OFFICE OF
LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
May 13, 2004
2004-R-0434
ETHICS REFORM AND
ENFORCEMENT LEGISLATION
By: Sandra Norman-Eady,
Chief Attorney
You
asked for summaries of legislation passed (1) in the past few years that
tighten the process for enforcing the State Ethics Code and (2) during the 2004
session that reform the state code.
SUMMARY
The State Ethics Code consists
of two parts—one for public officials and the other for lobbyists. The code
dates back more than 30 years, with the first major reform occurring in 1977.
Since that time, there have been numerous changes to (1) those subject to the
code, (2) prohibited activities both during and after state service or
employment, (3) reporting requirements, and (4) enforcement provisions.
There have been no changes to
the law in the past few years that tighten the process for enforcing the codes.
The last major reform to the enforcement process occurred in 1994 with the
passage of PA 94-132, An Act Concerning Procedures of the Ethics Commission.
The act made procedural changes ranging from requiring the State Ethics
Commission to investigate every complaint for possible code violations to
increasing the maximum fine for such violations.
The General Assembly passed
four ethics bills, SB 386, SB 624, HB 5021, and HB 5025, during the 2004
regular session. SB 386 primarily consists of enforcement reforms; SB 624
protects the budgets of the commission, as well as related commissions; HB 5021
increases the penalty for intentional code violations, requires more people to
comply with the code, and broadens the commission’s enforcement powers; and HB
5025 subjects more information to the commission’s review.
MAJOR
CHANGE TO THE ETHICS CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
PA
94-132:
1. eliminated
the requirement for the commission to holf
sufficiency of evidence meetings to determine if a probable cause investigation
was necessary;
2. granted whistleblower
protection to individuals who cooperated in commission investigations;
3. required
the commission, instead of a state trial referee, to determine if an ethics
code violation had occurred; and
4. increased
from $ 1,000 to $ 2,000 the maximum penalty that could be imposed for
violations.
Complaints and Notice of
Complaints
The act gave the commission
five days from the date a complaint was received or issued, instead of from the
sufficiency of evidence meeting, to provide the person against whom a complaint
was filed with a copy of it and notice of its issuance or receipt. It allowed
the commission to report any information in the complaint regarding possible
criminal violations to any prosecutorial authority, instead of just the chief
state’s attorney.
Whistle-Blower
Protection
The act prohibited anyone from
taking or threatening to take official action against an individual who gave
the commission information regarding code violations. It also prohibited the
commission from revealing the person’s identity unless he consented or the
commission determined that the revelation was unavoidable during an
investigation.
Records
The act required the
commission to make a record of any proceedings. It also required the commission
to give respondents a list of its intended witnesses at least 10 days before
any hearing.
Violations Hearing
The act required the
commission by a five-member majority, instead of a state trial referee, to
determine if there had been a code violation. The act required the commission,
like the referee under prior law, to publish its findings within 15 days after
the hearing.
ETHICS BILLS PASSED DURING
THE 2004 REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The General Assembly passed
four bills during the 2004 regular session. Only one of these acts, sSB 386 (PA 04-38), has been signed into law by the governor.
The other three, although passed, may be vetoed by the governor and never
become law.
sSB 386—An Act Making Certain Reforms to
the State Ethics Code
The act:
1. increases,
from three to five years, the statute of limitations for filing complaints of ethics
violations with the State Ethics Commission;
2. increases
the maximum civil penalty for ethics code violations from $ 2,000 to $ 10,000;
3. doubles
the time, from 90 to 180 days, the state has to bring an action to void a
contract entered into in violation of the ethics code; and
4. raises
the penalty and criminal classification for intentional ethics code violations
from a class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to one year in prison, a
$ 2,000 fine, or both, to a class D felony, which is punishable by up to five
years in prison, a $ 5,000 fine, or both.
sSB 624—An Act Concerning Expenditures for
the State Elections Enforcement Commission, the State Ethics Commission and the
Freedom of Information Commission
The act prohibits the Office
of Policy and Management (OPM) secretary from reducing the budgets of the State
Ethics, State Elections Enforcement, and Freedom of Information commissions’
budgets by requiring him to include in the proposed budget documents that OPM
submits to the legislature the estimates of expenditure requirements the office
receives from the commissions’ executive directors. It also prohibits the
governor from reducing the budgets.
The act increases, from seven
to nine, the membership on the State Ethics Commission. It requires the House
and Senate majority leaders to each appoint one new member from a list of
nominees submitted by a citizen group of their choosing with an interest in
government. Beginning October 1, 2004, the act requires one of the
governor’s three appointments to the commission to represent such a group of
his choosing. By law, the other appointing authorities are the Senate president
pro tempore and minority leader (one each), and the House speaker and minority
leader (one each). Under the act, the majority leaders’ appointees serve
two-and four-year terms, respectively. If they are reappointed, they, like
other commission members who are reappointed, serve four-year terms.
The act makes corresponding
changes to reflect the increase in membership as shown in Table 1.
Table
1: Corresponding Changes Mandated
by Increase in Commission Size
Action
|
Prior
|
Act
|
Maximum
members from the same political party
|
4
|
5
|
Members
need to form a quorum
|
5
|
6
|
Members
required to call a meeting
|
4
|
5
|
Concurring
votes needed to issue an advisory opinion or find probable cause of a code
violation
|
4
|
5
|
Concurring
votes needed to find a violation of the lobbyists code or impose a civil
penalty
|
5
|
6
|
Concurring
votes needed to find a violation of the public officials’ code violation or
impose a civil penalty
|
5
|
7
|
sHB 5021—An Act Legal Defense Funds
Established by or on Behalf of Officials or State Employees, Recommended
Appropriations and Allotments of the State Ethics, Elections enforcement and
Freedom of Information Commissions and Intentional Violations of the State
Codes of Ethics
The act increases the penalty
for certain intentional State Ethics Code violations. It makes a person who
commits two or more violations or violations that provide him with a financial
benefit of $ 1,000 or more, guilty of a class D felony, which is punishable by
up to five years in prison, up to a $ 5,000 fine, or both. The current penalty
for intentional violations is up to one year in prison, up to a $ 2,000 fine,
or both.
The act requires employees of
the Connecticut Lottery Corporation to comply with the State Ethics Code, which
primarily means they must adhere to employment and post-employment restrictions
currently applicable to most state officials and public employees.
It requires officials and
employees to submit to the State Ethics Commission quarterly reports on their
legal defense fund’s directors and officers, depository institution,
contributions, and expenditures. And it gives the State Ethics Commission the
same authority with respect to violations of the legal defense fund provisions
that the law provides for violations of the code of ethics for public
officials, including conducting investigations, determining violations, and
imposing penalties.
sHB 5025—An Act Strengthening Ethics Laws
Concerning Gifts, Financial Disclosure and State Contractors
The act broadens the
information public officials provide in their annual statement of financial
interest to the State Ethics Commission to include business affiliations
between a business with which they are associated and others.
It also requires the State
Ethics Commission to (1) develop a plain language summary of state ethics laws
regarding state contract bids or proposals and (2) publish it on the
commission’s website.
SN-E: ts