Board of Ethics - Regular Meeting

We are recording. This is the September 16th, 2026 public meeting of the Board of Ethics. It is 7.01 PM and I'm calling the meeting to order. Let's do a quick roll call. We'll start at the table and go around and then I'll get the people on the screen. We have Ira Setchel, Jadabelle Comerford, Ellen Bromley is here with us tonight. Lily Svornin, and we have Anthony Martino, Vito Covelli, Benjamin Fulkenstein.

Correct.

And we have Evan Gutmann and Dennis Torres, and we have Kim Harluck, who is our administrative assistant, and we also have Steve Conover, who is legal counsel. And so I think that this is the first It's been quite a while, but every single member of the board is present for a board of ethics meeting. How fantastic. All right, great. First item on the agenda tonight is the approval of the regular meeting minutes from July 15th, 2026, which was our last meeting. Those in attendance at that meeting were myself, Janabelle, Anthony, Vito, and Dennis. um ellen was there but can uh cannot participate she wasn't sworn at the time of the meeting um so those of us in attendance anybody have any comments or questions relating to the minutes yes i don't recall explaining um it looks like third paragraph what it talks about

Was there a one with me abstaining?

I think you abstained because you hadn't been present at the June meeting.

OK. That's what I was trying to.

OK. OK. Anything else?

Do you have a recollection that you were at the June meeting?

I probably was, yes.

You were at the June meeting?

At the June meeting, I... Hold on.

You can figure this out.

It lets you know I have the July minutes right here, so I'll know whether you were at the June.

You are not at the.

Jimmy and June's vacation, correct?

OK, so that would be why you're safe from voting on those minutes.

OK.

Hearing no other comments, is there a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes from July 15th, 2026? No moves.

Vito moves. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Anthony seconded. All in favor?

Who are permitted to vote? That would be Vito, Anthony, Jonabelle, and myself. And Dennis, any opposed? And all who abstain would be the rest. Evan, Ben, and Alan. Correct. Okay. The minutes are approved. The next item on our agenda is the request for an advisory opinion from Representative Matthew Boudreau.

Yes.

Fantastic. Matthew's here with us tonight. Matthew or Matt, Matt doesn't matter. Matthew sent an email in advance with the advisory opinion request. And so you know how this is going to go from here. We've received your email. We should all have read it by now. And we will ask you some additional questions after you give us a brief presentation about what it is that you're requesting and any additional information you might have.

I'm sure. Thank you. Essentially, I am requesting permission to accept what I guess you could consider a gift, which is attendance to a conference in March. I say you consider it a gift because it won't get complimentary to any elected official. It's not something that's being offered to me specifically, but this is my first time engaging with any sort of thing, so I just wanted to I had some caution here. I read through the Code of Ethics. I didn't see anything in there that caused alarm. There's no relationship with the city of Stanford for policy vote that I foresee having any relationship to this. But I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something, doing something crazy.

Okay, those are going to be my two primary questions. So what is the Fusion Industry Association?

It's a group of companies, for the most part, that are involved in fusion energy and trying to make it work and make it viable. They have an annual conference in Washington, D.C., where they talk about the progress, which also is attended by government officials, primarily, I think, from the Department of Energy, which I am not.

that i also count so okay um and when you say it's a group of companies are any of the companies that are collectively part of the fusion industry association or any of those companies companies that do business or contract with the city of sanford not to my knowledge um i think all of them are pre-revenue so i don't think they're doing business with anything yet okay that's an emerging technology so Stanford does not use fusion energy.

Not to my knowledge. I think even the way it's structured, we would be buying from Eversource regardless, and Eversource would be buying from them if they were to empathetically have a workable reactor, which no one does.

Okay.

Okay.

I'll pass it around to somebody else with me.

So you're just asking for the registration, not for board or transcriptions.

All of that would become registered. That sounds fascinating. I didn't see any conflict. I mean, so far into the future, we're not even involved in that. So I don't see any reason. Are you a scientist or science background? I'm an investment engineer.

Do you have any questions?

Isn't fusion energy more expensive than other sources of energy?

Right now, absolutely. I know another commercial reactor. That's right. I think there are projections from some of the companies I've seen are saying, like, I'm assuming it's all domestic projections, mid-2030s. They expect to have working reactors. We'll see if they hit those targets, but it's not going to be soon.

So it wouldn't be commercially viable for Stanford to be using fusion energy?

And like I said before, I don't think Stanford would be making that decision regardless. I think we buy our power from Eversource, and Eversource would make the decision about where to source it.

If we were to be making that decision, is that anything you would be involved with?

If the city was to be contracting with a

supplier of any sort then yes i think that would be go before the board of representatives to approve that contract right but i guess i'm asking more specifically than just general things that go before the whole board or you want some special energy commission or anything of that sort any special sourcing permission nothing like that i think for this we kind of just have to make it clear because one of their mission statements they say they do want to partner with government so we want to make sure that

I guess if you're going for educational purposes and it's not that we're expecting, they're not expecting for you to make some policy on their behalf. Like, is that the expectation?

