Ethics board’s closed deliberations illegal, FOIC says

But $15,000 fine levied against Coventry woman left standing

By Alex Wood
Journal Inquirer

Published: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:18 AM EST

The state ethics board violated Connecticut’s open meetings law when it went behind closed doors a year ago to deliberate ethics charges against a Coventry woman who had worked at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, the state Freedom of Information Commission ruled Friday.

But the commission declined to void the actions taken by the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board at the closed meeting on Jan. 12, 2010.

The ethics board concluded during the closed session that the former Health Center employee, Priscilla Dickman, had violated the state ethics code by using state time and resources, such as e-mail, to run jewelry and travel businesses. It fined her $15,000. Dickman is appealing the decision to New Britain Superior Court.

A Journal Inquirer reporter had filed the complaint with the FOI Commission and argued Friday that the ethics board’s action should be voided to make the board aware “that a violation of the Freedom of Information Act can have consequences.”

But the three members of the FOI Commission who were present at Friday’s special meeting — rescheduled from Wednesday because of bad weather — unanimously approved a decision proposed by the commission’s hearing officer, rejecting nullification of the ethics board’s action.

“The commission does not believe that justice would be served by the consideration of such a remedy in this case, which involved a long, difficult, and conscientious hearing into the Dickman matter,” the decision says.

The ethics board’s hearing on the charges against Dickman occupied a total of eight scattered days, between September 2009 and January 2010.

Most of the hearing was open to the public and was broadcast by the Connecticut Network, or CT-N. But the ethics board, which performs a role roughly comparable to that of a jury in such hearings, went behind closed doors twice: to discuss a procedural issue on the hearing’s first day and to conduct its deliberations at the end of the hearing.

The JI reporter complained to the FOI Commission about both closed sessions. The commission had previously ruled that the closed session on the first day of the ethics hearing was illegal. The ethics board is appealing that ruling to New Britain Superior Court.

A semi-retired Superior Court judge, known as a “judge trial referee,” is assigned to preside over ethics board hearings.

On Jan. 12, 2010, the final day of the Dickman hearing, there was a discussion of whether the ethics board’s deliberations should be open or closed to the public.

A transcript of the hearing shows that Dickman’s lawyer, John Geida, argued that the deliberations should be open. But state Ethics Enforcement Officer Thomas K. Jones said, “The board should be able to deliberate in the manner that it deems most appropriate,” whether that be in public or in private.

Barbara E. Housen, who is the board’s general counsel and a former staff lawyer at the FOI Commission, told the board that “these proceedings are not governed by the Freedom of Information Act.”

G. Kenneth Bernhard, who was then chairman of the ethics board, expressed the view that closed deliberations would be in the best interests of the parties and the public. “I think it adds to the fair and open exchange of information and points of view with the members if we’re not being held accountable for every statement and observation to the public,” he said.

Judge James G. Kenefick Jr., who was presiding over the hearing, then said, “It’s my opinion that the board may deliberate in private, and they do so starting now. So the public portion of the hearing is closed.”

During the subsequent case before the FOI Commission, Housen argued that the judge’s ruling left the ethics board no choice but to deliberate behind closed doors.

But the FOI Commission ruled that, while Kenefick approved of the ethics board deliberating in private, he didn’t direct or instruct the board to do so. Moreover, the commission said, Kenefick had indicated that his role ended when the board began its deliberations.

Victor R. Perpetua, a senior staff lawyer at the FOI Commission, presided over the hearing in the JI’s complaint last August and wrote the decision ultimately adopted by the commission

HOPEFULLY THE SUN WILL ALSO SET ON GOVERNOR RELL'S LEGACY-OFFICE OF STATE ETHICS AND THE CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD

JANUARY 4, 2011

GOVENOR RELL SEEMS TO HAVE AMNESIA AS TO WHAT IS THE MEANING OF ETHICS-

A FAILED ATTEMPT AT CHANGE……..and she seems to not have any interest in correcting the mishaps of her newly created Office of State Ethics……Rell failed to respond since 2007 to request that she review the questionable activity of this Ethics office and its Board (Citizens’ Ethics Advisory Board)…… another dark period in Connecticuts’ history……….no legacy at all Jodi.

