WHEN THE RIVER RUNS DRY, THE JAGGED ROCKS ARE REVEALED

Employee misconduct and internal municipal and corporate fraud will be a continuing and growing problem as the U.S. economy continues to struggle. The seeds of future major embezzlements, yet to be discovered, are being sown in the current market environment.
Looking at the two years’ data on major embezzlements in the US, the following observations and conclusions appear consistent:

• Women are more likely to embezzle than men.
• Men embezzle significantly more than women.
• Perpetrators typically begin their embezzlement schemes in their early 40s.
• By a significant margin, embezzlers are most likely to be individuals who hold financial positions within organizations.
• The two broad industry categories that have the highest risk for a major embezzlement are Financial Services and Government Agencies/Municipalities.
• The Financial Services industry suffers the greatest losses from major embezzlements.
• On average, major embezzlement schemes last about 4½ years.
• California and Florida are consistently the states that experience the greatest losses from major embezzlements.
• The vast majority of major embezzlements are caused by sole perpetrators
• Gambling is a clear motivating factor in driving some major embezzlements.
• Fewer than 10 percent of embezzlers have a criminal record – less than expected, but enough to suggest that pre-employment screening has merit.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, women are more likely to be perpetrators of major embezzlement schemes than men. However, men, who still tend who hold more senior level management positions, embezzle significantly more in their schemes than women.  Authorities say governments and businesses need more than a typical audit to catch embezzlement.


Officials said a typical audit checks to see everything balances.  The forensic audit takes a deeper look at one's finances.  It can be helpful at catching more elaborate schemes. A forensic audit examines companies and individuals receiving funds. That is important when determining the legitimacy of the receiver. In come instances, the scheme artist will pass the money through a fictitious company that appears legitimate.


It's not an uncommon scheme when there is significant construction of a various of types.  For example if you saw a bunch of checks going out to Lowe's, Home Depot, John Smith Septic and Excavation Services, you might not notice a check going out to Concrete Finishers, which may be a fictitious company.


So a typical audit focusing on in-flows, out-flows and balances would never pick up a fictitious company.  Cash is a completely different embezzlement where daily reporting can still be adjusted with modification, changed receipts and worse destruction of records.  A forensic audit is designed to address such issues.


Lastly is a 'life-style' audit performed in-conjunction with a forensic audit wherein the IRS is involved and a life-style personal audit is accomplished concurrently.  How many thief's claim their ill-gotten gains on the tax returns?  Can you say "Al Capone"?  Now for some questions to which answers must be provided in order to re-store the public trust.  The Board of Finance is the focal point here and they MUST full-fill their Oath of Office. 

QUESTIONS REGARDING THE EMBEZZLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT BY THE BOS

A few simple things about the financial embezzlement in New Fairfield:

1. Few people, if anyone really have any idea about its true size, scope and duration of the embezzlement.
2. The financial misappropriation was created by deliberate systemic fraud while the New Fairfield Finance Department was looking on.
3. Why did it take so long from Ms. Coehlo resignation (1/19/2010)  to authorization to sign (2/25/2010) the settlement agreement by the BOS?
4. The "legal settlement" that the BOS executed with Ms. Coehlo is not binding on the BOF, therefore the BOF is not obligated to adhere to the terms and conditions.
5. The BOF has the obligation to hire an outside auditors to review the accounts and other related areas Ms. Coehlo had a direct or indirect supervisory control. 
6. To what degree has the public trust been violated by the BOS actions?

If you want to know where the New Fairfield misappropriation/embezzlement is heading then read the following questions and demand answers.

