A little more than two years ago, Madison’s lack of an ethics commission was a central focus of campaign season. As the town prepares for another municipal election season, the issue is back in the spotlight.

In 2019, questions about disclosure and conflicts of interests arose around a member of the Energy & Efficiency Commission and more accusations were levied against the administration of former first selectman Tom Banisch (R). While no evidence arose of anything untoward, corrupt, or illegal, current First Selectmen Peggy Lyons (D) and many others advocated for the creation of an ethics commission that could provide objective rulings on these kinds of issues, reassuring the public and advising officials on how to avoid even the appearance of conflict. Such a commission could also rule when officials or politicians spread misinformation, as many felt this also happened in 2019.

While Lyons has said she would like to leave the possibility of an ethics commission to an ongoing Charter Review Commission, former state representative and selectman Noreen Kokoruda (R) said that the issue was essentially resolved almost a decade ago, and the current Board of Selectmen (BOS) could put it to rest before it becomes another election-year flashpoint.

Kokoruda said that around 2009, a bi-partisan group of prominent Madison citizens, including former selectmen Peter Pardo and Ed Dowling (Madison’s current police commission chair), put together a comprehensive proposal that would have created an ethics commission.

But apparently, that proposal was never approved, though Kokoruda said there is nothing stopping the current BOS from reviving and approving the proposal.

“What’s really bothersome is, things fall through the cracks,” Kokoruda said. “It’s not a charter issue...We have a great report. There’s no reason why they can’t accept it and vote on it.”

Lyons actually revived the issue, which had somewhat fallen by the wayside through the chaos of the pandemic, in her State of the Town address back in January. In emails to The Source, she added that she planned to bring the issue to a BOS meeting on May 11 following Kokoruda speaking publicly at another meeting.

The ethics issue was not discussed at that meeting and Lyons had not responded to a follow-up email at press time.

Madison’s charter states briefly that “the Board of Selectmen may appoint an ethics commission consisting of no more than five members,” with no other details or mention of that commission’s powers or responsibilities.

In 2009, the state surveyed municipalities and found less than half had an ethics commission. A 2019 bill requiring specific ethics policies in every town passed the Connecticut State Senate, but subsequently died in the lower chamber.

Kokoruda said she felt strongly that the charter shouldn’t mandate anything unless it was necessary, and that an ethics commission created by ordinance was more flexible, responsive, and straightforward.

“Anything you can leave out of the charter, you should,” she said. “The charter, by design, is cumbersome. We want it that way; it’s very serious.”

The Source obtained a copy of the 2009 report from the town—an approximately nine-page document that outlines a mostly advisory role of the potential ethics commission. As described, it would be made up of five members appointed directly by the BOS, with no more than three members from any one political party.

Any townsperson could file an ethics complaint to this commission, which would issue recommendations or dismiss the complaint after an investigation, which would last a maximum of 90 business days. Town officials, or anyone who is bound by the town’s ethics policy, could also request an advisory opinion on any action from the commission using a standard form.

The document also would require officials to sign and acknowledge the town’s ethics policy when being hired or appointed, and added a reference to that policy in the oath of office for elected officials.

Using the 2009 outline would be another way to avoid politicization, Kokoruda added, as it would be hard to frame that document as purposefully advancing one politician’s interest over another more than a decade after it was written. The creation of that outline for the commission was also a non-partisan process, she said, and was meant to satisfy people on both sides of the aisle.

Kokoruda said it took her some time to warm to the idea of pushing forward with an ethics commission. But she said it was especially some of the vitriol in 2019 and how political candidates were able to leverage the ambiguity of what would eventually prove to be relatively innocuous incidents that pushed her to bring it back to the public eye.

“We have to appoint one. You’ve got to put it to rest,” she said.