The Institute for Justice had bold aspirations for the Kelo v. New London case.

Before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the Institute had been battling in state courts from Ohio to Connecticut to prevent governments from using their eminent domain powers to promote economic development. Kelo gave its attorneys the chance to secure a broad federal ruling that would restrain the ability of government to take private property.

Such a ruling would have upset 50 years of precedent, however, and the court declined Thursday to impose the sort of straitjacket the Institute was seeking. But the decision still does not cripple conservative property-rights watchdogs such as the Institute for Justice and the Pacific Legal Foundation, for whom a Supreme Court victory was the ultimate prize.

It simply sends their fight back to the states.

Although the Supreme Court said Thursday that governments can use their condemnation power to foster private development, state courts can invoke their own constitutions to narrow the scope of eminent domain, as the Michigan Supreme Court did this spring. State legislatures can also modify their laws to strengthen the rights of property owners.

“We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. “Indeed, many states already impose public use requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline.”

Utah became the first state to do this when Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed Senate Bill No. 184 into law this March. The law forbids redevelopment agencies from using eminent domain for projects such as sports arenas, and it places a one-year moratorium on blight condemnations to give the legislature time to decide how badly a property has to deteriorate before the government has the right to seize it.

State Sen. Curtis Bramble, the Republican who introduced the legislation, said support gelled after the city of Ogden tried to take three houses that were standing in the way of a Wal-Mart.

“Property rights are the rights to own, possess and enjoy property, and they are what sets America apart from most other countries,” Bramble said. “The government power to take property needs to be very limited in scope. I can't think of a circumstance where you should seize one person's private property and turn around and give to another private interest for development. To me, that's just untenable.”

Bramble said the bill encountered some resistance from mayors who believed development would stymie without the tool of eminent domain. However, he said the Utah League of Cities and Towns, while never endorsing the legislation, decided not to oppose it.

“There were some mayors who were quite exercised and rather aggressive in their opposition, but there were also many mayors and city councilors who saw how abuses of eminent domain were out of control,” Bramble said.

In Connecticut, House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, has waged a lonesome battle in the legislature to rein in Connecticut's eminent domain laws.

Ward proposed a ban on taking residential property for private development except in the case of blight, but his bill died without a vote. But the Republican leader saw an invitation in the court's majority opinion for states to revisit and reform their own laws, and said he would redouble those efforts when the legislature convenes again next year.

“What I ran into this year ... was a statement that we shouldn't take any action until after the court reviews it,” Ward said. “I argued that we should provide our citizens with rights whether or not the Supreme Court was prepared to. But now that we know the Supreme Court will not give private homeowners this level of protection, the legislature should.”

While no state other than Utah has imposed a wholesale ban on using eminent domain for private development, some states have found ways to shore up the rights of property owners without depriving government of a powerful tool for promoting growth.

The Virginia legislature passed a law this year that helps property owners push for higher compensation when their land is taken by eminent domain. If a jury awards an owner at least 30 percent more than the price offered by a development authority, the owner is entitled under the new law to recoup appraisal fees for his property and the cost of bringing up to three expert witnesses to court.

In Missouri, a Republican state representative introduced a bill this spring that would have allowed property owners to hire his own appraisers when the government tried to take their land through eminent domain. If the owner and the government could not agree on a price, the bill, which died in committee, would have introduced a panel of three disinterested commissioners, including a county assessor, to set a dollar value.

Steve Hobbs, the legislator who introduced the bill, said by cell phone from the fields of his 600-acre farm that he understood the need to balance business development with the rights of owners to reap the value of their land.

“In state of Missouri, we've had some tremendous abuses by municipalities who make blight definitions that are just terrible,” Hobbs said. “We've had areas in Kansas City that were declared blighted 15 years before any development was done on that property. Can you imagine what that does to the property values in those areas? I'm a big fan of economic development, but we have to protect people's rights.”

Timothy Hollister, a land-use attorney with the Hartford firm Shipman and Goodwin who organized a forum on Kelo this winter, said the case put property rights in the national spotlight even if it did not result in a victory for the homeowners.

“Regardless of how the case has now come out, its legacy has already been to start a national debate about the fairness of eminent domain” Hollister said Thursday. “The Supreme Court was interpreting the federal Constitution, but every state is still allowed to be more protective of property rights. If Kelo had risen in Michigan, it would have come out the other way.”

Rossi quits after ruling:  Judge rejects GOP challenge
By Jerry Cornfield, Everett, WA Herald Writer
Published: Tuesday, June 7, 2005

WENATCHEE - Republican Dino Rossi ended his quest for governor Monday hours after a judge rejected his contest of the election because it lacked proof that Gov. Christine Gregoire won as a result of illegal votes and bureaucratic blunders.

"I don't make this decision lightly, and I don't make it with bitterness or a hard feeling," Rossi said in declaring he would not appeal the decision of Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges.

The judge, in a ruling that took nearly an hour to read, spoke with certitude that the sum of the sloppiness described in a two-week trial failed to meet legal standards required for tossing out an election result.

"Unless an election is clearly invalid, when the people have spoken their verdict should not be disturbed by the courts," he said. "There is no evidence in this record that Ms. Gregoire received any illegal votes."

Bridges repelled each and every allegation made by Republican Party attorneys in the trial. He said there was no evidence to "suggest fraud or intentional misconduct," changing of ballots, stuffing of ballot boxes or efforts to "manipulate" the election.

Democratic attorneys embraced following the decision.

"I think it is pretty much a legal home run on all fronts," Demo- cratic attorney Kevin Hamilton said immediately after the decision. "There was no fraud. He said it repeatedly. It's going to be very difficult to overcome."

Rossi alluded to the difficulty as the reason for his announcement.

"With today's decision and because of the political makeup of the Washington state Supreme Court, which makes it almost impossible to overturn this ruling, I'm ending the election contest," he said.

"I continue to believe that mounting this election challenge and shining the light on the various problems in our election system was the right thing to do," Rossi added.

