.  Unanimously approved.

 

Nick asked what the Committee would do if the Respondent is not present on May 22nd at the time the Hearing is to start.  Scott made a motion, seconded by Gayle, that the Committee hold the Hearing and make a decision based on the evidence provided by those who attend, after ensuring that all parties have been properly notified and have been informed that a decision will be made based on the evidence presented.  Unanimously approved.

 

Nick moved, seconded by Gayle, that the letter to Lori Davis referenced above include notice that the Respondent is bound by Provision G of the Code of Ethics to cooperate with the Ethics Committee regarding any complaint or inquiry alleging violation of the Code of Ethics.  Unanimously approved.

 

Scott asked how he should respond to a contact by Steve Abbott.  Nick moved, seconded by Scott, that Brett should be the official Committee spokesperson for all inquiries.  Unanimously approved.  Brett then clarified that any Committee member should be free to confirm that a complaint has been filed and that a Hearing has been scheduled for May 22nd, but that requests for further information should be directed to him.

 

At 8:40 PM, Scott moved, seconded by Nick, that we adjourn.  Unanimously approved.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Gayle Troy for the Committee