Ethics: Enforcement Actions - Summaries

Enforcement Actions - Summaries

2006 Random Lobbyist Audit Program

Summaries:

Docket Nos. 2008-56UL to 2008-78UL: Enforcement Actions Against Delinquent Lobbyist Filers.  Multiple enforcement actions were prosecuted between January and April of 2008.  Twenty two actions were filed against client lobbyists who had failed to timely file their 1st quarter disclosure reports for 2008 (“ETH-2D”), resulting in the imposition and collection of $2,460 in fines.  All matters were resolved or dismissed prior to administrative hearings, with seven of the lobbyists paying penalties based on the delinquency. 

 

Docket Nos. 2008-1UL to 2008-55UL: Enforcement Actions Against Delinquent Lobbyist Filers.  Multiple enforcement actions, including three hearings conducted under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, were prosecuted between January and April of 2008.  Eighteen separate actions were filed against lobbyists who had failed to register with the Office in 2007 prior to lobbying, resulting in the imposition and collection of $53,900 in fines.  Twelve actions were filed against client lobbyists who had failed to timely file their 3rd/4th quarter disclosure reports for 2007 (“ETH-2D”), resulting in the imposition and collection of $3,230 in fines.  Twenty two actions were filed against communicator lobbyists who failed to file their annual disclosure reports for 2007 (“ETH-2A”), resulting in the imposition and collection of $3,780 in fines.  In total, all but four of these matters were settled prior to hearings, with each of the lobbyists paying penalties based on the delinquency.  Hearings in three matters were conducted April 2, 2008:

  • Docket No. 2008-14UL: In the Matter of Connecticut Assisted Living Association (“CALA”).  The Office of State Ethics alleged that CALA had failed to file a registration with the Office of State Ethics in 2007 prior to engaging in lobbying, and that it had failed to file mandatory quarterly disclosure reports for the same year.  Following a contested hearing, the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board issued a final decision finding that CALA had failed to register with the Office of State Ethics prior to engaging in lobbying in 2007, and had failed to timely file the disclosure reports.  The Board imposed a fine of $5,025.
  • Docket No. 2008-20UL:  In the Matter of Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut, Inc. (“CCEC”).  The Office of State Ethics alleged that CCEC had failed to file a registration with the Office of State Ethics in 2007 prior to engaging in lobbying, and that it had failed to file mandatory quarterly disclosure reports for the same year.  Following a contested hearing, the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board issued a final decision finding that CCEC had failed to register with the Office of State Ethics prior to engaging in lobbying in 2007, and had failed to timely file the disclosure reports.  The Board imposed a fine of $4,810.
  • Docket No. 2008-45UL:  In the Matter of a Complaint by the Ethics Enforcement Officer Against Maria Cahill.  The Office of State Ethics alleged that Ms. Cahill, a registered communicator lobbyist, had failed to file her mandatory annual disclosure report for 2007 (“ETH-2A”) in a timely manner.  Following a contested hearing, the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board issued a final decision finding that Ms. Cahill’s report was not timely filed, imposed a fine of $430. 

Docket No. 2007-22: In the Matter of A Complaint Against Robyn Danahy. On November 26, 2007, the Office of State Ethics and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Consent Order. Under the Consent Order, the Respondent paid a $5,000 civil penalty. The complaint alleged that Ms. Danahy, a former employee of the University of Connecticut Athletics Department, had approached Scoutware, a contractor of the university, concerning employment and did not disclose this fact when she participated on the selection committee that was considering renewing Scoutware’s contract. The complaint alleged that in such a position, Ms. Danahy had a conflict of interest that she was required to disclose, but failed to do so.

Docket No. 2007-12: In the Matter of a Complaint Against Tracey Weeks.  On March 26, 2008, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Consent Order.  Under the terms of the settlement, the Ethics Enforcement Officer was prepared to demonstrate at a probable cause hearing that the Respondent failed to file an accurate Statement of Financial Interests (“SFI”) for the years 2004 and 2005, thereby violating Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-83(a)(1) and 1-83(b)(1).  Further, the Ethics Enforcement Officer was prepared to show that the Respondent failed to recuse herself and file a disclosures statement pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-86 regarding a potential conflict of interest wherein she took official action which was likely to affect the financial interest of her spouse.  The Respondent is an employee of the state Department of Public Health (“DPH”), which agency provides direct regulatory oversight of registered sanitarians.  The Respondent’s husband, a registered sanitarian and at that time the part-time Director of Environmental Health for Darien, CT, owned and operated a business which was engaged in activities directly regulated by DPH.  The Respondent failed to report on her annual filing that her agency regulated her husband.  In addition, when Respondent was faced with a potential conflict of interest relating to her spouse, Respondent failed to recuse herself and failed to disclose the potential conflict to the Office of State Ethics. 

