Documents
Procedure and
Guidelines for
Impeachment Trials
in the United
States:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/pdf/CDOC-99sdoc33.pdf
Guide to Impeachment
and Censure
Materials Online:
http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/links.html
For additional case
precedents:
United States v. Aaron Burr
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/burr/burraccount.html
House Resolution 702
(HR 702) - created
the Select Committee
of Inquiry.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/tob/h/2003HR-00702-R00-HB.htm
Code of Ethics for
Public Officials:
http://www.ct.gov/ethics/lib/ethics/guides/2014/public_officials_and_state_employees_guide_rev-jan2014.pdf
Summary of State
Ethics Laws for
Current and
Potential State Contractors:
http://www.ct.gov/ethics/cwp/view.asp?a=2313&Q=301720ðicsNav=|
ADVISORY OPINION NO.
2004-2
Application Of
Conn. Gen. Stat.
1-84(m)(1) And
Related Gift
Provisions Of The
Code Of Ethics For
Public Officials
The Honorable James
A. Amann, Majority
Leader of the
Connecticut House of
Representatives, has
asked the Ethics
Commission "…for an
advisory opinion
regarding the proper
interpretation of
Section 1-84
subsection (m) of
the Connecticut
General Statutes."
Specifically,
Representative Amann
wishes to know
whether, under
1-84(m)(1), a
public official is
prohibited from
accepting a gift
from an individual
or entity, if that
individual or entity
is seeking or
receiving state
contracts, not from
the official's
office or
department, but from
another executive or
quasi-public agency.
This Opinion is
requested and issued
pursuant to Conn.
Gen. Stat.
1-81(a)(3), which
provides, in
pertinent part, that
the Commission "…shall issue
advisory opinions
with regard to…"
The Code of Ethics
for Public Officials
"…upon the request
of any person
subject to the
provisions of…" the
Code. In this
instance, Rep. Amann
is specifically
seeking the
interpretation in
question in order to
ascertain whether,
in his judgment,
remedial legislation
may be necessary
during the 2004
session of the
General Assembly.
In response to this
request, the
following advisory
opinion is intended
to provide a general
interpretation of
1-84(m)(l) and the
Code's related gift
provisions. This
Opinion is not based
on any specific set
of facts, nor should
it be construed as
referring to, or
prejudicing, any
enforcement
proceeding which may
be currently pending
before the Ethics
Commission.
Subsection
1-84(m)(1) states
that "no public
official or state
employee shall
knowingly accept,
directly or
indirectly, any
gift, as defined in
subsection (e) of
section 1-79, from
any person the
official or employee
knows or has reason
to know: (1) is
doing business with
or seeking to do
business with the
department or agency
in which the
official or employee
is employed." The
cited gift
definition, with
exceptions not
pertinent, includes
within the term
anything valued at
ten dollars or more,
which is directly
and personally
received, unless
equal or greater
consideration is
given in return.
Under the
Commission's
Regulations, to
avoid attribution of
a gift one must
either return or pay
for the item within
30 days of receipt.
Regulations of Conn.
State Agencies Sec.
1-92-54(c).
It is a fundamental
tenet of statutory
construction that
"…words and phrases
shall be construed
according to the
commonly approved
usage of the
language." Conn.
Gen. Stat. 1-1(a).
Under this standard,
the words "doing" "business" are
commonly understood
to mean: "to
perform" or "to
execute" "a profit
seeking enterprise
or concern."
Webster's Unabridged
Dictionary at pps.
421 nos. 1 and 2;
and 203 no. 3,
Barnes and Noble
(1984).
In two enforcement
actions over the
past six years, the
Commission has
applied this
commonly approved
usage as follows:
One is "doing
business" with a "department or
agency" when one
contacts that
department or agency
to further a
commercial, i.e.,
business, purpose;
regardless of
whether the entity
contacted has
actual, legal
authority to issue
or execute the
contract, grant,
award, etc. being
sought. Based on
this statutory
interpretation the
Commission has
concluded that the
1-84(m)(1) gift ban
applies under such
circumstances to any
official or employee
of a department or
agency who "knows or
has reason to know"
of the business
contact(s).
For example, in
Ethics Commission
Docket No. 2003-5,
by Stipulation &
Order, the
Commission found
that a public
official had
violated 1-84(m)(l)
in two instances by
accepting gifts from
persons doing
business with or
seeking business
from state or
quasi-public
agencies. In each
instance, the
business (i.e.,
contract, lease or
grant) was with an
agency or department
other than the
office in which the
Respondent-public
official served; and
the statutory basis
for the violation
was the donor's
contact with the
public official's
office for the
purpose of
influencing that
business.
Additionally, in
Ethics Commission
Docket No. 97-3, by
Stipulation & Order,
the Commission,
again, found that a
public official
violated 1-84(m)(l)
based on the
acceptance of a gift
from a person whose
firm did business
with the State;
although the
business (i.e.,
contracts) was not
directly executed by
the public
official's office.
