New Haven Independent

This question has been discussed at five public meetings over the past two months. Finally, a decision has been reached. And the answer from the ZBA is yes, but only as long as one of the firm’s chief court attorneys, David Doyle, keeps the case. Two attorneys on the ZBA—- including Joshua Brown, the chair who two weeks ago publicly expressed serious concerns about the firm staying on— said they knew Doyle as a litigator. They said he was competent and able and could trust him to represent the town.

Peter Panaroni has served as the town’s State Representative for the last ten years. But it turns out that for half that time he failed to handle serious Wetlands and Zoning violations on his business property at 44 Tabor Drive. Panaroni’s failure to fix the problem grew so bad that at one point the Inland Wetlands Commission ordered fines of $1,000 a day. The conditions have now been corrected.

Republican RTM member Peter Black, who ran against Panaroni in the last election and lost, disclosed Panaroni’s difficult history with the town, in the weeks leading up to the election. It was then that the town learned of the role that Ed and Shelley Marcus and First Selectwoman Cheryl Morris played to help Panaroni refinance the property at 44 Tabor Drive. Shelley Marcus, town attorney #2, maintains the town is the better for it because it collected $57,000 in back taxes. And, she has said, she would do it again.

What the Morris-Marcus administration did, according to the public record, was to call Diana Ross, the town’s Inland Wetlands Officer, to Morris’s office on December 8, 2005 and tell her to remove a cease and correct order long enough for Panaroni to get the Guilford Savings Bank to authorize a refinance. Ross told them she was not authorized to do so, that the IWC was meeting that night and she would raise it. But Ed Marcus wanted it done that day, and he told her he would be responsible for it.

The IWC was one issue. The other issue centers on the Zoning Board of Appeals and Panaroni’s decision to lease the very same property to Sani-can, a portable toilet company. The site is now filled with port-o-potties. The town’s Zoning Enforcement officer issued a cease and desist order when Port-o-Potty’s began popping up on the land. The ZBA twice denied Panaroni’s request for a variance, presumably regarding a new use for the property. So Panaroni appealed the ZBA’s ruling in New Haven Superior Court last March.

It is against this backdrop that Attorney Black, who lost the election to Panaroni, submitted a letter to the RTM back in December asking whether the Zoning Board of Appeals had “formally waived any conflict of interest” concerns on the part of the Marcus Law Firm. Black’s letter was signed by Six Republicans and one Democrat.

Several raucous meetings ensued. Shelley Marcus would not back off, saying her firm had an impeccable reputation when it came to conflict of interest issues. But to many, it seemed that the prudent thing to do was to step aside.

Gail Chapman-Carbone, who chairs the administrative services committee, had asked Joshua Brown, the chair of the ZBA, to attend the January 2nd meeting, since Black had asked if the ZBA had waived the conflict of interest issue. Brown arrived and sat down in the back of the room. Before he could speak, Ms. Marcus escorted him out of the hearing room so that the two could have a little tete-a-tete. Brown told the audience afterwards that Ms. Marcus explained the town had received $57,000 in back taxes.

It was Brown who posed a question that night that had not been asked before: “Was Ed Marcus or any of his minions involved in helping you,” he said, addressing Panaroni who sat in front of him, “in helping you to raise funds for your political campaign?”

“And if that is the case,” Brown continued, “then there may be some feeling of owing favors back and forth. I don’t know. That again is the reason why you avoid the appearance of impropriety, the appearance of a conflict of interest. There may not be anything wrong, but if the citizens feel that it appears wrong then you avoid it,” he said, now turning to Shelley who sat next to him.

Panaroni answered that Ed Marcus had contributed to his campaign “but did not help to raise funds for the campaign. There are other people in this room who sit on RTM and on commissions who contributed, too”.

Their status was different, Brown said. “You now have an attorney (the Marcus Law Firm) who is opposed to your litigation and has contributed money to you. That to me does, well, it may not really be a conflict but that smacks of a conflict

Panaroni replied: “I understand what you are saying and I don’t disagree. Believe me when I tell you that I don’t totally disagree with you. . I do not disagree with you.”

It was after this disclosure that Ms Marcus made an offer. If the full ZBA, as the client, wanted the Marcus Law Firm to withdraw, she would accommodate them and a new firm would be hired. Brown said he would ask the Commission when they meet next.

