Chief Procurement Officer for the Connecticut State Contracting Standards Board (SCSB) Jonathan Longman has filed a complaint against the board with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), alleging he has been harassed, bullied, and retaliated against in the latest breakdown between the powerful Board of volunteers and the very staff members the Board has tried desperately to get over the last two decades.

Longman, who was hired in February of 2023 under a six-year contract and receives roughly $140,000 per year in salary, has been conspicuously absent from SCSB meetings since late August after filing a whistleblower retaliation complaint and affidavit with the Office of Public Hearings (OPH) on July 22, 2024. Board members were unaware that he had taken such extensive leave until the SCSB’s September meeting when Executive Director Daniels informed them Longman had taken leave and was due back at the end of October.

It was during the October meeting, however, when the SCSB went into executive session to discuss a claim pending before the Office of Public Hearing. Inside Investigator submitted a Freedom of Information request to that Office seeking Longman’s complaint, only to be told that it is currently pending with CHRO. State employees must exhaust all administrative remedies, including going to the CHRO, before they can file a lawsuit in superior court.

The SCSB board members have all been served and are currently in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, but as of the December meeting were completely in the dark as to whether Longman was still being paid despite his long absence. Executive Director Daniels refused to indicate one way or the other but said there was not enough money to hire a temporary replacement for Longman because they were still paying the budgeted salaries.

“I can’t speak to the rules, and I’m not sure if that’s even proper to talk about that matter. There’s a pending claim regarding Jonathan’s situation,” Daniels said. “I don’t feel it’s appropriate in a public session to talk about that.”

According to information supplied by the State Comptroller’s Office, Longman continued to receive his pay through the end of November using up all his leave time and has been on unpaid leave ever since.

According to the amended complaint filed in October of 2024, Longman claims “extreme stress and anxiety” have caused him to take a family and medical leave from his position and is blaming the Board, claiming they are “retaliating” against him, and seeking a substantial monetary payout.

“The disabling condition necessitating that leave was directly and proximately caused by the retaliatory threats of potential job loss or discipline made against him, and the leave has resulted in significant loss of pay and benefits which have gone uncompensated and will continue to go uncompensated into the future potentially for the duration of the Complainant’s statutory six-year term of employment,” Longman’s attorney Eric R. Brown wrote. “Finally, the Complainant has been caused to suffer emotional distress with physical manifestations and damages and he seeks full and fair compensation for all his economic losses as allowed by law. Further, the Complainant seeks an order from this tribunal that all harassing and retaliatory behavior against him cease at once.”

According to information supplied by Longman’s attorney, Longman states he is being retaliated against for a whistleblower action he launched in 2023 that saw long-time board member Robert Rinker unceremoniously bounced from the board by Gov. Ned Lamont. Longman claims that board members – particularly Lauren Gauthier and Sal Luciano – are retaliating against him for raising ethical concerns about Rinker’s conduct.

The Chief Procurement Officer serves at the pleasure of the Board, according to statute, and Longman believes the Board will give him a poor performance evaluation because of his actions, thereby endangering his job. The SCSB was directed by former chairman Michael Walsh to develop the statutorily required performance evaluation for the executive director and chief procurement officer in December of 2023, but the form has yet to be finalized or approved by the board and, as of this writing, staff has yet to receive a formal evaluation. 

Annual performance evaluations are normal in state employment, although they can and have been used in retaliatory measures in the past, according to previous findings by the CHRO and other state watchdog entities.

“Over the course of several months, several board members raised the issue of performing an appraisal of my performance,” Longman wrote in his original complaint to OPH. “There was never a performance appraisal discussion until after the (sic) I reported a board member’s misconduct, then it became a constant issue (threat) raised at our monthly board meetings.”

A review of SCSB meeting minutes throughout 2024, shows that board member Albert Ilg was tasked with developing the performance evaluation and reached out to former SCSB executive director David Guay for assistance. In February of 2024, the Board discussed how the evaluations would be rated and whether to include self-evaluations.

