Jon Lender at The Hartford Courant wrote a piece today about G. Kenneth Bernhard, former Republican state Representative from Westport/current head of the state Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board, being guilty of violating the rules he’s supposed to uphold.
As we reported a few months ago when Bernhard assumed the chairmanship, he was off to a rocky start.
——————
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer
HARTFORD — The 4-year-old Office of State Ethics and its Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board’s mission is, according to the agency Web site, “to ensure honesty, integrity and accountability in state government.”
But an attorney with a precedent-setting case pending before the group is questioning whether that mission has been compromised by confusion about the validity of the appointment of the board’s newest chairman, G. Kenneth Bernhard, a former state representative from Westport.
The issues are technical, but attorney John Geida argued that if the board is going to uphold state laws, it must ensure its own decisions are fair and legal in fact and appearance.
Bernhard, an attorney who served in the General Assembly from 1996 until his defeat in 2004, was first appointed to the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board in November 2007 by House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk.
And on Thursday, Bernhard became the board’s newest chairman.
But in early September, Geida called for Bernhard’s disqualification from the board, claiming he was appointed illegally by Cafero.
“It’s not an attack on Mr. Bernhard,” Geida said Friday. “It’s seeking to uphold the rule of law.”
Geida is representing the defendant in the first public hearing held by the board since it was created in the wake of the scandals that led to the resignation of former Republican Gov. John Rowland.
Geida’s client, Priscilla Dickman, a former University of Connecticut Health Center medical technologist, stands accused of violating state ethics laws by using state property and resources “in furtherance of her private jewelry and travel consulting businesses.”
The board held hearings through September, and a decision about Dickman is pending.
The problem with Bernhard’s appointment, Geida wrote in a Sept. 1 letter to the Office of State Ethics, is it broke state rules by occurring within three years of Bernhard holding public office.
Citizen’s Advisory Board members, in an opinion issued last week by themselves and Office of State Ethics attorneys, agreed.
According to the opinion, Cafero first appointed Bernhard in a letter dated Nov. 15, 2007, for a term that began immediately and is to end Sept. 30, 2011.
That same day, Cafero, at the request of the Office of State Ethics, sent a corrected letter to Bernhard that specified his term instead began Jan. 1, 2008.
The problem, Geida said, is that Bernhard served in the General Assembly until Jan. 5, 2005, when his successor took office.
“Whether one reads the date of appointment as Nov. 15, 2007, or the start date of Jan. 1, 2008, the appointment was within three years of Mr. Bernhard serving as state representative,” Geida wrote.
The Office of State Ethics and the advisory board this week agreed, declaring Bernhard’s original appointment invalid.
But Geida remains concerned about Cafero’s efforts to clean up the confusion last month, when, on Sept. 9, he sent a third letter to Bernhard to make his appointment official.
“It has come to my attention that a question has been raised regarding my appointment of G. Kenneth Bernhard to the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board,” Cafero wrote. “To the extent that any defect may exist with respect to his appointment, I am, today, appointing G. Kenneth Bernhard to the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board to commence serving … immediately.”
The Ethics Advisory Board and the Office of State Ethics’ attorneys concluded this Sept. 9 appointment was proper and also determined that any of Bernhard’s actions taken during the past two years were valid despite his initial appointment being invalid.
Geida said Cafero jumped the gun and should have awaited a final decision on Bernhard’s status before sending the Sept. 9 letter.
“The appearance of it is rather suspect,” Geida said. “Rep. Cafero did not address the merits of the issue at all, seemed to sweep it under the rug and say, ‘Well, everything is OK now.’ … The second appointment I question legally because the first appointment at that point wasn’t found to be valid or invalid. It was a very unique situation. (Cafero) didn’t let the administrative process play itself out, so there are questions I believe we can raise to courts of higher authority.”
Geida said he is awaiting the board’s decision in the Dickman case before he and his client decide whether to question Bernhard’s status further.
Bernhard said Friday, “It appears that, despite all good intentions of everybody involved and the dedication of everybody involved, it was a technical flaw in my service.”
