I won't be in town for Wednesday's debate between state Rep. Ernest Hewett and Chris Soto of New London, the Democrat challenging him in a primary for his 39th House District seat.

But I wouldn't miss it. I'll catch it on theday.com.

If I could ask a debate question, I would focus on the incident in which Hewett forever lost my confidence as a lawmaker: when he revealed himself to be little more than the unthinking puppet of a prominent lobbyist.

It happened one spring morning, when I got a tip that Hewett had introduced legislation that would create an elaborate new taxing authority for Fort Trumbull in New London, the wasteland created after Hewett, then a city councilor, and others voted to allow residents' homes there to be taken by eminent domain.

(Incredibly, as late as 2007, long after so much of the political establishment had realized the terrible mistake of taking peoples' homes for a project that never occurred, Hewett was one of only seven House lawmakers to vote against eminent domain reform for Connecticut.)

The tip about the new taxing district legislation for Fort Trumbull came to me the same May day a public hearing on the bill was scheduled in Hartford.

Imagine, the lawmaker never made any public disclosure that he was seeking to create this new beast, with the power to collect taxes and bond up to $190 million in tax-free bonds.

Someone was no doubt going to profit from this scheme.

On my way to the Capitol that morning I managed to reach (hands-free dialing) two other lawmakers who represent New London who said they, too, had just learned of the pending legislation.

I later discovered that Electric Boat, the city's largest taxpayer and one of the largest employers, also had just learned of the legislation and executives there were alarmed.

The defense contractor submitted last-minute testimony to the public hearing, complaining — no, howling — about the proposed taxing district.

I finally caught up with Hewett in a hallway of the legislative office building later that morning and got a chance to ask him some questions.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered, a few questions into the exchange, that he didn't have a clue how the new taxing district would operate.

He told me it was intended to lure new development to the city. When I asked how it would do that, he told me: "That's a good question."

I am not making this up. It was clear he did not understand at all what he had proposed making into law.

It turns out Hewett didn't know how it was supposed to work because he didn't write it, nor did legislative staff write it.

It came directly from lobbyist Jay Levin, he admitted when pressed, and was submitted exactly as it was written.

It doesn't get any easier for lobbyists than that: Lawmakers in the tank.

It was at this point in our chat that Hewett got up, said he couldn't say any more, and walked away.

Even he knew he admitted way too much.

Of course it was Levin, a New London Democrat, who is seen by many as the original architect of the use of eminent domain in Fort Trumbull.

His firm profited handsomely from a report that laid the groundwork for taking homes from many longtime New London families.

I assume that by now, all these months later, Hewett can somehow explain how that crazy Fort Trumbull taxing district he inexplicably slipped into legislation, practically in the middle of the night, was supposed to benefit the city.

There's been lots of time for coaching answers to that question.

The question I'd like to ask is why isn't it legislative malfeasance to secretly introduce a proposed law, written by a lobbyist and vigorously opposed by the city's largest employer, that you don't understand?

This is the opinion of David Collins.

d.collins@theday.com