Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, currently a candidate for state attorney general, has submitted a personal check for $55 to the state’s judicial department to rectify an error she says she made in 2006 – when she obtained a 50-percent exemption from a $110-a-year professional fee by filing a form saying that she didn’t practice law as an occupation.<\/p>\n
But Bysiewicz’s effort this week to shed that political embarassment has left her with additional issues to explain:<\/p>\n
–Newly surfaced judicial department records show that she didn’t just file for the exemption in 2006, but also did it in 2007 and 2008 by signing identical statements that she didn’t practice law “as an occupation” in those years, either. However, she wrote a letter to the judicial department Monday – which was released to The Courant Tuesday – in which she asked that all three filings be disregarded.<\/p>\n
–Meanwhile, criticism is mounting over the fact that Bysiewicz uses taxpayer money to have her office pay the annual $110 professional fees not only for her, but for seven or eight staff lawyers in the executive-branch agency. Her office policy contrasts from that of the state’s current attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, who is not seeking re-election as he runs for U.S. Senate. He requires his 200 or so staff lawyers to pay their fees out of their own pockets.<\/p>\n
The issue of Bysiewicz’s exemption filings has arisen at a sensitive time for her, because some critics and opponents have been questioning whether she has enough active experience as a lawyer to serve as attorney general.<\/p>\n
The Courant disclosed last Friday that, in 2006, Bysiewicz had signed an official state exemption form that stated, “I do not engage in the practice of law as an occupation,” as well as, “I hereby certify that the information provided herein is true and correct.”<\/p>\n
Her submittal of that form granted her a 50-percent exemption from the normal $110 fee that lawyers and judges must pay each year into the state judicial department-maintained Client Security Fund, which compensates people for losses due to lawyers’ misconduct or mistakes.<\/p>\n
Bysiewicz has been unwilling to talk about the situation since it arose last Friday, and instead has had paid spokesmen answer questions from The Courant. Bysiewicz’s campaign spokeswoman, Tanya Meck, has said that it was a simple mistake. “Susan filled out the wrong form and sent it in. She made a mistake one year out of 10,” Meck said last Friday.<\/p>\n
But, since then, newly surfaced judicial department records have been released to The Courant showing that Bysiewicz also signed the same exemption forms — which again stated “I do not engage in the practice of law as an occupation” — in 2007 and 2008. However, in those years, Bysiewicz’s office submitted the full fee of $110 in her behalf anyway, instead of the $55 submitted in 2006.<\/p>\n
Bysiewicz addressed the issue of the newly surfaced forms in her letter Monday, saying, “I request that the incorrectly filed 2007 and 2008 exemption forms be disregarded, as full payment was made.”<\/p>\n
Bysiewicz is seeking to put the issue to rest to avoid damage to a campaign that a new Quinnipiac University Poll indicates she has begun with a strong lead over her opponents in the race for the Democratic attorney general nomination.<\/p>\n
Controversy erupted two weeks ago over whether Bysiewicz has enough active law experience. State statutes say that Connecticut’s attorney general must have “at least 10 years’ active practice at the bar of this state,” but a few critics have said that she does not meet that “active practice” requirement even though she has been registered as an attorney here for 23 years.<\/p>\n
Before Bysiewicz became secretary of the state in 1999, she had worked for eight years for two law firms and a corporation’s legal department – six of those years in Connecticut. Bysiewicz and her supporters say that all 11 of her years in office should count as “active practice” because although she doesn’t need to be a lawyer in the job, she and her staff dispense legal advice on laws affecting elections and corporations.<\/p>\n
She requested a legal opinion last week from Blumenthal, but he has not yet responded.<\/p>\n
Taking the 50-percent exemption for 2006 didn’t save Bysiewicz any money personally – because her spokesmen say that she has always had state taxpayers foot the bill for the Client Security Fund fees for her and the others in her office. Some, including Blumenthal, do not think this is the way to handle the fees.<\/p>\n
“We do not pay for our attorneys’ client security fund fees,” Blumenthal said last week. “We feel that taxpayers should not have that burden” for the lawyers’ individual fees, he said.<\/p>\n