The Board did not meet again until June of 2024, during which the evaluations were discussed minimally. It was in July that the evaluations – which were still in draft form – were discussed at length and there was some debate on whether the Board should use the template Ilg developed or, as Daniels proposed, using the existing Department of Administrative Services (DAS) form. A similar debate was held at length during the August meeting, as well – the last meeting that Longman attended.

The evaluation form was eventually agreed upon in November of 2023; as of the January 2025 meeting, board members were reminded they could “submit comments regarding an evaluation of the Executive Director” by using the form or submitting a memo to Board Chairman Rochelle Palache.

The claim by Longman – who was hired in February of 2023 – comes amid the SCSB going through nearly all of 2024 facing a stark divide between the Board and its executive director. The Board had, for more than a decade, sought funding from the legislature to hire a full staff, finally getting that staff in 2024, only to come into nearly immediate conflict which halted their work for part of the year.

The SCSB has authority over all executive branch agencies to examine and audit their contracts to ensure they meet statutory standards. It is a daunting task with contracts taking up billions of dollars and roughly half of them bypassing competitive bidding procedures. Unlike the Auditors of Public Accounts, the SCSB has enforcement powers, including the ability to remove an agency’s contracting authority.

That makes the Board a thorn in the side of the executive branch, which has previously – under both Gov. Dannel Malloy and Gov. Ned Lamont – made moves to scuttle legislative funding and prevent the Board from expanding its authority. The SCSB’s highly publicized look at the beleaguered State Pier project drew the ire of the Lamont administration, according to some past and present board members.

However, it was the departure of former SCSC Chairman Michael Walsh after a very short tenure of only a few months that sent the board into a tailspin in 2024 and fueled the disintegration of the relationship between the Board and its staff and added to Longman’s claims. 

Daniels, appointed as executive director by Gov. Lamont, asserted that the board could not hold its regularly scheduled meetings until Lamont appointed Walsh’s replacement and cancelled three months’ worth of SCSB meetings between March and May of 2024. 

The move caused a rift between board members who argued they should be allowed to vote for an interim chairman while awaiting a gubernatorial appointment, and Daniels who said he was following state statute. The cancelation of the board’s work led to some heated debates between board members and Daniels. Lamont did not appoint a replacement chair until late May of 2024.

Meanwhile, the staff, including Longman, was firmly in Daniels’ corner, authoring a letter of support for Daniels, calling him an “exceptional leader,” and praising his “unwavering dedication to promoting a culture of integrity,” in May of 2024. 

It is believed by Longman – at least according to his claims to the CHRO – that the performance evaluations will be used to mete out punishment to Daniels for canceling Board meetings, and to Longman for filing his whistleblower complaint against Rinker, which resulted in him being unceremoniously removed from the Board by Gov. Ned Lamont in February of 2024.

“The Board never discussed the conduct of a performance evaluation for the Complainant until immediately after his participation in the Rinker investigation became known around December 20, 2023,” Longman’s complaint states. “The Complainant has brought this Complaint as an attempt to preserve his rights to be free from retaliatory conduct by his employer for his participation in the Rinker Complaint process stemming from the Rinker incident.”

Robert Rinker was one of the original members of the SCSB Board, which was set up in the wake of the Gov. John Rowland scandal, and he helped in writing the statute that created the board. During the incident in question, Rinker was serving as interim board chairman following Larry Fox’s retirement in September of 2023. 

For decades the Board did not have a staff other than an executive director. The board members, who are all volunteers appointed by the governor and legislative leaders, conducted the work themselves, operating in a cooperative and congenial fashion, according to past and present members. But as the legislature began to award them funding to staff up, problems began to emerge, leading to Longman’s whistleblower and retaliation claims.

According to Longman’s whistleblower complaint, on September 18, 2023, there was a meeting to discuss hiring a new staff attorney for the Board in which “Rinker and Daniels were not in clear agreement on whom should be hired to fill a vacant Board attorney position.” Board members Robert Rinker and Lauren Gauthier favored one candidate, while Daniels, Longman, and Trainer Specialist Carmen Huffcut favored Aaron Felman.

