Advisory Opinion No. 90-1, Application of Code of Ethics to Outside Instruction by Mental Retardation Department Employees

---

Advisory Opinion No. 89-1, Receipt of Union Salary by a State Employee on Paid Leave

A state employee signed an understanding with his department whereby he went on paid leave while working for the Union. While on leave, the employee was elected president of the Union and received a substantial salary. The Ethics Commission held that because the state employee did not use his official position to obtain a financial advantage there was no violation of the Code of Ethics in his outside employment.

Advisory Opinion No. 89-2, Application of the Code of Ethics to Members of the State’s Central Housing Committee

The Ethics Commission held that Advisory Opinion No. 78-23, which held that members of the State’s Central Housing Committee and its constituent Regional Housing Councils were not subject to the Code of Ethics, is still valid despite the fact that the Committee and Councils are now authorized by statute, rather than by executive decree. The nature of the Committee and the Councils has not changed; they are advisory boards, and their members are thus exempt from the provisions of the Code as per § 1-79(h) and (k).

Advisory Opinion 1989-3, Teaching at the Municipal Police Training Academy by the Chief State’s Attorney

The Commission was asked by the Chief State’s Attorney whether it is permissible under the Code for him to teach criminal and constitutional law to police officers as part of a contract between The Connecticut Criminal Law Foundation Inc., and the State’s Municipal Police Training Council (MPTC).  This situation leaves the attorney in the position of being both an employee and employer of MPTC; a situation generally frowned upon by the Commission.  However, because MPTC employees have been given an exception by the legislature, there is no violation of the Code in this instance.

Advisory Opinion No. 1989-4, Disclosure of Fees and Honorarium

The Commission was asked by several state senators how the fee and honorarium provisions in the Code are applied to situations where a senator attends and speaks at an event.  The Commission noted that reasonable and necessary expenses are not considered fees/honorariums, and thus need not be reported (this was before reporting became statutorily required).  Fees and honorariums include lavish travel, meals, or accommodations; entertainment; expenses of spouse, child or guest; a cash payment (whether later donated to charity or not); and any other service or item of material value.   Accepting a fee or honorarium while on state business is a violation of the Code.

Advisory Opinion 1989-5 (Amended), State Employee’s Recusal from Activities That Affect a Financial Interest of Her Spouse

The Commission was asked by the Regional Director for Region 6 of the Department of Mental Retardation, how the Code applies to her, as her husband was recently hired by a non-profit that does business with her agency.  The Commission held that if the Director continues to abstain from getting involved in matters related to her husband or the non-profit which employs him, she will not be violating the Code.

Advisory Opinion 1989-6, Application of the Code to Members of a Quasi-Public Agency

The Commission was asked how the new rules, making the Connecticut Product Development Corporation (CPDC) a quasi-public agency, apply to members of CPDC’s board who are also investors.  Members/directors of the agency must file financial statements disclosing names of those from whom they receive more than 5,000 dollars in net income each year.

Members/directors may invest in companies that seek assistance from CPDC, however, they should abstain from taking affirmative action with such companies as board members.  Additionally, un-classified employees, whose duty it is to investigate and report on applicant companies may not invest in such companies; this will avoid appearance of misuse of office.

The Managing Partner of a fund that is supported half through state, and half through private funds, but who is not a state employee, is not subject to the Code and thus need not file financial disclosure forms.

Advisory Opinion 1989-7, Appearances before the Worker’s Compensation Commission by a Chairperson of the labor and public Employees Committee

The Commission was asked by a member of the state’s General Assembly whether the fact that he was Chairman of the Labor and Public Employees Committee was enough to prevent him from representing clients in Workers’ Compensation cases.  This question was raised in response to the Board’s opinion in 1988-9, where they held he should not represent such clients.

Again, the Board held that his close ties to the Workers’ Compensation Commission, due to his state service, prevents him from abiding by the Code if he takes on clients before the Commission.  This representative’s specific authority is so great as to create the distinct possibility of inadvertent use of office for financial gain and an inevitable appearance of impropriety.

Advisory Opinion 1989-8, Outside Business Interests of a Member of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners

The Commission was asked by a member of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners whether some of his outside business activities might conflict with his official state duties.  The petitioner has significant public regulatory authority over chiropractors in the state as a member of the Board.  At the same time, he wished to continue to serve as president, and chief-stockholder, of a corporation which admits chiropractors into his private association.  The Commission held that no matter how admirable his goals were (to establish an association of certified chiropractic consultants), it was inevitable that he would inadvertently use his office for person financial gain; thus, such outside employment was prohibited by the Code.

Advisory Opinion 1989-9, Application of Outside Employment Provisions of Code to State Assessment Advisors’ Acceptance of Related Municipal Employment

The Commission was asked by the Office of Policy and Management how the outside employment provisions apply to state assessment advisors.  The Commission held three things.  First, a state assessment advisor cannot hold an elected municipal assessor position, but an appointed assessor may.  Second, assessment advisors in their roles as municipal assessors should not hire themselves as the independent contractors to perform the revaluation work.  Third, assessment advisors, assigned to the monitoring of the revaluation projects throughout the state, should not accept the position of “revaluation consultant”, as this is work they are already paid to do by the state.

Advisory Opinion 1989-10, Application of the Code’s Open and Public Contract Provisions to Environmental Emergency Responses

The Commission was asked to give a blanket exception to a firm called Valpex so that they could contract with a state agency without going though an open and public process required by 1-84(i).  They wanted to do this so that they could better respond to an emergency situation (emergency chemical clean-ups).  Valpex is a business with which a University of Connecticut employee is associated, and part owner.  The Commission said that they do not have the authority to give a blanket exception, and suggested the state agency find another way to make contracts in (or better, before) emergency situations. 

1989-11, Application of the Code’s Post-State Employment Provisions to the Department of Public Utility Control’s Collaborative Conservation Effort

The Commission was asked by a member of the Prosecutorial Division of the Department of Public Utility Control (DUPC) how 1-84b (a) applied to his particular situation.  He was involved in a collaborative process with the Connecticut Light and Power Company (CLP) and wanted to know what exactly a “particular matter” was for the purposes of the Code.

The Commission held that the “particular matter” was the discussion between CLP and DPUC regarding conservation efforts and load management.  Thus, the employee could seek post-state employment as a representative of other utilities regarding conservation and load management issues.  The Commission held that each phase of a conservation and load management program was not a separate particular matter.  However, each annual plan constitutes a distinct particular matter.

