CT GOV'T NEWS HERE.  A BETTER MOUSE TRAP?  THE GOVERNORS CONFERENCES:  JACKSON HOLE, LA AND NOW... WINTER VACATION IN DAVOS OR SNOW JOB?



L. to R.:
Link to "About Town" bills of interest page;  C.G.A. site (tracking, etc.);  "Short" 2012 Legislative Session Feb. 8 to May 9 and done;  JR Deadlines had been supplied by LWVCT.
T H E    C O N N E C T I  C U T   G E N E R A L    A S S E M B L Y 

Previously...



Udderly outdated data, but somethingto chew the cud over....
However note the importance of #1 Fairfield County, in blow-up with BIG lead over New Haven and Hartford Counties, (c) and further, that agriculture that isn't for eating is where CT does half its business (r).

Agriculture's star rises in Malloy administration
Jan Ellen Spiegel, CT MIRROR
January 23, 2012

In an era when jobs haven't exactly been growing on trees -- Connecticut is betting that they just might. And on bushes. And even indoors.

Some half-dozen years after the Rowland administration tried to all but eliminate the state's Department of Agriculture, the Malloy administration is embracing the state's $3.5 billion, 20,000-job agriculture industry as a potent component of job creation.

That effort seems to be centered on the reconfigured Governor's Council for Agricultural Development. Once an unwieldy and largely unknown absentee group, legislation passed in the last session streamlined it to a svelte 15 members headed by Agriculture Commissioner Steven Reviczky and bolstered by members from all walks of farming, interest groups and academia.

The legislation also specifically tasks the group with providing recommendations to increase the percentage of Connecticut consumer dollars spent on locally produced farm products from the 1 percent of all money spent on food now to 5 percent by 2020.

Agricultural Map

Combined with renewed legislative interest in agriculture, girded by Connecticut's energetic embrace of the local food movement over the past several years and a personal pep talk from Gov. Dannel P. Malloy himself, there was optimism all around the room as the council gathered for its first meeting just days after the new year.

"I'm excited, and it's hard to excite me; I'm a beat up farmer," said Kevin Sullivan, a member of the council, a board member of the Connecticut Nursery and Landscape Association and owner of Chestnut Hill Nursery in Stafford. "This right now, right here could be the genesis for modern agriculture in Connecticut."

But there are serious hurdles that Sullivan knows all too well. "Our production farms have moved away; our average age is 57.5 years," he said. "I have a son who's going to college for agriculture. We don't think we're going to get him home, because I can't give him the economic opportunities."

Such opportunities are often stymied by balky distribution and infrastructure systems, a frequent complaint by the mainly small farmers in the state. The average size of a farm here is 82 acres.

Another persistent problem is contradictory and redundant regulations among the various departments that share supervisory roles with the Department of Agriculture -- Consumer Protection, Public Health and Energy and Environmental Protection. There is also the issue of local health departments, long a thorn for farmers who can face rules that differ from town to town.

The council is also battling back from decades of second-class status. No one can remember the last time there was an agriculture committee in the legislature. Related issues currently reside, often as an afterthought, in the Environment Committee. And there are turf battles that are only starting to be smoothed over.

Legislators on both sides of the aisle, however, are praising Malloy for his commitment to agriculture.

"We don't really have any farmers in the legislature right now; we have 'ag day' once a year," said Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, who has a large farming constituency and who recalled that his first job at 14 was picking tobacco. Kissel is not on the Environment Committee. He said he is considering proposing the creation of a select committee on agriculture, similar to the one on aging.

"The select committee on aging totally changed the dialogue," he said. "I think we need the same thing in agriculture."

Rep. Bryan Hurlburt, D-Tolland, a member of the Environment Committee, said he'd prefer to see a full agriculture committee. "We have to look at the agriculture industry," he said, "not as Farmer John down the road, but as a huge industry that is multinational at this point."

Much of the pressure for revamping policies and streamlining systems comes from farmers themselves, he said. "The issues that we go through when dealing with sister agencies, trying to get things through is horrendous and unproductive at times," Hurlburt said. "I think that would probably take creating a task force to overhaul the regulations."

Non-edible agriculture

Food actually accounts for less than half of Connecticut's agricultural revenue stream. Nearly half comes from the nursery and greenhouse industry and about 10 percent from tobacco.

There was little concern among those at the council meeting this month, despite a presentation by the Farm, Food and Jobs working group that focused solely on edible agriculture, that sexier notions of local peaches, pears, wine, ice cream and fresh turkey would trump hay, daisies and Christmas trees.

Agricultural Pie Chart

"Really the canvas is wide open for the council to address all the issues," said Reviczky, who established two subcommittees: Supply -- production, investment and infrastructure; and demand, which includes education and research. There are work groups under each looking at dozens of sometimes overlapping subjects from distribution to energy to agritourism to regulations to restaurants to waste management to taxation and to the agriculture department itself.

Ideas for how to increase the job potential of agriculture, the difficulties and other considerations, are just starting to percolate. Many point to the category of "value added" -- processing raw material, such as tomatoes, into less seasonal products, such as sauce. Greenhouse growers point to potential providing more plants for green infrastructure projects.

"We have to improve the ability for getting food from Connecticut farms to consumers working through wholesalers and retailers and re-examining how that happens today," Reviczky said. "Certainly there's room for improvement."

But Sullivan raised a few eyebrows with his assertion: "The first and foremost recommendation for agriculture is for the people at (the state Department of) Economic Development to actually realize that this is an economic development," he said. "It's so often treated as a hobby."

DECD Commissioner Catherine Smith said she "completely disagreed" with that assessment, noting that farms accounted for two stops on the governor's jobs tour last year and that the jobs bill included $5 million to put agricultural lands back into production. "We are absolutely committed to helping agricultural interests in the state grow," she said.

She admitted the process for development of new agriculture and new forms of agricultural jobs was at a "fledging stage," but she pointed to unusual ideas such as housing indoor agriculture in unused industrial buildings or in outdoor locations in economically hard hit downtowns.

"I think their attention to this is improving every day," Reviczky said of DECD. "One of the things the governor demands is cooperation among agencies."

Numbers of farms rise

It's not that agriculture has languished during the past several years. The Farm, Food and Jobs group's report cited U.S. Department of Agriculture data that the number of farms in the state increased by 17 percent to more than 4,900 from 2002 to 2007. Rigorous farmland preservation programs exist, most recently Farmland ConneCTions, which seek to match towns and land trusts with farmers who want to lease land.

"I know a handful of farmers who, had they been able to find suitable land, would have stayed in Connecticut; I have seen them leave the state," said Jennifer McTiernan, coordinator for the project, run jointly by American Farmland Trust and the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System. "That's the story we hear here in Connecticut again and again."

Seemingly small changes //that have been made// can have a large impact on business models. These include recent legislation to allow canning of certain acidic foods without a commercial kitchen; a new state-run system for processing poultry without USDA inspection; and permitting farms to sell each other's wines.

Council member Gregory Weidemann, dean of UConn's College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, thought Europe and Canada were models the state should consider. Europe and Canada have embraced the ideas and advanced the technologies of growing more food year-round in greenhouses.

"The way they're tying that to energy conservation, they're doing much more innovative things than frankly we are here in the U.S.," he said, explaining that the state suffers under high "input costs."XX divide sentences -- segue to next sentence

"The land's expensive, the energy's expensive, labor's expensive," he said. "So we have to find very efficient ways of doing business."

Henry Talmage, executive director of the nonprofit Connecticut Farm Bureau and the other council subcommittee leader, said regional approaches that exploit Connecticut's position halfway between the behemoth markets of New York and Boston should be explored. But first, he said, identify the industry's historic growth barriers.

"We should say, just like we would in any other economic development proposal, 'Here's an industry we think is important to the future of our state, what's holding it back,'" he said. "And if it's regulatory, it's a matter of 'OK, how do we fix that?'"

And he said it was important to look at the agricultural system as a whole -- which means more than just food. It's marketing and human resources and all the related industries that make it run.

"This is better than having the argument as to whether or not we should roll the Department of Agriculture into some other agency," he said. "Even with all the challenges, I'd much rather have the opportunity to figure out how to do it."

"Short Session 2012" list of bills, maybe?

Davos, site of World Economic Forum, to hear from the mouse that roared, Connecticut!

From Davos...
Fiscal Office Says Malloy's Numbers Off By $3.1 Billion
The Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, ckeating@courant.com
5:54 PM EST, January 27, 2012

HARTFORD — Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's estimate of pension savings over 20 years was wrong by $3.1 billion, the legislature's nonpartisan fiscal office said Friday.

Malloy had announced that the state would save $4.8 billion over 20 years from a negotiated deal last year with the state employee unions. Republicans blasted various aspects of the deal at the time, saying that the estimates were overinflated, unrealistic and unreachable.

On Friday, the nonpartisan office said the actual pension savings over 20 years would be $1.7 billion — representing a $3.1 billion shortfall over two decades.

The Malloy administration defended the numbers as actuarially sound, but Republicans ripped them as an exaggeration.

"It speaks to a constant overstatement and misrepresentation of our real budget difficulties and deficits,'' Senate Republican leader John McKinney told reporters at the Capitol. "We now know [Malloy] cannot achieve the health care savings that he said he would achieve. Even he has conceded that. We have yet to see the first penny from the $180 million in savings from the employees suggestion box. And now we learn that, over a 20-year period, on one part of his deal, his promise fell short by $3.1 billion.''

The pension problems, McKinney said, were one of the fiscal problems that prompted the Moody's Investors Service to lower the state's bond rating. Republicans have charged that Malloy's deal with the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition, known as SEBAC, did not generate enough savings.

McKinney added, "The Moody's downgrade is evidence that we didn't solve all of our problems with the SEBAC deal. And this is further evidence that we're $3.1 billion short of where the governor thought we would be.''

House Republican leader Larry Cafero described the numbers as "fiction'' that are essentially illusory savings from the deal with the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition, known as SEBAC.

"Just as in the other areas of the SEBAC deal concerning health care and other built-in savings, the pension fund savings are just one third of what was budgeted,'' Cafero said. "This is just more bad news.''

But Malloy's budget chief, Ben Barnes, said Friday that the administration stands by its numbers and the actuaries who developed them. He criticized Cafero, McKinney and Govs. John Rowland and M. Jodi Rell by name for creating the state's financial problems. Earlier this week, the Malloy administration criticized the fiscal office for its estimate on the state deficit.  Meanwhile, Malloy, who is attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, announced Friday that he is proposing consolidating more state agencies. His drive to streamline state government has already reduced the number of agencies from 81 to 59. He is now calling for an additional trim, which would bring the number to 52.

Malloy said in a conference call from Switzerland that the consolidations would bring no immediate budget savings except for having one fewer commissioner. Republican legislators criticized last year's consolidations as mostly for show because they produced relatively negligible savings in a $20 billion annual state budget.  Among other consolidations, Malloy proposes the merger of the Teacher's Retirement Board with the Office of the State Comptroller, as well as the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner with the University of Connecticut Health Center and the University of Connecticut.

For the second day in a row, Malloy delivered a summary of his activities in Davos. At a breakfast meeting Friday, he was with the new head of UBS, who is the former prime minister of Switzerland.

Malloy also said he spent time with "some business interests who I'm trying to attract.'' He then added that he talked to a company that is interested in "growing 1,000 jobs in the state,'' but he said he could not elaborate. The company "has a presence'' in Connecticut, but "not the likes of what we're talking about,'' Malloy said. He noted that 22 companies are currently in the pipeline that could qualify for state benefits under the law if they expand their operations here.

"I'm working these people,'' Malloy said of the business prospects. "I'm working them hard.''
$291 Million Jackson Lab Deal Goes To Bond Commission Jan. 30
Courant Staff Report
11:27 AM EST, January 20, 2012

Financing for the Jackson Laboratory deal  is scheduled for a vote by the State Bond Commission on Jan. 30.

Last October, the legislature approved a plan hatched by the Malloy administration for Jackson Laboratory to open a facility at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, to anchor a planned bioscience cluster known collectively as the Connecticut Bioscience Collaboration Program. Jackson Laboratory, a research firm based in Maine, specializes in genomic medicine.

The commisison vote would authorize $290.69 million in bonding for fiscal years 2012 to 2021.
Once an item is placed on the bond commission agenda, it usually passes.

Among other items scheduled for a vote Jan. 30:

    $255 million to issue and sell general obligation bonds
    $57 million for the Department of Transportation to pave 200 miles of roadway.
    $10 million to subsidize the employment of 1,100 people through a jobs and training program established in October.
    $5.24 million toward hot water piping and air conditioning improvements at Manson Youth Institute in Cheshire.
    $5 million to increase the amount of crop land in the state.
    $2.9 million for state park improvements, provided $2.5 million goes toward Silver Sands State Park in Milford.
    $2.2 million for the Department of Administrative Services to buy technology equipment.
    $1 million for the Department of Administrative Services to design facade restorations at 79 Elm St. and 18-20 Trinity St. in Hartford.
    $1 million for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to improve state parks and other recreational facilities.

The meeting, originally scheduled for Jan. 27, will be held in Room 1E of the Legislative Office Building, beginning at 10:30 a.m.

The full agenda is available here.

Copyright © 2012, The Hartford Courant
Wall Street credit agency downgrades Connecticut's bond rating
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
January 20, 2012

One of the leading Wall Street credit rating agencies downgraded Connecticut's rating Friday, citing both a heavily loaded state credit card, huge debts in pension and retiree health care programs, and a depleted emergency reserve.

The decision by Moody's Investors Service to lower state government's bond rating from Aa3 to Aa2, opens the door for Connecticut to pay higher interest charges on future capital projects, even though its rating remains relatively high.

Moody's cited "pension funded ratios that are among the lowest in the country and likely to remain well below average," referring to retirement programs that serve state employees and Connecticut's public school teachers.

The state employees' fund, which had enough assets to cover just 44 percent of its obligations in June 2010, had climbed to nearly 48 percent by mid-2011, based on a new report filed earlier this month with the comptroller's office. But fund analysts typically cite a funded ratio of 80 percent as a healthy level.

The teachers' pension fund is in somewhat better shape, with enough assets to cover 61 percent of its obligations. But it was in much worse shape nearly four years ago until state government borrowed $2 billion to shore up that pension program, another debt Connecticut will be repaying for about two more decades.

The health care program for retired state workers is in far worse shape than either pension fund. According to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's budget staff, the state's long-term obligation in this area is $26.6 billion.  State government traditionally has followed a pay-as-you-go system, allocating money each year to fund retiree health care, a cost that continues to grow rapidly with no investment earnings to offset it.

That first changed in 2007 when $10 million from that year's budget surplus was used to open a savings account. A 2009 deal with unions required new employees and those with less than five years of experience to contribute up to 3 percent of their pay toward their retirement health care. Malloy's concessions deal with the unions, ratified in 2011, requires all workers to contribute 3 percent of their pay, and state government will have to match that contribution starting in the 2017-18 fiscal year.

And Connecticut also ranks as the most indebted state in the nation in terms of bonds issued to finance capital projects.

The state entered the fiscal year with close to $19.5 billion in debt owed to investors who purchased state bonds to finance municipal school construction, capital programs at public colleges and universities, road and bridge upgrades, repairs to state buildings and other projects. That's according to fiscal projection reports filed in November with the legislature both by Malloy's budget staff and by the legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis.

Another way to look at that debt, according to Malloy's budget staff, is that it represents more than $5,569 for every man, woman and child in Connecticut, based on U.S. Census population numbers. That is the highest debt level of any state in the nation.   Set against all of these debts, state government has nothing in its emergency reserve, commonly known as the Rainy Day Fund. Malloy's predecessor, M. Jodi Rell, and the legislature emptied a nearly $1.4 billion reserve in 2009 and 2010 to mitigate the need for tax hikes or spending cuts during the last recession.

Moody's announcement drew sharp criticism Friday both from Malloy's budget chief, Office of Policy and Management Secretary Benjamin Barnes, and state Treasurer Denise L. Nappier.

"The decision is certainly disappointing, but not totally unexpected given the negative outlook placed on the State's rating by Moody's last June," Nappier said in a news release.

"In many ways, Moody's action is going in the wrong direction, particularly since Connecticut has made tough decisions to bring structural balance to its operating budget and set in motion a clear path to improve financial stability," Nappier said.

Malloy, who inherited a built-in budget deficit approaching $3.67 billion for 2011-12 when he took office last January, worked with legislators to close that gap with $1.5 billion in new state taxes, a major union concessions plan and several state agency consolidations.

"Despite these steps forward, this rating agency appears to be judging the State's creditworthiness through the rearview mirror," Nappier said She added that Moody's gave scant consideration to Malloy and the legislature's commitment to convert state finances to generally accepted accounting principles, a series of fiscal standards that emphasize transparency and accountability.

"Moody's is caught up in a labyrinth of mathematical ratios that loses sight of the essential question: How likely is it that Connecticut would ever default on its debt?" Nappier added. "The answer is, never in a million years!"

Barnes said that "Moody's is wrong in its analysis of the state's finances, and wrong to change Connecticut's credit rating. Connecticut has done all the right things to shore up our finances, and Moody's has responded with a downgrade intended to satisfy their internal corporate need to deflect attention from their historic lack of credibility."

But House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero, R-Norwalk, said the downgrade is just more evidence that state government's fiscal house is not in order.

"We have to hope for the best but prepare for the worst possible financial scenario,"Cafero said. "The marketplace -- the credit rating agencies -- is the final arbiter when it comes to assessing the fiscal health of the State of Connecticut. And the marketplace is signaling that we have a problem."

Cafero also chastised the Malloy administration this week after fiscal analysts for the executive and legislative branches agreed on a consensus revenue report that pushes the current budget to the brink of a deficit.

The governor and his fellow Democrats in the legislature's majority took considerable heat from the GOP after adopting a biennial budget last June with nearly $600 million in projected operating surpluses.

The $20.14 billion plan approved for the current fiscal year was projected to finish with a general fund surplus of $88 million, and a preliminary $20.4 billion budget for 2012-13 with a $496 million cushion built in.

But latest consensus numbers now show general fund revenues down nearly $95 million this fiscal year from the level anticipated in the adopted budget. And that overall drop would be much greater had not a $169 million shortfall in income tax revenues been partially offset by gains in sales and wholesale fuel tax receipts.

Before this latest revenue change, the administration and OFA had estimated small surpluses of $83 million and $101 million, respectively, in this year's budget. After the new revenue numbers are considered, the forecasts drop to either a $12 million deficit or a $6 million surplus.

And for 2012-13, revenues now are down $139 million from the level anticipated in the adopted budget. Combine that with administration estimates released in mid-November that showed spending on pace to run $104 million above forecast, and next year's cushion is below $250 million.
Inquiring minds want to know what significance this has on bonds for Jackson Labs...
Moody's Downgrades State Bonds; Malloy Chief Complains
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, Hartford Courant
12:58 PM EST, January 20, 2012

HARTFORD

After the largest tax increase in Connecticut state history, the Moody'srating agency has downgraded the state's bonds.

The downgrade prompted a sharp rebuke from Ben Barnes, the budget chief for Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

Barnes released the following statement Friday:

"Moody’s is wrong in its analysis of the state’s finances, and wrong to change Connecticut’s credit rating.  Connecticut has done all the right things to shore up our finances, and Moody’s has responded with a downgrade intended to satisfy their internal corporate need to deflect attention from their historic lack of credibility.

"Connecticut has always paid its debt, and remains an attractive issuer of public debt.  Investors appreciate Connecticut’s strong income levels, conservative debt management practices, and fiscally conservative leadership.''

The news richocheted quickly throughout Wall Street and the financial world with an article in The Bond Buyer, an influential financial publication for insiders. The news was also carried by publications like The Hartford Business Journal and The Courant.

Upon hearing about the reaction regardingMoody's, one Capitol insider said, "He's confusing them with Lisa.''

Barnes continued, "Moody’s lowered the rating for Connecticut below where it has been since April 2010 even though Connecticut’s fiscal health has significantly improved during that period.  Recall that in 2010 Connecticut faced looming multi-billion deficits into the future, had pension funding ratios in the low 40s, had spent the entire rainy day fund, and was in the middle of a series of budgetary gimmicks which Governor Malloy has spent his first year in office undoing.

"Today, we have a structurally balance budget, have converted to GAAP, have fully funded our current pension obligations and seen their funding ratio rise, have negotiated significant pension benefit concessions from organized labor, have negotiated significant employee contributions to retiree health benefits, and have begun to add jobs to the state economy.

"Moody’s Investor Service decision today to lower their rating of Connecticut’s General Obligation debt from Aa2 (negative) to Aa3 (stable) is unfortunate.  It reflects their continued reaction to their central involvement in the financial scandals that led to the deepest recession since the Great Depression.   Coming on the eve of our budget release, without an imminent bond sale, suggests that the move is motivated by factors other than Connecticut’s creditworthiness.

"Moody’s, which receives approximately $170,000 per year in fees from the State for their bond rating services, is one of three agencies that rate Connecticut debt.  The others, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, continue to rate Connecticut debt as AA (equivalent to Aa2 from Moody’s.)"
 
Copyright © 2012, The Hartford Courant
Connecticut bond ratings cut by Moody's on debt, pension costs
Stamford ADVOCATE
Michael McDonald, Bloomberg News
Updated 12:48 p.m., Friday, January 20, 2012

Connecticut had its general-obligation bond rating cut to Aa3 from Aa2 by Moody's Investors Service, which said debt and pension costs are consuming an increasing amount of its budget.

Gov. Dannel Malloy, who raised income taxes the most in state history last year, said this week that receipts haven't met estimates, leading to a $94.9 million revenue shortfall this fiscal year. The cut to the fourth-highest grade affects about $14.6 billion in outstanding general-obligation bonds, Moody's said. The outlook was revised to stable from negative.

"Connecticut's combined fixed costs for debt service, pension and other post-employment benefits are already high and, absent significant further reforms, will continue to consume an increasingly larger portion of the state's budget," Moody's said in a release.

The ratings company said Connecticut is susceptible to "financial market fluctuations" because it depends on taxes on capital gains from wealthy residents, who are concentrated in the New York City suburb of Fairfield County. Connecticut has the highest net tax-supported debt among the 50 states, Moody's said in a previous report. The state is also the wealthiest, with per-capita personal income of $54,397 in 2009, according to Department of Commerce data.

"Moody's is wrong in its analysis of the state's finances, and wrong to change Connecticut's credit rating," Benjamin Barnes, secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, said in a statement. "Connecticut has done all the right things to shore up our finances, and Moody's has responded with a downgrade intended to satisfy their internal corporate need to deflect attention from their historic lack of credibility."