• Was this event the first time that this individual embezzled public funds?
• When was the missing public funds first discovered?
• Who first discovered the missing public funds?
• What methods were used to discover the missing public funds?
• Who discovered it.
• Where is the report filed?
• Were the revenue accounts all within the Park & Recreation Dept?
• What specific accounts were the funds misappropriated?
• How was the missing public funds reported and when was it reported?
• What are the reasons that a settlement agreement with a Town employee is necessary?
• What is the nature of the settlement agreement?
• What is the date of the settlement agreement?
• When and who prepared the settlement agreement?
• What was the date of the settlement agreement?
• Who are the signatories of the settlement agreement?
• Why was the settlement agreement not on the meeting agenda?
• Which legal authority was the report filed with, State Police or Local?
• Can an elected official legally not press charges with an individual that embezzled public funds?
• Can an elected official knowingly be a legal party to a settlement agreement with any person who has committed and embezzlement of public funds?
• Can an elected official be a legal party to a confidential agreement with an individual that knowingly embezzled public funds and protect that individual with the confidential agreement?
• Why was the settlement agreement added to the meeting agenda after Public Comment?
• Why was the settlement agreement not added during the first agenda change?
• Why was the posting of the agenda intentionally withheld?
• What was the charge that establishing the settlement of pending litigation?
• Were the police involved in the investigation?
• Where is the report that established the pending litigation filed with the local or state police?
• Who did the investigation?
• Was there a independent forensic audit establishing the grounds for the settlement of pending litigation?
• What is the confidential agreement order all about?
• Who was required to sign the confidential agreement?
• Who found the discrepancy in the books?
• What is purpose of the confidential agreement?
• Why wasn't the BOF notified?
• When was the BOF notified?
• With regard to each of the following questions, what documents support the answers?
• On what do you rely in concluding that the loss was limited to Park & Recreation and/or any specified year(s) and/or amounts?
• Whose job was it to supervise and oversee the missing accounts?
• What disciplinary action was taken against anyone else?
• What conclusions have been reached regarding what specific control failures allowed these actions to happen without supervisory knowledge.
• Did the town of New Fairfield issue a w-2, 1099 or other tax-related documents to notify tax authorities of the transfer of funds from the town to the individual?
• If Ms. Coehlo was bonded, was the bonding authority notified?
• Is Ms. Coehlo entitled to pension or retirement benefits and if so, describe in detail?
• Regarding the person or persons conducting the town audit of this loss,
• Name of person
• Credentials
• Detailed nature of relationship with this person and Ms. Coehlo
• All written reports and documents in any way related to said audit
• Who within the Town government is responsible for notification?
• Were federal taxes paid by the individual on the misappropriated public funds?

A fundamental question regarding the embezzlement is this: why is our BOS so activity engaged in not informing our New Fairfield Board of Finance, the State Police, Bonding Agency, and Office of Budget Management of the embezzlement?  Why was the Board of Finance not notified immediately allowing them to exercise their statutory obligation, duty and authority of to hire an outside auditory?  What impact on the existing budget preparations does this embezzlement have ... will the budget presently underway be compromised?  Have prior budgets been compromised? If so, how and to what scope and extend?

If our elected and appointed officials succeeded in failing to fully expose the embezzlement, then how did they intend on putting the $50,000 back into the revenue; while avoiding the exposure and explanation of the theft?  What were the motivations behind the intentions? Why was the restitution given priority over the crime?  Why did our CEO/First Selectman so instant upon telling the BOF that they did not have any legal standing over this public funds thief? 

FINANCIAL ARCHEOLOGY ... REMINDS ME OF JURASSIC PARK LOOKING FOR THE SAT PHONE!

CAUTION FLAMMABLE ... NO OPEN FLAME ... WEAR HIP BOOTS!!! A NEW SIGN FOR THE TOWN HALL ... PERHAPS THE BOARD OF SELECTMAN'S OFFICE!!!  WHICH CEO/PRESIDENT SAID ... "THE BUCK STOPS HERE!!!

NEWS-TIMES

Letter to the Editor

March 23, 2010

___________________________________________

  

$50,000+ EMBEZZLEMENT IN NEW FAIRFIELD!

Two weeks ago a staggering discovery was made by a concerned citizen and resident of New Fairfield that relates to what certainly appears to be a cover up of the embezzlement of over $50,000 of cash receipts that are  missing from the Parks & Recreation Department receipts. We are not certain of the exact amount of money that was skimmed off the Park & Recreation’s receipts over a number of years by the employee, but the minimum amount appears to be $50,000. That is a Felony! WOW!