Defining public official/state employee, gift bans/exceptions

Advisory Opinion 1989-12, Application of the Code of Ethics to Judges

The Commission held that judges are not subject to the Code; instead they are subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Thus, if a judge accepts a gift valued at more than $50 from a lobbyist, only the lobbyist will be in violation of the Code.  The judge could be in violation of the Code if they work for the state in another capacity which makes them subject to the Code’s provisions (e.g. by serving as a public official).

Advisory Opinion 1989-13, Effect of the Code’s Revolving Door Provisions on Former State Official’s Law Firm

The Commission was asked several questions about the Code’s revolving door provisions by a law firm which just made the former Insurance Commissioner one of its partners.  The Commission held two things, (1) the law firm must not reveal the identity of the former Commission as a representative of the firm or its clients in connection with 1-84b (a) or (b) matters; and (2) the former Commissioner must not accept any share of the fees received by the firm in connection with such matters for one year after leaving state service.

Advisory Opinion 1989-14, Employee’s Use of Expertise Required in State Service

The Commission was asked whether it would be permissible under the code for a Department of Health Services employee, who coordinates a computerized health risk appraisal system for the state, to seek outside employment with the company that designed the software.  The contracts between the company and state were set to expire shortly.  The Commission held that it would be alright for the state employee to do outside work with the company so long as her independence of judgment was not in danger.  If the state were to contract with this company in the future, then the employee should abstain from any negotiations/related decisions.

Additionally, it is permissible for the state employee to work independently to create software that may become subject of a state contract.  If a contract were to be awarded, it would certainly need to be through an open and public process.

Advisory Opinion 1989-15, Lobbyist Gifts to State

The Commission was asked how the Code applies to registered lobbyists who fund a conference or program designed to facilitate state tasks.  The Commission held that such a program would be a gift to the state (assuming it wasn’t an area to lobby) and thus technically exempt from the current lobbyist reporting requirements.  If food or drink were provided, these expenditures would have to be reported, as they are not gifts to the state.  (The Commission stated it planned to seek a reporting requirement for gifts to the state.)

Outside employment

Advisory Opinion 1989-16, State Social Workers Providing Private Conservator Services

The Commission was asked by two social workers, one an employee of the Department of Human Resources, and the other the Department of Aging, whether it would be permissible under the Code for them to open their own, private business offering conservator services to those who can afford to pay for them personally.  Their state work at the time of petitioning mostly involved people with less than $1,500 in assets.

Such work would be permissible so long as the state employees are careful not to use their state position, or familiarity with employees of the Probate Court, to benefit financially.  In addition, these employees should have nothing to do with the process in which people are assigned to a conservator.  Of course state time must not be used, nor confidential information divulged. 

Advisory Opinion 1989-17, Private Consulting Related to the Duties of a Department of Transportation Employee

The Commission was asked how the Code applied to a Department of Transportation (DOT) employee who wanted to establish an outside consulting business to help those subject to affirmative action file paperwork with his agency.  The employee in question is a senior affirmative action officer in the DOT Office of Contracts.  The Commission held that 1-84 (b), the provision dealing with independence of judgment, would preclude such work.  Additionally, the possibly that confidential information would be divulged may be another reason to prevent such outside employment.  The Commission noted that the state employee would end up looking over documentation he prepared in his private business, a clear conflict of interest. 

Advisory Opinion 1989-18, Parole Officer’s Simultaneous Employment as a Private Detective

The Commission was asked by the Department of Corrections whether it would be a conflict of interest for a licensed private detective to hold the position of parole officer.  The Commission, concurring with the Department, found that there was a strong likelihood that confidential parole/prison records could be misused by the employee.  Thus, it would be impermissible for him to serve as a private detective on any criminal or criminally related matters.

Advisory Opinion 1989-19, Retention of a Fee or Honorarium by a State Employee

The Commission was asked by an Assistant Attorney General whether he could accept a $100 honorarium sent to him by the New York Times for his op-ed column on antitrust law.  The Commission investigated the issue, and found that the person at the Times who had decided to publish the piece likely took into consideration the author’s position as a state employee.  Thus, the honorarium will be deemed to have been sent to the attorney due to his official position, in violation of the Code.  If the attorney had been subject to 1-83 because of his state position (e.g. a senior public official), he would have been allowed to accept the honorarium.

Advisory Opinion 1989-20, Acceptance of Tips by State Employees

The Commission was asked by a part-time, seasonal employee of the Old New-Gate prison and Copper Mine (historical site) whether it was a violation of the Code for him to accept tips from tourists who enjoyed the tours he gave.  Noting that he was a state employee, and thus subject to the Code, the Commission held this was an improper use of office, and the employee should not accept tips from the public for his state work.

Advisory Opinion 1989-21, State Trooper Holding Elective Municipal Office

The Commission was asked whether it would be permissible for a trooper, who is a member of the state police truck squad to seek a seat on the Middletown Common Council, a twelve-person council which exclusively exercises the legislative power of the City.  In his state job he enforces trucking regulations.

Because the state police have the power to investigate and institute or recommend actions for penalties against the incumbents of the Council, the Commission held the state trooper could not seek such office.

Advisory Opinion 1989-22, Application of Revolving Door Provision to Former State Employee Now Employed by Private/State Entity

The Commission was asked how 1-84b (b) applies to a situation in which a former state employee represents his new employer before the state.  The new employer, Yale University, a private entity, collaborates with the state to run the Connecticut Mental Health Center.  The former state employee would like to represent Yale before the state to negotiate the terms of their collaboration.  The Commission held that because the former employee is employed by an entity which has a private component, he would be in violation of 1-84b (b) if he represents Yale before the state within one year of leaving state service.

Advisory Opinion 1989-23, Application of the Code of Ethics to Members of Regional Emergency Medical Service Councils

The Commission was asked by the Director of the State’s Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) whether it is proper under the Code of Ethics for Public Officials for members of Regional Emergency Medical Service Councils, which consult with the OEMS on ambulance service issues, to vote on matters in which they have a pecuniary interest.  The Commission did not provide an answer, as they did not have jurisdiction over members of the Councils (they are neither state employees nor public officials).

Advisory Opinion 1989-24, Application of Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-84(i) to Contracts Specifically Awarded by the Legislature

The Commission was asked by the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Retardation how the Code applied to a situation where the legislature identifies within the Department’s appropriations act specific private agencies which are to receive funding for particular programs.  This funding is therefore not distributed through an open and public bidding process.  Further, sometimes the designated agencies are businesses with which a state employee or public official is associated.  Finding no exception to 1-84(i), the Commission found that if a contract is awarded by the legislature, then the state employee or public official must cease being associated with that organization.