I think I made that clear in this. I, at this point, I have absolutely no, I don't foresee any policy changes relating to this.

And we're also talking about five years into the future or more.

Yes.

Also, the main thing that you might be asked to do, although I don't think we're threats members usually are, but you can recuse yourself to be on a selection committee, the purchasing agent might point knowledge to people to a selection committee sometime in the future.

Yeah, I think before, yeah, I think we should reserve the discussion about whether or not there's a violation of the code and how we're going to advise on to whether we should recuse, should be kind of limited to, you know, a But let's start with gathering any additional facts that we think we need, and then we'll take that official position once we've convened on it. Dennis or Evan, do either of you have questions? Yes, Dennis does.

Hi, Matthew. Thanks for coming. I'm sorry I can't be there in person. But I was curious when I read this, does the fusion – um company that's offering this free registration to to all elected officials are you going in your capacity as an elected official or are you going because this is your day job and this is kind of what you do i am not sure how to make that distinction um

The city of Stanford has not asked me to go or authorized me to go or anything like that, so I guess I'm not going in my official capacity. At the same time, since it is a benefit that I am hypothetically taking as a result of being an elected official, that would seem good that I am going in an official capacity. But my motivation for going has really very little, if anything, to do with policy and my role on the board of representatives. So that's kind of a complicated question. And that's something I've been thinking about myself as what exactly is going on here. So that's probably been a very salient point that I would like advice from this board on of, am I in fact going in an official capacity? Am I allowed to represent as such? Or should I be very loudly saying that I'm there in my private capacity so that no one gets any wrong ideas?

Well, what is... What are your thoughts on that? Are you going in your private capacity? My thought on that is my motivation to go from my private capacity. Okay. That's what I thought.

No one from the city of Stanford has asked you to go?

No. I don't have any questions.

components of the definition of that subject what is it that you want to give back job i'm an engineer and um and and stanford elsewhere yeah keep the asml keep the asml stop going nothing a little control over that

What other elected officials, I'm sorry, one more question.

What other elected officials from Stanford have you known? Not to my knowledge. But that, you know. I haven't discussed it with anyone. My understanding of this from you is that, in theory, any elected official can go and get any, and he or she gets complimentary permission.

That's my understanding.

I think it would just be wise to walk through the criteria for source and I think, based on what you've shared, we know the answers to these things, but I just like to confirm that it's accurate so. No one from the fusion association has indicated that they're seeking. any official action by you or that they are expecting or seeking any official action from the city of Sanford?

I will say it's possible that at some point during this conference, there will be proposals made for how they think policy could be changed. I don't think it will be leveraged at me specifically. I am speculating here, so it could not happen at all, but The sort of thing that I would expect to happen at an industry conference is they might say this policy or that policy would help this industry.

But it wouldn't be specifically targeted at Stanford. I wouldn't be targeted at Stanford, but I wouldn't anticipate either that they'd be expecting you or that they'd be saying, take this back to your constituents and pitch this policy. Here's the framework. And that's our expectation in exchange for this.

That's not my expectation.

Okay. And then obviously no one is doing official business or seeking to do official business with you or the City of Stanford at this time and not for the near future because this is an emerging technology. And the Fusion Association does not conduct activity regulated by you? No, because we're not using patient energy. We don't have anyone at Stanford. Okay, that would regulate that. And then also, The last one is sort of a catch-all. Had interests that might be substantially affected by their performance or non-performance of official duties of you or the city of Stanford. And I think that that's unlikely because we don't use fusion energy and aren't about to.

Is that right?

Okay.

Okay.

Does anybody have any other questions?

Okay.

um thank you we will deliberate um and discuss the information that you've given us unless there's anything else you feel we should know based on the questions we've asked i don't think so um you're welcome to stay you don't have to okay okay um so we will open for I think that I would like to approach this discussion since there are so many of us tonight in a more orderly fashion where we sort of go around one by one for comment if anyone has it. I would just ask that when we go around for comment, you orient yourself to the code and try to stay away from just, you know, generally how you feel about it as opposed to whether or not we think that there is potentially a violation of the code here. So as you're immediately to my right, Ben, I will start with you.

I'll pass.

You'll pass?

For now.

Okay. Okay.

That's a chronic method, right?

That's all right. Vito, do you have any comments?

I went through the code. I don't see anything that really sticks out that would apply to this, being that it's a subject matter that we're not even dealing with, won't be dealing with until years into the future. And by then, this term will be over anyway. So from that point, I don't see any violations at all.

Okay.

Anthony?

I would have no concerns about seeing any violations. I wouldn't be though.

