2010 Dickinson dinner would have been illegal

State agency issues ruling on canceled event

As published in the Record Journal, Monday December 19, 2011

By Russell Blair
Record-Journal staff
rblair@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2225

WALLINGFORD — The State Elections Enforcement Commission has ruled that a $40-per-ticket dinner planned for February 2010 in honor of Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. would have been a violation of state election laws, but because the event was ultimately canceled, no action will be taken.

In a decision dated Dec. 14, commission Chairman Stephen F. Cashman wrote that “as planned, the event, had it occurred, would have violated General Statute 9-609(b) as a ‘testimonial event.’ ” Because the event was ultimately postponed indefinitely, the commission ruled that no laws had been violated.

According to state statute: “No testimonial affair shall be held for a candidate, or for an individual who holds any such office during the term of such office, except to raise funds on his behalf for purposes authorized in this chapter. A testimonial affair which is held by an organization duly organized for charitable purposes shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.”

The issue was brought to the SEEC by Democratic Town Committee Chairman Vincent Avallone, who said Tuesday, “The Republican Party should be grateful to me for filing the complaint because they would have been guilty of breaking the law if they held the party.” Avallone said that, before he filed the complaint, he sent a copy of the statute to Republican Town Committee Chairman Robert Prentice as a courtesy.

Prentice could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Dickinson said Tuesday he was aware of the decision, and that while he understood the rationale for the state’s wanting to keep track of money raised, he questioned its ability to say who can and cannot hold a social function.

“To say people can’t plan an event, there are bigger issues there,” he said. “You can tell people what they need to do with the money, but to tell them an event can’t be held seems to be overreaching.”

The statute was amended in the past legislative session to allow testimonials to raise money for “party committees” as of January 2012, but Cashman wrote, “The event planned for February of 2010, however, preceded this change in the law, so the law as previously written would apply to the testimonial that was the subject of this complaint.”

The event was scheduled to be held at Villa Capri on North Colony Road and was to include a buffet dinner , music by the Johnny Bass Band, speeches and dancing.

Republican organizers of the event said the money was to go the Wallingford Center for the Arts. Mary Ellen Kingsland-Eckels, director of the Wallingford Center for the Arts, has said that organizers of the event had contacted the organization about receiving profits from the dinner, but that the organization was still in the process of obtaining nonprofit status and would not have been eligible to receive the funds.

Republican Councilor Rosemary Rascati, who helped organize the aborted event, said she wasn’t aware of the recent SEEC ruling, but said the event had been canceled because organizers hadn’t gotten a clear answer as to its legality.

“We made the decision since we did not get an answer,” she said. “We thought it was best to cancel the party and return the money.”

Rascati said they had offers from other charitable organizations to participate in the event, “but we thought the best thing was to cancel it.”

Avallone said Tuesday that his decision to file a complaint was based on his belief that the mayor and his supporters should abide by the law as written.

“The purpose of the complaint was to emphasize the fact that no one is above the law, not even a sitting mayor in office for 28 years,” he said.

The complaint was originally filed Jan. 26, 2010, and Avallone said that he didn’t receive the ruling until Monday.

Rascati said there are no plans for any other events to honor Dickinson while he remains in office. “If and when [the mayor] retires, and we’re still around, we’ll have a party,” she said.

POLL RESULTS - Should the testimonial dinner for Mayor Dickinson continue IF it is in violation of Connecticut General Statute Sec. 9-609?

My recent poll question “Should the testimonial dinner for Mayor Dickinson continue IF it is in violation of Connecticut General Statute Sec. 9-609” is now closed.

For those of you that have made comments regarding the ability to vote more than once on a poll, I have it set so that it is very difficult for most people to do this. You have to have enough knowledge to manipulate your browser and IP address settings enough for additional votes from the same system to register more than once and actually count.

The system is not fool proof but it does prevent casual voting manipulation.

Additionally, these are not meant to be scientific polls. They are meant to gather the thoughts and opinions of the participants.

There were 50 respondents in this recent poll.

9 of them (18%) felt that the event should be allowed to continue regardless of the ruling on the statute.

28 or 56% of the folks felt that the event should only occur after and ruling and it was found that the event was not in violation of the statute

13 voters (26%) thought the event should just be cancelled regardless of which way the ruling went.

