Full Opinion

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** COUNCIL 4, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNCIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO v. STATE ETHICS COMMISSION ET AL. (SC 18896) Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, McLachlan, Eveleigh and Harper, Js. Argued March 21—officially released May 8, 2012 J. William Gagne, Jr., with whom was Kimberly A. Cuneo, for the appellant (plaintiff). Cynthia Isales, assistant general counsel, with whom was Barbara E. Housen, general counsel, for the appel- lees (defendants). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant citizen’s ethics advi- sory board (board), a division of the office of state ethics,1 issued an advisory opinion in 2009 concluding that hearing reporters for the workers’ compensation commission (commission) are not permitted under General Statutes § 1-84 (c)2 to prepare transcripts for private sale during the hours that they work for the state. The plaintiff, Council 4, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, appealed to the trial court on behalf of the hearing reporters. The trial court dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff then filed this appeal.3 The plaintiff claims, inter alia, that: (1) the trial court improperly concluded that the board properly treated the hearing reporters differ- ently than Superior Court reporters, whom the board previously had determined are allowed to prepare tran- scripts for private sale on state time; (2) the trial court’s decision is in conflict with General Statutes § 51-63 (e);4 and (3) the trial court’s decision is in conflict with a stipulated agreement between the plaintiff and the commission that allowed the hearing reporters to pro- duce transcripts for private parties while they were working on state time. After examining the record and the briefs and consid- ering the arguments of the parties, we are persuaded that the judgment rendered by the trial court should be affirmed. The issues raised by the plaintiff were resolved properly in the thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision filed by the trial court. Coun- cil 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. State Ethics Commission, 52 Conn. Sup. 304, A.3d (2010). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in the present appeal, we adopt the trial court’s well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat that discussion here. See, e.g., Socha v. Bordeau, 289 Conn. 358, 362, 956 A.2d 1174 (2008); Lord Family of Windsor, LLC v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 288 Conn. 669, 673, 954 A.2d 133 (2008). The judgment is affirmed. 1 The office of state ethics is the successor agency to the state ethics commission. See General Statutes § 1-80. Both entities were named as defen- dants in the petition in this administrative appeal, in addition to Carol Carson, the executive director of the board, and Robert N. Worgaftik, chairperson of the board, at the time of the 2009 proceedings. 2 General Statutes § 1-84 (c) provides: ‘‘No public official or state employee shall wilfully and knowingly disclose, for financial gain, to any other person, confidential information acquired by him in the course of and by reason of the official duties or employment and no public official or state employee shall use his public office or position or any confidential information received through his holding such public office or position to obtain financial gain for himself, his spouse, child, child’s spouse, parent, brother or sister or a business with which he is associated.’’ 3 The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1. 4 General Statutes § 51-63 (e) provides: ‘‘Official and assistant stenogra- phers in the offices of the workers’ compensation commissioners shall be entitled, in addition to the compensation otherwise provided for, to the same fees for preparing transcripts as are provided for reporters in the Superior Court.’’