Governor Jodi Rell’s real legacy was to be the change she made for Connecticut by redefining the Office of State Ethics. That office with all the new statutes and regulations was to be the corner stone for the country to emulate as states began to revisit their own ethics divisions. Many states were looking to Connecticut to review this legacy of Governor Rell and begin to adopt these well publicized changes in their own back yards. Perhaps we all had better put the breaks on and wait to see what Connecticuts’ Governor is leaving behind as her legacy before adopting it in other states.
I attended the Office of State Ethics five year anniversary. There was quite a build up and lots of talk of the upcoming five year event of this new and improved Office of State Ethics. Along with that there were all the bright yellow signs posted around the capitol, so, I certainly for one was dismayed Governor Rell was absent. Actually other than Senator Kissel, I saw no other legislators. Perhaps fifty people filled room 2C of the Legislative Office Building and maybe twenty of those folks were OSE employees. Ms.Bornhurst of the Citizens Ethics Advisory Board was the only board member present. Embarassing attention has been made to this office and the CEAB when the previous Chairman G.Kenneth Bernhard was forced to step down for giving political donations while holding office. He said he did not know and it was just a little mistake? If the Chairman does not know the rules then who should? Attorney John Geida, who represented me as the first respondent to have gone before this board for a trial has filed an appeal on a myriad of issues including the violation of Mr Bernhard having taking his seat on the board too early after his political career ended,in violation of the state statutes, the structure of this new body and the actions of the members of the OSE enforcement division in conducting their investigation. It seems now it is very difficult to fill the seats on the CEAB and everyone is scratching their heads as to why? I personally can not understand how could they have even begun to fill seats in 2005? How could they open up office and have begun to hold CEAB hearings on ethics violations if the CEAB board, OSE and Governor Rells’ office did not have a clue as to the most basic of questions-how to abide by the statues in filling the seats on this most important board in the first place? More importantly why has our Legislature not weighed in on the problem yet? Many commented they watched the CT.N coverage for many of the days it was televised.
Personally, I believe the embarrassment caused by the last very public hearing was enough to make anyone run for cover and not want to step up and be a part of what seemed like a three ring circus. There the CEAB sat as the judge and jury along with a prosecutor who seemed to redefine the statutes as he went along or as was required to make a conviction possibly result. I dare say anyone who had thought of sitting on the CEAB now would think twice for fear of tainting their name and reputation if they were to be associated with this office in its present state. Or at least until the Office of State Ethics, Governor Jodi Rell and the legislative body in Connecticut goes back to the drawing board and fix all the flaws with this new Ethics office and Citizens Ethics Advisory Board. I would think they surely must realize that manufacturing evidence to attempt a conviction is unethical, that not following the rules of evidentiary and civil procedures is against the statutes and laws of this state. But most importantly the Legislative body needs to realize that the OSE Enforcement Division does not even itself understand the role of its office yet or that of the board. What arrogance when in arguments to the judge, Ethics Enforcement Officer T.J Jones states “ I submit that as a matter of law that’s wrong, your honor. 1-81-A-3 is the provision of the code that says the board shall interpret the code, and when it interprets the code nobody appeals it. The board is the trier of fact in this case, it is bound by the law. That means they are the end all and be all until some other body tells them otherwise” . In hearing that recited from the prosecutor of the OSE clearly demonstrates that he and his office have a total lack of understanding of what their role is and what the role of the CEAB is to be. The arrogance to think anyone office in the state can deny one of their Constitutional rights is absurd!
Well maybe Governor Rell did not appear on the fifth anniversary, October 1, 2010 for Ethics Day Awareness at the LOB because she just did not want to get out of bed and face the facts that she and her office got it wrong again! That if anything she did not fix the problem with the Office of State Ethics when she came into office, she actually made it worse. Now with the opportunity and all their flaws visible to the public she has failed to do anything to correct it. Perhaps now that the results of this disastrous trial is now going before the Appeals Court the OSE will again undergo a transformation and this time for the better. They may get training in what the statutes mean, how to interpret the code and what their role is in the state. Someone should also remind this group, they work for us, the taxpayer, they are not self employed. This office is quick to point out as the Enforcement Officer stated in his presentation yesterday that the OSE was reorganized after the previous office was dismantled as a result of the Rowland scandal. Well, John Rowland paid his dues, I have heard him speak and he admits his errors, if the OSE had admitted theirs on the investigation into their case brought against me at least after Jones took my deposition on May 2009 we both could have saved the state a ton of money. But maybe this was meant to be. OSE is not functional if it is not functioning properly. Let us hope the legislature steps in and rights the ship. As Jones likes to say this ship has sailed, but unfortunately it has sailed off a cliff and Governor Rells’ legacy with it. Govenor Rell gets an “F” here for sure.
Priscilla

