While it’s often hard to find residents interested and willing to run for seats on Wilton’s Boards and Commissions, this year’s election campaign includes four candidates who did step forward to run for seats on two Wilton boards — but who may have conflicts of interest that could impact what they can do as board members, based on their relatives who work for the Town of Wilton in some capacity.
It’s a question the Wilton Council on Ethics is deciding and initial actions from the Council seem to indicate — at least for two of those candidates — that there could be considerable conflicts of interest if elected to their posts. Wilton residents and the candidates themselves will learn more tonight, Friday, Sept. 29, when the Council holds a meeting at 5:30 p.m. at Comstock Community Center.
Who are the candidates in question? There are four:
- Mark Shaner, an Unaffiliated voter running for Board of Education (4-year term) on the Republican ticket, is married to a teacher in the Wilton Public Schools.
- Heather Priest, an Unaffiliated voter running for Board of Education (2-year term) on the Republican ticket, is married to a teacher in the Wilton Public Schools.
- Farah Masani, a registered Democrat running for Board of Selectmen (4-year term) on the Democratic ticket, is married to a police officer with the Wilton Police Department.
- Lori Bufano, a registered Republican running for Board of Education (4-year term) on the Republican ticket, is in a relationship with a person who works as a substitute with the Wilton Public Schools.
All four candidates have submitted self-disclosures to the Council of Ethics, as suggested by the Town’s Code of Ethics, the ordinances “that establish clear standards of ethical conduct for all who serve the town,” including town employees and officials.
The Code states that during the election process, candidates are “encouraged” to disclose anything that might “impair their ability to perform” the office they are seeking.
In this story, we take a look at each of the situations in front of the Council on Ethics.
Mark Shaner and Heather Priest
Shaner and Priest submitted disclosures to the Town Clerk on Aug. 18. According to Council records, the candidates indicated that if they serve on the BOE and a “potential conflict of interest were to arise, they would recuse themselves or seek an Advisory Opinion from the Council.”
The Council considered the disclosure at a meeting on Sept. 5, and issued one joint advisory opinion about both candidates on Sept. 11. (That opinion is not online but GMW obtained a copy from the Town Clerk and has posted it at the end of the story.)
The minutes from an Emergency Meeting of the Council on Sept. 18 indicate that one member, Tamara Conway, made a motion to revisit the opinion, although no reason was provided. The agenda for tonight’s meeting indicates that the opinion will be discussed again and potentially revised.
In its Sept. 11 opinion, the Council examined whether a conflict of financial or personal interest truly did exist if a BOE member was married to a WPS employee, and if so, would any option to mitigate that conflict provided in the Code of Ethics be enough?
The code defines financial interest as “an actual or potential economic gain or loss, which is neither de minimis [minimal] nor shared by the general public, that accrues to an official or employee, to a relative, or to a business.”
Personal interest is any that represents an “actual or potential noneconomic benefit or detriment, which is neither de minimis nor shared by the general public, that accrues to an official or employee, to a relative, or to a business.”
The decision indicated that, based on definitions in the town’s Code, the Council saw a conflict of interest for BOE members related to district employees by blood, adoption or marriage, both financially and potentially personally.
“It is the opinion of the Council that … serving as a BOE member when a relative is employed by the Wilton Schools presents a potential Financial Conflict of Interest and/or a Potential Personal Conflict of Interest” when deliberating on any personnel-related decision, the Council wrote.
Among the main points made in the Sept. 11 advisory opinion (emphasis added):
- Decisions that would present a conflict in this situation, and “greatly impact any ability of the BOE member in question to participate in multiple Board responsibilities” included decisions on “the number of [employee] positions, appraisal of performance or remuneration… creating or abolishing positions, establishing policies for employment…” and considering and voting on the school budget.
- Recusal from all personnel-related deliberations, decision-making and actions would “likely be [an] ineffective remedy.” That’s due, the Council wrote, given “the number and significance of personnel-related matters” that are part of the BOE members’ responsibilities.
- Asking for an advisory opinion each time a personnel-related decision came before the board would be “inefficient and unproductive” and the workings of the BOE “would be substantially impacted” if every personnel-related decision had to be postponed until the Ethics Council ruled.
