It is just as well that justice is blind; she might not like some of the things done in her name if she could see them. Anonymous

ETHICAL BEHAVIOR OR THE LACK OF IT:
LIKE OBSCENITY, YOU WILL KNOW IT WHEN YOU SEE IT.  HOW ABOUT PLAIN OLD CORRUPTION?

ETHICS ALL AROUND US...an example in the news from recent history;  punishment department, center.  (Notice that we did not use Corel to erase copywrights or signatures on these "borrowed" photos.)   Stratford wrestles with the bard:  how about this quote?  King Henry the Sixth, Part II - "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Act IV, Scene II).  Or how about this one?  Troilus and Cressida - "The common curse of mankind, - folly and ignorance". - (Act II, Scene III).  More Shakespeare quotes here.

WHERE DOES F.O.I. FIT IN?  In the case of Whidbey Island, State of Washington, the link is made here.
As the Bard said..."The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

This is the place on this website to address the question, most especially in relation to government, but things do cross over to real life..."So what do you think is not ethical?"   And also, when is "free speech" free?
Indeed, it (ethics) is all in the eye of the beholder.  And everyone is different.  Some people never even think about it - including people who should.  So, as my newspaper publisher once said, "when in doubt, don't."   Below please find articles about judges, public employees, and a really outrageous couple of actions by folks who should have known better.  (Didn't anyone ask themselves "how will this look in 72-point type on the front page?")  Some examples of ethical "challenges" in the news:

No "reach back"
State ethics bill at last is passed
Stamford ADVOCATE, Staff Reports
Article Launched: 06/17/2008 01:00:00 AM EDT

Finally, after years of lip service but little substantive action, the state General Assembly placed its imprimatur on a tough law to allow the reduction or total revocation of a state or municipal employee's public pension if he or she is convicted of corruption.

Of all the reforms approved by the assembly following a wave of state and municipal corruption scandals in the 1990s, pension revocation may well prove to be the most successful deterrent. This measure serves notice on elected officials and government employees that corruption related to their jobs or public offices won't be tolerated and will be dealt with by attaching their assets.

Lawmakers completed passage of the bill last week in special session, and Gov. M. Jodi Rell, an adamant supporter of ethics reform, was expected to sign it into law barring any technical flaws.

The measure requires the state attorney general to ask a state or federal judge to revoke or reduce the pension of a public official or employee convicted of public embezzlement, felonious theft, bribery or defrauding public funds.

Legislative leaders wisely dropped a two-tier system of punishment voted by the House in this year's regular assembly session that blocked passage of the reforms in the session's closing days.

Instead, it is left to judges to determine if full pension revocation would violate collective bargaining agreements.

More significant, the measure bars all future collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the state or municipalities from containing any language that limits the application of pension revocation.

The ethics package is far-ranging. For example, it prohibits certain state contractors from employing former public officials or state employees for a period of one year after their service ends, and it makes it a Class A misdemeanor for failure to report bribery by a public servant. Further, it defines the governor's spouse as a public official; limits gifts to public officials to major life events, such as the birth of a child, and to $1,000 or less; and provides for ethics training for lawmakers.

Unfortunately, a "reach-back" provision that would have allowed pension penalties for those employees or officials who had been convicted in the past was not included. The state attorney general maintained that would be permissible, but its inclusion in the legislation was a sticking point for lawmakers, even though they failed to publicly provide a reason as to why that was so.

Thus the legislation could have been stronger and helped mete out penalties for corrupt officials who deserved them in recent years. Yet it still represents a much-needed commitment to emphasizing and enforcing ethical standards in doing the people's business. That certainly was missing in the cases of such corrupt politicians as ex-Gov. John G. Rowland, ex-State Treasurer Paul Sylvester, ex-Bridgeport Mayor Joseph P. Ganim and ex-Bridgeport state Sen. Ernest E. Newton II.

We hope this legislation is a major step in restoring the public's confidence in the credibility of state and local government.
Legislators still debating ethics reform proposals
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Brian Lockhart
Article Launched: 05/30/2008 02:51:36 AM EDT

Lawmakers yesterday met briefly to try to bridge the divide over ethics reforms. State Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, and state Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, met for about half an hour in the conference room of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, of which they are co-chairmen.

"We had a very productive meeting," Slossberg said. "We're making positive movement, and I'm hopeful we'll be able to come to a resolution."

Caruso agreed, but neither divulged details of their discussion.

"It's a very delicate matter," Slossberg said. "Presumably at some point there will be an agreement, which will become public very quickly."

Slossberg and Caruso have been on opposite sides of the debate over how far lawmakers should go in penalizing corrupt state and municipal workers.  Senate Democrats, Republicans and Gov. M. Jodi Rell want to pass a bill that would allow judges to reduce or revoke the pensions of corrupt elected officials and public employees. But last month, House Democrats amended the Senate bill, limiting the amount a worker's pension could be revoked to the total cost of fines, restitution and incarceration.

Caruso and state Rep. Diana Urban, D-Stonington, vice chairwoman of the committee who sat in on the meeting, said the Senate bill is illegal because it would interfere with union agreements.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal issued an opinion that the House is justified in creating a two-tiered pension revocation system for elected officials and public workers. Slossberg disagrees. Republicans said House Democrats are protecting union interests.  The House sent the amended bill back to the Senate, which stripped out the changes and called on the House to revote on the original bill. The House did not revisit the bill. It died when the session ended May 7.

Slossberg and Caruso said they did not schedule a follow-up meeting; neither could say whether a compromise might be reached in time for the June 11 special session. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate scheduled the special session to attempt to extend a real estate conveyance tax worth about $40 million a year to municipalities.

"I'd love to get it done for June 11, but we'll have to see how we go," Slossberg said.

Caruso said lawmakers were "just trying to get through some of the issues."

Last week, several House Democrats from Fairfield County said they would be willing to vote for the Senate bill rather than risk having no bill at all.  The negotiations could be complicated by Caruso's efforts to reinsert a provision that would allow judges to reduce or revoke pensions of anyone found guilty of corruption in the past 10 years, including that of former Gov. John Rowland.

Under the House and Senate bills, failure to report a bribe and failure to report witnessing a bribe would be a crime; the governor's spouse would be considered a public official; gifts to public officials would be limited to major life events, such as the birth of a child, and to $1,000 or less; state contractors would be prohibited from offering a job to a state employee who participated significantly in awarding a state contract to that firm; and lawmakers would be required to complete ethics training.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said he was disappointed that no Republicans were invited to yesterday's meeting.

"I'm a little bit leery of the fact that three members of the General Assembly, none from the minority party, are in a room," McKinney said. "The bill we had in the Senate was the result of a lot of hard work between a lot of people. I would hope that cooler heads would prevail and they'd put the Senate bill before the House for a vote. I'm certain it would pass."
Lawmakers' tempers flare over ethics;  Dueling viewpoints at news conference 
DAY
By Susan Haigh , Associated Press    
Published on 5/16/2008 

Hartford - State lawmakers have said they want to reach a compromise on revoking pensions of corrupt politicians, but on Thursday they couldn't seem to agree on who should be speaking to the news media on the subject.

Reps. Christopher Caruso and Diana Urban, who support a version that creates different rules for elected officials and state and municipal workers, were miffed that Sen. Edward Meyer, a fellow Democrat, crashed their news conference on Thursday to give reporters his opposing point of view.

It's the latest wrinkle in the heated battle at the state Capitol between House and Senate Democrats over the pension revocation issue. Now that the regular session has ended, some lawmakers are hoping to revisit the bill in a special session. But given the continued acrimony, it's questionable whether that will happen.

Meyer, who wants the same standards for pension revocation for both elected officials and government workers, showed up as the two lawmakers were wrapping up the briefing at the Legislative Office Building. Even though Caruso told him he couldn't speak, Meyer approached the podium - infuriating Caruso and Urban, who loudly complained to one another while watching from the sidelines.

”That was just bush-league,” said Caruso, co-chairman of the Government Administration and Elections.“I have never had a colleague do that.”

Meyer, the committee's Senate vice chairman from Guilford, was unapologetic. He said the representatives' proposal is bad for the state and goes against what the public wants. Caruso's version does not automatically revoke a corrupt state or municipal employee's pension.

”It looks self-serving, it looks union-biased, it looks like (it's) against the public policy to our constituents and to me as a state legislator,” Meyer said.

Caruso, of Bridgeport, and Urban, the committee's House vice chairman from North Stonington, maintain that the pensions of unionized employees can only be reduced, not revoked, because of collective bargaining agreements. Instead, they support reducing a pension by the amount of any fines, restitution or incarceration costs.

They predict the state will face legal action if it tries to pull the pensions.

