Council reappoints three to Wallingford Board of Ethics after debate over potential conflicts

The Wallingford Town Council on June 23 unanimously reappointed Sha Dherty, Mary Pquette and John Paul Venoy to three-year terms on the town Board of Ethics, but not before several councilors pressed for a review of the appointments process and whether the town should avoid naming ethics commissioners with financial ties to the town.

Councilor Tata raised the central concern, saying the issue was not the character of the nominees but the potential appearance of a conflict when an ethics board member or their organization receives town money. "If someone on the board of ethics comes before the council at budget season requesting money for his or her nonprofit," Tata said, "will that counselor get a fair shake from the member or will bias exist?"

Councilor Fishbine said recusal has worked in practice for some cases, but suggested the council could also amend the ordinance to bar individuals who are recipients or potential recipients of town grants. "We could easily drop a clause in there that says no member of the board of ethics shall be a recipient or potential recipient of a grant from the town," Fishbine said, while acknowledging such a rule could broadly limit the pool of volunteers.

Mayor Dickinson told the council that ethics commissioners are bound by the town code and can recuse themselves when appropriate; he noted the board has five members and three alternates and said the three nominees had previously served terms without controversy.

After discussion of whether changes to the charter or an ordinance would be required to change eligibility rules, the council held separate roll-call votes. The motion to reappoint Sha Dherty passed unanimously; the combined motion to reappoint Mary Pquette and John Paul Venoy also passed unanimously. The appointees who were present were sworn in immediately.

Councilors asked the administration and the law department to look at the mechanics of recruiting and rotating members and whether ordinance changes are warranted; several members said they supported further review rather than immediate policy change. The council did not adopt any ordinance or charter change at the meeting.