- Regardless of whatever remedy the Board member took, the Council wrote that it “would not be sufficient to eliminate the appearance of personal Conflict of Interest” because that person would have access to related information.
The opinion concluded with a statement referring to how the Ethics Code “encourages candidates for public office to ‘disclose’ any potential conflicts to voters.
The Council did not go as far as suggesting whether or not Shaner and Priest should run or serve on the Board of Education.
Shaner and Priest released a statement following the release of the council’s advisory opinion. That statement appears on social media but is not posted on the Republican Town Committee‘s website or its “Meet the Candidates” page. Shaner and Priest said it was circulated in RTC emails.
The statement also was submitted to GOOD Morning Wilton on Sept. 22 for consideration of being published as paid content; that statement appears today.
In that statement, Shaner and Priest write that transparency and clear communication is a “centerpiece” of their campaigns. They say that being married to teachers in Wilton Schools offers them a “unique vantage point” and that they are proud of their spouses and reference them in their campaign literature “for good reasons.”
“The perspective we gain from educators in our families will add valuable insights for us as members of the BOE; it will help us improve schools and BOE functioning,…” they wrote.
Shaner and Priest acknowledge contacting the Council of Ethics to disclose their situations. “We made clear to the Council who we are and what we are doing, and we offered to be of help to the Council should it need more information.”
Shaner and Priest write that they are “comfortable that we can serve the town well while complying with the Code.”
As an example they refer to the next Wilton’s teachers’ contract negotiation in 2026, and write that only one board member out of six is required to participate, “so it is straightforward for us to recuse ourselves from this board responsibility.” They later add “…any potential conflicts will be addressed transparently, as and when they arise, by following the procedures outlined in the Code.”
Their statement refers to the Council on Ethics’ “suggestion” that they “continue to be transparent and talk with voters about the situation and how we will handle any potential conflicts. Where recusal is required, we will recuse ourselves. If a matter is ambiguous, we will seek an advisory opinion as outlined by the Code, and all of this will be open and posted to the BOE website,” and add, “Transparency is not just a buzzword to us. It’s why we are running.”
They do not include or refer to any of the other conclusions in the Council’s opinion, about when and how much such conflict would impact board operations or that the remedies could be “inefficient,” “unproductive” or “not sufficient.”
While negotiation on the teachers’ contract involves just one member, the final contract requires all BOE members to vote on its approval.
Some other specific BOE member responsibilities related to personnel include:
- Performance evaluation and contract extension of the superintendent, who is the ultimate supervisor over a potential board member’s spouse
- Decisions on adopting the budget — the largest component of which is teacher salary; discussion of all other items as part of the budget is impacted by how many teachers there are (or directly impacts how many teachers are employed) and how large a component that salary line is. Can a potential board member with a district spouse be completely impartial or participate in any part of budget setting and approval?
- Approval over other operational questions — for example, Middlebrook block scheduling, or changes in administrative leadership at particular buildings… board members have approval on many of those decisions and input on many others
- Curriculum changes and development which may impact the spouse directly or indirectly
- Policy changes, most are routine but some involve personnel
- The board often meets in confidential executive sessions to discuss litigation and sensitive personnel issues — there is potential for serious damage if that confidentiality isn’t maintained, let alone the appearance of possibility it may not be kept
Should two of the six-person BOE need to recuse themselves on several major discussions or votes, that potentially could mean just four members alone will take part in active discussions or make major approval decisions.
GOOD Morning Wilton reached out to both Shaner and Priest for comment on the conclusions drawn by the Council on Ethics; on some of the other board responsibilities such as those listed above from which they might have to recuse themselves; and what they want voters to know about the possibility of that happening either on occasion or often?
In response, they co-signed an email with the following comment:
“We (Heather and Mark) have already addressed these issues, including in our jointly written article published one week ago and circulated on social media and in RTC emails (we submitted the same statement to GMW on Sept. 22, but it has not yet been published*).
“In addition, we and the RTC sought guidance on our situation from the Executive Director and General Counsel of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE), Patrice McCarthy. Ms McCarthy’s input was 100% consistent with the approach we outlined in our statement which reflects the due diligence we conducted prior to and since becoming candidates for the Board. Specifically, the applicable Connecticut statutes prohibit only employees, and not spouses of employees, from serving on a board that employs them, and there is no legal conflict unless the voting person would directly benefit from his or her vote in a way different from the group as a whole.
