Secretary of the State
Susan Bysiewicz
Photo by Steve Kotchko
Posted 2/1/10
Democratic Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz was the apparent front-runner in the gubernatorial contest, when she took the unprecedented move of dropping out of that race, and launching a campaign for the Democratic state attorney general nomination instead. A few days later, the statewide Quinnipiac University Poll showed Bysiewicz as the leading Democratic candidate for attorney general beating her nearest rival former state senator George Jepsen by 52 percentage points!
However, Bysiewicz is finding it can be lonely at the top of the polls. Almost since the day she announced her decision to run for attorney general, she’s been dogged by an odd controversy on whether she is legally qualified for the job.
A blogger, Connecticut attorney Ryan McKeen, writing on his website www.aconnecticutlawblog.com , pondered whether Bysiewicz meets the tenets of a state statute that requires the attorney general to be “an attorney of law of at least 10 years practice at the bar of this state.”
Bysiewicz responded saying she’s been a member of the Connecticut bar for 23 years, and believes the law requires only that the attorney general be a member in good standing of the bar, not time served in private practice.
Some other potential candidates for attorney general said Bysiewicz eligibility is at issue, and Bysiewicz fired back saying her rivals “know they can’t beat me in an election—so they’ve tried to raise this issue to discredit my candidacy.”
Despite Bysiewicz’s confident response and impressive poll rating, the eligibility controversy continues to simmer. She has not held a formal press conference to answer all questions on the issue. The usually “media active” Secretary has not been that visible of late.
However, Bysiewicz did send a formal request to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, asking him for an official opinion on the statutory qualifications for the attorney general post. Blumenthal indicates he might have an answer this week.
Meanwhile, a new offshoot controversy has cropped up affecting Bysiewicz’ image. Though the Secretary claims she’s been a lawyer in good, continuous standing, the Hartford Courant reported that in 2006 she signed an official exemption form that declared: “I do not engage in the practice of law as an occupation,” and that allowed her to get a 50% exemption on the annual $110 fee lawyers and judges pay into a Judicial Department Client Security Fund to help consumers hurt by lawyer misconduct or errors.
That evidence prompted Bysiewicz to send the Judicial Department a $55 personal check after her campaign spokesperson indicated Bysiewicz simply made a “mistake” in one such filing. However, the Courant said it found evidence Bysiewicz filed the same exemption form in 2007 and 2008, even though she paid the full $110 fee in those years. Bysiewicz told the Judicial Department she “incorrectly filed” in those years, and asked that the exemption forms be “disregarded.”
This messy situation may be an innocent set or errors or an attempt to get past an embarrassing political situation. However, Bysiewicz own words on the topic raise new questions.
Bysiewicz sent McKeen a letter well before the filing fees flap surfaced. It was intended as a formal response to his blog entry that launched the whole “eligibility” story. The Secretary told McKeen she was irked at “several media outlets that ran with a ‘story’ before they had all the facts—before they did the proper research.”
Then Bysiewicz told McKeen that “over the years I have made all filings and paid fees consistent with the filings and fees paid by other practicing attorneys in the state, including the client security fund payment and the attorney occupational tax return.”
Bysiewicz letter to McKeen seems in conflict with her later actions to pay fees and explain exemption forms. It raises news concerns about Bysiewicz’ attention to detail, her understanding of the occupational requirements of being a lawyer, and her motives.
It certainly leaves Bysiewicz open to new criticism. Example: If she can’t follow the proper procedures to maintain her professional standing, should she be trusted to represent the State in a crucial future lawsuit as attorney general? Example: Was she being dishonest in her letter to McKeen or just careless in checking details?
It is still early in the campaign. This controversy may be a distant memory by the time Democrats nominate an attorney general candidate in May. Bysiewicz said earlier this month voters see the eligibility furor is nothing more than a “political attack” by her rivals and that “voters aren’t having it.” Indeed the most recent Quinnipiac University poll showed voters gave Bysiewicz a respectable favorability rating even though the controversy had bubbled up during the time the poll was in the field.