A potential Republican candidate for attorney general, state Rep. Themis Klarides of Derby, criticized Bysiewicz on that front, saying in an interview that Republican legislators are considering introducing legislation this year that would require government-employed lawyers to pay their own fees. “Taxpayer dollars should not be used” for individuals’ fees, said Klarides, a lawyer who says she is “evaluating” a potential run for attorney general.<\/p>\n
Klarides also wondered why Bysiewicz, for the first time, decided to submit a personal check this week to make up for the $55 from 2006 to quiet the controversy – instead of continuing to have her office use taxpayer money.<\/p>\n
“I would only say that if the secretary of the state truly believed that it was completely on the up-and-up to use taxpayer money, then there should be no reason she wouldn’t do it again this time – unless in the back of her mind she was thinking that it really wasn’t the right thing to do,” Klarides said. The fact that now she used a personal check “says a lot, right there,” Klarides said.<\/p>\n
Bysiewicz again was unvailable for comment on Monday, But Meck called Klarides’ comments “nitpicking and overthinking.” Meck said that Bysieicz “felt strongly that this was her mistake, and [sent] the check” to rectify the situation.<\/p>\n
Lawyer Robert Martino of Glastonbury, a volunteer adviser to Bysiewicz’s campaign, said the fact that she used a personal check this week doesn’t mean she has changed her policy, and he expects that her office would continue to pay the fees for the lawyers who work there.<\/p>\n
“I don’t think there’s any significance at all” in the fact that she submitted a personal check, he said.”It was an error that she made and she fixed it. … I don’t think it’s a change in policy; I think it’s the quickest way” to fix the problem.<\/p>\n
So far, Bysiewicz’s opponents for the Democratic attorney general’s nomination have been restrained in their comments.<\/p>\n
One of them, former state Senate majority leader George Jepsen, Friday called Bysiewicz’s 2006 exemption “a big oops.” He said “a lawyer is supposed to read the document before they check the box and sign it.”<\/p>\n
Both Jepsen and the other announced Democratic candidate, state Rep. Cameron Staples, D-New Haven, have paid the full Client Security Fund fee every year since it began in 1999 – as has Klarides, judicial department records show.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile Tuesday, as Courant Capitol Bureau Chief Christopher P. Keating reports, a former state Democratic Party chairman, John Droney, is adding his views to the controversy <\/p>\n
As a close follower of politics for more than 25 years, Droney said the party needs to settle the issue of whether Bysiewicz has the necessary 10 years as an attorney. Droney said that if he was still the chairman, he would bring the issue in front of a Superior Court judge in order to get a clear and definitive ruling.<\/p>\n
Numerous legal analysts say that any opinion by Blumenthal would not be binding, and the only way to settle the issue would be to seek a declaratory ruling in Superior Court from a judge – a procedure that would require a hearing, evidence and legal arguments. Republicans have suggested they may eventually seek such a court ruling, but that avenue is also open to a Democrat.<\/p>\n
“I wouldn’t waste my time with Blumenthal,” said Droney, a lawyer known for his outspoken comments. “It’s not binding on anybody.”<\/p>\n
As an insider who has watched attorneys general going back to the days of Robert K. Killian in the late 1960s and 1970s, Droney said the 10-year requirement has “never” been an issue in the past.<\/p>\n
Droney also doesn’t buy the argument from Bysiewicz that she is, in effect, running a public-interest law firm as secretary of the state. “Otherwise, [former Secretary of the State and non-lawyer] Julie Tashjian was practicing law without a license for a long time,” Droney said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, currently a candidate for state attorney general, has submitted a personal check for $55 to the state’s judicial department to rectify an error she says she made in 2006 – when she obtained a 50-percent exemption from a $110-a-year professional fee by filing a form saying that she didn’t […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4002,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234245","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4002"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=234245"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234245\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}