Conn Atty Gen Blumenthal – Loves To Announce Investigations, Slower To Announce Results

Normally standing between Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and a television camera is as dangerous as walking among a herd of elephants during mating season.

But when the candidate for U.S. Senate was offered an opportunity to be videotaped for an interview by me, Blumenthal politely, but firmly, declined.

It’s not that he suddenly found a disdain for a television camera or didn’t think it was worthwhile to be interviewed by me. It’s the topic that he didn’t particularly want to be seen discussing: what happens AFTER he announces one of his numerous investigations.

It took several weeks, and requests from his public relations staff for what specific areas of questioning I would have for Blumenthal, before the Democratic politician would agree to an interview.

And the only interview he would grant was a limited telephone interview with him on a loudspeaker, surrounded by his top deputies and two media staffers listening, prepared to jump in to help their boss for some of the rougher questioning.

Before I continue with the brunt of the column, I want to say that I have known Blumenthal since he was the U.S. attorney for Connecticut and have dealt with him on numerous issues. I have the highest regard for his integrity. And compared with most politicians, I have found him to be a straight shooter. There have been many investigations where I have worked closely with his office, and I believe that my cooperation worked to the benefit of consumers.

However, just like you and me, everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Blumenthal loves to be in the spotlight, being seen in shining armor ridding a white stallion. That however makes him reticent to admit mistakes and makes many of his staff resentful of his taking the limelight for their work and they believe frequently switching their priorities to what will attract media and public attention.

My questioning of Blumenthal mostly grew out of two investigations he publicly promised: one was against a small East Hartford computer company – Computers Plus Center Inc. owned by Gina Malapanis – and the second involving the accuracy of Connecticut Light & Power’s electric meters and tests conducted to make sure the meters provided accurate results.

In the East Hartford case, Blumenthal accused the company seven years ago of selling the state computers that lacked the proper parts and sued for $1.75 million in damages, claiming that for 10 years the firm has been ripping off Connecticut taxpayers.

Malapanis, however, counter-sued the state, claiming that her and her company’s civil rights were violated and her business was destroyed as the result of false accusations.

I have no idea who is right or wrong, but a Waterbury jury agreed with her and in January awarded her $18 million in damages.

One would have thought that the attorney general, who made these accusations, would have at least told the public that his lawsuit had not gone as well as expected, and instead of winning money for the state, Connecticut appears to be out $18 million plus legal costs.

Nope. The well-oiled public relations engine in the attorney general’s office had no public announcement of the defeat. His office has since provided some reporters with copies of his appeal of the verdict on the grounds that the jury did not get to hear all the evidence his office had available. They can be read at the end of this column.

To this day, Blumenthal has been silent on this case and has not permitted his staff to discuss it. Through a spokeswoman, Blumenthal told me he would not even comment on why he won’t comment.

That raised the question in my mind of how many of the hundreds of investigations that Blumenthal has announced publicly over the years ended up without his office finding any improprieties and how would we know.

To get to that question I first had to learn how Blumenthal keeps track of the cases that he announced publicly. One might think that is a simple question, but it turns out it can be very complex.

Blumenthal explained that his office receives 50,000 complaints a year, of which last year 4,373 involved consumer complaints ranging from one complaint against one business to complaints of systemic problems. That doesn’t count the 12,000 letters his office receives yearly with questions and comments and the 100 to 200 e-mails they receive daily from citizens.

Very few of the investigation ever become public knowledge, he said. And when they do, they can become public through various means: He can announce them; he can confirm them; or the complainants can disclose them.

While Blumenthal insisted that all complaints are tracked by his various departments and department heads, he conceded that investigations that are known by the public, including those he announces, are not tracked separately.

“We don’t track the announcement of an investigation,” he said.

I asked him if he felt a responsibility to tell the public what happens when an investigation is concluded, especially when it was found that nothing illegal, unethical or even improper had actually taken place.

“We consider that issue case by case,” Blumenthal replied.

Often, he said, companies, charities or individuals reach out-of-court settlements with his office where no wrongdoing is admitted, but restitution or fines are made – something that is normal in civil litigation.

“The vast majority of cases are settled with the consumer made whole,” he said. “And the business, or the hospital or the car dealer or whatever it is, is very, very very happy to have no publicity…they are very happy to make the whole thing go away.”

Blumenthal said that “99 percent of the time” targets request that there be no publicity. If a business requests a release at the end of an investigation, he said, he would grant it.

So I asked him if there has ever been an instance in the 18 years he has been attorney general where there was a public announcement of an investigation and there was nothing wrong found.

“I don’t know if I can answer that question,” he replied.

Have you ever had a press release, I asked, where he admitted that nothing wrong was found?

“I don’t know. I don’t know. We would have to go back and look,” he replied. Certainly, he said, there had been cases where he complimented targets of investigation for making positive changes.

“We try very hard to be fair and as honest as possible and there are very few complaints about what we say at the conclusion of an investigation,” he said.

And then Blumenthal filled in the rest of puzzle.

If no wrongdoing is found, it doesn’t mean that wrongdoing wasn’t or isn’t taking place, therefore there is no press release announcing the clearing of the firm.

“Very often we purposely avoid announcing the end of an investigation because new evidence may well emerge,” Blumenthal said.

CL&P’s meter issues falls into that category, Blumenthal said.

As some of you may recall, when I was the Watchdog columnist at The Courant, a group of CL&P customers and I stirred up a hornet’s nest by showing that the state’s largest utility was refusing thousands of requests for meter testing from customers whose bills did not make any sense. And we showed that the company had terrible customer service.

Blumenthal joined our investigation and along with state legislators convinced state utility regulators to force CL&P to honor all requests for meter testing – as had been required by state regulation – and to drastically improve its customer service.

However, one issue remains open as far as I am concerned, and that is whether, in rare cases, can CL&Ps meters malfunction periodically and still test normal.

CL&P insists they can’t, but I wrote about three cases last year where there seems to be no logical reasons on why there were periodic high readings. In two of the cases CL&P gave goodwill payments to customers but continued to insist that nothing was wrong.

When pressed about his promise to investigate erratic meter claims, Blumenthal said he has done all he can do: He helped convince state public regulators to actually regulate CL&P, to require independent testing of meters when customers demand it, and to provide goodwill payments in cases where there is no reasonable explanation on why the meter reading appear to be abnormal.

So, he says, his investigation will remain open on that issue and his office will pursue new complaints.

The following are motions filed by Blumenthal in his appeal:

2010-02-08 cpc mem support mo reduce verdict

2010-02-08 cpc mo to reduce verdict

2010-02-08 cpc motion set aside ev

2010-02-08 regan v cpc mis of mtn to set aside verd jug liberty int

2010-02-08 regan v cpc mtn to dismiss defs due process countrclm

2010-02-08 regan v cpc mtn to set aside verdict miss witness rule