I placed my own vote in the “Yes only if it is not in violation of the Statute” with the majority of the respondents. My thoughts have been if the ruling on the statute shows that it does not apply to the event, then the supporters should be able to have their event.

I also feel that if the ruling goes the other way, the event should be canceled. For all the difficulties in having to do that and some potentially lost monies, that is the right thing to do.

I find it interesting that 9 of the respondents indicated that they were OK with folks breaking a law since the first question stipulated that the event should be allowed to regardless of the Statute or any ruling on it.

The opinion of others is always very interesting to me. I would love to hear the reasoning or the justification on their thoughts on why they would support something like that.

Technorati Tags: Wallingford,testimonial,statute,complaint,poll

Dinner for Dickinson postponed

By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

As published in the Record Journal Saturday January 30, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

WALLINGFORD — Organizers of a dinner to honor Mayor William W. Dick­inson Jr. say the event will be delayed at least a month, now that a complaint has been filed with the State Elections En­forcement Commission, “We’re giving the elections commission a chance to look at this,” said Craig Fish­bein, a Republican town councilor who spoke Friday on behalf of the organizers of the event but is not involved in plan­ning it.

“We don’t think we’re doing anything il­legal. We’re giving (the commission) a chance to look at this,” Fishbein said.

Democratic Town Chairman Vincent Avallone filed the complaint Tuesday be­cause he said the dinner violates a state law that bars testimonials for elected offi­cials while in office.

The organizers of the event, a handful of local Republicans, have repeatedly stated that any profits from the dinner would be donated to a local charity, but the organizers’ first choice to receive the money, the Wallingford Center for the Arts, was not registered as a nonprofit charity, complicating the issue.

“I think it’s a good idea,” Dickinson said of the postponement. “I think it’s a wise course, rather than have something occur with some cloud hanging over it.”

When informed of the postponement Friday, Avallone offered little comment.

“I did what I had to do, so I really don’t have any reaction to what they’ve done,” Avallone said. “I’m sure they felt they did what they had to do.”

The $40-a-ticket dinner was originally scheduled for Feb. 6 at Villa Capri on North Colony Road, but has now been postponed to March 13.

Fishbein said the new date was chosen because it was the first date that Villa Capri had available, but the event could be postponed again or canceled if the elec­tions commission has not ruled on the complaint.

“We don’t want to break the law, but we don’t think the event is illegal,” Fishbein said. “You allow the process to occur by law, but if they dismiss the complaint then we’re going to have a grand old time.”

Nancy Nicolescu, a spokeswoman for the elections commission, declined to dis­cuss the complaint Friday. When asked if the dinner’s outright cancellation would negate it, she said, “I don’t know what the commission would do.”

The commission investigates more than 200 complaints a year, according to its Web site, and imposes sanctions in about two thirds of those cases.

The potential fine, according to Nico­lescu, would be $2,000 per offense against any person the commission finds to be in violation, or twice the amount of any im­proper payment or political contribution, whichever is greater.

Technorati Tags: Wallingford,testimonial,statute,complaint

FROM WALLINGFORD - A cavalier attitude

JASON ZANDRI – FROM WALLINGFORD

Clearly, quite a bit of interest has spun up over the supporters of Mayor Bill Dickinson, wanting to honor his service to the town.

People that know me well enough know that I give the mayor his credit where it's due and have gone after him on issues where I feel he is not being open, objective and proactive with respect to our fine town.

It's also fair to say I do more of the latter than the former.

If the mayor's supporters wish to collectively pull together their own resources in order to have a testimonial for him and to celebrate his 25 years of service to the town, they should be allowed to do so - provided it is kept above board and does not consume tax dollars, I see no issue.

There is of course the matter of statute 9-609(b) that needs to be ruled on. (It can be found on my blog as cross-posted from the Connecticut General Assembly website.)

One lawyer has viewed it as not applicable to this testimonial and another has. As you can imagine, these views are not without the possibility of bias as one came from the Republican camp and one came from the Democrats.

Personal opinions on this abound, so we'll need an actual, legal ruling to be definitive.

My biggest concern comes from Robert Prentice, the chairman of the Republican Town Committee and his comments as quoted from the Record-Journal regarding cancelling the event:

"It would be very difficult to do that. Plus, the money we put out to Villa Capri already for down payments, that's money out of our own personal pockets," he said. "We got 200-plus tickets sold. You know what? We'll go through with it because what are they going to do to us, fine us?"