No concerns. Educational opportunity.

Same.

Okay.

I couldn't see any boundaries.

Okay. Dennis?

I have no concerns. I'm just stuck on. So there's his work as an engineer makes him interested in this topic and was probably aware of this conference. Most of us wouldn't hear about a fusion conference. That is this something that's in there? that was in their, I don't know, their advertisement that he saw like, oh, elected officials can get in free. I don't have to pay. Is that how this unfolded or did they, I probably should have asked him. I'm sorry.

He's still here. Matthew is still here. Do you want to ask?

Yeah. So Matthew, were you invited as an elected official or was this in the materials and you saw it and you're taking advantage of an opportunity to for education and not have to go use out a packet?

I was not personally invited. It was something that I saw unsubscribed to their mailing list just to get general industry updates. And it said in the mail that would be complimentary for government officials. And I was like, ah, educational opportunity, as you said.

It was reactive on my part.

OK, that's helpful. Thanks. I have no more questions.

With the majority, I don't see any issues with the code.

Just a quick question.

Are you aware of any city policy or procedure that you receive on the board of reps that prohibits you from, like, using the fact that you're an elected official to get benefits that are available to?

I am not. We did a ethics training, but I think they just pointed us back to the Code of Ethics, which I'm on screen now, and I don't believe that says anything about it.

That could be... Yeah, so...

Yeah, so I just wanted to, okay, so I don't see any issue either. I'm just going to directly go through a couple sections of the code. Based on the information you provided, it doesn't appear that you're being asked to take any official action. So section 19-4 of the code is not implicated, and in any event, you don't have any economic interest in this fusion energy company, nothing to gain. And then for prohibited interest, section 19-5, It states that a city officer or employee may not use such person's official position to advance or impede private interest or to grant or secure or attempt to grant or secure for any person, including for such person, any form of special consideration, treatment, exemption, or advantage in violation of established written city policy procedure or legal requirement. I suppose someone could say that there's a private interest to be gained and This is sort of not financial. I'm not really able to define these terms, treatment exemption or advantage, but would one of those be satisfied by the benefits of a free attendance to this conference? It doesn't appear that there's any written policy or procedure or nowhere else in this code that prohibits him from attending. So I think section 19-5 is not problematic. And then going down to the section on gifts, as Ben noted, section 19-9. First of all, I don't think that based on the answers when we walk through the definition of prohibited source, that the Fusion Energy Association constitutes a prohibited source under the code. No one has asked Matthew to provide confidential information. No one's asking for an official action. or influencing any judgment because we're not even near interacting with fusion energy in Stanford. And while this is greater than $50, this is not a prohibited source. So I think no problem under the code. Ben, do you have thoughts? I do have one thought. Have one thought.

And that goes back a little bit away from where we're going to get away from gifts and touch on a point that you were quoted in 1905.

Right.

Right. And said, there's an intent here by you to do that, Matthew. But, you know, it does say that city officers may not use such person's official position to secure for any person, including such person, any form of special consideration.

In violation.

You always do this. In violation of established written city policy. So the question is, and I know you asked the question whether there is anything on the board whether there's been any signaling from the board of reps as to what they should do vis-a-vis these kinds of limitations. And that's, I'm assuming that's where the question is going.

Correct.

That was the question, yeah.

Right, that's the only concern that I have, but that's, yes, I hear you. Otherwise, I'm here with you. That's the only sort of- I think that if- We don't have the definitions, obviously, private interests it's becoming very meta.

Correct.

I think that we could always write the opinion.

If you can check some other.

That we have not been advised of any policy or procedure other than the code itself, which does not appear to cover this, but if you become aware of. I guess the other question is, is this advancing or repeating a private interest?

Is this advancing a private interest? Well, saving money, that's actually right.

Okay. Are private interests something other than economic?

Don't get me started. Don't get me started. Total special consideration. Or to grab a secure special consideration. It's not necessarily about private interests.

Right. But if you advance a private interest, you don't need to get to security or attempting to secure a special consideration and violation.

We don't have to look at the definition of private interest to look at special consideration and getting a discount because you were an elected official setting aside the issue of city policy is a special consideration.

That doesn't appear to violate.

Right, because there's no city policy that we know of. All right, we're done. We're done with the legal issues.

Like we can think of other circumstances, but if I just made it an easier circumstance, like what if Lifetime Fitness allowed Board of Reps members free membership? Like a student discount. Right. Assuming Lifetime Fitness has absolutely no tie to the city or any other relationship or board and is not being regulated. Right, right. Let's make it easier. Let's say the Norwalk Lifetime Fitness.

Skye's on a door walk.

Skye's on a ship too. To anyone, to anyone with, who's a board of reps member in a city.

Would that be?

But I mean, I think we'd be looking at gifts then at that point, because what would be the point of Skye's on offering that discount, but to.

