ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-7  Member Of Board Of Trustees Seeking To Contract With University
A member of the UCONN Board of Trustees asked whether his consulting business could enter into a contract with the University. Under Commission precedent, a board member may not enter into such an agreement, if his Board is responsible for the award or supervision of the contract. Absent Board involvement, the Trustee may seek the consulting work in question. The Board may, however, wish to voluntarily require that any such contract be awarded through an open and public process (a Code requirement which does not ordinarily apply to uncompensated public officials). Finally, if the Board were called upon to vote on a matter which would create the opportunity and/or the funding for a potential contract, the Trustee must recuse himself from that matter.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-8  Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-84(b) And (c), To A Judiciary Committee Member Called Upon To vote On The Nomination Or Reappointment Of An Appellate Court Judge When The Attorney Member Has A Case Pending Before The Appellate Court
A legislator/attorney should not vote on the nomination or reappointment of an appellate court judge when the legislator has a case pending before the Appellate Court.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-9  Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-86(c ) To Work As A Consultant
Pursuant to §1-86(c) of the Code, no lobbyist may also accept employment with the General Assembly in connection with any legislative matter. Consistent with legislative intent and Commission Regulations, this ban applies to all work for the Legislature, whether as a state employee, or as a consultant.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-10  Acceptance Of Employment As Neutral Arbitrator By Superior Clerk For Housing Matters
A court clerk for Housing matters in Hartford should not accept outside employment as a neutral arbitrator regarding a commercial leave dispute. Specifically, the two interest arbitrators who select the neutral arbitrator are both attorneys who practice before the Hartford Housing Session. Additionally, the clerk is required, as part of his state duties, to provide information and assistance to members of the bar. Under these circumstances, the acceptance of the employment in question would, however inadvertently, violate the §1-84(b) prohibition on acceptance of outside employment which would impair independence of judgment and the §1-84(c) ban on use of office for financial gain.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-11  Application Of The Codes To The Acceptance Of A Scholarship Awarded By A Registered Lobbyist To The Child Of A Public Official
The Connecticut Association of Realtors (Association) have established a scholarship fund. The sole eligibility requirement for the scholarships is that the candidate’s parent must have been a member in good standing of the Association for at least one year.

This year the Scholarship Committee awarded 16 $1,000 scholarships. Although apparently not known at the time of the award one of the recipients is the child of a member of the Real Estate Commission. The Association has now asked whether, under The Codes Of Ethics, it may proceed to grant the scholarship in question.

The Association is a registered lobbyist. The Real Estate Commissioner is a Public Official. None of the Code’s 16 exceptions to the Gift Ban would appear to authorize the scholarship at issue. Nonetheless, the Office of State Ethics believes that, under the facts presented, the scholarship (which was based on academic performance) is an earned award, distinguishable from a gift, and therefore permissible.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-12 Application Of The Code Of Ethics For Public Officials To Members Of The Children’s Trust Fund Council
Two members of the Children’s Trust Fund Council are also directors of programs that receive substantial funding from the Council. Although certain Council members are required by law to have specified expertise (e.g., "person with expertise in child abuse prevention") the Council’s enabling statute contains no exemption to any of the provisions of The Code Of Ethics. Therefore, as Public Officials, the members are fully subject to the Code.

Consequently:

• a member may not take action on a Council proposal to fund his or her private agency;
• a member may not take action on a Council proposal to fund his or her agency’s competitors;
• a member may not, on behalf of his or her agency, compete against the Council for funding from the General Assembly; and
• a member’s agency may not accept a Council grant if Council employees are required to audit the member’s outside administration of the grant.

If, as a result of these prohibitions, the member is not able to properly perform his or her official duties, the member should resign.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-13  Application Of Independent Contractor Ethics Rules, Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-86e, To Families And Consumers Receiving Direct Funding From Department Of Mental Retardation
Pursuant to §1-86e of The Code Of Ethics, no state consultant or independent contractor shall use the authority provided by state contract, or any confidential information received, to obtain financial gain for the person, an employee of the person, or a member of the immediate family of any such person or employee.

DMR asked the Commission whether §1-86e applied to DMR clients and their families who have direct control of their agency funding under the "Self-Determination" program. The answer is no. These clients are not consultants or independent contractors hired by the State, and, therefore, the requirements of §1-86e do not apply.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-14  Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-86e To The Hiring Of Relatives By Independent Contractors And Their Staff
DMR asked how the restrictions of §1-86e apply to private agencies that contract with DMR and hire family members of the owners or staff as employees or subcontractors.

As a preliminary matter, §1-86e (discussed, supra) will not apply if the employment in question predates the DMR contract. Under these circumstances, DMR will have had an opportunity to review the agency’s staffing prior to entering into any contractual agreement.

Even if the proposal to hire an immediate family member postdates the DMR contract award, §1-86e will not be interpreted to absolutely prohibit the hiring. Rather, the private agency must notify DMR of its intentions and demonstrate why the family member is appropriate. DMR must then determine whether this person is qualified for the job and whether the compensation is market rate. Only if all these criteria are met, will the hiring comply with the requirements of §1-86e.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-15  Application Of Ethics Rules To Acceptance Of Expense Payments To Accompany Department Of Mental Retardation Client To Event
DMR asked how the Ethics Code applies when a DMR employee or an employee of a private agency under contract with DMR accepts payment of expenses from a DMR client to accompany that individual on an outing.

Subsection 1-84(c) of the Code prohibits a state employee from using his or her office for financial gain. Section 1-86e establishes parallel restrictions for employees of private agencies under contract with the State. Therefore, in this instance, application of the Code to state and private agency employees is essentially the same.

Specifically, if a DMR client wishes to reimburse a DMR employee to accompany the client on a trip (e.g., a vacation to Florida) the idea must emanate from the client, the client’s family or guardian, or someone at DMR at or above the potential recipient’s level. Analogously, for a private agency employee, the approval must come from DMR.

In either case, only necessary expenses may be accepted. For example, on a trip to Florida, it would be appropriate to accept airfare, hotel accommodations, and meals. However, the employee should provide his or her own spending money.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-16  Application Of Code Of Ethics For Lobbyists To Private Agencies Under Contract With Department Of Mental Retardation
DMR asked how the Lobbyist Code applies to private agencies under contract with DMR. Specifically, the Commission was asked whether the following activities were considered to be lobbying: 1. participation on a DMR committee developing policies and procedures; 2. requesting a legislator to intercede with DMR regarding a contractual dispute; 3. hosting a reception for area legislators to promote the private agency and its services.

1. If a task force is established by statute or regulation, participation is exempt from the definition of lobbying.  This exemption does not, however, extend to ad hoc agency committees.
2. Ordinary and customary communications made to a state agency incident to the performance of a contract are, again, exempt from the definition of lobbying.  However, if the private agency attempts to circumvent the established process by asking a legislator to intervene, then that activity constitutes administrative lobbying.
3. If the purpose of the legislative reception is to secure support for state funding or the award of a state contract, the activity constitutes lobbying.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-17 Application Of Gift Restrictions To Employees Of Private Agencies Under Contract With Department Of Mental Retardation
DMR asked how the Code’s gift restrictions apply to employees of private agencies under contract with DMR.

As discussed supra, §§1-84(c) and 1-86e establish essentially parallel restrictions for state employees and employees of private providers under contract with the State. Under §1-84(c), the Commission has ruled that it would be an inappropriate use of office to accept more than $100 in gifts in a year from an "unregulated service" (i.e., a source other than a lobbyist or other entity subject to the Code’s Gift Ban).

Therefore, a DMR employee may not accept more than $100 in benefits in a year from a DMR client or the client’s family. Analogously, under §1-86e, an employee of a private provider under contract with DMR is subject to the same restrictions.

Finally, it should be remembered that DMR may establish stricter gift limits for its employees by agency policy and stricter limits for its private providers through the contracting process.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-18  Application Of The Code Of Ethics To Official Action By The Secretary Of OPM Which Affects His Financial Interests
Pursuant to statute, each Connecticut municipality is required to conduct periodic property revaluations. Failure to do so results in a ten percent forfeiture of state aid. However, the Secretary of OPM may waive this forfeiture for reasonable cause.

The City of Waterbury, where OPM Secretary Ryan is a homeowner, is now subject to this forfeiture and has requested a waiver. The Secretary has asked whether, under the requirements of the Code, he may proceed to rule on this matter.

Under §1-86, with exceptions not pertinent, a public official has a potential conflict of interest if he is required to take official action which would affect his financial interests. If Waterbury loses the grant in aid money (ten million dollars per year), its mill up three hundred dollars annually.

Under these circumstances, an agency official is required to recuse himself and allow his superior to make the determination in question. When, however, the official has no immediate superior (e.g., the Secretary of OPM) he must come to the Ethics Commission for guidance.

Secretary Ryan has done this. At the same time, however, he has obviated the need for Commission action by stating that he will donate three hundred dollars annually to the City for each year the potential for a forfeiture exists. Furthermore, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, the Secretary will make the donation whether or not he decides to grant the waiver.

Secretary Ryan’s decision is commendable and will avoid any conflict of interest, real or apparent.

Following are a series of opinions requested by the Department of Mental Retardation (DMR). The Opinions apply the requirements of the Codes (particularly §1-86e) to private providers that contract with the Department.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-19 Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-86e To Independent Contractors’ Use Of State Funds To Benefit Related Party
The Department of Mental Retardation (DMR) asked how §1-86e of the Ethics code applies to private agencies which contract with DMR and then use state funds to benefit a "related party" (e.g., a parent or subsidiary company or another business owned by an immediate family member).

Under §1-86e, no person hired by the State as an independent contractor shall use the authority provided by the contract to obtain financial gain for the person, an employee of the person, or a member of the immediate family of such person or employee.

As set forth by the Commission in a series of opinions issued last month, to comply with §1-86e, before entering into any subcontract with a related party, the private agency must receive approval from DMR. Additionally, prior to issuing such approval, DMR must insure the subcontractor is qualified, the services are necessary and the compensation is a market rate.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-20 Application Of The Codes’ Gift Provisions To Benefits Of Not More Than Ten Dollars Per Person
The Commission was asked how the Codes’ gift provisions apply to benefits of not more than ten dollars.

Prior to enactment of the gift ban in 1997, benefits of under ten dollars per person "per occasion or transaction" were allowed with no annual limit. When the gift ban was adopted, these benefits were capped at fifty dollars per year and the "per occasion or transaction" language was deleted from the Code. Given this deletion, it is now permissible to provide more than one benefit of up to ten dollars incident to an occasion (e.g., six dollar pen and nine dollar flowers).

When, however, the total per person expenditure for the event is over the itemization threshold (i.e., ten dollars) each allowed benefit must be disclosed.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-21  Application Of The Code Of Ethics For Public Officials To Special Deputy Sheriffs
The Commission was asked whether special deputy sheriffs are considered state employees subject to The Code of Ethics.

Special deputy sheriffs are appointed by a high sheriff. Under the State Constitution, high sheriffs are members of the Executive Branch of State Government. See, Article Fourth, Section 25. Therefore, for purposes of the Ethics Code, special deputy sheriffs are executive branch employees, and are subject to the provisions of the Code.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-22  Publication Related To A State Employee’s Official Duties
UCONN Men’s Basketball Coach Jim Calhoun asked the Commission whether, under The Code of Ethics, he could publish a book about the Team’s national championship season. Additionally, he asked whether he could use UCONN’s name in the title.

Under the Ethics Code, a state employee may utilize his expertise, including experience gained in state service, for financial gain, as long as no Code provision is breached. Generally, the Commission has barred outside, for profit publications when: it was already part of the state employee’s job duties to provide the information; or the employee had official authority over the anticipated purchasers of the publication. Neither criteria applies to Coach Calhoun.

Additionally, the Commission has prohibited such activity when the publisher selected the state employee solely because of the credibility his official position lent to the publication. Again, this holding does not apply to Coach Calhoun, since the publisher has indicated it would proceed with the project regardless of whether he remained as UCONN coach. In essence, it is Coach Calhoun’s accomplishments and, resultant notoriety, that provide credibility, and marketability, to the publication. Under these circumstances, he may proceed with the book. Finally, given that it is permissible for Coach Calhoun to receive compensation for writing a book about the championship season, it would be unreasonable to ban the use of the word "UCONN."