Advisory Opinion 1989-25 (Amended), Application of the Code of Ethics to a Former State Employee Seeking to Contract with His or Her Former Agency

The Commission overturned 1989-25 (decided a month earlier) and determined that there should be a limited regulatory exception to 1-84b (b).  That is to say, former state employees are allowed to contract with their former agency after leaving state service.  There is no waiting period required.  However, the pay received by the contracting employee must be no greater than when they left service, plus necessary expenses.

Advisory Opinion 1989-26, Member of Board Regulating Profession Simultaneously Serving on Board of Association which Includes Members of the Profession

The Commission was asked by a doctor whether he could maintain his position on the Connecticut Homeopathic Medical Examining Board (“Board”) while continuing to serve on the Board of Directors of the National Center for Homeopathy (“Center”) and the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention of the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region> (“Convention”).  His position on the Board makes him a public official subject to the Code.  However, neither the Convention nor Center compensates him.  Thus, he is not involved in outside employment that would be in violation of the Code’s independence of judgment provisions.

Advisory Opinion 1989-27, Application of Revolving Door Provisions to Housing Program Supervisor

The Commission was asked how the Code applies to the outside employment of a Housing Program Supervisor I. The state employee supervises administration of several housing rehabilitation programs.  One of these programs is a possible post-state employer for the petitioner. 

The Commission held that this was acceptable so long as she was careful not to violate the Code’s revolving door provisions.  For one year, she must not work as an independent contractor for an employer that was awarded a contact of $50,000 under her supervision.  She must not appear before her former department for one year after leaving state service.  And she must never represent anyone other than the state in a “particular matter” in which she participated substantially while in state service.

Advisory Opinion 1989-28, Acceptance of Outside Employment by the Chairman of the Banks Committee of the General Assembly

The Commission was asked by the Chairman of the Banks Committee of the General Assembly whether he could help investors find a bank to purchase.  Noting that limiting the outside employment of part-time legislators is quite difficult, the Commission held that the Chairman could arrange the purchase of a bank for the investors so long as it was an out-of-state bank that did not have a known interest in legislation which comes before his committee.

Advisory Opinion 1989-29, Application of Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-84b (d) to Consultants

The Commission was asked by an employee of the Department of Children and Youth Services how the revolving door provisions of the Code applied to him.  He had not yet been retired for a year.  As a state employee he reviewed grant applications from non-profit agencies and chaired the committee which recommended their approval.  The petitioner planed to start his own management firm where he would be hired as an independent contactor by non-profit agencies to prepare grant applications and offer management and accounting services and system.

The Commission held that this was acceptable so long as he was careful not to violate the Code’s revolving door provisions.  For one year, he must not work as an independent contractor for an agency that was awarded a contact of $50,000 under his supervision.  He must not appear before his former department for one year after leaving state service.  And he must never represent anyone other than the state in a “particular matter” in which he participated substantially while in state service.

Advisory Opinion 1989-30, State Employee’s Contract with Businesses Regulated By His Agency through Outside Employment Opportunities

The Commission was asked by the Director of Planning and Standards in the Bureau of Air Management in the Department of Environmental Protection, whether it would be a violation of the Code if he accepted several types of outside employment related to marketing (especially environmentally focused marketing).  The Commission held this was permissible so long as the Director followed the outside employment provisions and the conflict of interest provisions.  The Commission did express a fear that this outside employment would interfere with his state duties, but did not prohibit him from attempting to balance multiple jobs.

Advisory Opinion 1989-31, Application of 1-84b(b) to the Former Director of Emergency Medical Services Seeking to Enter Into a Consulting Contract With the Department of Health Services.

The Commission was asked by the Department of Health Services whether they could enter into a consulting contract with the former Director of the office of Emergency Medical Services.  This would mean that a former state employee was contracting with his former agency less than a year after leaving state service.  The Commission held that this was acceptable under the exception established in Advisory opinion 89-25 (Amended).

Advisory Opinion 1989-32, Member of the General Assembly Serving as Corporate Counsel for a Municipality

The Commission was asked by Representative Figueroa whether there are any conflicts under the Code if he would serve simultaneously as a state representative and corporate counsel for the City of Hartford.  Noting the decision in Advisory Opinion 79-29, the Commission held there was no inherent conflict with this outside employment.  The Commission held that the representative could not represent the City before any of the 1-84(d) agencies without violating the Code.

Advisory Opinion 1989-33, Outside Employment of a Member of the State Elections Enforcement Commission

The Commission was asked by a member of the State Elections Enforcement Commission whether he could accept outside employment as executive assistant to the Mayor of New Haven without violating the Code of Ethics for Public Officials.  The Commission held that if he recues himself from any matter before the Commission which involves the City of New Haven, any candidate for elective office or officeholder in New Haven, or any act or omission by a political party or committee in the city, or representative thereof, then he will not be in violation of the Code.  The Ethics Commission reminds him to avoid disclosing any confidential information when he recuses himself.

Advisory Opinion 1989-34, Reporting of Jointly-Held Receptions by Lobbyists

The Commission was asked how the Code applies to the subsidiary of a company registered as a lobbyist in Connecticut.  The Commission held that a non-registrant may not act on behalf of a registrant to give any state employee, public official candidate or their family a gift amounting to fifty dollars or more per year.  Also, a registrant must report contributions to an unaffiliated non-registered organization if they are earmarked for an event which will benefit pubic officials.

Advisory Opinion 1989-35, Acceptance of Fee Waivers and/or Expense Payments by State Employees Not Subject to Filing Requirements of § 1-83

The Commission was asked six questions regarding the application of the Code to fee waivers/expense payments received by state employees who are not subject to the filing requirements of § 1-83.  The Commission noted that it has previously held that the state should pay for its operations, activities and functions to avoid conflicts of interest.

However, when the registration fee is reduced or eliminated for state employees who are attending a work related event, then this reduction can be deemed a gift to the state; thus, it is not a violation of the Code to pay a reduced fee.  Further, some expenses may also be deemed gifts to the state (airfare, hotel).  Lastly, a registered lobbyist may give a gift to the state.

