Declaratory Rulings - Summaries Declaratory Rulings are formal opinions, interpreting the Codes of Ethics, that are issued by the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board upon the request of any person who is not subject to the Codes of Ethics. Disclaimer: The Declaratory Rulings published here are for the convenience of the public only. While every effort is made to assure accuracy, the public is advised that only the original Ruling on file at the Office of State Ethics and the publication of the Ruling in the Connecticut Law Journal are official. Declaratory Ruling 2015-C (1) Voting on the Appointment or Reappointment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (2) Legislative Action by an Attorney/Legislator on Legislation that Relates to Outside Employment The Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board concluded that (1) that an attorney/legislator may take part in the appointment or reappointment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, unless he or she has a case pending before that court; and (2) that an attorney/legislator who practices in family court or serves as a guardian ad litem may take official action on House Bill No. 5505, 2015 Sess., titled “An Act Concerning Family Court Proceedings,” or any subsequent proposed legislation with identical language. Declaratory Ruling 2015-B Definition of "Public official" and Application of the Code of Ethics to Members of Certain Committees and Boards The Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board concluded that members of the Healthcare Innovation Steering Committee, its subcommittees, and the Consumer Advisory Board are not subject to the Code of Ethics for Public Officials. Declaratory Ruling 2015-A Procedure/Jurisdiction and Consultants and Independent Contractors The Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board concluded that guardians ad litem appointed by the court in family-relations matters are not subject to the Code of Ethics for Public Officials, because they are not “public official[s],” as defined in General Statutes § 1-79 (11), “state employee[s],” as defined in § 1-79 (13), or “person[s] hired by the state as . . . independent contractor[s],” as set forth in General Statutes § 1-86e. Declaratory Ruling 2014-A, Conflict of Interest Provisions The Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board concluded that the Director of the Liquor Control Division of the Department of Consumer Protection may act on matters brought before his agency by the law firm that employs his spouse (who will have no involvement in these matters), because his spouse will not benefit monetarily from his actions and the law firm is not a “business with which he is associated”; and that the Director’s spouse may, with the caveats discussed in the opinion, continue to represent clients before the agency. Declaratory Ruling No. 2011-B, Active Pursuit of a Job and Revolving Door Provisions The ruling states that a Department of Education employee may accept employment with the Capitol Region Education Council (CREC) within one year of his leaving state service, provided that, while in active pursuit of the job, he does not have anything to do with CREC's state business, and provided he comply with the Code's revolving door provisions. Declaratory Ruling No. 2011-A, Outside Employment of a Legislator A member of the General Assembly may accept outside employment as an owner of a political and nonprofit consulting firm given that he does not hold a committee chairmanship or leadership position, and that he developed an expertise in political consulting and fundraising before being elected. He must, however, abide by strict guidelines detailed in the ruling regarding the types of issues that may arise under the Ethics Code. Declaratory Ruling No. 2004-A, Application of the Code’s Conflict of Interest Provisions to Selection of Education Panel
Impartial Arbitrators When the General Assembly by statute or by legislatively approved regulations provides for the participation of special interest groups in the state’s decision making process it, in effect, waives any inherent potential conflict of interest. The General Assembly has, by its actions, determined that any such potential conflict of interest is outweighed by the benefit of utilizing the experience and expertise of special interest groups. Declaratory Ruling No. 1999-A, Application of Code of Ethics Conflict of Interest Provisions to Chairman of the
Judicial Review Council Declaratory Ruling No. 1998-A, Application of the Code of Ethics to the Governor’s Purchase of a Summer Cottage Declaratory Ruling No. 98-B, Application Of The Code of Ethics To Arbitrators Appointed Pursuant To Conn. Gen. Stat.
