The executive director of the state’s ethics agency said Wednesday that she recommended that board Chairman G. Kenneth Bernhard resign last week, for the good of the agency, after it was discovered that he illegally made three campaign contributions.
He did not take her suggestion and now, amid public criticism and a call by a key legislator for Bernhard to resign, the ethics board faces the unprecedented job of investigating its own chairman. It took its first step in that direction Wednesday when it met in a special session — minus Bernhard, who did not participate — and appointed a three-member investigative subcommittee.
Executive Director Carol Carson of the Office of State Ethics said in an interview that she suggested that Bernhard quit last Friday, the day after The Courant had called him to say it had looked though campaign reports and found the donations he had made in 2008.
Bernhard made three donations totaling $250 — including $100 to the exploratory committee of his fellow Republican, Gov. M. Jodi Rell, and two others to GOP legislative candidates. The law prohibits such donations by Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board members.
“My role as the executive director is to consider the well-being of the organization,” Carson said. “I felt that the best result would be that that he resign.”
The nine-member Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board, which now has two of its seats vacant, oversees the 18-member staff of the Office of State Ethics — so, as a group, Bernhard and the other board members act as Carson’s bosses.
Carson said she and Bernhard spoke several times Friday, and she told him about noontime that she thought he should quit the unsalaried but influential position. But then, she said, “he talked to other people” — she said she did not know who — “and he thought it through and he came to his conclusion” about 4:30 p.m. to remain on the board.
Bernhard, a lawyer and former Republican state representative from Westport, said late Friday that he wasn’t quitting because he had only “technically violated” the ethics laws. He said he had not known of the prohibition, adding that the donations were small and no one tried to hide them. “It was inadvertent. There should be a penalty,” he said — adding that he expected to be fined — but he did not consider it an “ethics violation, in the classic sense.”
On Wednesday, board members conducted their meeting via a telephone conference call, as agency officials listened by speaker in a meeting room near the ethics agency office in Hartford. They appeared keenly aware of the public scrutiny of the ethics agency, created by the legislature in 2005 to operate without the problems of the old State Ethics Commission — which collapsed amid bitter conflicts after the corruption scandal surrounding ex-Gov. John G. Rowland.
“I think this is a very hot potato and I agree … that we should move on it” quickly, said board member David Gay. He was appointed to the subcommittee, along with Dennis Riley, who will be its chairman, and Kathleen Bornhorst. “This thing is not going to go away,” Gay said. He made note of The Courant’s editorial Wednesday morning, which, he said, “really takes some whacks at some people here.”
Members showed discomfort with the task of investigating Bernhard.
“I think the subcommittee has to consider the fact that we really have … to refer this to outside counsel,” said board member Ernest Abate. “We’re all conflicted on this thing because of the relationship we all have had with Ken, every one of us. … We really can’t have anything to do with this.”
A person can be fined up to $10,000 for each violation of state ethics laws.
Carson said after Wednesday’s meeting that the subcommittee could recommend hiring an outside law firm, or refer the matter to an outside agency such as the attorney general’s office. The head of the agency’s enforcement office said in a memo that he and his staff should have no part in the inquiry.
Meanwhile, the vice chairman of the legislative committee that oversees ethics issues, Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, said this week that Bernhard should quit. Bernhard wrote a letter to Meyer and others on the committee, explaining what happened and saying “it was technically a violation but it was not conduct which can be characterized as unethical.”
Meyer said: “His defense for his violation was ignorance of the law, and I didn’t find that credible. I don’t think he takes his position very seriously, and that’s a major reason for my thinking he ought to resign.”