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