Advisory Opinion No. 2003-21
Application Of The Code’s Conflict Of
Interest Provisions To The
Commissioner Of Consumer Protection
As
Commissioner, Mr. Rodriguez is statutorily empowered to administer the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. Chapter
735a. Part of this authority includes
discretion, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110m (a), to request that the
Attorney General file a CUTPA lawsuit.
Recently, the Commissioner received a request from the Attorney General
asking that the Commissioner determine whether to authorize the addition of a CUTPA
cause of action to a lawsuit being undertaken by the Attorney General with the
authorization of the Banking Commissioner. Upon
reviewing the complaint in this matter, and learning the names of the
defendants and alleged victims, the Commissioner identified certain concerns
which have led to this request for guidance.
The potentially problematic issues are as follows: 1. The lawsuit concerns the operations of a real
estate brokerage firm and mortgage brokerage business by three
individuals. Two years ago, Commissioner
Rodriguez listed his home for sale, and sold the home through the defendant
real estate brokerage firm with the direct involvement of one of the individual
defendants. 2. Five years ago, one of the other individual
defendants made a campaign contribution to a committee for the political party
that supported Mr. Rodriguez’s candidacy for alderman, and also made
contributions to several other candidates affiliated with this party. 3. Lastly, the Commissioner is personally
acquainted with several of the consumers who filed complaints in this matter,
as well as at least one of the individual defendants. The
relevant conflict of interest provisions of the Code are Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-85
and 1-86. Pursuant to §1-85, in
pertinent part, a public official has a substantial conflict of interest and
may not take official action on a matter if he has reason to believe or expect
that he will derive a direct monetary benefit or suffer a direct monetary loss
by reason of his official activity. The
official does not, however, have a substantial conflict of interest if any
benefit or detriment accrues to him as a member of a profession, occupation or
group to no greater extent any other member of such profession, occupation or
group. Pursuant to
§1-86, in pertinent part, a public official has a potential conflict of
interest if he would be required to take official action that would affect his
financial interests, unless such interest is de minimis
in nature or not distinct from that of a substantial segment of the general public. If faced with a potential conflict, a
Commissioner, who has no immediate superior, shall take such steps as the Ethics
Commission advises. In this
instance, it is clear that none of the concerns raised by Commissioner Rodriguez
creates either a substantial or potential conflict of interest. As a consequence, there is no impediment,
under the Ethics Code, which would prevent the Commissioner from exercising his
statutory discretion in this matter. By order of the Commission, Rosemary Giuliano
Chairperson