The Dickman Case: Blumenthal Breaks a Butterfly On The Wheel

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace.We seek not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; may your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" --Samuel Adams

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is the sort of Household Word who might sue death itself when, after a long life of litigation and writing media releases, the grim reaper finally comes for him. He surely has enough tricks up his sleeve to postpone the unfortunate incident for at least half a dozen years, perhaps more.

Ms. Pricilla Dickman’s case has been in litigation at least that long. She is both a whistle blower – the University of Connecticut’s Health Center being the institution whistled at – and the subject of Mr. Blumenthal’s attention these past few tortuous years. Mr. Blumenthal’s office defends both whistleblowers and state institutions. Sometimes when the two lock legal horns, conflicts of interest arise. If one tries to imagine a lawyer in a case involving two antagonistic parties who is charged with representing BOTH in a civil proceeding, a few difficulties will suggest themselves.

The latest turn in the 6 year old Dickman case involves an assistant attorney general who, having agreed to abide by a judgment made by the Commissioner of Worker’s Compensation that might have determined the Dickman case, told a judge trial referee that he never had the authority to settle the case.

In virtually every case Mr. Blumenthal touches, a settlement of some sort or other is arrange and the case is closed, sometimes after years of costly litigation. Blumenthal’s successor – either Republican Martha Dean or Democrat George Jepsen – very likely are hoping that the attorneys under Mr. Blumenthal’s charge are working laboriously to clear the decks of most of Mr. Blumenthal’s outstanding cases before either one of them arrives on the job to shoulder Mr. Blumenthal’s real legacy: In his last finance report, Mr. Blumenthal listed a backlog of 36,394 cases, which seems an imposing number.

Ms. Dickman – who is not one of those Big Tobacco tycoons or a greedy profit driven energy producer or a Wall Street flimflam artist one hears so much of in Mr. Blumenthal’s campaign ads for the U.S. senate – is one of them. A settlement arranged between the assistant attorney general, Ms. Dickman and other aggrieved parties could have placed Ms. Dickman on the “done” side of Mr. Blumenthal’s ledger -- had not the assistant attorney general, who consented to the compact that might have led to a settlement of Ms. Dickman’s justified complaints, not told the judge trial referee, after more than two months of participation in hammering out at a settlement agreeable to all parties, that he was not authorized to offer the settlement he had offered.

The judge expressed his dismay, and no wonder. This is not the sort of thing that judges familiar with the black letter law in settlement cases, “Audubon Parking Associates Ltd Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs,” appreciate hearing from an assistant attorney general laboring under Mr. Blumenthal’s direction.

Judges, as a rule, are no-nonsense, busy bees, many of them made considerably busier by Mr. Blumenthal’s penchant for suing, which accounts for some of the crushing backlog of cases mentioned in the attorney general's last finance report.