Meanwhile, Caruso said he wants legislators to again consider making the revocation provision retroactive to affect people like former Republican Gov. John G. Rowland, who resigned in 2004 amid a corruption charge and later served time in prison.

That idea was stripped from the bill last session because there wasn't enough support.
Lawmakers preventing ethics reform?
Stamford ADVOCATE editorial
Article Launched: 05/03/2008 02:56:53 AM EDT

Shame on the state House of Representatives for making a mockery of ethics reform.

The Democratic majority in the House on Tuesday narrowly added an amendment to the landmark ethics bill approved last week by the state Senate that could very well kill any reforms from being approved this year.

House members dismembered the Senate bill - which contained its own failings but was acceptable - by approving a provision that creates separate standards of punishment for corrupt state and municipal officials and for corrupt state and municipal employees.

Under the House amendment, unionized public employees covered by collective bargaining agreements would be subject to less-severe penalties than elected or appointed officials when it comes to revocation of their pensions.

In essence, the amendment sets up a double standard of punishment that is unfair and, frankly, incomprehensible. The two-tier system, which is being studied by state General Assembly lawyers to see if it would even pass a constitutional muster, is a concept which "came out of the blue" despite several months of negotiations on the legislation by a special task force created by Gov. M. Jodi Rell and assembly leaders.

We second the protest of House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, who declared, "So what we're doing here is not raising the standard of a public official. ... We're lowering the punishment for a state employee."

Employees can do just as much damage to the public trust as elected officials can. Why some on the take should suffer less that others is beyond us. It's hard to see how the sudden monkey wrench is anything but political maneuvering.  If the intention of those behind the House amendment is to torpedo ethics reform, they most likely have succeeded in the waning days of this session. In addition, they've also appeased the state's public employee unions that have quietly but strenuously opposed this measure.

Since the bill to revoke corrupt public officials' pensions was introduced, it was the question of retroactivity - whether the state could reclaim pensions already paid - that threatened to sink it. That issue has been separated out, only to give way to a new challenge.

Some legislative strides have been made in reforms in the wake of a string of political corruption cases ranging from ex-Gov. John G. Rowland and ex-state Sen. Ernest E. Newton II of Bridgeport down to state employees working in the Transportation, Environmental Protection and Motor Vehicles departments.

However, for the past four years, state lawmakers have given an incredible amount of lip service to tough reforms needed within their own ranks, but taken little action.

Now, House members appear to have set the stage for more of the same.
-------------------------------

Blumenthal sides with House on ethics proposal
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Brian Lockhart, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 05/03/2008 01:00:00 AM EDT

HARTFORD - The House of Representatives' decision to establish different pension revocation rules for public employees and elected officials is constitutional, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said yesterday.

Whether his opinion leads to a compromise with the Senate and passage of an ethics bill before the legislature adjourns Wednesday remains to be seen.

House Democrats last week amended a Senate ethics bill, backed by both parties, allowing courts to revoke the pensions of corrupt elected officials and public employees at both the state and local levels.

The change states that the amount of a worker's pension revoked cannot exceed the total cost of fines, restitution and incarceration.

House Democrats said they had to make the change for practical legal reasons, arguing the Senate bill interfered with the state's collective bargaining laws. But many also believe elected officials should be held to a higher standard and face greater punishment than rank-and-file workers.  Senate Democrats and the legislature's Republican minority cried foul, arguing the amendment weakened pension revocation penalties and that public employees in many cases have greater power than part-time lawmakers.  Some lawmakers also questioned whether it was legal to tailor the state's ethics laws to different "classes" of individuals.

Blumenthal, in a letter to the co-chairmen of the Government Administrations and Elections Committee, sided with the House.

"My conclusion is that this distinction would be justifiable legally under well-established constitutional principles," Blumenthal wrote. "If the General Assembly approves (the House-amended bill) a court would likely find the distinction between elected and appointed officials and state employees to be constitutional, because it has a supportable rational basis."

He said it is common for the General Assembly to make distinctions between public officials and municipal or state employees.

"There are civil service statutory protections for employees that are not available to officials," Blumenthal wrote. "State and municipal officials often receive pensions and other compensation different from employees, many of whom are subject to annual contractual increases and other benefits."

Existing requirements in the state code of ethics are "much more extensive and detailed" for elected or appointed public officials, he said.  Blumenthal's letter should settle the debate over the House amendment, said state Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, the Government Administrations and Elections Committee co-chairman who spearheaded amending the Senate bill.

"The chief attorney for the state has spoken, so no more excuses," Caruso said. "The Senate needs to stop talking, act on it and send it to the governor's desk. If she really wants ethics reform and pension revocation, she'll sign it."

Gov. M. Jodi Rell, during a budget news conference last night, declined to take a question about the ethics bill. But committee co-chairwoman Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, said all Blumenthal's letter did is confirm the House weakened the Senate's ethics bill.

"The same questions still stands. What's the right thing to do here?" said Slossberg, who argues that similar laws revoking corrupt union workers' pensions in other states have been upheld.

She is not looking to talk about a compromise. Slossberg said she needs to discuss the House bill with her fellow Senate Democrats.  She said she has not spoken to Caruso about it since the House added the amendment.

Caruso last night said the time for talk was before the Senate passed its bill, expecting the House to approve it without changes.

"We acted on it and sent it back up (to the Senate)," Caruso said. "Now they must act."

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, said he has doubts about Blumenthal's opinion and accused House Democrats of pandering to organized labor.

"We shouldn't have a double standard" for politicians and public employees, he said.

Cafero said he believes Caruso is angry he could not muster support for another change to the Senate bill that would have allowed retroactive pension revocation for people such as former Gov. John Rowland.

Rell backs Democrats’ plans for ethics reform 
New Haven REGISTER
By Gregory B. Hladky, Capitol Bureau Chief 
Thursday, December 13, 2007 

HARTFORD — A new Democratic proposal to create a bipartisan legislative ethics panel and to bar state pensions for corrupt state officials drew support Wednesday from Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

“I think it is indicative of the fact that most people in the state right now want to see ethics reform continue,” Rell said of the plan, portions of which Democratic lawmakers have opposed in the past.

“I welcome the proposal they are putting forward,” Rell said. But the Rell added she believes her own ethics reform efforts from the time she first entered office in 2004 “set the right tone and the right path” for the legislature to follow.

The five-point ethics reform plan offered by state Senate Democrats this week included possible restrictions on state officials who lobby lawmakers and requiring criminal penalties for elected officials who fail to report a bribe.

Both of those reform ideas clearly relate to two recent controversies involving state Sen. Thomas P. Gaffey, D-Meriden, and Louis C. DeLuca, a Woodbury Republican who recently resigned his Senate seat.

Gaffey has denied any wrongdoing in connection with his personal relationship with Jill Ferraiolo, an assistant vice chancellor with and legislative liaison for the Connecticut State University system. Critics claim Gaffey should have recused himself from voting on a major state bond allocation for CSU that Ferraiolo was pushing.

Under the Democratic proposal, state agency legislative liaisons like Ferraiolo might be subject to some of the restrictions currently applied to private lobbyists, such as prohibiting political contributions to the lawmakers they are attempting to persuade.

DeLuca stepped down from his seat amid a Senate investigation of his relationship with a Danbury garbage hauler facing organized crime charges. A federal undercover agent at one point offered DeLuca a $5,000 bribe, which he refused. But DeLuca also failed to report the bribe offer to any law enforcement authorities.

GOP lawmakers say Democrats in the past blocked some reforms they are now proposing, including the plan to revoke state pensions for elected officials convicted on corruption charges.

Rell said some past opposition to that proposal was based on concerns that revoking a state official’s pension could hurt innocent members of his or her family.

The governor said she has long supported pension revocations for corrupt officials and noted the new Democratic proposal would give prosecutors and judges discretion about whether such sanctions should be applied in any particular case.

“I’m hoping that if they proposed it they will support it,” Rell said.
Ethics Proposals: Democrats Offer Five-Point Reform Plan
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | Capitol Bureau Chief
December 12, 2007

A week after questions surfaced about their colleague's personal relationship with a university official, Senate Democrats unveiled a five-point plan Tuesday that calls for creating a permanent legislative ethics committee and possibly treating certain state employees as lobbyists.

The Democrats said that the legislature needs to create a bipartisan committee that would oversee their peers regarding possibly unethical and illegal conduct, including criminal convictions, abuse of office and conflicts of interest.

The committee would be evenly divided among Republicans and Democrats, even though Democrats now hold more than two-thirds of all seats in the legislature.