Lower-than-expected tax collections in Connecticut mirror a trend in other states with high-wage earners, including New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Malloy, the Democratic governor, said in a statement Jan. 17. Fiscal 2013 revenue is projected to trail forecasts by $139 million, according to the statement.
Malloy Promises No New ‘Tax’ Increases
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Christine Stuart | Jan 19, 2012 5:30am

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said Wednesday that he doesn’t plan on tinkering with tax increases to make up for the projected budget shortfall unveiled yesterday by the consensus revenue estimates.

Instead, Malloy will address the less than a half of percent drop in revenue by cutting spending. Republican lawmakers who were opposed to Malloy’s two-year budget with a built-in $1 billion cushion and the largest tax increase in the state’s history said it’s about time.

“We intend to end the year in balance,” Malloy said emphatically at an event in South Windsor.

He said there’s a reason he built a cushion into the budget because “you don’t know what your revenues are going to be.”

The same lawmakers complaining about the budget now, were criticizing it when it was proposed because it raised more revenue than the administration initially thought was necessary.  But despite his best efforts consensus revenue estimates released late Tuesday showed the budget on the precipice of a nearly $95 million deficit.

Republican leadership in the legislature was quick to issue a press release Tuesday questioning how Malloy planned to handle the situation in the wake of a $1.6 billion deal with the state employee unions that includes a no layoff provision. 

“The deal the governor stuck with the unions really ties our hands and we still have not seen any savings on the spending side,“ House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk,  said Wednesday. “The only option left is to significantly cut services to balance the budget.”

Malloy said cutting spending is exactly what he plans on doing. However, details of those spending cuts won’t be available though until next week.

“They want to have their cake and eat it too,” Malloy, who has promised to improve education and hold municipalities harmless in the second year of the budget, said Wednesday.  He said the state watches the revenue numbers “literally everyday” and what happened in Connecticut and other states with high income earners was a “precipitous fall off in the last few days of December.”

He said he reached out to surrounding states like Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey and tried to find out if they were experiencing the same thing and “low and behold they were.” The biggest taxpayers were paying less in the fourth quarter than they had in the previous year.  The jump in revenues in the last quarter of 2010 can be attributed to potential expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which forced high income earners to realize their revenue in that year as opposed to the next, Malloy said.

“Having said that, that’s not an issue. We’re going to balance the budget,” Malloy said. “We’re going to make spending cuts that’s what we’ll do.”

Like last year Malloy continues to do things differently than his counterparts in New York and New Jersey.  On Tuesday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie proposed a 10 percent reduction in income taxes during his state of the state address.

“Gov. Christie has not funded his pensions prior to this year’s budget to the extent of $2 billion,” Malloy countered. “You’re looking at the first governor in the state of Connecticut to fully fund pension obligations on an actuarial basis.”

Meanwhile Republican lawmakers speculated that while Malloy won’t seek to hike any taxes in a budget adjustment year he will look for ways to increase revenues even if they don’t come in the form of a tax hike.

Last week Malloy’s Budget Director Ben Barnes didn’t rule out changing regulations or policies in order to bring in new revenue to the state. The proposal Malloy announced last week to allow Sunday liquor sales is expected to bring in an additional $6.4 to $11.2 million in revenue.  Malloy is expected to roll out more policy changes in the weeks leading up to the Feb. 8 start of the legislative session.

LINK TO LWV of Weston for full story

Split differently in the 26th, same in the 135th.

Special master recommends keeping New Britain in 5th CD
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
January 13, 2012

A Republican leader conceded defeat today after the state Supreme Court's special master on redistricting recommended to the court that it adopt congressional districts that are close to the existing borders, rejecting Republican calls for broader changes.

"This is ostensibly the Democratic map," said House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk. "I respect it. It's over. We move on from here."

The maps recommended by Nathaniel Persily would keep Democratic New Britain in the 5th District, frustrating an effort by the GOP to improve its chances at winning what will be the only congressional seat in Connecticut in 2012.

Democrats had no immediate comment as they read Persily's recommendations and viewed his five district maps.

The report he filed is a draft subject to revisions from the court, but Cafero said he it is clear no changes will be made.

His recommendations were not unexpected, as the court had directed Persily to make minimal changes as he draws new lines for the state's five U.S. House districts, echoing arguments made by Democrats.

"In developing the plan," the court said in its instructions order, "the Special Master shall modify the existing congressional districts only to the extent reasonably required to comply with the following applicable legal requirements..."

Those requirements are that the districts be equal in population, consist of contiguous territory and meet "other applicable provisions of the Voting Rights Act and federal law."

In the new maps proposed today -- one for each of the five U.S. House districts -- Persily recommended keeping New Britain in the 5th District, maintaining a city with a strong Democratic voter base in a district that is expected to be the most competitive in 2012.

He did suggest changes from the Democratic plan, which he described as meeting the conditions set by the court.

"Both the Special Master's Plan and the Democrats' Plan reunite Durham and split Glastonbury, Middletown, Shelton, Torrington, and Waterbury," Persily wrote.

"The Democrats' Plan changes the current district boundary in Waterbury; whereas the Special Master's Plan changes the current district boundary in Torrington. Assuming no additional towns would be split or moved, one of those changes is necessary to achieve population equality in District 5. It should be noted, however, that the way one town is split in each plan affects how the other towns are split even if they are hundreds of miles away. This is due to the fact that only certain combinations of census blocks will achieve perfect population equality."

COMING SOON...
Malloy frames education reforms as human rights issue
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
January 11, 2012

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy promised today in a wide-ranging radio interview that his planned education reforms would be "the most far-reaching in our state's history," a bold assertion certain to raise expectations about how he intends to improve troubled districts in an era of tight finances.

In a one-hour interview on WNPR's "Where We Live" about his first year and the year ahead, Malloy said his administration is preparing to concentrate attention and resources on 29 under-performing school systems that are failing students - while somehow maintaining aid to all municipalities.  With few details expected until he delivers his budget and State of the State address to the General Assembly on Feb. 8, Malloy is working to frame the narrative for his second year as governor, using broad and dramatic language.

"This is an issue of civil rights, of human rights," Malloy said. "We can't afford to give up on 40 to 60 percent of the young people living in some of our urban areas.  It is morally repugnant to do that."

Malloy, an urban mayor narrowly elected in 2010 as the first Democratic governor in 20 years, proved adept last year in convincing fellow Democrats to endorse a dizzying freshman agenda that included a record tax increase, labor concessions, a higher-education reorganization and a $1.1 billion investment in bioscience. Now, he will test how compliant - or ambitious - the legislature might be in an election year dominated by presidential politics, a fragile economy and general pessimism about the direction of the state and nation.

His one-hour appearance today on "Where We Live," which was simulcast live on CT-N, the state's public affairs cable network, is part of the Malloy administration's plan to shake off the inertia of the holidays and do what it did best in 2011: dominate the public discussion about the role of government.  His latest campaign - he oversees an administration forever in campaign mode - began last week on his first anniversary governor, a day packed with events intended to remind voters of his first-year accomplishments and to engage them on what's to come.

"The holidays are over," Malloy said brightly on his anniversary at a ceremonial signing of legislation that commits the state to $291 million to build and subsidize a genetics lab at the UConn Health Center, part of a larger bioscience investment. "It's back to work on a 24-hour basis. I've been looking forward to a day like this."

Also on his anniversay, he addressed a workshop he called on education reform, which attracted Randi Weingarten, the national leader of the American Federation of Teachers and Martha Kanter, the Obama administration's undersecretary of education.

Malloy has released his six principles of reform to shape the education debate, similar to an approach he took last year in setting parameters on spending cuts and tax increases before the budget debate. He has yet to talk in detail about what his plan would cost or how he would pay for it.

"First of all, let's hope the economy continues to improve. That would be helpful," Malloy said today. "We're not talking about new taxes, so we may talk about reallocation of resources."

"Reallocation" is a word that causes jitters in towns with high-performing schools. Malloy noted he has promised municipalities he would maintain overall state aid to them in 2012, but he has not said if education funding formulas will change.

Details will come no later than Feb. 8, when Malloy must propose any changes to the biennial budget adopted last year.

"We're not far away from laying out both what we think the budget adjustments need to be, as well as I think what will be noted to be more of the more aggressive educational reform proposals, certainly the most far reaching in our state's history and probably one of the most far-reaching in the nation," Malloy said.

In a state with two landmark court decisions on education reform and one major case that is pending, that is a significant promise.

In Horton vs. Meskill, the state Supreme Court forced the state into a funding formula in the 1970s that was intended to equalize education spending. Sheff vs. O'Neill yielded a push in the 1990s toward greater racial and economic integration in Greater Hartford.

In 2010, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of all students to an adequate education, allowing a case brought in 2005 by the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding to go forward. As mayor of Stamford, Malloy signed on as a plaintiff.  But as of Friday, the administration has not yet met with lawyers for the coalition to talk about remedies to what critics say is a defective system of funding public education in Connecticut. The case is pending.

Then-Sen. Thomas P. Gaffey, D-Meriden, reacted to the court's decision in March 2010, when the identity of the next governor was unknown, by saying he agreed that the current system of funding education, with its heavy reliance on the property tax, is broken. But fixing it, especially in today's economic climate, will be extremely difficult.

He made a prediction: "For this to change as dramatically as the plaintiffs intend it to change, it's going to take an awful lot of political courage from whoever is the next governor, working with the General Assembly."

Malloy names new chief of staff
CT POST Staff reports
Updated 11:18 a.m., Thursday, December 15, 2011

HARTFORD -- Mark Ojakian, the deputy secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, has been named Tim Bannon's replacement as Chief of Staff for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

Malloy credited Ojakian with negotiating a deal with the state employee unions that he said will save taxpayers $21.5 billion over the next 20 years.

"It has been an honor to have Mark in our administration over the past year in his current role, helping direct the charge on the restructuring and streamlining of state government in our efforts to find efficiencies while making government leaner, less expensive, and more effective," Malloy said in a news release. "He has a tremendous breadth of knowledge, experience, dedication and character, and an extraordinary capacity to produce results for the people of the state."

Ojakian said he is looking forward to the challenges that will come with his new role.

"In his first year in office, Governor Malloy has demonstrated his determination to change the direction of our state away from stagnation, inaction and limited results to one of growth and prosperity," Ojakian said. "Reinventing and restructuring our state will not happen overnight, but with a dedicated public servant like the Governor at the helm, I have no doubt we'll get there."

Ojakian will replace Bannon, who announced in November he would be stepping down, and whose last day with the governor's office will be Jan. 5.

"I also want to give a special thanks to Tim Bannon, who agreed to take on the responsibilities of the first year of the administration," Malloy said. "He helped model for us an approach to the financial crisis that we inherited, and became a tireless worker on behalf of our agenda to reinvent Connecticut and improve the economic development outlook of this state. I will miss seeing him every day, though he'll remain a friend and advisor."

Ojakian formerly served for 16 years as deputy comptroller under current Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman, while she ran that office.

"Mark and I have been friends, colleagues and members of each other's families for about 25 years, so I know how much he brings to the table on so many levels," Wyman said. "He not only has an incredible understanding of how government works, but knows how to bring the best out of people in order to get things done. He has been and will continue to be a huge asset to the Governor, to me and to the State of Connecticut."

Ojakian, as deputy comptroller, was the senior policy advisor for the office and had administrative responsibility for more than 250 employees and fiscal responsibility for more than $1 billion in state accounts.

A 1975 graduate of St. Anselm's College in Manchester, N.H., Ojakian went on to receive a master's in international relations from American University in Washington, D.C. in 1977.

He lives with his husband, Jason Veretto, in West Hartford, and has two children, Brandon and Kyle, and two grandchildren, Connor and Madison.


State pledge to meet all teacher pension costs means big budget increases
CT MIRROR
Jacqueline Rabe Thomas and Keith M. Phaneuf
December 2, 2011

Just four years after the state borrowed $2 billion to shore up the troubled retired teachers' pension fund, another infusion of state money will be necessary to cope with the hit the fund took during the recession.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's budget office estimated this week that teacher pension-related spending will jump 40 percent over this fiscal year and next combined — one of the fastest growing state expenses — climbing more than $260 million since 2010-11.

"Since we lost money in the market, we now have to make up for it by increasing the contributions that we make," said Gian-Carl Casa, an undersecretary at the Office of Policy and Management.

Over the 2009 and 2010 fiscal years, the market value of teacher pension fund investments plunged by $2.3 billion, according to the latest actuarial report.

The losses mirrored problems experienced by nearly all states in the last recession. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, one of the leading indicators of the health of blue-chip stocks, hovered close to 11,300 points entering July 2008, but plunged to a recession-low 6,626 by early March 2009.

"I don't think any state's fund was immune from the market downturn," state Treasurer Denise L. Nappier said Thursday.

The fund uses contributions from government and from teachers, as well as investment earnings, to pay for the benefits paid to about 50,000 retirees. When earnings fall, contributions typically rise. Those contributions fulfill two purposes: saving funds to cover benefits earned by teachers during the year, and catching up on savings Connecticut should have deposited in the past, but did not.

And when the state borrowed the $2 billion to prop the pension fund up, it pledged to its investors to contribute the full annual payment recommended by fund analysts, or actuaries.

"The state was using the teachers' pension as an ATM before this. The teachers feel more secure now," said Mary Loftus Levine, leader of the Connecticut Education Association, the state's largest teachers union. Connecticut teachers are not eligible for Social Security.

"This is the right thing to do," she said, adding it being the fastest growing state expense could be because Connecticut no longer has any other choice but to "properly" fund the pension system.

Past legislatures and governors routinely budgeted less-than-recommended levels for the teachers' pension fund before the borrowing plan was enacted in 2007. The fund had enough savings to cover 60 percent of its obligations in 2006. Actuaries typically cite 80 percent as a fiscally healthy level.

But while the borrowing helped boost the pension's funded ratio to 70 percent of obligations in mid-2008, that ratio had fallen to 61 percent by June 30, 2010.

State government paid $647 million last fiscal year to cover fund contributions and debt payments on the $2 billion borrowed. The state Office of Policy and Management projected this week in its annual forecast of short- and long-term budget trends that these expenses will rise to $838 million this fiscal year, $909 million next year and reach $1.02 billion by 2016.

Rep. Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, and member of the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, said this added price tag to the fund "should send up major red flags for us."

While he understands that the economy has caused the market to plunge, he also remembers being promised a 6.5 percent return when the state decided to borrow $2 billion to prop up this pension.

"It's a huge problem. We put in $2 billion to catch up in 2007," he said.

On a more positive note, Nappier added that teacher pension fund investments have fared much better since the last recession. Fund investments earned a 21 percent return in the 2010-11 fiscal year, she said.

GOP hearing challenges Malloy order on home care attendants
Arielle Levin Becker, CT MIRROR
November 10, 2011

Opponents of two executive orders that establish a way for home care attendants and child care workers to unionize voiced their frustration Thursday, warning that they could hurt home care in the state, criticizing Gov. Dannel P. Malloy for issuing the orders without input from the people most affected, and questioning whether he overstepped his authority.

Several who spoke said they wanted the orders amended or rescinded, although there's not a clear path for doing so. Sen. Joe Markley, R-Southington, who co-hosted the forum on the orders, said it's unlikely that the legislature's Democratic majority would take action against the executive orders of a Democrat governor, and that he wasn't sure if he wanted to challenge the orders in court. The forum, he said, was intended to gather information.

"Let's air everything and then we can see where we go from there," he said.

The orders have generated intense opposition, as well as support from some home care attendants and people with disabilities who did not participate in the forum, which union officials criticized as being one-sided.

Malloy said Thursday that any problems that arise from the executive orders can be dealt with. He said the orders were intended to give bargaining rights to workers who are treated as independent contractors but often employed by agencies. "All I am saying is that if those folks want that opportunity, I believe in America they should have that opportunity," he said.

In the past, Malloy has said that the orders begin the process for establishing bargaining rights, but don't determine anything.

The orders, which Malloy issued in September, apply to home care attendants and child care workers in state-funded programs. Both orders were scaled-back versions of proposals that legislators considered but did not pass this year.

The order involving home care attendants in particular drew intense opposition, and was largely the focus of Thursday's forum. Personal care attendants, or PCAs, work for seniors and people with disabilities, performing tasks such as helping them dress, bathe, eat or drive to work. The people who receive the services are considered the PCAs' employers, but the state funds their wages.

The demand for PCAs is expected to grow rapidly as baby boomers age and the state moves toward providing more long-term care outside nursing homes, but experts say getting enough people to do the work--which does not come with benefits--is a major barrier to expanding the use of home-based care.

Malloy's order allows PCAs to elect a "majority representative" for non-binding discussions over issues including compensation, recruitment and training of PCAs, and established a seven-member workforce council to hold discussions with the majority representative. The order also established a working group to make recommendations about the best way to structure collective bargaining rights for PCAs.

Those who spoke at Thursday's forum criticized the effect the order would have on PCAs' wages, their relationships with their employers, and on small businesses. Many, including Republican legislators, also questioned the process behind the executive order, saying Malloy should not have unilaterally enacted something the legislature rejected and without input from people affected.

"The disability community places enormous importance in the concept of 'Nothing about us without us,'" said Catherine Ludlum, a Manchester resident who hires PCAs and has opposed the order. Without input from people with disabilities or PCAs, she said, "the executive order is fatally flawed."

Ludlum also expressed skepticism that the state would be able to raise wages given its budget problems, and noted that workers would have union dues taken out of their paychecks. "I agree that there should be a high-level dialogue about improving wages and benefits for personal assistants," she said, but added that a union was not the way to do it.

Michelle Tyler, who has worked as a PCA for 9 years, said she believed turnover among PCAs was the result of working too many hours, not the wages, and predicted that the order would lead to fewer attendants. She likened the relationship between a PCA and an employer to a marriage, and said adding a third party would put "a huge damper on that relationship."

Stephen Mendelsohn, an advocate for people with disabilities, criticized the Service Employees International Union, which backed the proposal to let home care workers unionize. Mendelsohn questioned the union's tactics, which he said were intimidating, and said that the union's leaders had received awards from the Connecticut Communist Party.

In response, some Republican lawmakers offered a defense of the union. Rep. Len Greene, R-Seymour, noted that most SEIU members are upstanding citizens and patriotic.

Mendelsohn said he supports the right to unionize, but said that there has been a history of antagonism between people with disabilities and unions, which he said have campaigned to retain jobs in institutions while people with disabilities have sought to live independently.

Andy Markowski, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, focused on the effect of both orders on businesses, saying they would for the first time make the government the employer of private employees.

Markowski warned that the orders would make child and home care more expensive, and said they set a "terrible precedent," allowing unionization of employees to bypass small business owners because of the relationship with the state.

"Small business owners are scared," he said, and they're wondering what industry would be next.

Deb Stevenson also focused on precedent, warning that Malloy overstepped his authority in issuing the orders.

"Unfortunately, our governor is not adhering to his oath of office and is not obeying the constitution of Connecticut," said Stevenson, chief counsel for We the People of Connecticut, Inc., which is aimed at making sure government officials adhere to their oaths of offices.

She asked lawmakers to call an immediate special session to review the executive orders and declare them unconstitutional.

Several lawmakers criticized Malloy's use of the executive orders to enact what the legislature did not pass, although they stopped short of promising a special session. Rep. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, called them "simply an overreach of government," while Rep. Christopher Coutu, R-Norwich, said, "I really don't think this was democracy, and the people had no say."

State Child Advocate Jeanne Milstein did not take a position on the orders but offered cautions about the process for moving forward, saying it was important that families of children with disabilities or complex health care needs not face additional obstacles to getting home care or lose any control or flexibility. Milstein said she supports improving wages and benefits for home care workers, but said it's important to ensure that any cost increases are not borne by the people who receive care or their families.

In addition, she said, the disability community and families must be involved in all planning and implementation efforts. "That's critical," she said.

Some supporters of the orders spent time in the Legislative Office Building Thursday to express their support outside the forum.

Caldwell Johnson, a New Haven resident, hires PCAs through an agency for help with things including getting out of bed, showering and cleaning his home. He said he needs at least eight hours a day of services, but can't find PCAs to work more than two to four hours at a time because the state funding does not cover more hours. There's a lot of turnover, and if a PCA is sick, there's not always a backup. Johnson thinks PCAs should have health insurance and more stability.

"If we can get this union going, that would help us and help them," he said.

Dawn Luciano said she'd love to work full-time as a PCA, but for now, only does it on the side.

"It just didn't pay enough, so I just couldn't do it," she said.

Luciano works full-time as a financial sales representative, a job she said she needs for the health insurance and pay.

She thinks having bargaining rights would allow more PCAs to work full-time and work for the same people, and said she thinks the people who use PCAs will benefit from not having to use multiple aides and not having to replace them as often.

"They really have an opportunity to get a lot out of it," she said.

Analysts: $80M in concession savings would have come anyway
Keith M. Phaneuf and Arielle Levin Becker, CT MIRROR
October 28, 2011

The legislature's non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis has identified more than $80 million in projected savings ascribed by the Malloy Administration to the union concession deal that don't actually depend on the contract changes ratified in late August.

In its first analysis of the concession deal since ratification, the Office of Fiscal Analysis also raised questions about whether the $241 million biennial savings from the Health Enhancement Program projected by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's budget office can be fully achieved.

The nonpartisan analysts didn't question the administration's ability to achieve savings in connection with drug patents and negotiated rates for medical and dental care. But they also noted that these savings had nothing to do with the concession deal with the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition.

That package--which also reduces costs through a two-year wage freeze, new restrictions on benefits,  a wave of new retirements, an employee wellness program, and budget cuts to be identified by labor-management efficiency panels--projects savings of $1.5 million this fiscal year and $12 million in 2012-13 tied to pharmaceuticals coming off patent. As expensive brand name drugs become available in less costly generic form, "it is reasonable that savings may be realized," the legislative analysts wrote.

But OFA added that "savings attributable to prescription drugs coming off patent are not contingent on an agreement between the state and SEBAC."

Similarly, the deal also calls for an existing labor-management panel, the Health Care Cost Containment Committee, to find $40 million in savings this fiscal year and $35 million next year in health care expenditures.

OFA noted in its report that the administration is projecting $36.3 million will be saved this year and $33.6 million in 2012-13 in pharmaceutical and medical service coverage for state workers and retirees.

The comptroller's office oversees the state's self-insurance program and does receive guidance from the health care cost panel. But the office projected savings in pharmaceutical and medical service costs back in May--one month before the first vote on the SEBAC deal failed in mid-June and three months before it finally passed in August.

The comptroller's office routinely offers a preliminary cost estimate for medical benefits in December or January, just before the governor's budget is proposed, and offers a revised estimate in April or May. Projections can change due to new caseload data. Before the state switched roughly one year ago to a self-insurance program, medical service cost estimates also were revised as the comptroller negotiated new insurance rates.

But the authority for these functions was not created in the August SEBAC agreement.

For example, Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman, while serving as state comptroller in late April 2005, announced that her office had revised estimates and was projecting $75 million in savings in medical and dental insurance programs over two fiscal years combined.

