Connecticut Banking Employees Raised Serious Complaints—What Did the Lamont Administration Do?

Serious workplace complaints involving leadership at the Connecticut Department of Banking have raised questions about how the administration of Governor Ned Lamont responded to employees who said they experienced bullying, intimidation and retaliation.

According to an investigation by WFSB's I-Team, more than 15 current and former employees described a workplace affected by fear, poor morale and alleged retaliation. Eight employees reportedly filed formal human resources complaints beginning in 2024.

The allegations involve Connecticut Banking Commissioner Jorge Perez, who has denied the accusations against him.

Images reportedly showing Perez appearing to sleep at work also became part of the controversy. Perez said those moments were connected to a medical condition. A photograph alone cannot establish what occurred or explain the circumstances surrounding it, and his response must be included as part of a fair account.

Governor Lamont previously said that an "ongoing review" was taking place. However, employees interviewed by WFSB reportedly said they had not been contacted by the Governor's Office.

That does not necessarily prove that no review occurred. It does, however, leave important questions unanswered.

Who conducted the review? Was it handled by the Governor's Office, the Department of Administrative Services, internal human resources officials or an outside investigator? Were the employees who filed complaints interviewed? Was a written report completed, and were any corrective measures recommended?

The concerns surrounding the agency extend beyond the allegations involving Commissioner Perez.

A subsequent WFSB report revealed that Department of Banking manager Alvaro Santamaria received a ten-day unpaid suspension after investigators found sexual harassment, intimidation, implied threats and psychological harassment.

Despite those findings, Santamaria reportedly remains employed by the department.

His continued employment does not mean that no disciplinary action was taken, since the unpaid suspension itself constituted discipline. Nevertheless, the seriousness of the reported findings raises questions about how the punishment was determined and what protections were provided to affected employees afterward.

It is also important to distinguish the documented disciplinary findings involving Santamaria from the allegations against Perez. They are connected to broader concerns about the workplace environment, but they are not identical cases and should not be presented as though the same conclusions were reached in both matters.

State Senator Ryan Fazio highlighted the controversy in a Facebook video and characterized the matters as political scandals. However, the underlying reporting was conducted by WFSB's I-Team.

Fazio's description represents his political interpretation of the information uncovered in those reports. It should not be confused with an independent investigative finding of corruption or criminal conduct.

At this time, the publicly reported information does not establish that Perez committed corruption or any crime. The central issue is whether state officials responded adequately and transparently to serious workplace complaints made by public employees.

Connecticut residents and Department of Banking employees deserve a clearer explanation of what the administration meant by an "ongoing review."

Among the questions that remain are: Which office or agency conducted the review? When did the review begin, and has it been completed? Were the eight employees who reportedly filed formal complaints interviewed? Was a written investigative report produced? What findings or recommendations resulted from the review? What measures were taken to protect employees from possible retaliation? Why was a ten-day unpaid suspension considered the appropriate discipline in the Santamaria matter? Were workplace conditions evaluated after the complaints and disciplinary findings?

These questions do not assume that every allegation has been proven. They seek accountability concerning the process used by state government after employees came forward.

Public confidence depends not only on whether an investigation takes place, but also on whether officials explain who conducted it, what it examined and what happened as a result.

Until those details are made public, Connecticut residents are left with a phrase — "ongoing review" — but few clear answers about what that review actually involved.