Concerns about ethics have been heightened at the Capitol since the felony conviction of Democratic Sen. Ernest Newton of Bridgeport for accepting a bribe and the misdemeanor conviction of Republican Sen. Louis DeLuca of Woodbury for conspiring with a trash hauler to threaten his grandson-in-law. Democrats last week rejected calls for an investigation into Sen. Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden, for his relationship with a high-ranking official at the Connecticut State University system as they were both working to gain $1 billion in bond funds for the university over 10 years.

Some of the proposals in the five-point plan, such as revoking the pension of a corrupt public official, have failed in the past and are being offered again as part of an overall package. But Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, one of the primary authors of the plan, said that it was not prompted by the recent revelations of the relationship between Gaffey, 48, and 44-year-old Jill Ferraiolo, the assistant vice chancellor at CSU.

"This has nothing to do with Sen. Tom Gaffey," Meyer told reporters. "If the media and the people of Connecticut think that what we are doing up here at this podium with these proposals relates to Sen. Gaffey, you are wrong."

But Republicans scoffed at the notion, saying it was obvious that the new call for ethics reform was connected to Gaffey.

"Let's face it. The timing is very curious," said House Republican leader Lawrence Cafero of Norwalk. "We're not stupid. C'mon."

Cafero said that the Democrats want "to try to get out in front of the issue."

The Democrats responded, however, that they had been working on most of the proposals for years, including the pension revocation plan that dates to 2003 when then-Gov. John G. Rowland's deputy chief of staff, Lawrence Alibozek, pleaded guilty in a corruption scandal that eventually led to Rowland's resignation and prison sentences for former co-chief of staff Peter Ellef and contractor William Tomasso.

The Democrats have controlled both chambers of the legislature since then, but Republicans say that the Democrats have balked at revoking pensions because it could extend to state employees. In addition, Republicans say, Democrats were concerned that a pension revocation could have extended to former Democratic state Rep. Jefferson Davis of Pomfret, who pleaded guilty in 2004 to risk of injury to a minor after admitting to committing a sex act with his former foster son. An arrest-warrant affidavit said that the boy had told investigators that he was assaulted 50 to 100 times by Davis.

Prompted by Gaffey's case, the Democrats are considering whether to treat legislative liaisons — like Ferraiolo — the same as registered lobbyists who are hired under contracts by various special interests. Registered lobbyists are prohibited from making campaign contributions to legislators, and gifts and meals are also heavily restricted.

The Democrats will examine whether to expand the lobbyist restrictions to commissioners, deputy commissioners, and heads of state agencies, as well as the liaisons.

Under the law, gifts and meals are regulated, but relationships are not. As such, Gaffey could have had a relationship with Ferraiolo if she was a registered lobbyist, and it would not have violated the law, officials said.

"Sen. Gaffey had no conflict. He violated no law," Williams said. "It was not a conflict. In hindsight, we wish he had disclosed his relationship. He wishes that he had as well."

In another proposal, it would become a crime for the first time if a lawmaker were offered a bribe and failed to report it. Currently, the law is silent on that point, which caught most legislators by surprise.

"I didn't know that you didn't have a duty to report a bribe," said Senate GOP leader John McKinney of Fairfield, a University of Connecticut law school graduate who has served in the legislature since 1999.

After 15 years in the General Assembly, Cafero said he was dumbfounded that there is no law on reporting bribes.

"I always thought that was the law," Cafero said.
Note:  Sen. Gaffey was an excellent speaker at a forum about vouchers some years ago.
A Compromising Affair
Hartford Courant editorial
December 7, 2007

Sen. Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden, argues that his affair with a legislative liaison at the Connecticut State University System doesn't violate either the letter or the spirit of the state's ethics laws. Yet the romantic relationship raises troubling questions about Mr. Gaffey's role in a $1 billion bonding package for CSUS approved by the General Assembly this year.

Mr. Gaffey's failure to disclose his relationship with Jill Ferraiolo, the assistant vice chancellor for governmental affairs, reflects poorly on his ethical judgment. It should also disqualify him from serving on the legislature's Committee on Higher Education and Employment Advancement, which oversees public and independent colleges and universities, including CSUS.

Mr. Gaffey is a graduate of Southern Connecticut State University, one of four universities in CSUS. He says his push for the bonding proposal was consistent with his long record of work on behalf of the state's institutions of higher learning. He also says his support for the proposal predated his affair with Ms. Ferraiolo.

The senator also notes that Ms. Ferraiolo is a state employee who is a legislative liaison, not a registered lobbyist. It's not as though she were looking to line the pockets of some private special interest with the state's money, he said.

This argument is not persuasive. Ms. Ferraiolo's job is to influence lawmakers on her employer's behalf. The 10-year, $950 million bonding authorization is one of the largest bonding projects in Connecticut history, and taxpayers are entitled to have confidence that lawmakers are thinking clearly and protecting the public's interests when handing out millions of dollars in public funds.

In addition to serving on the higher education committee, Mr. Gaffey is also a member of the legislature's Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee. Given his relationship with Ms. Ferraiolo, he could have recused himself from voting on the bonding package (it would have passed anyway). Or he could have informed both committees of the relationship. Mr. Gaffey, however, did neither.

In fact, the affair did not become widely known until it was the subject of a Commentary article last Sunday by Courant columnist Kevin Rennie. (It apparently also figured in Ms. Ferraiolo's divorce this past summer, although the terms were kept secret as part of the settlement.) Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams said he first heard a rumor about the affair on the night of the vote for the CSUS bond money.

Mr. Gaffey may be comfortable with his motives. But to those outside the legislature who are unfamiliar with his record and commitment to the state's institutions of higher learning, his relationship with Ms. Ferraiolo calls those motives into question. His silence about the relationship raises the question of whether the public's trust in him is justified.

Now Republicans are calling for an investigation. One of the leaders of this push is, of all people, former Sen. Louis DeLuca, who resigned his seat three weeks ago, just hours before a Senate vote on pursuing FBI tapes he wouldn't release. Mr. DeLuca had pledged the powers of his public office to protect the business interests of a trash hauler who had promised to intimidate a relative on Mr. DeLuca's behalf.

Mr. DeLuca is obviously in no position to question ethical conduct. On Wednesday, however, Senate Democrats appeared quick to publicly absolve Mr. Gaffey and sweep this matter under the rug by rejecting calls for an investigation.

Mr. Gaffey has caused his own judgment to be called into question. His relationship with Ms. Ferraiolo is a conflict of interest and clear grounds for his removal from the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee. His conduct is also grounds for censure by the Senate.

Lawmakers not able to avoid conflict issues
Norwalk HOUR editorial
Dec. 6, 2007

Having just endured the forced resignation from the state Senate of their minority leader, Louis C. DeLuca, some Republicans are accusing Democratic Sen. Thomas P. Gaffey of a breach of ethics and are urging the Senate to put him through the same sort of inquiry that pushed DeLuca out.

Gaffey, who represents the Meriden area, co-chairs the General Assembly's Education Committee, and is vice chairman of the Higher Education Committee, has had to do some explaining. But his situation is not the least comparable to DeLuca's.

To threaten the troublesome boyfriend of his granddaughter, DeLuca engaged a friend he considered a gangster, and as a result pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge. Along the way he failed to report a bribe offer. This was criminality and indifference to criminality.

Gaffey romanced a state university official while he voted for university bonding legislation, a relationship confirmed by affectionate remarks to each other in messages that became public record in the university e-mail system. At worst this relationship was a conflict of interest, but if it was, it was a small one, since, as a matter of state law, licensed professionals sit on the agencies that regulate their professions and practicing lawyers sit on the commissions that select and discipline judges.

The ethics questions are whether Gaffey's romantic interest could have compromised his view of the public interest in the bonding legislation and whether the public interest actually was compromised.

Political Fund Hanky-Panky?
Hartford Courant
Kevin Rennie | NOW YOU KNOW
December 9, 2007

An outbreak of modesty among Democratic state senators last week failed to divert attention from Sen. Thomas Gaffey's role in the passage of nearly $1 billion in funding for the Connecticut State University System. Democratic leaders waved away questions about Gaffey's affair with CSUS' legislative liaison, Associate Vice Chancellor Jill Ferraiolo, reported here a week ago. Gaffey, according to the party line, was just one of 187 legislators, nearly all of whom eventually supported the CSUS plan.

State Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, displaying his taste for censorship, mustered a studied disdain for the idea that Gaffey ought to have disclosed his affair while shaping and promoting the CSUS legislation. Pay no attention to Gaffey's gambit last spring, as a member of the legislature's Finance Committee, to replace a carefully controlled plan for CSUS with one that spent a lot more and included less oversight.

Williams pronounced, "People are kind of sick and tired with politics being played with people's private lives." Wrong again. People are sick and tired of politicians refusing to keep their private escapades separate from their public obligations. It's not much to ask.