"The SEBAC agreement directed the Health Care Cost Containment Committee to find $40 million in savings," Malloy's budget office said in a statement released this week, adding "it is not certain" these savings "would have happened anyway. That's why it was important to make sure these savings are part of the committee's negotiations with providers.

"The SEBAC agreement has savings targets, and we will meet them."

SEBAC declined to comment on the OFA report.

House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero, R-Norwalk, who has charged frequently that the value of the Democratic governor's concession deal with the unions was unfairly inflated, said that while legislative analysts believe the savings are real, "these were totally unrelated to any concession deal."

The OFA report also questioned whether savings anticipated from the Health Enhancement Program included in the concession deal can be achieved fully. The program is intended to promote wellness among workers and retirees. Members are encouraged to use preventive services and manage chronic conditions, based on the premise that doing so will improve health and reduce the use of more costly services that become necessary when a person gets sick. Whether the plan saves money depends on whether the cost of the increased use of preventive services and incentives for participation are outweighed by reduced claims costs overall.

In its analysis, OFA wrote, "It is uncertain if changes in behavior and utilization will occur and lead to long term savings."

In particular, OFA said it's not certain whether a new copayment for avoidable emergency department visits would be enough to lead people to seek care elsewhere, and whether the cost of disease management programs for people with certain chronic conditions--waiving copays for office visits for the conditions and giving people who comply $100--would be offset by reduced acute care costs and long-term savings from better health outcomes.

The Health Enhancement Program is voluntary, and those who join must get all recommended screenings and exams recommended for them. Those who don't participate will have to pay an additional $100 a month in premiums and face a $350 deductible.

The administration's savings calculations assumed that 50 percent of eligible employees would participate in the Health Enhancement Program. In that case, the state would save approximately $49.9 million from the increased copays and deductibles the nonparticipants would pay, according to OFA.

But in reality, 96 percent of state employees chose to participate, reducing the state's savings in increased copays and deductibles for nonparticipants to about $3 million.

Malloy's budget office responded that "In the long term, the fact that over 95% of state employees chose to participate in the Health Enhancement Program will save even more money for the state. While higher participation may mean we don't see as much savings in the short term, we will live within the budget - we'll make sure numbers work."

Legislative analysts also questioned savings attributed to the Health Enhancement Program, including:

    Savings from changes to the dental plan. The Health Enhancement Program requires participants who have dental coverage to get two cleanings a year, and covers unlimited periodontal care. OFA noted that the documents supporting the plan suggest that people with chronic conditions might have complications if they don't get regular dental care, but the analysts wrote that, "It is unclear if the estimated savings from individuals with chronic conditions will offset the increase in utilization from all other plan members including otherwise healthy individuals.
    $3 million in projected two-year savings from tobacco cessation and obesity programs, which OFA called "unlikely" to be achievable.
    The projection that the administration used for the Health Enhancement Program would lead to a 10 percent reduction in total claims costs for active employees, which OFA said would amount to about $52.5 million. OFA said it's not clear if that can be achieved in the short term.

On some changes, OFA said it did not have the information to evaluate savings assumptions, including information about the current utilization of preventive services.

Link to call of Special Session and below, stories as a result of this action

JACKSON LABS LONG CT MIRROR JAN. 1, 2012 STORY HERE

OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS - SB1401 (Jackson Lab) PASSED 21-14 IN SENATE
http://cga.ct.gov/2011/FN/2011SB-01401-R00-FN.htm


Malloy launches express job-growth program with South Windsor company
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
January 18, 2012

South Windsor -- Gov. Dannel P. Malloy used one of the new job creation tools Wednesday that state lawmakers authorized during last fall's special session, tapping a South Windsor company to launch the new Small Business Express Program.

Oxford Performance Materials, which is expected to be the first of dozens of firms to receive assistance within 30 days of appealing to the administration for help, is to use $300,000 in state funds to add 12 jobs and expand its production of skeletal replacement parts using advanced polymers.

Malloy, who announced the award at the company's headquarters on South Satellite Road, said state agencies were breaking new ground with the express program. "They're learning a new way of doing business," he said, adding that when it comes to responding to business requests for help, "that means getting to 'yes' in in record time."

"Small businesses are critical to re-inventing Connecticut," the governor said. "Little by little, we must harness the can-do attitude of our state's small companies so that their success will spur our state's recovery."

To help spur that recovery, Malloy and legislators from both parties launched several initiatives last October, including borrowing $100 million to fund the express program, which is designed to provide aid to companies within a month of first contact to help grow jobs.

Oxford will receive a $200,000 loan, repayable over 5 years with an annual interest rate of 2.5 percent, as well as a $100,000 grant that doesn't have to be repaid. The company has agreed to double its work force and move forward with plans for a $1.8 million expansion.

"This project is critical to our success and has resulted in immediate hirings," Oxford president Scott DeFelice said.

Catherine Smith, Malloy's commissioner of economic and community development, said her office has received about 200 requests for express program aid to date. The $100 million in bonding authorized for the program is supposed to be divided evenly, with $50 million allocated this fiscal year and the remainder in 2012-13.

Smith said if express proves extremely successful, the department has authority to replenish the program with funds from the existing Manufacturing Assistance Act program. Smith didn't indicate Wednesday how much might be drawn from that program.

"Right now we're trying to help as many companies as we can," she said. "Tell your friends and family, we are here to help."

Malloy said that while the program was designed to provide assistance in quick fashion, that doesn't mean state investments will be made recklessly. "It is an expedited review, but it is a review nonetheless," he said.

Sen. Gary D. LeBeau, D-East Hartford, co-chairman of the legislature's Commerce Committee, praised the administration for launching the express program with the South Windsor company. Though it lies within LeBeau's district, the East Hartford lawmaker also noted that it typifies the cutting-edge business that state economic development programs ignored too often under prior administrations.

"This is a great example of the new technologies we're talking about," he said. "This is the future."
Jobs bill a slam-dunk in legislature
By JC Reindl Day Staff Writer
Article published Oct 27, 2011

Hartford - A package of economic development and jobs-growth initiatives passed both chambers of the General Assembly Wednesday night with nearly unanimous bipartisan support.

The bill authorizes $626 million in bonding over two years to pay for a series of tax credits, investments and other measures aimed at lowering Connecticut's 8.9 percent unemployment rate and improving the quality of the work force.

Also included were plans to streamline the processes for obtaining various state permits.

The bill passed the House 147-1, with state Rep. Chris Coutu, R-Norwich, casting the lone "no" vote. It passed the Senate 34-1, with a nay from Sen. Kevin Witkos, R-Canton.

"These incentives have been sorely overdue for a long time," said state Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia.

Many of the package's initiatives resulted from Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's recent listening tour across the state.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, emphasized that the bonding will fit within the existing debt limits set by the Malloy administration.

"We're not adding new debt, we're finding better ways to spend our money," McKinney said.

During the House debate, state Rep. Steve Mikutel, D-Griswold, praised the package and Malloy's effort to meet with scores of business leaders and groups to hear their suggestions and concerns.

"I have not always been a supporter of the governor, but I tell you I'm impressed with his activist approach" to job creation, Mikutel said. "This is a real document, a document that reflects the needs of our employers."
Mikutel called attention to the bill's investments in expanding job training at state community colleges. He said that many manufacturing employers have reported difficulty finding enough skilled workers to fill their job openings.

Sen. Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford, made a similar point during the Senate debate.

"We're proving that we're listening to our manufacturers who are saying, 'Please, help us find new well-trained employees,'" Stillman said.

But this wasn't enough to get Coutu's vote. He said he liked a few items in the package, such as the streamlined permitting process, but couldn't get over the final price tag, which comes in a year in which the state has already raised taxes on residents and businesses.

"My only purpose on this Earth right now is visiting business owners and asking them what's wrong," said Coutu, who is campaigning to replace U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, in 2012. "Very few of them say, 'I need the government to raise my taxes and give other people the tax money.' "

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, said the package was the result of numerous hours of discussion and compromise between Democrats and Republicans. "I'm proud of this bill, and I'm proud of the process that took place to create this bill," he said.

The package will:

• Require state agencies such as the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to adopt a streamlined permitting process.
• Create a Small Business Express program to provide small businesses and manufacturers with loans, forgivable loans and matching grants that range from $10,000 to $250,000.
• Create a Subsidized Training and Employment Program to help small businesses and small manufacturers train and employ workers.
• Permit two wine festivals a year in Connecticut instead of just one.
• Authorize up to $50 million in additional funding for the Department of Transportation's Fix-It-First Bridge Program.
• Double to 100 the number of small manufacturing companies that can participate in the Manufacturing Reinvestment Account program.
• Make the Business Entity Tax, currently a $250 annual payment, payable every other year.
• Expand and rebrand the governor's First Five program of economic development incentives. It will now be the First Five Plus program and will provide growth incentives for up to 10 projects this fiscal year.
• Require boards of education to better promote vocational and technical career fields to students and their parents.
• Lower to $25,000 from $100,000 the minimum investment required to qualify for the "angel investor" income-tax credit.
• Expand the precision manufacturing program at Asnuntuck Community College, which is in Enfield, and make investments to establish or expand manufacturing technology programs at regional community-technical colleges.
• Provide $20 million to remediate and market for private development five "geographically diverse" state-owned contaminated properties, known as brownfields.
• Allow the Connecticut Airport Authority to set up new airport development zones.
• Provide $5 million in annual funding for an energy efficiency boiler program for nonprofit organizations and housing authorities.

Jackson Lab debate pits costs against jobs
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
October 25, 2011

Though the potential for dramatic job growth in cutting-edge bioscience is supposedly the chief selling point for the proposed Jackson Laboratory research center, it's the finances behind the deal--and two very different ways of presenting them--that is controlling much of the Capitol debate.

For nearly a month, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration has been touting two numbers: $291 million from the state and $809 million from Jackson Laboratory. Together, officials say, they represent the total money that will be spent on capital and operating costs at the proposed facility for the next two decades.

"For every $1 the state is spending on the project, Jackson Laboratory  will spend $3," read a press release Malloy's office issued on Sept. 30, when a tentative deal first was announced.

But another way to describe the same arrangement is that Connecticut will pay the entire construction cost of the Farmington laboratory and subsidize its research operations for the first decade. Jackson Laboratory's contributions won't exceed the state's $291 million direct contribution until the 11th year -- one year after Connecticut stops putting money into the facility. And neither of these comparison's includes the $120 million in interest charges Connecticut will face to borrow $291 million.

"It was presented to create the appearance that Jackson Laboratory is making an investment in the building, and they're not," said Deputy House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora of North Branford, whose fellow Republicans have been increasingly critical of the Democratic governor's push to bring Jackson Laboratory here.

Why were interest charges not highlighted in many of the comparisons with Jackson Laboratory's contributions?

Malloy's commissioner of economic and community development, Catherine Smith, noted during an interview Friday that the extra $120 million cost to Connecticut will go to its bond investors, not into the research facility. "We've never included the debt service" in describing state's contribution to the project, she said.

Why juxtapose that $291 million--which Connecticut will spend in the first 10 years on construction costs for a 173,000-square-foot center and to supplement research operations--with 20 years of projected operating costs for Jackson Laboratory, specifically $809 million?

Based on a 20-year financial projection for the project, Jackson Laboratory's total operating expenditures for the first decade--when the state is contributing--will fall between $279 million and $290 million.

While supporters said the goal was to contrast finances over the same period used to calculate job growth forecasts, critics again countered that political spin was at work. The interest costs are outlined in a project summary report distributed by the administration last week, but Candelora said the initial presentation did its work: Many legislators and news media already are referring to the proposal as a $1.1 billion initiative.

"You can't have it one way and not the other," Candelora said. "You can't look at Jackson's costs through a 20-year window and not talk about the interest at the same time. It's disingenuous."

But key Democratic legislators responded Monday that Candelora and his fellow Republicans are trying to shift the debate away from numbers that are particularly enticing for state government.

The administration estimates that partnering with an international leader in genetic research on will create over 7,400 jobs.

The Maine-based, not-for-profit research institute is required to have 300 direct jobs at the center by the 10th year, and is expected to create over 660 direct positions within 20 years.

But administration officials also estimate more than 4,600 bioscience jobs would be generated largely through spin-off companies, and another 2,000 would be added to local service and retail operations from increased economic activity. Lastly, the project would create more than 840 temporary construction jobs in the next few years.

Smith said the forecasts might be somewhat conservative. She noted that a 2009 analysis of the bioscience industry by PricewaterhouseCoopers, a global accounting and professional services firm, is projecting 11 percent annual growth for the foreseeable future. But the administration, in preparing job estimates, pulled back dramatically in the second decade, assuming a modest 4.5 percent annual jump.

"I am very confident about those numbers," Smith said.

"I think what really motivates most people, including myself, is that Jackson Labs brings with it an international credibility," added House Majority Leader J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden. "We have an opportunity to really launch meaningful economic growth in this particular field."

"If this debate was not focused on the much bigger picture, this could not happen," said Sen. Gary D. LeBeau, D-East Hartford, co-chairman of the Commerce Committee, who said Republicans' focus on contrasting public and private investments is short-sighted.

"It's like we're planting a tree in the woods and they're asking 'How much can I sell the lumber for if I chop it down in 20 years?'" he said. "What they should be asking is 'How many seeds will that first tree produce and will we be looking at a grove in 20 years?'"

LeBeau quickly modified his analogy to note that with annual investments in stem cell research since 2006, top-flight research institutions like the University of Connecticut Health Center and Yale University, and one of the largest per capita scientific workforces of any state, Connecticut already has several seeds planted.

"I believe this is the only direction for us to go," LeBeau added. "I really believe we have no choice but to do this."
Lawmakers return to vote on jobs bills
Greenwich TIME
Published 12:00 a.m., Monday, October 24, 2011

HARTFORD (AP) -- State lawmakers are returning to the Capitol to vote on two bills intended to help create new jobs in Connecticut.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has called a special session for Wednesday.

There appears to be more bipartisan support for the wide-ranging jobs package, which includes ideas from Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration as well as Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

The plan calls for spending $516 million over two years on numerous initiatives, including assistance to small businesses.

Republican House Leader Lawrence Cafero said he's not ready yet to support a second bill. It calls for eventually spending $291 million toward a new genetic research lab at the University of Connecticut in Farmington.

The Jackson Lab of Maine has said the $1.1 billion facility will attract world-class researchers.

Malloy, NBC Sports announce deal to bring 450 jobs to Stamford
Stamford ADVOCATE
Kate King, Staff Writer
Updated 11:46 a.m., Tuesday, October 25, 2011

STAMFORD -- Gov. Dannel Malloy returned to his hometown Tuesday to announce a $100 million deal with NBC Sports, which will bring about 450 permanent jobs to Stamford as part of the state's "First Five" economic development program.

In exchange for $20 million in tax breaks, the network has signed a lease for studio, production and office space at the former Clairol building on Blachley Road on the city's East Side. The agreement will bring NBC Sports in addition to other elements of the network that were part of Comcast's takeover earlier this year.

The 32-acre site is to house NBC Sports, NBC Olympics, NBC Sports Digital, VERSUS, which will be renamed the NBC Sports Network on January 2, and the Comcast Sports Management Group, which oversees the NBC Sports Group's 14 regional networks. According to the governor's announcement, the NBC Sports Group will also use the site to construct numerous state-of-the-art studios to house the company's growing need for studio content.

The NHL Network will also build studio space on the property that will house most of the network's personnel and will create additional jobs that are not included in the 450 figure, according to Malloy's office.

"This is a terrific project for the city and state, and one that I am proud to support as the fourth `First Five.' The companies that are participating in this economic development program are job producers, and NBCUniversal has been doing that since it first arrived in Connecticut," Malloy said in a statement. "Stamford has been home to NBCUniversal television production since 2008 when it retrofitted the Rich Forum Theatre in downtown to create the Stamford Media Center. As Mayor of Stamford at the time, I was supportive of the city and state assistance for the project because I understood its potential. I am strongly supportive of this expansion in Stamford because we continue to see the positive impact in the local economy and on the workforce."

NBC has existing operations in Stamford. The Rich Forum theater on Atlantic Street serves as home base for television shows hosted by Jerry Springer and Maury Povich and the sports division of the network has had offices in the city since 1997.

Stamford Mayor Michael Pavia said NBC's move to Stamford represented "the greatest vote of confidence" in the city.

"The economic impact of the growth of a brand such as NBC is invaluable in broadcasting to the world that Stamford is the place to be," Pavia said. "And Stamford continues to identify itself as both a well-diversified economy and one clearly positioned for the 21st century."

According to the property's developers, formal negotiations to bring elements of NBC Sports started in late spring.

"This new campus is about bringing people together to maximize production, creativity and efficient teamwork," said NBC Sports Group Chairman Mark Lazarus. "We are creating one 32-acre unique location that allows us to build numerous state-of-the-art studios, house more than 450 employees, and prepare for anticipated future growth. However, this initiative would not have been possible without the financial support of Governor Malloy's `First Five' program and the local support provided by Mayor Pavia, who we look forward to working with for many years to come."

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman attended Tuesday's announcement and said the new studio space will allow the NHL Network to expand its offerings.

"This collaboration with the NBC Sports Group, including the construction of our new NHL Network studio in Stamford, will give our fans unprecedented year-round access to the game," Bettman said in a written statement. "NBC has been a great partner and has played a significant role in our strong growth over the past five years. We look forward to building on our relationship."

The "First Five" program is meant to attract companies that commit to creating 200 jobs within two years or invest $25 million and create 200 jobs within five years. NBC Sports joins with CIGNA insurance, TicketNetwork and Bristol-based sports network ESPN as the initial members of the "First Five" program.

"The new NBC Sports Group presents a tremendous opportunity to build and develop this sector of Connecticut's economy," DECD Commissioner Catherine Smith said in a statement. "The state is increasingly seen as a great home to television, film and digital media, and this project -- in terms of jobs and infrastructure -- will help us create the needed critical mass that can successfully attract new industry players to Connecticut and the greater Stamford area. We thank NBC for making this large investment here in Connecticut."

The former Clairol property was purchased in March 2010 by a partnership affiliated with Steven Wise Associates LLC, Norwalk-based Spinnaker Real Estate Partners and the Connecticut Film Center. The partnership, Stamford Exit 9 LLC, paid Clairol about $16.75 million and announced plans to establish a film, television and video production center. The 770,000-square-foot facility was used by Clairol and parent company Procter & Gamble starting in the 1960s before operations were relocated to Mexico.

A chunk of the real estate was claimed last year by Chelsea Piers Connecticut LLC, which announced plans to build a sports facility on the complex similar to one on the Hudson River in Manhattan. Construction on the 418,000-square-foot athletic facility is under way.

State Sen. Carlo Leone, D-Stamford, welcomed NBC Sports into the neighborhood he represents.

"NBC's decision to expand and continue to invest in Stamford is bringing to realization a legitimate film and entertainment industry in Connecticut," Leone said. "NBC is a valued employer, a good neighbor and an involved community sponsor. We hope they become a longstanding member of our community, much the way Clairol was before them. Our goal has always been to create new jobs and add business diversity to Stamford. Having NBC reside in our city accomplishes both."

When the Stamford Zoning Board approved the Chelsea Piers project, it also approved use of 81,000 square feet inside the building for two production studios for the Connecticut Film Center.

Cable companies such as the YES Network and A&E Television also have offices in Stamford. Both networks are housed in a complex on Harbor Drive, where the signals for their broadcasts are transmitted.

The YES Network, which broadcasts New York Yankees baseball and New Jersey Nets basketball games, handles production work for pre- and post-game shows in Stamford.
Malloy Vague About NBC Sports, Special Session Jobs Bill
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Christine Stuart | Oct 13, 2011 4:57pm

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy was as vague as he could be Thursday about the prospects of NBC Sports moving to Stamford. He was just as vague about what exactly will be in the special sessions jobs bill.

The NBC Sports rumor was first reported by Kevin Rennie.  Rennie’s blog post says the company is looking to locate as many as 1,000 jobs to the former site of the Clairol hair dye factory.

“At any given time we’re in discussions and I will tell you we are in discussions with many, many companies right now,” Malloy said responding to questions from reporters Thursday afternoon. “When and if an agreement is reached with any of those companies, no one is more anxious to make an announcement than me.“

“Many drops can be spilled between the cup and the lip,” he added.

As for the Oct. 26 special session on jobs, Malloy didn’t offer much more detail and a meeting with leaders from both the Democratic and Republican caucus was rescheduled until next week.

“We know what the main groupings are. Some of it has to do with regulation timeliness, some of it has to do with access to capital, particularly in early stage development, a lot of it has to do with education and workforce preparation,” he said. “So it’s going to fall into all of those categories as well as major retooling of DECD to give it some additional tools and sharpen the ones it has.”

Malloy said he believes they’re days away from announcing something more concrete. Sources say Malloy will make the proposal public on Monday to give lawmakers almost two weeks to digest it.

Asked if the package will include help for small businesses Malloy said it will include help for businesses regardless of size.

“We understand that smaller businesses have some particular concerns and I think on a bipartisan basis we’ll be able to address some of it,” Malloy said.

But “some of it” won’t be good enough for Republican lawmakers, who say they are making every effort to collaborate in a bipartisan manner with their Democratic colleagues.

“I’m also hopeful we have a jobs package that also gives aid to small businesses,” House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero said. “We’re not all about grabbing some marquis company and helping out the big boys.”

“We realize this economy in the state is made up more than 80 percent by small business” Cafero said.

Cafero said he was unwilling to support the request to bond $291 million in state funds for Jackson Laboratories or the rest of the jobs package, if there is no aid for small business in the jobs package.

“I made it clear from the beginning of our discussions, and I’m not a vague talker, that I was unwilling to collaborate if the package didn’t come about from a true bipartisan effort,” Cafero said. “Also if this becomes a Christmas tree of bills that didn’t get passed during the regular session we’re off the package.”

Rumors about special exemptions for certain things made their way around the Capitol Thursday. Cafero said if any of them are true “that’s not going to pass muster.”

He admitted the call for the special session is vague giving lobbyist and lawmakers hope of getting things they need passed into the bill.

Currently, there are about 75,000 small businesses in that state that account for nearly 98 percent of the state’s employers and half its private-sector jobs, according to the latest (2006) U.S. Commerce Department data. The vast majority or 88 percent of these businesses have fewer than 20 employees, Steven Lanza, executive editor of the Connecticut Economy wrote in the September issue of the quarterly.

Looking at data from 1996 to 2006 Connecticut has one of the worst records in terms of small business growth.

“We’re third worst after West Virginia and Ohio,“ Lanza said. “Small businesses actually contracted by about 3 percent over that 10 year period while they grew everywhere else.”

Connecticut’s inability to grow small business is not something Department of Economic and Community Development Commissioner Catherine Smith is ignoring. In fact she said back in June that it’s an area the state needs to improve upon.

Back in June Smith said Connecticut has a strong, diverse base of big businesses, but lags behind other states when it comes to companies with 10 to 100 employees.

