Advisory Opinion No. 1995-8
University Professors
Acceptance Of Outside
Employment As
Probate Judge
In Advisory Opinion No. 94-22 the Commission considered the
petition of a full-time state employee seeking election as a probate
judge. In that case, the employee
intended to defer to evenings and weekends any demands imposed by his probate
judgeship, in order to accommodate his state work schedule. However, in light of a probate judges
responsibility to give precedence to judicial matters over all others, the
Commission found that pressing probate business would inevitably, and
impermissibly, force the individual to relegate his state employment to a
subordinate role. The petitioner has suggested that as an unclassified
employee he is not subject to the Code of Ethics for Public Officials and that
his employment activities are within the sole jurisdiction of the Board of
Trustees of the The facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable
from those which were the subject of Advisory Opinion No. 94-22. As a professor, the petitioner is not
required to devote seven (or more) consecutive hours each day to his academic
duties, and, with the exception of his class schedule, it is not necessary that
such duties (i.e., class preparation, consultations with
students, etc.), be carried out at a particular hour of the day. The flexibility of the petitioners
University schedule already permits access to the probate court during the business
day on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
If necessary, the same flexibility would allow the petitioner to meet
emergency demands of the probate court without compromising the priority of his
state employment. The Commission
therefore concludes that outside employment as a probate judge does not
impermissibly impair the petitioners independence of judgment within the
meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84(b). As an unclassified state employee, the petitioner is not
subject to Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-266a(c), which precludes a classified state
employee from holding elective state office.
It is not necessary to address the petitioners claim that the Codes
limits on outside employment violate the Federal and State Constitutions. By order of the Commission, Rev. William Sangiovanni
Chairperson