Gaffey was deeply involved with the CSUS proposal at each step of the way. During the brief Oct. 30 debate on the proposal, Gaffey was one of the few senators to speak. He couldn't resist. After all, CSUS Chancellor David Carter, Gaffey said, "came to me about a year ago with this dream he dares to dream." And Carter is Gaffey-certified as "a great man."

Gaffey and Carter are good friends. Friends help each other. In February 2004, Carter, then serving as president of Eastern Connecticut State University, was in a bind. As a member of the NCAA Division III Presidents Council, Carter had been able to purchase tickets to the NCAA Final Four tournament in San Antonio. That's the one, you may recall, that the UConn men's team won.

An obligation at ECSU meant Carter couldn't go. How could he unload those tickets? Only several thousand people might want them. Carter offered them to Gaffey, who agreed to buy them at the original purchase price. What a lucky break for both of them, especially since no one else Carter offered them to was interested, he said.

Gaffey says he's an old-fashioned fella; he paid for meals with his inamorata, CSUS link Jill Ferraiolo, he said early last week.

By Friday, however, Gaffey's recollection was getting sharper. He recalled, in response to written questions, two previously undisclosed luncheons with Ferraiolo and others that he paid for with money from his Government Action Fund Political Action Committee. Those are political contributions that Gaffey has used for years to finance travel, dinners and trips.

He is indeed an old-fashioned guy. Sen. Williams should be disappointed to learn that Gaffey and Ferraiolo were mixing their private lives with political contributions.

GAFPAC, like every Connecticut political committee, must file quarterly finance reports. The law requires an itemized accounting of each contribution and expenditure. Gaffey has often neglected to comply with that requirement. It's hard to know exactly where, when and on what thousands of dollars have been spent. GAFPAC has made many payments to the senator's personal credit card for purchases that are not clearly disclosed.

On Friday, Gaffey said he'd file an amendment to one mysterious payment this year of $1,281 to his personal credit card. There are plenty of other blank spaces in the reports he's filed since the millennium that the state Elections Enforcement Commission may want to review.

Every two years, Gaffey pours his hefty campaign surplus into GAFPAC. A year ago, he held a fundraiser to put some more dough into the fund. Nearly all the contributors were lobbyists and other political action committees. Only two were not. One of those was ticket master Carter, good for $250 (what a return on that he got). Neither Carter nor Gaffey remembers how the kind invitation to donate to the PAC was made. Friends just do things for each other.

Visitors to the state Capitol often receive a brochure titled "How a Bill Becomes Law." It's a dry account of the formal process from proposal in the legislature to a signature by the governor.

It tells a tale, and so do political finance reports. And so will payments to Gaffey's credit card.

Kevin Rennie is a lawyer and a former Republican state lawmaker. His column appears Sundays on the Other Opinion page. He can be reached at kfrennie @yahoo.com.
Note:  we are including this column to fully explicate the editorial above.
Affair Tainted Schools' $1 Billion:  Legislator, CSUS Officer Took Bonding To Improper Level
Hartford Courant
Kevin Rennie | NOW YOU KNOW
December 2, 2007

Lust for power is merely ambition. Lust and power together, however, can make trouble.

The question is whether that potent cocktail cost taxpayers $1 billion this year because of a secret relationship between a high-ranking legislator and a state university vice chancellor. While they were pushing the bonding package, they were bonding.

Supporters and leaders of the Connecticut State University System wanted $1 billion to renovate and expand facilities at its four schools (Eastern, Central, Southern and Western). But they haven't spent years cultivating a large network of supporters the way the University of Connecticut has. CSUS faced a much bigger task.

State agencies and institutions hire people to represent them in other parts of the government. Bureaucratic veteran Jill Ferraiolo bats for CSUS as associate vice chancellor for government relations and communications. She's the legislative liaison for the central office, which oversees the four schools.

State Sen. Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden, is a chairman of the Education Committee and vice chairman of the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee.

Ferraiolo and Gaffey became allies in the quest for that billion. E-mails between the two show that their entanglement extended beyond the halls of government as the legislature shaped policies on CSUS.

State Sen. Joan Hartley, D-Waterbury, a fiscal conservative and co-chairman of the Higher Education committee, resisted efforts to give $1 billion to CSUS without essential oversight. She opposed making the 10-year plan immune from the normal constraints of spending programs in a state with plenty of fiscal swings and roundabouts.

Hartley infuriated Ferraiolo. In June, the associate vice chancellor expressed her contempt for Hartley in a presumptuous e-mail she forwarded to Gaffey (her "big boy" in a later e-mail). Hartley's aide had dared to make an inquiry of Southern Connecticut State University on behalf of some constituents, not something that would usually be shared by a Connecticut State University System staff member with another senator. But Gaffey and Ferraiolo shared more than a legislator and a bureaucrat usually do.

June was not a good month for Ferraiolo. In June, Joseph Ferraiolo, married for 18 years, sued his wife for divorce, citing adultery, a pointed claim in an age when the vague "irreconcilable differences" suffices. The couple divorced in October. Their three young children live mostly with their dad under the divorce agreement. A highly unusual paragraph in it precludes the parties and their lawyers from discussing their grievances. It punishes any leaks. Husbands and wives don't usually worry about leaks, but politicians do.

As the summer ended, Gaffey and Ferraiolo were living in a convoluted e-mail world, one that could have been written by Barbara Cartland with some Stephen King creeping in. In August, Ferraiolo oohs and aahs at a Gaffey favor for a mutual friend. He declares, "I move mountains for my friends." In September, brace yourself, she proclaims him a "god." "Alongside every god is a great goddess," reads his modest reply. News from Gaffey that he's had a call from an editor at The New York Times has Ferraiolo repeating in capitals that he is indeed a god. Another exchange finds Zeus offering bon mots in French. Power rarely improves the judgment of those who wield it.

Plans for a trip to Dubai in the spring appear amid the e-mailed political hackery and claims to divinity. Meanwhile, Ferriaolo strayed far from her portfolio by helping Gaffey find ways to criticize Gov. M. Jodi Rell's refusal to join the Democrats in the annual bonding bacchanalia. Considering the authority the governor exerts over the state university system, Ferraiolo became reckless in her job in order to help Gaffey. There's the whiff of undue influence here in conducting the public's business.

Through this tumultuous year, Gaffey and Ferraiolo attended meetings, planned strategy and kept flogging that proposal for $1 billion — without telling their colleagues they were dating.

David G. Carter, chancellor of the Connecticut State University System, said the personal relationship wasn't disclosed to him until after the billion-dollar package passed. Don Williams, state Senate president pro tem, says he first heard the rumors on Oct. 30 — the day the big bonanza for CSUS passed the Senate. But he says "the governor, and legislative leaders from both parties and chambers had already agreed upon the total bond package which included the CSUS 2020 program." He said the relationship was not a conflict for Sen. Gaffey.

The state ethics office says that "the Code does not bear on this situation because "the liaison is not a family member" and the senator didn't receive "any benefit" from the bill's passage.

This kind of relationship, as is recognized throughout our land, clouds judgment. People involved in such entanglements end up serving each other rather than their constituents.

Hartley eventually forced constraints on the $1 billion present, angering her Democratic colleagues. She became the target of their wrath. As they bayed for Hartley's head, no one mentioned Gaffey's private interest in the bill.

They're celebrating at the Connecticut State University System, but Gaffey and Ferraiolo should brace themselves for scrutiny. The benefits bestowed by state employees on individual legislators are regulated. Ferraiolo and Gaffey had better start gathering receipts for the state's ethics agency. Shortly after the bill was passed, the Senate Democrats requested an opinion from the Office of State Ethics on Gaffey's role in the legislation, but failed to ask about any benefits he may have derived from his relationship with Ferraiolo.

Legislators who knew of the relationship but remained silent deceived their colleagues.

The philosopher-comedian Joan Rivers often declared that a pretty face and other attributes could get a girl a lot of good jewelry. Even the worldly Miss Rivers would gasp at a prize of a billion dollars in state bonds instead of traditional gems.
This Is Ethics 101
Hartford Courant editorial
July 27, 2007

Edward Sasso has a clear conflict of interest. If he's unable to see the light, aldermen on New Britain's common council should quickly show him the door.

Mr. Sasso is a New Britain representative to the Mattabassett regional sewage district's board of directors. He also heads an affiliate of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a union representing supervisors - including some at the Mattabassett plant.

On May 21, Mattabassett's directors voted to go into a closed-door session. The purpose was to discuss labor-related matters, including its strategy for negotiating with Mr. Sasso's union. Over board members' clear objections, Mr. Sasso insisted upon sitting in at the meeting, forcing the meeting to adjourn.