He said he was pleased with Cafero’s continued support and looks forward to serving as chairman and continuing the good work of his predecessor.
“We provide an extraordinarily valuable service to the state employees in maintaining the high standards Connecticut wants to aspire to in compliance with ethical issues,” Bernhard said.
Cafero said all along he was simply following the Office of State Ethics’ advice and trying to get things right.
“He’s a nice, wonderful man (and) well-respected on both sides of the aisle,” Cafero said of Bernhard, joking afterward, “I think I’ve (appointed) him nine times already.”
GOVERNOR RELL GETS “F” ON HER NEW ETHICS AGENCY
October 3, 2010 at 16:18 Governor Jodi Rell’s real legacy was to be the change she made for Connecticut by redefining the Office of State Ethics. That office with all the new statutes and regulations was to be the corner stone for the country to emulate as states began to revisit their own ethics divisions. Many states were looking to Connecticut to review this legacy of Governor Rell and begin to adopt these well publicized changes in their own back yards. Perhaps we all had better put the breaks on and wait to see what Connecticuts’ Governor is leaving behind as her legacy before adopting it in other states.
I attended the Office of State Ethics five year anniversary. There was quite a build up and lots of talk of the upcoming five year event of this new and improved Office of State Ethics. Along with that there were all the bright yellow signs posted around the capitol, so, I certainly for one was dismayed Governor Rell was absent. Actually other than Senator Kissel, I saw no other legislators. Perhaps fifty people filled room 2C of the Legislative Office Building and maybe twenty of those folks were OSE employees. Ms.Bornhurst of the Citizens Ethics Advisory Board was the only board member present. Embarassing attention has been made to this office and the CEAB when the previous Chairman G.Kenneth Bernhard was forced to step down for giving political donations while holding office. He said he did not know and it was just a little mistake? If the Chairman does not know the rules then who should? Attorney John Geida, who represented me as the first respondent to have gone before this board for a trial has filed an appeal on a myriad of issues including the violation of Mr Bernhard having taking his seat on the board too early after his political career ended,in violation of the state statutes, the structure of this new body and the actions of the members of the OSE enforcement division in conducting their investigation. It seems now it is very difficult to fill the seats on the CEAB and everyone is scratching their heads as to why? I personally can not understand how could they have even begun to fill seats in 2005? How could they open up office and have begun to hold CEAB hearings on ethics violations if the CEAB board, OSE and Governor Rells’ office did not have a clue as to the most basic of questions-how to abide by the statues in filling the seats on this most important board in the first place? More importantly why has our Legislature not weighed in on the problem yet? Many commented they watched the CT.N coverage for many of the days it was televised.
Personally, I believe the embarrassment caused by the last very public hearing was enough to make anyone run for cover and not want to step up and be a part of what seemed like a three ring circus. There the CEAB sat as the judge and jury along with a prosecutor who seemed to redefine the statutes as he went along or as was required to make a conviction possibly result. I dare say anyone who had thought of sitting on the CEAB now would think twice for fear of tainting their name and reputation if they were to be associated with this office in its present state. Or at least until the Office of State Ethics, Governor Jodi Rell and the legislative body in Connecticut goes back to the drawing board and fix all the flaws with this new Ethics office and Citizens Ethics Advisory Board. I would think they surely must realize that manufacturing evidence to attempt a conviction is unethical, that not following the rules of evidentiary and civil procedures is against the statutes and laws of this state. But most importantly the Legislative body needs to realize that the OSE Enforcement Division does not even itself understand the role of its office yet or that of the board. What arrogance when in arguments to the judge, Ethics Enforcement Officer T.J Jones states “ I submit that as a matter of law that’s wrong, your honor. 1-81-A-3 is the provision of the code that says the board shall interpret the code, and when it interprets the code nobody appeals it. The board is the trier of fact in this case, it is bound by the law. That means they are the end all and be all until some other body tells them otherwise” . In hearing that recited from the prosecutor of the OSE clearly demonstrates that he and his office have a total lack of understanding of what their role is and what the role of the CEAB is to be. The arrogance to think anyone office in the state can deny one of their Constitutional rights is absurd!