Gregoire watched Rossi's statement on television before heading to Tacoma to speak at a commencement ceremony and on to the airport where she was flying to Boston to attend her daughter's law school graduation.

"She's very pleased," Gregoire spokeswoman Althea Cawley-Murphree said. "This will let us all move on and start dealing with the issues of importance to the state."

Rossi's announcement came one day shy of five months since he and seven registered voters, including Paul Elvig of Everett, filed the contest petition.

Rossi had spent $6 million trying to win the office Nov. 2 then endured three counts of the 2.8 million ballots cast in the election. Rossi lead after the first count by 261 votes. The closeness triggered an automatic recount, and Rossi led again, by 42 votes. Gregoire won the third and final tally, a hand count, by 129 votes.

In filing the contest petition Jan. 7, Rossi said he wanted to clear away the cloud of uncertainty on who won. On Monday, he said that what was missing in Bridges' ruling was "who got the most legal votes."

Rossi said he also took the legal tact to "get to a new vote so we can have a legitimately elected governor" and to "clean up" the election system, especially in King County.

"It doesn't look like we will be achieving those goals today," he said.

Earlier in the day, Elvig said he was not surprised by the judge's decision and wouldn't push Rossi to appeal.

"I believe it was a lawsuit that had to be filed," he said. "I'm not surprised by the outcome. Obviously you're asking a judge to do something very extraordinary."

In the trial, no one disputed illegal votes were cast by felons, in the name of dead people or by people voting more than once. Also hundreds of absentee and provisional ballots were improperly counted.

Using numbers from both Republican and Democratic attorneys, Bridges concluded there were 1,678 illegal votes cast. But unless Republicans linked those votes with a candidate, so they could be subtracted from that candidate's vote total, Bridges could not nullify the election.

"This election may not be set aside because the number of illegal or invalid votes exceeds the margin of victory, because the election contest statute requires that the petitioners must show it changed the election result," Bridges said.

In the trial, Republicans offered a mathematical means of apportioning the ballots known as proportional deduction. Had Bridges used it, they said, Rossi would have won.

Bridges didn't use it, even going so far as to call it flawed and not "consistent with generally accepted scientific standards." Moreover, he said, if he did apply it to all the felons, Gregoire still would have emerged the winner.

Bridges said for a judge to "pick a number" and apply the proportional deduction method in this case "would constitute the ultimate act of judicial egotism and judicial activism which neither the voters for Mr. Rossi or Miss Gregoire should condone."

When Bridges took the bench at 9 a.m., a nervous silence overcame the Chelan County auditorium that had been the courtroom for the two-week trial.

Reading comments written on sheets of yellow paper, he expressed frustration with widespread deficiencies in the running of elections and rebuked King County for numerous problems, blaming it in part on officials not taking responsibility.

He said he couldn't repair the troubles of that county or the state from the bench.

"This court is not in the position to fix the deficiencies in the election process," Bridges said. "However, the voters are in a position to demand of their legislative and executive bodies that remedial measures be taken immediately."

Snohomish County Auditor Bob Terwilliger took Bridges' words to heart.

"All of us learned from this experience," he said. "All of us are reviewing our internal controls so we can track every ballot that comes through the door."

EVERETT - Snohomish County could save more than $1 million next year if it mothballs its touch-screen machines and conducts elections entirely by mail ballot.

But four Snohomish County Councilmen say they're not ready to end the tradition of voting at the polls, despite the projected savings and passage of a new state law encouraging conversion to vote-by-mail elections.

"We're not interested," Council Chairman Gary Nelson said Monday.  Council Members John Koster, Jeff Sax and Dave Gossett each said they are unwilling to revamp the process now.  Councilman Kirke Sievers was unavailable for comment.

"I'm old school," Koster said. "People should go to the polls to vote unless they can't be there."

The issue is emerging as a result of two new state laws. One allows counties to switch to mail ballot elections on a vote of the county council.  The other requires counties using electronic voting machines to equip them with devices that provide a paper record for voters to review before transmitting their choices. The law takes effect Jan. 1, 2006.

Snohomish County has 1,000 machines and would need to spend as much as $1.5 million to buy enough devices for them.

Those machines are serving a decreasing percentage of voters at the county's 149 polling places. In November, 39 percent of voters went to the polls and the rest voted by mail. By 2008, it is predicted that 80 percent of county voters will cast ballots by mail.  Early next month, county Auditor Bob Terwilliger and election manager Caroline Diepenbrock will deliver a report to the County Council comparing the costs of all-mail ballot elections versus buying the verifiable paper audit trail devices.

"We are going to make a presentation. There are monetary and policy issues with both," Terwilliger said.  He said the final report should offer council members different scenarios that might involve buying fewer devices.

"It isn't just up or down on this," Terwilliger said.  Initial numbers in the report show the cost would be $1.31 for each of the county's 359,200 registered voters if elections were conducted by mail only.  If the county buys the equipment for the touch-screen machines, the cost of an election will be $11.66 per poll voter plus $1.34 per absentee voter. Those are based on 142,464 poll voters and 216,836 absentee voters -the totals in the November election.

Diepenbrock said the report accounts for a variety of charges and savings, including higher bills for postage and envelopes with mail-ballot elections and savings from not opening poll places and hiring fewer election day workers.  The biggest difference is the devices; each one costs about $1,000 and the county will want at least 1,500 to ensure there is adequate backup if there are breakdowns.

Gossett said he is looking forward to the report.

"We need to know all the consequences and what might result from switching to all-mail ballots," he said. "It's good to have the option, but I'm not prepared to do it."

Sax said it was simpler years ago.  "Maybe we should go back to the Dark Ages with paper and marker," he said.

The state Freedom of Information Commission will lose its executive director at the end of the year.  Mitchell W. Pearlman, who has been director since the commission was formed three decades ago, says he is retiring to make way for a new generation of leadership.

Pearlman is general counsel to the commission and oversees a $1.6 million budget and 15 full-time employees. He has also become an internationally recognized expert on open government.  He says he wants his successor to be Colleen M. Murphy, the commission's managing director and associate general counsel. The five-member commission will decide on his replacement.