The board's bylaws are clear. Any director with a "real or perceived" conflict of interest should abstain from debate and remove himself from executive session. But Mr. Sasso shouldn't need a bylaw to tell him his presence posed a threat to the purpose of that meeting. By discussing their negotiating strategy in Mr. Sasso's presence, board members would have been showing their hand and potentially undermining their position.

New Britain's common council has sole authority to remove Mr. Sasso from the board. In a letter to the council dated May 31, the Mattabassett board outlined its dilemma. The aldermen's responsibility here is clear: Set Mr. Sasso straight or fire him. But the aldermen are balking.

Mr. Sasso's usefulness on the board is already somewhat restricted by the various potential conflicts arising from his union duties. His willful disregard of the board's bylaws in this matter only worsens that problem. Now, it's holding up the Mattabassett board's business.

So is the common council's unwillingness to resolve this matter. This is Ethics 101. If Mr. Sasso doesn't understand the inappropriateness of his actions, then he lacks the judgment necessary to serve on the board.

Weston Police Commission - October 4, 2007, Selectmen appoint, as requested by the DTC, John Hammerslough (on the ballot November 6) "to fill vacancy of Walter Marcus"
Selectmen rescind decision to appoint Edward Schwarz
Weston FORUM
 by BRIAN GIOIELE
 Jul 13, 2007

Two weeks after granting its unanimous approval, the Weston Board of Selectmen voted last night, Thursday, July 12, to rescind its decision to appoint Edward Schwarz to fill the vacant Police Commission seat.

Mr. Schwarz was nominated by the Democratic Town Committee to fill the seat vacated by Wally Marcus, but unbeknownst to the selectmen, Mr. Schwarz had been arrested by Weston Police in December 2006 for a domestic incident.

“The Democratic Town Committee owes an explanation to the selectmen as to their candidate selection process,” said Selectman Glenn Major during Thursday’s selectmen’s meeting.

“They have a duty to give all the information we need to make an appropriate choice,” added Mr. Major. “To think that a criminal matter that is still pending is not information we should have ... it’s absurd, particularly when that board or commission is the Police Commission.”

“Knowing what I know today, I would not have voted the way I voted,” said First Selectman Woody Bliss.

Selectman Richard Miller agreed. “If I knew at the time I voted at the last meeting what I know now, I would not have voted ‘yea,’” he said.

Because Mr. Schwarz was appointed to an elective commission — not an appointive one — the question as to whether the Board of Selectmen has the legal authority to now reverse its decision is still not crystal clear. Mr. Bliss said he talked to town counsel, who confirmed there is precedent for such a reversal.

“The case law is not 100%,” said Mr. Bliss.

Arrest

The selectmen were informed about Mr. Schwarz’s arrest by Interim Police Chief John Troxell during the June 28 meeting, but after the appointment had already been approved.

Chief Troxell said Thursday he knew that the Mr. Schwarz being nominated for the post was the man arrested by Weston police but did not speak up because he did not know if it was appropriate.

“We did know he was the individual, we just didn’t know the process,” said Chief Troxell. “It was my fault.”

The circumstances surrounding Mr. Schwarz’s arrest have Weston police officers unified in their opposition to Mr. Schwarz’s appointment.

According to the chief and the police union, Mr. Schwarz’s conduct and the words he said to them when he was arrested for a domestic incident last December make them question whether he can sit on the commission objectively.

Officer Robert Klein, who arrested Mr. Schwarz, said Monday, “At the time of his arrest, Mr. Schwarz was very argumentative and said to me, ‘I’ll have your f--ing badge.’”

Officers Chris Powers and Rob Curcio were also at the scene at the time of the arrest, and recalled Mr. Schwarz using those exact words.

Officer Powers said Mr. Schwarz told them he was a lawyer and was careful to note the spellings of their names. “He told us we were making the situation worse by being there,” he said.

Mr. Schwarz has said he told DTC Search Committee members about the domestic incident and also explained that the DCF (Department of Children and Families) had found the allegations unsubstantiated and they were withdrawn.

Mr. Schwarz has a court date of July 18 for the remaining charges and he said he expects the case to be dismissed or nollied. A nolle means the prosecutor has agreed to drop the case but has the right to reopen and prosecute it at any time during the next 13 months.

Discussion

Mr. Bliss said he had asked Mr. Schwarz to attend the July 12 selectmen’s meeting, but that Mr. Schwarz said he had a conflict and was unable to attend. Mr. Schwarz, per Freedom of Information rules, has asked that any discussion about the “content” of his legal situation be held in executive session.

But that did not stop the selectmen from voicing their concerns about the process used in selecting potential candidates to fill vacancies on boards or commissions.

Tradition has held that the political party representing an individual vacating his seat must provide a replacement. The political party does its own search, including interviews, narrowing the field until a single candidate is presented to the selectmen for approval.

Mr. Bliss said over the years the selectmen’s vote has become somewhat of a rubberstamp for the political party’s selection.

“This is troubling,” said Mr. Bliss. “If we are going to have situations like this, where there is a deficiency of information, we may have to have a whole new process for these appointments.”

Chief Troxell suggested performing background checks.

“If a background check or something like that was done, we would not be here right now,” added the chief.

More contentious

The discussion turned more contentious when Mr. Major questioned the DTC’s handling of the selection process. Mr. Miller said he felt that was an inappropriate political attack.

“The (DTC) candidate selection committee had this information. They withheld it from the selectmen, and it sounds like they withheld it from the entire committee,” said Mr. Major.

“You are trying to put the DTC on trial here, and I strongly object to this conversation,” responded Mr. Miller.

“The DTC brought this candidate to the table. They represented that they had vetted the candidates. This is not a political issue. We were deceived, and for you to defend that deception is shocking,” Mr. Major said.

Mr. Miller, a DTC member, said he was not told about Mr. Schwarz’s arrest before the Democrats approved backing his appointment. Mr. Bliss added that fellow DTC member Rick Saltz, also a member of the Police Commission, stated in a letter to the selectmen that he, also, did not know about Mr. Schwarz’s arrest prior to his appointment.

“I don’t know how anyone can possibly justify not telling us this information,” added Mr. Major.

Mr. Miller said he was uncomfortable making any final decision until Mr. Schwarz’s case is heard next week. He did say he felt that Mr. Schwarz should have informed the selectmen about the arrest during his interview the night he was approved.

“In my opinion, when Ed Schwarz was at this table, he should have made the statement, just as he did before the candidate search committee,” said Mr. Miller.

Mr. Major added that, with Mr. Schwarz not informing the selectmen, it became incumbent on the search committee chairman, Barbara Reynolds, who was in attendance when the selectmen were asked to approve the appointment, to provide the information.

Mr. Miller said, “This was a combination of a lot of people making poor judgments,” adding that Chief Troxell or the officers in attendance should have spoken up before the appointment was finally approved. “We’re all at fault.”

“That’s ridiculous,” responded Mr. Bliss. “The fault lies with the one who failed to provide the information.”

Good Ethical Decisions 
DAY editorial
Published on 5/26/2007

The state Senate this past week unanimously approved two bills that provide a proper balance between ethics and common sense. Both repair well-intentioned, but impractical, rulings by the Office of State Ethics.

In one case the ethics regulators decided that faculty doctors at the University of Connecticut, if they prescribed to their patients medications developed in drug-company sponsored drug trials in which they were involved, were at risk of violating state ethics codes. The office reasoned that the doctors, as state employees, should not personally benefit in any way from public-private partnerships in which they took part.

The ruling placed at risk all work done by university researchers involving corporate involvement.

The proposed new law would allow such beneficial research to continue with enough oversight to prevent abuses. The watchdog group Common Cause, which is always mindful of potential conflicts involving state officials, agrees that the bill has adequate safeguards to prevent exploitation.

Addressed in the second bill was an ethics decision that state legislators would no longer have to disclose outside employment. Though lawmakers have been including employment information on disclosure forms for about 25 years, the newly created Office of State Ethics said it found no such specific requirement in the law.

It is important for constituents to know how lawmakers make their money when not in session in Hartford. Logical assessments can then be made whether legislators are acting in their personal best interest, as it relates to their job, or in the best interests of the voters.

The Senate recognized the reasonableness of requiring employment disclosures and acted accordingly in passing the bill that specifically mandates them. If the measure is approved by the House of Representatives and signed into law by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, as expected, legislators will have to file amended disclosure forms by Aug. 1.

In both cases lawmakers acted in the best interests of good government. Well done.

Our view: Legislators must be held to highest ethical standards - Why does it seem ethics is such a difficult issue for some lawmakers to understand?
Norwich Bulletin editorial
April 3, 2007

The Office of State Ethics recently handed down an opinion that says legislators cannot act in a way that benefits their employers. It is a reversal of a 2005 opinion that suggested legislators could act to benefit their employers, if they had no personal financial gain.
  