 

Docket No. 2007-10:  In the Matter of a Complaint Against Theodore Wojtusik.   The Respondent, a retired Trooper First Class for the Connecticut State Police, and the OSE settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Consent Order on June 19, 2008.  Under the terms of the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay $6,000.  According to the Stipulation and Consent Order, the Ethics Enforcement Officer found there was probable cause to believe that the Respondent submitted time cards on multiple occasions that did not accurately reflect the overtime hours that he had actually worked, and as a result, the Respondent received money to which he was not entitled.  Consequently, the Ethics Enforcement Officer found that there was probable cause to believe that the Respondent used his state position to obtain financial gain for himself in violation of General Statutes section 1-84(c).   Mr. Wojtusik previously retired from state service, and reimbursed the state $7,968.13.

 

Docket No. 2007-9:  In the Matter of a Complaint Against Reginald F. Allard, Jr.  On April 8, 2008, the Office of State Ethics (“OSE”) and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Consent Order. Under the terms of the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay $27,825.  The Ethics Enforcement Officer was prepared to demonstrate at a probable cause hearing that the Respondent, while a state employee and training officer at the Police Officer Standard and Training Council (“POST”), violated General Statutes § 1-84(c) by using his state position to obtain personal financial gain.  More particularly, the complaint alleged that Respondent was paid by non-state entities for expert witness services and trial testimony which was based, in part, on the Respondent’s position as a training officer for POST.  The Respondent added credibility to his client’s case in using his state position and therefore used his state position to obtain financial gain for himself.

 

Docket Nos. 2007-1UL to 2007-13UL: Enforcement Actions Against Delinquent Lobbyist Filers.  Multiple enforcement actions, including four contested hearings conducted under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, from August to October of 2007 resulted in the imposition and collection of $7,320 in fines for lobbyists who did not meet statutory deadlines for filing financial reports with the Office of State Ethics. The contested hearings were:

 

  • Docket No. 2007-1UL: In the Matter of AFT Connecticut and Susan Heller Williams. The Office of State Ethics alleged that the second quarter ETH-2D lobbyist financial report was filed late. After a contested hearing, the hearing officer recommended and the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board imposed a fine of $100.
  • Docket No. 2007-2UL: In the Matter of Conn PIRG and Christopher Phelps. The Office of State Ethics alleged that the second quarter ETH-2D lobbyist financial report was filed late. After a contested hearing, the hearing officer recommended and the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board imposed a fine of $640.
  • Docket No. 2007-3UL: In the Matter of CT Propane Coalition and T. Michael Morrissey. The Office of State Ethics alleged that the second quarter ETH-2D lobbyist financial report was filed late. After a contested hearing, the hearing officer recommended and the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board imposed a fine of $610.
  • Docket No. 2007-4UL: In the Matter of CT Library Association and Barry Williams. The Office of State Ethics alleged that the second quarter ETH-2D lobbyist financial report was filed late. After a contested hearing, the hearing officer recommended and the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board imposed a fine of $100.

Docket No. 2006-65: In the Matter of A Complaint Against Adrienne Nails. On March 9, 2007 the Office of State Ethics and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Consent Order. Under this settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a $250 civil penalty. The complaint alleged that Ms. Nails, then an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), entered into a contract with DVA without an open and public process as required by law.

 

Docket Number 2005-10.  In the Matter of a Complaint Against Lynda Morris.  On June 2, 2008, the OSE and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Consent Order. Under the terms of the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay $500 as a penalty for her violation of General Statutes § 1-84(c).  The Ethics Enforcement Officer was prepared to demonstrate at a probable cause hearing that the Respondent, while a state employee in the Judicial Branch, violated General Statutes § 1-84(c) by using her state position to obtain personal financial gain.  More particularly, the complaint alleged that Respondent on multiple occasions used state computer equipment, and access to state computer databases, to engage in employment on behalf of an outside employer.