Pearlman plans to continue consulting on open government issues throughout the world.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell made a tightly scripted, highly anticipated appearance before a legislative committee Wednesday to urge passage of ethics and campaign finance reforms.

Connecticut governors rarely appear before legislative committees, but Rell's testimony was calculated to generate momentum for what she hopes will be the signal achievement of her first year as chief executive.

Rell, who became governor in July after an impeachment inquiry and federal corruption investigation forced the resignation of John G. Rowland, told lawmakers they must embrace reform in 2005.

"I can tell you the public is ready for change. The public is demanding that we give them confidence again in their state government," Rell said. "You never thought you would be responsible for that, but you truly are."

The Republican governor and the Democratic legislature agree on the broad goal of getting special-interest money out of Connecticut politics. Their approaches are different, and both sides maneuvered for advantage Wednesday.

Rell has proposed a half-dozen bills, including a ban on campaign contributions from state contractors and lobbyists, lower limits on other contributions, restrictions on political action committees, new state contracting rules and a restructured ethics commission.

Democratic legislative leaders favor the public financing of campaigns as the only sure way to limit the influence of special interests. Rell is opposed to public financing, though in remarks to reporters she signaled a willingness to compromise.

"My position hasn't changed," she said, "but I've also been around this building long enough to know that you never know how a bill's packaged and whether it includes other provisions that I may support - whether the language is changed to, perhaps, say something like a pilot program."

New Jersey is experimenting with a pilot program involving the public financing of campaigns in a limited number of legislative districts, a Rell spokesman said.

Her testimony before the government administration and elections committee Wednesday made for less than engaging political theater.

Rell closely followed a prepared text. Unlike other witnesses to testify at legislative hearings, she left without taking questions from committee members, who listened politely as Rell read a statement for nearly 20 minutes.

"I have to say with some disappointment that we would have loved the opportunity to be able to question you personally," the committee's co-chairman, Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, told Rell.

Rell did not respond.

Her refusal to field questions derailed plans by at least one committee member, Rep. David D. McCluskey, D-West Hartford, to grill Rell about what he calls her newfound advocacy for reform after 9½ years as the lieutenant to a corrupt governor.

"Apparently, the governor has been cryogenically frozen for the last 10 years, because all of a sudden these are new initiatives," said McCluskey, who says the Republican governor is recycling many Democratic proposals.

McCluskey said he resented Rell's call during her State of the State address Jan. 5 for the legislature to pass her reform package in 30 days. "I'm frustrated," McCluskey said. "I don't want her to capitalize on this."

Other longtime proponents of campaign finance reform were more sanguine, including Caruso and his co-chairman, Sen. Donald DeFronzo, D-New Britain, as well as good-government activists.

"Any time the state's highest elected official talks about the need for comprehensive campaign finance reform, we're all on board with that," said Andy Sauer of Common Cause. "We realize her plan is different from our plan, but she's always kept an open mind. And she's always asked us to keep an open mind."

Rowland vetoed a campaign finance reform bill in 2001.

A cornerstone of Rell's proposal is a ban on campaign contributions from state contractors and lobbyists, which she says would end the state's "pay to play" system of contracting.

But Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said Rell's approach was open to legal challenge. New Jersey was forced to drop its ban on campaign contributions from contractors under pressure from the Federal Highway Administration, which threatened to withhold federal highway funds.

Federal officials said a gubernatorial executive order implementing the New Jersey ban could disqualify low bidders from federal road work.

"I think it's potentially a huge problem," Williams said.

Rich Harris, a spokesman for Rell, said the New Jersey rule banned donors from bidding.

"The governor's proposal is the inverse. If you have a state contract, you can't give" to candidates, he said.

Williams said then if that is true, then Rell's proposal would allow contractors to give until they get a contract.

"How does that end pay to play?" he asked.

HARTFORD -- State officials yesterday testified on proposals aimed at tightening state and municipal ethics standards in the wake of the scandal that drove former Gov. John Rowland from office.

The Government Administration and Elections Committee held hearings on reforms proposed by Democrats that include establishing a system of public campaign financing and imposing state ethics standards for public officials in cities and towns.

"The people of Connecticut are watching," said Lt. Gov. Kevin Sullivan, a Democrat. "They want to know there will be real consequences for public officials or public employees who breach their duty of faithful public service."

The Democrats bills are similar to one by Gov. M. Jodi Rell. Rell's proposals will be aired Monday, and she is expected to testify before the committee Wednesday.

Ranking Republican committee member, state Rep. Livvy Floren of Greenwich, said some of the suggestions brought out at yesterday's hearing deserve a closer look. One was the suggestion from state Comptroller Nancy Wyman that protections for an innocent spouse or dependents be built into a bill that would strip the pension of any public employee found guilty of a crime related to abusing his or her public service.

Floren also wants to take a look at a public campaign funding model used in Nebraska that Sullivan raised. The Nebraska law has politicians agree in advance to limits on their campaign spending raised from private sources. If the limits are broken, then public money is released to an opponent's campaign to level the playing field.

"It's something I want to study," Floren said. "It sounds like a very rational approach. I'm very concerned because I don't like diverting tax money to politicians."

She worked on a bill last year that would have required cities and towns to adopt the state ethics code or their own code. Compromises were worked out and the bill seemed ripe for passage this year.

But yesterday committee members seemed surprised when they heard from local officials that people in their communities have balked at filing financial disclosure information and many who serve on volunteer boards and commissions would not do so if the disclosures were required.

"As volunteers that's something they just didn't want to do," said Elaine Sarsynski, first selectwoman of Suffield who recently had asked about disclosure at a large meeting with volunteer officials. "It was a matter of privacy."

State Sen. Judith Freedman, R-Westport, the ranking Republican senator on the committee, said she didn't understand why municipal officials would be so resistant.

"I don't know what people are afraid of when they think of this," Freedman said while questioning Sarsynski. "If this is just the general disclosure of source of income, what's the big deal?"

