Letter — Ethics vote was insulting

To the Editor:
I was pleased with the extensive reporting and letters in the last edition of The Trumbull Times regarding the recent Ethics Commission vote by the Town Council at its meeting on February 4 pertaining to the nomination of Dr. Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox.
There were claims of political partisanship and a well-reasoned explanation by Carl Massaro (Town Council Minority Leader) regarding the “preference” of Town Council Republicans, in order to avoid conflicts of interest and impropriety, to appoint Ethics Commission members who are “separated from political influence.”
While a seemingly rational bar to set, this will ultimately be an exceptionally challenging one to adhere to for so many reasons. Also, it is a policy that from my perspective operates from a rather jaded viewpoint regarding potential improper motivations of nominees and/or the prospects for appointees truly being or remaining apolitical, as to be an intellectually interesting, but a wholly unsustainable one.
Most importantly though, when a nominee such as one who appears so singularly well-prepared to effectively and justly do the vital work of the Ethics Commission is the candidate, it rings quite hollow to apply such a “preference” in order to explain a party’s reason for rejecting that candidate. To suggest having run for state office or that a donation from the First Selectman and her family to Dr. Gadkar-Wilcox might ever affect the way the Fulbright Award winning professor would perform her duties is just insulting.
Ralph Balducci