 

Docket No. 2005-7:  In the Matter of a Complaint Against Albemarle Equities, LLC.  On May 10, 2005, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  Under the terms of the settlement, the Commission found that, on or about February of 2004, the Respondent was a lobbyist registrant and violated a gift ban on the Code of Ethics for Public Officials which prevents registered lobbyists, or someone acting on their behalf, from knowingly providing a gift to any public official or a member of any such official’s immediate family.  In particular, the Respondent permitted the Vice-President of the State Properties Review Board and her husband, to stay free of charge at a Vermont condominium on or about February 26-27, 2004.  The Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00 and agreed to henceforth comply with the Code of Ethics for Public Officials. 

   

Docket No. 2005-6:  In the Matter of a Complaint by John Kardaras Against Rachel Rubin.  Following investigation, Special Enforcement Counsel Mary E. Schwind found there was no probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated any provisions of the Code of Ethics for Public Officials.  A Complaint filed by a member of the public alleged that the Respondent violated the Code of Ethics by holding two state positions, as Special Counsel for Ethics Compliance within the Office of the Governor and as Director of Compliance for Storrs and Regional Campuses for the University of Connecticut.    Special Enforcement Counsel determined that there was no probable cause to believe that the Respondent had violated the Code of Ethics by holding these two state positions.  The Respondent waived her right to confidentiality and asked that the file be made a part of the public record. 

 

Docket No. 2005-5:  In the Matter of a Complaint Against Konover Properties Corporation.  On May 2, 2005, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  Under the terms of the settlement, the Commission found that Konover Properties Corporation (“Konover”) violated the gift ban in the Code of Ethics for Public Officials by providing meals in excess of the $50.00 annual meal limit to state employees and public officials.  In particular, the Commission found that in 2002 and 2004, the Respondent and related business entities were doing business with one or more state agencies, including but not limited to the State Department of Public Works, the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, and the State Department of Economic and Community Development.  In 2002, the Respondent co-hosted a party attended by one or more public officials from the aforementioned agencies at which party the value of the food and beverages provided exceeded $50.00 per attendee.  In 2004, the Respondent and its related business entities held another party to which it invited state employees from the aforementioned agencies where the value of the food and beverages exceeded $50.00 per attendee.  As a result, the Respondent was required to pay a civil penalty of $7,700 and to henceforth comply with the Codes of Ethics for Public Officials.    

       

Docket No. 2005-3: In the Matter of a Complaint against Scott W. Jellison.  On June 20, 2005, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  Under the terms of the settlement, the Respondent, an employee for the State of Connecticut Department of Public Works (“DPW”), was found to have received food and/or beverages in excess of the legal limit of $50.00 per calendar year on more than one occasion since April 26, 2002 from Gilbane Building Company (“Gilbane”), a company that he knew or had reason to know was doing business with the DPW.  Under the terms of the settlement, the Commission found that the Respondent directly and personally received benefits given by Gilbane, including food and/or beverages totaling more than $50.00 per calendar year, by virtue of his state employment, in violation of the Code of Ethics for Public Officials.  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $500 and to henceforth comply with the Code of Ethics for Public Officials. 

      

Docket No. 2005-2: In the Matter of a Complaint Against Gilbane Building Company.  On June 20, 2005, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $5,000 and to henceforth comply with the Code of Ethics for Public Officials.  The Respondent was found to have violated the gift ban under the Code of Ethics for Public Officials in that the Respondent provided benefits in excess of the legal limits to two state Department of Public Works (“DPW”) employees in 2002 and 2003.  The Respondent at that time was doing business with the DPW. 

 

Docket No. 2004-4:  In the Matter Against Edna M. Berastain.  On August 13, 2004, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  The Complaint alleged that on or about April 11, 2003 the Respondent left her state position at the Department of Public Health to become employed by a non-state entity Latinos/as Contra SIDA.  Further, the Complaint alleges that on at least three separate occasions within her first year after leaving state service, the Respondent represented her new employer for compensation before her former agency concerning matters in which the state had a substantial interest in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84b(b).  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay $1,000.00 and to henceforth comply with the post-state employment requirements of the Code of Ethics for Public Officials.

 

Docket No. 2004-01: In the Matter of A Complaint Against Theodore Anson. On November 2, 2007, the Office of State Ethics and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Consent Order. Under the settlement, the Respondent, the former Commissioner of Public Works (DPW), paid $30,000, half of which was attributed to the Office of State Ethics (the other half was attributed to the Attorney General as a result of litigation filed by the AG). The complaint alleged that the Respondent received a gift from a person who had contracted with, and was seeking to enter into a contract with the DPW and failed to report the gift on his 2000 statement of financial interest.

