Advisory Opinion No. 95-1
Application Of Revolving Door
Law To Former
Division Of Criminal Justice
Investigator
The facts presented by Mr. Baker suggest three potential
issues under the Codes revolving door laws.
First, under Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84a, no former state employee may
disclose or use confidential information gained by reason of his state duties
for his or anyone elses financial gain.
Under this section, if Mr. Baker were privy to confidential information
regarding a particular case, for example, he should not use that information to
secure employment with a victims family.
Under the facts presented here (i.e., that the trial had
already taken place, and hence the fruits of the earlier investigation were
public when Mr. Baker accepted employment as a private investigator in this
matter) it appears that any confidential information once available to Mr.
Baker was no longer confidential at the time that he theoretically might have
wanted to use it. Therefore, Conn. Gen.
Stat. §1-84a does not apply. Secondly, under Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(b), a former state
employee may not represent anyone, other than the state, for compensation,
before his former agency for a period of one year after he leaves state
service. Represent has been broadly
defined to include attending meetings at which agency employees are present,
signing documents which are submitted to the agency, or making phone calls to
the agency regarding a particular matter.
See Advisory Opinion No. 91-24, 53 Mr. Baker and the Under the specific facts here, however, it does not appear
that Mr. Bakers actions violated Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(b). By the time Mr. Baker accepted employment
with the victims family, almost one year had already elapsed since his
retirement from state service. Also, Mr.
Bakers attorney indicated at a hearing on this issue that the results of his
investigation were turned over to the family, who then shared it with the
state. Of course, if the submission to
the state had taken place before Mr. Bakers first year of retirement had
passed, and if the report was signed or contained some other indication of
authorship, then Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(b) would have been violated. No such information has been presented to
that effect, however, and therefore, no violation appears to have occurred. Finally, under Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(a), no former state
employee may ever represent anyone other than the state concerning any
particular matter in which he participated personally and substantially while
in state service and in which the state has a substantial interest. This section is the most troublesome for Mr.
Baker under the facts he has provided.
If he was personally and substantially involved in the investigation of
this crime, he could not leave state service and subsequently represent the
victims family in the ongoing investigation.
The same reasoning which applied to §1-84b(b) applies as well here. The interests of the state and the private
employer may not always agree. As long
as a former state investigator has been personally and substantially involved
in a matter in which the state has a substantial interest, the restrictions of
§1-84b(a) will apply. Again, however, it does not appear that, under the narrow
and specific facts presented, Mr. Bakers actions conflict with the
requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(a).
Mr. Baker assisted with some of the administrative aspects of the
preliminary investigation and probable cause hearing, but was not involved in
the investigation or prosecution of the case.
The fact that his actions were supervised or subject to review is not
dispositive: the Commission has long
held that work which is anything other than ministerial, clerical or peripheral
(e.g., merely typing a document) meets the substantial
criterion. See State Ethics Commission
Advisory Opinion No. 88-7, 49 By order of the Commission, Rev. William Sangiovanni [1] If the
state prosecutors felt that a former state investigators assistance in a
particular matter was necessary, they could hire him as an independent
contractor to complete or continue his investigation, even during the first
year after his departure from state service.
Within that first year, his compensation would be limited to an hourly
rate no greater than his rate when he left state service, plus (1) the value,
on an hourly basis, of any benefits the state provided and (2) reimbursement
for necessary expenses incurred. See
State Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 90-30, 52
Acting Chairperson