Floren said: "I can see we still have problems with municipal ethics codes and lobbyists. It seems a lot of the things we ironed out last year aren't as wrinkle-free as we thought."

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz testified that later this year she will ask the committee to consider increasing disclosure of campaign finance reports at the city and town level.

Hugh Macgill, chairman of the state Ethics Commission, testified against a bill that would revamp his commission and introduce trial referees -- mostly retired state judges -- into deciding ethics complaints. The commission is functioning well, he said, despite reports surrounding the contested firing of executive director Alan Plofsky during the impeachment hearings and Ethics Commission complaints surrounding Rowland last summer.

"The idea that the commission is a train wreck is simply not the fact," Macgill said.

But Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, who proposed the Ethics Commission reorganization bill, said the commission must be reorganized because it demands too much of its volunteer members. They often must act as judge and jury while handling personnel matters and other responsibilities.

"I believe we ask far too much of people who are essentially volunteers," Williams said.

Rell's proposed ethics reform package, to be debated Monday, is similar in many respects but does not contain a public campaign financing provision, a cornerstone of the Democrats' proposal.

Rell has asked the Legislature to vote on a package of ethics bills before Feb. 9, when she proposes her budget.

• S.B. No. 939 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. WARD, 86th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING CODES OF ETHICS', to implement the Governor's budget recommendations.

 
• S.B. No. 940 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. WARD, 86th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE CITIZENS' ETHICS AND GOVERNMENT INTEGRITY COMMISSION', to implement the Governor's budget recommendations.

 
• S.B. No. 941 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. WARD, 86th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR STATE CONTRACTING', to implement the Governor's budget recommendations.

 
• S.B. No. 942 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. WARD, 86th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING A STATE CONTRACTING STANDARDS BOARD', to implement the Governor's budget recommendations.

 
• S.B. No. 943 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. WARD, 86th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE', to implement the Governor's budget recommendations.

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced a plan Tuesday to restructure the State Ethics Commission in the wake of questions about the commissions' own ethics.

Her proposal would divide the agency and its staff into three sections.

One group would concentrate on the enforcement of state ethics laws; another would offer ethics advice to state and public officials; and the third would deal with the release of public information.

Currently, the same people who give advice to officials and state employees also conduct ethics investigations and enforce the ethics code.

"My vision is simple," said Rell, a Republican, in a written statement. "I want an environment where people are comfortable seeking the opinion of the Ethics Commission when they need it, and I want a commission that enforces the law when people do violate the ethics code."

The governor said her ideas and others will be submitted to a bipartisan working group that will be charged with drafting legislation.  Hugh Macgill, the commission's new chairman, said he could not comment on Rell's proposal because he had not seen the details. He said the commission is continuing its work, enforcing the state's ethics laws amid discussion about the panel's future.

"I don't know of any institution that cannot be improved and I hope that whatever discussions are generated by the governor's proposal and any others that are put forward is as free from partisanship as the existing commission has been," he said.

The commission has come under fire for its decision last month to fire Executive Director Alan Plofsky, a critic of former Gov. John G. Rowland. Some members, both past and present, also have been criticized for not being tough enough on Rowland, who was under scrutiny for accepting gifts from employees, state contractors and others while in office.

Last week, Lt. Gov. Kevin Sullivan, a Democrat, and Connecticut Common Cause called for a legislative investigation into the commission's actions.

Sullivan has said the nine-member commission should be replaced with new people, and Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, has suggested replacing the commission with a three-judge panel as a way to restore public confidence.

Under Rell's plan, the commission would include seven members. Two would be appointed by the governor and one appointed by each leader of the four legislative caucuses. The chief justice of the state Supreme Court would appoint the seventh member.  No more than three members could be affiliated with one political party and no more than three members could be lawyers.

"It should be a cross-section of the citizens of the state and not be loaded up with attorneys," said Rachel Rubin, Rell's special ethics counsel.

While he likes some aspects of Rell's proposal, Williams said he disagrees with her plan to continue having politicians appoint commission members.
"I think that's a fundamental flaw. The basic structure remains unchanged," said Williams, who also believes Rell's idea of dividing the work of the commission would create more bureaucracy.

Rell has asked legislative leaders to participate in a new task force that will help craft the legislative needed to reform the commission. Williams said he has not decided whether to participate.  Rell's proposal also calls for separating the general counsel and executive director positions. Plofsky held both jobs. The plan would require the commission to hire its executive director for renewable five-year terms.

The commission fired Plofsky last month after an investigation concluded that he had cheated on work hours and told a subordinate to lie in response to a federal subpoena regarding Rowland and to destroy an audio tape of a commission meeting.  He also was accused of directing the release of a potentially privileged letter from the attorney general to a newspaper. That letter criticized the commission's decision to suspend Plofsky earlier this year after he publicly accused Rowland of being a liar.

Plofsky denies the allegations and he is appealing his termination to an independent arbitration panel within the Office of Policy and Management.

Rell: Ethics Panel `An Embarrassment' - Democrats Call For Overhaul After New Tape Revelations
September 18, 2004
By JON LENDER, Courant Staff Writer

Attempts by the State Ethics Commission to evade its public-disclosure duty under the freedom of information law drew strong criticism from Gov. M. Jodi Rell Friday and a call from the state's Democratic chairman for a "major overhaul of that misguided agency."

"I think they're an embarrassment to themselves and to the state of Connecticut," Rell said.

"Today's revelation that the State Ethics Commission sought to circumvent FOI laws adds one more reason for a long-overdue overhaul of that misguided agency," state Democratic Party Chairman George Jepsen said.

Both were referring to a Courant story Friday that revealed the contents of a tape-recorded February teleconference in which ethics panel members - unaware that they were being recorded by a commission clerk - talked openly of how to use the state FOI law to keep information from the public.

"Are we sure that no one else is in on this public meeting?" commission Chairwoman Rosemary Giuliano asked at one point on the tape. As fellow members laughed, Giuliano wondered if TV viewers "will hear my voice on Channel 3 tonight."

