 |
| Tong |
No one – least of all Connecticut Attorney General Willim Tong – should be surprised at Superior Court Judge Matthew Budzik’s ruling in a long-delayed case before his court. In his ruling, according to the Hartford Courant, “Superior Court Judge Matthew Budzik upheld every allegation two Avangrid gas subsidiaries made in lawsuits seeking to overturn year-old PURA rate decisions that not only denied the companies rate increases, but slashed then existing rates.”
Budzik’s ruling, tight and unequivocal, should be taught to
prospective lawyers as a pristine example of what good lawyers may and may not
do in defense of their clients. Hint: Remember, you are an officer of the
court. At all costs, avoid misleading the court. If you fail to do so, you will
do your client, your boss and your case irreparable harm on those occasions
when the case is presented to a judge uncorrupted by political considerations.
Not only did Budzik decide the case rightly on its merits,
he also rightly referred PURA’s two chief defense lawyers – General Counsel
Scott Muska and Assistant Attorney General Seth Hollander – to Connecticut’s
Statewide Grievance Committee.
Hollander’s boss is Attorney General William Tong, by his
own account an incorruptible, white-hatted defender of the public’s interest.
It used to be said of current US Senator Dick Blumenthal, Tong’s predecessor,
that there is no more dangerous spot in Connecticut as that between Blumenthal
and a TV camera. The public hazard remains as precarious under Tong’s
administration of the office.
Tong no doubt is pouring over Budzik’s decision searching
for escape clauses and hoping that he will remain untainted by Budzik’ s
decision.
However, there is little wiggle room in the decision.
“Reversing its long-stated legal position in this matter,” Buznick wrote, “PURA
now admits that former PURA chairperson Marisa Gillett violated Connecticut law
in how she conducted the underlying administrative proceeding and that Ms.
Gillett’s actions prejudiced the substantial rights of the plaintiffs, the
Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation and the Southern Connecticut Gas Company,”
Budzik wrote.
According to the Courant, if it can be demonstrated that
other of PURA’s decisions under the Gillett regime “were based on the same sort
of irregularities Budzik found in the gas company cases, they too would be
eligible for new hearings, according to a utility lawyer familiar with the
ruling.” And “PURA’s admissions about misconduct now apply to a related suit in
which Eversource and Avangrid make many of the same allegations. While the gas
company suits sought to overturn adverse rate decisions on administrative grounds,
the joint suit seeks a ruling in Superior Court that PURA has acted illegally.”
This mess began with the hiring of Gillett as head of PURA
by Lamont. He twice approved her commission, the second time only last month
after problems mentioned by Budzik had manifested themselves, along with
laughably absurd claims that major rating agencies lowered Connecticut’s rating
because the agencies were colluding with energy suppliers.
Following Budzik’s decision, Lamont claimed he had not been
advised in detail concerning activities at PURA that Budzik condemned in his
decision.
Why wasn’t he advised on an ongoing basis by Tong? The
attorney general’ office, among the oldest in Connecticut, dates from colonial
times when the present-day attorney general was called “the king’s lawyer.” The
essential function of the office remains the same: The Attorney General is
supposed to advise the governor on all legal matters and to represent the
governor and his executive agencies when either are embroiled in trial.
Budzik understandably did not react indifferently to
Hollister’s very late admission that PURA, directed perhaps unilaterally by
Gillett in association with as yet unknown others, had misled his court by 1)
falsely claiming that phone records that ought to have been shared with plaintiffs in a discovery process
did not exist, and 2) that Gillett’s PURA had been acting illegally because its
decisions were not made by the proper number
of PURA commissioners.
Operating outside of statutory barriers, unnecessarily
delaying justice, denying to plaintiffs discovery data without which they
cannot assemble a proper case, and lying to a court -- to lie is knowingly to
say the thing that is not – are not negligible offenses. They are pernicious
perversions of justice.
To what extent was Tong, Hollander’s superior, kept in the
loop? The case involving PURA, Lamont and Tong’s Assistant Attorney General was
much in the news for years. Tong is by statute required to report to Lamont,
especially since his office was representing both Lamont who twice appointed
Gillett to head PURA, and the besieged Gillett.
Lamont shucked off his involvement in the case by alleging
he did not want to interfere with the independence of Gillett’s unorthodox –
and possibly illegal – authoritarian decision-making process, though he
defended Gillett several time when confronted by newspapers.
That inexcusable excuse is not available to Tong
Comments