At Friday evening’s (Sept. 29) Council on Ethics meeting, all four of the candidates who self-reported potential conflicts of interest were on hand to hear updates on the appointed council’s conclusions — along with First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice and more members of the public than had ever attended an Ethics Council meeting.
After a full-hour of discussion behind closed doors in executive session at a meeting at Comstock Community Center, in a 3-to-1 vote the council declined to revisit the advisory opinion it issued on Sept. 5 regarding Wilton Board of Education (BOE) candidates Heather Priest and Mark Shaner. That opinion indicated there were potential conflicts each had because of their respective spouses’ jobs with Wilton Public Schools, which it suggested could impact their service on the BOE.
Council member Tamara Conway made a motion that the council reconsider the opinion on Priest and Shaner, but that motion was voted down 3-to-1.
The four-member council, which only serves in an advisory capacity and has no statutory power, also gave a unanimous opinion that there was no evidence of potential conflict for Lori Bufano, a BOE candidate whose retired boyfriend sometimes works as a substitute for Wilton schools.
“The couple do not co-mingle their finances,” said Thanh Tsoi, Council chair, noting that Bufano’s service on the board “would not present a financial conflict of interest or a personal conflict of interest.”
All three candidates are running on the Republican ticket, though both Priest and Shaner are registered as Unaffiliated.
Members of the Council of Ethics including, from left, Chair Thanh Tsoi, Tamara Conway, Rhonda Brown, secretary, and Elizabeth Edwards, vice chair. Credit: Jarret Liotta / GOOD Morning Wilton 
First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice said she was in attendance to help the Council on Ethics follow proper protocol with their meeting, which included a one-hour period of executive session. Credit: Jarret Liotta / GOOD Morning Wilton 
A rare showing of members of the public at the Council on Ethics meeting. Credit: Jarret Liotta / GOOD Morning Wilton 
Sharing the Republican ticket for Board of Education are, from left, Mark Shaner, Lori Bufano, and Heather Priest, all of whom were on hand at Friday night’s Council of Ethics meeting. Credit: Jarret Liotta / GOOD Morning Wilton
Board of Selectmen candidate Farah Masani, a Democrat, had also submitted a conflict of interest disclosure to the Council on Ethics, because she is married to Shawn Frendt, who has been a police officer in town for 24 years.
Both Masani and Frendt were in attendance at Friday night’s meeting as well, but there was no discussion held regarding her candidacy.
Others in attendance included Ross Tartell, a Democratic selectman who is running for re-election, and Tom Dubin, Democratic Town Committee chair.
“I’m glad they came to the determination that they did and I’m happy to move forward with the process of being elected to the Board of Education,” Bufano said afterward.
Priest and Shaner were sanguine in their responses.
“It hasn’t changed so I don’t have any further comment,” Priest said.
“It was kind of a non-event,” Shaner added. “They had already issued an opinion.”
Asked about the council’s vote to decline her motion to revisit the opinions on Priest and Shaner, Conway gave no comment.
Council members noted it was literally the first time in years that so many people had attended one of their meetings.
“We are happy the public is interested in the Council on Ethics,” Tsoi said, noting that details about the group can be found on the Town of Wilton website.
Good on the Council on Ethics for holding their ground, in the face of what I’m sure sure was a great deal of lobbying on these candidates’ behalf in advance of the meeting.
I remain extremely curious about why these two chose to run for the BOE, whether those motivations had anything to do with their spouses’ relationship with the WPS administration, and about why the RTC chose to nominate them ahead of other candidates who lack these glaring ethical concerns – did they think voters wouldn’t find out, or that they wouldn’t care? Or was the list of people interested in running for a Board of Education seat as a Republican so short that they couldn’t fill their slots with less conflicted candidates? (the Democrats handled the same situation with P&Z much more gracefully, nominating one excellent, absurdly well-qualified candidate for their guaranteed slot but not insisting on trying to fill every one)
As we go through life, I’m sure we can all agree that our reputation and overall integrity are incredibly important. As always happens, there are some unknown things that could easily happen in the future that were not anticipated today that could bring into question my decision making and judgement. With that in mind, if I were in their position, I would end my candidacy and not risk my good name or integrity being questioned at some future date. It’s just not worth it.
Heather Priest and Mark Shaner informed the Election Board and residents of Wilton that their spouses are teachers in the Wilton Public Schools. When I read of their interest in running for the Board of Education, I was delighted. The Board is made up of interested town citizens and should include members of teachers’ families, who appreciate first hand the demands and pressures and joys of working with students. Their perspectives can contribute much needed understanding when debating various points of view on the Board. If necessary, Heather or Mark could recuse themselves from a vote. It would serve the town’s interest if we let Wilton voters decide whom to elect rather than defer to the opinions of a few who have the power to decide what is ethical. No one has lied or committed fraud or deceived the public. Please reinstate the candidacies of Heather Priest and Mark Shaner in the election of the School Board and let Wilton voters decide who should be on the Board.
Editor’s note: the Council on Ethics does not have regulatory power and cannot stop the candidates from running, so the candidacies do not need to be ‘reinstated’ — they are still candidates currently running for election.