As a member of the Connecticut Port Authority, John S. Johnson should abstain from any future votes on the redevelopment of State Pier in New London and probably should have been doing so all along.
That is our clear take away after Johnson shared with us a draft advisory opinion he has received from the Office of State Ethics.
Since 1999 Johnson, a New London resident, has owned a 35,000-square-foot warehouse at 75 Crystal Ave., separated from State Pier by State Pier Road and the Amtrak tracks.
Some have pointed to this as a conflict of interest, including Day columnist David Collins, because the major redevelopment of the state-owned State Pier property, which the port authority has been pursuing, could benefit Johnson’s warehouse holding.
Responding in a guest commentary carried by The Day, Johnson argued there is no conflict in his taking votes on matters involving State Pier improvement and redevelopment. He notes that neither the warehouse nor any of its tenants have business with State Pier or the port authority.
It was at the suggestion of this editorial board that Johnson agreed to ask the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board for an advisory opinion. In its draft opinion, the board only offers prospective advice, meaning moving forward, and does not review any votes already taken.
The relevant section of the nine-page advisory opinion concerns language in the ethics law that requires public officials to abstain from “potential” conflicts concerning “an action that would affect a financial interest of such official.”
“As for the property located at 75 Crystal Avenue, New London, if, by virtue of (Johnson’s) ownership of it, a reasonable person would expect that action taken by the CPA board would affect his financial interests in an amount exceeding $100, he has a potential conflict. For example, a potential conflict would exist for Mr. Johnson under (the statute) if a reasonable person would consider it likely the action taken by the CPA board would increase the property’s value by $100 or more.”
The quasi-public Connecticut Port Authority is now in the thick of plans to invest an estimated $235 million, via a public-private project, to overhaul State Pier for use as a staging area in support of offshore wind-power development and for future use as a heavy-lift cargo port. The port authority will continue to cast critical votes involving this project.
Any reasonable person would conclude that a project of that scale will increase the value of the 75 Crystal Avenue property, which means Johnson has a “potential” conflict as defined by the law and should not be voting on such matters.
Johnson tells us he does not see the matter as clear cut. Votes are scheduled a month in advance, he said, and if there is any question of a conflict, he will seek the ethics panel’s opinion.
“I don't think that I should categorically not vote on any subject dealing with State Pier. I'll seek their help going forward,” Johnson said.
We respectfully disagree; this is clear cut.
This further raises the question of what value Johnson can continue to bring to the port authority. He was appointed during the administration of former Gov. Dannel P. Malloy under the provision for a representative from a “coastal community with a population not greater than fifty thousand,” which defines New London. Johnson can continue voting on matters involving other Connecticut ports, but that doesn’t do New London much good.
This issue should have been addressed much sooner. In fact, it should have been a red flag that crossed Johnson off the list of potential port authority board appointees from the start. On the other hand, Johnson has not cast the deciding vote on any State Pier matters. Votes have been unanimous or via a clear majority.
And there is no evidence of a direct conflict, no business relationship between the warehouse and State Pier or the port authority.
Johnson also sought an advisory opinion on office space in Old Saybrook that the port authority rents, property Johnson once had an interest in but did not purchase, leaving no conflict in that case.
Still, the draft decision, expected to be adopted by the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board, makes it clear that enough of a conflict exists in New London that Johnson must abstain from votes involving the redevelopment and improvement of State Pier and for that reason a replacement appointee should be considered.
The Day editorial board meets regularly with political, business and community leaders and convenes weekly to formulate editorial viewpoints. It is composed of President and Publisher Tim Dwyer, Editorial Page Editor Paul Choiniere, Managing Editor Izaskun E. Larrañeta, staff writer Erica Moser and retired deputy managing editor Lisa McGinley. However, only the publisher and editorial page editor are responsible for developing the editorial opinions. The board operates independently from the Day newsroom.
"conflict" - Google News
April 24, 2021 at 04:17AM
https://ift.tt/3dJY2Rq
Advisory opinion points to member's conflict on State Pier votes - theday.com
"conflict" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3bZ36xX
https://ift.tt/3aYn0I8
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Advisory opinion points to member's conflict on State Pier votes - theday.com"
Post a Comment