It was only after a conscientious resident smelled a rat and successfully negotiated an obstacle course to obtain documentation related to this mess that hard evidence of the crime and the attempt to sweep it under the rug finally surfaced. The resident was repeatedly stonewalled, but he was persistent, knew the Freedom of Information laws, and finally prevailed in obtaining the documents he was seeking. Was a deliberate cover up of Grand Larceny and Embezzlement orchestrated behind closed doors? If so, WHY?

It gets worse: The employee who robbed all the cash was not charged with any crime in what sure appears to be an attempt to cover up this most disturbing discovery. As I read the State Statutes, a failure to immediately advise law enforcement of the embezzlement of money is a Felony.

And even worse: A joint decision was made that prosecution was not required and the employee should merely resign and make restitution of the funds that were stolen. WOW! The main point is: Was anyone involved in that decision aware of the applicable law related to municipal embezzlement? Were they aware that aiding and abetting the cover-up of Grand Larceny is a Felony? If not, those people will be in for a rude awakening in due time.

____________

Doug Thielen

New Fairfield

NOW THE RUB! WHERE DOES THIS ALL END?

Former New Fairfield cop seeks accelerated rehabilitation

John Pirro, Staff WRITER

Published: 11:51 p.m., Monday, March 22, 2010

A former New Fairfield police officer arrested twice in the past year wants to have all the charges against him expunged from his record.

The attorney for Christopher Pimentel on Monday filed an amended application for accelerated rehabilitation that would include Pimentel's arrest last March for the alleged theft of gym equipment and new charges filed against him earlier this month alleging he embezzled several thousand dollars from the New Fairfield Police Benevolent Association.

Under the accelerated rehabilitation program, an accused person doesn't enter a plea to the charges and his record is wiped clean if a judge decides he is not likely to offend again.

The 36-year-old Pimentel had already filed a request for accelerated rehabilitation stemming from his arrest by Connecticut State Police last year for second-degree larceny and interfering with a police officer.

In that case, Pimentel allegedly accepted more than $6,000 worth of exercise equipment from a New Fairfield resident who intended it as a donation to the department, but Pimentel kept it for his own use, investigators said.

While the original charge was still pending, Pimentel was arrested again earlier this month and accused of third-degree larceny for allegedly misappropriating nearly $5,000 in Police Benevolent Association funds while he served as treasurer of the organization between 2003 and 2005, according to the arrest warrant affidavit.

He resigned from the police force shortly after his first arrest.

Judge Corrinne Klatt continued the case to May 5.

Contact John Pirro

at jpirro@newstimes.com

or at 203"'731-3342.

NEW FAIRFIELD ACCEPTS SETTLEMENT FROM EX-EMPLOYEE ...

New Fairfield accepts settlement from ex-employee

By John Pirro, Staff Writer
Published: 07:00 p.m., Monday, March 15, 2010

NEW FAIRFIELD -- The Board of Selectmen has agreed to accept a $50,000 settlement from a former recreation department employee who admitted improperly keeping money intended for the town, in exchange for a promise not to prosecute her.


Barbara Coelho, who worked in the Parks and Recreation Department for more than 10 years, most recently as the assistant director, resigned in early January after the money was found to be missing.


Under the agreement, which was approved unanimously by the selectmen on Feb. 25 and signed by Coelho and her husband, Steven, restitution will be made in full by April 16, or they must pay 10 percent annual interest on the balance. The settlement is secured by mortgage on the Coelhos' home, which allows the town to foreclose on it if the money isn't repaid on time. The property is appraised at $213,000, according to town records.


Officials on Thursday declined to say over what period the money was taken, or how they determined how much was missing.


The settlement also requires the Coelhos and the town to "keep the terms of this agreement confidential to the extent permitted by law," unless the payment is not made.


A copy of the agreement was obtained by The News-Times from a New Fairfield resident who filed a Freedom of Information request for it.


Part of Coelho's duties in the recreation department included collection of fees from activities, events and programs sponsored by the recreation department. Many of those fees were paid in cash, officials said.


The agreement the Coelhos signed said Barbara Coelho"wrongfully took, obtained and withheld such property ... with intent to deprive the Town of New Fairfield of the property and appropriate the same to herself ..."


