The Office of State Ethics signed a consent order this week with Essex resident James Martin in a settlement surrounding the revolving door provisions of the state’s ethics laws. Martin, an architect who worked for UConn’s health center in planning, design and construction, left that job for a position with a New York architecture firm. That firm bid on state contracts over $50,000 within the next year and Mr. Martin was deemed to have been “substantially” involved in those contracts. Martin stated that he did not intentionally violate the provisions of the statute because he did not understand his involvement in the contracts to be “substantial.” Those are the facts of the case.
I know Jim Martin. Not well, but we live in the same town and I know him to be an honest man. He works hard and is respected at his profession. I have no doubt that he was not aware of the revolving door provision or if he was, that he did not see his involvement in the contracts as substantial. Here’s how the statute defines it:
“For the purposes of Subsection (a) of Section 1-84b, substantial participation in a particular matter shall be construed to mean participation that was direct, extensive and substantive, not peripheral, clerical or ministerial.”
Whatever the interpretation of the law, this is an example of a good professional finding himself in the position of paying a fine and facing media coverage. It’s unfortunate because an out-of-state firm didn’t know what the rules were and didn’t know to watch out for the revolving door. Now my neighbor is paying the price.