 

Docket No. 2003-7:  In the Matter of a Complaint Against Lawrence E. Alibozek.  On July 11, 2003, the State Ethics Commission found there was probable cause to believe that the Respondent, the former Deputy Chief of Staff to Governor John G. Rowland, had violated Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-84(c) and 1-84(g) and that he fraudulently concealed his violations of the Ethics Code for Public Officials.  The Complaint alleged that the Respondent violated Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-84(c) and 1-84(g) by accepting and soliciting checks, gold bullion coins, cash, and other things of value from persons doing business with the State of Connecticut, and accepted such things with the intent to be influenced and rewarded in return for steering large state contracts to certain individuals and/or their companies.  The Complaint also alleged that the Respondent knowingly acted in his financial interest or knowingly received a financial advantage resulting from the violations of these statutes, and that he fraudulently concealed these violations and acts from the State Ethics Commission.  The Commission referred the matter to the State of Connecticut Attorney General pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-88(d).   

 

Docket No. 2003-5:  In the Matter of a Complaint Against John G. Rowland.  On June 13, 2003, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  The Complaint alleged that the Respondent, the Governor of Connecticut, directly and personally received gifts valued at $10.00 or more, which included lodging, from William A. Tomasso (“Tomasso”), a person that the Respondent knew or should have known was doing business with the Respondent’s department or agency, or was engaged in activities which were directly regulated by such department of agency.  Further, the Complaint alleges that the Respondent directly and personally received gifts valued at $10.00 more, which included lodging, from Robert V. Matthews (“Matthews”), a person that the Respondent knew or should have known was doing business with the Respondent’s department or agency, or was engaged in activities which were directly regulated by such department of agency.  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay $6,792.00, which is an amount equal to the difference between what the Respondent paid for lodging accommodations from Tomasso and Matthews, and an additional $2,000 civil penalty.

 

Docket No. 2003-4: In the Matter of a Complaint Against Arthur H. Diedrick. On July 10, 2008, the Office of State Ethics entered into a Consent Order with the Respondent, the former Chairman and President of the Connecticut Development Authority ("CDA"). The Complaint against Respondent, filed by the previous State Ethics Commission, alleged that he failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest when a company with whom his wife owned stock applied to the CDA for a multi-million dollar loan. The Ethics Enforcement Officer was prepared to demonstrate at a probable cause hearing that the Respondent failed to disclose this potential conflict to the State Ethics Commission in the manner required by Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-86, and that he failed to disclose his wife's ownership of the stock on his Statement of Financial Interests ("SFI") for the years 2001 and 2002, thereby violating Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-83(b)(1). As a result of the Consent Order, Respondent paid a total of $16,000: Respondent paid the maximum available penalty of $2000 for each of the two SFI violations; the maximum available penalty of $2000 for failing to disclose the conflict pursuant to §1-86; a payment to the state in the amount of $5000; and, a charitable contribution of $5000 made to a charity of Respondent's selection.

Docket No. 2002-13:  In the Matter of a Complaint Against Dawn Ryzak.  On July 11, 2003, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  The Complaint alleged that the Respondent, a former employee of the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, violated Conn. Gen. Stat. Section §1-84(c) by conducting outside business using state equipment and information, thereby using her state position for personal financial gain.  The Complaint also alleges that the Respondent violated Conn. Gen. Stat. Section §1-84(b) by accepting outside employment that impaired her judgment as to her official duties as a state employee.  The Respondent agreed to pay a $500 civil penalty. 

