Court Opinion

ID: 9710647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:14:01.225284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:58.738392
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE JONES, dissenting: The majority has inexplicably chosen to ignore the concluding independent clause of the statutory sentence they have analyzed. That concluding clause provides, “* * * nor shall he have any interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or proposed contract for materials or services to be furnished or used in connection with any project.” (Emphasis added.) In my opinion this clause renders completely nugatory the reasoning of the majority and I respectfully dissent. Tire court in Housing Authority v. Dorsey (1973), 164 Conn. 247, 320 A.2d 820, construed a provision identical to the statute considered by the majority and arrived at a contrary result. Understandably so since they considered the entire statute. I believe the reasoning in the Dorsey case was correct and that the result in this case should have been the same. Disqualification for office because of conflicts of interest permeates our system of law and government and it would add nothing to attempt a compilation of tire areas of conflict here. Disqualification is specified for the fundamentally sound reason that conflicts of interest spawn biased decisions. I see the case for the two individuals who are the beneficiaries of the majority decision as being little, if any, different from that of a judge who presides in a trial in which he is personally interested in the outcome.