Advisory Opinion 1989-36, Application of the Ethics Code to Members of Connecticut Historical Commission and State Historic Preservation Board

The Commission was asked by the Director of the Historical Commission how the conflict of interest provisions in the Code applies to members of the Commission and the State Historic Preservation Board.  First, the Code does not apply to members of the Board because they are not public officials.  Second, Governor-appointed members of the Commission are subject to the Code because they are public officials (they hold the power to spend state money).  This opinion includes several very specific discussions regarding particular members of the Commission. 

Advisory Opinion 1989-37, Definition of “Substantial Interest” As Used in Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b (a)

The Commission was asked whether a retired state fire/explosions investigator violated the Code by giving depositions for related litigation.  The retired employee did not receive any compensation and the state is not involved with the litigation.  Therefore, the Commission held that serving as a witness was not a violation of §1-84b.

 

 

Advisory Opinion No. 79-1, “Administrative Action” in Public Act Number 77-605

(Lobbying Definition)

A Pharmaceutical company asked the Ethics Commission whether its representatives, who visit various state agencies in hopes of persuading them to buy or prescribe the company’s products, need to register as lobbyists.  Section 1(k) of Public Act Number 77-605 defines lobbying as “communicating with any official or his staff in the…executive branch of government for the purpose of influencing any…administrative action.” Because the pharmaceutical company’s representatives sought to convince administrators that the firm’s drug products should be considered reimbursable under current policy—as opposed to advocating for a change in policy—they are not attempting to influence “administrative action” and are therefore not lobbying as defined by Public Act Number 77-605.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-2, Public Officials Doing  Business with the Connecticut Housing Authority

(Contracting with the State)

A member-elect of the General Assembly asked the Ethics Commission if his status as a public official affected the ability of the law firm of which he was a partner to obtain a mortgage from the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority. Section 6(i) of Public Act Number 77-600 specifies that a business with which a public employee is associated can only enter into a contract with the state valued at more than $100 if the contract is awarded through an open and public process. Here, a mortgage requires signing contracts and the law firm is a business with which the member-elect is associated. Although some question exists as to whether the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority is a part of the state, since the contracts the Authority awards are done in an open and public manner there is no violation of the statute.   

Advisory Opinion No. 79-3, Appearance by a Public Official’s Firm before Certain State Agencies

(appearing before a committee listed in 1-84(d))

A member of the Connecticut Commission on the Arts was also an attorney at a law firm some of whose other members were likely to represent clients for compensation before agencies listed in § 6(d), Public Act Number 77-600.  The petitioner asked the Ethics Commission whether he could continue to serve on the Connecticut Commission on the Arts. The Ethics Commission held that because there is no exception to § 6(d), no member of the Connecticut Commission on the Arts can remain a member of a law firm that agrees to represent or represents another person for compensation before a state agency listed in § 6(d).

Advisory Opinion No. 79-4, Permissibility of Lobbying by an Attorney-Member of the Board of Higher Education (1-84(d))

An attorney who is a member of the Board of Education asked the State Ethics Commission whether he could lobby on behalf of his clients, before the General Assembly and executive agencies of the state on matters totally unrelated to higher education. The Commission held that the attorney could lobby as long as he did not violate the provisions of § 1-84 of the Code of Ethics. In particular, the attorney could not appear before the Board of Education or any agency listed in § 1-84(d).

Advisory Opinion No. 79-5, Statements of Financial Interests

(Statement of Financial Interests 1-83)

A public official required by § 1-83 to file a Statement of Financial Interests posed several questions to the Ethics Commission, which answered them by holding that § 1-83 requires that:

• if the public official has several savings accounts he should lump together interest earned on all the accounts and disclose the total if it is greater than $1000;
• a public official must list the value of a stock in a single corporation if the value is greater than $5000, as opposed to adding up all the values of all stock owned in order to reach the $5000 disclosure limit.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-6, Appearance by a Public Official before a Section 1-84(d) Agency

(appearing before a 1-84(d) agency)

A member of the General Assembly asked the Ethics Commission if he could file applications with the Division of Liquor Control for compensation on behalf of a client without violating § 1-84(d) of the Code of Ethics.  The Commission held that the member could help in the preparation of documents but if he signed them prior to their submission or took any action that might permit the agency to learn his identity, then he would have violated § 1-84(d).

Advisory Opinion No. 79-7, Representation of an Estate by an Attorney-Legislator

Outside employment

A member of the General Assembly who was also an attorney asked the Ethics Commission whether he could act as counsel to one of the executors of an estate.  The Bureau of Collection Services had filed a claim against the estate and the executors planned to contest the claim. The Commission held that so long as the attorney abided by the provisions of § 1-84 of the Code of Ethics, such employment would be permissible. The attorney must be prepared to excuse himself from voting in the event that a conflict of interest occurs between his representation and the discharge of his official duties, as per § 1-86.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-8, Requirements for Registration as a Lobbyist

(Lobbyist Definition) (Lobbyist Reporting)

A coalition consisted of representatives of various professionally-related associations that have a common interest in an act reorganizing the executive branch. The coalition hired a lawyer to draft a bill incorporating some amendments to the act. Members of the coalition then tried to persuade legislators to introduce the bill. The members of the coalition were not paid for their work. The coalition asked the Ethics Commission whether it needed to register as a lobbyist.

The Commission held that the members of the coalition who contacted the legislators were communicator lobbyists as defined in § 1(j) of Public Act Number 77-605. However, because they were not paid to lobby, they do not have to register as lobbyists. The coalition spent money on an attorney to draft the bill. If that expense surpassed the threshold enumerated in § 1(1) of Public Act Number 77-605, then the coalition must register as a lobbyist. Because his role was clerical in nature, the attorney who drafted the bill was not a lobbyist.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-9, “State employee,” Public Act Number 77-600 and “in furtherance of lobbying,” Public Act Number 77-605

The Ethics Commission held that an attorney who acted as a consultant to a state agency was an independent contractor, and thus not a state employee subject to the provisions of what is now called the Code of Ethics, because the agency had no supervision or management of her actions.

The same attorney was also a lobbyist. She paid a law firm half her earnings in exchange for office space in the law firm.  The attorney and law firm had no other association with each other. The Ethics Commission held that the law firm did not have to register as a lobbyist, although it received money the attorney earned by lobbying, since the “administrative services” the law firm provided to the lawyer were not “in furtherance of lobbying” as defined in § 1(1) Public Act No. 77-605.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-10, “Operation of a Private Medical Services Corporation by Department of Health Services Employees.”

