New London ethics board's bizarre attempt to punish free speech

Just when I thought things could not get any more wacky in New London, comes word that the city's Board of Ethics is threatening to find Reid Burdick in violation of a gag order and fine him up to $10,000 for talking to and sharing information with - me.

First off, the Board of Ethics does not have the authority to issue orders about who citizens can talk to and what they can talk about. That authority is reserved for the courts, and even a judge's ability to interfere with free speech is very limited.

Second, I don't know that I can recall a more outrageous abuse of power by a board charged with of all things, enforcing ethics. This is all about Burdick having the audacity to challenge the board, pure and simple.

Third, the board's allegation - that Burdick "knowingly breached the confidentiality required of the Ethics process" - is groundless because he never filed a formal complaint.

Three strikes, you're out, take your board and go home.

Some background. In September Burdick, a man long active in city politics and its civic life, a sometimes gadfly and New London's director of emergency management, presented a letter to the Board of Ethics. While the letter opens with, "Kindly accept this ethics complaint ...", it was not the official form prescribed by the board, the one that is signed under penalty of false statement. It was a letter.

The motivation was the complaint filed on behalf of city Police Chief Margaret Ackley by her attorney, Shelley L. Graves. The chief, you recall, had accused then-City Councilor Michael Buscetto III of interfering in her department. The ethics complaint charged that Buscetto should have excused himself from discussions about Ackley's complaint.

In his letter, and in meeting with the board, Burdick contended board members had their own conflicts because some had supported or opposed Buscetto politically or voiced opinions about Ackley's performance. And, yes, he told me about it and showed me the letter. He expressed his concerns and I shared my opinion that these local ethics boards often have inherent conflicts and that a regional board would make more sense. That subject - creating a regional ethics board -was the topic of a Sept. 21 editorial.

Isn't the First Amendment all about freely sharing and debating ideas?

After the election Ackley dropped the ethics complaint and that, seemingly, was the end of matters, at least until Dec. 8 when the board voted unanimously to issue their ethics complaint against Burdick.

I called board Chairman K. Robert Lewis to talk about it. He said the rules wouldn't let him talk, either.

Board member Brian Giesing, who was not in attendance when the board voted to pursue the Burdick matter, questioned at a recent meeting whether there were any legal grounds to pursue the issue since Burdick never filed a formal complaint.

He also noted Burdick presented his concerns at the public comment period of the meeting and said he fears the board's actions will make others reluctant to step forward and speak freely. Good point.

To back its case against Burdick, the ethics panel points in documents to a 2007 Office of State Ethics Advisory Opinion. Unfortunately for them, they either misinterpreted or misrepresented the opinion.

In the advisory opinion the state board points to this court precedent: "Penalizing an individual for publicly disclosing complaints about the conduct of a governmental official strikes at the heart of the First Amendment … such a prohibition would be unconstitutional."

Therefore, the state board found, "it would violate the first amendment to prohibit a complainant from disclosing the contents or substance of a complaint …"

In other words, the board can't stop Burdick from talking to me or anyone else about his concerns.

Trying to punish Burdick on this silly charge of releasing confidential information has the appearance of a witch hunt. Burdick's letter concerned a broad principle, not confidential details of any alleged misconduct.

The board has continued the matter until Jan. 23. It should vote to drop it then.

Paul Choiniere is editorial page editor.