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-23  Application Of The Code Of Ethics To The Retention Of Real Estate Broker Or Appraiser Licenses By Consumer Protection Real Estate Examiners
The Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP), James Fleming, asked whether his Agency’s real estate examiners could maintain real estate licenses. It has been departmental practice to prohibit such licenses to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. However, Commissioner Fleming believes the Department’s ability to perform certain statutory duties would be enhanced by having licensed professionals on staff. Under no circumstances would the licensed examiners be permitted to engage in outside real estate work.

The Commission has consistently held that conflicts of interest, both real and apparent, are inevitable and unavoidable when a state servant directly responsible for regulating a field of private endeavor seeks to be employed in the same field. However, given the absolute ban on such employment, no provision of the Ethics Code would prohibit DCP real estate examiners from maintaining real estate licenses.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-24  Application Of The Post-Employment Rules To The Loaned Executive Program
Under the Loaned Executive Program various companies and organizations donate the time and talent of their executives to the State. In one such instance, a law firm allowed an attorney to take a leave of absence to work at a quasi-public agency. Now that the attorney has completed his volunteer work, the agency would like to hire him as a consultant. The Commission was asked whether this consulting work would be allowed under the Code.

Loaned executives are neither public officials nor state employees; and are, therefore, not legally bound by the Code. Nonetheless, both the Governor and the executives have agreed that these individuals should abide by all Code provisions. Under the Code’s post-state employment rules, such consulting work is limited during the first year after state service. Specifically, in order to prevent improper use of influence, the former employee may not receive more than his rate of compensation at the time of separation from state service plus necessary expenses.

In the case of a loaned executive, however, the individual’s compensation was not established by the State. Nonetheless, safeguards need to be in place to insure the integrity of the Program and prevent misuse of contacts and influence for financial gain. Therefore, the request for consulting services should be made by someone who held a position which was not subordinate to the former loaned executive. Furthermore, the fee should be fiscally reasonable and must not exceed the value of the executive’s services previously donated by the law firm.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-25  Application Of Outside Employment Restrictions To Special Deputy Sheriffs
The Commission was asked how the Code of Ethics would apply to the acceptance of certain types of outside employment by special deputy sheriffs.

In essence, the outside employment can be divided into two categories: work which involves the use of a badge for private gain (e.g., bounty hunter as private investigator); and work which does not include use of a badge (e.g., bartender) or involves use of a badge for the benefit of the public (e.g., DEP officer).

Work in the first category is prohibited, because of the clear opportunity to misuse one’s public authority for private gain. Work in the second category is not similarly barred, due to the lack of opportunity for abuse of official authority.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-26 Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-86e To Connecticut Institute For The Blind
This Opinion applied the independent contractor restrictions, set forth in §1-86e of the Code of Ethics, to the Connecticut Institute for the Blind. The general application of this section, and certain related provisions, was delineated previously in seven Commission opinions (see, A.O. Nos. 97-22 and 99-13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-27  Reporting Of Expenditures For Unutilized Lobbying Advertising Campaigns
A client lobbyist asked whether the cost of an ad campaign regarding pending legislation, which was developed but never utilized, must be reported. The answer is yes. Such expenditures are "in furtherance of lobbying" and must be disclosed pursuant to §1-96 of the Lobbyist Code.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-28  Acceptance of Free Or Reduced-Cost Meals By Division Of Special Revenue Employees From Regulated Entities
Under the Gift law, Division of Special Revenue employees, on duty at the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods, may not accept free or reduced cost meals from the Casinos.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-29  Application Of The Code Of Ethics To The Employment Of The CoChair Of The Judiciary Committee By The Connecticut Bar Association
The Senate CoChair of the Judiciary Committee may accept employment with the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) provided: he recuses himself from all legislative matters affecting the financial interests of the CBA; and all issues identified as CBA priorities and lobbied by its registrants.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-30  Application Of The Codes’ Reporting Requirements To Public Officials’ Participation In Panel Discussions At An Event Sponsored By A Lobbyist
The Codes provide that no disclosure to the Commission is required when a public official is the "principal speaker" at an event held in Connecticut and receives only admission and food and drink. The Commission does not have the authority to extend the exemption to public official/panelists appearing at an educational forum hosted by a lobbyist. If the exemption is to be extended to apply to multiple panel members, it must be by legislative action; not by a ruling of the Commission.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-31  Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(c) To Employment Offered By A Trade Association
Pursuant to §1-84b(c) of the Code, no individual in a position, designated by the Commission, at certain state regulatory agencies may accept employment with "…any business subject to regulation by his agency" within one year after leaving the agency.

The Commission was asked whether this provision would apply to the acceptance of employment with a trade association made up of the businesses regulated by a §1-84b(c) agency.

The Trade Association acts as the principal lobbyist at the state level for its member/businesses, and represents members at certain state regulatory proceedings. The Association’s funding is derived from its members’ dues.

Under these circumstances, the Association is nothing more or less than a collection of the member/businesses in the field regulated by the §1-84b(c) agency. Furthermore, the funding for the Association, and consequently the funding for the position, emanates directly from the member/businesses.

Therefore, consistent with the underlying purpose of the statutory provision, a trade association composed of businesses regulated by a §1-84b(c) agency may not employ a designated official of that agency until the one year mandated "cooling off" period has elapsed.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 99-32  Proper Calculation Of Registration Fee Payments When A Business Organization Replaces One Of Its Lobbyists
A lobbyist asked whether his firm had to pay additional registration fees if it replaced one staff lobbyist with another.

The answer is yes. Under the applicable statutes and regulations, the registration, and related fee, are personal to the individual and are not transferable.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-1 Application Of Office of State Ethics Advisory Opinion 97-9 To A CHRO Hearing Officer/Attorney Who Limits His Practice Re: Discrimination Matters To Appearances In Court
In Advisory Opinion 97-9, the Office of State Ethics ruled that Commission On Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) hearing officers could not practice law before the CHRO.

A hearing officer may, however, represent plaintiffs in court regarding employment discrimination cases, when his only contact with the CHRO is the mandatory filing of claims, which filings serve as the necessary prerequisite to transferring his clients’ cases to the superior court.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-2  University Of Connecticut Health Center Faculty Member Receiving Research Funding From A Business With Which He Is Associated
A private biotechnology company would like to enter into a contract with the University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC) to fund research. There will be options for licensing opportunities for inventions emanating from the research. The holding company of this biotechnology company is a business with which the chair of the research center is associated. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84(i), a contract between the state and a business with which a state employee is associated must be awarded through an open and public process. Because any benefits derived by the biotechnology company will create a resultant benefit to the holding company, for purposes of § 1-84(i), it will also be deemed a business with which the state employee is associated. Therefore, there must be an open and public process before a research contract is awarded. Furthermore, in order to avoid any potential violation of § 1-84(c) which prohibits use of one’s position for personal financial gain or the financial gain of a business with which you are associated, neither the state employee nor any subordinate should be involved in any part of the evaluation and selection process.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-3  Advertisement Of Transcripts By Court Reporters And Monitors Constitutes Use Of Office Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84(c)
The Commission has previously held that the preparation of transcripts was part of a court reporter’s/monitor’s state job, not private employment. Therefore, it would be an improper use of office for these individuals to market transcripts for sale through an internet service.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-4  Application Of The Code Of Ethics For Public Officials To The Use Of A State Computer In Furtherance Of One’s Outside Employment
It would be a use of office, in violation of the Code, for a State Senator to use his legislative laptop computer incident to his outside employment. The fact that the outside employment is with a public institution (a school) does not alter this conclusion.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-5  Application Of The Code Of Ethics To Benefits Provided To An Employee/Spouse Of A Public Official By A Lobbyist/Employer
The Commission was asked whether The Codes’ gift restrictions would apply to the following hypothetical: the spouse of a public official is a member of a law firm. The firm represents a client (e.g., a bank) regarding various commercial matters. The bank is also a registered lobbyist. As part of its ordinary and customary business practice, the bank occasionally hosts members of the firm who work on its behalf (e.g., business lunch, golf outing at which business is discussed).

This ordinary and customary entertainment, provided by the client/lobbyist, and in return for which the law firm employee provides full consideration by virtue of his or her work, is not subject to the gift restrictions or reporting requirements of The Codes.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-6  Interpretation Of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-97(d)
The lobbyist notification requirement established, effective January 1, 1998, by § 1-97(d) pertains only to benefits which must be itemized under § 1-96 of The Code Of Ethics For Lobbyists.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-7  Reportability Of Benefits Provided To A Public Official By A Lobbyist/Employer
Pursuant to statute, there are sixteen categories of benefits which are exempt from the definition of "Gift." See, § 1-79(e) and § 1-91(g) of The Codes. These Gift ban exemptions are not, however, exemptions to the related, but distinct, reporting requirements set forth in § 1-96. Rather, § 1-96 enumerates which gift exemptions will also be exempt from The Lobbyist Code’s itemization requirements.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-8  Application Of The Code’s Gift Restrictions To A Nonlobbyist Member Of A Business Organization Engaged in Lobbying
The Commission was asked how the Ethics Codes’ gift provisions apply to a nonlobbyist member of a business organization (e.g., law firm) engaged in lobbying.

Pursuant to a 1997 amendment to the Codes: for purposes of the gift limits, any expenditure made by a lobbyist member of a business organization is also attributed to the organization; and any expenditure made by the organization is also attributed to all its lobbyist members. Therefore, a nonlobbyist member of a law firm falls outside the parameters of these restrictions. As a consequence, the individual could personally make expenditures for the benefit of a public official without regard to the Codes’ stringent lobbyist gift limits. If, however, the individual was reimbursed by the business organization, all of these reimbursed expenditures would be attributed to the organization’s lobbyist members.

Therefore, if the nonlobbyist attorney routinely makes such reimbursed expenditures, to avoid violation of the gift laws it will be necessary to segregate the firm’s lobbying work into a separate and distinct government relations unit. (In fact, this is already the preferred practice for law firms engaged in lobbying, since it protects a firm’s attorney-client records from the Commission’s lobbyist random audit authority.)

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-9  Application Of The Code Of Ethics To Gifts Provided By The University Of Connecticut To Public Officials From Another State Entity
On occasion, the University of Connecticut (UCONN) will invite members and staff of the General Assembly to attend one of its athletic or cultural events, as well as a related reception. The purpose of the invitation is to have an opportunity to educate the attendees regarding UCONN’s needs, and to showcase the diversity of University programs and activities. The Commission was asked whether the acceptance of such benefits was permissible under The Code Of Ethics.

Under the Code, the receipt of such benefits is strictly limited, if the donor: 1. is a lobbyist; or 2. is doing business with, seeking business from, or regulated by the beneficiary’s agency. UCONN does not fall into either category, and is therefore a "non-restricted" donor.

Regardless of this conclusion, the Commission has previously ruled that it was an improper use of office to receive excessive benefits, even from a non-restricted donor, if the benefits were bestowed solely by virtue of the beneficiary’s state position. Under these circumstances, the Commission ruled that the Codes’ lobbyist gift limits would be the benchmark for determining what was excessive.

Effective January 1, 1998, however, the Codes’ lobbyist gift and food and drink limits (previously $50 in gifts and $150 in food and drink per beneficiary per year) have been substantially reduced (to gifts under $10 and $50 in food and drink per recipient per year). Consequently, the Commission now holds that it will not necessarily be an improper use of office to receive benefits, from a non-restricted donor, which exceed the lobbyist gift limits, even if the benefits are received solely by virtue of one’s office. For example, in the situation under review, the legislators and staff are, unquestionably, receiving benefits by virtue of state position. Nonetheless, given that the event is an officially sanctioned University function, held in furtherance of a state purpose, the benefits will not be prohibited by the Code.

While the foregoing analysis addresses the question of benefits provided to a public official for a public purpose, it does not extend to benefits provided to the family or guest of the official; a practice in which UCONN has also engaged. Until this year, immediate family of a public official would have been allowed to accept these benefits, e.g., a ticket to a sports event, even if furnished by a lobbyist. Given the current, essentially absolute, ban on gifts from regulated donors, however, the Commission believes the financial thresholds established by the gift law are no longer an appropriate standard for limiting benefits provided, by virtue of one’s position, from non-restricted donors.

