by Leora Freidman

The city’s superintendent of buildings and grounds, Frank Santangelo,  Feb. 11, 2004 used the city’s internal e-mail system to sell a vehicle, which was against both city policy and the ethics tone set done by Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone, when he took office in the previous month.

The e-mail contains solely a brief description of the car and does not contain any references to City Hall business, and was sent through the city’s Outlook e-mail program, said Lucy A. Warsh, the mayor’s public information officer.

Because it was addressed to “Everyone,” Santangelo’s e-mail was received by about 288 recipients within City Hall and City Hall Annex, as well as several other departments including Traffic and Parking and Recreation, said Warsh.

When the Curtatone administration took office it quickly sought to set a new ethics tone, including restricting the use of the city’s e-mail to city business, said Mark Horan, the mayor’s director of communication.

During the preceeding tenure of then mayor Dorothy A. Kelly Gay there had apparently been a more lenient policy, which led to many e-mail users, including Santangelo, to violate the mayor’s policy, Horan said. “We decided when this administration took office that there should be no solicitations, because a number of people were doing it.”

Given the awkward nature of any change of administrations, there were no reprimands or punitive measures taken, rather it was made clear that the abuses must end, and it has not been a problem since those first weeks, he said.

The Santangelo incident was against city policy and was clamped down upon as soon as possible, said Horan.

Horan said he wanted to stress that city policy was not put into place in specific reference to one incident.

The city’s official telecommunication policy, which was last revised in July 2000 during the Gay administration states that the city’s public e-mail should be uses for public purposes. “The City’s electronic communications systems shall not be used for commercial promotion, product endorsement or political lobbying.”

“Telecommunications systems should be used for appropriate business purposes,” according to the policy.

The policy also states that it is the responsibility of any employee or contractor using the city’s telecommunication systems to read, understand and follow the policy.

In April 2005, the policy was updated to with more direct language to forbid use of the city’s e-mail system for personal use, including solicitations, said Warsh. 

Currently, the access to use of the “Everyone” listserv was also limited to the city’s information technology department, the mayor’s office, department heads and the city communications department, she said.

Santangelo, as a department head, would continue to have access to the “Everyone” group e-mail address.

The state holds broader boundaries for city employees’ usage of taxpayer-funded resources. Chapter 268 A of the State Ethics Commissions Advisory, which details the standards of conduct for public employees, is available for public perusal on the Web site of the State Ethics Commission, said Carol Carson, the commission’s spokewoman.

Section 23b-2 of the chapter states: “Public employees are prohibited from, knowingly or with reason to know, using or attempting to use their official positions to secure for themselves or others unwarranted privileges of substantial value that are not properly available to similarly situated individuals.”

Substantial value at $50 or more, although this value, may not be readily ascertainable, such as when a public employee uses his or her position to get preferential treatment, the policy states.

The State Ethics Commission has the authority to impose civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation these type of cases, said

Carson

In 2003, the commission levied a fine of $5,000 as well as a $5,000 civil forfeiture on Michael Fredrickson, the general counsel for the state’s Board of Bar Overseers for the use of city equipment, office time and employees to aid in the writing of a novel, she said.

In the Santangelo case, the determining factor is not the value of the car for sale, instead the value of publication of the offer to sell, she said.