Investigation Clears

Rell’s Ethics Counsel

HARTFORD (AP) — An investigation has cleared Governor M. Jodi Rell’s ethics counsel of an alleged conflict of interest involving the two state jobs she holds.

Rell’s counsel, Rachel Rubin, was accused of violating the state ethics code in a complaint filed in April by Hartford attorney and Democrat James Kardaras, who questioned whether Rubin could hold both jobs.

In addition to serving as the Republican governor’s ethics counsel, Rubin is director of compliance for the University of Connecticut, a part-time position.

An investigation of the matter ended Friday when a state lawyer concluded in a report that Rubin has not broken ethics rules by working the two jobs. Rubin released the report Tuesday.

The lawyer, Mary E. Schwind, director of the state Freedom of Information Commission’s legal division, was appointed as a special counsel for the new Office of State Ethics that opened July 1 as the result of ethics reform legislation.

In his complaint, Kardaras — a 2004 candidate for the state House of Representatives — said Rubin’s “dual employment ... creates an inherent and substantial conflict of interest for herself and the office of the governor.”

In her report, Schwind said Kardaras’ argument was “hypothetical, speculative and based on erroneous assumptions.”

Kardaras filed his complaint with the old State Ethics Commission at a time when state lawmakers were writing, with Rubin’s help, the ethics reform legislation that would end the commission’s existence.

Schwind began her investigation only two weeks ago, when Mitchell Pearlman, executive director of the state FOI Commission, began serving as interim director of the new ethics office and swore in Schwind as special counsel.

Rubin declined to comment on the investigation.

Rell’s office praised the findings.

“This was clearly a frivolous charge and seemed to be politically motivated,” said Rell’s spokesman, Dennis Schain.

Kardaras could not be reached for comment.

He had alleged that Rubin, as ethics counsel to the governor, could inappropriately influence decisionmaking at government agencies charged with regulating the conduct of UConn employees.

Schwind found that Rubin had no authority to influence agencies’ decisionmaking and did not derive any financial interest from her dual roles, other than her UConn salary.