It concerns me when anyone is so full of bravado that they might willing disobey a law/statute/ordinance and boast of it in the newspaper.

To be fair, this hasn't been ruled on yet, so he may not be in violation of anything. If you read the quote, it certainly comes across as if it doesn't matter which side the ruling falls on. He's willing to move ahead, regardless.

People in a the place of public view such as celebrities, sports figures, politicians and so forth should understand that every-day Joe and Jane will hold them to at least an equal, if not higher, standard than themselves.

When they see this kind of cavalier attitude, how do you think they are going to respond? "If the law/statute/ordinance doesn't apply to them, why should it apply to me?"

Why should someone shovel their walk? "All they can do is fine me."

Why should they clean up their property? "The town doesn't self-police on the blight rules."

Why should they mind the parking regulations? "There are town cars illegally parked; they don't get ticketed so I don't expect to either."

I could go on, but my point is made.

You can't expect every-day people to follow laws/ordinances if public figures can't be bothered and are brazen enough to be quoted in the newspaper to that effect.

Laws, statutes and ordinances need apply to everyone equally.

There are two weeks to the testimonial; I would think a ruling could be had by then.

If the ruling on the statute shows that it does not apply, then the supporters should be able to have their event. If the ruling goes the other way, the event should be canceled. For all the difficulties in having to do that and some potentially lost monies, that is the right thing to do.

The mayor has been quoted as saying he is a reluctant participant to this event. I hope he doesn't end up in the category of "guilt by association."

Technorati Tags: Wallingford,testimonial,statute,complaint

Avallone files complaint against Dickinson's dinner

Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:05 am | Updated: 1:19 pm, Thu Jan 28, 2010

Avallone files complaint against Dickinson's dinner @ MyRecordJournal.com

The chairman of the Democratic Town Committee, Vincent Avallone, filed a complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) with respect to the testimonial dinner that is being put together by the supporters of Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.

The dinner is scheduled for Feb. 6 at the Villa Capri.

Avallone and others have reviewed Connecticut General Statute Sec. 9-609 and feel the dinner violates a state law that bars holding testimonials for elected officials while they are still in office.

Avallone was quoted in the paper as saying "If this isn't challenged, then friends and political supporters of the mayor must feel that he gets special consideration when it comes to compliance with the law."

The article indicated that Robert Prentice was made aware of the complaint and that the dinner would go on as scheduled.

Robert Prentice is one of the supporters that is working on the dinner is also the chairman of the Republican Town Committee.

In prior comments he was quoted saying in response to a question regarding the cancelling the event “We got 200-plus tickets sold. You know what? We’ll go through with it be­cause what are they going to do to us, fine us?”

I am authoring the topic for this week’s FROM WALLINGFORD and I will be offering my thoughts on the subject on Sunday.

I also have an opinion poll on the same here on the blog as well.

Please feel free to offer your thoughts.

Technorati Tags: Wallingford,testimonial,statute,complaint

Some doubt legality but fete for mayor is still on schedule

By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

As published in the Record Journal Wednesday January 27, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

WALLINGFORD — De­spite being advised that the celebration could violate a state law, organizers of a dinner in honor of Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.’s 26 years of serv­ice say the event will go on as planned. A retired lawyer for the State Elections Enforce­ment Commission says the le­gality of the event should be in­vestigated.

A handful of supporters of Dickinson, a Republican first elected in 1983, have organized a dinner in his honor to be held Feb. 6 at Villa Capri on North Colony Road. Tickets cost $40 and include a buffet dinner, music from the Johnny Bass Band, speeches and danc­ing. The organizers, all Repub­licans, have said that any prof­its would be donated to the Wallingford Center for the Arts.

Upon learning of the dinner, however, Vincent Avallone, the Democratic town chairman, sent a letter last week to Robert Prentice, the Republican town chairman, advising him that the event appeared to violate a state law that prohibits testi­monials for elected officials while they hold office.

On Tuesday, Prentice said that after consulting several lawyers about the issue, the dinner would go on as planned and he was confident that it would not violate any laws.

“We’ve done some research and there’s no issue here,” he said. “Even though we don’t have it in writing from people on the state level, I’m 99 per­cent sure that we’ve done everything that we’re supposed to do. I’m pretty happy with what I’ve heard and I’m pretty confident that even if there is a complaint against us it’s not go­ing to go anywhere.”