Apparently, the word has been circulated among lawyers. John Wolter, a managing partner at Updike, Kelly & Spellacy and a Jepsen supporter, remarked recently in story in Connecticut Law Tribune covering an upcoming debate between Dean and Jepsen, “A lot of times you’re dealing with assistant AGs, and you think you have a matter ready for resolution, but they don’t have the authority to settle then and there.”

Several years ago, Ms. Dickman, injured on her job, filed a claim to worker’s compensation for disability and what is called “reasonable accommodation,” which means that her employer would have to make accommodations for her so that she would not exacerbate her condition. After a two week review in 2005 she was awarded a State Retirement Disability and then a Permanent Full Disability dating back to April 2005. It is a considerable understatement to say that the accommodations were not made.

Ms. Dickman entered the public spotlight as a whistleblower in 1988, when present Sen. Joe Lieberman was attorney general. She claims retaliation against her began in earnest in 2004 when she reported fraud activity in her medical billing. And, of course, it did not help that Ms. Dickman, a union steward who had assisted others in their difficulties with her superiors, publicly testified in 2008 before the Labor and Public Employee’s Committee on SB 805, a measure providing additional protection for whistleblowers by establishing a Retaliation Adjudication Board within the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.

During her testimony, Ms. Dickman lamented that so few people were willing to come forward and speak in favor of SB 805. Testimony was not forthcoming because whistleblowers feared exposure to retribution and retaliation. Ms. Dickman testified, “I am certain that many here have heard of the subtle or outright abusive acts of retaliation that employees are subjected to when they come forward, report fraud or waste, especially at the state agency [where] they are employed.”

Naively, she had contacted the attorney general’s office. But, after her ordeal, she was convinced that this course led to a cul-de-sac:

“I thought that by contacting the Attorney General I would be following the proper course of action. How quickly I learned that is the wrong avenue and that there is little to no protection. In fact, a situation can be made worse by enlisting this office just by the nature of the relationship between state agencies and the duties of the Office of the Attorney General… The Attorney General’s Office represents and defends the employer. The employer is empowered by the fact that they are provided sovereign immunity and will be defended by the Attorney General. It is as though the fox is sent out to guard the chicken coop.”

Commissioned to handle whistleblower information supplied to the attorney general’s office by state employees, Ms. Dickman pointed out in her testimony, the attorney general’s office is also statutorily bound to represent state employers:

“Therefore it is virtually impossible to think that the representative from that office can and will be working to protect the employee at risk. That office can not be unbiased in its actions since it is enlisted to first protect the employer from lawsuits and the state from a loss of revenue, especially if that individual is stating that retaliatory actions have been taken against them for engaging during the process in whistleblower actions for fraud, activity of a protected class such as workers compensation claims or the filing of a CHRO complaint.”

Others have pointed out the structural problems involved when the attorney general’s office represents both whistleblowers in state agencies and the agencies that have engaged in possible unethical or illegal behavior. But walking away from settlements is particularly egregious behavior. Since virtually every legal action undertaken by the attorney general’s office ends in a legally enforced or negotiated settlement, no business or state agency can any longer rely on the word of Mr. Blumenthal’s attorneys if they are willing to abrogate settlements entered into by attorneys general, judges and aggrieved parties.

Ethics panel met illegally: FOI Commission

Monday, September 27, 2010

 

Alex

The Journal Inquirer published the following on Friday, September 24, 2010.