Thank you for your service.

I don't know.

And then that's a big exact exception to drive. No, no, no. Well, it's sensational, but it's also, it's still a trade group that is advancing this particular energy. Right, right. I'm just saying it's not purely, and I'll do it purely out of the goodness of their heart. Right. But nothing in the code as written seems to be affected by, it seems to affect this particular issue.

um being mad change your mind if it's if it's said that if you wanted to attend online it's free to everybody why would that why why do you ask i was curious how does that make a difference to you it's educational um but he wants to go first do that a gift in the same way would you consider that a special treatment in the same way if you go it doesn't have to be selected official staff

It was free for everybody to attend at the same time.

I have no interest in those comments.

No offense.

Even if they were paying me money.

It would have been to deny an opportunity for education.

No, no, no.

Well, look, if it was an educational opportunity hosted by someone that contracts with the city, it's not an escape hatch that it's an educational opportunity. um if there's some official action that could be taken for that company by hosting us there and paying for the fees so there's nothing in the code that says if it's an educational opportunity well you have to prohibit a source uh uh language correct regardless of anything else right nothing says if you're going for educational purposes it's not a violation of the code i don't think that exception exists not in that particular um not in that section right

Yeah.

OK, so. Anybody else any comments?

Dennis Evans, sorry my back was to you.

I'm good.

I said I saw no conflict. Then I'm going to make a mega motion. So everybody. Buckle up. I move. that the board issue an advisory opinion finding based on the information that has been provided to us that really what is implicated by this advisory opinion request are sections 19-5 and 19-9 of the code. Under 19-5 prohibited interest, we find that we are not aware of any city policy that would prevent a board of representatives member from attending a conference for free by nature of their being a elected official. And as a result, because we're not aware of any city policy prohibiting that specifically, and the code does not otherwise appear to prohibit it, which is a policy that the board is covered by, section 19-5 is not violated by representative Boudreau attending this conference. As it relates to Section 19-9, prohibited gifts, it does not appear that Sections A or B have been violated, not Section A, because this is a very distant, very expensive prospect for an energy use that Stanford is nowhere near to adopting. People nationwide, I'm assuming, are invited to go as elected officials at all levels of government. There's been no requests for an exchange of confidential information, a vote, an official action, or anything else to be influenced by the attendance. Also, for all the same reasons, the fusion energy association is not a prohibited source, such that 19-9 is not violated.

Is there a... Ben, second. Any discussion? Hearing nothing, all in favor? That's everybody. Okay. Any opposed?

Any abstentions? That's zero and zero. Okay.

I am going to assign this advisory opinion to Ellen. I'm going to assign it to Ellen, but Ellen, don't worry.

You can work with me on it, okay? I will send you forms and you will see that it's . And you will also receive . If I don't have a prohibited gifts one, I will ask you for it. And in addition, you will have the benefit of this recording and the entire opinion that I've just stated on the record. All right.

And my minutes, which will be done by the end of the week.

And Ben's minutes, which will be done by the end of the week. So all of those things will assist. Okay. Okay. Moving on to the next agenda item.

How many board members are there? Nine? No. Yes. Okay. Sorry. Nine, zero, zero.

Okay.

Okay. The last item on the agenda is there was a complaint that was received by the board on August 6th. There is a desire by the respondent to exercise rights under 19-14 to be heard in a specific manner. And there is an inability to provide their fulsome response. with sufficient time prior to the expiration date for our consideration of the complaint, which is October 5th. And when I am permitted to say publicly, as it relates to the extraordinary circumstance, is that there is The response cannot be submitted sooner because the representative for the respondent has made requests to various departments for documents that are not in their possession and control, but that are necessary to refuting the allegations of the complaint. And the respondent has not yet received the requested information and their inability to respond sooner is therefore due to matters beyond their control. So the request is for an additional 30 days to November 4th for the Investing Committee to issue a decision as to probable cause. And in order to approve this request under Section 19-14 , four members of the Board must vote to approve it. And I will quickly state the basis for approving it, which is Upon extraordinary circumstances, reasonable extensions of time to any of the time limitations specified herein, if not controlled by state law, may be granted by the board upon a vote of four city members. And then we have to give written notice to the respondent of the exception. So with that, sorry.

I'm sorry, does the complainant also get a notice of that?

yes well we will notify everyone i mean what the code required the code just says um respondent and the complainant yeah um okay so with that presentation um i guess are there four members of the board that would be willing to grant the extension of time i see a lot of head john abel would approve it and ellen would approve it um yes and ben would approve it and evan would approve it okay so that's that's four Votes in favor. So as to the August 6th complaint, there was a vote of four members to extend the time to issue a decision on probable cause to November 4th, 2026. That being the rest of our business, is there a motion to adjourn? Moves, is there a second? If you don't second, You know seconds and this meeting is adjourned at 736 PM.