Connecticut appointment records and recusal distinctions

Findings

Three original committee rollcalls close the previously open Ecker and Suarez appointment gaps. Ecker’s initial Supreme Court nomination received a unanimous Judiciary Committee recommendation in April 2018. Suarez received two separate recommendations in 2020: one for interim service and another preceding full-term legislative confirmation. All three sheets identify the actual members voting and the legislators who moved and seconded the recommendations.¹²³

The recusal record also becomes more precise. Committee minutes expressly identify Thomas O’Dea’s 2018 Mullins nonvote as a recusal, without stating the reason. A later House transcript records Steven Stafstrom explaining his recusal on Moll because he had a pending case before her. That establishes his stated reason on the House floor, not automatically the reason for his earlier committee abstention.⁴⁵

These are public institutional acts and attributed explanations. None of these documents establishes an SGB role, a payment, an improper appointment arrangement, or an effect on a particular case.

Ecker’s original Supreme Court nomination

The April 23, 2018 Judiciary tally for Steven D. Ecker is CV211. It records the vote at 11:40 p.m.: 41 yea, zero nay, zero abstain and zero absent/not voting. John Kissel chaired; Steven Stafstrom moved the favorable recommendation and Rosa Rebimbas seconded it. The original sheet’s bill-number field is blank, but its title expressly identifies Ecker and the Supreme Court nomination.⁶

This was committee action, not final appointment. The House subsequently adopted HJ158 on April 30 by 147–0, with three absent/not voting. The Senate adopted it on May 3 by 36–0. These are three distinct stages, and the committee mover or seconder should not be described as the sole appointing authority.⁷⁸

Suarez’s interim and full-term sequence

Governor Ned Lamont’s signed September 25 proclamation expressly recites that he made Suarez’s interim Appellate appointment on July 20 under §2-40. It separately states that the Judiciary Committee approved the interim appointments on August 12 and calls for a special session to consider full terms. The proclamation is primary evidence of the governor’s formal account of those acts; it is not the original July 20 commission.⁹

The August sheet marks Dennis Bradley and Craig Fishbein absent/not voting. The September sheet additionally marks Daniel Champagne and Arthur O’Neill absent/not voting. Stafstrom, Kissel, Winfield, Blumenthal, Rebimbas and O’Dea voted yes in both committee episodes. No absence marker is treated as an abstention or an opposing vote.¹⁶¹⁷

The August 12 public-hearing transcript independently establishes that Suarez appeared and answered committee questions that day. The subsequent afternoon tally is the committee’s approval record. Neither the morning hearing nor that interim approval replaces the later full-term confirmation votes. The final resolution and legislative history supply the full-term context; the original commission and separate swearing instrument were not recovered here.¹⁸¹⁹

The two 2018 nonvotes

O’Dea and Mullins: recusal verified, reason open

The official minutes are headed Monday, February 26, 2018, and record a meeting called at 12:22 a.m., recessed for caucus, and reconvened at 12:54 a.m. The separate Mullins vote sheet dates the vote February 27. The labels are consistent with an overnight session but do not independently establish the precise date rollover. Each source’s own date must be retained; the discrepancy does not establish two different nomination votes.²⁰²¹

For Mullins, the minutes identify Kissel as mover, Tong as seconder, no discussion, O’Dea’s recusal, and a 40–0 tally with one abstention. They also separately record O’Dea recusals on McDonald and Kahn. They do not say why. The presence of several recusals does not establish that the reasons were identical or identify any underlying professional relationship.²²

Thus the characterization can advance from an unexplained tally mark to an expressly documented recusal, but the explanation remains unresolved. No original hearing passage or completed questionnaire supplying that explanation was recovered.