“At the end of the discussion, the Board’s Executive Director, Greg Daniels, wrapped up the meeting. As the hiring manager, he stated that it was ultimately his decision. He promised to consider all things discussed during the meeting and asked for additional time to review the resumes one last time,” Longman wrote in a witness statement. “Before the meeting ended, the acting board chair, Robert Rinker, stated, ‘Don’t forget that the board members perform your evaluation, and your raise this year will reflect how you vote on this decision.’”

Longman goes on to assert that Daniels later informed him that Rinker called Daniels on the phone and again threatened the executive director, stating, “We know you have a medical condition, and I want you to agree with the board members because it is in the organization’s best interest because of your illness.”

“I believe this behavior by the acting board chair – Robert Rinker, using personal health information and threats against Mr. Daniels’ employment, is harassment,” Longman wrote in his witness statement. “Mr. Rinker’s intimidating behaviors have created a hostile work environment where employees no longer feel valued or respected and where they fear further harassment from Mr. Rinker.”

According to the complaint, this witness statement was provided to DAS and “various Connecticut state legislators” in September of 2023 through December of 2023.

Emails between Rinker and Daniels obtained by Inside Investigator show Rinker was disappointed with Daniels’ ultimate hiring decision, but they also appear to contradict Longman’s claim that Rinker and Daniels were not in agreement on who to hire on September 18, which allegedly led to Rinker’s threat during that meeting.

In a September 18 email to Search Committee Members, including Rinker and Gauthier, Daniels writes, “Based on the results noted on the Committee’s interview matrix, I am voting for [redacted] as our first choice,” indicating that he was in agreement with Rinker on which candidate to select.

However, on October 6, 2023, Daniels emailed SCSB Search Committee Members indicating that he had changed his mind. The reversal appears to stun Rinker.

“Based on further review of the candidate packages… I am rescinding my vote for [redacted] as the top candidate for the staff attorney 1 position,” Daniels wrote. “Instead, as I initially stated in my September 14, 2023, email to the committee, I am voting for Mr. Feldman (sic) as my top candidate, with [redacted] as my second choice.”

“I was surprised and disappointed to receive your email on Friday afternoon before a long weekend regarding your reversal on the person to serve as the Board’s staff attorney. On September 18, 2023, you informed the selection committee of your vote for [redacted] based upon the committee’s interview matrix,” Rinker wrote in a reply email on October 7, 2023. “I am also disappointed that a day earlier when I asked you where we were on the staff attorney position because of our discussion on regulations, you said that you were working on it that day with [DAS employee] Brittany [Besaw]. You did not have the courtesy to call me and discuss your reversal less than 24 hours later.”

According to sources the other attorney candidate was a former defense lawyer and SCSB staff members raised concerns that his social media posts were critical of police and prosecutors, which is alluded to in Rinker’s email.

“While staff may have had second thoughts about [redacted] because of their outside reading of his blog posts that does not negate the committee’s evaluation,” Rinker wrote. “We do have first amendment rights of free speech.”

Longman was not present at the December 8 meeting when Walsh and the Board discussed performance evaluations, which are required under state statute. On December 6, Longman emailed DAS saying he felt he was being retaliated against because the Board criticized Daniels, and because he had received “numerous phone calls today on my work and personal phone,” from Board members and the former executive director.

“This feels retaliatory, and I’m not trying to make a big issue about it,” Longman wrote. “I’ll be taking vacation for the remainder of the day; I’ll use my vacation time. I plan on going into the office tomorrow and working with the staff, but I’ll be disengaging from any contact with board members and members of the public until Friday’s meeting, except for the meeting I have planned with our new chairman tomorrow afternoon (Greg and the rest of the staff will be in attendance).”

The following day, however, Longman again emailed DAS, requesting a leave of absence, and indicating that he would be retaining an attorney, anticipating that he would be verbally attacked by Rinker during the public meeting.

“If a verbal attack happens in a manner that I expect, I will be unable to do the job I’ve been hired to do,” Longman wrote. “I should not put myself in a situation that could negatively portray my (or the team’s) actions as insincere.”

