July 11, 2005

The Honorable Susan Bysiewicz

Secretary of the State

30 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT 06115-0470

Dear Madam Secretary:

I am hereby returning without my signature Senate Bill 1097, An Act Concerning Regulation of Telecommunications Services.  The propriety of the conduct and participation of a Commissioner of the Department of Public Utility Control in the legislative process leading to the bill has been questioned and an independent review of that conduct has not been concluded.  As no independent determination has been made on the alleged impropriety, I must exercise caution and act in such a way as to preserve the integrity of the legislative process and Connecticut’s laws by disapproving of Senate Bill 1097. 

Soon after passage of the bill by the General Assembly, my office received a letter written by the legal counsel to Gemini Networks CT, Inc. (“Gemini”) stating reasons why I should consider vetoing Senate Bill 1097.  The letter alleged that the involvement of a Department of Public Utility Control Commissioner in the negotiations and agreements relating to Senate Bill 1097, during the pendency of appeals of contested dockets and an ongoing arbitration, constituted a violation of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, Department of Public Utility Control regulations and the canons of judicial ethics.  The allegations included an inference that the Commissioner’s conduct resulted in the text of the bill being amended to the detriment of a party to a proceeding over which the Commissioner presided. 

I found that the allegations in the letter raised grave concerns relating to the bill, warranting investigation by an independent entity. As a result, I requested the State Ethics Commission review the issues raised by Gemini’s counsel on an expedited basis.  Noting that absent allegations or evidence of an inappropriate financial interest by the commissioner in the matter, the Ethics Commission stated that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the questions raised by Gemini’s lawyer, including allegations regarding the canons of judicial ethics.  As the Ethics Commission noted, Gemini’s counsel claimed no allegation or evidence of an inappropriate financial interest.  The Ethics Commission suggested that the letter by Gemini’s attorney be provided to the Judicial Review Council.  By statute, the Judicial Review Council is empowered under certain situations to investigate allegations of violations of the Canons of Judicial Conduct.

            I then sought further review of the matter by the Judicial Review Council.  As a result of my inquiry, Council staff made a preliminary determination that the Council had no jurisdiction or statutory authority over the issues presented by Gemini’s legal counsel.  The initial determination of the Council’s staff was that the Council’s statutory authority extends to judges of Connecticut’s Superior, Appellate and Supreme Courts, workers’ compensation commissioners and family support magistrates, but not Department of Public Utility Control Commissioners.  Although I received the preliminary determination from the Council’s staff within several days of my request for action, the Council is scheduled to meet on July 20, 2005, to give final consideration to the matter. 

By law I must consider and act upon Senate Bill 1097 by July 11, 2005, nine days before the Council’s meeting.   The conduct of state officials in a manner reflecting the highest regard for ethics and integrity has been a hallmark of my administration.  It is my responsibility as the constitutional officer empowered to sign bills into law to seek a review of the questions raised by Gemini’s legal counsel.  Statutory constraints and jurisdictional limitations imposed by Connecticut’s constitution and statutes have frustrated my attempts to ensure that an independent review of the commissioner’s conduct within the legislative process is performed in a timely manner.  The commissioner referred to by Gemini’s lawyer is properly regarded as an expert on telecommunications issues and his conduct has never before been called in question.  However, in light of the unresolved questions concerning this legislation, I believe it is preferable to veto Senate Bill 1097 – offering the General Assembly in the next legislative session the opportunity to ratify its action in passing the bill. 

For the reasons stated herein, I disapprove of Senate Bill 1097, An Act Concerning Regulation of Telecommunications Services.  Pursuant to Article Four, Section 15 of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut and Article III of the Amendments to the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Very truly yours,

M. Jodi Rell

Governor