The ZBA meeting took place on January 16. Ms. Marcus was there. She made no great effort to withdraw. Instead she put forth David Doyle as the solution. Doyle, she said, had never spoken to Panaroni; indeed, had never met him.

At the ZBA meeting, Brown noted the Marcus donation to the Panaroni election effort, and the possible appearance of impropriety. But he said he had no objection to Doyle handling what he termed an uncomplicated case.

Robert Harrington, an attorney in town, who is also on the board, told the group that as they knew he has been a most vocal ZBA member against Panaroni, chastising him for the zoning violations. But he said he could trust Doyle to defend the ZBA’s position because he had known him as a litigator for years.

He noted that everything Doyle does will take place in Superior Court “and will be a matter of public record. If Doyle comes to us with a settlement, we don’t have to take it,” he said. In short, he said, the ZBA still retained control over the case because it must approve its outcome.

There was no discussion among the members. The vote was quick. The remaining board members voted to keep Doyle on. Afterwards, Black called the decision “unfortunate.”

But the process of getting there turned out to be enlightening.

For one thing, Ms. Marcus made it clear that she had little tolerance for the give and take of the RTM and for the role of accountability the RTM plays in overseeing town matters.

“If it wasn’t this issue it would another issue where the RTM would have a question about something else,” she said referring to Black’s letter. “If it wasn’t this case, it would be another case. It would be our legal bills, or something else. Because as Rep. (Jan) Doyle said this is a witch-hunt. And this has been ongoing. It is almost in the nature of harassment because it has been ongoing for the year since we have been town attorney. For what reason I am really not certain. And if these meetings were not called for political purposes…” she said, her voice fading.

The process also showed how facts shift, how responsibility for one’s actions gets re-assigned.

At the January 2nd meeting, Ms. Marcus gave her latest version of the events involving Ms. Ross on December 8, 2005.

“We went to the inland wetland’s officer. She then spoke to the chairman of the commission who is here again tonight. I don’t think anyone realized that there was a way to put it on the agenda at that time because I don’t think anyone realized having gone to the enforcement officer, who then went to her chairman that she couldn’t go ahead and do that since she said she had the authority to do it.”

So now Ms Marcus is saying that Ms. Ross has the authority to lift Commission orders, a statement that totally contradicts the public record.

The Chairman of the IWC, Daniel Shapiro, had previously said Ms. Ross had contacted him that morning on her own. After she told him that Ed Marcus, the town’s new counsel, wanted it to be done, he said he reluctantly went along. He did so, in part, he said, because this was a new administration and in part because the Panaroni case had dragged on for years and this looked like a way to solve it. Shapiro has since said he regrets his action, has told the Commission that, and would not do it again.

Now that Ms. Marcus had publicly shifted the responsibility to Ross, John Smith, the Democratic Majority leader of the RTM, and a loyal follower of the Marcus-Morris regime, stood to level responsibility against Shapiro, omitting any statement about the actions of those who initiated the town’s predicament.

“The only potential for a problem I can find,” Smith said, “after sitting through several hours of talk on this matter, was Shapiro deciding to make a decision to lift it without going to the Commission. And he even said that. Next time I will bring it to my Commission.”

Shapiro was sitting across the room from Smith. Now he was on his feet. He declared that Smith’s statement misrepresented the facts. Shapiro said he felt strongly that his opinion had to be on the record at this point.

He said he took responsibility for his actions when he tried to “accommodate a new administration.” But he added, “They were out of order. The request (by Marcus) was out of order.”

Shapiro said he agreed with Joshua Brown’s statement that night that “the right thing to do is to walk away from the case. It should be moved to another law firm if Shelley is amenable.”

Sandra Reiners, a member of the RTM, also attended the Jan 2nd meeting. She said she was enormously proud of Brown and Shaprio, “our commission chairs. They show skill and expertise. This town is served by some remarkable people.”

While the Brotherhood of the Bar may have prevailed, the process has helped educate residents. What they have learned about the law is that the town’s Boards and Commissions, many formed by state statutes, are the actual client in these matters, and they have the right to hire their own counsel or not, as the case may be. What they learned about politics is that a witch-hunt is in the eye of the beholder.

###

Sign Up for Email AlertsEmail This Story Email the Author

Your Email:

Recipient's Email:
Your Email:
Message (optional):

Your Name:
Your Email:
Message: