Commission ties on inspector general nominee vote
HARTFORD — The state Criminal Justice Commission tied
3-3 on a nominee for the new position of inspector general for police accountability.
State Supreme Court Justice Andrew McDonald, the chairman of the commission, appeared visibly confused in announcing Thursday night that the commission had not arrived at a selection between New Britain State’s Attorney Brian Preleski and Bridgeport Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney C. Robert Satti Jr.
A second vote also ended in a
3-3 tie.
Faced with an Oct. 1 deadline to produce a nominee, McDonald said he was making the decision to send both Satti and Preleski to the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee.
“It’s the only option we have,” he said.
The position of inspector general was created by the new police accountability law to independently investigate the use of deadly force by police and in-custody deaths.
Members of the ACLU and the NAACP had objected Thursday to two prosecutors being the nominees for the position, contending that prosecutors could not be impartial when deciding whether police had committed crimes.
McDonald said he understood their concerns but said the commission by law was limited in interviewing only state prosecutors for the job.
While the new accountability law calls for the inspector general to be independent of state prosecutorial authority, other law requires prosecutors to fall under the state Division of Criminal Justice. So, the inspector general would also be a deputy chief state’s attorney.
Both Satti and Preleski are the most experienced prosecutors in the state with Preleski with 27 years as a prosecutor and Satti as a prosecutor for 40 years.
During their separate interviews via Zoom on Thursday, both men expressed concerns about a lack of detail for the position but said they would perform the job enthusiastically.
Although it created the position of inspector general during a special session, the General Assembly did not approve a budget for the office.
“This is not going to work if it’s one person working on a laptop on their kitchen table,” Preleski said.
Satti called the job, “uncharted territory.”
“We may not be funded for a year,” he said.
The state Office of Fiscal Analysis estimated the cost of running
the unit in 2021 at $1.1 million including $167,183 for the salary for the inspector general.