Advisory Opinion No. 1994-7
State Livestock Inspectors
Outside
Employment As
A Municipal Animal Control Officer
In general, the Code of Ethics does not prohibit a state
employee from using his or her expertise to perform private work. Any outside employment, however, must be
accepted under certain conditions.
First, the individuals state job must take precedence over outside job
duties. Dr. Sherman has stated that the
scheduling of this employees outside work may interfere with her state
job. This, of course, would be
inappropriate. Secondly, §1-84(b) of the Code prohibits a state employee
from accepting outside employment which would impair his or her independence of
judgment with regard to the performance of state duties, or which might induce
him or her to reveal confidential information learned in the course of his or
her state employment. Also, the Code
prohibits a state employee from using his or her state position to obtain
financial gain. See Conn. Gen.
Stat. §1-84(c). Dr. Sherman has raised several issues that indicate that the
dual employment he has described presents problems under the Code. First, he has stated that, in her role as
assistant canine control officer, the state employees municipal actions would
be subject to review by her own state agency.
Review by a co-worker creates a conflict of interest. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84(c), Ethics
Commission Advisory Opinion No. 93-10, 54 As Advisory Opinion No. 93-10 suggests, it is also
troublesome that the state employee may be offered a position at least in part
because the outside employer believes that the state employee may have an in
at the agency, thereby allowing the outside employer to receive special
treatment. This
results in an inappropriate, albeit unintentional, use of position by the state
worker, in violation of §1-84(c). Finally, Dr. Sherman has indicated that the department is concerned that the
state employees independence of judgment as to her municipal duties may
be affected by her state responsibilities; specifically, that her
familiarity with livestock owners may prevent her from being objective with
regard to possible action in livestock/dog attack cases. Although this certainly appears to be a
legitimate concern, since the actions of municipal animal control officers are
regulated by the department, it does not fall within the purview of this
Commission. By order of the Commission, Christopher T. Donohue
Chairperson