But Ronald Gregory, a Wallingford resident who was a lawyer for the SEEC for more than 20 years, said he was trou­bled about the dinner after reading a news story about it. He said it raises a number of potentially troubling questions. “I just think somebody’s go­ing to have to file a complaint, because it deserves it. I think there’s too much confusion when there shouldn’t be,” he said. “The whole situation de­serves some scrutiny ... when it gets so muddy, I think it’s best that somebody official look into it.”

Gregory said that he called the attorney general’s office af­ter reading about the event, only to be told that the Walling­ford Center for the Arts is not registered as a charity .

An organization “duly or­ganized for charitable purpos­es” is exempt from the law and can hold testimonials for elect­ed officials to raise money, but Gregory said that he doesn’t in­tend to file a complaint with the SEEC because of his past asso­ciation with the agency.

“I’m not going to file a com­plaint,” he said. “I’d feel awk­ward because it would be be­fore my own commission.”

Mary Ellen Kingsland-Eckels, director of the Wallingford Cen­ter for the Arts, said Tuesday that organizers of the event had contacted the organization about receiving profits from the dinner, but that the organ­ization is still in the process of obtaining nonprofit status and would not be eligible to re­ceive the funds. Nancy Nicolescu, a spokes­woman for the SEEC, said Tues­day that no complaint had been filed regarding the dinner.

If a complaint were to be filed, the potential fine would be $2,000 per offense for any person found to be in violation, or twice the amount of any im­proper payment or political contribution, whichever is greater.

The law being cited is Sec­tion 9-609(b) of the Connecti­cut General Statutes.

Dickinson, a lawyer, said Tuesday he still plans to attend the event and that he believes the organizers are trying to find a charitable organization to sponsor it.

“I appreciate that people would like to do something of recognition for my time in of­fice,” he said. “But I’m not real anxious of being the center of attention.”

Technorati Tags: Wallingford,testimonial,statute

MY TAKE on testimonial dinner for Mayor Dickinson; next week’s FROM WALLINGFORD

So I have posted the article from the Record Journal written by Dave Moran; the post is Statute a sticking point for Dickinson dinner

I have a POLL question up this week regarding the same here on the blog. Please consider weighing in.

Additionally, I have the actual statue - Sec. 9-609. (Formerly Sec. 9-333k). Party committees; designation as campaign treasurer. Limitation on multiple committees. Fund-raising events and testimonial affairs – posted from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap155.htm#Sec9-609.htm on the blog as well at Supporters of Mayor Dickinson are having a testimonial for him – is this in violation of Connecticut General Statutes?

I am planning to do my next FROM WALLINGFORD article on this topic as well.

Somewhere between the desire for the supporters to have a celebratory event for the Mayor, the statute itself and its interpretation, what is legally binding (or not), and political bravado, there are three simple sayings that keep going through my head:

 

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”

“No one is above the law”

“No good deed goes unpunished”

 

Be sure to check out FROM WALLINGFORD next Sunday.

Technorati Tags: FROM WALLINGFORD,Wallingford,Opinion,Testimonial,Mayor,Democrat,Republican

Statute a sticking point for Dickinson dinner

By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

As published in the Record Journal Friday January 22, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

WALLINGFORD— Would a $40­per-ticket dinner to honor Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.’s 26 years of service violate a state law that pro­hibits testimonials for elected offi­cials while they hold office?

It depends whether you ask a De­mocrat or a Republican.

And with the two parties contest­ing the issue, it may come down to the state Elections Enforcement Commission deciding whether to levy fines if the Feb. 6 dinner is held. Democratic Town Chairman Vin­cent Avallone sent a letter to Republi­can Town Chairman Robert Prentice on Wednesday, advising him of Connecticut General Statute 9-609(b).

The statute, a copy of which was included with Avallone’s letter, says in part: “No testimonial affair shall be held for a candidate, or for an indi­vidual who holds any such office dur­ing the term of such office, except to raise funds on his behalf for purposes authorized in this chapter. A testimo­nial affair which is held by an organi­zation duly organized for charitable purposes shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.”

Avallone, an attorney with a local practice, said his intention was not to intimidate Prentice into cancelling the event, to be held at the Villa Capri on North Colony Road, but merely to make him aware of a potential viola­tion of state law if it is held.