“We need to have a critical mass of startup companies,” Smith told a group of commissioners.

When it comes to jobs that have 500 or more employees Connecticut is ranked seventh in the country in terms of business creation and growth, while jobs with 10 to 99 workers ranks 44th in the country and those with two to nine employees ranks 34th, said Smith.

Smith said Thursday that her staff and legislative staff from both parties are collaborating on a package, which won’t revisit things that didn’t get done in the last legislative session and will focus on getting the state’s economy back up and running.

She said she expects the package will be “finalized and crystallized” in the next couple days.
Malloy targets hedge funds as key players in state's economy
Richard Lee, Staff Writer (Greenwich TIME?)
Updated 08:30 p.m., Thursday, September 22, 2011

Job creation is high on Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's agenda, and the hedge fund industry in Fairfield County plays a key role in his efforts.

Malloy, who knows the industry well through his 14 years as mayor of Stamford, told more than 200 Thursday at the opening day of the Global Alpha Forum, a gathering of hedge fund professionals from throughout the nation at the Greenwich Hyatt, that he wants Connecticut to be seen as a state that welcomes hedge fund operators.

The two-day event was organized by the Connecticut Hedge Fund Association in Stratford and the Investment Management Institute in Greenwich.

"We understand that this industry is very important to our future. We have a better tax structure than nearby states. It has led to many hedge funds and their officers moving to Connecticut," Malloy said. "Let me say this loud and clear: We are going to defend our position in our tax policy and be supportive of this industry. I'm not in favor of Connecticut regulating hedge funds further than federal requirements."

That comes as good news to hedge fund operators in Fairfield County, where 8,655 people worked in the sector in 2010, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. There are 10,900 across the entire state.

Commenting that Connecticut, along with Michigan, has been among states with the worst record in net job creation in the past 20 years, Malloy said the General Assembly will conduct a special session on Oct. 26 focusing on job creation.

One goal, Malloy said, will be to streamline regulations to spur job creation.

The task is made more difficult as Connecticut works to emerge from a $3.5 billion budget deficit that Malloy inherited from the administration of former Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

It is the largest per capita debt in the nation, Malloy said, reminding the audience of the contentious battle he endured with state employee labor unions to agree to concessions.

Malloy is doing an admirable job in addressing challenges facing Connecticut amid a weak economy, said John Brunjes, a transactional securities and investment lawyer at GreenbergTaurig and a member of the Hedge Fund Association's board.

"He has a very ambitious agenda," he said. "It was very encouraging to hear him say he's prepared to defend the importance of the hedge fund industry in respect to the Connecticut economy."

Craig Heatter, managing director of research at IMI, credited Malloy for his commitment to the sector, but also suggested that he should encourage those in the audience to meet with him to discuss the challenges that the state faces.

"He should be sitting down with people in this room and getting ideas," Heatter said.

One topic could be examining the possibility of establishing a rapid transit manufacturing industry in Bridgeport and seeking federal funds to get it started, he said.

"We invited Malloy because he wants to help grow the hedge fund industry," said IMI President Russell Mason, who invited Gov. Chris Christie, the Republican from New Jersey, to address the audience Friday morning on the topic of educating children.

"He's a smart politician, and he's interested in building his tax base in New Jersey," he said. "This is an august group of speakers and attendees from all over the country -- leaders from Wall Street, pension funds, endowments and wealthy families."

New brownfield proposal called 'window dressing'
Jan Ellen Spiegel, CT MIRROR
October 21, 2011

Among the items in Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's jobs package for next week's special session is one on brownfields - those polluted properties that have become darlings of the environmental and economic revitalization sectors in recent years.

The package earmarks $20 million to develop and market five to-be-determined state-owned brownfield sites, to review and ultimately consolidate existing programs and to create a more comprehensive brownfields website.

"Window dressing," said Barry Trilling, an environmental and climate change attorney with Wiggin & Dana in Stamford who is versed in the issues pertaining to brownfields here and around the country. "We passed the law we needed this past summer and now we have to implement it."

Largely unnoticed in the last legislative session's laser focus on the budget and -- for the environmental community -- matters related to energy reform and the creation of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, were two pieces of legislation on brownfields.

In the view of Trilling and others, they will do more in the long run than the measures in the jobs package.

One provided $50 million for brownfield development low-interest loans over two years. The other -- the result of recommendations formulated over the last several years by a brownfields task force -- was "An Act Concerning Brownfield Remediation And Development As An Economic Driver." Among its many programmatic provisions was a major change in liability, which - though somewhat diluted in its final form - all parties point to as the single most important action for wrenching brownfield development into gear.

It set up a pilot program for 32 brownfield sites a year under which their buyers would no longer be liable for pollution that had migrated off the site - a longstanding and huge deal-breaker stymieing brownfield remediation here.

"That's all you need to know," said Trilling who along with others called that elimination of some of the economic uncertainty for those willing to take a risk on brownfields key.

The remediation and redevelopment of Connecticut's thousands of brownfields, the legacy of everything from century-old mills to abandoned gas stations, has staggered under a sometimes impenetrable web of  overlapping programs, outdated and cumbersome statutes, cross-agency jurisdictions, and inadequate funding.

The obstacles have made the state an inhospitable place to take on brownfields, often sending would-be developers to other states.

"If its easier to get a job done on regular basis in New Jersey or New York, you know we have a problem," said Trilling referring to Connecticut's system as Byzantine.

"For the longest time, since I've been involved, Connecticut needed to do some catching up with respect to its brownfield programs," said Gary O'Connor an attorney with Pullman & Comley who has co-chaired the task force since it began five years ago.

"I think over the last four or five years we've done so," he said.

O'Connor noted the creation of the Office of Brownfield Remediation and Development under the Department of Economic and Community Development, though not with a deputy commissioner running it or with the level of staffing he would have preferred. The result, he said, has been far more communication among the various departments who figure into brownfield work, making it easier for developers to navigate.

"Are we completely there yet?" he said. "No, I think we have almost all the tools in place."

New Haven-based attorney Nancy Mendel, part of a group of attorneys who helped craft the liability language - the original version of which had no cap on the number of participants -- said she already had one client apply for a liability protection spot - one of eight applications so far in the small window since the legislation's July 1 effective date. She said she has five clients likely to be ready to apply next year - at least two for whom whether they are accepted will dictate if they buy the brownfield.

"With this program they will take on the more difficult properties," she said. "I'll clean up the property; you protect me."

The problem Mendel and others said, many potential buyers don't know this or other programs exist.

"I think we need to do more outreach; I think we've been fairly silent as to what's available," said Ned Moore, the economic development agent with the OBRD. He said the website already is being reworked, and he would like to see better out-of-state marketing now that Connecticut can compete with the regulatory landscape in other states. "We need to be better salesmen."

Last session's legislation further loosened the brownfields logjam by expanding eligibility for a program that goes by the initials ABC - Abandoned Brownfield Cleanup. And to the issue of the many overlapping programs, it set in motion a rapid review, spearheaded by DEEP.

Its six working groups looking at existing programs, best practices, assessment of environmental risks, liabilities and other issues, have already filed reports and recommendations.

Public comments will be accepted for another couple of weeks, with a final report due mid December that is likely to form the basis for legislation in the next full session to reorganize and streamline the programs. The review process included in the special session package is a catchall for any programs or funding mechanisms not already under review, said Graham Stevens, the brownfields coordinator at DEEP overseeing the existing review.

"Everybody's house gets tidied at the same time," he said.

The idea of brownfield development brings with it potentially troublesome economic realities. The benefits are clear: getting rid of the contamination; putting people to work doing it; creating a business that will employ more people; putting the property back on the tax rolls; and in many cases doing it in an urban area that otherwise faces long term abandonment.

But in the current economic climate with a general glut of available clean properties and new development all-but stalled, there are doubts about how many likely takers there are for brownfields given their difficulty, cost and longer time frames.

"The important thing for state government to do right now in tough economic times is make sure we're well-poised when we turn the corner," Stevens said.

But Todd Berman, a senior environmental analyst for Robinson & Cole who was co-chair of the DEEP work group evaluating the existing programs said, "The real problem with brownfields is that the economics are still very, very marginal."

"If you're somebody contemplating a brownfield development, you need to be a courageous entrepreneur, maybe willing to spend a little more," he said.

And while the term "level the playing field" was uttered by just about everyone explaining why legislative reform for brownfields was necessary, Berman didn't think that was enough. "You have to make them economically competitive," he said. "Not just leveling the playing field; you've got to tilt it."

Among the recommendations from Berman's work group: consolidating the remedial programs in one location; sensible milestones for evaluating cleanup so properties aren't stuck in limbo for long periods of time; better assessing the risk of just how clean a property has to be for it to be usable; and allowing licensed professionals doing remediation to make decisions without constantly waiting for approval from an outside monitoring authority.

Even with the prospect of significant legislative modifications for brownfield development coming next legislative session, the consensus is that moving ahead using the programs in place now, as flawed as some of them may be, along with the potential additional money from the special session jobs package would still be beneficial.

"Every dollar helps; what we need to do is choose priorities," said Roger Reynolds of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, who added he was a little disappointed with the watered down result last session.

The priorities Reynolds prefers -- tying brownfield remediation to the new transit lines and hubs recently approved for development. "Taking our scarce resources and putting them into those areas and into modern, green, sustainable, livable communities is exactly what we ought to do," he said.

Anne Peters, an attorney with Carmody and Torrance in Waterbury who co-chaired the DEEP work group looking at liability issues said adding money to the brownfields equation could be done simultaneously with needed additional statutory reform.

"Every brownfield, every abandoned, blighted, under-utilized property that we restore to active use is of value to the state," she said recognizing they may not produce thousands of jobs, but at least will no longer drag down the rest of the neighborhood. "Even if it's just 32 properties for the pilot project, in my book, restoring 32 properties is much better than waiting and not restoring any."

State employees at center of post-Irene benefits probe
Stamford ADVOCATE
Ken Dixon, Staff Writer
Updated 12:17 a.m., Monday, December 5, 2011

HARTFORD -- An undetermined number of state employees were among those who fraudulently took federal aid offered under a $12.4 million disaster-relief program for spoiled food in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy announced Sunday.

Malloy, in announcing an in-house investigation by the state Department of Social Services into false statements on aid applications, said he has also notified state and federal prosecutors.

During a rare weekend news conference outside his Capitol office, alongside Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman and DSS Commissioner Roderick L. Bremby, Malloy said that he's not sure how many state employees may have misstated their incomes in September to gain eligibility in the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program program, but about 800 applied, including workplace supervisors.

"There are people from many different state departments that applied for this relief," Malloy said.

The irregularities came up during a routine DSS audit of the 23,000 D-SNAP applications.

"Through the normal process of applications for the program, it has come to my attention that a number of state employees appear to have filed applications that materially misrepresented their incomes," Malloy said. "Based on those apparent misrepresentations, they received benefits under the D-SNAP program."

Malloy said that it's too early to tell how many fraudulent applications were filed, but he credited Bremby's employees who uncovered it.

"Rod's team was doing their job and doing the review that they were required to do and they came across some names," Malloy said. "They looked familiar and that gave rise to Rod doing more work on it. It was brought to my attention and I instructed him to conduct as thorough as investigation as he could."

The governor said he first heard about the apparent fraud on Thursday.

Asked for an approximate number of alleged fraudulent filings by state workers, Malloy said "more than a few" were involved.

"If we found out that state employees, or anyone else for that matter, used the occurrence of Tropical Storm Irene as an opportunity to defraud the disaster-funding program, the consequences we'll have will be immediate and severe," Malloy told reporters. "For state employees, that means termination and prosecution."

Those accepted for the D-SNAP program received plastic debit cards with up to $1,202 on them, to pay for the replacement of food that was spoiled after the power went out when the storm hit the state with heavy rain and high winds on Aug. 27. The average award was $684, Bremby said.

The D-SNAP had a wide variety of income guidelines, including $5,600 a month for households of eight people.

"What I find so troubling is that, as we believe, state employees defrauded the system," Malloy said.

About 208,000 low-income state families are enrolled in the federally funded SNAP program, which replaced food stamps. Bremby told reporters that the D-SNAP program was for people who were not normal SNAP recipients. It was the first time that the state issued a D-SNAP program following a major weather event.
Non-union workers getting $6.2 million in longevity pay next week
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
October 14, 2011

State government will issue nearly $10.3 million in longevity payments to senior employees on Thursday, including nearly $6.2 million to non-union executives, managers and other staff and $4.1 million to union workers, according to numbers released Friday by Comptroller Kevin P. Lembo.

About 39,200 union workers forfeited their scheduled longevity payments as part of the concession deal approved in August. But nearly $466,000 will be paid to 757 state police troopers and 437 correction officer supervisors who rejected wage and longevity givebacks.

Abut 5,200 other union employees--mostly professionals in higher education and the Judicial Branch--also will be bonuses, but at a reduced rate agreed to in the concession deal. Their payments total more than $3.6 million.

It is the the $6.2 million being paid to 3,085 non-union workers that has caused a stir lately, however. Minority Republicans in the state Senate urged Malloy in writing recently to rescind the payments, while the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition filed a grievance earlier this month over the bonuses.

Administration officials have countered that shy of a legislative repeal of the longevity statute, canceling longevity payments for non-union workers could be challenged in court as an illegal taking of salary--a legal argument that Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, has challenged.

In a 2007 decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that final, pro-rated longevity payments earned by two retiring assistant attorneys general had to be included in their pension calculations.

The longevity pay system, first created by statute in 1967 and subsequently guaranteed in most union contracts since then, rewards most workers with bi-annual bonuses after they have achieved 10 years of service. The statutes also call for higher bonuses after workers hit their 15-, 20 and 25-year anniversaries, after which longevity pay is capped.

Under concession deal reached last summer between Malloy and the state employee unions, about 39,800 unionized employees forfeited their entire longevity payment this October. Another 5,248 unionized employees, primarily involving higher education faculty and Judicial branch professionals, forfeited 25 percent of their October payment.

Also under that deal, all unionized employees hired after July 1, 2011 are ineligible to ever receive longevity pay.

For non-union workers, the administration opted not to cancel October payments.

Instead it has capped payments for non-union workers. That means those payments never will increase in future years, regardless of how much experience non-union staff accumulate. It also means that those non-union workers who lacked the minimum experience level of 10 years when longevity payments last were issued in April are permanently ineligible from receiving them.

Administration officials insist this produced far greater savings than the concession deal's provision regarding longevity pay over the next few decades.

"We filed a grievance under the recently ratified SEBAC 2011 agreement because we believe that the comparable or greater sacrifice understanding must apply in the short-term, too," coalition spokesman Matt O'Connor said. "Especially since paying out these bonuses now means there are some managers who won't sacrifice their longevity at all."

Union spokesmen have noted that some senior Malloy officials already had qualified for the top longevity payment before the new cap was imposed, meaning their payments won't decline under this system in October or later.

McKinney argued in a separate letter to the governor that the statutory and legal precedent gives the governor the authority to reform the longevity pay system, including canceling payments.

McKinney added Friday that the longevity statute also gives the administration the flexibility to reduce payments to non-union staff.

For example, the statute reads that employees with greater than 10 by less than 15 years of service shall receive either $75, "or an amount determined in accordance with the longevity rate schedule established for his class of position by the Commissioner of Administrative Services, whichever is greater." And in the case of managers, they are entitled only to the amount set in the commissioner's schedule.

Similar language and options exist for workers with more experience. The fixed payments in the statute increase to $150 for 15-20 years of experience, $225 for 20-25 years, and $300 for more than 25 years.

"I'm disappointed that the governor refused to ask the commissioner of DAS to even issue a new longevity payment schedule" that matches the minimum levels set in statute, McKinney said Friday, adding it would have significantly discounted longevity payments for many non-union staff.

"The longevity payments have no business in state government anymore," he added. "They're not based on merit. They're not based on how well you do your job."

Malloy's senior advisor, Roy Occhiogrosso, reasserted Malloy's oft-stated stance on the issue Friday: "He doesn't think anybody should be getting longevity payments."

Occhiogrosso added that Malloy can't accomplish that without legislative action, and is ready to work with lawmakers on this during the regular 2012 session, which starts in February. "I think he's probably glad we're spending less money on it now than last year," Occhiogrosso added.
Thousands of non-union workers to receive longevity bonuses
Keith M. Phaneuf, CTMIRROR
September 29, 2011

While most veteran unionized employees are forfeiting their longevity pay as part of the labor concession deal, thousands of non-union workers, including many top official in Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration, will share millions of dollars in seniority bonuses next month.

The Department of Administrative Services declined Thursday to release a preliminary list of staff slated to receive longevity payments next month. Department spokesman Jeffrey Beckham said it still was being adjusted to reflect resignations, retirement and layoffs over the past six months. But longevity pay is issued twice yearly and 3,599 non-union staff received such bonuses, worth about $7 million in April.

Malloy's budget chief argued that a new longevity cap imposed on non-union employees earlier this year will save more money over the next 30 years. But he conceded that the administration executives and managers with the most years of service will sacrifice nothing.

Ironically, non-union workers would have shared in the longevity pay cutbacks had union workers approved the first labor concession deal. After that deal was rejected in June, however, legislation cutting bonuses for non-union workers was repealed, and it wasn't reinstated when the deal passed in a second vote.

Key lawmakers from both parties were surprised to learn that the cuts in longevity pay for non-union workers had been revoked.

"This is not apples and apples," said House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero, R-Norwalk, one of Malloy's most vocal critics. Cafero noted that while Malloy imposed an across-the-board longevity bonus cap on his top executives in January, many of those same executives will collect thousands of dollars in bonuses in a few weeks. "What looked like a grand fiscal gesture in January has turned out to be a windfall in October for Malloy's senior staff," he said. "Where is the shared sacrifice?"

"Oh my God," said Sen. Edith G. Prague, D-Columbia, co-chairwoman of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. "It's outrageous."

The longevity pay system, first created by statute in 1967 and subsequently guaranteed in most union contracts since then, rewards most workers with biannual bonuses after they have achieved 10 years of service. The statutes also call for higher bonuses after workers hit their 15-, 20 and 25-year anniversaries, after which longevity pay is capped.

The bonuses, paid to most eligible workers in May and October, have been an increasing source of controversy at the Capitol amid the fiscal crises of recent years.

Prague, who chastised state employee unions for initially rejecting a concession deal in June before ratifying on a second vote in August, added Thursday that non-union workers should have to make some immediate salary sacrifice.

That appeared to be the plan on June 7 when the legislature enacted a budget policy statute that the administration "shall implement changes to longevity payments for such (non-union) officers and employees comparable to the longevity payment provisions of the agreement" with the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition. Malloy signed that into law on June 21.

But on June 30, that language was repealed in another budget policy bill adopted in special session and also signed by Malloy. Instead the administration was directed to apply the longevity pay cap it had imposed on to executives to all non-union staff.

The executive cap was ordered by Malloy on Jan. 21, and applied to about 50 top officials. It said the officials could not earn higher payments in future years, even if they had fewer than 25 years of service.

The order also stipulated that those who hadn't received a longevity payment in October 2010--such as legislators who left that branch in January to join his administration--would not be eligible for bonuses in the future.

By expanding these ground rules to all non-union workers, the June 30 legislation did two things:

•It blocked all non-union staff who have not yet qualified for longevity payments from ever receiving them.
•And it also locked those who do receive them from receiving any future increase in their bonus, regardless of how many years of service they accrue.

By comparison, the concession deal means about 39,800 unionized employees will forfeit their entire longevity payment this year. Another 5,200 union members, primarily involving higher education faculty and Judicial branch professionals, will forfeit 25 percent of their October payment.

About $13.2 million in longevity payments went out to more than 28,640 unionized employees in April.

"The current system has been unfairly skewed towards management--but we have always said that on the merits longevity bonuses make good fiscal sense," State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition spokesman Matt O'Connor said. "They encourage the workforce to continue their public service careers. And we believe that longevity bonuses also justly reward workers for decades of service to their employer. Plus they save millions in retraining costs and improves the quality of services that we all count on.

But Malloy's budget director, Office of Policy and Management Secretary Benjamin Barnes, noted that while these groups will lose money now, they and any other unionized employees hired before June 30 this year remain in the longevity pay system and will be able to qualify for increasing bonuses down the road.

By comparison, all non-union workers shy of 10 years of experience never can qualify for longevity pay under the new system, and those that do receive them will never see those bonuses increase.

"We believe that the savings we are imposing here is significantly greater over the long-term," he said.

But 38 out of the 41 salary groups for unionized workers call for longevity bonuses ranging from $75 to $998, and the last allow workers to earn between $1,000 and $1,100 after they reach 25 years of service. Bonuses in the middle three salary groups range from $114 to $568.

By comparison, 18 of the 20 bonus levels Malloy executives can qualify for top $1,000, ranging as high as $5,600.

And Barnes conceded that those executives who already topped out under the old system because  they had more than 25 years of experience -- such as deputy OPM Secretary Mark Ojakian, who negotiated the concession deal -- aren't penalized at all under the new system, which simply reinforces an existing cap.

Ojakian, who received a $4,800 payment in April, will not lose his in October and his payments weren't slated to increase under either the old system or the new one.

And even those executives who have fewer than 25 years of state service might need to work two to four more years, Cafero noted, before the capping system would cost them enough to equal what they otherwise would lose if they had to forfeit their October payment instead.

"This is the problem," Prague said. "Executives and managers already make good salaries. There's not a balance here."

For example, three top scientists at the state's agricultural experimental station qualified in April for bonuses above $4,100.

Over 18 non-union staffers in the state auditors' office earned bonuses in excess of $4,000 last time.

"Of course there are examples where management salaries -- and as a result, their bonuses -- are out of whack," O'Connor added. "The solution is to do the hard work of transforming state government so that resources are redirected to the people who need services and the workers who deliver them."

"And that's our focus right now -- holding the Malloy Administration to their obligation to work with us to make state government work better and be a better place to work," he added.

Barnes added that even though the administration signed legislation in early June that would have required non-union longevity pay to be adjusted comparable to any unionized concessions, it believes such a move might be challenged in court as an illegal taking of salary.

In a 2007 decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that final, pro-rated longevity payments earned by two retiring assistant attorneys general had to be included in their pension calculations.



Lawmakers say utilities did 'terrible' job on Irene response
CT POST
Ken Dixon, Staff Writer
Updated 11:41 p.m., Monday, September 19, 2011

HARTFORD -- The response by the state's two major electric utilities to last month's Tropical Storm Irene was inadequate and troubling, state and local lawmakers charged Monday.

They recalled incidents from throughout the state, where communications were so poor that utility work crews would sit in their vehicles, seemingly paralyzed, for hours until finally getting assignments from supervisors.

During the first of two days of legislative hearings on the Aug. 27-28 storm, executives from Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating admitted that there were communication lapses, but claimed their overall response -- once contract crews from out of state arrived -- was good.