The issue was sparked by House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, who has been criticized for soliciting donations for the Greater Connecticut Multiple Sclerosis Society from lobbyists. Amann is a paid fund-raiser for the society.

Democrats are saying this could change the way the part-time legislature does business, as most do have outside employment. Frankly, that seems ridiculous.

Most professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, accountants and journalists, have far more stringent ethics codes. Legislators are elected and handed the public trust to make decisions for the right reason, not their personal pocketbooks.

Benefits to the job

Let's look at Amann's situation closer. While the donations did not go directly to his pocket, are we to actually believe he did not benefit from bringing the money in? Wouldn't the society compensate him properly and keep him on the job for the work he did?

Beyond his personal gain, there could also be the perception that in getting donations from the lobbyist, Amann would now be beholden to them. As house speaker, Amann has the power to decide which issues the full house votes on, or never sees. That kind of power requires nothing less than behavior beyond reproach.

Unfortunately, it seems that many legislators prefer to bemoan a higher ethical standard and talk about how it will impinge on their abilities to legislate. We would prefer they embrace a higher standard of behavior and truly earn the public trust they have been granted.  

Doesn't pass the smell test...as in "smell a rat"...in Legislative language, of course!
Two Ways To Look At Norwich Billboards; Is new city contract political patronage, or just the best business deal? 
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 4/2/2007

When John W. Fonfara's fledgling business won a municipal contract to rebuild and manage four billboards in the city of Norwich this month, a few sets of ears at the state Capitol stood straight up.

Fonfara is a state senator from Hartford, and, as co-chairman of the Energy and Technology Committee, a powerful member of the legislature's even more powerful Democratic majority.  The Norwich alderwoman who initially offered the resolution to grant the billboard contract to Fonfara's company is Jackie Caron, a longtime employee of the state Senate Democrats.

And the lobbyist for Fonfara's company, Face Value LLC, who introduced the senator around City Hall, is Jude Malone, an employee of the ubiquitous Hartford firm Sullivan & LeShane, a former political adviser to Norwich's Democratic mayor, and the ex-wife of one of the city's two Democratic representatives.  So to some critics at the state Capitol — namely Republicans — the case of Fonfara, his business, and the Norwich billboards sounded like yet another case of conflicted interests, of Connecticut's governing class helping itself to the most desirable morsels in the public trough.

But to Fonfara and his defenders, the story is more simple, and lot less controversial: A part-time legislator, out on his own and trying to build his start-up business, saw an undervalued asset in the city and pounced.

It was Fonfara the businessman, they said, not Fonfara the public official, who offered the city a better deal.

Norwich city officials say the city council chose the best deal it could get for the management of the billboards. Everyone involved, from Fonfara to City Manager Robert Zarnetske to representatives from NextMedia, the company that manages and owns them now, seems to accept that they are worth much more than the city had been paid over the years: less than $500 a month for years.

Fonfara, who says the motive of his business is to reap profits by helping billboard owners realize the untapped worth of their property, says he dropped in on the city after spying the signs from Route 2, and inquired about the amount the city — through its Parking Commission — was being paid for the right to erect and maintain the signs.

His proposal to the city, which Zarnetske and others say was both lucrative and similar to the bid made by NextMedia, is a 20-year lease agreement at payments equal to $29,500 per year or 35 percent of the net advertising revenue reaped from the four signs, whichever is greater. Fonfara also offered a $100,000 signing bonus, and, in what the senator says is perhaps the greatest benefit of his proposal, the city will own the billboard stanchions outright when the 20-year lease period is complete. Construction of those stanchions, Fonfara said in an interview, will likely cost him $120,000. NextMedia proposed a 15-year lease but the city would not own the stanchions at the end of the lease.

“They have benefited themselves far beyond the money today,” Fonfara said about the city. “They have now obtained an asset that they will now be able to use for years to come.”

In a wide-ranging conversation, he defended himself against the accusation by NextMedia's general manager, Charlie Ghione, that Fonfara's firm only won the Norwich competition because the senator is “politically connected.”

“I have a private company, and I do my work,” Fonfara said, adding that he is “careful” to avoid negotiations where he might be accused of using his status as a public official to assist his own business interests.

Of the Norwich proposal, he said, “I bid more money than anyone else, cumulatively and any other way.”

Malone, citing her firm's policy of not talking about its clients, declined to comment.  But the political climate in Hartford and the state at large is as hostile as it has been in years to conflicts of interest for elected officials. Years of corruption and ethics scandals have tarred legislators and appointees of both political parties with charges that they have used the power of government to steer contracts to friends and benefactors, pressured subordinates into showering them with gifts, and otherwise taken advantage of their offices.

Even as those knowledgeable about the Norwich deal were being interviewed over the last two weeks, the speaker of the state House of Representatives, Rep. James A. Amann, D-Milford, was vigorously defending himself against renewed complaints that he was inappropriately using his powerful legislative position to bolster his day job as a contracted fund-raiser for the Connecticut Chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis Society.

Some at the Capitol, seeing headlines about Fonfara's successful takeover of the Norwich billboards, and Caron's involvement, soon began muttering along similar lines.

“This doesn't even pass the smirk test,” said Chris Healy, the chairman of the Connecticut Republican Party and a veteran political operative.

Healy said he thought Fonfara was getting a free ride from legislators and journalists because of his party affiliation.

“If you put an 'R' by all these people, there'd be a hue and cry that they'd be screaming from the rooftops,” Healy said.

And the company that Fonfara defeated was eager to join in that discussion.

“I wasn't born at night,” said Ghione, who has known Fonfara for years, and who suggested soon after NextMedia lost its right to lease the billboard properties in Norwich that something was amiss.

Ghione noted that Fonfara had only been in business on his own since 2005 — he previously worked for AllVision, another outdoor advertising firm with which NextMedia has been involved in a legal fight — and questioned whether the senator's firm had the wherewithal to construct the stanchions it has promised the city, or to market the advertising space that it will create.

“I don't think you need to be a brain surgeon to see what happened, but we tried as hard as we could to be as straightforward and honest with city officials of Norwich.”

But those officials deny any political motive inspired them. Instead, said Caron, the city rewarded the newcomer for helping the city realize the value of its underappreciated asset.

“The reason I liked it (the proposal) was because they were the ones who brought to the attention of the parking commission” that the city was not receiving all it could, said Caron, who initially proposed the resolution awarding Fonfara's company the bid, but eventually recused herself. “It didn't even come into play that we worked in the same place, because I have no interaction with him whatsoever.”

“I didn't put that forward because of any political ties,” Caron said. “I truly feel that Face Value was giving the city of Norwich the best buy.”

Caron's other potential conflict also didn't come to mind, she said: The nonprofit group she founded and runs along with her husband, the Connecticut Pardon Team Inc., is currently seeking funding from the state to help finance its operations. Helping a state senator win private business even as she seeks funding from a budget he will be voting on could appear questionable, Caron acknowledged, adding that she withdrew from the billboard vote “more so for his sake than mine.”

As the legislature continues to debate ethics measures, similar dilemmas are continually presenting themselves, government reform advocates say, in which part-time legislators who must work to support themselves wind up confronting at least the appearance of conflicts of interest.

“What you're seeing happen there you're seeing happen in almost every town in Connecticut,” said Andy Sauer, the executive director of Common Cause Connecticut. “Does it raise the specter of something improper happening? Of course it does.”

“There's law, and then there's perception, and the perception is uncontrollable,” Sauer said, sitting outside a hearing where a legislative committee had just approved a proposal for a model code of municipal ethics. “The questions of impropriety are almost as bad as actual instances of conflict. It still harms the public trust in government.”

But at least at the municipal level in Norwich, there appears to be no concern that Fonfara or his firm got anything they did not deserve.

“I think that the decision made is substantiated by the evidence in the proposal records,” said Zarnetske. “It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion.”
A Reputation Stained;   Review Council Punishes Former Chief Justice For Delaying Opinion, A First In Judicial History
By LYNNE TUOHY, Courant Staff Writer
November 18, 2006

For former Chief Justice William J. Sullivan, the harshest sanction Friday wasn't a 15-day suspension for holding up the release of a controversial ruling to help a colleague succeed him as chief justice.  It was the notoriety of being the first judge in the nation ever to be disciplined for holding up release of an opinion.   It was the ugly blot on an otherwise unblemished judicial career of 28 years that threatens to overshadow many remarkable accomplishments.

As he faced the 12-member Judicial Review Council just after 6 p.m. Friday to learn his fate, Sullivan appeared deflated, in contrast to the normally robust former chief justice. There would be five verdicts - one for each of the charges the council lodged against him in July.

