State Elections
Enforcement Commission
At a Glance
WILLIAM R. SOKOLOWSKI, Chairman
Stephen F. Cashman, Vice Chairman
Jeffrey B. Garfield, Executive
Director & General Counsel
Albert P. Lenge, Managing Director & Commission
Attorney
Gregory Zepka, Director of Disclosure & Public
Information
Established – 1974
Statutory authority – CGS Sections 9-7A, 9-7B
Central
office –
20 Trinity Street, Suite 101,
Hartford,
CT 06106
Number of
employees
– 11
Recurring
operating expenses - $785,596
Mission
To improve and maintain the
confidence of the people of Connecticut in the electoral process and the
officials involved in that process.
Statutory
Responsibility
To enforce provisions of state election laws pertaining to
elections, primaries and referenda. The
Commission is charged with the specific responsibility to conduct
investigations of election complaints, review campaign finance statements filed
by candidates, political parties and political committees, issue advisory
opinions concerning requirements of the campaign finance laws and suggest
revisions to the election laws to the Connecticut General Assembly.
Improvements/Achievements
2003-04
Investigations
and Enforcement. The Commission
completed investigations of 193 complaints (cases), including referrals from
the Secretary of the State. The
Commission’s turnover time for resolving cases averaged 79 days, 27 days more
than last fiscal year. Enforcement
efforts continued to be strong, yet reasonable. The Commission collected $108,215 in civil penalties and
forfeitures for violations of election laws, which were deposited in the
State’s General Fund.
Audits. During the year the two Commission audit staff
completed a compliance review of campaign financing of the 2001 municipal
campaigns, and reviewed each report filed every committee in 1/3 of the
towns. A comprehensive report was
issued. In addition, the staff made
significant progress towards completion of a compliance review of the 2002
campaign financing of General Assembly campaigns.
Absentee
Voting Reform Pilot Program.
Pursuant to Public Act 03-227, the Commission implemented a pilot
program in three municipalities to improve procedures for absentee voting to
protect against fraud and abuse. The
towns of West Haven, Winsted and Kent volunteered to participate. The Commission staff worked cooperatively
with the election officials in those towns, and conducted meetings with an
established advisory committee to implement details for the program. Surveys were taken after the election to evaluate
the success of the program, and a lengthy evaluation report was prepared by the
Commission and published it on its website.
Legislative
efforts. The Commission
submitted various proposals for revising election laws to the General Assembly
during the regular session in 2004.
Based upon the overwhelmingly positive evaluation of the absentee voting
pilot program, the Commission recommended that the 2004 General Assembly enact
these procedures into law. The absentee
voting reform bill was approved by the GAE Committee, but not by the
Appropriations Committee. The
Commission also recommended a variety of changes to the campaign finance laws
that were enacted in PA 04-91. Those
included the strengthening of ban on personal use of campaign funds and
establishing more accountability for credit card usage by candidates and
committees. Legislation to reform the
laws regulating PAC and lobbyist contributions was also a Commission priority,
but these measures were not approved.
The Commission sought legislation to be designated as the forum for
determination of complaints filed under the federal legislation entitled “Help
America Vote Act of 2002”. This was
enacted in PA 04-74. The Commission
also provided input and assistance on a variety of other election-related
legislation during the 2004 session.
Pilot
Program for Use of Electronic Voting Machines. Pursuant to PA 03-07, the Commission
completed a survey of the election officials reactions to the use of electronic
voting machines in the eight pilot towns selected by the Secretary of the
State. The Commission collaborated with
the Secretary of the state to produce the report required to be submitted to
the General Assembly that evaluated the pilot program.
Public
Information and Education. Staff
revised agency publications explaining campaign finance requirements for
municipal candidates, political action committees and referenda, and these were
distributed and published on its website.
Staff conducted many workshops and seminars for campaign treasurers,
candidates and groups involved in the campaign financing of political
campaigns.
Strategic Planning
·
To
resolve complaints swiftly and reduce need for full administrative hearings
·
To
promulgate regulations establishing an expedited review procedure for
complaints filed under the federal Help America Vote of 2002.
·
To complete a compliance review of 50 percent of the
2002 campaigns for the General Assembly Candidates, review 1/3 of the 2003
municipal campaigns for compliance with campaign finance laws, and to make
significant progress towards completion of a review of the 2004 campaigns for
the General Assembly.
·
To
reduce and prevent violations through enhanced training and educational efforts
·
To
suggest revisions to the General Assembly concerning election laws which
strengthen accountability in the election process and improve the public’s
confidence in elected officials
·
To
improve the website to provide the public with access to case decisions and
opinions
·
To
continue to respond swiftly to the need for legal advice and written opinions
concerning compliance and ensure that the response time to requests for written
opinions is no more than seven working days.
Information Reported as Required by State Statute
The Commission has developed an affirmative action plan which
complies with the Connecticut General Statutes Sections 46a-70 through 46a-78.
Pursuant to §9-7a (c), the Commission is required to provide
the following information concerning its activities.
Of the 193 investigations completed during this fiscal year,
the following municipalities had more than one complaint:
Bethel,
Bridgeport, Cheshire, Easton, Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, New Milford,
Oxford, Redding, South Windsor, Stratford, Vernon, West Haven, West Hartford,
Westbrook, Willimantic
Of the
193 closed cases completed, 129 resulted in monetary penal sanctions (fines or
forfeitures), 11 resulted in reprimands or orders to comply, 35 were dismissed,
17 were not pursued to a conclusion and one was referred to Chief State’s
Attorney. Seventeen additional
complaints remained open at the close of the fiscal year.