Sec.1-81-28. Section 1-85 of the Connecticut General Statutes: substantial conflict of interest explained  


Latest version.
  • (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.

(Effective June 16, 1993; Amended January 2, 2008; Amended May 11, 2023)