“We have made clear that we will go beyond these legal requirements; we have proactively disclosed our relationships, and remain transparent and open about them. More generally, we believe the Board can be more transparent and less partisan so that it focuses primarily on what’s in the best interest of the town and our students.
“No one who lives in Wilton, pays taxes, or has a child in the schools can be completely impartial. We’re for Wilton, for Wilton Public Schools, and for ensuring the schools deliver the best possible outcomes for all our students.“
GOOD Morning Wilton has reached out to Patrice McCarthy, who confirmed what Shaner and Priest wrote was correct.
*Editor’s note: that statement appears in GMW today, as sponsored content.
Farah Masani
Masani said she submitted her disclosure and request for an advisory opinion to the Town Clerk on Tuesday, Sept. 19. According to the town clerk’s office, Council of Ethics Chair Thanh Tsoi picked up Masani’s request one week later, on Tuesday, Sept. 26. Masani’s disclosure is not listed on the agenda for Friday evening’s meeting.
Tsoi told GMW that discussion and review of Masani’s request is “expected to be included in a future meeting that has not been scheduled yet.”
As such the Council has not issued an opinion on Masani’s situation.
GMW reached out to Masani who said that she contacted the Council on Ethics because she “recognize[s] that I may have a ‘financial interest or personal interest’ in certain matters relating to the Police Department.” She said she requested the Council “advise on which issues I should recuse myself.”
In response to questions about what specific areas would present a conflict of interest because her husband works for the Wilton Police Department, Masani listed the following:
- Any matters relating to the budget of the Police Department, especially insofar as budget decisions can affect staffing, programmatic, or strategic matters that might in the short or longer term affect Police Department employees.
- Any matters relating to salaries or benefits of the Police Department employees.
- Any matters of significant strategic importance for the Police Department.
- Any matters that could affect the day-to-day job responsibilities of the Police Department employees.
- Any matters relating to the discipline, training, or management of the Police Department employees.
- Any matters relating to the management or employment of the Police Department employees, especially members of the department who are senior to my husband such as the Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief etc. etc.
- Any capital expenses that might affect the Police Department employees, including as it relates to the design, management, or modification of existing or new buildings.
- Any other matters on which the Council foresees potential financial or personal interest due to the fact that my husband is employed by the Police Department.
Masani pointed to the fact that there is a separation between the BOS and the police department in the form of the Police Commission. “I believe there are limited conflicts because of the exclusive powers of the Police Commission, as defined in the Town Charter.”
She pointed to Article III Sections 25-7 and 25-8 of Wilton’s Town Charter, which outline the “exclusive powers” of the Police Commission, including oversight of personnel.
Those Town Charter sections “reserve several important decision areas to the Police Commission rather than to the Board of Selectpersons. I believe that mitigates most (but not all) circumstances of potential conflict,” she wrote.
One area of oversight the BOS does have over the Police Department is in the appointment of police commissioners. In that case, Masani said, “I am willing to recuse myself for these decisions and follow the guidance of the ethics council.”
In fact, the BOS is responsible for the negotiation and the approval of two of the police contracts: for wage and other terms of employment, and for the pension. In addition, the BOS determines the recommended police budget submitted to the Board of Finance, both operating expenses and operating capital.
Whether that is a significant enough portion of the budget deliberations to impact Masani’s involvement with considering the entire budget is a question the Council will need to examine.
Masani’s statement to GMW referred to her husband’s service as a Wilton Police Officer as “amazing” and noted their volunteer work together in the community.
“I understand there may be a conflict with me running for BOS and him being a town police officer. This is why I have reached out to the Wilton Council on Ethics for advice on which issues I should recuse myself from,” Masani wrote, adding that any conflict would be “limited, manageable and recusable.”
She added that she takes her ethical responsibilities under the charter “seriously.”
Lori Bufano
Bufano submitted her disclosure to the Council via the Town Clerk — “approximately one month ago” she said — and the Council called an Emergency Meeting on Sept. 18 to discuss it and review a draft of an advisory opinion, according to minutes posted on the town website. It is also on the agenda to be discussed and possibly voted on at tonight’s meeting.