She was unavailable for comment Friday night.

The tape formed the basis for one of four findings of misconduct that the ethics commission cited Sept. 10 in its decision to fire Alan Plofsky, its executive director for 16 years. Commission members claimed that Plofsky ordered a clerk at his agency to destroy the potentially embarrassing tape - a charge he denies.

Plofsky held the tape for months, then handed it to a state personnel administrator who questioned him Sept. 2 in an investigation of several "whistleblower" charges made against him by his three staff attorneys. The Courant requested a copy of the tape, and received it this week.

The fact that commission members fired Plofsky over his alleged order to destroy a public record made Jepsen question their motives, since the record in question was a tape of several of those same members plotting ways to block the prompt release of public information.

The tape "provides fresh insight into the ride-roughshod-over-process mindset of commission members that was clearly in play in the recent sacking of Alan Plofsky," Jepsen said.

Jepsen went further than criticizing the ethics commission. He also goaded Rell, who said when she took office July 1 that she would make ethics in government her top priority after the ethical lapses of her scandal-plagued predecessor, John G. Rowland.

"Talk is not enough; it is time for Gov. Rell to act," Jepsen said. "What more information does Gov. Rell need? For months the necessity of a full housecleaning has been obvious. On her first day in office, Gov. Rell should have, and could have, appointed a new, conflict-free commission member to fill the ... seat currently and improperly held by Chairwoman Giuliano."

Giuliano, one of three Rowland appointees to the ethics panel, has remained on the board even though her term expired more than two years ago because Rowland did not appoint a replacement and Rell has not, either, up to now.

The "conflict" to which Jepsen referred is the fact that the three Rowland-appointed members of the board - Giuliano, Christopher Smith and Richard Vitarelli - had contributed money to Rowland's campaign efforts.

He called them "active Rowland partisans" and said because of their presence, "we'll never know" whether the decision to fire Plofksy was based on the merits, or was a "railroading" in retribution for Plofsky's pursuit of ethical violations by the ex-governor.

Some in politics disagree, pointing out that two members appointed by Democrats participated in the 6-0 vote to fire Plofsky, who has vowed legal appeals for reinstatement.

Rell spokesman Dennis Schain responded to Jepsen by saying that Rell has selected people to appoint to the commission as replacements for not only the long-overdue Giuliano, but also Rowland appointees Vitarelli and Smith -whose terms expire Sept. 30. The prospective replacements are undergoing background checks, Schain said.

But Jepsen said Rell's action was belated. "The day she took office on July 1 it was clear that the ethics commission was in a state of collapse. It's only gotten worse," he said. "She could have acted then and in doing so could have avoided a lot of the travesties."

"Gov. Rell ... continues to believe that the problems of the ethics commission must be resolved in a fast, fair and open manner without political grandstanding, gamesmanship or pettiness by anyone," Schain said.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Kevin B. Sullivan, a Democrat, followed through this week on his vow to seek a legislative investigation of the ethics commission, writing in a letter to the General Assembly committee that oversees the ethics agency that he had "grave concerns."

He said events this summer add up to "what now seems an inevitable process" toward firing Plofsky, no matter what. "His termination in public session [on Sept. 10], following a bathroom break, can at best be described as a drumhead court martial," Sullivan wrote. He also cited the influential roles of the three Rowland appointees.

"At a time when this is supposed to be a new day for ethical conduct in government, all of this casts significant doubt on our efforts to do better," Sullivan said. He talked of possible "legislative correction" of the setup at the agency, consistent with Jepsen's talk of a "major overhaul."

Sullivan asked that the legislative investigation should focus on "the manner in which the ethics commission conducted its several inquiries into allegations against Mr. Plofsky" and the origin and motivation for the allegations.

State Rep. James O'Rourke, D-Cromwell, co-chairman of the legislative committee that oversees the ethics agency, said Friday night he was unsure whether his panel would hold hearings, but he did want some answers. He said his committee was planning to write a letter asking questions, and could follow up with further inquiries.

"It looks to me like the Rowland scandal was a very stressful time for the ethics commission and members of its staff," O'Rourke said. "It seems to have ruined the relationships they had with each other, and that's a great concern."

This story includes a report from the Associated Press. 

On July 1, I stood on the north steps of the state Capitol and took the oath of office to become Connecticut's 87th governor.

That day, I made a pledge to restore faith, trust and integrity to our state government. Those were not just words on a piece of paper. I made that promise because it is what is in my heart.

I want Connecticut to be the national model of integrity in government. I want our contracting procedures to be the most bulletproof in the country. My goal is for other states to point to Connecticut and say, "That's the way we should be doing it."

Even the most aggressive and far-reaching policies, however, cannot always prevent the worst of human behaviors. But we can put systems in place, with appropriate checks and balances and internal oversight, to ensure integrity in the way the state conducts its business.

That is why six weeks ago I established the Governor's Task Force on Contracting Reform. I charged the task force with reviewing and recommending improvements in the procedures used by state government to purchase goods and services.

The task force members put in long hours reviewing documents and state statutes and listening to testimony. Last week, I received their report, which contains 133 recommendations. Each of the recommendations has a common goal: to ensure that one dollar in value is received for every dollar we spend of the taxpayers' money - and that each and every dollar the state spends is done with scrutiny and with accountability.

The state spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year on goods and services. The scope of state purchasing includes the awarding of contracts for construction, leases, personal services, property management and equipment.

The problem is that state purchasing procedures are inconsistent, the training of personnel varies by state agency and not all selection processes are conducted in the open. We have dozens of state agencies - and if two are conducting business the exact same way, it's probably by accident.

It is easy to see how these aspects of the state's contracting system are vulnerable to abuse or confusion, and that inevitably leads to inefficiency. Changes must be made to recast the system so that it builds in integrity from the start, rather than backing into integrity only when we find a problem.