He won the first round. The council voted 10-2 that he had not prejudiced the impartial administration of justice and brought disrepute to his judicial office. There was no smile, no evidence of relief.

The council voted 8-4 that Sullivan failed to observe high standards of conduct and preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary. It voted 11-1 on what many had called the slam-dunk count: that he allowed his social or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct. The council unanimously rejected charges that Sullivan failed to promptly dispose of the business of the court and that he failed to discharge his administrative responsibilities.

Superior Court Judge Christine E. Keller was the only council member who voted across the board not to convict Sullivan. She cited the lack of precedent and any rules at the court itself about withholding release of a ruling. She noted that the ethics experts who testified before the council - renowned expert Geoffrey C. Hazard and Rutgers University School of Law Professor Robert Leubsdorf - disagreed on whether Sullivan's conduct warranted disciplinary action.

"There was no precedent. There was no rule. There wasn't even a memo about what could be done or not," Keller said at one point. "I've placed strong emphasis on the career of this man - 41 years of public service, 28 years on the judiciary. That should be given extreme consideration."

Sullivan, 67, a man of immense pride and intense loyalty, faced up to a year's suspension for violating two canons of judicial ethics. He had assembled an impressive list of character witnesses, capped Friday by Louis Pepe, the former president of the Connecticut Bar Association.

"Chief Justice Sullivan's character and integrity is of the absolutely highest order, beyond reproach," Pepe testified. He recounted one of Sullivan's accomplishments as chief justice, transforming the swearing-in ceremony for new lawyers from a five-minute cattle call in a crowded courtroom to a dignified, two-hour ceremony held at either the Supreme Court or at the Bushnell Center for the Performing Arts.

The council's deliberations behind closed doors included discussion of the appropriate sanction. Sullivan politely declined to speak to the council before its members retired to discuss his fate. "Everything I had to say has been said," he replied.

And it had. Some rolled their eyes at his testimony on the opening day of the hearings Sept. 6, seeing it as more of a biographical soliloquy than relevant to the alleged misconduct. But it clearly worked to his benefit when it was time to levy sanctions. The council had before it a whole man, one in obvious anguish over the taint he brought on himself and the judiciary.

He hails from a blue-collar family, worked hard labor to pay his way through college and fought in Vietnam. He is personable, self-effacing and plain-spoken. His history of heart problems - one that forced a month's delay in the hearings - is staggering.

Sullivan did not deny that he held up publication of a controversial ruling on public access to court documents, nor that he did it to save Associate Justice Peter T. Zarella from having to answer for the ruling during his confirmation hearings to be chief justice.

Sullivan put a hold on the case March 14, the same week he told Gov. M. Jodi Rell he was going to resign as chief justice and take senior justice status. He knew from a conversation with her four months earlier that if he retired, she planned to nominate Zarella - Sullivan's protege and the only Republican on the high court - to succeed him.

"I had an unblemished record," Sullivan testified last month. "If I thought I was doing anything wrong I wouldn't have done it."

Sullivan also said he would have done it for any member of the court facing confirmation proceedings. Sullivan wrote the 4-3 opinion; Zarella sided with him in the majority.  Sullivan's defense was multifaceted. His lawyers claimed the council had no jurisdiction to review acts of judicial discretion and that a chief justice or the author of a Supreme Court ruling has unfettered authority to hold up release of a decision for any reason.

"There is no evidence that a judge has ever been disciplined for putting a hold on a case," Sullivan's attorney Edward Maum Sheehy argued.

Sheehy, after advising the council to consider the motives behind the actions of other members of the court, questioned why Justice Richard Palmer, who learned of the hold on April 8, did not confront Sullivan until eight days later, April 17.

Sullivan's expert witness, Leubsdorf, testified that Sullivan's actions - "whether or not they were ideal, they did not rise to a level requiring disciplinary action."

Before going into executive session, the council heard testimony by three notable witnesses - Hazard, Pepe, and videotaped deposition by Frank Williams, the chief justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court.  Hazard quoted the provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct that bars a judge from "allowing his social or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct."

Hazard then noted, "It seems to me it's pretty straightforward. I don't understand that there is any dispute Justice Sullivan ... exercised his administrative discretion with the view to benefiting the chances of a colleague being considered for chief justice of the state."

Asked about Leubsdorf's opinion that Sullivan's conduct did not warrant disciplinary action, Hazard replied, "Perhaps in days past we would have said this is okay between colleagues, but it is not consistent with the rules." Hazard noted, "The whole thing is tragic."

Williams was adamant that a chief justice has the authority to delay release of a ruling even when the motive is to aid a colleague during confirmation proceedings.

"I don't know that there can be any detriment to the legislature when a chief holds a decision to maintain a level playing field so that the legislature does not home in unnecessarily on one case," Williams asserted. He said a chief justice has "absolute discretion."

Sullivan, asked afterward if he wanted to comment on the council's action, winced and said softly, "No." Sheehy attempted to convey Sullivan's feelings.

"I think it hits him pretty hard," Sheehy said. "As you all know, he's a man of integrity. We don't feel there was clear and convincing evidence on any of the charges."

Sullivan could appeal his disposition to the state Supreme Court, the justices of which would be obligated to disqualify themselves from hearing his appeal. Judges from the Appellate Court would sit in their place, creating a court closely resembling the one that heard the appeal earlier this month on whether the judiciary committee co-chairmen could subpoena Sullivan to testify before their investigation. No ruling has been issued in that appeal.

Sen. Andrew McDonald, the co-chairman of the judiciary committee, said there is little historic framework out of the Judicial Review Council against which to measure the severity of Sullivan's sanction. Only three judges since 1989 have received suspensions - one for five days, one for 15 and one for 30.

"By the precedents of the JRC, this is not an extraordinary penalty," McDonald said. "This was a clear manipulation of a branch's governmental operations for a brazen political purpose, to undermine a constitutional [confirmation] process."

But McDonald acknowledged the intangible penalty Sullivan has paid.

"In many ways, this is the denouement of Justice Sullivan's career," he said. "He's paid a personal price, as well as a legal price now."
An Imprudent Judge
Hartford Courant edirotial
August 25, 2006

Whatever made Judge Anna Taylor Diggs of the U.S. District Court in eastern Michigan think she didn't have to disclose her ties to plaintiffs in a case before her court? 
She's the jurist who ruled last week that President Bush's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional.

Set aside the merits of her arguments, which have come under fire from all sides. Stick to the cold fact that Judge Diggs is a trustee and an officer of the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan.

The foundation has contributed more than $125,000 to the Michigan ACLU. It and its national parent were among the parties in Judge Diggs' court challenging the administration's eavesdropping practices.

As trustee and secretary of the foundation, Judge Diggs is supposed to participate in making all financing decisions of the organization. At least that's the role of the trustees, according to the foundation's website.

Federal judges are required by law to disqualify themselves from a case in which their impartiality might be "reasonably questioned." There certainly is reason to question Judge Diggs' partiality, given her ties to two parties in the case.

The judge's conduct cries for judicial review. At the very least a complaint should be filed with Michigan's judicial disciplinary body. Whether she broke the law would be for courts to decide, but she certainly compromised her impartiality.

Judge Diggs obviously believed that she need not have recused herself. Maybe so, but she should at least have disclosed her connection to two of the plaintiffs.

That would have been prudent. 

Ethics dispute gets top billing; panel probing deal on Stratford theater
RICHARD WEIZEL rweizel@ctpost.com
Article Last Updated: 12/23/2006 07:16:20 AM EST

STRATFORD — Tragedy or comedy?

That's what Town Council leaders were trying to figure out Friday after learning they will be investigated for allegedly violating the town's ethics code in selecting a New York developer to revitalize the long-dormant Shakespeare theater.

The Ethics Commission will investigate complaints by supporters of local director/promoter Louis Burke that council leaders had "conflicts of interest" and used "undue influence" in selecting Koerner Kronenfeld Partners LLC over Burke's Stratford Theater Group to reopen the theater.

If the complaints are found to have merit, the commission will schedule hearings on the allegations.

Council Chairman James Feehan, R-9; Majority Leader Michael Henrick, R-10; and Councilman Angelo Stavola, D-4, are named in at least one of the complaints, while Henrick and Feehan are named in several others.

Town Clerk Patricia Ulatowski confirmed her office has received seven ethics complaints through Friday, though she is not permitted to reveal the contents or the names of the complainants. But a half-dozen Burke supporters said they have filed ethics complaints.

"All anybody has to do is read what we are presenting and it's clear this whole process was handled illegally," said actor Lee Bergman, who filed one of the complaints.

The decision to launch a probe comes as Mayor James R. Miron said Friday he plans to sign a contract with KKP over the weekend, completing an agreement that could reopen the theater as early as spring 2008. The theater has been closed since 1989.

