Office of State Ethics urges committee to extend conflict rules to officials' nonstate employers

Representative Dathan and the Government Oversight Committee heard testimony on Feb. 18 on House Bill 6931, which would expand Connecticut's code of ethics to cover conflicts tied to a public official's nonstate employer and to the nonstate employer of an official's spouse.

The bill "makes necessary revisions to the code of ethics for public officials by extending the conflicts of interests provisions to public officials and state employees' non state employer," Peter Lewandowski, executive director of the Office of State Ethics, told the committee. He said the change would amend provisions now in Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-85 and §1-86.

Lewandowski said the bill is intended to close a current loophole that allows a public official or state employee to take official action that provides a direct financial benefit to his or her private employer. Under the proposal, an official would not be deemed conflicted if any benefit "accrues to no greater extent than to any other member of the profession, occupation, group, or industry" related to the outside employer. For elected officials, the bill limits the trigger for a substantial conflict to situations in which the official has "actual knowledge" that a distinct benefit will occur.

The bill would also allow an official who faces a substantial conflict to either abstain from official action or prepare a written public statement describing the matter, the nature of the conflict and the reasons the official believes they may still act in the public interest.

Senator Sampson asked why similar proposals had passed committees and the Senate previously but not become law. Lewandowski said prior concern focused on how the conflicts standard could affect legislators, given the volume and breadth of legislation. He said the current bill's shift from a "reason to believe" standard to an "actual knowledge" standard was a negotiated compromise to address those concerns.

Representative Carney and other committee members pressed whether the "actual knowledge" test might raise the bar too high and allow officials to avoid disclosure by claiming ignorance. Lewandowski replied that substantial conflicts are rare and typically involve bills that uniquely affect a single employer, not an entire industry, and that legislators are expected to do minimal due diligence before votes. He also noted an existing regulatory exemption allowing a legislator to vote on omnibus measures that contain a conflicted line item, provided the legislator abstains from floor comment on the specific conflicted matter.

Public commenters including Olivia Rinkus (UConn student and resident), Christina Capitan (CT Canaworkers), and Josiah Schley (cannabis advocate) voiced support for the bill and urged stronger transparency, with suggestions that the bill be broadened to cover special governmental employees, contractors and data-privacy protections tied to access to state information.

The committee did not take a final vote at the hearing and left the bill under consideration.

Ending: Committee members signaled interest in the measure but questioned whether the "actual knowledge" compromise sufficiently advances transparency; the bill will remain under review and may be revised before any committee vote.