Gov. Ned Lamont should name a replacement for Connecticut Port Authority board member John Johnson of New London, given Johnson’s disregard of an advisory opinion that suggests that many of his votes present a conflict of interest under state ethics rules.

All Lamont has to do is thank Johnson for his service and show him the exit, given that his four-year term expired June 30 — then hope Johnson's votes do not come back to bite the project, or Lamont, on the backside.

The editorial board appreciated that last spring Johnson took its advice, offered in an editorial, and sought the advisory opinion from the Office of State Ethics. He received it April 22. But seeking an advisory opinion does no good if it is ignored, which is the path Johnson has taken.

Since 1999, Johnson has owned a 35,000-square-foot warehouse at 75 Crystal Ave., separated from State Pier by State Pier Road and the Amtrak tracks. Because the port authority board has taken no direct action concerning the warehouse, Johnson has said he sees no conflict of interest.

Indeed, Johnson does not appear to have a “substantial” conflict of interest as defined by the law — meaning a “business with which (a board member) is associated will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss” as a result of a board vote.

But the relevant section of the nine-page advisory opinion notes that a public official must also abstain from “potential” conflicts concerning “an action that would affect a financial interest of such official.”

The opinion states:

“As for the property located at 75 Crystal Avenue, New London, if, by virtue of (Johnson’s) ownership of it, a reasonable person would expect that action taken by the CPA board would affect his financial interests in an amount exceeding $100, he has a potential conflict. For example, a potential conflict would exist for Mr. Johnson under (the statute) if a reasonable person would consider it likely the action taken by the CPA board would increase the property’s value by $100 or more.”

The quasi-public Connecticut Port Authority is in the thick of plans to invest an estimated $235 million, via a public-private project, to overhaul State Pier for use as a staging area in support of offshore wind-power development and for future use as a heavy-lift cargo port. Any reasonable person would conclude that a project of that scale will increase the value of the 75 Crystal Ave. property, which means Johnson has a “potential” conflict as defined by the law and should not be voting on such matters.

Yet, since receiving the advisory opinion, Johnson has voted on about $115 million in new contracts involving the planned construction activities. With each authorized improvement, the project moves closer to reality, and that warehouse grows in value and importance given its proximity to the development. In two of the cases, Johnson made the motion to approve the contracts.

Also in its opinion, the ethics office informed Johnson that if he concluded he should proceed on a vote anyway he was obligated to provide “a written statement signed under penalty of false statement describing the matter requiring action and the nature of the potential conflict and explaining why despite the potential conflict, (he)...is able to vote and otherwise participate fairly, objectively and in the public interest.”

The ethics office offered it services should Johnson have any questions on a particular vote.

Instead, Johnson has just kept voting, offering no written statement and not seeking any further advice.

Back in April, when we told Johnson we saw the advisory opinion as ruling him out of any votes involving pier improvements, he responded “we will have to agree to disagree.”

This is more arrogant behavior than scandalous behavior. Johnson is not bypassing the rules in secret, he is flaunting them in the open. The votes have been largely unanimous, meaning this project would have moved forward regardless, which makes Johnson insistence on voting all the more confounding and the necessity for Lamont to make a new pick all the more compelling.

The Day editorial board meets with political, business and community leaders to formulate editorial viewpoints. It is composed of President and Publisher Timothy Dwyer, Executive Editor Izaskun E. Larraneta, Owen Poole, copy editor, and Lisa McGinley, retired deputy managing editor. The board operates independently from The Day newsroom.