Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics Commission asks board to endorse revisions to Old Lyme code of ethics
Summary
The town's Ethics Commission presented 11 proposed revisions to the Old Lyme Code of Ethics — including clarified definitions of financial and personal interest, a civil probable-cause standard, a $100 gift threshold, and procedural changes — and asked the selectmen to endorse forwarding substantive items to a town meeting.
The Old Lyme Ethics Commission presented proposed updates to the town's Code of Ethics during the Board of Selectmen meeting on March 2, 2026, and asked the board to endorse sending substantive revisions to a future town meeting.
Blue Mangano, who said he has served on the commission for more than two years and chaired it last year, outlined 11 recommended changes that the commission grouped into three areas: administrative or procedural clarifications; language enhancements for clarity; and addition of a disclosure requirement plus a formal definition of probable cause. Mangano said the commission reviewed six neighboring towns' codes and consulted town counsel, and "we didn't take anything out of the code," only clarified or added language.
Key proposals include broadening the definition of "financial interest" so it describes "any pecuniary or material benefit" tied to a town official's decision, and adding an exception for interests shared equally by all similarly situated residents. The commission also proposed expanding the "immediate family" definition to include stepchildren, stepgrandchildren and stepparents, and said gifts should be described as "anything of monetary value, including services in excess of $100 cumulative in any calendar year." On enforcement thresholds, Mangano said the commission would define civil probable cause as "reasonable ground to suspect that a code violation may have occurred," while a finding of an actual violation would require "clear and convincing evidence sufficient to produce a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations."
The commission recommended several procedural clarifications, including specifying terms for alternate members, establishing a term for the ombudsman, permitting the commission itself to respond to advisory-opinion requests (not just the ombudsman), and setting quarterly meetings with officer elections at the first quarterly meeting.
Town counsel Christy Kelly of Sussman & Shapiro reviewed the draft and provided two general edits (use of titles instead of "he/she" and capitalization consistency) and three suggested refinements that the commission adopted. Mangano told the board that items the commission deems administrative could be adopted under existing authority by the commission, while substantive changes (financial/personal interest, probable cause, immediate-family definition, non-disclosure of individual information) would require town meeting approval.
Selectmen thanked the commission for a comprehensive review and agreed to take two weeks to digest the material; the board asked Mangano to join a future meeting by phone if members have follow-up questions. The next procedural step is for the board to decide which changes it will formally endorse to present to voters at a town meeting.
The commission's presentation and the board's request for additional review mean that no substantive change has been adopted yet; the proposal will move forward only after the selectmen and, where required, the town meeting vote.