The executives said that state residents need to accept a more extensive tree-trimming program to prevent the most common cause of outages: trees falling on power transmission lines.

Legislative leaders started off the eight-hour-long hearing with low-key, conciliatory statements. The question period from committee members to the utilities was limited to 15 minutes and the executives received little direct criticism.

But during the afternoon session, elected leaders led by Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi said that Connecticut consumers pay far too much money for the length of time their towns were without power.

"We pay the highest electric costs," Marconi told the joint hearing before several legislative committees. "Look at the service we got. If they can't deliver that kind of service, maybe we should pay lower rates," Marconi said, noting that 140 roads were closed in his town.

"I don't think C L & P could do a worse job if they tried," said Sen. Edith G. Prague, D-Columbia. "Coordination problems were terrible," added Sen. Ed Meyer, D-Guilford.

Rep. Steve Dargan, D-West Haven, co-chairman of the Legislature's Public Safety Committee, told the utility executives that glaring communications problems were widespread both within the companies and between the utilities and their customers.

"The utility companies couldn't operate until the tree personnel cut the tree down," Dargan said. "The tree personnel said, `We can't take the tree down until the power lines are shut down. So what was happening is the utility company truck would be there and they would leave, then the tree-company truck would come and they would leave. I think we need to do better communication in that area."

The hearings began with promises from legislative leaders that their role is to prepare for the next big storm, not point the blame for outages that enraged customers and frustrated local officials throughout the state.

Jeffrey Butler, president and CEO of CL&P, said that planning for the storm began six days before it hit during the weekend of Aug. 27 and that outside contractors were heavily relied upon, to restore power.

"Storm Irene was the worst in Connecticut state history," Butler said of a nine-day period that mobilized 7,500 company workers and contractors who handled 15,000 trouble spots, including 1,300 broken poles.

In all, about 158,000 UI and 671,000 CL&P customers were without power due to the high winds and flooding.

"I do believe we had a strong response to this storm," Butler said. "Resources were effectively deployed, once we had them."

James P. Torgerson, president and CEO of United Illuminating Holdings Co., said he believes the utility reacted appropriately, but there are plans to invest up to $15 million over the next two to three years to improve communications with customers and community leaders.

More information would include the tracking of work crews then getting that information to office personnel who would contact customers on the status of repairs.

"ABOUT TOWN" WATCHING AND LISTENING TO JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING ONLINE...
From the Capitol via CT-N, Monday, September 19, 2011

10am - CL&P wants to trim "hazard trees" that could be 50 to 100 feet away from lines on private property - this would require action by the Legislature to permit private home owners' property to be enterred..and then who pays for taking down big trees that might endanger power lines?  Answer:  Rates will go up to pay for it.  Also, they trim every five years but would like to do it every four years.

Data and details were manually translated from system maps to town maps.

10:30am - Discussion of "breakfast buffet" and work during nighttime.  Mutal aid turnout not as good a expected (in some places).  Tree trimming an issue.

10:50am - United Illuminating.  Assessment.  Circuits stretch two to eight miles across town lines.  Water damage and danger.  Location of all town and emergency systems took time (not in Weston, I would think!).  Downed wires must be confirmed at various stages.  UI wasn't moving to restore customers until Tuesday.  Technology:  integration of "platforms" of data needed.  BETTER INFO to public needed.

11:10 Q&A - answered info question - 2 to 3 years changes to outage management and where crews will be and tell call center.  Mobile devices digital.  Land line.  E-mail to site where customers can get info.  Utility truck, tree company truck confusion.  First responders practice - power companies should too (Steve Dargan).  Brendan Sharky complained about UI blaming the town public works crews.  Chastises UI for having crews talk to the public.  Small utility at a disadvantage getting help - is there coordination between UI and CL&P to best use crews?  Should the State of CT "facilitate" this?  UI President reacts to this last threat by Sharky. 

11:27am - Steve Mikutel - Changing the character of towns.  More rain softening soil.  Main lines first.  Big trees that are sick.  Underground wires?  Six times more expensive, different technology.  Cost prohibitive at this point.   Liaisons - communications to companies didn't work - Candelora.

11:40am - MUNICIPAL UTILITIES:  Groton Utilities - winds have to be under 35 miles an hour to send out bucket crews.  Communications need improvement - data acquisition.  Isolated customes.  Mikutel - why did cities get back power sooner?  Groton did help CL&P.  John Hiscock - S. Norwalk electric - no trees.  They help CL&P.  Nardello - what is the diffedrence between size, urban areas...Edith Prague - Groton Utilities did a better job than CL&P...

12 Noon - Municipalities.  Canterbury.  THEY HAVE A COG - didn't help them!  Sen. Williams - mentions other communities BUT NOT WESTON.  Inequality of response by towns - Sen. Ritter talks about her two towns were diferent (don't know what she was hinting at, except for the fact that Waterford is wealthy and Montville isn't).  Internet availability.  RADIO updates suggested.

12:27pm - CCM - Mary Glassman, First Selectman.  Transmission lines, tree trimming and excellent and regular communication with CL&P.  ATT and COMCAST in Simsbury not reponsive.  CCM survey:  excellent communication before the storm, after the storm not exactly - liaison majority approved.  Reverse communication was good.  Websites helpful.   Radios important.  G.I.S. worked.  CRCOG Homeland Security points out that Regionalization worked.  A.M. Radio was great on the local level!!!  REGIONALIZATION - MUTUAL AID TEMPLATE WE EXPECT WILL DERIVE FROM THIS.  Naugatuck. Trees.   Regional control  of private property.  Customer service and EOC gave different info.  CODE RED good.  "About Town" takes a lunch break

2:15pm - ATT gets bashed.  NO ONE WHO SPOKE CAME FROM CABLEVISION OF SWCT AREA.  Rudy Marconi speaks for Weston, Wilton and Redding (Ridgefield) - Ridgefield not in Cablevision area.

2:20pm - American Red Cross testimony.  Previously, some had complained about ARC.  It was pointed out about purchase  of generators - "heater meals" and volunteers' importance.  United Way, Rick Porth.  E-library helpful to people.  Individual disaster declaration data...this hearing kept going - when we checked in at 4:59pm, cell phone companies were testifying!


IS THIS AN ADMISSION THAT ONLY LOBBYISTS GET TO SPEAK ORDINARILY?
Lawmakers' 1st Irene Hearing Begins Monday Morning
Will Look Into State's Readiness And Response To Major Storms
The Hartford Courant
Staff Report
5:00 p.m. EDT, September 18, 2011

HARTFORD ——

The first of two legislative hearings on issues raised by Tropical Storm Irene begins Monday at 9:30 a.m. at the Legislative Office Building.

The hearings, scheduled for Room 2C, will examine the state's readiness for — and response to —the storm. The second hearing is next Monday, Sept. 26.At the first hearing, legislators expect to hear testimony from representatives of the electric, cable and telecommunications industries, as well as from municipal leaders. The session will finish by 4:30 p.m.

The Sept. 26 hearing will begin at 9 a.m. Members of the general public will be heard first. After that, union representatives and the electric utility companies will have a chance to present testimony. The second hearing is expected to conclude by early afternoon.

Citizens who can't attend the Sept. 26 hearing can still participate. For what's believed to be the first time, legislative committees are taking testimony via Twitter and Facebook.

Senate and House Democrats have set up Facebook and Twitter accounts at

http://www.facebook.com/pages/After-Irene-CT/262762473747233 and

http://twitter.com/#!/AfterIreneCT to accept public comment and suggestions.


CL&P ready to defend its response to Tropical Storm Irene
Keith M. Phaneuf and Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
September 19, 2011

Facing a legislative inquiry after the state's worst power outage, Connecticut's largest electric utility intends to defend its performance today by telling legislators that it restored power to more customers and in less time after Tropical Storm Irene than in any previous blackout.

Jeffrey D. Butler, the president and chief operating officer of Connecticut Light & Power Co., acknowledged an "opportunity" for the company to improve communications with the public and towns after blackouts. But in an interview with The Mirror, he said CL&P deserves good marks overall for its response before and after Irene.

The nine days to restore power after Irene was one fewer than it took to make repairs after Hurricane Gloria in 1985. At its peak, 671,000 CL&P customers were out from Irene, compared to the previous record of 477,428 from Gloria.  United Illuminating, the state's second-larges utility, reported 158,000 outages. It serves 324,000 customers, mostly along the shoreline from the New Haven to Bridgeport areas.  Nearly all the damage from Irene in CL&P's territory was caused by trees and branches falling on 17,000 miles of electric lines, which snake through one of the nation's densest canopy of trees, Butler said.

CL&P says it had to replace 1,200 poles, hang 108 miles of wire, repair 1,700 transformers and help clear more than 1,500 roads across the state.

For every mile of electric line in Connecticut there are, on average, 184 trees close enough to require regular trimming, Butler said. With 17,000 miles of wires, that means more than 3 million trees for CL&P to monitor and trim.  Both Butler and UI spokesman Michael West said their utilities will ask lawmakers to reassess state regulations governing tree-trimming, noting that Connecticut is one of the two most vegetation-dense states in the nation when it comes to foliage close to power lines.

"We need to take a look at the process through which trees are pruned," West said.

Legislators intend to press utilities to disclose not only the problems they face in arranging for tree trimming, but also how much of their budgets they allocate toward this task, said Rep. Vickie O. Nardello, D-Prospect, co-chairwoman of the Energy and Technology Committee.

"I think we need to know how they spent the money from the last rate increase, and how well they used it to prepare for this storm," Nardello said.

The energy committee is one of several participating in the legislative inquiry. The administration of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy also has convened a separate independent inquiry to examine the overall response to the storm by the state, towns, utilities and others.  CL&P and UI will send representatives to the legislative inquiry at 9:30 a.m. in the Legislative Office Building. Cable and telephone industry representatives and municipal leaders also have been asked to testify.

The hearing continues on Monday, Sept. 26, with testimony from the general public and from unions representing utility crews, who complained about staffing levels and overtime policies that allowed no employee line or tree crews to work more than 16 hours in a 24-hour period.  Butler said NU has no doubts that requiring eight hours off after a 16-hour shift was a sound safety policy, given that crews would be working for more than a week to repair the extensive damage, nearly all of which was attributed to falling trees and branches.

One lineman was electrocuted making repairs after Gloria, and an investigation found fatigue was a factor.

"We recognized early on that this was going to be a multi-day event," Butler said of Irene, a hurricane that ravaged 15 states and cut power to 7 million homes and businesses between Aug. 20 and 29. It was downgraded to a strong tropical storm before its winds and rains reached Connecticut on Aug. 27.

Since power to the last customer was restored Sept. 6, CL&P has been preparing to defend its response, gathering data showing that eight or nine days was the norm for repairs in North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and New York.

"I still think we were looking at an eight- or nine-day restoration period" regardless of the size of the company's staff, Butler said. "That was just the amount of damage we were looking at."

Butler, who absorbed a hail of media questions about declining repair crew manpower, said during the interview in the company's Hartford offices that many don't realize company employees always have comprised a small fraction of the response effort during huge events like Irene.  CL&P directly employs 204 crews--most of which are two-member teams--for line repair, but put 1,889 crews in the field for line work or tree trimming and clean up after Irene, augmenting its numbers primarily through private contractors.

By comparison, the company had 268 crews on the company payroll during Hurricane Gloria in 1985. But it put 1,032 crews into the response effort and needed 10 days to restore power to 477,428 customers. 

CL&P belongs to two regional mutual aid groups composed of electric utilities, but since they all were struck hard by Irene, little help came from that source. "Quite honestly the resources weren't available," Butler said.  The company has strong ties with several private repair contractors, Butler said, including two national giants, Asplundh and Quanta Services. "We do a lot of work with these companies," he said. "Having strong relationships with these contractors gave us an advantage" in securing help at a time of fierce competition.

Butler was less confident about CL&P's relationships with leaders of Connecticut's cities and towns, or with its 1.2 million residential and business customers, but added the company is focused on improving communications.

"Giving our customers the information they are looking for--I think that's our biggest opportunity," said Butler, who declined to use the word "failing."

CL&P began reaching out to customers two days before Irene with media releases, public service announcements, and through online social media such as Facebook and Twitter. "We wanted people to understand this was going to be multiple days to get power restored," he said.

But one of the problems with telling customers that it could take anywhere from a couple days to a week or more to restore power is that many may hopefully count on the former, not the latter. "I think a lot of people took it that way," Butler said.

And as people pressed for more specifics about their respective situations after the storm, it was largely too late to refine the message. "We live on the Internet," he said. "Without power you don't have the Internet."

A round of automated calls made about one week after the storm helped the company reach about 190 customers suspected of still lacking power though no outages had been reported.  The company also experienced problems working with local officials, whom Butler said "want to know the trouble by streets, not by circuits.  ... Certainly our communications with the towns we can improve."

Irene damaged 21 major transmission lines that link generation sites with substations.

These lines have to be repaired before lower-voltage distribution line problems can be addressed. But because these transmission lines are located away from neighborhoods, local officials and residents often don't notice, and mistakenly assume no repair work has begun in their community.  Northeast Utilities, the owner of CL&P and smaller utilities in western Massachusetts and New Hampshire, estimates the storm cost it $100 million, with about three quarters of the damage coming in Connecticut.

West put the price tag for UI's damages at between $20 million and $25 million.  Neither said Friday what portion they would seek to pass on to customers through future rate hike requests, with Butler saying that each state has a regulatory process to make that assessment.

But Nardello said lawmakers will want some indication today about their fiscal plans. "I believe there will be questions about their costs and their intentions," she said. "I think the public deserves to know."

Malloy plan would end heat aid to gas and electric utility customers
Arielle Levin Becker, CT MIRROR
September 14, 2011

Forecasting a drop of more than $68 million in federal funds to help low-income residents heat their homes, the Malloy administration has proposed limiting assistance to people who buy fuel from dealers, leaving more than 80,000 households with electric or gas heat without the aid.  The administration's plan notes that state law protects low-income residents with electric or gas heat from having their utilities shut off because of unpaid bills between Nov. 1 and May 1. No such protection exists for those who buy fuel such as oil or propane from dealers--so-called "deliverable" fuel.

More than 60 percent of households that have participated in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program get heat from utilities and would not be covered by LIHEAP next winter under the administration's plan, unless additional funds become available.

"Our plan is focused on what we see as the most critical public policy goal of low-income heating assistance, which is preventing people from freezing to death," said Benjamin Barnes, secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's budget office.

The plan drew opposition from the advisory board that oversees LIHEAP, which recommended an alternative that would reduce benefit levels, rather than eligibility, if additional federal funds don't come through. The administration's plan requires legislative approval.

"It's going to have a devastating effect," said Patricia J. Wrice, a board member and executive director of Operation Fuel, which provides emergency energy assistance to people who are not eligible for government programs.

Shirley Bergert, director of the public benefits task force at Connecticut Legal Services and a member of the Low Income Energy Advisory Board, questioned the legality of the administration's plan and called it "by far the most harmful thing we've ever seen in Connecticut."

"Connecticut's not prepared to deal with the level of spring shutoffs" that will occur, she said.

Barnes said having people's utilities shut off in May if they can't pay their bills is a concern, but he said he is "far less concerned about people facing shutoff in May than people facing shutoffs in December."

Many people eligible for LIHEAP will be eligible for an earned income tax credit in the spring, which Barnes said would provide some assistance paying utility bills. He noted that the legislature could address the matter when it is in session, possibly by adjusting the ability of utility companies to shut off service, but said he's reluctant to say the state could make up for a drop in federal funding.  The administration's plan directs community action agencies to help low-income residents with gas or electric heat enroll in programs to reduce their payments or negotiate reduced rates with the utility companies.

LIHEAP last year served 117,876 Connecticut households, with $115 million in federal funds. Under the administration's proposal, the program would serve approximately 36,826 households this winter, when heating oil prices are estimated to be 64 cents per gallon higher than last year. LIHEAP's program year is aligned to the federal fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.

If benefit levels and caseload growth match what they were last year, Connecticut would need nearly $120 million for LIHEAP this year. Instead, the administration's plan assumes that the state will receive $46.4 million from the federal government.

In February, President Obama recommended slashing LIHEAP funding, leaving Connecticut with less than half of what it received last year. Congress can deviate from the president's recommendation, and Malloy and several other governors wrote to Congressional leaders earlier this month asking for LIHEAP funding to remain level. But the emphasis on cutting government spending in Washington has left advocates less than optimistic about increased LIHEAP funding.

The state could adapt to the shortfall in one of two ways: Leave the program as is and give every recipient less money, or change the program structure so fewer people get assistance.  The administration's plan takes the latter strategy, making funding available only for people who rely on deliverable fuel. The state would continue to provide funding through two benefits, known as crisis assistance benefits and safety net assistance, that are only available to households heated by deliverable fuel.

In past years, everyone in the program, regardless of type of heat, received "basic benefits," and people who rent their homes and have heat included in their rent were eligible for rental assistance benefits. Under the administration's plan, their availability would depend on federal funding.  The plan would also tighten eligibility for a benefit for higher-income households in the program, lowering the threshold from 60 percent of the state median income to 200 percent of the poverty level. For a family of four, that means lowering the limit from $61,276 to $44,700. Bergert said 9,721 households that received LIHEAP funds for deliverable fuel last year would lose eligibility because of the income limit change.

Barnes said he respects the position of advocates who want the state to take another approach, but he said it would be reckless for the state to move forward with a program that can't be sustained, potentially leading to a need for emergency shelters in the winter.  Lowering the benefit for everyone would make the program meaningless, Barnes said. Oil deliveries require a minimum of 100 gallons, and spreading the funding across all heat types could leave oil-heated households without enough money for a delivery.

And running the program as it has run in the past and expecting federal funding could mean the program runs out of money in November, he said.

"I just think that if there's a risk of not receiving that additional funding, I think it's prudent to have the risk be borne by the utility-heated households, because they, frankly, won't get [turned] off for the winter," Barnes said. "Whereas the other folks, they won't get a delivery."

Department of Social Services Commissioner Roderick L. Bremby called the administration's plan realistic given the expected cuts in federal funding. He said additional federal funding could become available, but it would be irresponsible to count on it.

"The plan focuses on helping low-income households that heat with deliverable fuels because these families and individuals are most at risk of freezing this winter," he said.

Wrice said she understands the state's position, given the projected funding level. In past years, she's been optimistic that the federal funding levels originally anticipated would be increased, but this year, she said, she's less hopeful.  But Wrice said that limiting the assistance to people with fuel heat will hurt families in urban areas, where electric and gas heat are more common.

"If you have limited resources, then distribute the resources equitably. Don't favor one source of heating against another," she said.

Bergert called the administration's approach a "radical and damning departure from any prior Connecticut energy assistance plan." She said the plan ignores a federal requirement that energy assistance be focused on the lowest-income households that pay a high proportion of their income for energy, and a state law that prohibits energy assistance programs from discriminating based on heat source in the basic benefit provided to eligible households.

In addition, she said, changing the LIHEAP structure could create problems for other services that help low-income residents with energy costs, including debt forgiveness programs offered by utilities, because they depend on LIHEAP eligibility and benefits. The community access agencies that administer the program are likely to see their funding slashed since it is based on LIHEAP funding, making it more difficult for them to process as many applications.

Changing the program's structure could also make it more difficult to adjust if more money comes through later in the year, Bergert said.

The administration's plan would also lower the income threshold for people to receive federally funded weatherization services. The program has the same application as LIHEAP, and Bergert said families with utility heat who do not expect to get LIHEAP benefits are unlikely to apply.

The board that oversees LIHEAP recommended that the state maintain the program's existing structure and eligibility levels, but modify benefits based on how much money is available. The board also recommended that the state provide funding for the benefits and for the community action agencies and other organizations to administer the program.

The legislature's Appropriations, Human Services and Energy and Technology committees will hold a public hearing on the administration's plan on Tuesday, Sept. 27, at 3 p.m., in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.



Elements of 'Plan B' on the table despite concessions approval
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
August 29, 2011

With the concession deal ratified by unionized workers and roughly 2,800 layoff notices now revoked, the ugliest elements of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's budget-balancing alternative to givebacks have been put away.

But even though most of Malloy's $1.6 billion concession plan has been approved, that doesn't mean every  option raised last month when concessions still hung in the balance has been scrapped.  More than 128 layoffs were ordered for non-unionized personnel, including several employees at government watchdog agencies, whose leaders insist they were supposed to be statutorily insulated from such cutbacks. Malloy's budget agency, the Office of Policy and Management, has offered all agencies a chance to appeal for these positions to be restored but already has indicated some will remain vacant.

And commuter rail and bus service fare increases ranging between 10 and 15 percent also remain a possibility. The administration, which included these hikes in its July 15 plan to balance the budget in the absence of concessions, is moving forward with the process and conducting public hearings on these proposals, though one key official said no final decision on whether to implement them has been made.

"We still have a lot of work to do with this budget," said Benjamin Barnes, the secretary of the Office of Policy and Management.

Though the $20.14 billion budget adopted in June for the current fiscal year is balanced on paper with the concession deal, there is no guarantee it will yield the planned savings targets: $700 million this fiscal year and $900 million in 2012-13.  Nearly 25 percent of this year's concession savings, about $170 million, is supposed to come from joint labor-management panels working to cut costs through as-yet-unidentified efficiencies in health care, technology, and across state government in general.

Mark Ojakian, Malloy's chief negotiator on the concession package, said Friday that the health care effort already is underway, while teams addressing technology and general government costs will get started in the next few weeks.  Those efforts all were supposed to be underway by Sept. 1, Ojakian said.

But a wrench was thrown into the schedule in mid-June when the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition rejected the concession plan on the first vote. Panelists to serve on potentially the most challenging cost-savings assignment -- a general government efficiency program that must find $90 million per year in savings -- haven't even been named yet.

"We're still working out who's going to be sitting on that," Ojakian said.

The administration also is counting on saving more than $200 million this fiscal year through a new state employee wellness plan, another savings target in the concession package that critics have called too aggressive.  Further complicating matters, the legislature tasked Malloy when this year's budget was adopted with finding over $112 million in undefined savings in addition to those tied to the concession plan. 
Malloy reminded all of his department heads during a meeting this past week of the crucial need to control spending.

"You have got to begin the task in earnest," the governor said. "You have got to demonstrate your willingness to drive efficiencies."

That means no reasonable idea to make government more efficient can be ignored, Barnes said.  The administration ordered 128 layoffs earlier this summer for non-union personnel. About half of them were connected with agency consolidations approved by the legislature in June. The remainder were linked to efforts to cut costs when it appeared union concessions wouldn't be forthcoming.

"We haven't finalized our decision-making on these" jobs, Barnes said. "But we've invited each department to submit a plan" to try to reclaim those jobs it deems are most crucial.

