By Carol Platt Liebau
Connecticut’s politics were jolted recently by the dramatic withdrawal of former New Britain mayor Erin Stewart from the governor’s race. Her departure followed an investigative report documenting more than $200,000 in purchases charged to a city-issued credit card for expenses unrelated to city business.
Stewart has pledged to take responsibility for any mistakes she’s made, and that’s as it should be. If any laws were broken, consequences should follow. But amid the predictable outrage, it’s worth recalling the observation once made by the late Washington Post journalist Michael Kinsley: the real scandal in politics isn’t what’s illegal. It’s what’s legal.
That distinction matters for taxpayers across Connecticut, including in communities like New Canaan and Greenwich, who ultimately underwrite the cost of government. Through grants, education funding, bonding, pension obligations, and infrastructure spending, we all share in both the burden and the long-term consequences of decisions made elsewhere.
And while headline scandals draw attention, they often obscure a more persistent problem. Much of what undermines public confidence in government is not illegal at all. It is embedded in practices that operate comfortably within the law, but would shock most taxpayers if they were more widely understood.
Consider a few examples.
Under Connecticut’s system of “union release time,” some public employees receive taxpayer-funded salaries while working on union business. In effect, taxpayers subsidize a government-funded special interest.
State pension formulas include overtime pay. This creates an incentive for some employees to increase their earnings significantly in their final years of service, thereby locking in higher pension benefits that taxpayers must fund for decades.
Public university employees can retain taxpayer-funded pensions despite credible allegations of serious misconduct or harassment, so long as they resign before termination and avoid criminal conviction. An example includes a UConn music professor accused of touching children and sitting naked with young people in a hot tub. That conduct that would normally disqualify anyone individual from public employment, yet it didn’t preclude him from collecting his state pension. For most taxpayers, that disconnect between conduct and consequence is difficult to justify.
And in Connecticut, when the terms of a state labor contract conflict with statute, the contract can prevail. This reflects how much governing authority has been ceded through collective bargaining, often with little public awareness.
Procurement practices raise similar concerns. Connecticut has a long history of relying on no-bid or politically connected contracts. Even when these arrangements comply with the law, they raise legitimate questions about fairness, transparency, and public trust. When public dollars are involved, the appearance of favoritism can be almost as corrosive as the reality.
Transparency itself is too often more promise than practice. Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to respond to records requests “promptly.” In reality, agencies can delay responses, produce documents selectively, and invoke broad exemptions. Filing a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission can take months or longer to resolve, and by the time a determination is made, public attention has often moved on. Delay, in effect, becomes denial.
None of this is accidental. It reflects a system that frequently operates within the letter of the law while turning a blind eye to its spirit. And over time, the gap between what is legal and what is right erodes public confidence in government.
The answer is not episodic outrage. It is structural reform.
First, every state agency and municipality should be required to publish government purchasing card statements online, in searchable form, on a regular basis. Taxpayers shouldn’t to file formal requests to determine how their money is being spent. Transparency should be routine, not reactive.
Second, any nongovernmental organization receiving state funds should be required to disclose detailed financial information, including audited statements, executive compensation, and vendor payments. Public money should come with a clear expectation of public accountability.
Third, Connecticut should revisit the practice of allowing labor agreements to override statutory law. This arrangement has far-reaching implications, yet it remains poorly understood by many citizens whose interests are directly affected by it.
These aren’t radical proposals. They’re baseline expectations of transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship. They do not require partisan agreement so much as a shared commitment to fairness and good governance.
If Connecticut is to remain a place where families and businesses choose to stay, it isn’t enough to punish what is illegal. We also have to confront what’s perfectly legal, but plainly wrong.
Carol Platt Liebau is President of Yankee Institute, a Connecticut-based public policy organization advancing practical solutions to keep our state affordable, livable, and workable. Learn more at YankeeInstitute.org.
