To The Editor:
The Hartford Business Journal on May 14 published a story, originally run in the Manchester-based Journal Inquirer newspaper, with a sensational headline. The story suggested that the Clean Energy Fund (CEF) imposed unusual conditions pertaining to my participation with a biomass project in Connecticut.
Since the news this story purported to report happened over a year ago it is unclear what the “news” was.
The article stated that an “extraordinary prohibition” had been adopted respective to my role in the project but never indicated who deemed it so. The premise that the CEF imposed unusual restrictions on me might be considered otherwise when considered in the context of the following facts and timeline.
In July of 2004 I resigned from the board of Connecticut Innovations (CI). While I did not serve on any CEF committees, the fund was an entity administered by CI. The reason I resigned was that it was increasingly clear to me that, as a Rowland appointee with economic interests impacted by the actions of the CEF, I would likely be a target of innuendo and attacks from rival renewable energy project developers. Anything “Rowland” was fair game in the newspapers, and even though I enjoyed serving the state on the CI board, I thought it best to resign.
Several months later, an unsigned “whistleblower” letter was sent to the CI board alleging a number of instances where individuals or companies with a connection to the former governor improperly influenced the CEF. An allegation was included that I sought to influence the fund pertaining to a loan for a biomass project in Waterbury.
During the winter of 2004-5 an internal investigation was undertaken by CI. I believe the unsigned letter was transmitted to several state agencies for investigation, one of which was the state auditor. A number of newspaper stories chronicled these events directing significant attention to the CEF.
In the latter part of 2005 The Plainfield Renewable Energy project (PRE) sought funding and support for a proposed biomass project in Plainfield. I had been working with this project for some time. In early 2006, as a loan agreement was being finalized, concerns regarding the unresolved allegations of the whistleblower letter were communicated to the principals of the project. A condition of the loan would require that I not own equity in the project. While I didn’t welcome this requirement I understood CEF’s position. The loan was finalized 14 months ago, which again begs the question, what was news worthy in this story?
There are a number of companies and projects that are competing for renewable energy contracts and support in Connecticut. Efforts have been made both recently and in the past to try and hinder PRE by attacking me. It’s tough to defend yourself from an unsigned letter that makes sensational allegations.
I wish to also point out that I have never been charged with any ethics violation or notified of any formal investigation. My record of 30 years of continuous state and local service speaks for itself.
A letter from the Ethics Commission in 2006 indicated they had conducted an informal review and the matter was closed. In light of the aforesaid information perhaps this newspaper will also now consider this matter closed.
J. Scott Guilmartin
Suffield