Ethics complaint unresolved

#MiddleburyCT #EthicsCommission #Complaint #JenniferMahr #VincentCipriano

Middlebury Ethics Commission members and their attorney, left to right, Michael von Kannewurff, Sharon Bosco, Chairman Paul Bialobrzeski, attorney Suzanne Sutton, and John Holmes discuss an ethics complaint Vincent Cipriano filed against Selectman Jennifer Mahr on January 28, 2025. Member Vincent Graziano was absent. (Kristiina Wilson photo)

By MARJORIE NEEDHAM

The Middlebury Ethics Commission members voted unanimously at their September 16, 2025, meeting to accept as their decision attorney Suzanne Sutton’s recommendations to resolve the complaint against Selectman Jennifer Mahr that Vincent Cipriano filed on January 28, 2025. Despite this vote, discussion of the complaint is expected to continue at the commission’s Wednesday, October 8, 2025, meeting at 6 p,m. in the Town Hall Conference Room.

Member Vincent Graziano was absent September 16 as was complainant Vincent Cipriano. Sutton read from a 14-page report addressing two questions: whether the complaint filed against Mahr was timely and whether Mahr has a conflict of interest due to her ownership and managing member status in the Middlebury Small Town Alliance. The conclusions were that the complaint was filed in a timely manner and that Mahr did have a limited conflict of interest that “is clear pursuant to the facts, the law and common sense.”

Sutton said the commission believed protections should be in place “to ensure Mahr and all town officials can serve … without any conflicts of interest or without the appearance of a conflict of interest.” Therefore, when discussions of financing the town’s legal defense against the MSTA arise, Mahr should recuse herself and when specific strategies involving the lawsuits arise, Mahr should not be present.

Before voting to accept Sutton’s report, two commission members spoke. Michael von Kannewurff said it was clear Mahr had a conflict of interest, saying she violated Sections 6, 10 and 11a of the Ethics Code. He portrayed her attorney’s defense as “a lot of interesting theories and conjecture, a lot of table pounding and a lot of sticking on the wall.” He said while he thought Sutton’s recommendations were reasonable, he could see only two solutions – for Mahr to step down from the MSTA or for Mahr to step down as a selectman. He said otherwise the conflict of interest would continue to exist and “we’ll come back.”

John Holmes said he echoed much of what von Kannewurff said. Holmes said he thinks “we do not want to set a precedent for officials to be involved in things and not tell the town about it.”

Based on this newspaper’s July report on the 2023 failures of the town’s zoning enforcement officer to disclose his relationships with various people and businesses involved in the solar project, it seems that ship has already sailed. In addition, Mahr has questioned why Rita Smith, who serves on the Board of Finance never disclosed her son worked for the company that audited the Town of Middlebury. When this first came up, we asked Smith about it, and she explained her son had somehow cleared that with the audit company, so she didn’t need to disclose anything here.

Despite their comments, both von Kannewurf and Holmes voted to accept Sutton’s report as their decision.

There are internal issues the Ethics Commission may wish to address: Chairman Paul Bialobrzeski resigned as an attorney in Connecticut and was disbarred in New York for matters relating to an ethics violation, two of its members appear to be ineligible to serve on the committee, and one has a potential conflict of interest due to marital status.

The Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee, in Crispino vs. Bialobrzeski, in January 2011 reprimanded Bialobrzeski and ordered him to attend an in-person continuing legal education course in legal ethics and to provide them with written confirmation he had done so. The complaint against him alleged he made loans to friends and business associates as the attorney in fact for a client’s trust fund without doing credit checks or income verification and without obtaining security for the loans and did so after a conservator had been appointed for the client.

Casetext “In re Bialobrzeski” states Bialobrzeski’s resignation and waiver were accepted by the Waterbury Superior Court January 25, 2012, “without the right to apply for readmission to the bar at any time in the future.” It says he failed to notify the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court of his disciplinary resignation as required and was therefore disbarred by the State of New York “in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession and deter others from committing similar misconduct.”

Middlebury Ethics Commission rules and regulations dated 2014 state one can serve on the Ethics Commission if seven years have passed since a violation of ethics rules. However, some would question the wisdom of appointing a person guilty of ethics violations to an ethics board or commission, let alone having that person serve as its chairman.

The ineligibility question also arises from the 2014 rules. They say “No Ethics Commission member shall have been an elected official, appointed official or employee of the Town for a period of two years prior to his/her appointment to the Ethics Commission.” Bialobrzeski concurrently served on the Ethics Commission and the Greenway and Land Preservation and Open Space Committees. Member Sharon Bosco is a member of the Greenway Committee.

Finally, member Sharon Bosco is married to Zoning Enforcement Officer Curtis Bosco, who, as already mentioned, failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest and also took enforcement action against Mahr over a project in her backyard. When Sharon was asked by Mahr if she should recuse herself, she responded that she and her husband do not discuss board and commission matters.