Alternatively, the Commission now adopts the de minimus financial benefits standard set forth in the regulations implementing the Code’s conflict of interest provisions. Specifically, under this standard, benefits with a cumulative value of less than $100 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.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-10  Application Of Gift Law To Senior Public Official Attending Charity Tennis Tournament In Official Capacity
One of the exceptions to the Ethics Codes’ gift ban, enacted in 1997, is: "admission to a charitable or civic event, including food and beverage provided at such event, but excluding lodging or travel expenses, at which a public official or state employee participates in his official capacity, provided such admission is provided by the sponsoring entity."

The Commission was asked how this exception would apply to one’s participation, in his or her official capacity, in a charity tennis tournament with an admission price of $1,000 per person. This price included: the charitable donation, court fees, food and beverage served at the event, and $250 worth of "souvenir" items (e.g., umbrella, tennis balls, shirt, etc.)

Clearly, the exemption in question would permit receipt of the admission/court fee and the food and drink provided at the event. However, the $250 in gifts do not fall within the terms of the exemption; and, in keeping with the legislative purpose of the gift ban, should not be accepted. If, however, a particular item comes within another gift exception (e.g., a plaque or ceremonial award costing less than $100), it may be accepted by the official.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-11  University Of Connecticut Basketball Coach’s Outside Contract With Company Licensed To Use Husky Logo
UCONN Coach Jim Calhoun may enter into a contract with Husky Chips and Salsa (HCS) to sell the Coach’s basketball instructional video. In general, state employees may not use their state titles or a state logo in private marketing ventures. Here, however, HCS is permitted to use the Husky name and logo by virtue of a preexisting licensing agreement with UCONN.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-12 Application Of Code Of Ethics To Workers’ Compensation Commissioners, Including Per Diem Commissioners
The Chairman of the Workers Compensation Commission (WCC) has statutory authority to appoint Per Diem Commissioners, who have all the powers and duties of full-time Compensation Commissioners. Given the manner of their appointment, these Per Diem Commissioners do not fall within the Ethics Code’s definition of "Public official." However, since they sign personal service agreements they will be considered independent contractors subject to § 1-86e of the Code. Pursuant to that provision, one may not use authority provided under a state contract for personal financial benefit or for the benefit of one’s employee.

Applying this prohibition to the question presented, while an attorney is serving as Per Diem Commissioner, neither he nor his firm may practice before the WCC. (Th

e Commission notes that this application of the Code to attorneys serving in a quasi-judicial capacity parallels the Superior Court Rules for attorney/magistrates and their firms.)

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-13  Application Of The Code To Payments For Spouses Of UCONN Personnel To Participate In University Functions
In general, it is an impermissible use of office to accept significant benefits for one’s spouse which are provided solely by virtue of one’s public position. The Commission rules, however, that this prohibition is not absolute; and hereby grants an exception allowing UCONN to pay for spousal participation in statutorily mandated fundraising events.

The Commission emphasizes that this exception is strictly limited, and does not permit payment for spousal participation in events based solely on academic custom. Under that circumstance, the traditions of the University must continue to yield to the requirements of the Ethics Code. Additionally, to prevent possible abuse of the exception, any decision to allow payment for spousal participation in UCONN fundraising must be made by one’s superior, subject to final review by the University President.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-14  Interpretation Of Various Provisions Of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84(n), Concerning Political Contributions To The State Treasurer
Subsection 1-84(n) of the Ethics Code prohibits the State Treasurer from awarding business to an "investment services" firm, if the firm, or designated members of the firm, made a contribution, or solicited contributions, incident to a nomination or election to the Office of the Treasurer.

This Opinion sets forth the Commission’s interpretation of the basic elements of this subsection including: the definitions of designated positions (e.g., "owner" or individual with "managerial or discretionary responsibilities"); and what firms and categories of work are subject to the prohibition.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-15  Application Of Outside Employment Rules To Chair Of State Library Board
The Chairman of the State Library Board was retained by an insurance agency as a consultant to help the agency develop a business plan to sell disability insurance to individual members of the Connecticut Library Association. Specifically, the Chairman, who is not licensed to sell insurance, indicated that he was hired as a "facilitator" to help the agency sell insurance to library employees, because he is familiar to them by virtue of his Library Board position.

Such an arrangement is, clearly, a misuse of office in violation of the Ethics Code. This Ruling does not, however, preclude the Chairman from assisting the insurance agency with other sales ventures unrelated to his official authority, including the marketing of insurance to individuals connected with libraries outside of Connecticut.

The Chairman of the State Library Board was retained by an insurance agency as a consultant to help the agency develop a business plan to sell disability insurance to individual members of the Connecticut Library Association. Specifically, the Chairman, who is not licensed to sell insurance, indicated that he was hired as a "facilitator" to help the agency sell insurance to library employees, because he is familiar to them by virtue of his Library Board position.

Such an arrangement is, clearly, a misuse of office in violation of the Ethics Code. This Ruling does not, however, preclude the Chairman from assisting the insurance agency with other sales ventures unrelated to his official authority, including the marketing of insurance to individuals connected with libraries outside of Connecticut.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-16  Application Of The Code’s Gift Exceptions To Expenditures Made On Behalf Of A Lobbyist
The Lobbyist Code’s $50 per beneficiary per year limit on food and drink is violated if a client lobbyist seeks to exceed the threshold by directing or requiring its employees (whether in-house lobbyists or non-lobbyists) to absorb the cost of the overage.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-17  Application Of The Lobbyist Code’s Gift Exceptions And Reporting Requirements To A Reception Held To Honor The Connecticut Members Of The Olympic Women’s Hockey Team
A reception hosted by a registered lobbyist (SNET) to honor the Connecticut members of the USA Women’s Olympic Hockey Team was not a lobbying event. Rather, it qualifies as a "civic event" as that term is defined in the Code. Therefore, SNET need not report the attendance of public officials, invited in their official capacity, since the per person cost was below the $30 itemization threshold for such functions. Additionally, commemorative items distributed at the event are exempt from the Code’s gift limits and reporting requirements as promotional items available to the general public.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-18  Reporting By Communicator And Client Lobbyists Of Contributions To Parties Attended By Public Officials And Their Staff
Under the reporting requirements of the Lobbyist Code, if a group of lobbyists host an event (e.g., a holiday party), the total cost of which is over ten dollars per person, each lobbyist must itemize the expenditure, regardless of the fact that any one lobbyist’s contribution may be less than ten dollars per beneficiary.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-19  Application Of The Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 1-97(d) Notification Requirement To Events Hosted By A Group Of Lobbyists
When a group of lobbyists pays for an event, the cost of which is over ten dollars per person, each lobbyist/donor must itemize the expenditure. Therefore, each of the lobbyists must also provide the notification to beneficiaries mandated by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-97(d). In order to avoid duplicative paperwork, however, the Commission rules that the contributing lobbyists may fulfill the notification requirement with one joint notice, as long as that notice contains all the information required by law.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-20  Application Of Code Of Ethics To Public Official Who Accepts Fee/Honorarium For Transfer To Expense Fund
Under the Code Of Ethics For Public Officials, no public official or state employee can accept a fee or honorarium for a speech given in their official capacity. A public official cannot circumvent this prohibition by donating the fee to his state agency, if the money is then used to reimburse the official for expenses (meals, flowers, etc.) he would ordinarily be required to pay for personally.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-21  Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84b(b) To Former Department Of Information Technology Employees
The Department of Informatio.n Technology (DOIT) has rehired former employees under a statutory provision which allows such individuals to work up to 120 days per year without affecting their retirement benefits. DOIT now wishes, however, to continue to utilize certain of these retirees who have exhausted their 120 day allotments. Specifically, DOIT has asked whether these employees may now go to work for vendors on the State’s approved list and then be selected for various state information technology projects, provided they make no more than they earned when in state service.

When a former employee returns under the 120 day option, he or she becomes a durational state employee subject to the Code. Therefore, for purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84b(b), a new one year ban on compensated appearances before the employee’s former agency is triggered by each period of such reemployment.

In recognition of the former agency’s need to retain such individuals (e.g., to complete critical projects) the Commission has established an exception to § 1-84b(b) allowing former employees to enter into contracts with their former agency within the one year period, provided the rate of compensation is no higher than the individual was earning when he or she left state service. In essence, such a limitation prevents the former employee from utilizing contacts at the former agency for improper financial gain.

This reemployment policy clearly contemplated a direct consultant relationship between the State and the former employee. The exception did not contemplate and does not extend to a situation where the former employee will be representing a private vendor before the former agency. Even if the former employee receives no more than his or her prior state compensation, the arrangement is fraught with conflicts of interest (e.g., the individual’s affiliation with the vendor could well lead to additional state contracts being awarded to that vendor) and is not permitted under the Code.

Finally, the Commission reaffirms its formula for compensating former state employees seeking to enter into consulting agreements with their former agency: salary grade at the time of separation from state service plus fringe benefits plus necessary expenses. The Commission rejects the contention put forth by certain retirees that this calculation should be increased to include such items as longevity, holidays and paid vacation.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-22  Application Of The Gift Ban To Staff Of Candidates For Public Office
The Ethics Codes’ Lobbyist Gift Ban applies not only to the staff of public officials but also to the staff of candidates for public office.

After consultation with the Legislative Leadership, the Commission concurs with the Leaders’ view that for purposes of the Gift Ban a candidate’s staff should be limited to include only those paid staff who are under the authority of and report to the candidate. Under this Ruling, staff does not include unpaid volunteers (e.g., campaign treasurers), paid hourly workers (e.g., phone solicitors) or independent contractors (e.g., pollsters).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-23  Acceptance Of Compensation By Staff And Board Members Of State Agency For Services Solicited By Agency Executive Director
The Executive Director of the Commission on Children (COC) may hire COC staff to teach Parent Leadership Training courses which are administered by the Agency, as long as the open and public contracting requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84(i) are followed. The Director may not, however, hire Commission members to teach these courses. Given the fact that the Commission members are the Director’s superiors, it would constitute an impairment of independence of judgment and be an inappropriate use of office, however inadvertent, for these Commissioners to accept the compensated work.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-24 Classification Of Lobbyist Expenditures For Entertainment Of Public Officials As Expenditures In Furtherance Of Lobbying
When a client lobbyist corporation makes an expenditure for the benefit of a pubic official (e.g. drinks and dinner for a legislator) the expenditure fosters good will and is, therefore, deemed to be in furtherance of lobbying. In essence, while an individual can made purely personal expenditures, a corporation cannot. Consequently, absent a clear non-lobbying business purpose for the expenditure, it must be classified and reported as related to lobbying.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-25  Applicability Of Requirement To Disclose Terms Of Compensation On Registration Form Prior To the Commencement Of Lobbying
Pursuant to the requirements of The Code Of Ethics For Lobbyists and the Commission’s Regulations, a lobbyist must disclose the fundamentals terms of his or her lobbying contract before commencement of lobbying. To allow the negotiation of a fee after commencement of lobbying would lead to illegal contingency fee agreements.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-26  Application Of The Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-83 Financial Disclosure Requirements To The Designee Of A Public Official
If a public official serving as a director of a quasi-public agency is required to file an annual Statement Of Financial Interests with the Office of State Ethics, then his designee to that board should also file.

This inclusion is not altered if the designee is a loaned executive. To the contrary, pursuant to Advisory Opinion No. 91-1, the Commission and the Office of the Governor have agreed that such loaned executives exercising state authority will abide by all provisions of The Code Of Ethics For Public Officials.

If a public official serving as a director of a quasi-public agency is required to file an annual Statement Of Financial Interests with the Office of State Ethics, then his designee to that board should also file.

This inclusion is not altered if the designee is a loaned executive. To the contrary, pursuant to Advisory Opinion No. 91-1, the Commission and the Office of the Governor have agreed that such loaned executives exercising state authority will abide by all provisions of The Code Of Ethics For Public Officials.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-30  Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84(c) To State Employee Names As Beneficiary Or Executrix/or Under Client’s Will
The Code’s prohibition against use of office for personal financial gain §1-84(c)) would prohibit a DMR employee from receiving a bequest from his or her DMR client’s will. Additionally, given the opportunity for financial gain, the DMR employee should not accept a fee (other than reimbursement of expenses) for serving as Executrix/or of a DMR client’s estate.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-31  Department Of Correction Employee May Not Accept Outside Employment With Bail Bondsman
A Department of Correction (DOC) employee may not accept outside employment with a Bail Bondsman. As the Commission has previously ruled, under analogous circumstances, such employment would impair independence of judgment and potentially induce disclosure of confidential information in violation of §1-84(b) of the Code.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-32  Application Of Code Of Ethics To Lobbyist’s Participation In Certain Proceedings At The Department Of Public Utility Control
The Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) has established formal dockets, which are not contested cases, and has also established "working groups" of interested parties to study issues and collect information regarding the recently enacted electric restructuring legislation. The purpose of these efforts is to report findings and legislative recommendations to the General Assembly, as necessary.

