Reborn Ethics Board Tackles Wedding Quandary

Should a city staffer whose job it is to process marriage certificates be allowed to perform weddings for pay during or after work time?

Or does that double duty as a for-hire justice of the peace create a conflict of interest — since the clerk’s City Hall job could give them an unfair advantage and a private financial incentive to use their public role to boost private clientele? 

That’s the latest ethical conundrum faced by the newly re-constituted city Board of Ethics.

The issue emerged during the three-person board’s first meeting of the new year, which was held Monday night via Zoom. 

The hourlong discussion was also the first meeting for all three newly appointed and approved members of the board.

First order of business Monday night was ​“election of officers” — that is, figuring out who should have which responsibilities on the all-new board.

After an amiable discussion of their backgrounds and interests, the three board members voted unanimously to make Alan Bowie Jr. the chair, Adrienne Eckman the vice-chair, and Ned Parker the secretary. 

Bowie is a New Haven native and employment lawyer who currently works as senior legal counsel for BIC. Eckman is a program officer for the Connecticut Commission on Community Service, which oversees the state’s AmeriCorps program. Parker is an ordained American Baptist minister and an associate dean at Andover Newton Seminary at the Yale Divinity School.

Next up Monday night: Hashing through the new board’s latest ethical-quandary submission.

That came courtesy of the city’s Vital Statistics Division, which handles all marriage licenses, birth certificates, death certificates, and legal name changes in the Elm City.

According to Monday night’s discussion, the city’s labor relations director has asked the Board of Ethics for guidance on whether or not vital statistics processing clerks who handle marriage certificates ​“may perform weddings for compensation on work time or break time,” as Bowie put it. 

“Really the conduct here is the idea that these processing clerks, who are doubling as justices of the peace, are charging a finite amount to do it,” Bowie continued. ​“Does that create a conflict of interest? Does that violate the [city’s] code of conduct?”

Well, Bowie said, let’s go to the relevant section of the city’s code of ordinances to understand what the rules are and whether or not this activity might violate them.

One section of city law states that a city employee has a conflict of interest if he or she ​“will or may derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss, as the case may be, by reason of the official’s or employee’s official activity or position.”

Another states that a city employee has a conflict of interest if they ​“have a financial interest or personal interest in the outcome of any matter requiring the exercise of judgment or discretion within or before their department, or a board, or commission, or task force of which they are a member,” except in certain circumstances.

And another states that a city employee has a conflict of interest if he or she ​“accepts outside employment which will either impair their independence of judgment or performance with regard to their official duties or responsibilities or require them to disclose confidential information acquired by them in the course of their public duties or responsibilities.”

One important detail to figure out, Bowie said, is whether or not a vital statistics processing clerk’s job description gives them ​“any discretion or control in the approval of these things,” like marriage certificates, ​“or whether they just simply process it.” 

If the latter, they may not have ​“sufficient independent judgment” in influencing whether or not someone should, say, get a marriage certificate from the city and then hire them personally to perform a wedding. 

If the former, there may indeed by a ​“certain conflict of interest, because the money changing hands could affect that decision.”

Bowie then pointed to yet another relevant section of city law, that states that a city employee does not have a conflict of interest if they privately benefit from their own public work ​“to no greater extent than … any other member of such profession, occupation, or group.”

“I realized I just talked for five minutes,” Bowie said with a smile. What do the other board members think?

Parker applauded Bowie’s summary of the case and relevant sections of the law.

He said he too would like to know what kind of discretion a processing clerk has in, well, processing marriage certificates.

And is it a conflict of interest, he wondered, if a processing clerk signs off on a marriage license for a couple, if that couple then asks the clerk if they know of anyone who can marry them, and if the clerk replies by saying, and the clerk replies by saying: Pick me.

That would mean that the clerk would have ​“first dibs to marry them because of the function of your job, proximity, and maybe, in certain instances, shameless self-promotion,” Bowie said. That’s right, Parker agreed.

Eckman pointed out that the city’s vital statistics division does not offer on-site, on-demand City Hall marriages. Since that’s the case, what if a couple comes in, gets a marriage certificate, is confused about whether or not they can be married then and there, and a processing clerk jumps in to offer their private services at a fee?

King added that, according to a memo provided to the board by the city’s registrar of vital statistics, there is a state law that prohibits someone from performing a marriage ceremony if they have also issued the marriage license. 

That memo, written on July 9, 2021 by Vital Statistics Registrar Patricia Clark, states that, as of July 26, 2021, city vital statistics office staff were prohibited from performing marriages during working hours. ​“It is NOT a function of this office or of any employee of the Vital Statistics Office to provide the services of an officiant for a marriage in City buildings during business hours,” that memo reads. Click here to read that document, as well as the rest of the ethics board submission, in full.

So the board gave King her first set of instructions. (As top city attorney, King serves as the board’s ​“investigator,” and is charged with tracking down answers to questions posted by the ethics board that may help them come to a decision.) 

Those questions: What is the process for issuing marriage certificates in the city? How much discretion does a processing clerk have in the matter? Does a city processing clerk have to be a justice of the peace as part of their city job, or is that an extracurricular activity undertaken on the clerk’s private time? And is there indeed a state law barring clerks from performing a marriage ceremony if they have issued a marriage certificate?

“I have a list of assignments to do” and will get back to the board with answers by its next meeting in February, King promised.

And with that, the board adjourned — with plans to pick up this ethical quandary next month.

Per the city’s website, it was the ethics board’s first meeting at all since the summer of 2019.

This is ​“our first Board of Ethics meeting in apparently quite some time,” city Corporation Counsel Patricia King acknowledged at the top of the hour. ​“It took us a while to get the board fully constituted and get us up and running” during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. 

Now that all three of the board’s seats have been filled by recently appointed and confirmed members, the group can dive back into its work of providing oversight over potential conflicts of interest regarding city employees, appointees, and elected officials. (Click here and here for Independent articles from nearly three years ago about some of the board’s work at that time.)