Ethics panel met illegally: FOI Commission
By Alex Wood
Journal Inquirer
The state ethics board violated Connecticut’s open meeting laws when it convened behind closed doors to discuss a procedural issue during last year’s hearing on allegations that Priscilla Dickman of Coventry violated the state ethics code, the Freedom of Information Commission ruled Wednesday.
By a unanimous voice vote, the commission adopted a proposed decision by one of its members, Sherman D. London, who presided over a hearing in the case last Dec. 30.
The decision came in response to a complaint by a Journal Inquirer reporter about the closed session of the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board, which occurred on the first day of the Dickman hearing, Sept. 11, 2009, in the same building where the FOI Commission met Wednesday.
The commission, the ethics board, and several other state agencies are housed in a building on Trinity Street in Hartford, facing the east side of the state Capitol.
The reporter requested no penalties against the ethics board, and the commission imposed none. But it did order the board to post minutes of the closed session, which lasted about 11 minutes.
The commission found that the closed session violated both the Freedom of Information Act and the provision of the state ethics code under which the Dickman hearing was held, which requires all such hearings to be open.
The ethics board, which is part of the Office of State Ethics, can appeal the decision to Superior Court.
The board has vigorously litigated the freedom-of-information case so far. It submitted an 11-page brief at the Dec. 30 hearing. And Barbara E. Housen, general counsel of the Office of State Ethics, read an additional eight-page legal argument to the commission at Wednesday’s meeting.
Housen argued that London’s proposed decision conflicted with provisions of the ethics code. She also stressed the unusual character of ethics board hearings, in which a semi-retired Superior Court judge presides while the board members fulfill a role comparable to that of a jury.
“This unique and new ethics hearing model, where a Superior Court judge presides, simply does not neatly fit the typical ‘meeting’ definition under the FOI Act,” she said.
After a number of days of hearings, the ethics board concluded in January that Dickman had violated the ethics code by running jewelry and travel businesses while working as a medical technologist at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington. It found that she used state time and resources, such as e-mail, in the operation of the businesses.
The board fined Dickman $15,000. She is appealing the decision in New Britain Superior Court.
The board also met behind closed doors to deliberate at the end of the Dickman hearing. The Journal Inquirer reporter has filed a second complaint with the FOI Commission over that closed session. A hearing on the complaint is scheduled for Tuesday.
In addition, Dickman is raising the issue of the closed deliberations in her court appeal of the ethics board’s action.

Selective Prosecution?

Saturday, January 9, 2010

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Selective Prosecution
By Priscilla C. Dickman

11/30/09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To The Editor:

I appreciate Dean Pagani’s column, “Swatting At Ethical Flies” (Hartford Business Journal, Nov. 9). The issue here is whether the Office of State Ethics SHOULD use the statute to continue to investigate an employee, such as myself, who for 28 years had excellent evaluations and was never reprimanded for the actions I am accused of. The question must be: Why would the Office of State Ethics (OSE), two years after my retirement, decide to investigate me on this supposed violation of OSE statute?

In 2005, after an “anonymous complaint” was forwarded to my directors and supervisor, I was twice investigated with no disciplinary action found necessary. The reason: I did not violate a policy, statute or act in any manner in comparison to the other 4,000 University of Connecticut Health Center employees, except that I was found to have used my e-mail account on my break in the most limited of time and my cell phone less than two to 10 minutes per day in general on breaks and lunch.

State documents demonstrate that I utilized the state’s telephone for personal use minimally as compared with other state employees. The documents proved personal telephone usage by other state employees who were not disciplined was far greater compared with my usage. That information should have raised red flags, alerting officials that selective prosecution was taking place. A real investigation should have been undertaken for internal discipline against those individuals abusing the state’s e-mail system and telephones on behalf of taxpayers.

Yes, I am afraid I do see selective prosecution by many state agencies who participated and continue to participate in their investigation of me, particularly because during the initial OSE probable cause hearing, the state labor relations director clarified that no wrong-doing was found during a previous investigation prompted by an “anonymous tip.” This earlier investigation revealed that my usage of e-mails and state telephones was minimal compared with other state workers, which is the reason that no action was needed to be taken against me. [Dickmans’ 78 kilobytes of usage as a full-time employee vs. up to 1,461 kilobytes by part-time and full-time employees in the same department Dickman worked in. This evidence was provided by health center’s IT department.]