The minutes indicate nothing regarding what the council discussed or how they would advise Bufano.
There is a distinction in Bufano’s case, as she is not married to her partner who works as a substitute in the Wilton schools. Wilton’s Code of Ethics details the potential conflict that could arise for a town official related to a town employee, and specifically defines a relative as “a person related … by blood, adoption or marriage.”
In response to GMW‘s request for comment, Bufano said she filed “for full transparency.” However, reading the Code of Ethics literally, she said she believes it “does not apply to my situation.”
As a result, Bufano wrote, “[I] don’t think I would have to recuse from any voting.”
Documents
Below is the advisory opinion issued by the Council on Ethics regarding Shaner and Priest’s disclosures. The advisory itself covers both candidates, but it was sent individually to each candidate, so we have included both.
UPDATE: The article was updated to include more specific responsibilities of a member of the Board of Selectmen in relation to the Police Department, with regard to budget.
October 24, 2023: The article was updated to remove original documents of the ethics council advisories that the town had provided in September, with new documents from the town that redacts addresses of the individuals.
This is pretty damning – a LONG list of potential conflicts – and ought to be reason enough not to vote for either Shaner or Priest. Even if you have no problem with Republicans in general, we can’t have 2 members of the BoE who are effectively unable to participate in a large portion of the BoE’s decision making; it’s a hard enough job even with 6 fully-engaged members.
(it also seems to vindicate my theory that they moved Ms. Priest to the 2-year slot over ethics concerns; if they’re going to sacrifice 2 of their 4 slots to candidates with massive ethical conflicts, then logically they’d want one of those slots to be the 2-year one)
I know we have WPS teachers who live in neighboring towns serving capably on those towns’ Boards of Education; if Shaner and Priest feel the need to get into politics, perhaps they might consider moving?
I think the Ethics Commission opinion overshot the mark on this one.
These candidates aren’t judges, where even the “appearance” of a conflict can adversely affect their ability to core function to be objective and impartial adjudicators. These are volunteer candidates for a Wilton town board, where Wilton’s conflict standard requires facts showing a non-de minimis personal or financial interest in a matter before them that is not shared amongst other voters or board members, as opposed to the “appearance” of such facts or matters.
Relying on this “appearance” standard made the commission’s advisory opinion a bit overbroad and overreaching. First, the opinion posits that the mere existence of spousal employment somewhere in the organization under the board’s jurisdiction creates an untenable risk of ubiquitous and irreconcilable conflicts for most of that board’s functions. Then the opinion then leaps to the supposition that recusal would be an inadequate remedy for the “apparent” conflicts. Advisory opinions have to speculate on some level, but the opinion’s analysis could have used more grounding in the applicable standards.
The mere appearance or perception of a conflict does not mean that a conflict necessarily exists under Wilton’s Ethics Code. A conflict under the Code requires facts showing that a matter impacts a candidate or their spouse personally or financially on a non de minimis basis not shared by other similarly situated persons. Recusal may or may not be required, or adequate, depending on the circumstances. A fact-specific determination is required. Applied here, the sole fact that a candidate’s spouse is an employee of the Wilton school systems does not make most BoE actions automatic legal conflicts, let alone suggest they are irreconcilable or require recusal in every instance. This even includes some employment, disciplinary, and budget decisions.
Take a few examples. An obvious conflict would be a candidate board member voting on a spouse employee’s contract, compensation, employment or discipline. This narrow example set leaves many more matters and examples open for discussion.
Take more attenuated examples addressed by the opinion to varying degrees: Can we assume that the hiring, firing or discipline of other WPS faculty impacts the employee spouse or board member in a non-de minimis way not shared by other employees or board members? Can we presume that the candidates cannot or will not take confidentiality obligations seriously enough to not discuss sensitive or executive session matters with an employee spouse? Can we assume that the adjustment of the myriad other school budget items will meaningfully impact a spouse teacher’s financial interest in compensation, which usually fixed by contract negotiations outside of the regular budget process? Can broadly assume that the panoply of other BOE decision-making activities on curriculum, scheduling, policies, administration, etc., applicable to WPS as a whole, or even just the spouse teacher’s specific school, grade or taught subject, creates a personal or financial interest giving rise to a legal conflict?