Longman claims in his filing that he believes Rinker became aware of his whistleblower complaint “on/around December 20” of 2023 — after discussions about Longman and Daniels’ performance evaluations were brought up during the December 8, 2023, meeting. 

In his complaint, Longman included a screenshot of text messages from Rinker to himself showing a December 11 text from Rinker, stating, “I have been reaching out to you. I hope everything is ok. We missed you on Friday.”

Then, on December 20, when Longman believes Rinker got wind of his complaint, Rinker texted: “Now I understand. Enjoy the holidays with your family and see you in the new year.”

“We are doing our best to allow the state ample time to review our allegations, but now that Mr. Rinker has been made aware of my complaint, the harassment is increasing,” Longman wrote in a January 17, 2024, email to DAS. “This is creating a difficult work environment for all our employees.”

Director Daniels followed up on that email, writing to DAS that same day regarding “certain board members’ behavior and their subsequent retaliatory behavior.”

“Mr. Rinker has now enlisted the help of Ms. Gauthier and Mr. Luciano in the acts of retaliatory and harassing behavior against staff,” and indicated he and Longman were meeting with Chairman Walsh to discuss the matter.

All of this comes as a surprise to Rinker who says he was unaware there was a whistleblower complaint against him until September of 2024 – long after his removal from the board and long after Longman believes Rinker was made aware of the complaint. 

Rinker also says he was unaware of the specific claims against him until contacted by Inside Investigator. Rinker denies all allegations that he threatened Daniels’ job and pay over his decision about which attorney to hire. “That is completely false,” Rinker said.

He also denies making any phone call to Daniels during which he made “threatening” remarks concerning a medical condition; “Completely false,” Rinker said.

Rinker states that no one ever contacted him or asked him about the alleged incidents. As a gubernatorial appointment, he was simply removed. “No one ever said to me, this is why you’re being replaced on the board,” Rinker said. “No investigation, no getting my side of the story. They took whatever Daniels and Longman said at face value.”

In previous statements in Inside Investigator, Rinker indicated he believed he was removed from the Board by Gov. Ned Lamont due to his outspokenness over contracting issues at the State Pier. No explanation was offered in writing when the governor removed Rinker from the Board and replaced him with Keith Brothers leading to some speculation that it was a politically motivated move.

Rinker says he “thought we had an excellent working relationship” with Longman and texted him on December 11 because Longman was not at the December 8 meeting and wanted to check that he was okay. Rinker says that his December 20 text in which he says, “Now I understand,” was in reference to a new organizational chart Chairman Walsh distributed that showed Longman was no longer reporting to the board, which would explain his absence and lack of response.

Reached for comment, Board member Lauren Gauthier, who is listed as a witness to the September 18 exchange between Daniels and Rinker, denies Rinker ever threatened Daniels. 

“I was at the September 18 meeting,” Gauthier said. “The alleged statements did not happen.”

Rinker says the idea that he would make a threat over a simple disagreement is contrary to his and the Board’s history, where disagreements happen without it becoming personal. Rinker says that while he voted for the other candidate, he hoped for the best for Attorney Felman. 

“That’s what happens,” Rinker said. “That’s the nature of having disagreements, but it’s nothing personal.”

Carmen Hufcut did not return Inside Investigator’s email requesting her recollection of events that day.

Longman was present during SCSB Board meetings in January and February of 2024. It was just days before the February meeting and several weeks after Longman’s January 17 email to DAS claiming Rinker had found out about the complaint and that “harassment is increasing,” that Rinker was kicked off the Board by Lamont.

It was also after the February meeting that Daniels began canceling Board meetings, arguing that Gov. Lamont needed to choose a replacement chairman before meetings could continue. The move sparked some sharp disagreement from both Gauthier and Board member Sal Luciano, who argued the Board should just appoint an interim chair so they could continue their work, as they had done in the past.

During this ongoing disagreement, there was a virtual meeting held between Longman, Daniels, Gauthier, and Stuart Mahler on April 10, 2024, to discuss the status of the monthly board meetings. During that meeting, Longman says Gauthier became increasingly “hostile and derogatory,” according to emails Longman sent to DAS and lawmakers, obtained through a Freedom of Information request. 