Well maybe Governor Rell did not appear on the fifth anniversary, October 1, 2010 for Ethics Day Awareness at the LOB because she just did not want to get out of bed and face the facts that she and her office got it wrong again! That if anything she did not fix the problem with the Office of State Ethics when she came into office, she actually made it worse. Now with the opportunity and all their flaws visible to the public she has failed to do anything to correct it. Perhaps now that the results of this disastrous trial is now going before the Appeals Court the OSE will again undergo a transformation and this time for the better. They may get training in what the statutes mean, how to interpret the code and what their role is in the state. Someone should also remind this group, they work for us, the taxpayer, they are not self employed. This office is quick to point out as the Enforcement Officer stated in his presentation yesterday that the OSE was reorganized after the previous office was dismantled as a result of the Rowland scandal. Well, John Rowland paid his dues, I have heard him speak and he admits his errors, if the OSE had admitted theirs on the investigation into their case brought against me at least after Jones took my deposition on May 2009 we both could have saved the state a ton of money. But maybe this was meant to be. OSE is not functional if it is not functioning properly. Let us hope the legislature steps in and rights the ship. As Jones likes to say this ship has sailed, but unfortunately it has sailed off a cliff and Governor Rells’ legacy with it. Govenor Rell gets an “F” here for sure.
Priscilla
Conn. Governor ranked third-worst governor says
Comment made on October 5th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
As someone who has been consistently and maliciously attacked and defamed by Mr. Bernhard and one of the animal activist groups he represents, I have long wondered how this gentleman, who may be a very bright and successful attorney, could hold the position as chairman of the state ethics board. Mr. Bernhard has placed opinion pieces in various publications without disclosing his role as a leader and attorney for the group that espouses the “opinion” he submitted. He has been making my life miserable for over three years because he is against anyone operating a business that sells puppies. He has unsuccessfully and unethically gone after the certificate of occupancy, unsuccessfully attempted to demonstrate that I was not a member of the New York State Bar, has unsuccessfully attempted to get both the Attorney General’s office and the department of Consumer Protection to find my business guilty of misrepresentation under CT’s Unfair Trade Practices law (no doubt using his political connections to initiate the investigations, and only recently stated he “had fun” clandestinely prepping a customer of our store to raise the very same Unfair Trade Practices charge against us on an episode of “People’s Court” after he knew that the Director of the State’s Unfair Trade Practices had found his charges to be without any basis after several months of investigation. To her credit, Judge Millian, on People’s Court ridiculed the attempt to claim an unnfair trade practice and even advised the “plaintiff” he advised to “find a better lawyer”! (The individual he “advised” lost her case).
But forget about my personal experiences, which go far beyond the above, the unsuccessful campaign he waged against the individual who took away his legislative seat some year’s back, ran some of the most disgusting and distasteful ads ever in which Mr. Bernhard’s impressive education and legal credentials were placed alongside those of his opponent who was credited with “running a pizza store” and little more than a foreign high school degree. I will never understand how someone who thought it even remotely ethical to run ads like that could be considered for a position on, let alone chairman of a state ethics board. It’s amazing what one can get with political patronage.
It is also hard for me to understand how Mr. Bernhard can ethicall serve as Town Attorney for several neighboring towns including weston and Wilton and of westport as well, not that long ago.
Mr. Bernhard also takes pride in the role he played, with the solid support of Minority Leader Cafero (SEE ABOVE) in getting a new “puppy lemon law” passed which contains some unbelievably ridiculous provisions- several of which do nothing to actually protect citizens of the state.
Mr. Bernhard is a strong animal activist who has had no qualms using and abusing his political connections to do all that he could to destroy a legitimate and totally legal enterprise. I do not question his right to advocate any position, however, I seriously question his tactics and the lack of ethically going about advocating his position. As a former legislator, Member and Chairman of the stae ethics Committee and Town Attorney for at least three CT towns, Mr. Bernhard should be held to a much higher standard than most others.
It is high time that he resigned from the state ethics committee and Mr. Cafero should not be proud to have nominated him so many times.
I didnt see this article when it was originally published. Thanks for posting it Brian.