WHITE-WASH The Lisbon Ethics Panel Decision

The Ethics Panel rendered a decision pertaining to Councilor Bowie and a possible conflict of interest.  This decision was based on the assumption the Town Council and those involved with the County Consolidation Communication Center project were fully aware of Mrs. Bowie’s participation in the Lisbon Communication Center.  Also, the fact this project is at an exploratory and conceptual level.

Councilor Bowie should never have been placed in this position in the first place because it is in direct violation of the Ethics Panels prior decision in January 7, 2009.  If everyone on the Town Council had full knowledge pertaining to Mrs. Bowie’s duties in the communication center, why would the council appoint Councilor Bowie to participate in this project in direct violation of the 2009 ruling?  Also, if the consolidation on communication centers does not remain under the jurisdiction of the Lisbon Police Department, Mrs. Bowie’s job description would have to be redone and her salary adjusted.  This is an industry standard practice.  So it is imperative to Mrs. Bowie's salary, the communication center remains under the jurisdiction of Lisbon Police Department.

Councilor Bowie, as an appointed representative of the Town of Lisbon, has a direct impact on influencing County Commissioners and fellow Town Councilors. Their decisions will have a direct effect on Mrs. Bowie’s salary.  Yes, this project is in an exploratory and conceptual state but his actions will effect the final decision of this project.  By stating there is no conflict of interest at this time, the Ethics Panel has enabled Councilor Bowie to influence the County Commissioners decision on the Consolidation of Communication Centers.  It is their decision which will determine Mrs. Bowie’s future compensation.

Councilor Bowie should have been replaced as the representative of the Town of Lisbon on this project once Mrs. Bowie was hired as the Administrative Assistant because her daily duties involve the Lisbon Communication Center and constitutes a direct conflict of interest to the County Consolidation Communication Center project.

The Ethics Panel findings are rendered on the assumption both the County audience and the Town Council has full knowledge of Mrs. Bowie’s involvement with the Lisbon Communications Center and the fact the Consolidation Communication Center project is in an exploratory and conceptual state.  First, we all know what “assume” does; it makes an ass out of u and me.  Second, because this project is in an exploratory and conceptual state does not means Councilor Bowie’s impact will not have a dramatic impact on his wife’s salary in the future.  Waiting to lock the barn door, after the horse has run away, is too late; so is waiting until the County Commissioners make their final decision which will be influenced by Councilor Bowie, too late.

Larry Fillmore
Concerned Citizen


 

Town of Lisbon

Ethics Panel

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Date of Meeting: November 28, 2011

Ethics Panel Attendance: David Bowie, Ross Cunningham, Michelle Swatsworth-Turmelle

Referral Subject: Possible Conflict of Interest by Councilor Michael Bowie

Referral: Citizen Petition circulated by Larry Fillmore

“Request the Ethic Panel investigate the possibility Councilor Bowie has been participating in discussions pertaining to the consolidation of the three communications center in Androscoggin without revealing his wife’s involvement in the Lisbon Communication Center. This, I believe, is conflict of interest and malfeasance of office.”

Sources of Information/Evidence

1. Report of Ethics Panel: January 7, 2009 [submitted by Larry Fillmore]

“The fact that a Councilor’s spouse is an employee of the town does present a conflict of interest regarding the spouse’s salary. Councilor Bowie has abstained in the past, when the salary line was voted on. The Panel’s recommendation supports this action as appropriate.”

2. Town Council minutes: December 7, 2010 [submitted by Larry Fillmore]

Councilor Bowie voted on the question of holding a hearing on his recall election.

Councilor Bowie abstained on the vote to set the Special Recall Election date.

Note: This evidence is not germane to the question before the Ethics Panel.

3. Town Council Workshop: September 27, 2011 [submitted by Larry Fillmore]

Discussion involving proposals for consolidation of county communications centers:

1. Councilor Bowie said we should stick with the smaller communities and not be in favor of doing this. We will still have administration out front to handle the walk-ins and dispatch Public Works. If this was done on a weighted basis the smaller communities might be willing to accept this, so they don’t think they are paying for everything that Lewiston and Auburn need.
2. Councilor Bowie said for this [referring to consolidation with Lewiston/Auburn 911] to happen it would take a legislative change. Police are free, but Fire and EMS are being billed directly to the municipality and is not included in the county taxes.
3. Councilor Bowie pointed out that this option [referring to dispatching costs for the Town of Poland] would cost Poland $153,075.

4. Job Description—Administrative Assistant to the Chief of Police [submitted by Larry Fillmore]

Examples of Work:

1. Perform dispatching service for departments (Police, Fire, & EMS) when needed.
2. Oral board exam team member in hiring process of new dispatch personnel.
3. Field Training Officer for dispatch personnel in communications operation, computer system, terminal operation and other functions as necessary.
4. Ensures the Lisbon Police Department dispatchers are familiar with the need for:

1. Quality control
2. Accuracy, completeness and timeliness of all teletype entries
3. Message security
4. Compliance with logging requirements.