I think the reasonable default answer to these questions should be “no,” absent specific facts indicating a non-de minimis personal or financial interest. The ethics commission reverses the analysis by first assuming a conflict exists because of the “apparent” interests engendered by the spouse’s employment, regardless of actual triggering or attenuating facts. I certainly do not believe these examples are automatic legal conflicts under the Wilton standard, let alone ones precluding recusal as a remedy, as the ethics commission appears to suggest. To the extent reasonable minds disagree on these types of broader or “apparent” conflict questions, the issues are for voters to evaluate as part of the candidate’s qualifications for office.
Finally, it’s worth noting that Wilton is blessed by a dedicated group of unpaid volunteers manning its boards and commissions, but the pool of interested and qualified candidates has been shrinking over the 13 years I have lived in the town. We voters expect our governing board members to be qualified with relevant skills, experience and perspective. We also expect them to have strong ties to the community to represent us and our interests by sharing those interests, provided they don’t rise to the level of a conflict under Wilton’s Ethics Code. Finally, we expect board members to be transparent and proactive in discussing potential conflicts and addressing them, as these candidates are doing here.
I look forward to seeing how the Ethics Commission continues its analysis, hopefully with the above points in mind.
“Can broadly assume that the panoply of other BOE decision-making activities on curriculum, scheduling, policies, administration, etc., applicable to WPS as a whole, or even just the spouse teacher’s specific school, grade or taught subject, creates a personal or financial interest giving rise to a legal conflict?”
If the spouse is opinionated about these things – and there’s no reason to think that either of theirs are not (indeed, I hope at some point before the election to see GMW dig into their spouses’ relationships with the WPS administration – and any specific issues they might have with them – in more detail) – then yes: you’re creating a situation where if a faculty member disagrees with a particular policy, rather than work that out through the normal channels, they can try to change it through their spouse. Which creates an unholy mess of management issues – now this one coworker’s voice gets to speak louder than their colleagues, colleagues with problems might go to that coworker instead of their boss, bosses will be reluctant to criticize them because they don’t want to stir up trouble with the BOE… wrangling the MB faculty is fraught enough already without adding all of that into the mix.
And again, these are, as you say, unpaid volunteers, and even simply providing oversight of these issues (let alone filling for any recusals) is creating a great deal more work for other BOE members; whatever contributions you think these two can make have to be offset by the amount of extra energy required on everyone else’s part to juggle the ethical problems created by their presence on the BOE.
As a Wilton citizen for 30 years and has seen it all, it appears the only transparent candidate for office in Wilton is Farah Masani who is a Democrat. There are clear regulations that were ignored by the Republicans and the Ethics Commission have every right to question. This is no minor issue that can be explained with an attorney’s counter claim of innocence by improper translation of the Town’s ethics code.
Every Appointed or Elected Board Member or Commissioner is required to read the Code of Ethics and Swear an Oath in front of the Town Clerk and a Witness that they will follow the Code prior to partaking in their Duties for the Town of Wilton.
It is not a “suggestion”. It is not a “promise”. It is an Oath of Office.
Codes of Ethics establish Public Trust. While these Candidates for Public Office think they would be able recuse themselves, the “Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions”. And burdening other BOE or BOS members with their (frequent?) recusals is not fair and equitable.
I do not completely agree with Mr. Lawrence. The Board of Selectmen and the Board of Education may deliberate on matters that are quasi-judicial in nature (for example, contracts), and therefore can be challenged in state court. That *does* make members somewhat like “judges”.
Here is one question that Voters can think about that is not discussed in the article:
Often for Public Hearings we do not have full attendance of all sitting members. If the BOE members who do not have Conflict of Interests are not in attendance, and the members who have Conflicts are in attendance, what happens to the Public Hearing if almost all the remaining members have to step out for the Hearing?
Considering the recent Ethic Violations we have had on the national stage, with a former President attempting Insurrection, and a current sitting President’s indicted son who has a reported close relationship with his father, I do not think it is overreach by the Town Ethics Council for their advisory opinion and is a product of a well-functioning Democracy.