Neither of these activities falls within an exception to the definition of "Lobbying." Therefore, a utility company participating in either the dockets or the working groups would be engaged in reportable legislative lobbying (since the goal of the activity is to affect legislative action). Finally, under well established Commission precedent, the fact that the DPUC has requested the Company’s participation does not alter the conclusion that the Company’s response constitutes lobbying.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 98-33  Definition Of A Legislative Reception For Purposes Of The Gift Rule Exception
Under the Codes of Ethics, one of the exceptions to the Gift Ban is "food or beverage or both costing less than fifty dollars per person and consumed at a publicly noticed legislative reception to which all members of the General Assembly are invited and which is hosted not more than once in any calendar year by a lobbyist or business organization."

A business organization will be holding its annual holiday party and plans to invite clients, employees, and business associates, as well as all members of the General Assembly. The Commission was asked whether this event qualifies as a legislative reception under the Codes’ gift provisions.

The answer is no. The threshold requirement for utilizing the exception is that the event be conducted primarily to allow an organization and its members to educate and interact with the members of the Legislature regarding legislative issues. A group may not use the exception to host a holiday party, since such an event is not primarily held for a legislative purpose. Therefore, the business organization must use an alternative exception (allowing another fifty dollars in food and drink per recipient per year without regard to the purpose of the event) for its holiday party.

-1997-

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-1  University Professor May Not Accept Outside Employment With Private Provider Originally Established With His Official Participation As A University Affiliated Program
A UCONN professor may not accept outside employment with a corporation which, in his capacity as a University official, he was substantially responsible for creating, privatizing and funding.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-2  Application Of Code Of Ethics To Court Reporters Charging Public For Computer Disks
A court reporter wishing to charge an attorney for a computer disk of a transcript must comply with any applicable judicial statutes or regulations. If there are no applicable rules, the reporter may not unilaterally set a price on the sale of the disk other than the disk’s actual cost, without violating the Code’s use of office prohibition.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-3  Application of Conn. Stat. § 1-84b(b) To Appearances Before Special Education Due Process Hearing Officers
For purposes of the post-statement employment provision prohibiting, for one year, representation before one’s former agency, a special education due process hearing officer is not considered a part of the Department of Education.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-4  Application Of The Code Of Ethics For Lobbyists’ Registration Requirements
The Lobbyist Code’s registration requirement is triggered by the act of lobbying, not by the date of receipt of payment for lobbying.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-5  Application Of The Lobbyist Code’s Registration Requirements To Actions Taken Outside Of An Agency’s Rules and Procedures
Activity otherwise exempt from the definition of administrative lobbying loses this exemption, if a paid representative acts outside of the established rules and procedures of the administrative agency (e.g. by seeking the intervention of the agency head).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-6  Men’s Basketball Program Utilizing Business With Which University Basketball Coach is Associated
The UCONN Men’s Basketball coach may not utilized a restaurant he owns for team meals, because the attendant publicity will result in an unavoidable, although not precisely quantifiable, benefit to the restaurant.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-7  Itemization Of An Expenditure For The Benefit Of A Public Official When The Cost Of The Event Is Partially Paid For By The Public Official Recipient
If a public official partially pays for the cost of a meal hosted by a lobbyist, this payment should be treated like any other reimbursement. The lobbyist should take the total cost of the meal and calculate the per person cost. The official’s contribution should also be divided by the number of individuals in attendance. This amount, subtracted from the total per person cost, will be the value received by the public official. If this amount is ten dollars or more, itemization is required.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-8  Application Of The Ban On Contingent Fee Lobbying To Efforts To Validate A Lottery Award
The Lobbyist Code’s contingent fee ban clearly prohibits a lobbyist from representing a lottery claimant, when the lobbyist’s fee would only be paid if the claimant was successful.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-9  Application Of The Code Of Ethics To CHRO Hearing Officers Practicing Law Before The CHRO
The Ethics Code’s conflict of interest provisions unquestionably prohibit a Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) hearing officer from engaging in the practice of law before the CHRO.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-10  Application Of The Code Of Ethics For Public Officials To A Lawyer/Legislator Whose Firm Engages In Lobbying
The Ethics Code prohibits a legislator from also being a lobbyist. This provision does not, however, bar a legislator/lawyer from being a member of a law firm which engages in lobbying, provided the legislator/lawyer is completely barred from profiting from the firm’s lobbying work.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-11  Restrictions On Outside Work For Tax Return Preparation Businesses By Department Of Revenue Services Employees
A Department of Revenue Services employee may not accept simultaneous employment in any capacity with a tax preparation service doing business in Connecticut.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-12  Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84(m)(3) To The Giving Of Gifts By State Employees To Their Superiors
The holding of this Opinion was superseded by a subsequent amendment to the; Ethics Code.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-13  Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84b(d) To The Former Commissioner Of The Department Of Transportation
Under § 1-84b(d) of the Code’s post-state employment provisions, an official who participates substantially in the negotiation or award of a contract obliging the state to pay $50,000 or more, may not accept employment with a party to the contract for one year after leaving the state service, if this separation occurs less than one year after the contract was signed. (Note, a subsequent statutory amendment relettered the subsection as 1-84b(f) and changed "obliging the state" to "valued at")

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-14  Application Of The Code Of Ethics To Employees Of The University of Connecticut
This opinion discusses various applications of the Ethics Code’s gift and employment rules to employees of The University of Connecticut.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-15  Effect Of June 18 Special Session Public Act No. 97-6 On The Practice Of Lobbyists Sharing The Cost Of Items Worth Less Than Ten Dollars
Under the new gift law, effective January 1, 1998, public officials and state employees may accept from one source "anything of value of not more than ten dollars, provided the aggregate value of all things provided by a donor to a recipient under this subdivision in any calendar year shall not exceed fifty dollars." Based on this language and on the legislative history, this opinion finds that the legislature did not intend to allow lobbyists to join together to give a gift worth more than $10.00. Therefore, under the new law, lobbyists may split the cost of an item below $10.00 in value but may not split the cost of an item above that limit.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-16 Effect Of June 18 Special Session Public Act No. 97-6 On The Practice Of Lobbyists Providing Meals To Public Official By Splitting The Cost
Under the new gift law, effective January 1, 1998, the annual limit on food and drink which a public official may accept from one source is reduced from $150 to $50. This opinion reviews the legislative history and concludes that since the legislature intended to reduce the size of meals received to "no more than one fifty dollar meal…," lobbyists may not join together to provide a public official with a meal over $50.00. Thus, if a public official accepts a $100 meal from two lobbyists, the lobbyists may split the cost of the meal up to $50.00, but the public official must reimburse the lobbyists $50.00.

Of course, the law still allows a lobbyist to give up to $50.00 in food and drink in the aggregate to any one public official in a year. Therefore, in the above example, if the lobbyists each paid $25.00 towards the meal, and hadn’t bought any other meals for this public official in the year, they could still provide up to $25.00 in meals to the public official in question.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-17  Effect Of June 18 Special Session Public Act No. 97-6 On Regional Receptions Hosted By A Statewide Organization
Public Act No. 97-6 establishes an additional gift exception for regional receptions. The Commission ruled that, consistent with legislative history, a statewide organization may not use this new exception to host multiple receptions in different regions of the State.

However, this does not preclude a regional group from hosting its own regional event separate from its state-wide sister organization. Therefore, for example, the Connecticut Association of Realtors may hold one legislative reception and the Hartford County Association of Realtors may host a separate reception for Hartford area public officials.

Public Act No. 97-6 establishes an additional gift exception for regional receptions. The Commission ruled that, consistent with legislative history, a statewide organization may not use this new exception to host multiple receptions in different regions of the State.

However, this does not preclude a regional group from hosting its own regional event separate from its state-wide sister organization. Therefore, for example, the Connecticut Association of Realtors may hold one legislative reception and the Hartford County Association of Realtors may host a separate reception for Hartford area public officials.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-18  Effect Of June 18 Special Session Public Act No. 97-6 On Gifts To The State Of Consulting Services
Effective January 1, 1998, in order to qualify as a gift to the state, for purposes of the exemption of the gift definition, not only must the gift facilitate state action or function but it must also be for (1) use on state property or (2) to support an event or participation by a public official or state employee at an event. State property is defined to mean property owned by the state or leased to an agency in the executive or judicial department of the state. The Commission ruled that gifts of computer time or space, or other consulting services, will qualify as a gift to the state, as long as the product is implemented and used by a state servant in his or her state office or ultimately used by a public official for legitimate state action or function while on state property. For example, a legislator may check his or her state web page from his or her home computer because such information will be used by the public official for legislative purposes performed at the State Capitol, or a consultant may develop and donate a software product which will be used on a state-owned computer system.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-19  Application Of The Code To The Private Practice Of Law By The Speaker Of The House
The Speaker of the House is an attorney and asked a series of questions regarding his private practice. A public official is prohibited from representing a client for compensation before 13 specific state agencies listed in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84(d). This blanket prohibition does not extend to representation before a quasi-public agency. Therefore, absent any other conflict of interests, the Speaker may represent a client before the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA), a quasi-public agency, and he may work for a client who, in turn, does work with CRRA.

In past Office of State Ethics Opinions, the Commission ruled that it would be a use of one’s office, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84(c), for the Chairperson of a legislative committee to represent clients before the state agencies over which it has jurisdiction even if it is not a agency listed in subsection 1-84(d). The Commission reasoned that the legislator wields such broad powers over those agencies that an inadvertent use of office could not be avoided. However, considering the part-time status of the legislature, the Commission determined that it would be too far-reaching a restriction to absolutely prohibit the Speaker from appearing before all state agencies in all cases.

Finally, the Commission ruled that the Speaker’s Chief of Staff may be appointed to the Board of CRRA and discuss issues of concern to CRRA with the Chairperson of the legislative committee on Environmental Protection.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-20  Effect Of June 18 Special Session Public Act No. 97-6 On Reporting Requirements For Expenditures Made On Behalf Of Public Officials Or State Employees
Section 5 of Public Act No. 97-6, June 18 Special Session, establishes a notice requirement for certain donors who give benefits subject to the reporting requirements of subsection (e) of §1-96. As drafted, this new notice requirement applies only to registered client lobbyists required to report pursuant to §1-96(e). The purpose of the legislation is to assure that gift recipients receive a written report detailing, among other things, the value of specific benefits given and the cumulative value of all such benefits given to the recipient during that calendar year so that a donee knows when he has received reportable items. A parallel provision is contained in §8 of the Act. Again, pursuant to §1-96(e), this provision applies to registered client lobbyists only.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-21  Effect Of June 18 Special Session Public Act No. 97-6 On The Acceptance Of Employment With Indian Tribe Businesses By Designated Individuals
Public Act No. 97-6, June 18 Special Session, prohibits certain government regulators from accepting employment with Indian Tribe businesses prior to an appropriate waiting period (two years), in order to preserve and enhance public confidence in the state regulatory process. A review of the legislative history clarifies that in order to uphold the spirit and intent of the statute, this restriction must be construed to include employment with any of the Tribe’s gaming operations as well as with any business in which the Tribe has a controlling interest.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-22  Application Of The Independent Contractor Section Of The Code Of Ethics, Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-86e, To A Private Provider Contracting With The Department Of Mental Retardation
Under the Code of Ethics for Public Officials’ conflict of interest provisions for independent contractors, a private provider which has a contract with a state agency to perform certain services in connection with state clients must receive prior written approval from the state agency before presenting a client with choices which may affect the financial interests of the private provider’s owners or immediate family members.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-23  Effect Of June 18 Special Session Public Act No. 97-6 On The Giving And Reporting Of Tickets To Charity Events By Registered Lobbyists
Under amendments to the gift law which go into effect January 1, 1998, a registered lobbyist which is also the primary sponsor of a charity golf tournament may allow a public official to participate without triggering the gift limits of the Codes of Ethics. However, if the benefits personally and directly received by the public official exceed $30 (if, for example, the golf costs $50 and the meal $25), this lobbyist must itemize the name of, and the benefits received by, the public official on its next financial report.