§7-473c Declaratory Ruling No. 97-A, Ethics Regulations
§5-266a-1 Does not Prohibit the High Sheriff from Also Holding Elective Municipal Office Declaratory Ruling No. 96-A, Commissioner May Not Accept Additional Employment With His Or Her Own Agency Declaratory
Ruling No. 94-A, Application of the Code of Ethics for Public Officials to Law Firm with which a Legislator/Attorney is Associated (Statute Relevant to Ruling amended) The legislator/attorney may appear before other executive branch agencies not listed in subsection 1-84 (d) and may also appear before the judicial branch of government. Because the legislator/attorney is a partner in the law firm, the firm is a “business with which he is associated” and, as such, the business is subject to the restrictions of subsection 1-84 (i) which requires the firm to enter into any contracts with the state through an open and public process. The legislator’s Statement of Financial Interest must disclose all clients of the firm who provided more than ten thousand dollars of net income, except when such information is specifically prohibited under the professional canons of the bar association. Declaratory Ruling No. 93-A, Application of
the Code to Company’s Proposal to Hire Spouse of a State Employee Declaratory Ruling No. 93-B, Application of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84 (m) to the Governor (Relevant Statute Amended)Under General Statutes Section 1-84 (m) (3), the Governor may not accept gifts from any corporation whose financial interest he may affect through official action nor may he accept gifts from any corporation that he has reason to know may be subject to his potential authority in forthcoming legislative sessions. Declaratory Ruling No. 92-A, Application of Code of Ethics To Department of Correction Employees and Deputy Sheriffs Acting As Bounty Hunters Any use of the deputy sheriff’s power to apprehend criminals as a bounty hunter would violate subsection 1-84 (c) prohibiting a use of office for financial gain. It is impossible for a deputy sheriff to shed the trappings of office or mantle of authority at will. Additionally, a bounty hunter’s goal of locating and delivering defaulting principals using powers under the common law conflicts with a deputy sheriff’s duties in violation of subsection 1-84 (b) as outside employment impairing the independence of judgment. Declaratory Ruling No. 92-B, Legislator/Attorney Appearing Before A § 1-84 (d) If a client is sued by the Office of the Attorney General on behalf of a subsection 1-84 (d) agency, the Attorney General is merely representing that state agency. Therefore, any dealings with his Office, including an attempt to negotiate or settle a case, would be tantamount to impermissible direct contact with the client agency. On the other hand, if litigation has progressed to a point which necessitates appearing in court, both parties are now before a neutral party. Negotiations between the parties in the course of the litigation would still be considered an appearance before the listed agencies. It is not permissible for the attorney/legislator or his firm to handle a matter for a client which involves both preparatory work and an appearance before a subsection 1-84 (d) agencies by artificially charging a fee for only that part of the cases which can be done on an anonymous basis. Declaratory Ruling No. 92-C, Official Action Taken By Legislator/Lawyers On Insurance Reform Legislation Which May Affect Their Profession Declaratory Ruling No. 90-A, Post-employment Restrictions on Former Director of Operations of Commission on
Hospitals and Health Care For purpose of the revolving door laws, “represent” means to do any activity that reveals the identity of the former state employee, e.g., appearing in person, signing a document or identifying oneself on the telephone. For example, a former state employee should not specifically publicize his or her new role by sending announcements to his or her former agency. A former state employee may, during the one-year “cooling off” period of subsection 1-84b (b), contact his or her former agency to request generic information. For example, a former state employee may phone the agency and request a set of the latest regulations or a list of all agency opinions which address a certain regulation or statute. He or she may not, however, ask someone at the agency to interpret how particular statute or regulation would apply in a specific situation. “Represent” includes sitting in at a hearing or meeting (whether scheduled or unscheduled) at which her employer is representing itself or another entity, because the former state employee is providing compensated representation. Declaratory Ruling No. 90-B, State Trooper Holding Elective Municipal Office Declaratory Ruling No. 89-A, In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Mr. Malcolm Cochran, Applicant If, under subsection 1-86 (a), he will be required to take an action that would affect a financial interest of a business with which he is associated, the Mr. Cochran must prepare a written statement signed under penalty of false statement describing the matter requiring action and the nature of the potential conflict and deliver a copy of the statement to his or her immediate supervisor. The monitoring of RADAR grants may affect the organization’s financial interest. To avoid any potential conflicts, Mr. Glass should refer all written reports concerning RADAR which he receives from his staff to his supervisor and not participate in executive staff meetings which pertain to these matters. Declaratory Ruling No.
89-B, In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Mr. Gordon Lagrow, Applicant Declaratory Ruling No. 89-C, In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Mr. Bill Garrett, Applicant Declaratory
Ruling No. 89-D, In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Ms. Nadine O. Monroe, Applicant Declaratory Ruling No. 89-E, In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Mr. John A Berman, Applicant Declaratory
Ruling No. 89-F, In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Mr. James A. Wade, Esq., Applicant Declaratory Ruling No. 89-H, State Trooper’s Appointment to Elective Municipal Office (Overrules Advisory Opinion No. 85-9, in part)Under Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 5-166a-1 (a) (2) (c), a state trooper may not be appointed to a particular municipal office which is an elective office. The restriction applies because the restriction is on the office which will be held and not on how an individual obtains that office. Therefore, a state trooper many not be appointed to an elective municipal office. To the extent that dicta in Advisory Opinion No. 85-9 are contrary to this opinion, it is overruled. Declaratory Ruling No. 88-A, In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Shannon Rogelstad, Applicant Declaratory Ruling No. 88-B, In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Elliot T. Lane, Applicant Declaratory Ruling No. 88-C, In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Carl V. Pantaleo, Esq., Applicant There is no universal prohibition on a legislator appearing before the State’s Probate Courts. 