5. Schedule users for Terminal Operator Certification/Recertification.

5. Interview with Councilor Bowie

a) Councilor Bowie was appointed to represent Lisbon during earlier discussions involving consolidation of county communications centers. He has reported back to the Council on those discussions.

b) Councilor Bowie serves as Lisbon’s representative to the county budget committee.

c) Councilor Bowie did not formally declare his wife’s involvement with the Lisbon communications center but believes the majority of those at county meetings are aware of her involvement, since she worked as a county dispatcher before coming to work in Lisbon.

d) Councilor Bowie’s comments at county meetings and at Lisbon Council meetings have related to the comparative costs to Lisbon and other county towns under the various proposals being considered.

6. Interview with Police Chief David Brooks

a) Consolidation of county communication centers has been under discussion for approximately ten years and has involved three different study groups. No recommendations have yet been accepted or implemented by the County.

b) The current committee is chaired by Chief Brooks and recommends a consolidation of dispatching for county towns in Lisbon, separate from the Lewiston-Auburn center. This recommendation is supported by the town managers and administrators.

c) Mrs. Bowie covers regular calls at the communications center, if the dispatcher is tied up with duties because of an ongoing emergency such as an accident. Mrs. Bowie is not paid any extra stipend for this type of coverage and does not receive overtime pay for such. The time she spends on oral boards for dispatcher candidates is within her regular workday, and no additional stipend is paid.

d) If there is a consolidation of centers there is no change anticipated in Mrs. Bowie’s workload or compensation. If Lisbon’s dispatching is moved out of Lisbon, Mrs. Bowie would no longer be a member of oral boards.

e) The budget for dispatching has been formally separated from regular police services in order to track actual costs. This was done to clarify discussions of consolidation.

f) There have been no discussions yet of how a consolidated system located in Lisbon would be administered on a day-to-day basis.

g) The current study committee would like to see a decision reached by January, 2013.

h) Any changes in job descriptions would be made administratively. Any changes in compensation would have to be set by Council action.

i) The presentation given by Chief Brooks to the County meeting was the same as the one presented to the Lisbon Town Council on November 1. Councilor Bowie was present and spoke at both meetings.

Finding of the Ethics Panel: Councilor Bowie’s participation in discussions about the possible consolidation of communication centers within Androscoggin does not constitute a conflict of interest. If a plan for consolidation is accepted at some future date, and if there are subsequent discussions that impact Mrs. Bowie’s compensation or benefits, then a conflict of interest would exist and Councilor Bowie would be required to abstain from discussion and voting.

Reasoning in support of Finding:

Concerning Councilor Bowie’s participation in discussions of communication center consolidation:

a. Although Mrs. Bowie’s job (Administrative Assistant to Chief of Police) does involve some duties in connection with the Lisbon Communications Center, those duties are part of her regular work day. In particular, she covers for dispatching only when regular dispatchers are tied up with an emergency dispatching event. She receives no extra compensation for this work.

b. Mrs. Bowie’s compensation is not determined by the number of dispatchers or the number of calls handled by the communications center.

c. The current discussion about consolidation of some or all county communications centers is at an exploratory and conceptual level. If any conceptual plan is approved, a plan of administration must be developed. Additionally, if any compensation levels within the Lisbon Police Department are recommended for adjustment (up or down) as the result of a consolidation, such adjustments require action by the Town Council.

d. The current discussion of consolidation is similar in nature to the existing policy governing Councilor Bowie’s participation in discussion of the police budget. He is allowed to participate in discussion and vote in sections of the budget other than those that determine Mrs. Bowie’s compensation. He may also vote on the total police budget once the salary budget lines have been set. A decision on consolidation does not set compensation levels for any personnel.

Concerning allegations of concealment:

a. Councilor Bowie has for several years abstained from voting on the police department salaries budget because of Mrs. Bowie’s employment in that department. Members of the Council (for whom any concealment would be critical) are aware of the relationship.

b. Many of the discussion participants at the county level are also aware of the relationship since Councilor Bowie has served on the County Budget Committee and Mrs. Bowie worked as a county dispatcher before coming to work at Lisbon PD.

c. Lisbon is a small community in which a high percentage of citizens know a high percentage of their fellow townspeople. [see Recommendations below]

Recommendations:

Since there is no finding of conflict of interest, no formal action by the Town Council is required. We do offer the following recommendations to improve clarity and transparency in the conduct of town business:

a. Citizens attending a Town Council meeting and citizens watching televised videos of meetings may not be aware that Councilor Bowie’s wife is a town employee. Even those who are aware may not know of her work responsibilities related to the communications center. Since this has been a controversial issue, we recommend that Councilor Bowie (or the Council Chairman) make a general statement of this relationship prior to future public discussions involving the communications center. We believe that this additional transparency would serve all parties well.

b. When any councilor has a conflict of interest, that councilor should not participate in the discussion or the vote on the matter in question. During the discussion and vote the councilor should leave his/her council seat and sit in the audience (where he/she may speak as a member of the audience). This is the standard policy for abstention and is especially important so that citizens viewing a televised meeting at a later date are fully aware that the councilor is abstaining.

Respectfully Submitted,

David Bowie

Chairman, Lisbon Ethics Panel