Under this example, since the value of the golf exceeds $10 (the gift limit under the new law), a registered lobbyist which is not the primary sponsor of the tournament may not give a ticket to the event to a public official.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-24  Promotion Of Soccer Camp Owned By The University Of Connecticut’s Soccer Coach
The Athletic Department at UCONN, in an effort to increase attendance during the women’s soccer season, would like to offer a the chance for attendees to win a free scholarship at a summer soccer camp. The Coach of the team, a state employee, has offered to use a camp he owns for this promotion.

The Code prohibits the Coach from using his state position to obtain financial gain for himself or a business with which he is associated. The proposed use of his summer camp is derived solely because of his state position, since UCONN has not sought the availability of other similar camps. Although the promotion is designed to benefit UCONN’s soccer program, the advertisements and game announcements will have the residual effect of generally promoting the camp. Therefore, such an exclusive arrangement would be an impermissible use of the Coach’s office in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84(c). The Code, however, will allow the contemplated financial arrangement, if the University and the state employee comply with the requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84(i) which requires that such contracts with a state employee be approved only if awarded through an open and public process.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-25  Application Of Public Act No. 97-6, June 18 Special Session, To Benefits Provided By An Employer Of A Public Official Or State Employee
Section 1 of June 18 Special Session Public Act No. 97-6 created a new exception to the definition of a gift which excludes "anything of value provided by an employer of (a) a public official, (b) a state employee, or (c) a spouse of a public official or state employee, to such official, employee or spouse, provided such benefits are customarily and ordinarily provided to others in similar circumstances". The Office of State Ethics was asked whether the State of Connecticut is an employer for purposes of this definition.

The purpose of the gift definition, in the Code, is to prohibit Gifts from certain restricted donors, (e.g. registered lobbyists, entities regulated by or seeking to do business with one’s agency) in order to reduce both actual and apparent outside influences on state servants. Therefore, the additional gift exception provided for in the Public Act for gifts from an employer applies only to those restricted donors defined in the Code, i.e. not the State, which employ the public official, state employee or spouse of such public official or state employee. The improper acceptance of gifts or other benefits received from the State, however, would be governed by § 1-84(c), as a possible use of office for financial gain.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-26  Application Of The Code Of Ethics To The Practice Of Law Before State Agencies By The House Minority Leader
The House Minority Leader may, consistent with the requirements of The Code Of Ethics, represent a municipality before the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration and before the State Board of Labor Relations.

Neither Board is included in the Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84(d) list of agencies before which no public official or state employee, including a legislator, may represent another for compensation. If additional limitations were to be placed on the outside employment of the Legislative Leadership, such restrictions should be established by explicit legislative action, rather than through case by case rulings of the Ethics Commission.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-27  Effect Of June 18 Special Session Public Act No. 97-6 Concerning Limitations On Food And Drink To Public Officials
Public Act No. 97-6 establishes an exemption under the gift law for the acceptance of "food or beverage or both costing less than fifty dollars in the aggregate per recipient in a calendar year, and consumed on an occasion or occasions at which the person paying, directly or indirectly, for the food or beverage, or his representative, is in attendance." The Act also permits acceptance of "anything having a value of not more than ten dollars, provided the aggregate value of all things provided by a donor to a recipient … in any calendar year shall not exceed fifty dollars. These exemptions are separate and distinct; food and drink valued at under $10 may be attributable to either the fifty dollar food and drink limitation category or to the category of "anything having a value of not more than $10…".

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 97-28  Effect Of June 18 Special Session Public Act No. 97-6 On Attendance At Charitable And Civic Events
Effective January 1, 1998, the definition of a gift excludes admission to a charitable or civic event. For purposes of this new exemption, the Commission ruled that a charitable event is an event which benefits an entity which is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a charity to which contributions would be tax deductible. A civic event was defined as an event which is held by a community group established to promote municipal activities or common goals of citizens within the community, e.g., a rotary club meeting.

-1996-

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-1 Restrictions On Outside Legal Work Performed By An Associate Dean Of A Connecticut University For University Students
An Attorney who is also a University Dean should not undertake to represent students in cases emanating from on-campus incidents.   Additionally, in order to avoid any conflict of interest, the Dean should not accept, for profit, cases involving students enrolled in the school of the Dean or in courses which he teaches.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-2 Bridgeport Harbor Master’s Proposed Agreement With Bridgeport Port Authority
It is an impermissible use of the Harbor Master’s public office, however inadvertent, and an acceptance of employment which impairs independence of judgment for him to enter into a contract to provide security services for the Bridgeport Port Authority. As the Commission has previously held "…there are inherent conflicts of interest when an employee is also the employer, or a full member of the body which is the employer."

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-3 Attorneys’ Communications Regarding Policies Or Directed To Persons Outside Agency With Official Jurisdiction Not Exempt From Definition Of
Lobbying As The “Practice Of Law”
Exempt from the definition of "administrative lobbying" are "communications by an attorney made while engaging in the practice of law…."  This exemption was not, however, intended to apply when a lawyer goes outside of the agency with official jurisdiction in a matter in an attempt to influence the agency’s decision (e.g., contacting the Governor’s office to request intervention in the matter).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-4 Application Of The Code’s Post-State Employment Provisions To An Individual Who Served As Commissioner Of Both The Commission On Hospitals And Health Care And The Office Of Health Care Access
Application of the Code’s post-state employment provisions to an individual who served as Commissioner of both the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care and the Office of Health Care Access discussed.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-5 Application Of The Ban On Contingent Fee Lobbying To A Real Estate Transaction
The Lobbyist Code bans contingent fee lobbying. A real estate broker negotiating with and selling property to the state on a contingent fee basis does not violate this provision. Rather, the activity is exempt under the "salesperson" exemption to the administrative lobbying requirement.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-6 Post-State Employment Restrictions On The Fostering Of Goodwill
The Code’s post-state employment rules do not prohibit a former state official from meeting with a colleague of his former agency in a social setting. If, however, the former official is asked to attend such an event paid for by his current lobbyist employer, the activity will be deemed to be "in furtherance of lobbying", e.g., fostering goodwill. Therefore, the former official should not attend the social/business event, for one year after leaving state service, if members of his former agency are expected to be present.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-7 Lobbyist Reporting Of Expenditures For “JF” Parties
If a lobbyist is asked to contribute to the cost of a legislative "JF" party, he or she must obtain, in writing, from the Legislative Committee, an estimate of the expected number of attendees.  This information is required in order to determine whether the itemized reporting threshold (ten dollars per person) will be met.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-8 Valuation Of Reportable Lobbyist Expenditures For Legislative Receptions
In reporting itemizable legislative receptions, lobbyists should disclose only the dollar value of the benefits which have been "directly and personally received" by the attendees. Overhead costs should not be included in these itemized totals.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-9 Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-84b(b) And (c) To Employees Of The Office Of Consumer Counsel (This opinion was partly overturned by AO 2009-1)
An individual who is a durational project manager at the Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) will be considered an OCC employee for purposes of the Public Officials Code. For purposes of the Code’s post-state employment provisions, the OCC will be deemed to be part of the Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC). Consequently, the individual may not appear, for compensation, before the entire DPUC for one year after leaving state service.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-10 Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(b) To State Employees Competing For Second Injury Fund Contract
The State is considering privitization of its Second Injury Fund. A group of current state employees who staff the fund, acting as a private entity, may bid on and accept a contract to furnish the same services they currently perform. If selected, however, for one year after leaving state service they will be restricted to their current compensation levels, and will not be allowed to attempt to renegotiate a more profitable agreement with their former agency.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-11 Reportability Of Lobbyists’ Time Spent On Certain Aspects Of Ethics Code Compliance And Education
Pursuant to the Lobbyist Code’s reporting requirements, and in keeping with the legislative intent favoring disclosure, registrants must report expenditures made or received for time spent filling out financial report forms, educating oneself regarding the Code or complying with a Commission audit. All such activities are reportable as being "in furtherance of lobbying."

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-12 High Sheriff’s Use of State-Paid Clerical Staff
A High Sheriff may use his state-paid clerical staff to process requests to his office for service of process. He may not, however, utilize this staff to type a return, photocopy documents or prepare and process bills to collect the sheriffs personal fees.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-13 Application Of Post-State Employment Restrictions To Laid-Off CHFA Employee
A laid-off state employee of a housing finance authority is subject to the Code’s post-state employment provisions, regardless of the fact his termination was involuntary. Additionally, for purposes of the Code a loan, implemented by written agreement, will be considered a "contract."

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-14 Cable Advisory Council Members Are Not Public Officials Within The Meaning Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-79(k)
Members of a cable advisory council are not "public officials" under the Code’s definition and are, therefore, not subject to the provisions of the State’s Code of Ethics.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-15 Application Of The Code Of Ethics To The Spouse Of A High Sheriff Providing Support Services To Deputy Sheriffs
The spouse of a high sheriff may provide clerical services to deputy sheriffs provided: 1. Her remuneration does not exceed fair market value; and 2. The level of activity is approximately equivalent to her workload before her husband assumed the Office of High Sheriff. 

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-16 State Employee Who Is Officer Of Professional Association Which Is Regulated By Her Agency
A state employee is the President-Elect of a professional association regulated by her agency. As the Commission has previously ruled, payment of the official’s expenses by the lobbyist/association while on association business is not a prohibited gift. Since the position is uncompensated, it is not subject to the Code’s restrictions regarding outside employment. The Agency, however, has statutory authority to establish additional rules to address any potential conflict of interests.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-17 Review Board Part Of DEP For Purposes Of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84b(b)
For purposes of the Code’s post-state employment rules, The Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Clean-Up Account Review Board is part of the Department of Environmental Protection.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-18 Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84b(b) When Representative From One’s Former Agency Is A Member Of A Task Force
The Code’s one year prohibition on compensated appearances before one’s former agency will apply to appearances before a task force, if a member of that agency serves on the task force.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-19 Interpretation Of The Code’s "Necessary Expenses" Definition
A public official may not accept as "Necessary expenses" recreation (e.g., golf) which is included as part of a conference registration fee.

ADVISORY OPINION NO.  96-20 Former Commissioner Of Commission On Hospitals And Health Care Barred By Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(a) From Accepting Employment Regarding A Particular Matter
The post-state employment ban on switching sides in a particular matter prohibits a former member of the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care from representing a health care provider regarding an application for a certificate of need (CON) when, in his official capacity, the member previously advised the health care provider regarding an earlier application for the same CON.

ADVISORY OPINION NO.  96-21 Application of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84(1)
The Code’s ban on interference with a lobbying contract will only apply when the actions are taken to benefit another lobbyist.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-22 Providing Legislative Information Through Use Of On-Line Computer Service Is Lobbying
Information regarding the promotion or opposition of legislation which is made available to state legislators through an on-line computer service constitutes "Lobbying" as that term is defined in the Lobbyist Code.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-23 Prohibition of Contingent Fee Lobbying Contracts
The prohibition on contingent fee lobbying will bar a client from changing the terms of a contract because it is dissatisfied with the outcome of its lobbyist’s work. If, however, a budgetary constraint prevents payment of an agreed upon fee, that is not a contingency based on "the outcome of any legislative or administrative action." Therefore, in that circumstance the lobbyist will have to pursue other legal remedies in order to obtain full payment.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-24 Application Of The Provisions Of The Code Of Ethics The Regulated Industry
The Insurance Commissioner was not barred, under the Code, from acting on an acquisition proposal involving his former employer.  Specifically: 1. The majority of his stock options in the entity in question were placed in a blind trust, obviating any conflict.  With regard to the Commissioner's knowledge of two other options, one was too remote to be directly affected by the acquisition and the other Commissioner agreed not to exercise; 2.  The Commissioner's other financial interests in the entity (e.g., annuity) would not be affected by his decision on the acquisition; and 3. Any effect on the Commissioner's son's stock interests would be de minimis.