First Selectman John Hodge said the missing funds were discovered as a result of an audit of the recreation department accounts, but he would not disclose what sparked the financial review.


Hodge also refused to say how the amount of missing money had been calculated, or to discuss why the town opted to accept a financial settlement rather than referring the case to law enforcement authorities for a criminal investigation.


Selectman Monika Thiel said Hodge and Finance Director Jay Waterman brought the matter to the board's attention in January, and it was discussed in at least one special meeting before the vote was taken last month.


"There was justification provided" for accepting restitution rather than pursuing a criminal investigation, Thiel said. But she said she couldn't discuss it further, she said, because it occurred in executive session and involved a personnel matter.


"I felt it was more important to recoup the money for the park and recreation programs," Hodge said. "I'm confident the town has been made whole."


Attempts to contact other town officials, including Waterman, Recreation Director Steve Merullo and several other commission members last week were unsuccessful. The Coelhos have an unlisted telephone number and also couldn't be reached.


One recreation commission member who was contacted,Mark Lamanna, said he was shocked at the news. Lamanna, who's been on the board for three years, said he assumed Coelho's resignation in January was simply the result of a difference of opinions between her and Merullo.


Commission chairman Sean Loughery also announced at the meeting that cash would no longer be accepted for payment in the recreation department office and that Hodge was planning to reorganize the department.


"We were supposed to have an executive session at our (last) meeting ... and we probably would have found out about it then," Lamanna said.


But that meeting was canceled for lack of a quorum.


Contact John Pirro
at jpirro@newstimes.com
or at 203'731-3342.

CSG Sec. 1-110a ... LETS MAKE A DEAL!!!

   Sec. 1-110a. Pension revocation or reduction for public officials and state or municipal employees convicted of crimes related to state or municipal office. Factors. Voluntary provision of information. Innocent spouse, dependents and beneficiaries. Notification to prosecutor. Severability of provisions. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, on or after October 1, 2008, if any public official or state or municipal employee is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to any crime related to state or municipal office in state criminal or federal criminal court, the Attorney General shall apply to the Superior Court for an order to revoke or reduce the pension of any kind to which such public official or state or municipal employee is otherwise entitled under the general statutes for service as a public official or state or municipal employee.

      (b) In determining whether the pension shall be revoked or reduced, the Superior Court shall consider and make findings on the following factors:

      (1) The severity of the crime related to state or municipal office for which the public official or state or municipal employee has been convicted or to which the public official or state or municipal employee has pled guilty or nolo contendere;

      (2) The amount of monetary loss suffered by the state, a municipality or a quasi-public agency or by any other person as a result of the crime related to state or municipal office;

      (3) The degree of public trust reposed in the public official or state or municipal employee by virtue of the person's position as a public official or state or municipal employee;

      (4) If the crime related to state or municipal office was part of a fraudulent scheme against the state or a municipality, the role of the public official or state or municipal employee in the fraudulent scheme against the state or a municipality; and

      (5) Any such other factors as, in the judgment of the Superior Court, justice may require.

      (c) If the court determines, or the Attorney General certifies, that a public official or state or municipal employee, who was convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a crime related to state or municipal office, voluntarily provided information to the Attorney General, the Auditors of Public Accounts or any state, federal or local law enforcement official concerning the commission of such crime related to state or municipal office by another public official or state or municipal employee who had a greater degree of culpability for such crime than the public official or state or municipal employee providing such information, the court shall not reduce or revoke the pension of such public official or state or municipal employee, provided such public official or state or municipal employee voluntarily provided such information prior to learning of a criminal investigation into such crime related to state or municipal office.

      (d) If the Superior Court determines that the pension of a public official or state or municipal employee should be reduced, it may, after taking into consideration the financial needs and resources of any innocent spouse, dependents and designated beneficiaries of the public official or state or municipal employee, order that some or all of the reduced pension be paid to any such innocent spouse, dependent or beneficiary as justice may require.

      (e) If the Superior Court determines that the pension of such public official or state or municipal employee should not be revoked or reduced, it shall order that the retirement or other benefit or payment be made to such public official or state or municipal employee.