1-84 (d) prohibits public officials from appearing before listed agencies for compensation. The Probate Courts are not a listed agency under this subsection. Such an appearance is not prohibited unless another provision of the Code is applicable because of the legislator’s official position or duties. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, a legislator would have particular authority over the Probate Courts. However, this authority is focused mainly on substantive aspects of the law in this area and not on control of those who preside over and staff the Probate Courts. Court appointments are exempt from the open and public process requirement imposed by 1-84 (i). Therefore, if a legislator receives such appointments, it must be under circumstances which assure the public that improper influence is not involved. Most importantly, any impartial review of a Probate Court’s actions on appointments and fees should reveal no inordinate number of appointments, inconsistent and excessive fees, or other anomalies when a member of the General Assembly is concerned. Any such deviation from the norm which resulted in financial benefit to the legislator would create the appearance that the official had violated the Code by using his public position to obtain financial gain prohibited by 1-84 (c). The legislator may not take legislative action regarding the Probate Courts if the financial benefit at issue could be expected to accrue to the legislator to a greater extent than other members of his profession or occupation as prohibited by 1-84 (c) and 1-85. Declaratory Ruling No. 88-D, In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, David Silverstone, Esq., Applicant For purposes of the revolving-door restriction of 1-84b (b), “represent” has been interpreted to include submitting a document on which the former state employee’s name appears; including the presence of the former employee’s name on firm letterhead. Any activity which reveals the identity of the former state employee amounts to prohibited representation. For purposes of the revolving-door restriction of 1-84b (b), “substantial interest” is not limited to situations where the state’s finances are involved. The state’s interest in insuring that consumers’ interests are protected, economic development promoted, and energy conservation encouraged is of “substantial interest” to the state. Declaratory Ruling No. 86-A, In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling,
Mr. Bruce S. Beck, Applicant Provided the total separation between the activities of the corporation and the State, including the activities of the Judicial Department’s Chief Interpreter, is maintained, there appears to be no danger of violation of the Code by the Chief Interpreter, her spouse, or the corporation. It would, however, be a violation of the use of office subsection 1-84 (c), if the Chief Interpreter were to allow a court interpreter to work for the corporation during hours when the court interpreter should be carrying out state duties. It would also be a violation for the Chief Interpreter to state that the court interpreter was not available when one in fact was, to generate business for the corporation. Were the Chief Interpreter to learn, in the course of her duties, that a person needed interpreting services which the state would not provide, she should not refer the person to the corporation. Declaratory Ruling No. 86-B, In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Mr. Anthony Pagano, Applicant In addition to the restrictions detailed in Declaratory Ruling No. 86-A, the corporation must also comply with the restrictions of subsection 1-84 (i). Subsection § 1-84 (i) state that no business with which a State employee is associated may enter into a contract, valued at $100 or more, with the State unless the contract is awarded through an open and public process, including prior public offer and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and the contract awarded. While the corporation has stated that it will only be soliciting business on a “non-contract” basis, this alone does not exempt the corporation from subsection 1-84 (i). While there may be no general contract, between the State and the corporation, it does not seem possible for there to be no agreement at all between the State and the corporation if services are supplied. Perhaps agreements will be made on a case-by-case basis. If valued at $100 or more, they must be reached through and open and public process. Declaratory Ruling No. 85-A, Assistant Attorney General Elected Mayor A classified State employee elected to a municipal office in a partisan political election must also ensure that there are no conflicts of interests as defined in section 5-266a-1. None should prevent the assistant attorney general from serving as mayor if elected. Declaratory Ruling No. 85-B, Dental Commission Member Serving as Consultant to Commissioner of Health Services Declaratory Ruling No. 84-A, Connecticut Real Estate Division Personnel Teaching Real Estate Courses Since that time there has been a substantial change in the duties of the staff of the Real Estate Commission. The now have no part whatsoever in the process of examining applicants for real estate licenses. They are removed from the qualification and monitoring of schools teaching real estate courses, and the qualification and monitoring of the courses and those who teach them. Because of this change, certain staff of the Real Estate Commission may teach approved real estate courses including those which serve as a prerequisite for a real estate salesman’s or broker’s license. Declaratory Ruling No. 83-A, Sales of
Foodstuff by Spouse of Liquor Control Supervising Agent Declaratory Ruling No. 83-B, Representation by a State Employee Before a Subsection 1-84 (d) Agency If the outside employer is prohibited from making a payment to the state employee because of subsection 1-84 (d), the company may make a grant to the university for research and professional development in the professor’s area of study. Declaratory Ruling No. 81-A, Serving as a Hearing Examiner for the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities The restrictions on public officials appearing before agencies listing in subsection 1-84 (d) exempts public officials who receive only a per diem, reimbursement or expenses, or both. When individuals such as the hearing officers receive a fixed dollar amount per day, this qualifies for the per diem exception under 1-84 (d). Declaratory Ruling No. 80-A, Employee of the State
Department of Education Serving as a Member of a Local School Board Because the consultant is not in the classified services, subsection 5-266a (b), which in some circumstances precludes a classified State employee from holding elective municipal office, is not directly applicable. Whether it provides any guidance in the case at hand must be determined by another agency, for the Commission is not empowered to interpret this subsection. Declaratory Ruling No. 80-B, Member of the Division of State Police Representing for Compensation Division Employees in Disputes with the Division Declaratory Ruling No. 80-C, Member of the Division of State Police Representing for Compensation Division Employees in Disputes with the Division Declaratory Ruling No. 80-D, Simultaneous Service as a State Legislator and a Metropolitan District Commissioner Declaratory Ruling No. 78-A, Common Cause in Connecticut, Applicant |