(Outside employment) 

The Ethics Commission held that nothing in the Code of Ethics prohibited several professional employees of the Department of Health Services from forming a corporation to provide health consultation to private businesses. The Code does, however, restrict the actions of the corporation and its founders. They must not, for instance, enter into a contract with the department they work for or apply for grants issued by the department, even if the process is open and public. Furthermore, the corporation should not represent or counsel any client in violation of the department’s regulations.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-11, Appearances by the Spouse of a Public Official before a Section 1-84(d) Agency

(Appearing  before a 1-84(d) agency) 

The Ethics Commission held that a spouse of a member of the General Assembly could appear before a § 1-84(d) agency because that provision does not apply, and was not intended to apply, to the spouse of a public official.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-12, Status of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority

(Statement of Financial interests) (Lobbyist Definition)

The Ethics Commission explained that although the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority has the authority to raise and expend many millions of dollars for a public purpose, it exists independently of the state and is not a part of the “body politic” of Connecticut.  Consequently, members of the Authority are not subject to the disclosure requirements of § 1-83 General Statutes. Moreover, those who seek to influence the actions of the authority are not lobbying for the purposes of § 1-91 General Statutes since one can only lobby the government.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-13, Possible Conflicts When a Director of a Professional Association is a Member of a Board Regulating the Profession

(Outside employment)

A public accountant who was a member of the State Board of Accountancy asked the Ethics Commission whether his membership on the Board prevented him from serving concurrently as a director of The Connecticut Association of Public Accountants, Inc. Because the Association is largely an educational institution, and because the statute establishing the Board mandates the inclusion of accountants, the Commission held that the accountant could serve as a director of the Association without violating the Code of Ethics. However, the Commission explained that the accountant must be careful not to allow his work with the Association to impair the independence of his judgment. § 1-84(b) General Statutes.  The accountant should not be involved in setting policy or carrying it out as a director of the Association, nor in taking official action on a policy first set out by the Association.  If conflicts do arise, the accountant can avoid them by making use of the provisions in § 1-86 General Statutes.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-14 (Amended), Substantial Conflict with the Discharge of a Legislator’s Duties

(Conflict of Interest Substantial)

A member of the General Assembly who was also a teacher asked the Ethics Commission if he could vote on matters that affected teachers’ employment without violating the Code of Ethics.  The Commission held that the member need not abstain from voting on such matters since § 1-86 of the Code of Ethics states that a public official does not have a substantial conflict of interest if the benefit or detriment that accrues to him as a result of official action also affects, to the same extent, an entire class of people, such as a profession.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-15, Statements of Financial Interest

(Statements of Financial Interest) 

A member of the General Assembly asked the Ethics Commission whether under §1-83 of the Code of Ethics he needed to disclose certain financial holdings, including:

• a thrift plan fund composed of the stock of a number of companies, the income earned from which is retained in the fund until the member resigns from the organization;
• a testamentary trust established for the member’s cousin, who for life receives all income; at the cousin’s death the member receives a portion of the principal.
• a trust, the income from which the member’s wife receives for life;
• a testamentary trust established for the member’s sister, who for life receives all income; at her death the member receives a portion of the principal.

 The Commission held that the member must report all these holdings if any one of them has a value greater than the threshold since § 1-83 does not allow for an exception in the case of future interests or contingent remainders and because a thrift plan fund is similar to a mutual fund.

Advisory Opinion 79-16, Reporting Trust Assets in a Statement of Financial Interests

(Statement of Financial Interests)

A public official required by § 1-83(a), General Statutes, to file a yearly statement of financial interests with the State Ethics Commission asked whether he needed to disclosure information about his wife’s blind trust, of which he was a beneficiary. The Commission held that he must disclose this information if the value of the blind trust exceeds the statutory threshold since § 1-83 makes an exception to the disclosure rule only for blind trusts the public official establishes himself. The Commission further noted that the exception to the disclosure rule applies only to securities; if there is any real estate in a blind trust it must always be reported.

Advisory Opinion  1979-17

Lobbying by a United States Senator

The Commission was asked whether a United States Senator, who sent members of the Connecticut General Assembly franked letters (each a 43 page packet) urging them to ratify an amendment, must register as a lobbyist.  The cost of sending out these packets was guessed to be more than $300.  Noting that franked mail is generally a sign of official business, and the contents of the packet seemed to be related to his work as a senator, the Commission held that such activity does not require registration as a lobbyist.

Advisory Opinion 79-18, Conflicts of Interest with a State Employee’s Duties

(Outside employment) 

The Executive Director of the State Board of Education and Services for the Blind asked the Ethics Commission if he could serve simultaneously as Chairman of the Board of Connecticut Radio Information Services, Inc. (CRIS) without violating the Code of Ethics. CRIS is a non-profit corporation dedicated to distributing information by radio to those unable to make use of print media. It interacts frequently with the State Board of Education and Services for the Blind. 

Even though he is not paid by CRIS, the Executive Director should not hold both positions at the same time since doing so would likely put him on both sides of the same transaction. Were he to resign as Chairman, however, the Executive Director could act as a consultant to CRIS so long as he did not violate § 1-84(b) of the Code of Ethics, which prohibits the disclosure of confidential information acquired during the course of official duties.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-19, Appearances by a Public Official before a Municipal Agency

(appearing before 1-84(d) agency)

The Ethics Commission reaffirmed that a state legislator who is also a lawyer may represent clients before municipal boards and commissions, since § 1-84(d) specifically authorizes such representation.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-20, Holding Two Positions with the State

(Contracting with the State 1-84(i) (Outside employment)

A member of the Personnel Appeals Board asked the Ethics Commission if he could, with propriety, represent, as an independent contractor, the Commissioner of Human Resources.  Because there was no relationship between the petitioner’s public duties and his contractual work, there was no conflict of interest. The only issue the Ethics Commission noted was whether the process by which the petitioner received contractual work was “open and public” as described in § 1-84(i). However, that section of the Code establishes an exception for those who receive expenses, rather than compensation, for their public service. Hence, the question was not dispositive in this case.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-21, Status of a Health Systems Agency Engaged in Lobbying

(Lobbyist Definition)

A health systems agency, although authorized by the National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-641, is neither a state nor a federal entity. Therefore, if the health agency expends more than the statutory threshold in seeking to influence the actions of the state legislature, it must register as a lobbyist. § 1-91(1), 1-94(a), and 1-95(a), General Statutes.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-22, Appearance by a Member of the Elections Commission before Certain State Agencies

(Appearing before a 1-84(d) agency) 