“I’ve made the chairman of the party aware of this statute and that, I believe, if it goes on it will be a viola­tion,” Avallone said. “There’s no threatening tone in it. It’s just a cour­tesy extended to Mr. Prentice.”

Avallone said he had spoken with state elections officials earlier in the week, and after the conversation he said he felt comfortable that his inter­pretation of the statute was correct.

“I discussed it” with the officials, he said. “I stated that I thought that this constituted a violation, and noth­ing that was said discouraged me and made me feel that my interpretation was wrong.”

Nancy Nicolescu, a spokeswoman for the commission, confirmed Thursday that Avallone did call the agency earlier in the week, but said policy prohibited her from comment­ing on specific situations.

“I can acknowledge that we re­ceived an inquiry; however, a complaint has not been filed,” Nicolescu said. “We don’t comment on third­ party activities.”

Avallone, who has served as Demo­cratic chairman since early 2008, denied having a political motive in sending the letter, but some of the event’s organizers, all of them Republicans, disagreed. Dickinson is a Republican.

“I think it’s sour grapes,” said Rosemary Rascati, a Republican town councilor and dinner or­ganizer. “I’m not happy be­cause I think this is being done deliberately. If you don’t want to come to a party, then don’t come, but to try and throw a monkey wrench into some­thing as innocent as a party” is­n’t right.

She noted that when local Democrats organized a retire­ment party for Iris Papale, a De­mocrat who left the council at the beginning of 2008 after more than 30 years, no Repub­licans kicked up a similar fuss. The statute, however, lists re­tirement dinners as an excep­tion.

Prentice, one of the organiz­ers, said Thursday he had not received Avallone’s letter and could not comment on it specifically, but that the party would likely go on because of the has­sle associated with cancelling. “It would be very difficult to do that. Plus, the money we put out to Villa Capri already for down payments, that’s money out of our own personal pock­ets,” he said. “We got 200-plus tickets sold. You know what? We’ll go through with it be­cause what are they going to do to us, fine us?”

Nicolescu said the potential fine, if a complaint were filed, would be $2,000 per offense against any person the com­mission finds to be in violation, or twice the amount of any im­proper payment or political contribution, whichever is greater.

However Craig Fishbein, a Republican councilor and local attorney, said he had reviewed Avallone’s letter Thursday and the statute and does not think the event constitutes a viola­tion. He said that since the din­ner was organized by individ­uals, it was the equivalent of throwing a birthday party.

“I feel comfortable that his in­terpretation of the statute is wrong, based upon the fact that it is my understanding that there is no money going to Bill Dickinson,” Fishbein said. “Any money left over from this din­ner is going to the Wallingford Foundation for the Arts, so that totally exempts it from the statute. ... Let’s say the Walling­ford Foundation for the Arts has a fundraiser and he was their guest of honor. Is that any dif­ferent?”

The event organizers, about a half dozen local Republicans, have said that any profits left af­ter all costs are paid will be do­nated to the arts group.

But Avallone is sticking to his guns.

“This is the situation: If it’s against the law, they shouldn’t do it. Whether he’s been there for 25 years — people may think he’s the greatest guy in the world — the mayor’s sub­ject to the law just like everyone else,” Avallone said.

Dickinson was sworn in for his 14th consecutive term ear­lier this month and is the sec­ond longest-serving mayor in the state, behind only Prospect’s Robert Chatfield.

A copy of Avallone’s letter was faxed to his office Thurs­day afternoon by a reporter, but by the close of the business day Dickinson, who is an attorney, said he had not had time to re­view it, was unfamiliar with the situation and could not comment.

Dickinson said last week that he was not too enthusiastic about the dinner.

“I guess I’m a reluctant par­ticipant,” he said.

Technorati Tags: Wallingford,Testimonial,Mayor,Democrat,Republican

Testimonial tussle

As published in the Record Journal Sunday January 24, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

Editorial

Wallingford Republicans are holding a $40-a-ticket testimonial dinner for Mayor Bill Dickinson on February 6.

Some 200 tickets have been sold to date, yielding $8,000. The money will cover the cost of dinner and anything left over, accord­ing to Republican town Councilor Craig Fishbein, will go to the Wallingford Foundation for the Arts. None will go to Dickinson, who, in his characteristic way, has said he is a “reluc­tant participant.”