I see these changes being implemented in four basic steps:

Uniform standards. We need a system in which any act that is out of the norm stands out like a sore thumb. That requires a process that is the same for everyone who does business with the state, and the same for every state agency - with no exceptions. That includes all state agencies, all quasi-public agencies and all of Connecticut's public institutions of higher education. Uniform standards will immediately send up procedural red flags if rules are bent or broken.

Transparency. When business is conducted out in the open, it is difficult to engage in deceit. Right now, state business is not uniformly conducted in the open. Again, even one exception violates the integrity of the system. It's like a boat - even one small hole can cause a significant leak. Without full disclosure, the public cannot have full confidence in the way the state awards contracts. I support all of the recommendations that shine more light on the contracting process.

Education. The overwhelming majority of Connecticut state employees are dedicated and honest individuals who work hard and take great professional pride in their work. But the problems encountered by state employees, public officials and those seeking to do business with the state have often resulted from their lack of awareness of ethical rules that apply to the government workplace. I was shocked to learn that no standardized ethics training is provided. We can eliminate confusion and misinformation by helping our employees acquire knowledge of ethics rules and penalties, and we should immediately provide and require this training for all appropriate staff.

Penalties. I am convinced that the vast majority of state employees are honest and hardworking. One reason Connecticut's whistle-blower statute is so effective is that most people do not want their reputation, or the reputation of their agency, damaged by the dishonesty of a colleague.

But no matter what kind of system we create, there will probably be a few people who will try to break it. We must stiffen the penalties for those who violate the public trust. The civil penalties are too low and the consequences are not severe enough for failure to ensure compliance with contracting procedures. The penalties must be beefed up to cause anyone involved in a state transaction - from either the public or the private sector - to rethink any effort to manipulate the system. Similarly, we must to continue to encourage whistle-blowing at all phases of the contracting process.

Implementing these steps will dramatically change the state contracting system and place a premium on ethics. We can take a huge step in the right direction with standards, transparency, education and penalties. We all want to be proud of our state. Reform in these four basic areas will help ensure the highest possible standards in our contracting process and restore pride in our government.

I can assure the people of Connecticut that this will not be a government report that sits on a shelf gathering dust. On the contrary, it is a blueprint for action. Enacting the proposed task force reforms into law will result in:

No more free meals or gifts.

No special treatment.

No exceptions.

A freeze on contracts when improprieties are found.

Restrictions on business relationships between state officials and contractors.

Disclosure of campaign contributions by contractors - even to PACs and party committees.

A new and uniform state procurement and contracting statute.

A system based on integrity and accountability, where the rules are clear - and clearly understood.

Connecticut's reputation is too dear to me - too dear to all of us - to allow corruption, malfeasance or abuse to germinate under the soiled cover of an outdated process. Our efforts will promote efficiency, restore integrity and give taxpayers confidence that their dollars are being spent wisely and well - no matter who sits in the seats of power.

Special interests - including those who have benefited from the system - will try to water down these reforms. We cannot afford to compromise on ethics. If you agree, I urge you to send a letter or e-mail to your legislator and send me a copy. Tell them that this is a priority for you, just as it is for me.

By working together, we can have a model system in place by the close of the next legislative session. Don't let anyone persuade you that this will be another layer of bureaucracy, or that it will do more harm than good. The harm to our great state's reputation has already been done.

On this Labor Day weekend, as we take time out for a hard-earned and well-deserved holiday, let us consider how America has become the most productive nation on Earth. We did it by playing by the rules and by doing the right thing. Connecticut, the Constitution State, has always been guided by good leadership and good laws. When it comes to our broken contracting process, now is the time for both.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who took office pledging to make ethics her top priority, has boosted the State Ethics Commission's budget by about $200,000 - roughly 20 percent - allowing the agency to hire two more employees and upgrade its computers.

"It is not enough simply to talk about ethics reform," Rell said Thursday. "These funds will provide the ethics commission with the tangible tools it needs to do its job properly."

Rell was responding to a request from the commission's executive director, Alan Plofsky, for help meeting an expanded workload. One reason for the extra work: On her first day in office, Rell ordered all state employees involved in the awarding of state contracts to file statements of their financial interests with the commission to prevent conflicts of interest.

State contracts have come under intense scrutiny as part of a federal criminal investigation that started during the administration of former Gov. John G. Rowland. Rowland's former deputy chief of staff, Lawrence Alibozek, pleaded guilty last year to criminal charges in what federal prosecutors called a conspiracy to steer state contracts. The FBI has been investigating contracts awarded to Tomasso Brothers Inc., a New Britain-based contractor that built a juvenile prison in Middletown, among other projects. Rowland resigned, effective July 1, in the midst of an impeachment inquiry into his own ethics lapses.

While in office, Rowland's administration often clashed with Plofsky, coming under scrutiny as far back as 1997 during a controversy when Rowland received upgraded concert tickets at a Hartford music venue.

By contrast, Rell has reached out to the commission at the start of her administration.

Only two weeks after Rell took office, Plofsky sent her a congratulatory letter that also sought additional money.

"Given the commission's unprecedented work levels, particularly in the area of investigations and prosecutions, and given your mandate for increased ethics training and disclosure, we believe implementation of this budget is absolutely essential," Plofsky wrote to Rell.

But Senate Republican leader Louis DeLuca questioned whether the commission needed more workers, saying that some employees leave early and are often unavailable during work hours.

"He claims he's overloaded," DeLuca said, but "not everyone there works a full day. They're not meant to be part-time. I probably would not agree that Mr. Plofsky is overworked."

The salaries of the two new employees will be determined later by the commission. Up to $22,000 will be set aside to improve the agency's electronic filing system for lobbyists, who must file reports with the commission.

The money will be transferred among existing accounts in the state's $14.3 billion annual budget, and the amounts are small enough that the moves do not require approval by the full legislature. Compared to massive agencies with thousands of employees, such as the Department of Transportation, the ethics commission ranks among the state's smallest agencies.

A top Interior Department official responsible for granting federal recognition to the Kent-based Schaghticoke Tribal Nation has abruptly resigned.