      (f) In all criminal proceedings in state or federal court in which the defendant is a public official or a state or municipal employee who is charged with a crime related to state or municipal office, the Attorney General shall notify the prosecutor of the existence of the pension revocation statute and the possibility that any fine, restitution or other monetary order made by the court may be paid from such official's or employee's pension.

      (g) If any provision, clause or phrase of this section or of any order or any action of the Attorney General hereunder is adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, or if the applicability thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such judgment shall not invalidate the remainder of this section or such order or action, and the applicability thereof to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

      (June 11 Sp. Sess. P.A. 08-3, S. 2.)

LET'S MAKE A DEAL, THE BIGGEST LOSER, THE PRICE IS RIGHT ... DUH!!!

Lawmakers Say They've Got an Ethics Bill Deal; Corrupt Officials' Pensions Could Be Revoked

By 

Jon Lender

  on June 11, 2008 2:45 PM 

Lawmakers said they were poised early Wednesday night to vote on a compromise ethics bill to take away all or part of the pensions of state or municipal officials who are convicted on corruption charges -- such as bribery, theft or embezzlement of public funds, or otherwise using public office to gain profit or advantage.

Key legislators in both the House and Senate said that they had worked out differences that led the two chambers to pass competing versions of the bill, which could not be reconciled before the regular legislative session ended on May 7.

The major difference that originally led to the bill's demise was state and municipal employee unions' insistence that revoking the pension of a unionized employee would violate their collective bargaining contracts, even if that employee were found guilty in court of a corruption charge.

During the regular session in April, the Senate passed a bill, supported by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, that would have given a judge the power to revoke or reduce the pensions of elected and appointed officials along with any of the tens of thousands of state employees covered by collective bargaining agreements. The Senate bill made no distinction between the political officials and the unionized employees.

The House version -- supported by Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, the House co-chairman of the committee overseeing ethics -- did make a distinction: It said a judge could revoke outright the pension of a public official convicted of corruption, but could not completely revoke the pension of a unionized employee; all a judge could do to the unionized employee would be to reduce the pension via fines or other deductions paid out of it.

In recent weeks, compromise language was negotiated by two key members of the legislative committee that deals with ethics -- Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, the Senate co-chairwoman of the committee, and Rep. Diana Urban, D-North Stonington, the House vice-chairwoman of the committee.

The compromise bill would deal with the collective bargaining pension question by having a judge decide if pension revocation violates a union contract. As worded in the bill, the judge would determine whether "the revocation of the pension of a state or municipal employee ... constitutes the unilateral breach of a collective bargaining agreement." If the judge decides that it does breach the union contract, no revocation can be ordered. But the court still could order the pension reduced by the amount necessary to pay any fines, restitution or costs of jailing the convicted employee.

Another legal wrinkle: Slossberg said the words "unilateral breach" are important, because even if the judge finds that the state's revocation of the pension would violate a collective bargaining contract, the judge could also decide that the employee's actions violated the contract.  That would make it a "mutual breach," she said, and the judge could still decide to revoke the employee's pension.

The bill assigns the state attorney general the responsibility of making the case for pension revocation or reduction after conviction in court.  

The other compromise language in the bill would require that no new contracts with state or municipal employees could include a provision blocking the revocation or reduction of an employee's pension. The major contract for state employees extends to 2017, while municipal employees' agreements will come up for renewal much sooner.

The bill sets a policy summarized in a simple statement, Slossberg said: "If you are convicted of corruption, you do not get a public pension."

Union representatives reportedly were not satisfied with the new language, sources said. But some lawmakers who had supported them with their votes during the regular session were saying they wanted to finally approve a bill -- after years of failing to do so while high-ranking officials from Republican Gov. John G. Rowland to Democratic Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim left office in disgrace and went to jail.

The pensions of Rowland -- who will be eligible for a $50,000 a year pension starting at age 55 in 2012 -- and others convicted previously will not be affected by the bill. Although a "retroactivity" provision had been sought by some lawmakers -- particularly Caruso, the committee co-chairman -- it was too divisive an issue and would have doomed the chance for any compromise.