 

Docket No. 2002-2:  In the Matter of a Complaint Against Linda Kowalski.  On November 29, 2005, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  The Stipulation and Order states that the Commission found that there was probable cause to believe that the Respondent committed violations of the Code of Ethics for Lobbyists as alleged in the thirteen-count Fourth Amended Complaint (“Complaint”).  Among other things, the Complaint alleged that the Respondent or her agent filed reports which she knew to be false constituting violations of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-96(a) and/or 1-96(b); that the Respondent intentionally failed to obtain and preserve proper records necessary to substantiate reports filed by or on behalf of client lobbyist registrant Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (“CRRA”) in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-96a(a); that the Respondent failed to accurately report expenditures for the benefit of an itemizable person on periodic financial reports filed on behalf of one or more of her client lobbyist registrants in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-96(e); that the Respondent failed to report her unreimbursed expenditures for the benefit of an itemizable person in violation of  Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-96(b); and that the Respondent provided gifts in excess of annual legal limits, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-96(a).  Under the Stipulation and Order, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $25,000.00 and to place in escrow $20,000.00 relative to a dispute between the Respondent and the CRRA over certain expenses.  The Respondent also agreed, in part, for a period of three years following the Stipulation and Order, to maintain, or cause to be maintained, a record of all expenditures made by her individually or by the Kowalski Group LLC or by any other business entity where the Respondent is the principal lobbyist, which expenditures were made for the benefit of a public official, the official’s staff or immediate family; agreed that the Office of State Ethics (“OSE”) has the right to review and audit any and all records relevant to lobbying and/or to activities in furtherance of lobbying by the Respondent and/or the Kowalski Group LLC, at any time, with or without prior notice; and that the OSE shall have the right to enforce the terms of the Order, to assess the Respondent for any costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees associated with any such enforcement action and to assess any penalty referenced in  Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-99.  

 

Docket No. 2002-10: In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Christopher Dunn.  On November 6, 2002, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a $1,200 civil penalty.  The Respondent was found to have violated: the prohibition on accepting other employment that would impair independence of judgment and the prohibition of a state employee from using his office or position to obtain financial gain.

Docket No. 2002-7: In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Jane E. Neilson.  On December 13, 2002, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  Under the settlement, the Respondent was found to have committed multiple violations of the Ethics Code incident to her negotiation of a consulting contract with her state agency.  Specifically, Ms. Neilson was found to have violated the Code’s use of office prohibition, open and public contract requirements and post-state employment restrictions.  As a result, she was required to pay a civil penalty of $4,000.

Docket No. 2002-4: In The Matter Of A Complaint Against David S. Brown.  On July 12, 2002, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a $10,000 civil penalty for violation of the Ethics Code’s post-state employment provisions.  Specifically, the Respondent was found to have violated:  the ban on accepting employment with an entity after having been involved in the award of a State contract to that entity; and the one year prohibition on compensated appearances before one’s former agency.

Docket No. 2002-3: In The Matter Of A Complaint Against St. James Associates LLC.  On July 15, 2002, the Commission and the Respondent settled this finders’ fee matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  Under the settlement, the Respondent St. James was found to have engaged in illegal contingent fee lobbying of the Office of the Treasurer.  As a result, St James was required to repay approximately 1.75 million dollars in finders’ fees and $150,000 in legal fees to the State.

Docket No. 2001-15:  In The Matter Of A Complaint Against William Sadek.  On January 7, 2002, the Commission finalized a settlement with the Respondent, the Chief Clerk for the New Haven Judicial District, which had been authorized on December 12, 2001.  Under the terms of the stipulation and order, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $2,000 for improperly utilizing his public position on behalf of a private dry cleaning business.  The Respondent was also required to return $2,000 in benefits he had received as a result of the violation. 

Docket No. 2001-13:  In The Matter Of A Complaint Against The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation/Foxwoods Resort Casino.  On September 14, 2001, the Commission and the Respondent, a registered lobbyist, settled this matter by entering into a stipulation and order.  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $40,000 for violating the Code’s gift limits and reporting requirements in connection with receptions held at the 2000 Republican and Democratic National Conventions.

Docket No. 2001-12:  In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Nancy Bernstein.  On September 14, 2001, the Commission and the Respondent, a former Associate Vice-President at the UCONN Health Center, settled this matter by entering into a stipulation and order. 
 
Docket No. 2001-11: In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Raymond G. Baldwin, Jr.  On March 8, 2002, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a $500 civil penalty for violating §1-84(b) of the Ethics Code by sitting as a hearing officer in a DMV administrative hearing involving one of his private legal clients.
 
Docket No. 2001-10:  In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Timothy Byrne.  On July 13, 2001, the Commission and the Respondent, the Chair of a Department at UCONN, settled this matter by entering into a stipulation and order.  Under the terms of the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a $1,000 civil penalty for improperly using his public position for the benefit of his professor/spouse by recommending her for a merit raise. 