But the pending Sept. 10 departure of Aurene Martin is unrelated to any recognition decisions or other problems at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, spokesman Dan Dubray said.

"I don't think there is anything at all to that," DuBray said. Martin, who was in charge of recognition decisions, was on vacation Friday. The department would not release her resignation letter.

On Friday, a website that closely follows tribal issues, Indianz.com, described the departure of Martin and other aides as a possible housecleaning of employees not loyal to BIA Director David Anderson.

Dubray said this was false. The Indianz.com report "names me as someone who was pushed out," said Dubray, who was recently promoted to a new communications job. "That makes it absurd on its face."

BIA critics in Connecticut were uncertain what the change might mean, particularly because Anderson has had nothing to do with recognition issues. After taking over the BIA job this year, Anderson said he would recuse himself from recognition decisions because of his close relationship with the gambling industry.

Martin's ruling that granted recognition to the Schaghticokes reversed a preliminary BIA ruling. The tribe's foes in Connecticut say there is no explanation for the reversal and that the bureau ignored its own rules when it recognized the tribe. The state and the town of Kent are appealing the decision before a federal board.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said there was "zero chance" that Martin's departure was unrelated to the decision to recognize the Schaghticokes. "The top tier management has deserted the ship, virtually on the eve of the election," Blumenthal said. "I'm tempted to say that the BIA is now truly dysfunctional and in total chaos. The question is who is in charge."

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer,  4:29 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Golden Hill Paugussetts' plans for a Connecticut casino and thousands of acres of land claims were dealt a major setback Monday, as the Bureau of Indian Affairs rejected their bid for federal recognition for a second time.

The Paugussetts have been struggling to gain recognition since 1982. They were rejected by the BIA in 1996, but got a second chance when the Interior Board of Indian Appeals reviewed the decision and sent it back to the BIA for reconsideration, launching a second full review of the petition.

"The Golden Hill Paugussett have failed at every step in the process - despite numerous opportunities - to prove its case," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said.  "The group does not descend from a historical Indian tribe, it has not continuously existed as a distinct community, and it has not continuously exercised political authority or influence over its members."

In order to become recognized a tribe must satisfy seven criteria, proving it has been active as a community and a political unit, and that the members descended directly from a historical Indian tribe.  The Paugussetts are recognized by the state and have about 330 members and reservation land in Trumbull and Colchester. Messages seeking comment were left Monday with Paugussett Chief Quiet Hawk.

In the past 15 years the Paugussetts filed claims on more than 700,000 acres of land, setting off a flurry of legal challenges. And in 1993, then-tribal leader Moonface Bear, also known as Kenneth Piper, was the central figure in 10-week armed standoff between state police and the tribe, for selling untaxed cigarettes on its Colchester reservation.

The land claims, which stretched from Middletown to Wilton, and from Greenwich through lower Westchester County in New York, were dropped as the BIA process continued, but could have been revived if they received federal recognition.  Chief Quiet Hawk has said the tribe spent "a few million dollars" on the recognition bid. The group has received backing from wealthy New York investor Thomas C. Wilmot Sr., chairman of the board of shopping mall developer Wilmorite Inc.

State lawmakers and members of Congress have been openly opposed to the Paugussetts' bid, and last week suggested that this decision would be a test of the BIA's credibility.  The agency is under fire for its last two decisions granting recognition to Connecticut tribes. And both cases
have been appealed by the state to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals. In both instances, the BIA issued preliminary determinations against recognition, and then later approved the tribes in the final decision.

The BIA issued its first preliminary ruling against the Paugussetts in May 1995, made a final negative ruling in September 1996. The tribe appealed to the IBIA, which referred the case back to the BIA. Michael J. Anderson, deputy assistant secretary for Indian affairs at the time, ruled the application deserved a new review. Then in January 2003, the BIA issued a preliminary ruling against the new petition.

Chief Quiet Hawk said last week that he hoped the group has done enough research to address the gap in the documentation of the group's political and social existence during the 1800s and early 1900s.  Tribes seek federal recognition to establish their sovereignty and receive federal
funding for education, housing and health care. It also is the first step toward opening a gaming facility.

The decision leaves Connecticut with four federally recognized tribes.  The Mashantucket Pequots and the Mohegans, both in eastern Connecticut, operate two of the most successful casinos in the world. The Eastern Pequots, also based in eastern Connecticut, received recognition in June
2002, and the Schaghticokes were granted recognition in late January.

"The recognition process is no longer seeking to right a wrong - the exploitation of Native Americans on this continent by the early settlers. It is now about a                    multibillion-dollar industry called gambling," say members of the Coggswell family in documents filed recently with the U.S. Department of the Interior. The                    Coggswells are Schaghticokes whose lineage dates to the origins of the tribe in western and southern Connecticut.

In their appeal challenging the Bureau of Indian Affairs' ruling on the Kent-based Schaghticokes, the Coggswells argue that the process "has provided another way for
non-Indians who are predominately businessmen [and] women to capitalize and control a benefit that was initially intended for Indians."  Schaghticoke Tribal Nation leaders did not return calls requesting comment.

This relationship among investors, lobbyists and Indian tribes, frequently shrouded in secrecy, has attracted the attention of Congress and Interior Department           investigators. On Wednesday, the House Committee on Government Reform will examine the BIA decisions to recognize the Schaghticokes and another Connecticut
tribe, the Eastern Pequots. Meanwhile, the Interior Department's inspector general is continuing a probe into the Schaghticoke ruling and a controversial BIA memorandum that outlined a strategy for skirting rules in order to grant the tribe recognition.

The state of Connecticut, fearing more casinos, has appealed the Eastern Pequot ruling. The state's appeal of the Schaghticoke decision is expected to be filed Wednesday, the same day as the Washington hearing.  The Schaghticoke Tribal Nation has sought federal recognition for decades. But since the mid-1990s - when Subway Restaurants founder Fred DeLuca and a secretive partnership in Middletown called the Eastlander Group started backing the tribe - questions have multiplied about the investors' influence over the tribe and how they stand to gain from a casino the tribe hopes to build.