Stafstrom and Moll: later floor reason established

When SJ58 was called in the House on May 3, 2018, Stafstrom said: “I need to recuse on this nominee, as I have a pending case before her.” The chamber transcript identifies the resolution as Moll’s Appellate nomination immediately before this statement. This is direct evidence of his express floor recusal and his attributed reason.²³

The statement adds context to the House rollcall, which marks him absent/not voting. It does not identify the pending case, its parties or counsel, any SGB participation, or an adjudicated conflict. It also does not expressly refer back to April 23.²⁴²⁵

The corrected April 23 committee sheet separately records Stafstrom’s abstention, 40 yeas and no nays. No original committee explanation was recovered. The appropriate conclusion is therefore specific: May 3 floor recusal reason stated; April 23 committee abstention reason not independently established.²⁶

Evidence limits

The new rollcalls account for 121 member-status entries across three dated committees: 41 for Ecker and 40 for each Suarez episode. These are historical memberships. They should not be merged into today’s legislator roster without identity and date checks.

The official indexes did not supply all requested committee minutes and hearing transcripts. The available 2018 minutes listing returned February 26 and February 16 only. Newly tested candidate hearing/minutes paths for the relevant dates returned 404; a failed path or incomplete index is not evidence that a document never existed. No completed Moll or Mullins nomination questionnaire providing the committee-recusal explanations was recovered.²⁷

Only the recovered institutional actions and express statements are established. Motives, unrecorded contacts and financial connections remain outside what these sources prove. The existence of a pending case is Stafstrom’s attributed statement, not an invitation to infer its identity or connect it to an unrelated attorney or firm.

Sources

New sources accessed September 14, 2026; previously captured original chamber records retained for context. The three new committee sheets were visually checked against their full tabular layouts. Public-source captures and search/access receipts are retained separately.

Sources

1. Connecticut General Assembly, Judiciary Committee, Ecker nomination, committee vote CV211, April 23, 2018, 11:40 p.m. Official original tally.

2. Connecticut General Assembly, Judiciary Committee, Suarez nomination, committee vote CV57, August 12, 2020, 2:30 p.m.; correction field dated August 12. Interim context established by the proclamation in note 8.

3. Connecticut General Assembly, Judiciary Committee, Suarez nomination, committee vote CV62, September 30, 2020, 9:30 a.m.; correction field dated September 30.

4. Connecticut General Assembly, Judiciary Committee, Meeting minutes headed February 26, 2018, pp. 1–3, especially Mullins entry at p. 2. The document records post-midnight times; retain the separate February 27 tally date.

5. Connecticut General Assembly, House of Representatives, Session transcript, May 3, 2018, opening consideration of SJ58, House Calendar 482. Stafstrom’s express recusal and explanation.

6. Connecticut General Assembly, House of Representatives, HJ158 rollcall 117, April 30, 2018. Ecker floor vote; original retained capture.

7. Connecticut General Assembly, Senate, HJ158 rollcall 169, May 3, 2018. Ecker floor vote; original retained capture.

8. Governor Ned Lamont, Proclamation convening a special session for judicial nominations, September 25, 2020, two pages. Signed executive document distinguishing interim appointments and full terms.

9. Connecticut General Assembly, House of Representatives, HJ207 rollcall 29, September 30, 2020. Suarez floor vote; original retained capture.

10. Connecticut General Assembly, Senate, HJ207 rollcall 56, October 1, 2020. Suarez floor vote; original retained capture.

11. Connecticut General Assembly, Judiciary Committee, Public-hearing transcript, August 12, 2020, Suarez appearance beginning at printed p. 49. Primary published transcript; statements by witnesses remain attributed.

12. Connecticut General Assembly, HJ207 confirmation resolution and official legislative history, September 2020 special session. Retained original captures.

13. Connecticut General Assembly, Judiciary Committee, Mullins nomination, committee vote CV36, February 27, 2018. Original retained capture.

14. Connecticut General Assembly, House of Representatives, Moll nomination, SJ58 rollcall 173, May 3, 2018. Absence marker contextualized by the express recusal in note 5.

15. Connecticut General Assembly, Judiciary Committee, Moll nomination, committee vote CV217, April 23, 2018, corrected May 3, 2018. Original retained capture.

16. Connecticut General Assembly, 2018 Judiciary meeting-minutes index, retrieved September 14, 2026. Returned listing is not treated as a complete administrative record.