The following
hypothetical will
illustrate the
analytical basis for
these two
decisions: a person
seeking business (a
contract) with the
Department of Public
Works (DPW) contacts
a friend, the
Commissioner of the
Department of
Environmental
Protection (DEP),
and utilizes the DEP
Commissioner's
assistance to obtain
the DPW contract.
Under these
circumstances, the
1-84(m)(l) gift ban
applies not only to
the officials and
employees of the DPW
(the contracting
department); but
also to the DEP
Commissioner, the
official contacted
to further the
private person's
business interests.
A review of the
foregoing
enforcement actions
and hypothetical
makes clear that the
Ethics Commission,
in administering and
interpreting
1-84(m)(1), has
rejected the
argument that the
gift ban only
applies to employees
and officials of the
department or agency
legally authorized
to issue the
contract, lease,
grant, etc.
The Commission also
notes that if an
individual or entity
goes outside of a
department or
agency's normal
contracting process
(e.g., by contacting
the Commissioner or
the Office of the
Governor) and if
$2,000 or more, in a
calendar year, is
expended or received
incident to such
contacts, the
parallel gift ban
for lobbyists, set
forth in Conn. Gen.
Stat. 1-84(j) and
1-97(a) would also
apply. See, Ethics
Commission Advisory
Opinion 97-5, 58 CLJ
No. 40, p. 9D
(4/1/97); see, also,
Regulations of Conn.
State Agencies Sec.
1-92-42a(b).
Finally, even absent
the requisite
contacts and/or
expenditures
necessary to trigger
the gift bans of
1-84(m) and (j),
Conn. Gen. Stat.
1-84(c) (the Code
provision
prohibiting use of
public office for
financial gain)
would bar receipt of
any gift given by
virtue of one's
public office or
position, if the
gift were valued at
over one hundred
dollars per person
per calendar year.
See, the 1997
legislative history
regarding the Public
Act (No. 97-6, June
18 Special Session)
which established
the current ten
dollar gift ban. As
part of that
legislation, Conn.
Gen. Stat.
1-84(m)(3) (which
barred the receipt
of gifts from any
person that had
financial interests
which could be
substantially
affected by the
performance or
nonperformance of
one's official
duties) was
repealed. In the
floor debate
regarding this
repeal, the House
Chair of the
Government
Administration and
Elections Committee,
Representative Susan Bysiewicz, was asked
why 1-84(m)(3) was
being deleted.
Representative Bysiewicz replied as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, we are
removing that
language at the
request of the
Ethics Commission.
They believe that it
is vague and over
broad, and that
there are other
places in our
statutes which deal
with this issue.
And I would cite you
one as a, Section
1-84c of our
statutes which says
essentially that you
cannot use your
public office for
personal gain. And
so, for that reason
we are removing that
language.
Vol. 40 H.R. Proc.,
part 21, 1997 June
18 Special Session
pps.251, 252 (June
20, 1997)
Acting with the
explicit knowledge
and authorization of
the General
Assembly, as made
clear by the
foregoing
legislative history,
the Commission, some
three months after
the effective date
of the Public Act,
issued Ethics
Commission Advisory
Opinion 98-9, 59 CLJ
No. 45, p. 5D
(5/5/98), wherein
the Commission
interpreted 1-84(c)
as follows:
Given the current,
essentially
absolute, ban on
gifts from regulated
donors…the
Commission believes
the financial
thresholds
established by the
gift law are no
longer an
appropriate and
sufficient benchmark
for limiting
benefits provided by
virtue of one's
position, from
non-regulated
benefactors.
Alternatively the
Commission now
adopts the de minimis financial
benefits standard
set forth in the
regulations
implementing the
Code's conflict of
interest
provisions. See,
Regulations of Conn.
State Agencies Sec.
1-81-30(a).
Specifically, under
this standard,
benefits with a
cumulative value of
less than one
hundred dollars per
person per year
provided to a public
official or
immediate family
member, by virtue of
the official's
position, by a
non-regulated donor
will be permitted.
Application of this
standard will allow
modest benefits from
non-regulated
donors…At the same
time, however, the
de minimis
limitation will
prevent the public
official from
improperly
requesting or
receiving
substantial, clearly
inappropriate, gifts
or other benefits by
virtue of public
position.
The Ethics
Commission has
consistently applied
this standard since
1998 and reaffirms
today that gifts
given to a public
official by donors
not regulated under
1-84(m) or (j),
e.g., subordinates,
political appointees
and constituents, by
virtue of the
official's public
position must not
exceed one hundred
dollars per
recipient per year.
In reiterating this
standard, the
Commission believes
it is important to
note that 1-84(c)
prohibits gifts
valued at over one
hundred dollars only
when the gift is
being given because
of the official's
state position. As
a consequence, the
statutory limitation
would not apply if
the donor could
establish that he or
she had given gifts
of approximately the
same dollar value to
the official before
that official
assumed public
office.
By order of the
Commission
Rosemary Giuliano
Chairperson |