The State Ethics Commission affirmed that, pursuant to § 1-84(d) of the Code of Ethics, a member of the Elections Commission can represent clients for pay before the otherwise proscribed agencies listed in § 1-84(d) because the proscription does not apply to “any member of an advisory board or commission who receives no compensation other than a flat per diem rate or reimbursement for actual or necessary expenses.” § 1-84(d) General Statutes. Members of the Elections Commission do not receive any compensation except a flat per diem, so the exception applies to them.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-23 (amended), Application of Subsection 1-84(d), General Statutes, to Members of the Department of Education Arbitration Panel

(appearing before a 1-84(d) agency) 

Section 1-84(d) of the Code of Ethics prohibits state employees or public officials from appearing for compensation before some state agencies. An exception to this prohibition exists, “any member of an advisory board or commission who receives no compensation other than a flat per diem rate or reimbursement for actual or necessary expenses, or both, incurred in the performance of his duties.” § 1-84(d), General Statutes. The Ethics Commission held that this exception applies to members of the Arbitration Panel established by the Department of Education since they receive nothing but a flat per diem.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-24, Possible Conflicts of Interest Involving State Policemen

(Outside employment) 

The Ethics Commission held that nothing in the Code of Ethics prevents a state police officer from serving on a municipal shellfish commission or being certified by the state as a building official.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-25, Application of Subsection 1-84(d), General Statutes, to Members of the Dental Commission

(appearing before a 1-84(d) agency)

The Ethics Commission held that an attorney who served as a member of the State Dental Commission can represent clients for pay before the agencies listed in § 1-84(d), since the provision’s ban on such representation does not apply to those who receive per diem pay for serving on a board or commission.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-26, Additional State Employment of One Already a State Employee

(Outside employment)

The School of Pharmacy at the University of Connecticut was awarded a state grant to educate the elderly as to the proper use of prescription drugs. To accomplish this goal, the school planned to invite clinical associates, pharmacists who teach without pay at the school, to participate. Each participating pharmacist would receive a per diem for several days of education in a given area. One clinical associate, who was also an employee of the Department of Consumer Protection, asked the Ethics Commission whether he could participate in the education program if selected. 

The Commission held that participating in the educational program would not impair the independence of the Clinical Associate’s judgment, § 1-84(b), General Statutes, nor would it risk the disclosure of confidential information, §§ 1-84(b) and (c), General Statutes. The only possible violation of the Code of Ethics involved § 1-84(i), which puts restrictions on state employees seeking to sign contracts with the state worth more than $100. The Commission found that it was not clear that those clinical associates who participate in the educational plan have signed a contract. Even if a contract was signed, it was not clear signing it with the School of Pharmacy is the same as signing it with the State. Hence, the prohibitions of § 1-84(i) may not apply. Regardless, because the process by which Clinical Associates are chosen to participate in the program was open to non-state employees and because it was public, there would be no violation of the Code.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-27, Additional State Employment of One Already a State Employee

(Outside employment) The Ethics Commission told an employee of the Department of Consumer Protection that he could sign a contract to teach a course at a state community college because signing the contract did not violate any provision of § 1-84(i), which regulates state employees who wish to sign contracts with the state.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-28, Application of Subsection 1-84(d), General Statutes, to Members of the Public Defender Services Commission

(appearing before a 1-84(d) agency) 

The Ethics Commission held that non-judicial members of the Public Services Commission are not subject to the ban on appearing before the agencies listed in § 1-84(d) since they fall under the exception that provision gives for those serving on a commission or board for a flat per diem.

Advisory Opinion No. 79-29, Member of the General Assembly as Town Attorney

(Outside employment) 

A member of the General Assembly asked the Ethics Commission whether he could serve as a town attorney without violating a provision of the Code of Ethics. The Commission held that the legislator could serve as a town attorney since the two positions are not in conflict. The legislator must make use of the procedure in § 1-86 to avoid any conflicts that do arise. Furthermore, neither the legislator, nor any other lawyer who works with him in town, or any lawyer in the legislator’s firm, if such exists, can appear before an agency listed in § 1-84(d), General Statutes.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-30* Expenditures for the Benefit of a Public Official, a Member of his Staff or Immediate Family

The Commission was asked how P.A. 77-605 applies to lobbyists who hold conventions attended by state employees, public officials and their staff/families.  During the daytime, educational programs are held.  During the evening, attendees participate in social events.  The cost of the convention is covered by the registration fee paid by attendees.

First, a state employee who is a guest for cocktails and dinner should be included as a beneficiary in the organization’s financial report if the employee is on the staff of a public official.  Second, neither a public official nor a state employee who attends part of a day’s program is a reportable beneficiary.  Third, a member of the immediate family of a state employee would not be a reportable beneficiary under any circumstances.

The opinion also discusses the definition of “expenditure”, “staff” and “beneficiaries”.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-29 Member of the General Assembly as Counsel for a Municipal Housing Authority

A member of the General Assembly, who is an attorney, asked the Commission whether he may be retained as counsel for a municipal housing authority.  The Commission held that the Code did not prohibit such activity, as there was no inherent conflict of interest.  It noted there may be a common law restriction on such activity.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-28*  “Public Officials” under Public Act Number 77-600

The Commission was asked whether non-legislative members of the Connecticut Law Revision Commission were public officials under P.A. 77-600.  Because the Law Revision Commission is not a paid body (they only receive reimbursement for necessary expenses), and they do not exert State power (e.g. by making final decisions about legislation, spending state funds), its non-legislative members are not public officials.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-27*  “Administrative Action” in Public Act Number 77-605

The Commission was asked whether a law firm which represents an association, subject to regulation by the Commission on Special Revenue, in proceedings before the Commission which could result in the loss or suspension of the association’s license to conduct gaming operations in the State, must register as a lobbyist under P.A. 77-605.  Those who try to influence any “administrative action” are lobbyists.  “Administrative action” is defined as “any action or non-action of any executive agency of the state with respect to the amendment, adoption or repeal of any rule, regulation, rate hearing or guideline”.

