On May 14 I wrote about freshman Democratic state Rep. Chris Soto of New London abstaining from two key votes in the Appropriations Committee, one concerning the construction of a third tribally run casino in East Windsor, the other providing some pricing relief for Millstone Power Station. Soto pointed to a potential conflict of interest in skipping two of the most important policy decisions facing the local delegation in Hartford.

When I talked to him back then, Soto kept the door open to voting on the matters when they reached the full House. If the votes appeared close, Soto said he might have to revisit the ethical nuances. In particular, Soto expressed concern about seeing the casino proposal fail because he did not vote.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Soto walked through the door he kept open, voting in favor of the legislation which, if signed into law by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, will allow the Mashantucket and Mohegan tribes to jointly develop a casino. The intent of the proposed East Windsor casino is to keep some of the gaming business in Connecticut that would otherwise be lost to the new MGM casino when it opens in Springfield, Mass., next year.

The vote was not close. The 103-46 margin surprised many. But Soto said he did not know that beforehand. If he had decided he would not participate for ethical reasons, the right thing to do would have been to leave the chambers. Instead, Soto said, he opted to stay, participate and vote.

Constituents were not happy that he had not supported the casino proposal in Appropriations. Soto said he heard from them. He said about 1,000 people who work at the region’s two tribal casinos live in his 39th District. An East Windsor casino should mitigate the job losses when MGM opens and Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun lose patrons.

At issue is Soto’s position as founder and director of the New London nonprofit Higher Edge, which guides low-income and first-generation students into and through college. In its fifth year, it serves 170 students in high school and college. The nonprofit has a contract to do college advising work for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe.

Soto noted his decision not to vote when the matter came before Appropriations because of concerns about the “perception that the Tribes ‘bought’ my vote through their philanthropic support for my organization” and “the contract with us to do some work.”

Last Monday, Soto sought an advisory opinion from the Office of State Ethics about the "potential conflict of interest."

“Can you please share some clarity on this?” Soto asked.

In responding, Peter J. Lewandowski, associated general counsel for the ethics office, stated, “the Ethics Code does not address appearances of conflict, only actual conflicts.” In Soto’s case, there did not appear to be any.

“You only have to abstain from official action on the casino bill if you and/or your associated business will derive director financial gain, or your vote is premised on some form of quid pro quo. If the passage of the casino bill is not directly connected to any financial benefit to either you or your associated business, you may participate in the vote,” concluded Lewandowski.

Soto did not face the decision with the Millstone matter — its owner Dominion donates to Higher Edge — because the bill never got to a vote in the House.

The first-year lawmaker was in a tough spot. Soto’s inclination to proceed cautiously was the right one, as was his decision to seek an opinion before voting. In handling this touchy matter, he deserves a passing grade.

Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.