Longman states that during the conversation he felt he was “being set up or trapped,” when Gauthier referenced “a letter from the [Attorney General’s] Office stating that the staff was doing something illegal,” and that she was bullying Daniels. However, he felt most of her “anger and hostility” was directed at him. He believes it is all related to his complaint against Rinker.

“I feel that Ms. Gauthier’s hostility is retaliatory to my (and other employees’) whistleblower actions from last year’s incident with Mr. Rinker,” Longman wrote in an April 12, 2024, email. “Ms. Gauthier’s actions and aggressions created an intolerable work environment for me, and the quality and quantity of my work products (reports, memos, etc.) have suffered tremendously.”

In July, Longman again follows up with DAS wondering why no investigation has begun. Theresa Judge responded that DAS takes these allegations seriously and staff are working to see what they could do, but that “HR do not have any purview over the appointed members of the Board.” Judge also indicated that she had no information on how Gauthier may have received his whistleblower complaint, as they did not share it with her.

Longman then forwarded the email exchange to lawmakers, including House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, who is the authority in charge of Gauthier’s board appointment. 

“90 days with no action does not indicate that anyone is taking this matter seriously,” Longman wrote. “I can’t say that I agree with your comment regarding DAS; your agency has a responsibility to me, a state employee, and my fellow co-workers.”

Longman then moved forward with filing his OPH complaint on July 22. Included in the original complaint is a letter by Attorney Felman, who was party to the April 10 virtual call and claims that Gauthier was bullying and intimidating Longman by saying she had a letter from the Attorney General’s Office “stating the SCSB staff and its Executive Director, Mr. Daniels, were engaged in an illegal scheme.”

“There is no possible way that she had such a letter, nor was one ever created by the AG’s office,” Felman wrote. “It was an attempt to manipulate and bully both Longman and Mr. Daniels.”

Felman then goes on to describe a July 14, 2024, SCSB meeting in which Luciano and Gauthier discussed the evaluations of Longman and Daniels, writing that Gauthier, “with a sly smirk on her face, looked towards Mr. Longman and essentially said ‘yeaaa Jonnn…’”

“As the recording will show, this was done (yet again) to belittle, bully, and manipulate Mr. Longman,” Felman wrote. “However, this is even more flagrant due to the public nature of these comments. This behavior has been occurring for far too long and must be stopped.”

Reached for comment, Rep. Candelora, Gauthier’s appointing authority, says he is well aware of the allegations but says he has yet to see any substantive proof that would cause him to rethink his appointment.

“I did receive a phone call over the summer, the governor’s office was concerned about my appointment, and I said I’m happy to listen; if you have specific issues, please let me know,” Candelora said. “No one has ever substantiated any allegations against this board.”

“To me, it comes off a little bit childish,” Candelora said. “I’m not removing one of my appointees because the people that are employed by this agency are unhappy. Remember, it’s a volunteer board and Lauren’s level of dedication to this, and her level of knowledge, is pretty impressive. To me, she’s very direct and professional.”

“I categorically deny the allegations that have been made against myself and fellow Board members,” Gauthier said when reached for comment regarding the April 10 virtual meeting. “It would appear to me that this is a pattern of false allegations, which includes the recent allegations by staff against Chair Palache, and I would venture, likely is what caused the abrupt removal of Bob Rinker in February of 2024.”

Gauthier, along with Luciano, were both outspoken in their opposition to Daniels canceling Board meetings in 2024 and made arguments that it was contrary to state statute. Daniels and Longman, however, disagreed with their assessment, according to emails, leading to the virtual meeting on April 10 in which Longman claims he was threatened and bullied.

Stuart Mahler, who was also on the video conference, could not be reached for comment. Daniels did not respond to request for comment regarding the conversation.

The State has responded to Longman’s CHRO complaint and has moved to strike the allegations twice, arguing Longman has not identified a “protected disclosure;” that there has not been any adverse personnel action; and that he “failed to identify a causal relationship between any protected activity and any adverse personnel action.”