-1995-

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-1   Application Of Revolving Door Law To Former Division Of Criminal Justice Investigator
A review of the post-state employment restrictions of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-84a and 1-84b as applied to a former State investigator, employed as a private investigator by the family of a homicide victim.  The private employment was accepted more than one year after the petitioner left state service, no confidential information was threatened, and the homicide was not a “particular matter” within the meaning of §1-84b(a).  The Commission rejected the petitioner’s argument that, given the commonality of interests between the victim’s family and the State, the provisions of §1-84b(b) should not apply.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-2  Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(c) To Out-of-State Employment
The Commission confirmed that §1-84b(c), which prohibits certain individuals from accepting employment with a regulated business for one year after leaving state service, applies with full force even where the offered position is located out-of-state and involves no contact with one’s former state agency.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-3  Business With Which A DCF Employee Is Associated Entering Into Contracts With Her Agency
After an open and public contract process, as required by §1-84(i), a DCF employee’s business may enter into contracts with the agency, provided the employee does not exploit confidential information for the benefit of the business and provided further that neither the employee nor a subordinate is in a position to take actions affecting the business, in violation of §§1-84(b) and (c).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-4   Further Interpretation Of Term “Organized Primarily For The Purpose Of Lobbying” As Used In Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-95(a)(3)
A review of the criteria which determine whether a registered lobbyist must disclose the name and address of any person contributing $1,000 or more to the registrant’s lobbying activities in any calendar year, pursuant to §1-95(a)(3).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-5   Effect Of Ethics Code On Deputy Commissioner Of Department Of Veterans’ Affairs Also Serving As Selectman In Waterford
Part-time employment as a municipal selectman is permissible under the Ethics Code, provided the Deputy Commissioner’s state responsibilities are given precedence and provided further that certain decisions affecting Waterford are assigned to the Commissioner or another Deputy Commissioner.  The application of §4-8, which appears to prohibit “other gainful employment” for Deputies, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Office of State Ethics.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-6  Reportability Of Activities Exempt From Lobbyist Registration Pursuant To Regulations Of Connecticut State Agencies §1-92-42a
Those activities which are excluded “when determining whether a person is required to register as a . . . lobbyist,” as listed at §1-92-42a(e) of the Commission’s Regulations, need not be reported to the Office of State Ethics, even when carried out by a registered lobbyist.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-7  Interpretation Of The Term “Public Office” As Used In Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-80(b)
A Justice of the Peace is a “public official” within the meaning of §1-80(b), which provides that no member of the Office of State Ethics shall hold or campaign for any public office or have held/been a candidate for public office for a three-year period prior to appointment.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-8   University Professor’s Acceptance Of Outside Employment As A Probate Judge
The flexibility of the petitioner’s University schedule makes is possible for him to undertake the responsibilities of a probate judgeship without compromising his academic duties.  Compare Advisory Opinion No. 94-22, in which the Commission found that a probate judge’s responsibility to give precedent to judicial matters over all others would impermissibly force a state employee to relegate his state employment to a subordinate role, in violation of §1-84(b).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-9  Application Of Amendments To Post-State Employment Restrictions Affecting Attorneys Formerly Employed By The Division Of Criminal Justice
A review of the application of P.A. 94-1 (Special Session) and P.A. 95-144 which, together, amended §1-84b(b) to permit former State’s Attorneys, immediately upon leaving state service, to appear before the Division of Criminal Justice with respect to representation of a client in a matter under the jurisdiction of a court.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-10  Gifts Provided By A Registrant To State Employee Participants In A Program Offered By The Office Of The Treasurer
Promotional benefits offered to state employees to increase participation in the Treasurer’s direct deposit program are exempt from the definition of “gift” pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-91(g)(7), and need not be tracked for purposes of the Code’s gift limitation, even when provided by a registrant.  A one-time sweepstakes prize, offered for the same purpose, is a gift to the state within the meaning of §1-91(g)(5) and may also be provided by a registrant, without regard to the value.  Although, in general, gifts to the state are offered in furtherance of lobbying and must be reported, the sweepstakes prize need not be reported.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-11  Interpretation Of The Terms “Representative Of A Manufacturer” And “Salesperson” As Used In The Definition Of Lobbying
The lobbyist registration exceptions of §1-91(k)(2) for a “salesperson” or “representative of a manufacturer” (since changed to “representative of a vendor”), will be applied to individuals whose duties ordinarily and customarily involve covering an assigned territory on a routine basis, visiting or otherwise contacting potential customers, and attempting to interest these customers in products or services.  The terms do not apply to individuals who set corporate policy or are involved in substantive corporate decision making.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-12  Negotiation Of A Lease Or Other Contract With An Executive Branch Or Quasi-Public Agency When Undertaken By An Attorney On Behalf Of A Client Is Exempt From The Definition Of “Lobbying” As “The Practice Of Law” Within The Meaning Of P.A. 95-144
Communications with a state agency which precede the signing of a contract, yet do not relate to a response to an RFP within the meaning of Commission Regulations §1-92-42a(e), regarding the terms of a proposed agreement, presumptively constitute “lobbying” under the expanded definition of the term “administrative action,” §§1-91(a), 1-91(k).  Nevertheless, an attorney’s negotiation of a lease or other contract establishing the legal rights and responsibilities of his or her client constitutes “the practice of law,” and is exempt from the definition of “lobbying,” pursuant to §1-91(k)(3).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-13  Lawyer Who Works To Affect Legislation Is Lobbyist As That Term Is Defined By Code Of Ethics For Lobbyists
Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-91(k)(3) exempts from the definition of “lobbying” an attorney’s communications, made while engaging in the practice of law, regarding any matter other than legislative action or an agency’s action on rules or regulations.  Lawyers attempting to influence legislative action or administrative rules or regulations are engaged in “lobbying,” and must register and report if they meet the relevant financial threshold of §1-91(1).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-14  DAS Computer Technician May Accept Elective Municipal Position As Constable
The petitioner’s proposed paid, elective, municipal position as a Constable for the City of Manchester did not pose a conflict of interest within the meaning of Commission Regulations §5-266a-1, nor would his independence of judgment or confidential information be compromised by the nature of such employment within the meaning of §§1-84(b) and (c).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-15  Consultant Who Is Neither A Family Member Nor Business Associate Of State Servant Is Not Subject To “Open And Public” Requirements Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84(i)
An intimate friend who is neither a member of a state servant’s “immediate family,” within the meaning of §1-79(f), nor part of an "associated business," within the meaning of §1-79(b), does not trigger the requirement, of §1-84(i), of an open and public state contract process.  If the nature of the friendship is such that the state servant’s own finances would be affected by the outcome of the contract process, the state servant is required to recuse him- or herself, pursuant to §§1-84(c), 1-85 and 1-86.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-16  Application Of The Code To Students Employed By A State College
Students employed by a state college, including students participating in a work study program, are “state employees” within the meaning of §1-79(m), and subject to the terms of the Code of Ethics for Public Officials and State Employees.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-17  Limitations On Outside Employment Of Claims Commissioner
Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-141, et seq., the State Claims Commissioner is the sole adjudicator of a broad spectrum of claims which may be brought against state agencies and state personnel.  As a result, his representation of private clients before certain state agencies, in addition to those listed at §1-84(d), would impermissibly impair the independence of his judgment, in violation of §1-84(b), or constitute a use of his state office (however inadvertent), in violation of §1-84(c).  Unlike the limitations of §1-84(d), the restriction against the petitioner’s appearance before such agencies will not apply to his law partners or any employee of his law firm.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-18  Application Of The Code’s Necessary Expense Provisions To Participation In Charitable Events
A state servant’s participation in a charity golf tournament is not an appearance for which he may accept “necessary expenses” within the meaning of §1-84(k).  Nevertheless, the Code’s gift provisions will be interpreted to value the gift of participation in the tournament at the fair market value of the benefit received, i.e., the actual greens fees, etc., rather than at the tournament’s entry fee, most of which is a contribution to the underlying charity.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-19  A Public Official Acting Within The Scope Of His Authority Is Not A Lobbyist Within The Meaning Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-91(1)
A Superior Court judge who makes reports and recommendations to the General Assembly pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §47a-73 is exempt, pursuant to §1-91(1)(1), from the necessity of registering as a lobbyist.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-20  Client Who Pays Attorney To Engage In Exempt Activities Need Not Register As A Client Lobbyist
An individual or entity that pays an attorney to engage in an activity which, as “the practice of law,” is exempted from the definition of lobbying by §1-91(k)(3), has not made “lobbying” expenditures and need not register as a client lobbyist or report such expenditures to the Office of State Ethics.

 -1994-

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-1  Official Action By The Chairperson Of The Accountancy Board Regarding Matter Relating To A Former Private Client
The Board of Accountancy initiated an investigation of the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen & Co. relating to the performance of professional services for Colonial Realty Company.  The Board was also considering action against an individual partner of Arthur Andersen with whom the Chairman of the Board had a personal friendship.  The Chairman is a partner in another accounting firm.  That Firm previously performed services for Colonial.  Furthermore, the daughter of one of his partners worked for Colonial.  In spite of his personal and business relationships with the various parties, neither the Chairman, his family members, nor his firm can derive any financial benefit or loss from any action the Board may take regarding the parties involved.   Therefore, under the Code, he does not have to recuse himself from the matter.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-2  Application Of Code Of Ethics To Court Reporters
Court reporters and court monitors are state employees.  The contracts made between these state employees and those ordering transcripts from them are not subject to the open and public process requirements of §1-84(i) of the Code, because in preparing these transcripts, court reports or monitors are performing work that is part of their state job duties.  If a court reporter or monitor charges more than the statutory rate for such transcripts, however, he or she has inappropriately used his or her state position in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84(c).  And, although the Judicial Department has allowed reporters and monitors to charge an “expedited” rate, if such a charge is imposed without statutory authority, §1-84(c) is again violated.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-3  Application Of The Ban On Contingent Fee Lobbying To A Government Relations Contract Incentive Payment
A lobbyist’s contract contains an incentive payment for helping the client secure financing from a quasi-public agency.  The lobbyist may be retained to seek a directly related legislative change which would “clearly contribute to the Client’s obtaining the financing it seeks.”  In this case, the incentive payment is substantially dependent on the legislative outcome.  It will be impossible for the lobbying firm’s personnel to set aside their knowledge that legislative success may very well result in the subsequent receipt of an additional incentive payment.   Consequently, the lobbyist should not engage in the proposed lobbying work as long as its prior contract with the client contains the incentive payment provision.  Otherwise, the contract will be deemed contingent fee lobbying in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-97(b).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-4  Disclosure Of Advertising Expenditures
Pursuant to the Code of Ethics for Lobbyists, certain purchases of advertising space in a program booklet for a political fundraising event are excluded from the Code’s definition of “Gift”, as long as these expenditures are properly reported under the State’s Elections Statutes.  The Office of State Ethics was asked whether such purchases were, nonetheless, reportable to the Commission as expenditures in furtherance of lobbying and/or expenditures for the benefit of a public official.

Since its inception in 1978, the Office of State Ethics has, in general, considered campaign contributions by lobbyists to be expenditures in furtherance of lobbying.  Additionally, when given to an incumbent, the Commission believes these contributions clearly constitute expenditures for the benefit of a public official.  The General Assembly, however, has rejected Commission attempts to obtain more specific legislative or regulatory authority requiring reporting of these campaign contributions; and has, alternatively, established a system of lobbyist reporting of contributions to the Office of the Secretary of the State (P.A. 93-251).  Consequently, absent a legislative change, lobbyist expenditures for advertising space in political fundraising booklets should not be reported to the Office of State Ethics.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-5  Spouses Serving In Same University Department
State employee-spouses may work in the same department, however, one’s supervisory authority may not be used either to the direct advantage of a spouse-subordinate or to the detriment of the spouse-subordinate’s competitors.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-6  Outside Teaching By Senior Staff Of The Real Estate Division Provided To Individuals Subject To Regulation By The Real Estate Commission
The State Ethics Commission had previously issued two rulings, Declaratory Ruling 84-A and Advisory Opinion No. 86-6, which permitted staff of the Real Estate Division (Division), Department of Consumer Protection, to teach real estate licensure prerequisite and continuing education courses.  The Commissioner of Consumer Protection asked the Commission to review these decisions.  Upon review, the Commission concluded that the prior rulings should be reversed.