Docket No. 2001-9:  In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Edwin Chadwick.  On July 13, 2001, the Commission and the Respondent, a former member of the Board of the Connecticut Development Authority (CDA), settled this matter by entering into a stipulation and order.  Under the terms of the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,000 for improperly using his office by negotiating with CDA officials in connection with financing for a business he owned.

Docket No. 2001-8:  In The Matter Of A Complaint Against United Technologies Corp. On June 1, 2001, the Commission and the Respondent, a registered lobbyist, settled this matter by entering into a stipulation and order.  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $3,000 for violating the Code’s gift limits, reporting requirements, and record keeping statutes in connection with a reception held at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.

Docket No. 2001-7:  In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Northeast Utilities. On June 1, 2001, the Commission and the Respondent, a registered lobbyist, settled this matter by entering into a stipulation and order.  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $3,000 for violating the Code’s gift limits, reporting requirements, and record keeping statutes in connection with a reception held at the 2000 Democratic National Convention. 

Docket No. 2001-6:  In The Matter Of A Complaint Against UDV North America, Inc.  On June 1, 2001, the Commission and the Respondent, a registered lobbyist, settled this matter by entering into a stipulation and order.  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $3,000 for violating the Code’s gift limits, reporting requirements, and record keeping statutes in connection with a reception held at the 2000 Democratic National Convention. 

Docket No. 2001-3:  In The Matter Of A Complaint Against ESPN, Inc.  On March 30, 2001, the Commission and the Respondent, a registered lobbyist, settled this matter by entering into a stipulation and order.  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $30,000 for violating the Code’s gift limits and reporting requirements in connection with a reception held at the 2000 Republican National Convention.

Docket No. 2000-28: Docket No. 2000-28: In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Crossroads Investment Company, L.P.: On November 30, 2000, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order. Under the Agreement, the Respondent admitted that it had failed to register and report, as required by the Lobbyist Code, when it hired a consulting firm to assist in maintaining contracts with the Office of the Treasurer. Additionally, the Respondent admitted that its contract with the consulting firm was an illegal contingent fee agreement. As part of its Orders, the Commission directed the Respondent to cease and desist any further contingent fee payments and ordered that the Respondent pay 1.2 million dollars in such monies to the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds. This case marks the first settlement resulting from the Office of State Ethics’s year-long Finders Fee inquiry.

Docket No. 2000-19: Docket No. 2000-19: In The Matter Of A Compliant Against Ray C. Dethy. On April 7, 2000, the Commission and the Respondent, a Professor at Central Connecticut State University, agreed to settle this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order, which noted the Respondent's unintentional violation of the Code. Under the terms of the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,000 for accepting outside employment that impaired his independence of judgment. Specifically he was found to have performed private consulting work for the Hospital for Special Care when he was involved in the management, on behalf of the University, of a partnership between the School and the Hospital.

Docket No. 2000-18: Docket No. 2000-18: In The Matter Of A Complaint Against David Fearon. On April 7, 2000, the Commission and the Respondent, a Professor at Central Connecticut State University, settled this matter by entering into Stipulation and Order. Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay to the State $6,000 in bonus payments which he had improperly received from a private entity, the Hospital for Special Care, for work performed in his State capacity.

Docket No. 2000-17: Docket No. 2000-17: In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Sharon T. Portnoy. On April 7, 2000, the Commission and the Respondent, Regional Director of State Government Affairs for Philip Morris, settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order. Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $4,000 for failing to register as a lobbyist and failing to file required disclosure reports. Additionally, Ms. Portnoy was banned from lobbying in Connecticut for one year as a result of her intentional use of false information in preparing and signing Philip Morris’ expenditure reports. This marks the first time in Commission history that the Code’s lobbying ban has been imposed.

Docket No. 2000-16: In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Philip Morris Management Company. On April 7, 2000, the Commission and the Respondent, a registered client lobbyist, settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order. Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $20,000 for: falsely reporting expenditures for the benefit of public officials; violating the Code’s gift ban; failing to file required reports; failing to report expenditures in furtherance of lobbying; failing to report certain administrative lobbying; failing to keep proper records; and failing to provide required notification to public officials.