This position already has sparked criticism from the state's three chief watchdog agencies, which were rolled on July 1 -- along with six others -- into a new, unified Office of Governmental Accountability.  The heads of the Freedom of Information Commission, the Office of State Ethics and the State Elections Enforcement Commission, have said they shouldn't have to ask the governor to restore positions in their budget. Malloy laid off three non-union watchdog jobs and to date has not allowed these agencies--now divisions within the OGA- to fill newly vacant posts.

That's because at the height of the scandal that drove former Gov. John G. Rowland from office in 2004, state lawmakers legally insulated the freedom of information, ethics and elections enforcement agencies with a measure sparing them from any emergency cuts after the budget had been adopted, arguing this was essential to keep government open and honest.

The watchdog agencies say Malloy is violating at least the spirit, and possibly the letter of that law, by laying off their staff and using the governor's control over state hiring rules to prevent them from using their approved budgets to fill the positions.

Malloy also took some heat last month when his alternative budget included cuts to subsidies to force rate increases that included:

    14 percent for the Shoreline East rail commuter line.
    15 percent for the Metro-North rail commuter line.
    And 10 percent for the CT Transit bus service.

Jim Cameron, chairman of the Connecticut Metro-North Rail Commuter Council, said the rail subsidy cuts amounted to a "hidden tax increase."

Cameron said that for the typical Metro-North passenger purchasing a $300-per-month rail pass, that's an extra $45 per month, or $540 per year. Bus service riders would face an extra $4.50 added to the $45 price for a 31-day pass.

Barnes said those proposals were "clearly very aggressive," but reasonable when trying to balance the budget without concessions.

Why are they still on the table now?

"I know that that's unpopular," Barnes said, noting that after hearings are held it will be determined if the full proposed rate hike, or something less is needed. He added that the administration also inherited serious fiscal problems in the special fund that maintains Connecticut's transportation network.

According to Department of Transportation data, the number of structurally deficient bridges is at its highest level since 1993. And there are more potential problems in the near future: Much of the interstate highway system in this state was built in the 1950s and 1960s, and many of the bridges that serve it have a 40- to 60-year life span. The state maintains about 3,900 highway bridges and about 200 rail bridges; just over 2,850 were built prior to 1970.

Further complicating matters, the DOT projected last year a $926.4 million gap between the cost of highway, bridge and transit projects planned through 2014 , and the level of anticipated funding available.

Malloy, who decried the low priority transportation has received under past administrations, has made progress reversing that this year. The new budget redirects nearly $40 million in fuel and other revenues from general government operations and into the transportation fund.

"We'd like to get the fund to a sustainable place," Barnes said.

State police union headed to court to fight layoffs
By Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
August 24, 2011

The Connecticut State Police Union will go to Hartford Superior Court this afternoon in hopes of stopping 56 layoffs of troopers ordered Tuesday by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, said the union's president, Sgt. Andrew Matthews.

Matthews also complained today that his reassignment from his duties as a lawyer in a special licensing and firearms unit to traffic duty of out Troop H in Hartford was punishment for his public criticism of the layoffs, which were ordered after the union refused to accept a two-year wage freeze.

"We're hopeful that we'll be able to stop the layoffs," Matthews told Capitol reporters shortly before 3 p.m.

He declined to say whether the union would seek an injunction against the layoff order, but he confirmed that some type of action would be sought to stop the first wave of layoffs -- involving 34 of the 56 troopers served notices -- from taking effect at midnight.

Though he didn't disclose specifics of the legal arguments the union would make, Matthews did say it would center on Section 29-4 of the Connecticut General Statutes, which says the state "shall appoint and maintain a minimum of 1,248 sworn state police personnel."

Connecticut currently has 1,120 troopers, and that total would fall to 1,086 Thursday after the layoffs begin and to 1,064 by the time all 56 layoffs take effect on Sept. 8.

"What's the point of having a statutory mandate ... if you're not going to abide by the law?" Matthews added.

"They have a right to pursue whatever legal action they want to pursue," said Malloy's senior adviser, Roy Occhiogrosso.

When asked about the union's legal argument that the 1,248 trooper-level is a mandate, Occhiogrosso said "I'm not a lawyer, but I know the state has no money."

The governor's chief adviser added that the overwhelming bulk of unionized state employees voted earlier this month to forfeit a 2.5 percent raise this fiscal year and any increase in 2012-13 to help eliminate the enormous budget deficit Malloy inherited when he took office in January. The concession deal that was ratified offered four years of protection against layoffs for bargaining units that accepted the wage freeze.

Occhiogrosso also disputed Matthews' charge of retaliation. "It's ridiculous even to suggest that," Occhiogrosso said, adding that layoffs in the state police force mean "there are gaps that have to be filled. There were six other sergeants that were transferred. It seems perfectly fair."

The union has noted repeatedly that as a gubernatorial candidate last fall, Malloy spoke strongly in support of the 1,248-trooper level despite knowing at the time that the next governor would inherit a deficit in excess of $3 billion.

A Malloy campaign position paper stated that "we must ...ensure that Connecticut meets and exceeds statutorily required State Police staffing levels."

Occhiogrosso said today that the governor's position has been consistent, and that 1,248 troopers on the job is "a goal" that Malloy supports.

The state police's chief administrator, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Commissioner Reuben Bradford, repeated the administration's position Wednesday that the layoffs would not affect public safety -- a stand the union disputes.

"This is something we do not want to do," Bradford said, adding that the administration had no other fiscal options other than layoffs to keep the department's adopted budget in balance.

Bradford did say he would be challenged to meet Malloy's directive Tuesday to all agency heads to curtail overtime, given the loss of 56 troopers. "We will have to backfill those positions," the commissioner said. "This process cannot avoid overtime."

Bradford said the layoffs would not affect the force's emergency response capabilities. Though the troopers removed from their jobs involve a new class of recruits headed for highway patrol, those assignments still will be filled by reassigning more experienced staff.

Those transfers will draw troopers from administrative, training, other specialized duties, and some investigative units, according to Col. Dan Stebbins. "Most of these are positions you don't normally see on the highways," he said.

But while they will reduce staffing in these areas, they will not force the closure of any of these units, Stebbins added.

They beat us to it!
Rhode Island's plan for tollbooth near Connecticut border comes as a surprise to Connecticut officials
By Kenton Robinson Day Staff Writer
Article published Aug 20, 2011

Stonington - Connecticut officials were angered and dismayed Friday by Rhode Island's proposal to place tollbooths on Interstate 95 at the Connecticut border.  And, in particular, they were upset that Rhode Island made the proposal at the end of June without informing them or the public.

"What is (Rhode Island Gov.) Lincoln Chafee thinking?" state Rep. Diana Urban, D-North Stonington, said Friday. "He has not called us. He has not communicated with us, and we share a downtown: Westerly and Pawcatuck."

"I didn't hear about it until it hit the papers yesterday," said Stonington First Selectman Edward Haberek Jr. "It really upsets me."

Asked for comment, the office of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy was clearly caught flat-footed.

Colleen Flanagan, director of communications for the governor, asked for more information and then issued the statement: "The administration is reviewing the matter and will have more to say when the particulars of the plan are known - especially how it will work and how it will impact Connecticut residents."

Haberek wasted no time in acting on the news, firing off a letter to the Federal Highway Administration, asking the agency to deny Rhode Island's request, arguing that the tolls would have a negative financial impact on residents who "live, work in or commute through the area."

Haberek also objected to Rhode Island's proposing tolls only at the Connecticut border but not at the Massachusetts border. Urban saw the proposal as tailored to do the least amount of harm to Rhode Island residents who commute to work in Massachusetts, while hammering Connecticut residents as well as New York and New Jersey tourists bound for the Cape.

"First of all, where did they decide to put the tolls?" Urban said. "On the Rhode Island/Connecticut border, not the Rhode Island/Massachusetts border. It's enormously self-serving. They're trying to hit the New Yorkers, the people from New Jersey, doing the least amount of damage to their own state."

Both Haberek and Urban worried that the increasing congestion on I-95, especially in the summer months, coupled with tolls, could result in more traffic on secondary roads in the area.

"Sunday nights it's bumper to bumper all the way to New York," Haberek said, and he cited research that indicates tolls would increase congestion and pose a safety hazard on secondary roads.
In his letter, Haberek cited studies that show tolls increase traffic on alternate routes, and on Friday Urban agreed.

"Let's see, don't we have these things called GPS's now? That's going to tell you how to get around the toll, but what roads are we going to be going through? Very narrow, very poorly lit, my farms. Yes, I call them my farms. Cows get out all the time. But now I've got out-of-staters coming down farm roads at night," Urban said.

The Rhode Island proposal is outlined in an "expression of interest" that was submitted to the FHA June 29, saying funds generated by the tolls would be used for several major road projects in the state, in particular repairing the deteriorating Providence Viaduct and improving the Route 4/Route 95 interchange.  A 2008 study of the idea suggested that, given the volume of traffic, a $3 toll could raise in the vicinity of $42 million a year.  The state would like to erect the tolls between exits 1 and 2 in Hopkinton "as soon as possible," the proposal says. "Time is of the essence given the bridge conditions and inefficient operations of the current interchange."

If the FHA were to approve the proposal, it would have to be approved by the Rhode Island legislature. A letter of support attached to the proposal and signed by Chafee, state Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed and House Speaker Gordon D. Fox indicates that legislative approval could be easily accomplished.

The state needs "to find alternative and sustainable means to fund Rhode Island's transportation infrastructure needs," they wrote, and tolling "could provide significant revenues."

More than 260,000 vehicles a day drive the 43 miles of I-95 that cross Rhode Island, according to the application.  Haberek said he holds out hope that the request would be denied, because Rhode Island wants to use the funds generated by the tolls to pay for infrastructure repairs, something that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has opposed in the past.

State Sen. Andrew Maynard, D-Stonington, co-chairman of the legislature's Transportation Committee, said Friday that he thought Rhode Island would face a "high hurdle" in getting approval for the tolls because the FHA frowns on using toll revenue to repair roads.

State unions approve labor savings deal
DAY
Published 08/18/2011 12:00 AM
Updated 08/18/2011 01:45 PM

Hartford (AP) — Connecticut's state employee unions announced Thursday that rank-and-file members ratified a labor savings and concessions agreement, giving Gov. Dannel P. Malloy the go-ahead to rescind thousands of layoff notices and forgo additional state budget cuts.

Members of the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition said 14 of 15 unions voted to approve the deal, which calls for changes to the workers' health and retirement benefits as well as wage-related concessions. The coalition sent a letter to Malloy asking him to immediately rescind the layoff notices.

"Today marks a victory for those who believe in the middle class," Kathy Fischer, the associate director of the University of Connecticut Women's Center, said at a news conference inside a packed Hartford union hall.

It marked the second attempt to approve a deal that Malloy has been counting on to generate $1.6 billion in savings and help balance the two-year, $40.1 billion state budget. The failure of a first vote by unionized workers in June was an embarrassment for the first-term Democrat, who has prided himself on being more pro-union than some Republican governors across the country.

Malloy said the deal showed what is possible when "management and labor work together in a respectful fashion."

"We have achieved something the skeptics said was unachievable: we've made the relationship between the state and its work force sustainable. And, unlike in most other states, we did it without going to war with public employees," Malloy said.

The failure of the first vote in June prompted Malloy to issue about 3,000 layoff notices and recommend deep spending cuts to the General Assembly to balance the budget.

While leaders of the union coalition decided to change their rules following the defeat in June — requiring at least eight of the 15 unions to approve changes to a coveted 20-year health and retirement benefits package, instead of 14 of 15 — leaders of the union locals said the agreement passed this time because a better job was done explaining the changes to their membership.

Lisa Marie Fontano, president of Local 387, which represents workers at the Cheshire state prison complex, said a clearer explanation about a new health care plan that requires workers to get age-appropriate medical tests, such as annual physicals, especially helped to get the deal passed. Many employees were concerned that the program was actually a proposed universal health care system known as SustiNet, but in disguise. Malloy then clarified that the health care plan had nothing to do with SustiNet, a concept that hasn't been approved by the General Assembly.

"What happened last time, the facts were just not given," Fontano said. "You have to make determinations on what's before you. If there's no consistency, you get what you ask for."

Fontano said this time Malloy and union coalition leaders kept their distance from the ratification process.

"It ultimately was about giving people the time to read it, understand it," she said.

Fifty-seven percent of members voted for the deal in June, but that was not enough for ratification under the union group's old rules. After the coalition voted to make it easier to ratify changes to the benefits package, Malloy sent his labor negotiator to meet with the union leaders and "clarify" parts of the tentative agreement that posed a problem with members, such as the health care changes. As leaders tried to sell the agreement again to members, Malloy continued to issue layoff notices.

He had originally called for more than 6,500 job cuts, a figure that included layoffs, retirements and the elimination of unfilled jobs, if union members did not ratify the agreement. Some workers have already lost their jobs, and a large number who've received notices were expected to lose theirs on Aug. 22. As of last week, about 3,000 workers, mostly rank-and-file employees, had received pink slips. There are about 45,000 unionized state workers and a total of more than 50,000 employees.

Malloy is expected to rescind most of the additional budget cuts he proposed to the General Assembly, such as closures of Department of Motor Vehicles offices and cutbacks in programs for the disabled, children and the elderly. The Judicial Branch also proposed deep cuts, including closures of courthouses.

The deal includes a two-year wage freeze, followed by 3 percent pay raises and changes to health and retirement benefits in return for a four-year, no-layoff promise. As part of the wage freeze, workers will give up raises of 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent that took effect last month after the first deal wasn't ratified. Besides providing savings in the current two-year budget, the agreement also is supposed to provide future savings from changes such as the retirement age for some workers, increased employee contributions for retiree health care, and mandatory mail order for prescription maintenance drugs.

GOV. MALLOY ANNOUNCES MEMBERS OF ECS TASK FORCE
Group will study effectiveness of ECS, submit initial recommendations before start of next legislative session

(HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Dannel P. Malloy today announced the members of a newly-formed task force that will review the effectiveness of the state’s Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant and how it relates to state constitutional requirements.  The group, whose membership was appointed by Governor Malloy and legislative leaders, will develop recommendations on possible ways to change how money is divided up by school district.

“It is our responsibility to routinely review the distribution of education grants to municipalities to ensure that communities are receiving a fair share of dollars under grant distribution rules, especially in light of constitutional requirements.  Unfortunately, it has been quite a while since the state last had a thorough review of this system,” Governor Malloy said.  “We must ensure this formula focuses on improving educational outcomes for all of our students, regardless in which city or town they live.”

The Governor continued, “As I’ve said before, much more needs to be done to improve the education our children are receiving in this state, and I intend on focusing the 2012 legislative session on education issues, concerns and ways in which we can better prepare our students for a global economy.”

In addition to focusing on the ECS formula, the group will also consider state grants to interdistrict magnet schools and regional agricultural science and technology centers as well as special education costs for the state and municipalities.  Under state statute, the group is required to submit an initial report on its findings and recommendations by January 2, 2012 and its final report by October 1, 2012.

Membership of the Task Force to Study State Funding for Education in the Context of State Constitutional Requirements:

    Governor’s selection: Chair – Benjamin Barnes – Secretary, Office of Policy and Management
    Governor’s selection: Dudley Williams – Director of District Education Strategy, GE Asset Management, former Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of Education
    Governor’s selection: Portia Bonner, Ph.D. – Educational Consultant, Wolcott Public Schools, former Superintendent of Schools, City of New Bedford, Massachusetts
    Governor’s selection: Theodore Sergi, Ph.D. – Former Commissioner, Department of Education
    Governor’s selection: Dr. Elsa Núñez – President, Eastern Connecticut State University
    Governor’s selection: Len Miller – Certified Public Accountant, Co-founder of the Fairfield County Collaborative Alliance, Treasurer of Kids in Crisis, former Chair of Stamford Achieves
    President Pro Tempore’s selection: Senator Andrea Stillman – Co-Chair, Education Committee
    Senate Majority Leader’s selection: Senator Toni Harp – Co-Chair, Appropriations Committee
    House Speaker’s selection: Mark Benigni – Superintendent of Schools, City of Meriden
    House Majority Leader’s selection: Mary Loftus-Levine – Executive Director, Connecticut Education Association
    Senate Minority Leader’s selection: William Davenport – Agriscience teacher, Nonnewaug High School in Woodbury, Director of the Ellis Clark Regional Agriscience & Technology Program
    House Minority Leader’s selection: Representative Michael Molgano – Member, Education and Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committees

Connecticut River ferry workers get two-week reprieve
By Jenna Cho Day Staff Writer
Article published Aug 5, 2011

New Britain - Crew members of the two Connecticut River ferries planned for closure were notified Thursday afternoon that their layoffs, originally set for Aug. 25, would be pushed back two weeks.

The notification, which came hours after a Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit seeking to keep the ferries running, means the ferries will likely continue to operate through at least the end of the month.

The eight crew members will receive new layoff notices effective Sept. 8, said Tom Darcy, a captain of the Chester-Hadlyme ferry.
Kevin Nursick, spokesman for the state Department of Transportation, confirmed the new date.

"I'm happy to be working another couple of weeks, I guess," Darcy said. But uncertainties surrounding his and his wife's jobs - both work on the Chester-Hadlyme ferry - remain, and no one at the DOT will give them a straight answer about the future of the ferries, he said.

The eight positions on the Chester-Hadlyme and Rocky Hill-Glastonbury ferries are part of the thousands of positions Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is eliminating to fill a $1.6 billion hole in the state budget. Though a pending vote on union concessions could revoke the layoffs, ferry employees have been working under the assumption that they will lose their jobs later this month.

The DOT will run a notice in various newspapers today that says members of the public have until Sept. 5 to submit comments about the DOT's plan to close the ferries. The state said it would likely extend the layoff date while it gave the public time to comment on the issue.

The public notice is required under state law for any changes the state plans to make on scenic roads. It was a step the DOT had not yet taken when the town of Lyme took it to court, and one Lyme took issue with in its July 22 lawsuit.

Earlier Thursday, New Britain Superior Court Judge Henry S. Cohn dismissed Lyme's attempt to legally stop both the layoffs and planned termination of ferry service. The lawsuit named DOT Acting Commissioner James P. Redeker and Comptroller Kevin Lembo as defendants.

Cohn said the lawsuit was pre-emptive in that it requested a stay on a "final decision" that had not yet been made.

In the hour-long hearing, Lyme Town Attorney Ken McKeever argued that the town had no option but to file the lawsuit when it did because "the whole thing is happening in reverse," with the public comment period just beginning now and no guarantee that the ferries wouldn't be taken off-line in the meantime.

But Jane Rosenberg, of the attorney general's office, said the lawsuit had no merit because the ferries are, today, still on the river and running.

"We don't have any definitive decision to close anything," Rosenberg said. "There's nothing to enjoin yet."

Rocky Hill Town Manager Barbara R. Gilbert and attorney Morris Borea were in court to petition for intervener status, but Cohn recommended that they file their own suit if they hoped to prevail.

"I'm disappointed," Lyme First Selectman Ralph Eno said of Cohn's decision. "And I think, as we anticipated, from our point of view, I don't think the case was decided on merits."

What Eno called "arcane case law" on sovereign immunity, which generally shields governments from being sued, gave the state an easy out and let it "skirt the issue," he said. Eno said he and McKeever would review the case and may return to court with a new argument to keep the ferries running.

Humphrey Tyler, a Hadlyme resident who is leading the public "Save the Ferries" movement, said the judge's decision did not address any of the uncertainties surrounding the fate of the ferries. Tyler said his group would continue to encourage passengers and neighboring residents to call the governor's office in support of keeping the ferries operating.
Judge rejects effort to halt Conn. ferry closing
DAY
Aug 4, 3:12 PM EDT

NEW BRITAIN, Conn. (AP) -- A Connecticut Superior Court judge has dismissed a legal effort to block Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's plan to shut two ferries that cross the Connecticut River.

Ralph F. Eno (EE'-no) Jr., the first selectman of Lyme, had gone to court to block the planned closing of the Chester-Hadlyme and Rocky Hill-Glastonbury ferries.

New Britain Superior Court Judge Henry J. Cohn sided with the state and dismissed Lyme's request.

Jane R. Rosenberg, an assistant attorney general who represented state officials, said the decision to close the ferries is not a final decision over which the court has jurisdiction. She also said Lyme officials do not have standing in the matter.

Ending the ferries is among numerous budget-cutting proposals by Malloy.

The Rocky Hill Ferry has linked Rocky Hill and Glastonbury since 1655.
DMV delays branch closings, layoffs, until after concession revote
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
August 4, 2011

The state Department of Motor Vehicles will delay planned closings of branch offices and other facilities in eight communities - and layoffs of department workers -- until Aug 19 and 20 to await the results of a union concession vote that could make them unnecessary, according to a department statement released this afternoon.

The announcement marked the second time in two days the administration pulled back on a painful budget cut just before implementation. Fall sports for more than 1,500 students at the state's vocational-technical high schools were spared Wednesday.

"While we await the outcome of the unions second vote, we have determined that closing and reopening will cost the state money that should be saved. So, we are delaying both of these actions for a few weeks," DMV Commissioner Melody A. Currey wrote. It would cost the state an estimated $500,000 to close and potentially then reopen the facilities, the department estimated, citing costs tied to facility relocation, leasing, unused vacation and sick time pay-outs to laid-off employees, and unemployment compensation obligations.

The department had planned to close branch offices in Danbury, Enfield, New Britain and Old Saybrook, a satellite office in Putnam, and photo licensing centers in Derby, Middletown and Milford as of Aug. 11. Those closings, along with elimination of 191 jobs, were part of a department effort to meet Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's directive to save about $22.3 million in total over this fiscal year and next.

The administration submitted one of the largest budget-cutting plans in recent history to the legislature on July 15 to replace the $1.6 billion in savings it originally planned to achieve over two fiscal years through a concession package.

The State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition rejected an initial concession deal in June that included a two-year wage freeze, an employee wellness program, and new restrictions on pension and other retirement benefits. The deal also called for raises of 3 percent annually for the three years following the wage freeze, extended the state's health care retirement benefits program through 2022, and guaranteed job security for the next four years for workers who accept the wage freeze.

Union leaders voted last month to revise SEBAC bylaws to make it easier to adopt a concession package and reach an understanding with Malloy on July 22 to hold a second vote. That vote is expected to be completed by mid-August.

"At the time of announcing the closings, we did not know if a second vote would occur," Currey added. "Now that it is actually underway, we think it is prudent to put on hold these actions until the outcome of that vote is better known."

The closings and layoffs of workers in those branch and other secondary DMV facilities offices have been delayed until Saturday, Aug. 20. Layoffs planned for some workers in the DMV's main office in Wethersfield have been delayed until Friday, Aug. 19, the last day of that facility's work week.

After announcing that sports at the vo-tech schools had been saved, Acting Education Commissioner George Coleman said the move would require the State Department of Education to identify budget cuts elsewhere.

