MORE CLEARANCE FOR CLARENCE...CORBIN THAT IS

The previous post here was about the City of Hartford's audit report that didn't seem to bolster the case of our dishonorable Mayor Eddie A Perez and his firing of Clarence Corbin as Hartford's Director of Public Works. Now on the heels of the disclosure of that report comes the decision by the State of Connecticut's Ethics Commission.

On April 3, 2009 Hartford Corporation Counsel John Rose filed a complaint with the State's Ethics Commission allegeing violations a section 1-91 of the Connecticut General Statutes by Richard Moffitt, the person Clarence Corbin hired to provided services to the City. Although Rose accused Moffitt of illegal activity and accused him of providing "political lobbying", the State Ethics Commission disagreed and on June 18, 2009 dismissed Rose's complaint.

READ ROSE'S DISMISSED COMPLAINT BELOW

Rose Moffitt Complaint


The irony of this situation and this complaint by Rose may prove to be quite interesting. Apparently, in filing this complaint and through Perez's comments to the media stating that it was being referred to the State Ethic's Commission, Perez apparently may have violated section 1-82a of the Connecticut General Statutes which requires confidentiality of any ethics complaint. Mr Moffitt waived confidentiality of the information contained in the complaint and the decision, which is the way that this information legally was made available to me by Mr. Moffitt and his attorney. According to sources at the State Ethics Commission, it would be illegal for Perez, Rose or anyone else to disclose information regarding the complaint prior to Mr. Moffitt waiving his confidentaility.

When this termination became public, I found it very odd that all of a sudden Perez was talking ethics. I guess this is a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do". Eddie Perez talking ethics, it would almost make me laugh if it didn't involve the seriousness of virtually ending Clarence Corbin's career. Although in the end I feel pretty confident Clarence will prevail.

Below is an e-mail from the State informing Moffitt of the dismissal of the compalint and Moffitt's attorney's letter to John Rose. It sure sounds to me like the lawsuits will be following closely behind this dismissal.

MOFFITT ETHICS DECISION

SECTION 1-82a of the Connecticut General Statutes:

Sec. 1-82a. Confidentiality of complaints, evaluations of possible violations and investigations. Publication of findings.
(a) Unless a judge trial referee makes a finding of probable cause, a complaint alleging a violation of this part or section 1-101nn shall be confidential except upon the request of the respondent. An evaluation of a possible violation of this part or section 1-101nn by the Office of State Ethics prior to the filing of a complaint shall be confidential except upon the request of the subject of the evaluation. If the evaluation is confidential, any information supplied to or received from the Office of State Ethics shall not be disclosed to any third party by a subject of the evaluation, a person contacted for the purpose of obtaining information or by the ethics enforcement officer or staff of the Office of State Ethics. No provision of this subsection shall prevent the Office of State Ethics from reporting the possible commission of a crime to the Chief State's Attorney or other prosecutorial authority.

(b) An investigation conducted prior to a probable cause finding shall be confidential except upon the request of the respondent. If the investigation is confidential, the allegations in the complaint and any information supplied to or received from the Office of State Ethics shall not be disclosed during the investigation to any third party by a complainant, respondent, witness, designated party, or board or staff member of the Office of State Ethics.

(c) Not later than three business days after the termination of the investigation, the Office of State Ethics shall inform the complainant and the respondent of its finding and provide them a summary of its reasons for making that finding. The Office of State Ethics shall publish its finding upon the respondent's request and may also publish a summary of its reasons for making such finding.

(d) If a judge trial referee makes a finding of no probable cause, the complaint and the record of the Office of State Ethics' investigation shall remain confidential, except upon the request of the respondent and except that some or all of the record may be used in subsequent proceedings. No complainant, respondent, witness, designated party, or board or staff member of the Office of State Ethics shall disclose to any third party any information learned from the investigation, including knowledge of the existence of a complaint, which the disclosing party would not otherwise have known. If such a disclosure is made, the judge trial referee may, after consultation with the respondent if the respondent is not the source of the disclosure, publish the judge trial referee's finding and a summary of the judge trial referee's reasons therefor.

(e) The judge trial referee shall make public a finding of probable cause not later than five business days after any such finding. At such time the entire record of the investigation shall become public, except that the Office of State Ethics may postpone examination or release of such public records for a period not to exceed fourteen days for the purpose of reaching a stipulation agreement pursuant to subsection (c) of section 4-177. Any such stipulation agreement or settlement shall be approved by a majority of those members present and voting.