DeLuca and Eastlander's Davide Pugliares and Joseph Mazzotta did not respond to requests for comment.  Pugliares and Mazzotta were partners with Joseph D. Mazzotta and others in a Hartford bar during the 1990s. Police are still investigating the execution-style slaying of Joseph D. Mazzotta a year ago, but have found no link between the investment in the tribe and his death.

Federal regulations require detailed disclosure about financial relationships between tribes and investors once a casino project is proposed, but not before a tribe is
recognized. Increasingly, however, investors are approaching tribes and offering millions of dollars in return for what could amount to a coveted gambling license, because federally recognized tribes may run casinos in states that allow gambling.

Thomas Wilmot, a New York real estate and shopping center developer who is backing the Golden Hill Paugussetts, said it costs about $1 million a year or more to finance a tribe seeking federal recognition.  "We got into this and we were hopeful that we would be able to make some money," Wilmot said. But, he added, in the eight years he has been involved with the Paugussetts - who hope to receive a recognition decision in June - "a camaraderie" with the tribe also has evolved.

Spending $1 million a year to help a tribe win recognition could be considered a bargain. A license to open a casino in Illinois recently went for more than $500 million. An
Indian casino located near an urban area is a guaranteed moneymaker; a single slot machine in a casino with thousands of them can earn well over $300 a day in profit.

"It is just out of hand," said Truman Coggswell, who is not a member of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation but has been designated by the BIA as an "unenrolled tribal community member" descending from the historic tribe.  "Any benefit that there is should go to the Indians," Coggswell said. "It appears that it is the gambling interests that are the ones at the forefront pushing these tribes into the arena."

Mark Van Norman, executive director of the National Indian Gaming Association and a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, said linking recognition
and casinos was "a misnomer." Many of these tribes have been working for decades for recognition, he said. The real problem is the time the government takes to review
and act on recognition petitions from tribes.  "It is a little bit of a red herring," Van Norman said. "What really needs to happen is that some resources need to be put in the process" to make it move more quickly.

But with Congress now probing the relationship between high-priced lobbyists and wealthy casino-owning tribes, it is the shadowy world of gambling investors that is getting
new attention - not the BIA's need for more resources.  "The entire financial relationship between any investors and groups during the recognition process, all that has to be
disclosed," said Wayne Smith, a former top BIA official who will testify before the House Committee on Government Reform Wednesday, along with leaders of the Schaghticokes and the Eastern Pequots, administration officials, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, casino critic Jeff Benedict and others.

Smith was ousted from the BIA last year because of his connection to an associate who allegedly attempted to extort money from Indian tribes. Smith contends he was
forced out by the White House for refusing to reverse decisions against tribal gambling. A Lakota Sioux, Smith now works as a consultant for tribes seeking to open        casinos.

"Once you have a potential for a casino, you have the potential for a tremendous amount of money," Smith said.  "These lobbyists [working for tribes], they are all tied to the Bush administration. They aren't people who said, `I want to help American Indians.'"  Federal recognition is based on whether a tribe meets seven detailed criteria intended to prove that it has existed as a distinct and continuous community since its first contact with outsiders.  Critics, however, say an increasing reliance on lawyers,
lobbyists and political insiders has tainted the process.

The Schaghticokes, who acknowledge they have poured millions of dollars into their recognition petition, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbyists, including self-described Republican "influence peddler" Paul Manafort. Manafort, a Connecticut native who has built a career out of providing access to Washington power brokers, could not be reached for comment.

The Eastern Pequots, meanwhile, are backed by Southport golf course developer David Rosow and Florida industrialist and yachtsman William Koch. That tribe spent           nearly $500,000 to hire its own Republican insider, Ron Kaufman, to shepherd its case through the federal bureaucracy. Kaufman has close ties to the White House, but little background in Indian issues.  Rosow and Kaufman did not return calls requesting comment. Through a spokesman, Koch declined to comment. 

Federal prosecutors investigating corruption in former Gov. John G. Rowland's administration have indicated they'll appeal a recent court ruling blocking them from subpoenaing Rowland's one-time legal adviser.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld Rowland's argument that his conversations with Anne George are protected by attorney-client privilege.

Prosecutors this week asked the court to give them more time to file for a rehearing. A three-judge panel handed Rowland his victory last week. Prosecutors are expected to seek a rehearing before five judges.

George was legal counsel from 2000 to 2003, a time when Rowland accepted gifts from state contractors. Her testimony could provide insight into the inner workings of the Rowland administration.

The outcome of the case could have national implications for the relationship between government officials and their attorneys. Other courts have held that privilege issues are outweighed by criminal grand jury investigations.

Neither attorney Ross Garber, who argued the case for Rowland, nor the U.S. Attorney's office, has commented on the matter because it's under seal. 

Anne George, who served as legal counsel for the governor's office from 2000 to 2003, had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating contract steering in the Rowland administration. Rowland, citing attorney-client privilege, had argued that George cannot be forced to testify.  George was Rowland's top legal adviser at a time when he accepted thousands of dollars in cigars and champagne from a state contractor. During her tenure, officials negotiated many of the deals now being scrutinized in the contract-steering probe. Rowland, who resigned July 1, is a subject of that investigation.

The decision was handed down last week, the court clerk's office said. The case is sealed.

Ross Garber, who argued the matter but has since left the governor's office, declined comment Tuesday. The governor's office also declined to comment. A message was left for George's attorney.  It's now up to federal prosecutors to decide whether to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court has never addressed whether government attorneys can be forced to testify.

The landmark case to date was decided in 1999, when a federal appeals court ruled that Clinton counsel Bruce Lindsey had to testify before the Monica Lewinsky grand jury.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office had no comment on the case.  Prosecutors rarely subpoena the attorneys of their criminal subjects. Doing so requires approval from the highest levels at the Justice Department in Washington.  Forcing government attorneys to testify against their bosses is even more uncommon.