Specifically, involvement of the Division staff in the accreditation of the prerequisite and continuing education schools and courses by the Real Estate Commission creates an unacceptable conflict of interest.  Additionally, the outside teaching compromises, in numerous ways, the Division staff’s ability to perform their official duties.  (E.g., staff cannot work on legislative proposals which would alter the statutory education requirements, since such changes could affect their outside financial interests.)

Finally, the individuals currently teaching, the Director and Assistant Director of the Division, play a significant role in the Real Estate Commission’s administration and enforcement of Connecticut ’s Real Estate laws.   As a consequence, these senior regulatory employees are providing outside, compensated teaching to those they regulate, in violation of the fundamental tenets of the Ethics Code.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-7 State Livestock Inspector’s Outside Employment As A Municipal Animal Control Officer A state employee may not accept certain additional employment if her outside activities would be subject to review by her own state agency and/or her position at the state agency would lead the potential outside employer to believe that the employee has an “in” at the agency which would allow the outside employer to receive special treatment.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-8  Outside Employment While On Leave Of Absence
A Department of Public Health and Addiction Services employee who wishes to work elsewhere while on medical leave from the state should avoid outside employment with a regulated entity and must protect the confidentiality of information to which she has access as a state employee.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-9  State Employee’s Former Employer Bidding For State Contract
The former employer of a current Department of Children and Families employee submitted a bid to do consulting work for DCF.  There is no Code restriction regarding contact with one’s former employer, when coming from the private sector to state service.  Furthermore, absent any quid pro quo, there is no restriction on the employee’s involvement in either selecting the former employer or any competing vendor; nor is she precluded from implementing the project in question.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-10  Application Of The Gift Law To Lobbyist’s Use Of A Boat
If a lobbyist entertains a public official on a boat, the use of the boat may have gift implications.  If the lobbyist is using the boat to host a party and the boat does not leave the dock, then the use of the boat is analogous to hosting a party at any other facility; any costs in using the boat would be considered overhead not personally and directly received and, therefore, excluded from the gift/expenditure for the benefit of a public official calculation.  An outing on a boat, however, is a gift.  In that case, if the lobbyist pays to charter a boat, the value to the public official is determined by the cost charged to the lobbyist divided by the number of individuals who attended the outing.   If the lobbyist is using his or her own boat, the lobbyist must determine how much a private charter company would charge to take out the same number of individuals on a boat of similar size and accommodations.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-11  Interpretation Of Term “Organized Primarily For The Purpose Of Lobbying” As Used in Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-95(a)(3)
The determination as to whether an entity is organized primarily for lobbying is based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the entity’s lobbying activity rather than on an inflexible specific percentage of the overall activity which must be lobbying-related.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-12  DSS Employee’s Ownership Of Pharmacy Which Has Contract With DSS
A Department of Social Services internal auditor may own a pharmacy which contracts with his agency, provided he is not involved with DSS procedures which might directly affect the business or his spouse, and provided further than he does not use confidential information to further the business.  An annual public notice of the availability of DSS provider agreements will, in this case, meet the requirement of an “open and public” contract process between the state and a state employee or his business.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-13  Application Of Code Of Ethics For Public Officials To Individuals Hired Through Special Payroll Account Or Under Personal Services Agreement
Individuals hired on a special payroll account or under a personal service agreement are not state employees for the purpose of applying the Code of Ethics.  Therefore, if the spouse of a state employee or public official wishes to be hired in this manner, in the amount of $100.00 or more, the hiring must comply with the open and public process requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84(i).  And, whenever a spouse/supervisor is required to take any action which would significantly affect the financial interest of the other spouse, including oversight of his or her day-to-day work, the supervisor must avoid the potential conflict of interest and follow the procedures outlined in Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-86(a).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-14  Outside Employment Of Revenue Examiner, Department Of Revenue Services, Selling Deferred Compensation Plans
The responsibilities of the subject employee in DRS are to conduct sales and use tax audits.  The Commission received an inquiry as to whether it would be permissible for the employee to sell deferred compensation plans to both state and non-state employees.

The prohibition against performing outside work for those subject to regulation by a state employee’s agency was not intended to be so broad as to extend to every entity or individual theoretically regulated by an agency.   Rather, the ban only prohibits outside activity which is closely related to the state servant’s official duties or responsibilities.   It follows, therefore, that the employee should not sell to any individual who has been selected to be or is currently being audited by DRS.   Furthermore, he should not sell to any individual who has either an ownership interest in, or occupies a position which is involved in the audit process for, any entity which has been selected to be or is currently being audited by DRS.  Additionally, it would be a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat.  §1-84(c) to use information obtained through his state position to select potential clients or to sell to his subordinates in DRS.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-15  Application Of Outside Employment Rules To State Environmental Analyst’s Private Work In Wetland Delineation
Where an employee’s state duties do not involve any of the work he proposes to perform in his private capacity, and where the employee indicates that he will refrain from taking on or charging for any outside activities which might result in DEP review of his private work, a state environmental analyst may accept private part-time employment performing wetlands delineations.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-16  Application Of Code Of Ethics To Member Of Connecticut Medical Examining Board
The Connecticut Medical Examining Board is within the Department of Public Health and Addiction Services.  A member of the CMEB, both while serving in that capacity and for a year thereafter, may not represent anyone for compensation with regard to an investigation which might ultimately be resolved by the CMEB.  Additionally, the CMEB member may not privately work on any matter involving DPHAS personnel with whom he may work in his official CMEB capacity.

The revolving door laws are personal to the CMEB member and, therefore, do not extend to his law firm.  He may not, however, profit from the work of others at the firm performed in connection with DPHAS in the year after he leaves the Board.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-17  Application Of Conn. Gen. Stat.  §1-84(b) To Former State Prosecutor
Conn. Gen. Stat.  §1-84(b) prohibits executive branch state employees, for one year after leaving state service, from representing anyone, other than the state, for compensation, before their former agency.  In Advisory Opinion No. 86-11 the Commission had held that a prosecutor’s “former agency” is the Division of Criminal Justice, and that prosecutors were not required to wait a year before representing a criminal defendant before a State court.  The petitioner in Advisory Opinion No. 94-17 asked whether the Commission would reach the same conclusion if the State court were the Judicial District to which the prosecutor was formerly assigned.   The Commission held that no greater restrictions apply to a former prosecutor’s appearance before the Judicial District to which he or she was assigned than to any other; nevertheless, the prohibition against interaction with the Division of Criminal Justice would preclude negotiating with the prosecutor, etc., and would render such representation problematic, at best.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-18  Review Of Rules Regarding Two Spouses Working In Same Department Of State Agency
A seasonal state employee at Hammonasset Beach State Park may work at the park with her husband, who is the camp manager, provided that, from the hiring process to the evaluation process, her husband refrains from taking any action which furthers his spouse’s financial interests.  The opinion summarizes the steps which must be taken to avoid such a conflict of interest.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-19  Reportability Of Gifts To The State
The Commission has previously ruled that reportable activities “in furtherance of lobbying” include “activities and expenditures which foster good will between lobbyists and public officials…unless the activity is clearly personal and unrelated to any lobbying purpose.”  In this Opinion, the Commission held that permissible gifts to the State (e.g., fax machine given by lobbyist to a state agency) are “in furtherance of lobbying” and, hence, reportable.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-20  Former Department Of Mental Health Employee Testifying In Suit Against Department Of Correction
Based upon the post-state employment bans against “switching sides” in a particular matter and using confidential information, a former DMH employee who co-authored a report regarding prison mental health services may not serve as an expert witness of such conditions on behalf of inmate-plaintiffs suing the Department of Correction.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-21  Effect Of Outside Employment Restrictions On Proposed Preparation Of Private Publication By Department Of Public Works Employee For Sale To Design Professionals
A project coordinator at the state Department of Public Works, whose duties include approving and/or denying invoices from architects and engineers working on state projects, may not prepare a publication for sale to the groups of individuals with whom he deals in his state capacity.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 94-22  State Employee May Not Accept Outside Employment As Probate Judge
The priority of one’s full-time state employment is impermissibly impaired by the responsibilities of a probate judge, whose judicial duties “take precedence over all his other activities.”

-1993-

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-1  Code Of Ethics Prohibits Executive Director Of Judicial Review Council From Also Pursuing Active Practice As Litigation Attorney
The Commission considered the question of whether, under the provisions of the Code of Ethics for Public Officials, the state employee Executive Director of the Judicial Review Council (JRC) could simultaneously conduct a private practice as a trial attorney.  The JRC is the agency empowered to investigate complaints of wrongful conduct by, among others, the judges of the state supreme, appellate and superior courts; and its Director is statutorily authorized to investigate and prosecute such complaints.

As the State Ethics Commission has consistently held, conflicts of interest, both real and apparent, are inevitable and unavoidable when a state regulatory employee seeks to appear for compensation before those he regulates.  Additionally, in this instance, the conflicts are compounded by the importance of the position in question and the clear opportunity for misuse of sensitive confidential information.  Consequently, the Commission ruled that the Executive Director of the JRC may not simultaneously engage in the private practice of law before those he publicly regulates.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-2  Student Trustee Seeking Employment Within A College Under The Board Of Trustee’s Jurisdiction
Student Trustees are elected by the students enrolled at the State Regional Community Colleges to serve on its Board of Trustees.  All other board members are appointed by the Governor.  The definition for public officials under the Code of Ethics only includes the members appointed by the Governor.  Therefore, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the conduct of the two student trustees and cannot prohibit a student trustee from applying for or accepting a position within the community college system.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-3  Application Of Code Of Ethics To Outside Employment Of Special Revenue Employees
The Executive Director of the Division of Special Revenue (Division) asked how the Code of Ethics for Public Officials applied to the proposed outside employment of two Division employees.

In the first instance, an individual employed by the State as a parimutuel clerk in the OTB system wished to be employed in the same capacity on a part-time basis by a jai-alai association licensed by the Division.  According to the Division, the clerk is not privy to confidential or otherwise sensitive information.  Additionally, it does not appear that the clerk’s state job performance will be influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the proposed outside employment.  Consequently, the outside work would seem to involve nothing more than the use of skills garnered in state service; and is, therefore, not prohibited by the Code.

In the second instance, a State OTB supervisor wished to work part-time at a privately owned and operated concession stand located in the betting facility where the individual was employed by the State.  The supervisor has no official duties in connection with the stand or its operators.   Although the individual would be working privately at the same facility where he is employed by the State, there is no apparent conflict of interest.  Therefore, the outside work is not prohibited under the provision of the Code.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-4  Legislator Taking Official Action On Bills Which May Affect Spouse’s Employer
The spouse of a state senator works for a defense subcontractor and his job responsibilities include seeking ways to diversify to commercial work.   The Senator is a member of the Commerce Committee which votes on legislation dealing with manufacturing assistance and defense diversification.  The employer is not a business with which the Senator is associated.  Although legislation may benefit the employer, it will not have a direct financial impact on either the Senator or her spouse.  The Code does not specifically prohibit a public official from taking official action which would benefit either one’s employer or one’s spouse’s employer, unless the employer had improperly influenced the legislator.  Therefore, absent any information which would indicate improper influence, the Senator may take official action on legislation dealing with defense diversification, even if such action will simultaneously fulfill her spouse’s stated job objectives.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-5  Application Of The Post-State Employment Provisions Of The Code To Division Of Special Revenue Personnel Laid Off Upon Privatization Of Off-Track Betting System
Several Division of Special Revenue employees asked what limitations they faced if a proposed privatization plan were put into effect and they were laid off.  As former executive branch employees, all of the petitioners would be subject to restrictions on the use of confidential information (§1-84a), switching sides on a particular matter (§1-84b(a)), returning to their former agency within one year on behalf of anyone other than the State (§1-84b(b)) and accepting employment with a party to a contract which they awarded or negotiated while in state service (§1-84b(d)).  In addition, certain members of the agency would be precluded, while in office, from negotiating for, seeking or accepting employment with any business subject to regulation by the Department of Revenue Services, the Division of Special Revenue or the Gaming Policy Board and, further, would be precluded, for one year after leaving office, from accepting employment with any such business.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-6  Application Of Codes Of Ethics To Financial Benefits Received From A Lobbyist In Connection With One’s Non-State Responsibilities
A public official or state employee who is offered benefits, by a lobbyist, in his capacity as a municipal office holder may accept such benefits, without consequences under the Code of Ethics for Public Officials, where the benefit is integral to such person’s ability to perform as a municipal office holder.   Where the benefit is not integral to the office holder’s performance, a benefit offered by a lobbyist will be fully subject to the gift limitations and reporting requirements of the Code, regardless of the reason for the offer.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-7  Application Of Codes Of Ethics To Gift Subscription Of Christian Science Monitor
Subscriptions to newspapers provided to individual state legislators and other state employees or officials are gifts under the Codes of Ethics and are subject to the Codes' gift limits.  However, a subscription provided gratis for public or general state use (e.g., an annual subscription offered to the state library) would qualify as a gift to the state, and, because it does not benefit any one state servant, would not be subject to the gift restrictions.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-8  Member Of Law Firm Serving As Consultant To Legislative Committee
An attorney had been hired as a consultant to the Commerce Committee of the General Assembly.  The Attorney asked whether this relationship would restrict his law firm’s ability to represent clients involving proceedings with the State.  The Code’s restrictions regarding representation before certain state agencies apply to public officials and/or state employees.  As a consultant, the attorney is neither.  The only provision which applies to the consultant is Conn. Gen. Stat.  §1-86e, which prohibits independent contractors of the state from using confidential information, accepting other state contracts which would impair one’s independence of judgment, or accepting anything of value to influence one’s actions.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-9  Application Of The Code’s “Revolving Door” Provisions To An Entity Employing The Former State Treasurer
The former State Treasurer, Francisco Borges, resigned to become Managing Director of Public Finance at a corporation which insures state and municipal bonds.