Given these definitions, the Commission held that when a law firm merely petitions for a regulation to be issued, without attempting in any way to shape the thrust or language of the regulation, it is not lobbying within the meaning of P.A. 77-605.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-26  Registration as a Lobbyist by a Counsel in Bankruptcy Proceedings

In response to the decision in 78-25, attorneys of a Connecticut law firm, who are counsel before the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care for rate matters concerning a number of Connecticut nursing homes, asked whether they could be exempted from registering as lobbyists.  The Commission held that requiring registration and reporting by client lobbyists in this situation would be unnecessarily cumbersome and without significant benefit to the public.  Thus, the lobbyist regulations were waived, as requested.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-25*  Participation in Rate Hearings as Lobbying

The Commission was asked whether a health care facility that was seeking approval of an increase in rates from the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care was “lobbying.”  The Commission held that a health care facility and its representatives participating in a section 19-73i(b) hearing before the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care are “lobbying” within the meaning of section 1(k) of Public Act 77-605.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-24*  Status under Public Act Number 77-600 of Attorney-Members of the Judicial Review Council

The Commission was asked by an attorney whether her appointment by the Governor to the Judicial Review Council has made her a public official as defined in P.A. 77-600.  Noting that members of the Council may suspend a state judge from office, the Commission determined state power was being exercised.  Thus, Governor-appointed Council members are public officials.

NOTE: This file also contains a follow-up letter from the attorney.  While the Commission did hold the opinion in abeyance for several months, it was reinstated in July 1979.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-23  Member of an Advisory Board

The Commission was asked whether the Code is violated when a chairwoman of a regional housing council, who serves ex officio as a member of the Central Housing Committee, is also employed by a real estate development corporation that works in Connecticut.  Noting that the state council and committee positions were unpaid, thus, advisory board appointments, the Commission said the Code did not apply to this petitioner.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-22*  Public Officials Appearing Before State Agencies

A partner in a law firm, appointed by the Governor to the Public Health Council, has asked the Commission whether it would violate section 6(d) of P.A. 77-600 if he or a member of his firm were to appear in a representative capacity and on a compensated basis before the state agencies listed in that section of the statute.  First, finding the appointment made the partner a public official (as opposed to a member of an advisory board), the Commission held that he could not appear before the listed state agencies.  Second, noting that section 1-66(d) was reenacted in 1977, the Commission held it would be a violation of the Code if members of the firm represented others before a listed agency.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-21  Appearances by a Public Official’s Firm before Certain State Agencies

The Commission was asked if the prohibitions in P.A. 77-600, subsection 6 (d), prohibit an associate in a law firm, who is also a public official, from representing clients before a listed agency.  Additionally, requester asked if his status as an associate (a salaried position), would prevent other members of his firm from representing others before the listed agencies.  The Commission held that the legislative history clearly shows that the status one holds in a law firm does not change the application of the prohibition.  Thus, neither the associate nor the firm subject to P.A. 77-600 should represent clients before the listed agencies. 

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-20 “Administrative Action” in Public Act Number 77-605

The Commission was asked by the attorney for a public service company that has applied to the Public Utilities Control Authority for approval of a corporate reorganization and merger and for approval of the formation of a holding company whether he must register as a lobbyist because of his participation in the proceedings.  The Commission held that the attorney was not trying to influence the action of the Authority with respect to any rule, regulation, guideline or rate hearing, and thus, was not acting as a lobbyist.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-19  State Grants to an Organization with which a Public Official is Associated

The Commission was asked by a legislator whether an organization which he administers may apply for a grant from a state executive department without involving the legislator in a conflict of interest. The legislator is executive director of the tax-exempt, non-profit organization and a member of its board of directors.  He receives no compensation for his services, other than insurance coverage through inclusion in the organization’s group medical insurance plan. Were the grant to be awarded to his organization, neither the legislator nor his family would be employed in any way in the project funded by the grant, thus, the Commission held there would be no violation of the Code if the organization applied for the grant.  The Commission also noted that should a conflict of interest arise in the future, the legislator should abstain from taking official action that would affect the organization.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-18*  “Executive Agency” Under Public Act Number 77-605

An attorney, also a registered lobbyist, who represents a taxicab company, asked the Commission whether his work for the company should be reported in his quarterly financial report regarding administrative lobbying.  The attorney has, on behalf of his client, filed a petition with the Greater Hartford Transit District requesting that it change its regulations.

The Commission held that if the Greater Hartford Transit District were an “executive agency of the state”, then the attorney would have to report his activities.  However, it is in fact a quasi-municipal corporation, and not an executive agency of the state as defined in P.A. 77-605; thus, no reporting must be done.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-17  Requirements for Registration as a Lobbyist

The Commission was asked by an out-of-state law firm whether it, or its clients, must register as a lobbyist.  The firm acts as counsel to clients, who do business in Connecticut, and belong to Connecticut trade associations.   The firm advises clients of the impact on them of proposed legislation and regulations, advice which the clients may discuss at the trade association meetings.  The firm’s attorneys also attend association meetings to explain their client’s views.  The Commission held that since it is the trade association which does the actual lobbying, there is no registration requirement for the firm or its client.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-16  Reporting Expenditures for the Benefit of a Public Official

An organization which gave a reception attended by some state legislators, among others, asked the Commission the proper procedure for reporting the expenditure for the reception.  The total cost of the reception was $40, however, it is estimated that only about $15 was spent on guests that were legislators.  The Commission held that a registrant must include in his financial report, an itemized statement of any expenditures benefiting public employees, their immediate family or staff, at an occasion which costs at least $25.  Thus, because the reception cost more than $25, it must be reported.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-15*  Branch or Subdivision of State Government

The Commission was asked how P.A. 77-605, section 1(1)(1), applied to three entities that were exempted from lobbyist registration under the former lobbying statute.  Two of the petitioners are associations which represent towns and cities in Connecticut.  The third petitioner is an association of local boards of education.

The Commission said that what determined whether an entity is a political subdivision of the state (and thus exempt from registration requirements), is the fact that it can exercise sovereign power of the state.  All three of these associations lack this power, thus, they must register if they engage in lobbying exceeding the $300 threshold.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-14*  Branch or Subdivision of State Government

The Commission was asked by two organization formed by municipally-owned utilities whether they have to register as lobbyist under P.A. 77-605 if they engage in lobbying.  One organization was a voluntary association of municipally-owned electric and gas utilities which serves a forum and program sponsor for activities such as employee training, exchanging technical information, and attempting to influence legislative action which would affect the association’s members.  The other organization is a municipal electric cooperative established under chapter 101a, and is a public body considered to be exercising an essential government function when it engages in lobbying.  The Commission held that the former organization must register as a lobbyist, while the latter need not, as it is a “branch of state government or a subdivision thereof.”

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-13* Influencing Legislative Action

The Commission was asked by an insurance firm whether supplying information requested by members or staff of the General Assembly constitutes lobbying under P.A. 77-605.  The Commission noted that the insurance firm was in the best position to determine whether they were supplying the information neutrally, or with the intent to affect legislation.  Thus, there was no definitive answer to whether supplying information upon request constituted lobbying.  Additionally, the Commission noted that if supplying information cost the firm more than $25, it would have to be reported as “an expenditure for the benefit of a public official.”

