Connecticut Administrative Code › Title 1 - Provisions of General Application › 81 - Code of Ethics › Article 7 - Conflict of Interest Provisions Sections 1-84, 1-85, and 1-86 of the Connecticut General Statutes › Part 2 - Section 1-85 of the Connecticut General Statutes › Section 1-81-28 - Section 1-85 of the Connecticut General Statutes: substantial conflict of interest explained

Current through July 10, 2024
(a) Pursuant to
				  section 1-85 of the Connecticut General Statutes, a public official or state
				  employee has a substantial conflict and may not take official action if any
				  expected benefit or detriment accrues solely to the individual, his or her
				  spouse, dependent child, or a business with which he or she is associated.
For example, a state employee required, in the course of
					 his or her official duties, to determine whether a consulting contract should
					 be awarded to his or her spouse has a substantial conflict, and may not take
					 official action on the matter.
For example, if a legislator is on the board of directors
					 of a for-profit corporation, that corporation is a business with which the
					 legislator is associated. As a result, if the corporation applied to the
					 General Assembly for bonding, the legislator/director would have a substantial
					 conflict, and may not take official action on the specific bonding
					 request.
(b) Additionally,
				  pursuant to section 1-85 of the Connecticut General Statutes, a public official
				  or state employee has a substantial conflict and may not take official action
				  if any expected benefit or detriment accrues to the individual, his or her
				  spouse, dependent child, or a business with which he or she is associated to a
				  greater extent than to any other member (i.e., one or more other members) of
				  the affected profession, occupation or group. In general, a member of an
				  affected profession, occupation, or group may have a substantial conflict of
				  interest when the laws regulating his or her profession, business, or industry
				  are significantly altered. In determining whether or not a substantial conflict
				  exists, the individual must evaluate the effect of the action on his or her
				  interests.
For example, legislation that appears neutral on its face,
					 e.g., a bill to allow unrestricted interstate banking in Connecticut, would
					 create a substantial conflict for a particular legislator if he or she had a
					 financial interest in bank stock that he or she had reason to believe or expect
					 would be affected differently by the passage of the legislation than others in
					 the affected group, i.e., others with a financial interest in banks. Under
					 these circumstances, a substantial conflict would exist if, for example, the
					 bank in which the legislator held stock had a pending merger agreement that
					 would significantly increase the value of the legislator's stock and the merger
					 agreement was contingent on the passage of the legislation in question. This
					 set of facts would give the legislator reason to expect a direct monetary gain
					 greater than one or more other members of the affected group, since others with
					 financial interests in banks, but without a specific pending beneficial merger
					 agreement, would not have a reasonable expectation of similar gain.
(c) A public official or state
				  employee has reason to believe or expect the derivation of a direct monetary
				  gain or loss by reason of his or her official activity under section 1-85 of
				  the Connecticut General Statutes, when there is a written contract, agreement,
				  or other specific information available to the individual which would clearly
				  indicate to a reasonable person that such a direct benefit or detriment would
				  accrue or when the language of the legislation, regulation or matter in
				  question would so indicate.
(d)
				  Under section 1-85 of the Connecticut General Statutes, official action on
				  legislation, or other state action, may affect more than one profession,
				  occupation, or group. For example, legislation limiting all medical malpractice
				  victims' rights to legal recovery could potentially affect the financial
				  interests of at least three specific groups in addition to the victims:
				  doctors, tort-attorneys and insurers providing medical malpractice coverage.
				  Under these circumstances, each legislator/ member of all three groups could
				  take official action on the matter, notwithstanding the expectation of direct
				  financial gain or loss, provided that each legislator was affected no
				  differently than the other members of his or her specific group.
(e) A public official or state employee does
				  not have a substantial conflict in violation of section 1-85 of the Connecticut
				  General Statutes solely by virtue of the fact that the individual, his or her
				  spouse, dependent child, or a business with which he or she is associated
				  derives a greater direct monetary benefit by reason of the individual's
				  official action than one or more other affected persons, provided that the
				  manner in which the benefit accrues is no different than the manner in which it
				  accrues to others in the affected profession, occupation, or group. For
				  example, a state employee serving as a member of the Connecticut State
				  Employees Retirement Commission would not be precluded from voting on a change
				  in pension rules that would result in a larger financial benefit to the
				  employee than to most other affected state employees (either because the
				  individual has a higher base salary or more years in state service than the
				  average state employee) provided that the rule change in question applies
				  equally to all those in the affected group.
(f) No public official or state employee
				  shall be prohibited under section 1-85 of the Connecticut General Statutes from
				  taking official action on any tax issue or benefit entitlement solely by virtue
				  of the fact that the matter in question may apply different tax rates or
				  entitlement qualifications to different groups or income levels.
(g) A public official or state employee who
				  is prohibited from taking official action on a specific matter pursuant to
				  section 1-85 of the Connecticut General Statutes shall not be barred from
				  taking official action on a general matter into which the specific issue
				  creating the substantial conflict has been incorporated, provided that the
				  individual does not speak or otherwise provide comment on the specific issue
				  during any debate, discussion or consideration of the general matter. For
				  example, a legislator with a substantial conflict regarding a specific bonding
				  or appropriations issue is not precluded under section 1-85 of the Connecticut
				  General Statutes from taking official action when the overall bonding package
				  or budget comes before his or her committee or the General Assembly for
				  consideration.
(h) A public
				  official or state employee who has reason to believe that he or she may have a
				  substantial conflict of interest under section 1-85 of the Connecticut General
				  Statutes, and subsections (a) to (g), inclusive, of this section, shall either
				  abstain from taking official action on the matter as provided for in section
				  1-85 of the Connecticut General Statutes or, prior to taking any such official
				  action, seek guidance from the Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board, pursuant to
				  section 1-81(a)(3) of the Connecticut General Statutes, to determine whether an
				  actual substantial conflict exists.