"This would be very humorous if it weren't so ludicrous," Henrick said of the ethics complaints. "These people just cannot accept that we have selected another developer and they are just proving my point about how fanatical they are."

Stavola, who has headed the council's efforts to reopen the theater, said it is "very unfortunate that these misguided individuals are trying to disrupt the process."

Feehan added, "I can't wait to show how completely unfounded these allegations are."

All three councilmen said if the Ethics Commission takes the probe to a hearing, they would demand it be open to the public.  Burke's failed attempt to reopen the theater during the 1990s has drawn considerable criticism from Town Council members, but Burke has insisted he was within months of opening the crumbling showcase when the state invoked a "reverter clause" to reclaim the Elm Street property.

The Ethics Commission has notified the complainants and those accused of violating the ethics code that it will consider whether there is "probable cause" for a final hearing.

"The Ethics Commission has determined that sufficient cause exists in the complaint filed by you," commission Chairwoman Susan Birge stated in a letter to one of the complainants, Meredith Gatschet. "The commission will proceed with an investigation of this matter."

Henrick, Feehan and Stavola, all named in a complaint by resident Daniel Chase, have been notified by the commission of its decision to weigh the allegations, made in closed session earlier this week.

"I am very pleased there will be an investigation because many of us strongly believe there was conflict of interest, corruption and an even illegal process used in selecting KKP during the Nov. 13, 2006, council meeting," Gatschet said.

In her complaint, she states, "Feehan's regular inflammatory statements against Mr. Burke, within the debate on the theater issue, compromised his impartiality as a member of the council, especially since, as chairman, he wields influence over other members, including the council's newest members."

She also blasts Henrick for comparing Burke to the late cult leader Jim Jones during the same Nov. 13 council meeting.

"I do see a very close correlation to that," Henrick said, standing by his comments. "I strongly suggest you take a look at who you are following."

Auditor sees ethics issues in UConn polling center case
By Don Michak, Journal Inquirer
11/28/2006

The state auditors say they expect to soon forward to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal their review of an internal University of Connecticut probe involving the former directors of the school's polling center.  The move would mark the latest development in the auditors' investigation of a "whistleblower" complaint concerning the polling operation, according to auditor Robert G. Jaekle, who last week cited the confidentiality of such probes in declining to provide further details.
 
Jaekle, however, said some matters that were not investigated by UConn's Office of Audit, Compliance, and Ethics - whose report concluded that nearly $100,000 was improperly deposited with the school's private fundraising entity when the polling center was run by its former director and associate director, Kenneth Dautrich and Christopher Barnes - were expected be dealt with by the State Office of Ethics.

"The UConn internal report touched on some conflict-of-interest issues that are appropriately within the purview of the Ethics Commission," he said. "There are still some issues about some contracts let by UConn to SmartRevenue.com."

The latter is a market research firm that in 2002 provided work for clients of the UConn polling operation, according to the university's auditors.

They said Dautrich and Barnes had described the firm as a "startup dot com company that developed Internet technologies," and that the two men "were consulted on how to apply this technology to market research."

Dautrich and Barnes in 2000 provided "information on current practices" in the industry, "guidance on the types of commercial industries and companies within those industries that might use and adapt this new technology," and "lists of potential commercial clients that SmartRevenue might target for business development."

The report by UConn's Office of Audit, Compliance, and Ethics stated that while their consulting agreement was officially terminated in 2001, Dautrich and Barnes retained a 0.2 percent ownership of SmartRevenue's capital stock.

The school's auditors concluded that "it appears that the consulting work provided" by Dautrich and Barnes "was not work which related to the mission" of the UConn polling center and that "it appears the work was a legitimate use of their expertise."

"The evidence provided indicates that they did not receive any direct financial gain as a result of directing work to SmartRevenue in 2002," the auditors wrote, noting that in prior advisory opinions the state ethics office had ruled "that you may not use your position to direct work to a business with which you are associated."

"Based on the information provided, it appears that SmartRevenue is not a business with which they are associated (as defined in the code of ethics); it follows that they are not prohibited from referring any work to that organization."

The school auditors probed SmartRevenue's dealings with Dautrich and Barnes after the current director of the polling operation, Samuel Best, forwarded his own reviews of the vendor and his predecessors' "business interests."

They said Best was concerned that Dautrich "may have intercepted calls received at" UConn's polling operation, called the Center for Survey Research and Analysis, "and steered potential CSRA work to his private consulting firm."
Best's reviews also cited two other companies, Validata Research, a firm that analyzes market research and focus group results which the school's auditors described as partly owned by Dautrich, and New England Survey Associates, with which they said Dautrich also is "associated."

The school auditors reported that Dautrich had said his consulting through Validata was exclusively for two clients, Foxwoods Resort Casino and JPMorgan/Chase.

They said Best had documented that CRSA had done polling regarding the casino and that he was "concerned that the polling questions could have been skewed by professor Dautrich in order to create a need for his consulting work thereby giving rise to a conflict of interest."

They added, however, that Dautrich and Barnes said Dautrich did not participate in the CSRA's polling on the issue of casinos.

The school's auditors concluded that the state ethics office would have to determine whether it was appropriate for Dautrich to accept private employment from Foxwoods while he was still associated with CSRA.

Similarly, they said the ethics office also would "need to determine" whether Dautrich's consulting for New England Survey Associates - work on surveys for the First Amendment Center of the Freedom Forum - is a conflict of interest.

The school auditors also noted that the state ethics office had yet to issue any form opinion "regarding whether it is appropriate for a state employee to otherwise compete through one's private enterprise with university projects, when such projects are not conducted in one's own department."

They concluded that the state ethics office "should rule on whether or not it is a conflict of interest for a state employee to discuss his department's ability to provide the work with a potential client if the department is likely to be a bidder for the business."
Ethics Law May Force Schools To Refuse Donated Equipment, Gifts
Hartford Courant
Associated Press
4:55 PM EDT, June 29, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. -- An ethics law intended to clean up Connecticut's contracting process could force state educators to refuse equipment, scholarship money and other corporate donations intended to benefit students.  State officials worry the new rules could end a practice that they say curbs costs and tuition rates while giving students hands-on experience on donated machinery and computers.

In a recent opinion, the state Office of Ethics said the 2005 law bans all gifts to state agencies from certain types of donors, including companies that spend more than $2,000 a year on lobbying.  But many of those businesses also make large yearly donations to the state's colleges, universities and vocational-technical high schools, providing everything from science lab equipment to secondhand cars for auto-repair classes.  Connecticut's departments of education and higher education are examining whether accepting the equipment, scholarship money and other items violates the law.

Laura Anastasio, a staff attorney for the Department of Education, said her agency will review offers on a case-by-case basis, but that certain donations will be refused from now on.

"The ethics opinion says the statute is very clear that they definitely don't want gifts given," she said. "That would indicate to me that even if it's for the benefit of the students, it doesn't matter."

Brian O'Dowd, assistant general counsel at the state Office of Ethics, said the law makes no exceptions for education-related gifts, so they are banned along with all others.

"It was a very broadly written provision that basically says, no more gifts to the state from regulated donors," he said. "Reading the plain language, the (ethics) board didn't think it could be read any other way."

The law does not apply to local schools run by municipal boards of education.

The legislature approved the new rules in an attempt to curb contracting abuses. They prohibit state workers and agencies from accepting gifts, trips and other benefits from lobbyists, contractors, aspiring contractors and companies that pay for lobbying.  State Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, co-chairman of the legislature's Government Administration and Elections Committee, said he is willing to review whether the law should be revised to allow scholarship donations.

But the state should not offer courses with the expectation that key supplies, such as used cars for auto-repair classes, will come from outside sources, he said.

Regardless of the intent of their gifts, those companies still seek contracts with the state, he said, adding that being viewed as a generous benefactor could give them an unfair advantage over companies that do not have the money to make such donations.

"If you start carving out exemptions to the law, then what you're saying is that it's OK in certain situations to have conflicts, and in others it is not," Caruso said. "Then you intentionally or otherwise allow corruption to breed."

State education officials said this week that several large Connecticut companies that contract with the state and hire lobbyists also have unrelated philanthropic programs that donate to the state-run technical schools, colleges and universities.  Valerie Lewis, the state's higher education commissioner, said she is still trying to interpret how the state's colleges and universities will be affected.

"It potentially has a very large effect," she said. "It is not a small question as to how we handle those gifts and contributions, weighed against the clear intent of doing that ethically." 
Politician's Job Raises Ethical Concerns;   Ex-Official Now Paid By Bidder He Helped Pick
By RACHEL GOTTLIEB, Courant Staff Writer
May 8, 2006

<