"Governor Malloy and the Office of Policy and Management have worked with [the SDE] to finance the fall sports program at vocation-technical schools across the state," Coleman wrote in an email statement.


State Prosecutor Takes On SEBAC
CT NEWS JUNKIE
by Hugh McQuaid | Jul 28, 2011 5:58pm

The State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy have coerced and demonized dissenting union members, according to a labor complaint filed by an assistant state’s attorney from Manchester Superior Court.

The complaint was filed with the state Labor Relation Board by Lisa Herskowitz, a state prosecutor of 17 years. She lodges a number of allegations at the governor and SEBAC, claiming the coalition violated its own bylaws and overstepped its negotiating authority.

SEBAC had no authority to negotiate wage concessions for the labor agreement that it “forced union members to vote on in June,” Herskowitz wrote. She complained that her union, which approved the agreement by a slim majority, was not even given the option of voting on the wage package separately.

She said this underscored the “the fact that our wages were negotiated by SEBAC and not separately by our own union as required.”

The coalition violated its own bylaws by even reopening the standing pension and healthcare agreement and opening the 2009 wage agreement without letting members vote to on whether they should be opened, according to the complaint.

Once the agreement was opened, Herskowitz alleged SEBAC carried out the negotiations with the Malloy administration in secret without taking any input from the rank and file.

“SEBAC basically said ‘here it is, take It or leave it, and if you leave it, there will be layoffs and the state will be economically devastated.’ This was highly coercive,” she wrote.

She also implicated the Division of Criminal Justice and Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane, who she said tried to squash any negative commentary over the agreement. After an employee used a state email account to communicate concerns about changes to the state employee healthcare package, Kane issued a memo instructing employees not to use their work emails for that purpose, she said.

And yet Kane allows employees to regularly email each other about discounts at BJ Wholesale Club, she wrote.

“Attorney Kane’s action in closing down the only practical avenue we had for communicating with other members as a group was totally unfair. His memo coerced us into silence to prevent negative communication on the agreement,” Herskowitz said in the complaint.

Soon after Kane’s memo Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman used her state email account to suppress rumors that the healthcare package was somehow connected to SustiNet. Kane did not comment on the appropriateness of Wyman’s email, she said.

Herskowitz’s complaint said Malloy bullied and coerced union members to vote yes. He repeatedly threatened layoffs and increased the number of projected layoffs from 4,500 to 7,500 in an attempt to scare union members into voting yes, she said.

“This was extremely coercive,” she wrote. “He and the union leaders had already made it clear many times that if the agreement was rejected, there would be layoffs. The governor’s repeated threats were not intended to furnish information; they were intended to coerce people into voting ‘yes.’”

Before union members began voting on the deal, Malloy said he would hold off on issuing layoff notices as an act of good faith. But Herskowitz claimed that that decision was likely made so people who were safe from the layoffs wouldn’t know it.

Malloy was coercive also when he showed up at a training session for state’s attorneys and talked about his days as a prosecutor, just minutes before the group was scheduled to vote on the agreement at Kane’s office only four miles down the road, she wrote.

“Many members were extremely upset by this unfair, coercive move on the part of the management and the governor. The agreement only passed my union by seven votes. This unfair labor practice may well have affected the result,” she wrote.

On Wednesday Herskowitz amended her complaint to include what she said were additional wrongdoings that occurred since she first filed it.

To add to the pressure on state workers, the Senate passed a Malloy-backed bill that changes worker pension calculations and their collective bargaining rights, she wrote.

Though the bill was never raised in the House, that move flies in the face of a 1986 decision by the Labor Relations Board which stated that “threats and attempts ... to seek legislative changes in conditions of employment that are mandatory subjects of bargaining are not favored,” she wrote.

The board found the state had engaged in no wrongdoing in the 1986 case, but Herskowitz said that things are different this year because Malloy is refusing to negotiate in good faith with the unions. He would not even sit back down at the table unless the unions changed their bylaws to make passing an agreement easier and then refused to consider anything but a clarified version of the old agreement, she said.

“Talk about pressure and coercion!” she wrote.

Union leaders did vote to change the ratification bylaws on July 18, so that a simple majority can now pass an agreement rather than the old requirement that 14 of the 15 unions and 80 percent of voting members approve.

Herskowitz said that decision has had a negative impact on her small union, the Connecticut Association of Prosecutors, a group that is also a respondent in the complaint.

“My union no longer has a meaningful voice in a sea of 45,000 plus state employee union members,” she wrote.

She said the president of the union, John Doyle, never asked for any input from the rank and file before voting to change the bylaws, a decision she said rendered the union “powerless and helpless.” She said she tried to bring the concerns to the union’s vice president but never got a response.

She also took exception to SEBAC’s decision to suspend a requirement that it notify the rank and file 30 days before a vote to change its bylaws is taken.

“Waiving it violated the duty of fair representation. I believe the members should have been allowed to vote on the bylaws change. At the very least, they should have been given adequate notice and an opportunity to protest it,” she wrote.

In casting an affirmative vote on the original agreement, her union also violated its own bylaws, which require a two-thirds majority vote on any membership action, she said. Her union’s vote was 114 “yes” to 107 “no,” nowhere near two-thirds, she said.

Herskowitz concluded her amended complaint by condemning SEBAC, CAP and all union leaders, saying that their abuses have been so flagrant that they should all be decertified. She appealed to the Labor Relations Board to act quickly, as those abuses will continue until the governor and SEBAC get what they want.

“They keep trying to shove this agreement down our throats. They act like the members did something wrong in rejecting it and they have to save us from ourselves. They have made us look bad to the public by touting something that we rejected as a ‘great deal.’ The leaders are not representing us at all, just themselves and they are bringing their scorn and wrath down upon us,” she wrote.

The board has scheduled a closed conference on the complaint for Aug. 3, according to Nancy Steffens, spokeswoman for the Department of Labor. But based on an interview Herskowitz did with WTIC on Thursday it sounds like state employees supportive of her complaint will hold a rally outside the Board of Labor Relations in Wethersfield to show their solidarity for it.

That conference could result in a settlement, a dismissal of the complaint, or a determination that the issue has merit. If the complaint is deemed to have merit it will be assigned a case number and eventually heard before a three-person board, Steffens said.
Prosecutor Challenges SEBAC Actions
Hartford Courant
Associated Press
10:27 AM EDT, July 29, 2011

HARTFORD — A state prosecutor has filed a complaint against a coalition of state employee unions, arguing that the group violated its own rules regarding a tentative savings and concessions deal with the Malloy administration.

The State Board of Labor Relations is scheduled to meet Aug. 3 for a closed-door meeting on the complaint, filed by Lisa Herskowitz, a senior assistant state's attorney in Manchester.

She says the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, an umbrella group representing 15 state employee unions, violating its own rules by bargaining with the Malloy administration about wages, according to a copy of the complaint.

SEBAC was created to negotiate on behalf of the 15 unions issues concerning health and retirement benefits.

"SEBAC had no authority to do this," she wrote in her complaint. "Had my union voted `no' to the agreement and all the other unions voted `yes,' my union's wage contract would have been reopened and voided. This is unfair."

Herskowitz also accused SEBAC of violating its own rules by reopening the pension and health care agreement that is in effect until 2017, reopening her union's wage agreement that is in effect until 2012, and carrying out negotiations in secret without input from union members. She also raised concerns about how information about the agreement was shared with members and how Malloy repeatedly threatened layoffs while the voting was taking place.

"He and the union leaders had already made it clear many times that if the agreement was rejected, there would be layoffs," she wrote. "The governor's repeated threats were not intended to furnish information; they were intended to coerce people into voting `yes."'

Matt O'Connor, a SEBAC spokesman, said the union leaders "have every confidence that union leadership has acted properly, legally, and in the best interests of their members and the public they serve."

In a message to members, SEBAC said at least nine of the 15 unions have decided to hold another vote on the clarified tentative agreement. Some of the remaining unions may have their leaders determine whether to ratify the deal while others have not yet decided their ratification process. Under the new rules, at least eight out of the 15 unions must agree to ratify the deal.
Labor complaint filed over Connecticut union deal
DAY
Associated Press
Article published Jul 27, 2011

Hartford (AP) — A senior assistant state's attorney has filed a complaint with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, claiming collective bargaining laws were violated when union officials negotiated a tentative labor savings and concessions agreement with Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration.

The board has scheduled a closed-door, conference for Aug. 3.

In her complaint, Lisa Herskowitz, who works in Manchester, said the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition should not have bargained with the state on wage-related changes. SEBAC was created to negotiate health and pension matters.

A SEBAC spokesman says the coalition is confident union leaders "acted properly, legally and in the best interests of their members and the public they serve"

On Wednesday, Malloy's administration said 3,008 employees have received layoff notices because a deal has not yet been ratified.

SEBAC Voting At Height Of August Vacation Season; Casting Ballots On Revised Deal Over Next Three Weeks
Hartford Courant
By Christopher Keating  on July 26, 2011 4:36 PM

The state employee unions will be voting at essentially the height of the summer vacation season over the next three week on the revised concessions deal with Gov. Dannel P. Malloy - prompting concerns about a low voter turnout.

With some state employees take long-planned vacations on Cape Cod, Block Island, and points beyond, officials are questioning how a low turnout could affect the outcome of the vote.

Malloy said the question of voting should be directed to the unions, which control the process.

"If they're concerned, they should get back and vote - if they're on the Cape,'' Malloy told reporters Tuesday at the state Capitol. "That's an issue where we, as management, don't have a say. That is between the bargaining agent and their members.''

He added, "I think they've got to do a better job in communicating with their members what this agreement is and what this agreement is not. What this agreement is is a road forward that puts the state on a sustainable basis in a relationship with its employees. It gets us by the current, short-term crisis, and it goes a very long way to getting us by the current long-term crisis. Are sacrifices required to do that? The answer is yes.''

He added, "Clearly, if the unions want this to be passed, they need to do a better job in answering the questions of their membership.''

"I'm a Democrat. I prefer people to vote,'' Malloy said.

The unions will be voting on a savings-and-concession deal that guarantees four years of no layoffs, which the unions tout as "the most substantial layoff protection language for a state's workforce anywhere in the country.''

Malloy and his budget team say the union deal will save $1.6 billion over two years, but Republican legislators charge that at least $600 million of that total represents illusory savings that will never be achieved in a smoke-and-mirrors deal.

Two union spokesmen could not immediately be reached for comment.

If the unions reject the deal, Malloy says he will move ahead with deep budget cuts that will include more than 4,000 layoffs and the closure of motor vehicles branches, welfare offices, courthouses, two historic ferries, and a juvenile jail in New Haven.

Town officials in Lyme have already filed court papers to seek an injunction to block the closure of the historic Hadlyme to Chester ferry, as well as the Rocky Hill to Glastonbury ferry. The heavily subsidized ferries cost only $3 per vehicle and $1 for bicyclists and pedestrians for a ride across the river, and the state loses money on the seasonal ferries. But the losses are less than $500,000 per year in a $20 billion annual state budget. The loss for the Hadlyme ferry in the just-completed fiscal year was about $284,000, while the Rocky Hill ferry lost $204,000, according to the state transportation department.

Malloy said that he essentially has no role in deciding when or where the unions will vote. As such, he said he was not opposed to the three-week voting period.

"I don't have an option,'' Malloy said. "I don't play a role in that.''

"There's no way that we can afford our current relationship,'' Malloy said. "The labor agreement is a long-term fix. The current layoffs are a short-term fix.''

The vote on the original SEBAC deal was 21,415 in favor and 15,988 against, but the deal failed because the bylaws called for an affirmative vote from 14 out of the 15 unions - with those 14 unions representing 80 percent of the membership.
Malloy, unions reach new deal
State layoffs could be averted pending final ratification
By JC Reindl Day Staff Writer
Article published Jul 23, 2011

Hartford - Gov. Dannel P. Malloy announced late Friday night that his administration had reached a second concessions agreement with state union leaders that is nearly identical to the one that union workers voted down last month.

The new deal with the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, worth a projected $1.6 billion in savings to state government over two years and $21.5 billion over 20 years, must be ratified by the rank-and-file and in place before an Aug. 31 deadline set by the state legislature.  The deal was announced shortly after 10 p.m. Friday, or about 30 minutes after leaders of the 15 state unions began filing out of a union hall in Hartford.

"I said all along that I was only willing to clarify terms from the last agreement, and that's what we've done," Malloy said in a statement. "I hope state employees ratify this agreement, but I am assuming nothing. If they ratify it, the vast majority of layoffs and painful spending cuts can be undone.

"If this agreement fails, then we'll unfortunately have to continue to lay people off and implement the spending cuts."

The governor and union representatives said the few changes to the agreement include "clarified" language on health care benefits aimed at dispelling false rumors that workers would be placed into the "SustiNet" program.  The agreement calls for a two-year wage freeze followed by three years of subsequent 3 percent increases. It also guarantees no layoffs for four years.

The agreement would rescind the governor's plan to eliminate 6,560 state positions - about 4,300 actual layoffs - and would also allow the state to roll back contractual raises that kicked in July 1.  To pay the state back, the raises set to happen in 2013 will be delayed for as long as a worker received his or her July 1 raise.

The agreement modifies and extends by five years a 20-year employee benefits agreement made by former Gov. John Rowland. The agreement now expires in 2022 rather than 2017.
Unions spokesman Eric Bailey said the new agreement will save jobs, protect benefits and preserve services.

"The united effort of union leaders has produced an agreement that is not just fair for the members they represent, it's also good for the people they serve and will restore vital public services cut in the governor's alternative budget plan," Bailey said.

He said the ratification process should get under way soon.

"They want to get it done as soon as possible, but nobody's set a deadline," Bailey said.

Negotiations for a new labor agreement restarted this week after SEBAC loosened its voting requirements for contract changes. The coalition of 15 state unions represents 45,000 workers.

The coalition's previous deal with the governor was voted down last month under its old rules, which mandated approval by 80 percent of the rank-and-file. The deal instead got 57 percent of the ratification vote.
Under the new rules, a majority of members' votes is generally sufficient.

Until the new deal was reached, Malloy had said he would continue enacting his Plan B to cut 6,560 state positions with budget cuts totaling $1.6 billion over two years. At least 1,850 employees had been issued notices by mid-week.

Plan B called for raising commuter train fares and shuttering DMV branches, courthouses, Connecticut River ferry service and highway restrooms across the state, among numerous other cost reductions.

Earlier Friday, the town of Lyme filed a lawsuit in New Britain Superior Court in an effort to stop the state from shutting down the ferries.

Union Web Site Reports That "SEBAC Changes By-Laws'' And Seeks Deal With Malloy To Avoid Layoffs, Job Eliminations, Closure Of Courthouses And Two Ferries; Malloy Pleased, Dispatches Ojakian To Speak With Unions
Hartford Courant
By Christopher Keating  on July 18, 2011 4:31 PM

State employee union leaders voted Monday to change their by-laws in a last-ditch effort to save the jobs of their members, according to a union web site.

The leaders had been meeting throughout the morning to consider whether to change their by-laws in order to allow a new vote on a revised deal between the Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the unions. If the unions agree to the new deal, the deep budget cuts proposed by Malloy would be largely avoided.

"It's good news that the unions have changed their ratification process to one that respects the will of the majority,'' Malloy said in a statement Monday. "Over the next few days, Mark Ojakian will be speaking with SEBAC leaders to understand which issues in the agreement need to be clarified.  Given the limited number of issues that have been identified as problematic, it shouldn't take more than a couple of days to have a clarified agreement that's ready to be voted on by all state employees.''

In a drastic change from the earlier by-laws, now only 8 out of the 15 unions - representing 50 percent of the overall membership - need to vote in favor of changes in healthcare and pension benefits. Previously, 14 out of the 15 unions - representing 80 percent of the membership - need to vote for changes.

The bar was so high that it would be difficult for Dwight Stones to clear.

The unions still have some unanswered questions in a long and winding road that has led to a still-unsettled budget limbo in the hot days of mid-July.

It is still unclear when a re-vote would take place and how long the votes would stretch out. The previous round of voting lasted two weeks, and some union members complained that the vote was tainted because some state employees spoke out against the deal even before their fellow state employees had the chance to vote.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to the deal was widespread reports on the Internet that the state employees healthcare plan would be merged into the state's SustiNet healthcare plan. Despite repeated denials by the Malloy administration and union leaders, the reports continued to circulate - and some state employees said they did not believe their union leaders. As such, they said that their "no'' votes were correct.

The next step would be for thousands of union members to cast their votes again on a clarified deal with Malloy. In the first round, 57 of those voting approved a four-year, no-layoff deal with Malloy that some legislators said would have been an absolute slam dunk in the private sector, where workers have faced pay cuts, pension freezes and layoffs in recent years.

But the complicated union rules required 14 of the 15 SEBAC unions - representing 80 percent of the overall membership - to approve changes in pension and healthcare benefits. The reason was that the unions purposely wanted to set a high bar for making any changes in hard-fought benefits and not make it easy to change important benefits in the lives of the union members.

As word started to spread at the state Capitol that a deal had been reached, the Administrative and Residual Union web site reported that the changes had been made on Monday morning.

As of 11:30 a.m.  Monday - at about the time that the SEBAC decision to change the bylaws was apparently being made in secret - union spokesman Matt O'Connor was telling reporters outside the Capitol that it wasn't definite that any decision would come by Monday night, or even in "the near future."

O'Connor said he was "not sure if that will be today, or in if in fact that's going to be at any point in the near future." When he was asked about the widespread reports that there would indeed be a decision on the bylaws change Monday, he said, "I know that that's on the table as a topic of discussion," but there would "not necessarily" be a decision Monday. Within 90 minutes of his saying that, the word was out: the decision was made.

There had clearly been confusion about the deal as O'Connor had said it was flat-out uncertain what would happen during the day.

The two top Senate Democratic leaders - Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams and Majority Leader Marty Looney - said that residents had been waiting for some good news amid talks of layoffs.

"Union leaders should be commended for working together to change their bylaws and helping to facilitate the potential for a successful vote by union members,'' they said. "Approval of the concession package is critical for Connecticut's fragile economy. We urge union leaders to quickly get clarification on any needed items, call for another vote and for all union members to vote yes. This is Connecticut's last - and best - chance to resolve its fiscal crisis without undermining its recovery."

House Speaker Christopher Donovan said, "I thank the SEBAC leadership for voting today to change its bylaws in a way that respects the opinion of a majority of state employees. This is the responsible course of action, as we look to avoid the terrible cuts and layoffs that would do so much harm to our state."

Without a deal, Malloy's proposed cuts would be among the largest in state history and would involve closing courthouses, welfare offices, motor vehicles branches, law libraries, a juvenile jail, and beds for patients undergoing detoxification. The plan also calls for increasing fares on the Metro-North Commuter Railroad by 15 percent and eliminating two seasonal ferries across the Connecticut River. The ferries, which are highly popular during the summer season, have been constantly in the news since Malloy proposed their elimination.

Some of the largest cuts would be rendered on the border town of Enfield, where three key employers - the courthouse, a major prison, and the Department of Motor Vehicles office - are all slated to close.

Sen. John Kissel, an Enfield Republican, has complained that his hometown will be particularly hard hit with the planned closure of the courthouse, a major prison and the state Department of Motor Vehicles office. But Malloy's senior adviser, Roy Occhiogrosso, says that Enfield is not being targeted.

The cuts have been proposed by Malloy to fill a budget gap of $1.6 billion over two years that would have been filled by a savings-and-concessions package with the state employees unions. The unions, however, rejected the deal that would have provided a four-year, no-layoff provision in exchange for two years of wage freezes and changes in healthcare and pension benefits. Some state employees resented the fact that they would be required to go to the doctor each year in order to avoid extra insurance premiums.

Malloy's 108-page package includes a wide variety of cuts, including eliminating the Shoreline East train service from Old Saybrook to New Haven on weekends, starting in November. That service, which had started in July 2008, covers 32 weekend trains - and the cut would save more than $4 million in the second year of the two-year budget.

The proposal would close the buildings at seven rest areas on interstate highways, although motorists could still pull off the road to rest or walk the family dog. The restrooms will be closed, and there are no plans to install portable toilets at the heavily used rest areas, including two in Willington along Interstate 84 that receive heavy truck traffic and increased use in the summer months by families heading east to Cape Cod.

Malloy's budget would also reduce the subsidy for buses by $4 million, which means reducing 40 buses and the 50 employees who work on them. Malloy will also reduce the frequency of inspections for new bridges, which would push the inspections on low-risk bridges to every four years, rather than every two years.

The package also reduces overtime at the DOT, along with saving $100,000 per year by reducing the number of state-owned cars that can be garaged at employees' homes.

Separately, the judicial branch - which has autonomy as a separate branch of government - released a plan Friday that would close four courthouses, including Enfield, and six law libraries across the state. It would also close a juvenile jail in New Haven and a juvenile court in Danbury.

In an interview with FOX CT's Jennifer Bernstein on Monday, SEBAC spokesman Matt O'Connor said that Malloy's proposed cuts on Friday were simply too deep.

"Frankly, it's an alternative that none of us can accept,'' O'Connor said. "It would change Connecticut as we know it, this would not be the state that we all love and live in and raise our families in if it were allowed to go forward."

"There's no question that something must be done to avert this unacceptable alternative."

When asked if the by-laws would be changed, O'Connor said, "At this point, leaders are looking at a range of options.  What leaders did resolve to do three weeks ago after the ratification process wrapped up was look at internal structures and so that's part of the discussion.  They've been meeting with members of their unions hearing from those who voted yes in the agreement, and the majority of state workers did vote yes, we've been hearing from those that voted no, whose vote by the way ended up standing because of the bylaws.  So right now leaders are weighing a variety of options all of which is informed by the members of the unions they represent."

He had said the general mood was both 'hopeful' and cautious.

"I think leaders are hopeful that they can and will develop plans to get us on a path forward.  They are confident that we have to do that because the alternatives are unacceptable."

He said they were cautious because they were operating under a compressed amount of time.

"There's no question that we've got an enormous amount of pressure on not just the leaders but more so on the individual union members especially those that received layoff notices."

"It's a big early to say what comes next.  We have to have a plan, we know what the outcome won't look like.  We won't be sitting back and accepting the layoffs and job cuts and permanent changes to negotiating rights. What we will actually do, once a plan is put in place, will all be dependant on what that plan looks like."


New Haven has a towaway policy, too (if you leave your can and get more than one ticket...
The governor and the parking ticket
Hartford Courant
By Daniela Altimari  on July 29, 2011 10:43 AM

What was one of the first topics Gov. Dannel P. Malloy was asked at his press availability this morning? The federal debt ceiling talks? The possibility of thousands of state layoffs?

Nope. Malloy was asked about the parking ticket his official state car received yesterday in New Haven. The $30 ticket, first reported this morning by Melissa Bailey of the New Haven Independent, was placed on the governor's official car after his driver parking in a no-parking zone near the Green.