This is all well and good, but there happens to be a state law, General Statutes sec. 9-609(b). It defines a “testimonial” as being “an affair held in honor of an in­dividual who holds . . . an office subject to this chap­ter.” Then the section adds [with some significance given Dickinson’s “reluc­tance”] “No testimonial af­fair shall be held without the consent of such per­son.”

The section then forbids testimonials for anyone during the term of his or her office, except to raise funds as defined in the rest of the chapter.

What is a testimonial din­ner, anyway? It may mean merely a dinner at which tribute is paid to someone. More likely, especially in sports, it’s a fund-raiser. Hence, in the chapter of state law applying to elec­tion campaigns and ex­penses, it comes as no big surprise to find testimonial dinners regulated.

On the other hand, if no funds are to be given to Mayor Dickinson but will go instead to the Arts Foun­dation, a bona fide charity, is there any reason for a prohibition? There would seem not to be.

But there is a statute. The law is the law. Democratic Town Chairman Vincent Avallone, an attorney, has sent a letter to his counter­part, Republican Chairman Robert Prentice, referenc­ing the law in question. He has also been in touch with the State Elections Enforce­ment Commission, but has not filed any complaint.

Councilor Fishbein, who is also an attorney, has said he doesn’t think the dinner constitutes a violation of the law any more than a birthday party would. A birthday party could actu­ally be more of an issue since it results in gifts which are not condoned under the ethics rules.

So it boils down to con­flicting legal views of the situation, and that’s why our society has attorneys. Most laws and rules are ca­pable of multiple interpre­tations, and it is tough to be sure all the time. Perhaps the SEEC will be asked to rule, perhaps not.

One cannot live in the shadows of possible viola­tions, and one can only ad­mire Chairman Prentice’s approach: “You know what? We’ll go through with it be­cause what are they going to do to us, fine us?”

Exactly.

Technorati Tags: Opinion,Politics,testimonial,republican

Supporters of Mayor Dickinson are having a testimonial for him – is this in violation of Connecticut General Statutes?

You decide.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap155.htm#Sec9-609.htm

Sec. 9-609. (Formerly Sec. 9-333k). Party committees; designation as campaign treasurer. Limitation on multiple committees. Fund-raising events and testimonial affairs.

(a) The chairman of each party committee shall designate a campaign treasurer and may designate a deputy campaign treasurer, or in the case of a state central committee, not more than two deputy campaign treasurers. The campaign treasurer and any deputy campaign treasurers so designated shall sign a statement accepting the designation, which shall be filed with the proper authority with the statement of designation required under subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of section 9-602. No state central committee or town committee shall establish a committee other than a single party committee for purposes of this chapter. A party committee or a political committee organized for ongoing political activities shall form no other political committees, except that two or more such committees may join to form a political committee for the purpose of a single fund-raising event.

(b) As used in this subsection, "testimonial affair" means an affair held in honor of an individual who holds, or who is or was a candidate for nomination or election to, an office subject to this chapter. No testimonial affair shall be held without the consent of such person. No testimonial affair shall be held for a candidate, or for an individual who holds any such office during the term of such office, except to raise funds on his behalf for purposes authorized in this chapter. A testimonial affair which is held by an organization duly organized for charitable purposes shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter. A testimonial affair which is held for an individual upon his retirement from public office shall also be exempt from the provisions of this chapter unless a deficit exists from any such individual's campaigns for election or nomination to an office subject to this chapter. Any fund-raising affair for any candidate or individual who holds any such office for any purposes other than those authorized in this chapter shall be prohibited. Any person who organizes such a fund-raising affair shall be in violation of this section.

(P.A. 86-99, S. 12, 34; 86-240, S. 5, 12; P.A. 95-144, S. 8; P.A. 96-119, S. 9, 14.)

History: P.A. 86-240 amended Subsec. (a) to permit chairman of state central committee to appoint two deputy campaign treasurers; P.A. 95-144 amended Subsec. (a) by deleting provision that deputy campaign treasurer or treasurers serve only in event that campaign treasurer unable to perform his duties; P.A. 96-119 added provisions in Subsec. (a) to require the designated campaign treasurer and deputy campaign treasurer to sign and file a statement accepting designation, effective January 1, 1997; Sec. 9-333k transferred to Sec. 9-609 in 2007.

Technorati Tags: Mayor,Wallingford,testimonial,Republican,Connecticut General Statutes