The State was considering such insurance for a large (one billion dollars) bond issue.  Due to the size of the contemplated financing, it was anticipated that there would be only three bidders for the bond insurance, one of which would be Mr. Borges’ employer.  The current Treasurer asked whether this scenario created a potential conflict of interest.

As the Ethics Commission has previously held, the Code’s Post-State Employment provisions are, in general, personal to the former State servant, and do not extend to his or her private employer.  As a consequence, Mr. Borges’ company may, with propriety, bid for and be awarded the work in question.  As mandated by the Code, however, Mr. Borges may not, for one year after leaving State service, represent his current employer regarding the bid, negotiations, or any other matter before his former agency, the Office of the Treasurer.  Additionally, in order to insure that one does not benefit financially from a prohibited activity, Mr. Borges may not receive any portion of the fee or other compensation obtained by his employer as a result of its work with the Treasurer’s Office during the one year period.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-10  Application Of The Code Of Ethics To Department Of Income Maintenance Investigator’s Proposed Outside Employment As Consultant On DIM Policy
An investigator for DIM may not run an outside consulting business helping individuals prepare forms for submission to his agency because:  (1) he currently reviews such forms and his independence of judgment as to the performance of his state job may be jeopardized; (2) even if his co-workers alone review the submissions he has helped to prepare, if the application is questioned, the applicant will naturally turn to the investigator/private consultant for assistance, putting him in an untenable ethical situation, and; (3) the fact that he is employed by DIM lends a credibility to his outside consulting business which does not arise from expertise alone, but rather from an inadvertent use of his state position.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-11  Negotiation Of Union Contract By State Employee Who May Become Member Of The Union
Dr. David Newton is the chief management collective bargaining negotiator for the Connecticut State University Board of Trustees in their dealings with the union that represents the teaching faculty, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).  Dr. Newton is the former president of AAUP and has the option, pursuant to his employment contract, to return to the faculty.  The Commission was asked whether negotiating a contract in one’s state position which may affect the individual’s future salary and benefits is prohibited by the Code of Ethics for Public Officials.

Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.  §1-85, a state employee may not take official action if he has reason to believe or expect that he will derive a direct monetary gain or loss by reason of his official activity which would be different from other members of his profession, occupation, or group.   In this instance, the financial impact would not be direct unless Dr. Newton fully intended to return to his faculty position after the contract negotiations were concluded.  Regardless, any benefit or detriment would affect all members of the profession, i.e. faculty members covered by the AAUP contract, in the same way.  Therefore, §1-85 would not prohibit Dr. Newton’s involvement.

Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.  §1-86, a state employee has a potential conflict of interest if he would be required in the discharge of his official duties to take an action that would affect his financial interest.   Absent any evidence that Dr. Newton expects to return as a faculty member during the term of the contract in question, there is no potential conflict.  If a potential conflict should exist, Dr. Newton would need to prepare a written statement signed under penalty of false statement describing the matter requiring action, the nature of the conflict, and deliver a copy of the statement to his immediate superior who should assign the matter to another employee.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-12  Disclosure Of Contracts With Quasi-Public Agencies On The Statement Of Financial Interests
Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.  §1-83, certain public officials and state employees must file statements of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the State Ethics Commission.  Among other items which must be disclosed on the statement are any leases or contracts with the State entered into by the individual or business with which he was associated.  The quasi-public agencies are not deemed to be a department, institution or agency of the State.  Therefore, leases or contracts with the quasi-public agencies do not need to be disclosed on the statements.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-13  Application Of Various Provisions Of The Gift Law; Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-91(g)
Where the Code of Ethics has specifically exempted items costing a certain amount from the definition of “gift” (for example, a “certificate, plaque, or other ceremonial award costing less than one hundred dollars”, 1-91(g)(6)), a registered lobbyist may not exceed that dollar amount by combining the limit set forth in the exemption with the lobbyist’s separate $50.00 annual gift limit.  Thus, one lobbyist may not give a legislator a plaque costing $130.00

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-14  Reportability Of Time And Money Spent By Registered Client Lobbyists And Their Employees To Attend Various Social Events
The Code of Ethics for Lobbyists requires the disclosure of amounts expended or received by a registrant “in furtherance of lobbying.”  The Commission broadly interprets activities “in furtherance of lobbying” to include those which foster good will between lobbyists and public officials.  Therefore, a registered client lobbyist must report expenditures associated with sending representative to various social functions at which public officials are in attendance, even where issues are not actually discussed.  If a client registrant sends a representative for a purpose other than associating with public officials, the expenditure will be reportable only if the representative actually communicates with the public official(s) in furtherance of lobbying.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-15  Effect Of Merger Of State Agencies On One-Year Prohibition Against Appearing Before Former Agency
The Department of Income Maintenance (“DIM”) and several other agencies have merged to form the new Department of Social Services (“DSS”).  If, after the reorganization, DIM as a whole is easily discernible as a division of the new “super” agency, then a former DIM employee is prohibited by the revolving door rules from appearing before only that division of DSS.   If, however, as appears to be the case, the functions and divisions of DIM are intermingled with those of the other agencies to form the new DSS, then the one-year ban of Conn. Gen. Stat.  §1-84b(b) will apply to DSS in its entirety.  This is so even if the former employee’s department or subdivision of DIM remains intact.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-16  Application Of Revolving Door Laws To Department Of Mental Retardation Regional Residential Manager; When Contract Is “Signed” For The Purposes Of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(d)
Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(d) forbids a state employee who participated personally and substantially in the negotiation or award of a contract obliging the State to pay fifty thousand dollars or more, or who supervised the negotiation or award of such a contract, from accepting a job with a party to the contract other than the State for one year after leaving state service if the contract was signed less than a year before the state employment is terminated.  A contract is not considered “signed” until the last necessary signature has been obtained.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-17  Acceptance Of Necessary Expense Payments By The Spouse Of The Governor
Under the Code, no state servant may accept a fee or honorarium for an article, appearance or speech given in one’s official capacity.  The individual may, however, receive necessary expense payments for such activities; limited by the Code to the state servant’s necessary travel expenses, lodging, meals and any related conference registration fees.

The issue of the spouse of a public official also receiving such reimbursement was specifically discussed and rejected during the legislative debate on the enactment of these provisions, as being unnecessary to the occurrence of the event and, therefore, tantamount to an illegal fee or honorarium.  In this instance, however, the Commission held that the acceptance of expense payments by the spouse of the Governor was distinguishable from the general rule.  In essence, the Commission found that it was well established, at both the federal and state levels of government, that the spouse of the chief executive is, not infrequently, called upon to perform certain official activities.  Under such circumstances, the spouse of the Governor is functioning as a representative of the State, and is essentially equivalent to a public official.   As a logical and practical consequence, the Commission ruled that, when performing these duties, Mrs. Weicker would be permitted to accept expense payments, under the same limitations and with the same disclosure required of other state servants.

In closing, the Commission noted that this Opinion was unique to the State’s First Lady and should not be construed as extending to any other individual.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-18  Application Of Revolving Door Law To Department Of Mental Retardation Case Manager Who Leaves To Become Private Agency Executive Director
A former state employee may, and should, structure an upfront agreement with his new private employer to avoid the “revolving door” problems most often encountered (e.g., by arranging for another employee to have all contact with his former agency for the first year after his departure from state service).

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-19 (Amended)  Application Of Prohibition On Contingent Fees To Year-End Bonuses Given To Lobbyist Employees
Subsection 1-97(b) of the Lobbyist Code prohibits an individual from being employed as a lobbying for compensation which is contingent on the outcome of any legislative or administrative action.  Consequently, bonuses given to communicator lobbyists based directly on the outcome of their work (i.e., because a particular bill is passed or defeated) are prohibited.

Notwithstanding this prohibition, if a corporate or lobbying firm employer customarily gives its salaried employees a year-end bonus or has established criteria for giving a bonus based on general job performance, then a lobbyist/employee may also receive the bonus.  A job performance bonus may not, however, have as its sole criteria the passage or defeat of specific legislation or regulations.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-20  Valuation Of Gift Of Political Fundraiser Ticket To State Public Official
Under the Ethics Codes, a properly reported political contribution is not considered a “gift.”  Therefore, when a lobbyist purchases a “table” at a political fundraising event for a particular legislator, that purchase, if a legal, properly reported contribution, is not a gift for purposes of the Codes of Ethics.  If, however, the lobbyist then chooses to give one of the tickets to a public official, state employee, or member of such person’s immediate family, to allow the recipient to attend the function, that transaction constitutes a separate gift event, subject to the Codes’ gift limits and reportable to the Commission.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-21  State Regulator Accepting Private Employment In The Regulated Industry
An Environmental Resource Technician in the Department of Environmental Protection’s Wildlife Division asked the Commission whether the Code permitted his proposed part-time outside employment as a state licensed Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator (NWCO).

As part of his state duties, the individual is currently responsible for administering the NWCO program.  As the Commission has consistently held, conflicts of interest, both real and apparent, are inevitable and unavoidable when a state servant directly responsible for regulating a field of private endeavor seeks to be employed in that same field.  Consequently, the Commission held that the NWCO Administrator should not be simultaneously employed in the industry he oversees.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-22  Application Of Revolving Door Law To Vice President And Managing Director Of The Connecticut Development Authority
The one-year ban on accepting employment with a party to a state contract contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(d) applies to any loan of $50,000 or more granted by the State which is memorialized by contract.

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 93-23  Application Of The Code Of Ethics To The Use Of A State Car By An Elected Official During A Campaign
Lieutenant Governor Groark asked the Office of State Ethics to review the policy which she proposed to follow regarding utilization of a state car during her candidacy for the Office of Governor.

As the sitting Lieutenant Governor, Ms. Groark has been given the use of an automobile for travel on state-related business.  Now that she is a declared candidate for the Office of Governor, a question has arisen concerning the propriety of use of the car while engaging in campaign related activities occurring during time periods usually devoted exclusively to state business.

Consequently, Lieutenant Governor Groark proposed the following:  A log will be kept of each day’s travel.  Each log will be identified as to mileage and purpose.  Any activity even remotely deemed to be campaign related will be noted, and a reimbursement of $.28 per mile will be made by the campaign to the State.

Under the provisions of the Code of Ethics, no public official may use his or her office for personal financial gain (§1-84(c)).  Given the inevitable intertwining of activities that occur when an elected official runs for public office, the Office of State Ethics concluded that Ms. Groark’s proposed policy provided an equitable method for avoiding misuse of office for personal gain.  Therefore, the Commission found the policy to be in compliance with the requirements of the Code.

Advisory Opinions 1978 - 1992