"Retroactivity is off the table," said Slossberg. She said both chambers gave in on the compromise, and told reporters about 7:30 p.m. that Republican and Democratic leaders in both House and Senate -- including her co-chairman on the committee, Caruso -- are all for it, as is the governor.

But retroactivity will return next year, Caruso predicted. "Absolutely, we'll be back with retroactivity," he said. "I think it still angers the public" that officials such as Rowland and former state Sen. Ernest Newton, D-Bridgeport, are jailed for corruption and still will receive their taxpayer-funded pensions.

"We broke through the barrier" against pension revocation, Caruso said. "We broke through that tonight, and we'll be back again to do retroactivity." He said any retroactivity proposal would reach back far enough to cover Rowland.

Urban, who was the lead negotiator for the House on the ethics bill, said that she had sat down with Caruso and Slossberg weeks ago, "and we discussed the outlines of where we would be going -- and then Chris turned to me and said, 'It's fourth and goal, and you've got the ball." After that, Urban said, "Gayle and I were able to talk to each other continually. We were in contact all the time."

Urban said she and others have heard that union officials are less than satisfied with the compromise bill. "It's not hard, when you're walking the halls here, to hear the grumblings," she said, but "I would hope that they would know how serious we are about" recognizing the legal rights of the unions and their contracts.

Earlier in the day, lawmakers spoke tentatively about the prospects of passing the ethics bill -- a caution born of experience with the failures of past years.  But the later it got Wednesday night, the more they and representatives of the governor's office talked about the compromise bill as if it had already passed both chambers.

"The governor considers this the capstone of her four-year effort to complete the process of bringing openness and transparancy to government," Rell spokesman Chris Cooper said about 9 p.m., before either the House or Senate had taken up the bill for action. "I think she would way it's about time-- but she would also laud the efforts of everyone who worked hard to put it together."

The ethics bill also contains a provision banning the chiefs of staff for the governor, other statewide elected officials and legislative caucuses from soliciting campaign contributions.

The provision stems from a 2005 scandal over the disclosure that Rell's chief of staff, M. Lisa Moody, had summoned state commissioners to the Capitol -- handing them invitations to distribute at their agencies for a Rell campaign fund-raising event at the Marco Polo restaurant in East Hartford. The Marco Polo affair spawned legislative investigative hearings in 2006, leading to bills that would have banned campaign solicitations by chiefs of staff -- but each year, up to now, the proposals have died.

Meanwhile, sources have been saying in recent days that today's special session may provide a new opportunity for proponents of a controversial effort to have taxpayers pay the costs of legal representation for legislators who are accused of ethics violations, in cases brought by the Office of State Ethics.

One night, late in the regular legislative session, the Senate quietly passed a bill that would have made it legal for the staff attorneys for the four partisan legislative caucuses -- House and Senate Democrats, and House and Senate Republicans -- to represent legislators in ethics cases up to the point where "probable cause" is found for an alleged violation. After that point, they'd have to hire their own private attorneys -- as the tens of thousands of state employees, who also are subject to ethics laws, always have to do.

Proponents of the bill protecting legislators said that cutting off taxpayer-funded representation at a "probable cause" finding limits the circumstances under which lawmakers could use their staff attorneys to defend themselves. But, in reality, nearly all ethics cases against state employees and elected officials have historically been settled before "probable cause" has been found. That means that unless there were an unexpected, radical change in the handling of ethics cases, nearly all of the legislators' legal representation in ethics cases would be covered by the caucus attorneys -- and thus nearly all of the legal expenses would fall to the taxpayers who fund those staff lawyers' salaries.

The House did not act on the Senate bill at the end of the legislative session. Caruso, the committee co-chairman, opposed the provision and refused to bring the bill out on the House floor for action.  So did other members of his committee. And so it died.

But insiders have been saying that today's proceedings might provide a way to revive the proposal and bring it in through the back door.

Caruso said he had heard reports that proponents might try again, but he added that he also had "made it clear" that he will fight it in his position as co-chairman. He said if someone attempts to attach the provision to a compromise ethics bill, he would oppose the bill over that issue alone.

Slossberg said Wednesday night that she had heard nothing about anyone trying to revive the "caucus attorneys" bill, and anyone predicting such an attempt is "just trying to stir the pot."