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-12*  Branch or Subdivision of State Government

A person working for the Capitol Regional Council of Governments asked the Commission whether she is subject to the provisions of P.A. 77-605.  Because she is an employee of a branch of the state government or subdivision thereof whose lobbying activity is within the scope of her employment, the petitioner was decidedly not a lobbyist who needed to register.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-11*  “State Employee” under Public Act Number 77-605

The Commission was asked by an attorney whether providing legal services to the Connecticut Teachers’ Retirement Board, including meeting with various legislative and staff persons with respect to legislation arising out of their work, necessitated registering as a lobbyist.  The attorney served as an independent contractor, not a state employee.  The Commission held that registration was necessary only if the attorney receives more than $300 a year to influence legislative action (i.e. by meeting with legislators to do more than just obtain information).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-10 Contracts between the State and a Business with which a Public Official is Associated

A legislator who owned 25 per cent of the common stock in a family-owned corporation wished to file a competitive bid on a contract with the state.  Noting that this was a business with which he is associated, the Commission held that the corporation could submit a bid so long as it was through and open and public process (assuming the bid was for a contract of more than $100).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-09* “State employee,” Public Act Number 77-600 and “in furtherance of lobbying,” Public Act Number 77-605

The Commission was asked how P.A. 77-600 and P.A. 77-605 applied to an attorney who “rented” space in a law firm but was not part of the firm.  The attorney paid half of her fees to the firm in return for use of office space, secretarial services, and telephone services.  The attorney engaged in several activities, including practicing law, lobbying, and consulting.  A state agency was one of her clients. 

The Commission held that the firm in whose office space she worked did not have to worry about the application of the Code because the attorney was not a state employee, she was an independent contractor.  Additionally, her relationship with the firm would not invoke the Code under the conditions presented.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 1978-08  Requirements for Registration as a Lobbyist

The Commission was asked by an organization whether their activities constitute lobbying.  The organization is a coalition comprised of representatives of various professionally-related associations which also have a common interest in the act reorganizing the executive branch of the government.  The organization has studied legislation and hired an attorney to draft a bill incorporating their desired amendments.  No lobbyist was hired by the organization.  Officers and members of the organization, none of whom were paid, asked the General Assembly to introduce the bill. 

The Commission held that if the expenditures for drafting the bill amounted to more than $300, then the organization must register as a lobbyist.  The attorney need not register though, as his duties were ministerial.

ADVISORY OPINION NO.1978-7  “Administrative Action” in Public Act Number 77-605

(Requirements for Registration as a Lobbyist)

A lawyer who represented several insurance companies at a hearing before the Insurance Commissioner asked the Ethics Commission whether he or his law firm needed to register as lobbyists in order to comply with the provisions of Public Act Number 77-605. That act specifies that any person or entity who tries to influence administrative action must register as a lobbyist. Administrative action is “any action or non-action of any executive agency of the state…adoption or repeal of any rule, regulation, rate hearing or guideline.” In this case, the lawyer sought a declaratory ruling on behalf of his clients. Because a declaratory ruling is not a rule, regulation, rate hearing or guideline, the lawyer and his law firm were not required to register as lobbyists.

ADVISORY OPINION NO.1978-6 Financial Reports Concerning Lobbying

Two individuals employed by a corporation to lobby on behalf of a client asked the Ethics Commission how to report their financial transactions in order to comply with the requirements of Public Act 77-605. The Commission held that only the individuals and their client need to register as lobbyists under Public Act 77-605.

ADVISORY OPINION NO.1978-5 “Administrative Action” in Public Act Number 77-605

A corporation seeking to buy several Connecticut insurance companies was required by statute to obtain the approval of the Insurance Commissioner after a public hearing. The attorneys representing the corporation during the proceedings asked the Ethics Commission if their representation of the corporation would constitute “lobbying” as defined by Public Act 77-605 and therefore would require them to register. The Commission held that since the attorneys were not seeking to influence an executive agency’s “administrative action” but rather to comply with what were essentially quasi-judicial proceedings they were not lobbying for purposes of the Public Act and did not need to register as lobbyists.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 78-4 “Administrative Action” in Public Act Number 77-605

A licensed professional was compelled by the state licensing agency to appear before a board to show why his license should not be suspended or revoked. The licensed professional asked the Ethics Commission whether he or his representatives would be “lobbyists” if they appeared before the licensing agency. The Commission explained that according to Public Act 77-605, a person “representing himself or another person before…a state agency other than for the purpose of influencing…administrative action” is exempt from the Act’s definition of a lobbyist. “Administrative action” is “action or non-action of any executive agency of the state with respect to the amendment, adoption or repeal of any rule, regulation, rate hearing or guideline.” Section 1(a), Public Act Number 77-605. A hearing to determine whether a person’s professional license is revoked or suspended does not fall into any of the categories in section 1(a). Therefore, neither the licensed professional nor his representatives were lobbyists when they appeared before the state licensing agency.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 78-3  Gifts

A lobbyist asked the Ethics Commission whether giving athletic event tickets to public officials constituted a gift. The Commission held that they are gifts, whether physically given to the public official for his or her own use or if the public official attended the event along with the lobbyist. The Commission said that under Public Act 77-605 such gifts must be reported as expenditures.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 78-2  Requirements of Section 5, Public Act Number 77-605, for Registration as a Lobbyist

A non-profit corporation whose members received no compensation for lobbying activities asked the Ethics Commission whether it, its members, or its representative needed to register as lobbyists. The Commission held that since the members did not meet the $300 threshold established in Public Act Number 77-605, they did not have to register. The corporation did not have to register unless it spent more than $300 a year on its newsletter and if the newsletter was distributed to readers other than the corporation’s members. The representative likewise only needed to register if he or she received more than $300 in yearly compensation for lobbying activities.

Advisory Opinion No. 78-1  Appearances of a Public Official Before the State Agencies Listed in Section 6(d), Public Act Number 77-600

A state representative and lawyer asked the Ethics Commission if he could represent clients before certain state agencies, such as the State Liquor Control Commission, without violating the Code of Ethics for Legislators. Because the Code explicitly prohibits a public official, such as a state representative, from representing clients for pay before such agencies, the Ethics Commission said that the state representative could not do so.

* = opinion discusses Code section while it was still in P.A. numbering