Notably, other state employees identified for excessively abusing state e-mail and telephone systems for personal purposes by the Connecticut Auditors of Public Accounts have not been disciplined. Notably, Feliciano Dias, my supervisor of 28 years, was the individual found to have violated state policies for personal use in excess of one hour per day, according to a January 2009 letter from the attorney general’s office. However, Dias was not required to make restitution nor disciplined, but rather was “counseled regarding his Internet usage.”

I do believe I am being selectively prosecuted and the citizens of the state need to contact their legislatures and ask why the Office of State Ethics spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this issue concerning a retired state employee? I contend one merely needs to look at my federal/civil suit against the state and it will be evident.

The citizens need to ask whether the state’s actions are in retaliation because I filed a Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities complaint on the Americans with Disabilities Act (2005) for failure to accommodate me by my employer, the University of Connecticut Health Center, which resulted in a finding in my favor in October 2006.

Note that after working 28 years and earning my state retirement pension, I retired, accepting a reduced state pension and giving back to the state — and taxpayers — 2,100 hours of earned sick leave, valued at $28,000.

I would hope the independent investigation of the whistle blower retaliation act finally moves the legislature to rewrite the much-needed Whistle Blower Retaliation Legislation.

In addition, lawmakers need to review the Office of State Ethics’ actions since June 2007. When public officials are misled, as they have been in my instance, the state must and should look into criminal actions or ethical actions taken against the individuals responsible. The citizens deserve to get their wasted tax dollars back for the actions engaged in here.

Embattled ex-UC worker seeks lawsuit

Thursday, April 8, 2010

MIKE SAVINO
Published: March 2, 2010
Embattled ex-UC worker seeks lawsuit Chronicle Staff WriterHARTFORD - A Coventry woman and former University of Connecticut Health Center Employee will be looking for permission Wednesday to sue the state for wrongful prosecution over an allegation of worker's compensation fraud.Priscilla Dickman and her attorney, John Geida, will appear before the state legislature's joint judiciary committee as they seek to file the suit against the state for wrongful prosecution. Dickman had been charged with worker's compensation fraud, but the charge was dismissed during an appearance in Hartford Superior Court last week.The Office of the Claims Commissioner dismissed a suit filed by Dickman and Geida and the judiciary committee will examine a proposed resolution to confirm the dismissal during a public hearing Wednesday. "That's just the way the statute goes," Geida said about the dismissal, adding the claims commissioner typically denies all suits against the state,leaving decisions in the hands of the judiciary committee. Dickman had been facing a fraud charge in regard to a worker's compensation claim while she worked at the health center as a medical technologist. Dickman said she suffered a back injury while working in October 1979 and claimed the injury left was permanent and left her disabled.According to a decision by the state Worker's Compensation Commission in 2006, the health center accepted the claim but denied " the extent of the injury or disability as claimed by" Dickman.The health center had questioned the validity of documents provided by Dickman's doctor, but the doctor said Dickman never intended to file a fraudulent claim.Her doctor said Dickman did complete a portion of the form for timeliness reasons and added Dickman always planned to remain at work.In the 2006 decision, the WCC ultimately awarded Dickman disability payments from the timeof the injury through November 2005, when she retired from the health center.Geida noted the decision was a sign the state never had a case for worker's compensation fraud against Dickman, calling the case fraudulent, although she still faces other charges.According to the state Department of Justice's web site, she is due in Hartford Superior Court March 30 for four counts of second- degree forgery.She has also appealed a guilty verdict for a charge of third-degree forgery in Rockville Superior Court in 2008.Meanwhile, Dickman is also facing a $15,000 fine from the state Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board for charges she used state time and resources to operate businesses while working at the health center. Dickman has denied the charges, claiming the health center had no policies regarding such activity at the time and also accused the state of manufacturing evidence.Geida said he filed an appeal last Friday.


Copyright 2010 The Chronicle Printing Company. All Rights Reserved




--
Mike Savino