Docket No. 2000-15:  In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Westport Advisors LTD.  On April 18, 2001, the Commission and the Respondent settled this finders fee matter by entering into a stipulation and order.  Under the settlement, Westport was found to have engaged in illegal contingent fee lobbying of the Office of the Treasurer.  As a result, Westport was required to place $437,000 in escrow for eventual repayment to the State’s pension fund.  (The monies will be returned to the pension fund if and when parallel litigation against Westport’s consultant is successfully concluded.)  The Respondent was also required to pay a civil penalty of $2,000 and file the appropriate lobbyist registrations and financial disclosure reports.

Docket No. 2000-14: In The Matter Of A Complaint Re: New York Capital Partners, Inc.  On February 15, 2002, the Commission and the Respondent settled this finders’ fee matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  Under the settlement, NYCP was found to have engaged in illegal contingent fee lobbying of the Office of the Treasurer.  As a result, NYCP was required to repay approximately $591,000 in finders’ fees to the State Pension Fund.  The Respondent was also required to pay a $2,000 civil penalty.

Docket No. 2000-13:  In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Keystone Venture Capital Management Company.  On May 11, 2001, the Commission and the Respondent settled this finders fee matter by entering into a stipulation and order.  Under the settlement, Keystone was found to have engaged in illegal contingent fee lobbying of the Office of the Treasurer.  As a result, Keystone was required to place $156,000 in escrow for eventual repayment of the State’s pension fund.  (The monies will be returned to the pension fund if and when parallel litigation against Keystone’s consultant is successfully concluded.)  The Respondent was also required to pay a $2,000 civil penalty and file the appropriate lobbyist registrations and financial disclosure reports.

Docket No. 2000-12: In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Glenn T. Carberry.  On November 19, 2002, the Commission and the Respondent settled this finders’ fee matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  Under the settlement, Carberry was found to have engaged in illegal contingent fee lobbying of the Office of the Treasurer.  As a result, he was required to repay in excess of $180,000 in finders’ fees to the State Pension Fund.  The Respondent was also required to pay a civil penalty of $2,000.

Docket No. 2000-5: In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Crescendo Ventures III, L.L.C. et. al.  On July 3, 2001, the Commission and the Respondent, a venture capital management firm, settled this finders fee matter by entering into a stipulation and order.  Under the settlement, Crescendo was found to have engaged in illegal contingent fee lobbying of the Office of the Treasurer.  As a result, Crescendo was required to place approximately five million dollars in present and future contingent finders fees in escrow for eventual repayment to the State’s pension fund.  (The monies will be returned to the pension fund if and when parallel litigation against Crescendo’s consultants is successfully concluded.)  The Respondent was also required to pay a $2,000 civil penalty and file the appropriate lobbyist registrations and financial disclosure reports.

Docket No. 2000-4:  In the Matter of a Complaint Against Orville C. Karan.  On November 30, 2000, the Commission and the Respondent settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order.  The Respondent was employed by the State of Connecticut at one time as Director of the University of Connecticut’s A.J. Pappanikou Center (“the Center”) on Special Education and Rehabilitation, and at all times as a professor in the School of Education at the University of Connecticut.  The Complaint alleged that during his tenure as the Director of the Center, the Respondent supervised and was substantially involved in the establishment of Directions, Inc., a non-profit corporation.  The Complaint also alleged that on January 10, 1997, the Commission issued an opinion which held that, because of the Respondent’s involvement in his official capacity with Directions, Inc., his acceptance of any remuneration from Directions, Inc. would violate Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84(c).  The Complaint alleged that in June of 1997, a second corporation, Directions of Rhode Island was formed and that on June 30, 1997 Directions, Inc. transferred $30,000.00 to Directions of Rhode Island.   Under the Settlement, the Commission found that the Respondent accepted $24,000.00 in consulting fees/payments from Directions of Rhode Island beginning in November of 1997 and that the acceptance of such payments was in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84(c).  Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $15,000.00. 

Docket No. 98-14:  In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Gerry Egan. On April 12, 1999, The Commission and the Respondent, the High Sheriff of New London County, settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order. Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $4,000 for using his position to appoint his wife and son to jobs with the New London County Sheriff’s Office.

Docket No. 98-12:   In The Matter Of A Complaint Against Thomas G. Cotter. On February 1, 1999, the Commission and the Respondent, a former Workers’ Compensation Commissioner, settled this matter by entering into a Stipulation and Order. Under the settlement, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $5,000 for accepting payments from a law firm which had a substantial Workers’ Compensation practice while he was serving as a Workers’ Compensation Commissioner.
 
 


Content Last Modified on 2/11/2009 1:28:13 PM