CMEEC ethics policy draft takes hard line on travel reimbursement for employees, spouses

NORWICH — At Tuesday's Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative ethics meeting, officials grappled with the delicacy of language and the severity of mandates while working on a draft of an ethics policy. The policy, which officials describe as being in the early stages, would eliminate reimbursement for spousal travel as well as outline terms of travel compensation, gifts and conflicts of interest.

The four-page policy was drafted by the Human Resources Consortium of New Haven and presented to the group, which included representatives from Jewett City Public Utilities, Groton Public Utilities, Norwich Public Utilities and CMEEC.

Bob Fricchione, of the Human Resources Consortium, said the group would decide whether its ethics policy would be tight, loose or "somewhere in between." Fricchione and Scott Macdonald, also of the consortium, said they referenced pre-existing ethics policies and state statutes while drafting the proposed policy.

CMEEC currently has two separate ethics policies for the company and its board of directors, however, the proposed policy would streamline and build on those documents.

"This is an opportunity to create an ethical culture," Fricchione said. "We can talk about zero tolerance for certain things and we can talk about language like 'you will use good judgment.'"

The drafting of a streamlined ethics policy comes after The Bulletin first reported in October 2016 that CMEEC had hosted a $342,000 trip to the Kentucky Derby for its board members, staff and spouses in May of that year. Trips to the derby took place from 2013 to 2015 and totaled more than $1 million.

A sub-section in the proposed draft is dedicated to the possible reimbursement of employees' spouses' travel, spurring the most conversation of the meeting.

"Some people say they don't want to travel for work if their spouse can't go with them," Drew Rankin, CMEEC CEO, said. "That can affect the ratepayer if the employees are discouraged from going on those trips."

Thus, officials suggested placing a cap on spending for spouses' travel expenses. NPU Board Chairman Grace Jones said some professional trips include events where spouses are encouraged to attend. However, Bill Kowalski, who was appointed the state’s first municipal electric consumer advocate for customers for CMEEC in early December, was quick to say spouses should not be reimbursed for travel.

"In light of the controversies which sparked this interest, spouses should not be compensated. Spouses should be responsible for covering airfare and meals," he said. "There should be no reimbursement. Period."

Though the sub-section was blank at the meeting's start, Macdonald said he had more than enough input from the group to draft a section prohibiting spousal compensation by the end of the 2-hour meeting.

The group also discussed a price cap for professional travel, settling on what is "reasonable and customary" as opposed to naming a price, Macdonald said. All employees' travel expenditures must be approved in advance by the CEO, and the CEO's expenses will be approved by the CFO.

A state law is also included in the policy, which would mandate all strategic retreats, or similar activities, be held in state. An agenda, list of attendees and minutes would be provided to the board within five days after the event. The retreat cannot include any entertainment or gifts exceeding a value pre-approved by the board.

The group declined to set a price cap for gifts on Tuesday, though the policy continues to be revised.

The policy also mandates board members and company employees refrain from participating in any activity with a potential conflict of interest, or avoid circumstances with even the "appearance of impropriety."

However, the section will be revised to define several terms, including "conflict of interest" and "appearance of impropriety," by the request of committee members.

"We need to zero-in on these definitions," Rankin said.

Though Rankin initially said he would like to present the ethics policy to the board for approval in February, he said he is comfortable pushing that date back.

"We aren't in a race against time. We want to do this right, so we will take the time that it takes," he said.

Tuesday

By Stephanie Menders smenders@norwichbulletin.com (860) 425-4256

NORWICH — At Tuesday's Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative ethics meeting, officials grappled with the delicacy of language and the severity of mandates while working on a draft of an ethics policy. The policy, which officials describe as being in the early stages, would eliminate reimbursement for spousal travel as well as outline terms of travel compensation, gifts and conflicts of interest.

The four-page policy was drafted by the Human Resources Consortium of New Haven and presented to the group, which included representatives from Jewett City Public Utilities, Groton Public Utilities, Norwich Public Utilities and CMEEC.

Bob Fricchione, of the Human Resources Consortium, said the group would decide whether its ethics policy would be tight, loose or "somewhere in between." Fricchione and Scott Macdonald, also of the consortium, said they referenced pre-existing ethics policies and state statutes while drafting the proposed policy.

CMEEC currently has two separate ethics policies for the company and its board of directors, however, the proposed policy would streamline and build on those documents.

"This is an opportunity to create an ethical culture," Fricchione said. "We can talk about zero tolerance for certain things and we can talk about language like 'you will use good judgment.'"

The drafting of a streamlined ethics policy comes after The Bulletin first reported in October 2016 that CMEEC had hosted a $342,000 trip to the Kentucky Derby for its board members, staff and spouses in May of that year. Trips to the derby took place from 2013 to 2015 and totaled more than $1 million.

A sub-section in the proposed draft is dedicated to the possible reimbursement of employees' spouses' travel, spurring the most conversation of the meeting.

"Some people say they don't want to travel for work if their spouse can't go with them," Drew Rankin, CMEEC CEO, said. "That can affect the ratepayer if the employees are discouraged from going on those trips."

Thus, officials suggested placing a cap on spending for spouses' travel expenses. NPU Board Chairman Grace Jones said some professional trips include events where spouses are encouraged to attend. However, Bill Kowalski, who was appointed the state’s first municipal electric consumer advocate for customers for CMEEC in early December, was quick to say spouses should not be reimbursed for travel.

"In light of the controversies which sparked this interest, spouses should not be compensated. Spouses should be responsible for covering airfare and meals," he said. "There should be no reimbursement. Period."

Though the sub-section was blank at the meeting's start, Macdonald said he had more than enough input from the group to draft a section prohibiting spousal compensation by the end of the 2-hour meeting.

The group also discussed a price cap for professional travel, settling on what is "reasonable and customary" as opposed to naming a price, Macdonald said. All employees' travel expenditures must be approved in advance by the CEO, and the CEO's expenses will be approved by the CFO.

A state law is also included in the policy, which would mandate all strategic retreats, or similar activities, be held in state. An agenda, list of attendees and minutes would be provided to the board within five days after the event. The retreat cannot include any entertainment or gifts exceeding a value pre-approved by the board.

The group declined to set a price cap for gifts on Tuesday, though the policy continues to be revised.

The policy also mandates board members and company employees refrain from participating in any activity with a potential conflict of interest, or avoid circumstances with even the "appearance of impropriety."

However, the section will be revised to define several terms, including "conflict of interest" and "appearance of impropriety," by the request of committee members.

"We need to zero-in on these definitions," Rankin said.

Though Rankin initially said he would like to present the ethics policy to the board for approval in February, he said he is comfortable pushing that date back.

"We aren't in a race against time. We want to do this right, so we will take the time that it takes," he said.

Choose the plan that’s right for you. Digital access or digital and print delivery.

Learn More