The initial motion to strike was rejected, and Longman has objected to the second. The case remains ongoing and a release from CHRO jurisdiction could, in the future, set up a case in Superior Court.

Longman has not returned to work, remaining on unpaid leave since his last paycheck on November 29, 2024. However, according to the Secretary of State’s Office, in February of 2024 – just as Board meetings were being canceled – Longman filed paperwork to start a business called Jemicalia, Inc, a “trucking company servicing FedEx in Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut,” according to LinkedIn.

Longman’s business, however, has raised some ethics concerns among Board members, who note that FedEx is a major contractor for the State of Connecticut, and state statute says that no non-clerical employee of the SCSB “shall be associated with an enterprise that does business with the state.”

Longman’s attorney, however, says Longman “is in compliance with all state statutes related to business ownership and furthermore, no claims or charges have been made against Mr. Longman that he is in non-compliance.”

While Longman’s claim continues through the CHRO process, problems continue between the Board and the staff they finally got after a decade of trying. 

On January 16, 2025, the SCSB staff issued a vote of “no confidence” in the Board, mirroring many of Longman’s claims. The staff wrote that the board was ineffective, lacked transparency, used “manipulative tactics,” and engaged in “passive and active harassment and intimidation.” 

The staff of six – not including Longman or Daniels – called for an impartial investigation, a performance plan for board members, establishing a code of conduct and standards, and, of note, possibly tying board members’ tenure to that of their appointing legislator, which would remove almost the entire Board.

The no confidence letter, however, raises some questions about whether the staff understand their role in the agency and the validity of their claims, which are made without evidence or specificity, and include claims of ethics and FOI violations, according to Rep. Candelora, who wondered why those alleged violations were not brought to the proper watchdog agencies like the Office of State Ethics or the Freedom of Information Commission.

“I read the vote of no confidence and it’s very odd they’re directing it at the Board when their direct superior is the executive director. The Board is not their employer, they have no direct interaction, and yet they’re choosing to skip over the executive director and go after the Board,” Candelora said. “The vote of no confidence raises more questions than answers because nothing in that document specifies any allegation other than stating it.”

Like Longman’s whistleblower claims, the no confidence letter appears to be in defense of Executive Director Daniels; it was Daniels who was allegedly threatened by Rinker, but it was Longman who filed the report and used that report to make his case for retaliation and harassment. It was also Longman, not Daniels, who raised allegations related to the April 10 virtual meeting, even though Daniels was on the call. 

Likewise, some of the issues raised in the no confidence letter pertain to Daniels’ actions and initiatives that the Board has objected to.

The staff wrote the Board unanimously postponed the adoption of an ethics policy; however, that ethics policy initially included a gag order on Board members. The drafted ethics policy made headlines and Daniels subsequently removed that provision, but clearly there were some mitigating factors impacting the Board’s reaction to policy. 

Secondly, the staff demands that Board members be required to “participate in annual training and acknowledge their understanding of FOIA requirements,” and highlight a FOI training meeting held in May of 2024 during which only two Board members attended. 

However, May of 2024 was during the time Daniels had canceled all Board meetings while awaiting a new gubernatorial appointment. Board members were openly opposed to his cancelations and questioned how Daniels could continue to hold special meetings – like the FOI training – while preventing them from holding their regularly scheduled meetings.

The staff are also calling for “formal evaluation processes for Board members that include performance goals and requirements,” which they write can “mirror” the performance evaluations of Daniels and Longman – the same performance evaluation that Longman fears will be used against him. The letter was issued just as SCSB Chairman Rochelle Palache was collecting comments about Daniels’ job performance for review and calls for Board members to be removed if they don’t meet performance expectations.

According to sources, Daniels claims he had no prior knowledge of the no-confidence letter.

SCSB Chairman Palache said she is taking the issue seriously and wants to ensure “that staff and Board members are treated with dignity and respect and given the resources they need to fulfill their mission.”

“As far as I can tell from the meetings, the Board is just trying to hold everyone accountable,” Candelora said. “They want them to do their job.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.