Advisory Opinion No. 1995-8
University Professor’s
Acceptance Of Outside
Employment As
Probate Judge
In Advisory Opinion No. 94-22 the Commission considered the petition of a full-time state employee seeking election as a probate judge. In that case, the employee intended to defer to evenings and weekends any demands imposed by his probate judgeship, in order to accommodate his state work schedule. However, in light of a probate judge’s responsibility to give precedence to judicial matters over all others, the Commission found that pressing probate business would inevitably, and impermissibly, force the individual to relegate his state employment to a subordinate role.
The petitioner has suggested that as an unclassified
employee he is not subject to the Code of Ethics for Public Officials and that
his employment activities are within the sole jurisdiction of the Board of
Trustees of the
The facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable from those which were the subject of Advisory Opinion No. 94-22. As a professor, the petitioner is not required to devote seven (or more) consecutive hours each day to his academic duties, and, with the exception of his class schedule, it is not necessary that such duties (i.e., class preparation, consultations with students, etc.), be carried out at a particular hour of the day. The flexibility of the petitioner’s University schedule already permits access to the probate court during the business day on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. If necessary, the same flexibility would allow the petitioner to meet emergency demands of the probate court without compromising the priority of his state employment. The Commission therefore concludes that outside employment as a probate judge does not impermissibly impair the petitioner’s independence of judgment within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84(b).
As an unclassified state employee, the petitioner is not subject to Conn. Gen. Stat. §5-266a(c), which precludes a classified state employee from holding elective state office. It is not necessary to address the petitioner’s claim that the Code’s limits on outside employment violate the Federal and State Constitutions.
By order of the Commission,
Rev. William Sangiovanni
Chairperson