The citizens' good-government group, Common Cause, opposed the "caucus attorneys" provision during the regular session, and its Connecticut director, Andy Sauer, said he hasn't changed his position on it since then.

RECALL PROVISIONS ... & SEC. 53a-165 ...

Sec. 53a-165. Hindering prosecution defined. As used in sections 53a-165aa, 53a-166 and 53a-167, a person "renders criminal assistance" when, with intent to prevent, hinder or delay the discovery or apprehension of, or the lodging of a criminal charge against, another person whom such person knows or believes has committed a felony or is being sought by law enforcement officials for the commission of a felony, or with intent to assist another person in profiting or benefiting from the commission of a felony, such person: (1) Harbors or conceals such other person; or (2) warns such other person of impending discovery or apprehension; or (3) provides such other person with money, transportation, weapon, disguise or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension; or (4) prevents or obstructs, by means of force, intimidation or deception, any person from performing an act which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such other person or in the lodging of a criminal charge against such other person; or (5) suppresses, by an act of concealment, alteration or destruction, any physical evidence which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such other person or in the lodging of a criminal charge against such other person; or (6) aids such other person to protect or expeditiously profit from an advantage derived from such crime.

      (1969, P.A. 828, S. 167; P.A. 02-97, S. 6.)

      History: P.A. 02-97 made definition applicable to Sec. 53a-165aa and made technical changes, including changes for purposes of gender neutrality.

      Cited. 223 C. 595, 604.
      Subdiv. (4):
      Cited. 205 C. 17, 18.
      Subdiv. (5):
      Cited. 7 CA 470, 471, 476.

January 13, 2004		2004-R-0082
RECALL PROVISIONS AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
By: Jennifer Gelb, Research Attorney

You asked how many states have recall provisions. You also wanted to know if any bills were proposed recently to allow recall of high governmental officials in Connecticut.
SUMMARY
Recall is a process by which elected officials can be subject to removal from office during their term by a vote of the people at an election called by a specified number of voters for this purpose. Eighteen states currently permit recall of state officials, seven of which require specific grounds to recall an official, such as misconduct, incompetence, conviction of a crime, or violation of the oath of office.
Several resolutions have been proposed in the Connecticut General Assembly to amend the state constitution to establish the power to recall elected officials. These resolutions are usually referred to the Government Administration and Elections (GAE) Committee, which has not favorably reported such a resolution in at least 13 years.

CONNECTICUT LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Several resolutions have been proposed to amend Connecticut’s constitution to allow for recall of elected officials, but none has been reported favorably out of legislative committee. The following proposals have been made in the last seven years:
2003 

SJ 5, A Resolution Proposing a Constitutional Amendment Establishing the Power to Recall Elected Officials, referred to the Government Administration and Elections (GAE) Committee, which took no action.

SJ 8, A Resolution Proposing a Constitutional Amendment Establishing the Power to Recall Elected Officials, referred to the GAE Committee, which took no action.
2001 

SJ 12, A Resolution Proposing a Constitutional Amendment Establishing the Power to Recall Elected Officials, referred to the GAE Committee, which took no action.

1999 

SJ 5, A Resolution Proposing a Constitutional Amendment Establishing the Power to Recall Elected Officials, referred to the GAE Committee, which took no action.

1997 

HJ 9, A Resolution Proposing a State Constitutional Amendment Establishing the Power to Recall Certain Elected Officials, referred to the GAE Committee, which held a public hearing.

SJ 8, A Resolution Proposing a Constitutional Amendment Establishing the Power to Recall Elected Officials, referred to the GAE Committee, which held a public hearing.
SJ 13, A Resolution Proposing a Constitutional Amendment Permitting the Recall of Elected Officials, referred to the GAE Committee, which held a public hearing.
SJ 16, A Resolution Proposing a State Constitutional Amendment Establishing the Power to Recall Certain Elected Officials, referred to the GAE Committee, which held a public hearing.
SJ 25, A Resolution Proposing a State Constitutional Amendment Establishing the Power to Recall Certain Elected Officials, referred to the GAE Committee, which held a public hearing.
JG: ro