Malloy was asked what he planned to do about the ticket. He said he's already paid it -- and he paid it out of his own pocket.

"What did you think when you got that ticket?" Malloy was asked.

"I dunno,'' he shrugged. "Got it a ticket and paid it."

Malloy indicated that he has had a little talk with the state trooper who drives the car.
State Heads Toward Layoffs, Shutdowns Neither Side Wants
Governor, Unions Don't Want To Make Jobless Rate Worse
The Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, ckeating@courant.com
July 17, 2011

With 6,500 jobs and numerous state services on the line, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the state employee unions remained entangled last week in a high-stakes standoff as they struggled toward a single goal: avert layoffs at a time when Connecticut's unemployment rate is already at 9.1 percent.

A governor in the middle of a statewide "jobs tour" and union leaders desperate to save union jobs are both hoping to slip out of the noose in a way that would make Houdini proud.

Malloy increased the pressure on the unions day by day, launching layoff notices, then announcing the closure of motor vehicles branches, welfare offices, and other state services — cutbacks that could well prove politically unpalatable with legislators and the general public.

Amid the governor's gloomy missives, however, some insiders still did not believe that the layoffs would ever take place. They are calculating that the unions have a rescue plan that would allow them to ratify a concessions agreement that would fill the $1.6 billion hole in the state budget for the next two years, and negate the need for deep cuts and layoffs.

On Monday, top union leaders will meet to consider changing their bylaws in a way that would make it easier to approve an updated savings-and-concession deal with Malloy. By making a slight change in the agreement that has already been crafted, the rank-and-file could vote again and potentially need only a simple majority to pass the changes.

In the first union deal, 57 percent of those voting approved the agreement, but that was not enough under the complicated union rules. Those rules state that workers in 14 of the 15 unions — representing 80 percent of the overall membership — must approve any changes in health care and pension benefits.

No Single Voice

Negotiations are often straightforward discussions between two sides, but the multi-headed union coalition involves 15 unions with 34 bargaining units and 45,000 employees who do not agree with each other on all issues.

Roy Occhiogrosso, Malloy's senior adviser, said he has given up trying to predict what the unions will do and the chances of the layoffs' being rescinded.

"That's up to them,'' Occhiogrosso said. "It's not something that the governor is counting on having happen. If it happens, then we will revisit it at that point. But at this point, this is the budget that we have. … I think we have to wait and see what happens on Monday.''

Matt O'Connor, a spokesman for the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, declined to provide details on exactly what the unions will do, but he said that Malloy's proposed cuts and closures are unacceptable.

"The alternative to a mutual agreement is mutually assured destruction in which everybody loses: the governor, the legislature, the unions, every business, large and small, and the innocent people caught in the middle,'' O'Connor said. "It's nothing short of a disaster. I've seen the list [of Malloy's budget cuts]. It's ugly. If you want a picture perfect example of 'off the charts,' this list is it.''

The proposed closures of prisons, courthouses, law libraries, welfare offices, motor vehicles branches, a juvenile jail and other government buildings would have an unwelcome spillover effect for surrounding businesses.

"It's bad for economic recovery,'' O'Connor said. "It's bad for the pizza shop owner in Enfield, and once that courthouse closes, they lose business. This is just a recipe for catastrophe.''

Among insiders, everyone from the workers themselves to House Speaker Chris Donovan, the most powerful labor supporter in the legislature, wants to avoid layoffs. Although layoffs have been ordered in more than 40 departments, some lawmakers believe that the consequences of service cuts are so dire that only the unions can bail out the state — and themselves — from severe economic pain for many families.

"This plan would harm our state in significant ways,'' Donovan said. "That is why I am urging the governor and SEBAC to reach an agreement. That is the most responsible action available.''

'Wake-Up Call'

With more than 1,000 layoff notices already given to employees and budget cuts moving closer to reality, the unions have taken the step to seriously consider changing the bylaws to avoid the layoffs.

"It's become eminently more believable to the rank and file that it will happen,'' said Matthew J. Hennessy, a longtime Democratic political operative. "Those folks have gotten a wake-up call that it is real. At the end of the day, this will resolve itself. There will be some people laid off, but the majority will remain when the smoke clears. … The ball is clearly in the unions' court. They're slowly coming to the right answer, which is to come to an agreement with the governor.''

The situation was unsettled, lurching back and forth, from the moment Malloy made his initial layoff threat in mid-February. But it has become increasingly dire since the rank and file rejected the deal that their leaders crafted.

"There has been a continually evolving strategy on the part of all the actors,'' said Hennessy. "This is just another piece of the evolution.''

House Republican leader Larry Cafero of Norwalk said that Malloy clearly miscalculated the amount of negativity within the rank and file and had no idea that the deal was going south. As such, the governor and his budget team have had to scramble to create a back-up plan to close the now-projected gap of $1.6 billion over two years.

"The governor is a very confident man, and in my opinion, underestimated this process and, frankly, this job,'' Cafero said. "So when he supposedly reached a deal, and I have publicly criticized that deal, he put up the 'Mission Accomplished' sign. And it fell apart. There wasn't any thought in his mind that this would ever happen. I think they're winging it right now. They're winging it!''

But, based on a law written in special session, Cafero said he believes that the Democratic-controlled legislature will allow Malloy's cuts to stand without making any changes.

"I predict we will never come back here, as a group, to vote on this,'' Cafero said.

The legislature has set a deadline of Aug. 31 for a new SEBAC agreement.

Seeking A Solution

Andrew Matthews, president of the state police union, said his union voted against the deal because they did not want to make more concessions.

"We think that reducing the budget by laying off state troopers who are vital to protecting the safety of all of us standing here and the governor — state troopers protect the governor — [is] not somewhere to cut funds,'' Matthews said. "There are other ways to save money in state government.''

"In 2009, under Gov. [M. Jodi] Rell, we made substantial concessions, and I think it was really hard for our members to swallow another concessions deal asking for greater'' concessions, Matthews said. "I think the overwhelming no vote was a reflection of the frustration of our membership. … We're to trying to find a solution to this mess.''

Matthews rejected the idea that Malloy laid off the troopers in retaliation for voting against the concessions deal.

"I wouldn't suggest that, no, because I personally believe the layoffs could have been far greater than 57,'' Matthews said. "We saw 97 layoffs — 40 civilian and 57 troopers.''

Matthews remembers the days when it seemed like the sky was falling two decades ago. Instead, the layoffs were averted when the state income tax was enacted.

"In 1991,'' he said, "Gov. Weicker laid off 111 troopers, and we brought back 109 troopers.''

Since Malloy's budget cuts are so deep — and politically unacceptable to both Republicans and Democrats — some believe that they will not happen.

Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, who ran against Malloy on the ticket with Republican Tom Foley, believes the battle is far from over.

"Do I really think that the governor is going to shut down the Danbury DMV? Probably not,'' Boughton wrote in his blog. "The positioning of a possible closure is just a way for the Malloy administration to put more pressure on the state employee unions who have rejected the initial 'concession' package. Lots of unhappy taxpayers and unhappy residents who use the service mean more pressure on the union leadership and its members to figure out a way to unwind the recent rejection.''

Boughton added, "Don't worry yet, people. This is just an opening gambit to turn up the heat on the unions.''

But O'Connor, the union spokesman, says they are highly aware that the calendar is getting tighter for the unions to take action.

"We all know we're working under a constricted calendar. Everyone is anxious to get this matter resolved,'' he said. "In particular, now when we have workers who know their last day on the job, that adds a renewed and much higher degree of urgency to getting to a mutually accepted resolution. The alternative is mutually agreed destruction.''
Malloy Releases Budget-Balancing Plan To Cut Rail Services, Ferries, Bridge Inspections, Overtime, Driver's Training Program With More Than 4,000 Layoffs; Courthouse, Prison, DMV Office All To Close In Enfield
Hartford Courant
By Christopher Keating 
July 15, 2011 12:59 PM

Governor Dannel P. Malloy, who is in Salt Lake City at the National Governors Association summer conference, released a budget-cutting plan Friday morning that would cut a wide variety of state programs - from rail service and ferries to bridge inspections and motor vehicles offices.

Some of the largest cuts would come to the town of Enfield, where three of the biggest employers in town - the courthouse, a major prison, and the Department of Motor Vehicles office - are all slated to close.

"In less than a week, the Malloy administration has announced the closing of three of our major state facilities: Enfield Correctional Institution, the Enfield DMV, and the Enfield Courthouse,'' said Sen. John A Kissel, an Enfield Republican who has represented the district for nearly two decades. "The shuttering of these facilities comes as a one, two, three punch to our part of the state and will no doubt have a negative impact on our local economy.  I trust that Enfield is not the only area of the state taking these multiple targeted hits, but these closures will certainly make taxpayers' lives even more difficult here in north central Connecticut."

But Malloy's senior adviser, Roy Occhiogrosso, said, "Enfield is not being targeted.''

Malloy's 108-page plan includes a wide variety of cuts, including eliminating the Shoreline East train service from Old Saybrook to New Haven on weekends, starting in November. That service, which had started in July 2008, covers 32 weekend trains - and the cut would save more than $4 million in the second year of the two-year budget.

The proposal would also reduce the subsidy for buses by $4 million, which means reducing 40 buses and the 50 employees who work on them. Malloy will also reduce the frequency of inspections for new bridges, which would push the inspections on low-risk bridges to every four years, rather than every two years.

The package also reduces OT at the DOT, along with saving $100,000 per year by reducing the number of state-owned cars that can be garaged at employees' homes.

Separately, the judicial branch - which has autonomy as a separate branch of government - released a plan Friday that would close four courthouses and six law libraries.

Malloy issued a joint statement with Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman on Friday morning about their plans for $700 million in cuts to balance the state budget in the current fiscal year.

"The plan we are submitting today to the legislature contains a lot of painful spending cuts,'' Malloy and Wyman said in a statement. "Coupled with the list of layoffs we released yesterday, we are entirely aware of the impact this plan will have on the lives of thousands of our fellow state employees and their families, and people across Connecticut who have become used to a certain level of services provided by state government. We will do our best to mitigate that impact. As everyone knows, this was not the path we chose, but at this juncture, it is the only path we can take. Connecticut is in the midst of the worst fiscal crisis it's faced in many, many years.  Without an agreement, the only way out of it requires us to make the tough, painful decisions we've made. We know there are legislators of both parties who will find many things in this plan they don't like. To reiterate: we don't like most of what's in here, either. But we would remind everyone that if the legislature would like to remove a cut we've made from the budget, they have to replace it with another cut of the same value, and there aren't a lot of good options out there. To be clear on another point: we will not support an increase in revenue beyond what's already been agreed to.

"Through a mix of layoffs and painful spending cuts, we have eliminated the $1.6 billion deficit.  This budget is balanced, it's balanced honestly, and it begins the long overdue process of downsizing Connecticut's state government to make it one that taxpayers can afford.  As everyone knows, we would have preferred to achieve these objectives by reaching an agreement with our state fellow employees; unfortunately, that agreement was rejected.  While it remains a possibility that the unions will change their process and ratify an agreement, we cannot count on that happening.  We have a job to do, and by putting forward this plan, that's exactly what we're doing."

In a separate plan that was released Friday morning, the judicial branch intends to lay off more than 450 employees and consolidate courthouses, including Enfield. The judicial branch had been asked to reach savings of about $43 million in each of the two fiscal years of the biennium, which translates into a reduction of about 450 full-time positions that could be accomplished by layoffs, retirements and eliminating vacant positions.

The legislative branch has also been asked to cut 50 positions as part of overall savings of $9 million in the current fiscal year and $13 million in the second year.

Overall, the executive branch is expected to reach 4,328 layoffs and retirements, along with eliminating 1,600 vacant positions and 133 durational and per-diem positions.

The Hartford Courant's Dave Altimari reports the following cuts:

1. Elimination of new funding added in the budget for Operation Fuel.

2. Eliminate Excess Capacity in State‐Operated Residential Programs
The department will close four group homes, one Regional Center Unit and two units at Southbury in addition to the five closures in the budget. The proposal would result in the layoff of 73 full and part time staff. Current residents impacted by the closures would move to other publicly operated residential settings as well as to private sector or public homes that remain open. This proposal would impact 73 full and part time employees.

3. Close State Operated Addictions Beds
DMHAS operates 152 detoxification and rehabilitation addiction services beds: 110 in Merritt on the CVH campus and 42 in Hartford. Under this proposal, the agency will close 80 Merritt beds ‐ 20 detoxification and 60 rehabilitation. The majority of individuals seeking access to services will receive them in the community or at general hospitals. Proposal would retain the STAR 30‐bed female rehabilitation program and 21 detoxification and 21 rehabilitation beds in Blue Hills. Proposal impacts 136 fulll and part time positions.

4. Eliminate Dean of Students Positions
This would eliminate the Dean of Students positions in each of the schools that have them. The district employs ten full‐time deans of students that perform a variety of duties such as student attendance and work‐based learning.

5. Eliminate use of Fuel Cells at CT Juvenile Training School in Middletown
Eliminate the use of the fuel cells at CJTS due to high maintenance costs associated with this energy source. The agency will purchase electricity from the grid.

6. Reduce Subsidy by Increasing Rail Fares and Revenue
An increase in rail fares will yield an increase in revenue and thus a corresponding reduction in appropriated subsidy. Under this proposal, rail fares will increase 14% fare on Shoreline East and 15% on the Connecticut portion of the New Haven Line. Fares on Shoreline East have not increased since 2005, and fares on the Connecticut portion of the New
Haven Line have not increased since January, 2005.

7. Eliminate Ferry Service
Realizes savings through the reduction of 8 positions through the elimination of the ferry service. This option would discontinue the Department's seasonal operation of passenger ferry services across the Connecticut River between points in Rocky Hill/Glastonbury and Chester/Hadlyme. These are seasonal services provided (on a subsidy basis) as a
convenience for residents in these areas. Alternative means of ingress and egress (as used in the off‐season) are available year‐round for these residents.

8. Phase Out State Line‐Item Funding for Certain Grants
Funding for these are reduced; these culture and tourism line items provide operating subsidies to various arts and culture-based organizations.

9. CT Association of Performing Arts/Schubert Theater ‐51,124 ‐378,712
Hartford Urban Arts Grant ‐70,313 ‐378,712
New Britain Arts Council ‐9,880 ‐75,743
Ivoryton Playhouse ‐38,378 ‐150,000
Discovery Museum ‐53,235 ‐378,712
National Theatre for the Deaf ‐23,596 ‐151,484
Connecticut Science Center ‐76,987 ‐630,603
Greater Hartford Arts Council ‐13,308 ‐94,677
Stamford Center for the Arts ‐53,235 ‐378,712
Stepping Stones Museum for Children ‐1,648 ‐44,294
Maritime Center Authority ‐65,827 ‐531,525
Amistad Vessel ‐72,423 ‐378,712
New Haven Festival of Arts and Ideas ‐123,687 ‐797,287
New Haven Arts Council ‐13,308 ‐94,677
Palace Theater ‐53,235 ‐378,712
Beardsley Zoo ‐20,858 ‐354,350
Mystic Aquarium ‐84,474 ‐620,112


Total ‐$825,516 in the first year and $5,817,024 in the second year

State union leaders seek a do-over
384 state workers receive layoff notices
By JC Reindl Day Staff Writer
Article published Jul 14, 2011

Hartford - As the Malloy administration handed more pink slips to state workers Wednesday, the leaders of their unions planned to vote early next week to change their bylaws in the hope of renegotiating with the governor.  But it's unclear how willing Gov. Dannel P. Malloy will be to negotiate a do-over concessions deal after the rank-and-file turned down an agreement last month worth $1.6 billion to state government over two years.

Malloy released a list showing that 328 union and nonunion workers have been issued layoff notices as of Wednesday morning in the first wave of his Plan B for balancing the new state budget without labor concessions.  By day's end, 56 state troopers also had received notice they will be laid off in six weeks, according to Lt. J. Paul Vance, state police spokesman.

"The administration is progressing forward as if there is not going to be an agreement," said Roy Occhiogrosso, the governor's senior adviser.

Occhiogrosso declined to speculate whether Malloy would offer the 15 state unions a second chance at ratifying a layoff-averting concessions deal, if they decide to loosen the strict bylaws that doomed the first agreement. The unions represent about 45,000 state workers.  The 15 leaders of the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition are scheduled to vote Monday on changing their bylaws for future labor agreements, according to one union president. The coalition has ruled out any retroactive changes that could affect the outcome of last month's failed ratification.

The concessions agreement reached in May between the Malloy administration and union leaders fell apart because only 11 of the 15 unions and 57 percent of members voted for it. For an agreement to pass under the coalition's bylaws, 80 percent of union members must vote for it and no more than one union can vote no.

As to the possibility of a rewrite of the bylaws, Occhiogrosso said, "That's a series of things that haven't happened yet, and if it happens, then we'll deal with it at that point."

Union representatives remain hopeful for a new agreement. Malloy recently had his chief labor negotiator meet with union leaders.

"The administration has allowed the lines of communication to reopen, and I think that's a recognition that we can get there," coalition spokesman Matt O'Connor said Wednesday night.

The Malloy administration has yet to confirm the total number of forthcoming layoffs, previously estimated at 6,500. The governor recently said that layoffs would be "full blown" by Friday. Yet the process of notifying everyone could take weeks.

"You should expect many more hundreds over the coming days," Benjamin Barnes, the governor's budget chief, told reporters. "The 6,500 number was an estimate early on; it may not be that number."

One union president wrote a letter to members of her Administrative and Residual Union, informing them that the coalition's leaders will vote Monday on bylaws changes. Her letter did not say the type of changes proposed.

"The most important challenge we face is keeping all of our fellow workers employed," Laila Mandour wrote. "With that in mind, I remain confident that we will come to a positive resolution."

Malloy developed a Plan B involving large-scale layoffs after the May agreement died. The budget-cutting scheme cuts $700 million in the first year of the state's new $40.5 billion biennial budget and $900 million in the second year.  Administration officials say they will release additional details about layoffs and budget cuts today. The governor is required to submit his plan to Democratic leaders of the legislature by Friday, although lawmakers do not have to vote on it.

Vance said the 56 troopers being let go are from the most recent graduating class. The force will be down to 1,070 troopers once the layoffs take effect Aug. 24, he said, and personnel will be moved around to make up for the losses.  As of Wednesday morning, the Department of Correction had lost 222 positions under the layoffs plan, including 191 correction officers and 13 supervisors. Two state facilities, the Bergin Correctional Institution in Mansfield and the Enfield Correctional Institution in Enfield, are scheduled to close this year.

Some union officials for the correction officers have criticized the layoffs and closings, warning of prison overcrowding and even riots because of low inmate-to-guard ratios.

However, Malloy said this week that the reductions have "nothing to do with the budget," and were instead prompted by Connecticut's decreasing inmate population. There were 17,631 people incarcerated in the state's prisons on July 1, down from 19,216 on July 1, 2003, according to Department of Correction figures.  Correction officers overwhelmingly voted no last month on the concessions deal.

Luke Leone, president of AFSCME Local 1565, which represents correction officers from several prisons, including Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center in Uncasville, York Correctional Institution and the York Annex, both in Niantic, said the layoff notices issued so far affect officers up north.

Leone said that about six or seven officers from the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center received pink slips, but the majority come from Osborn Correctional Institution and Northern Correctional Institution - both in Somers - and the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield.


Jepsen finds no security breaches in probe of anti-concession e-mails
Political Mirror
Mark Pazniokas
July 28, 2011

An inquiry by the office of Attorney General George Jepsen has concluded without finding any evidence the state computer or e-mail systems were compromised by opponents of the labor concession deal.

The State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition had complained that the Yankee Institute, a conservative think tank, had tried to unfairly influent state employees with e-mail blasts.

Jepsen's office found no evidence that the state email system had been "compromised, hacked or used without authority."

"We appreciate this full and speedy exoneration by Attorney General Jepsen," said Fergus Cullen, the executive director of the Yankee Institute. "We regret that SEBAC's wild accusations wasted his time, the Auditor's time, and that of their staffs. We all have better things to do."

SEBAC also offered its thanks to Jepsen for a speedy investigation, but it did not back off claims that there was a concerted effort to mislead state employee with phony e-mails. "We continue to believe that doing so using assumed names for the purpose of disrupting a free and fair democratic vote is immoral, if not illegal," said Eric Bailey, a spokesman.

In two cases, e-mails critical of the concessions were sent from a Yahoo e-mail address by persons claiming to be state employees. The names appeared to be false, but no security procedures were violated, Jepsen said.

There was other e-mail traffic opposing the concession deal. Some of it originated from IP addresses outside state government, and some of it was sent by state employees on their state computers to other state employees.

"We found no evidence that these emails were transmitted in circumvention of the safeguards in place to protect the integrity of the state e-mail system," Jepsen said in a prepared statement.

Jepsen declined further comment.
Grounds for a re-vote under new rules?
Attorney General Receives Report on Labor Misinformation Claims
CT NEWS JUNKIE
by Hugh McQuaid | Jul 12, 2011 5:05pm

Attorney General George Jepsen issued a statement Tuesday acknowledging the Auditors of Public Accounts had turned over their findings about misinformation allegations lodged against the Yankee Institute by the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition.

“We have received a report from the State Auditors of Public Accounts on the SEBAC complaint about Yankee Institute and the state e-mail system. We continue to review the allegations and related information and will undertake any additional inquiry that may be warranted to resolve this issue as quickly as possible,” he said.

The report stems from a SEBAC request in June, asking Jepsen to investigate the Yankee Institute. They claimed the conservative think-tank had been doing whatever it could to encourage union members to vote against the tentative agreement and to vote against their own interests.

SEBAC spokesmen said the Yankee Institute had sent out electronic messages filled with incorrect information in an attempt to sabotage the union vote on the $1.6 billion concession agreement. Those emails were then circulated through the mailboxes of state employees and led to persistent and inaccurate rumors about the agreement, they said.

However, the Yankee Institute denied any involvement with spreading misinformation. Fergus Cullen, its executive director, denied the institute had involvement any misinformation campaign and dismissed the allegations as conspiracy theories.

In response to the request Jepsen said state whistleblower statutes call for the Auditors of Public Accounts to investigate their allegations of a sabotage campaign but said his office would continue looking into SEBAC claims that the institute had violated computer laws while spreading misinformation.

Matt O’Connor, spokesman for SEBAC, said they were happy Jepsen had decided to maintain jurisdiction over possible misuse of the state computer system and hoped both his investigation and that of the auditors is done in an expeditious manner.

But now that the agreement failed to reach its high bar for ratification and has been officially rejected, it’s unclear what, if any, action will be taken. Jepsen has yet to give any indication of what the auditors’ findings were.

Large-scale state worker layoffs underway
DAY
JC Reindl
Article published Jul 12, 2011

Hartford – Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said today that large-scale state employee layoffs are underway and that notices will continue to go out through the week.

"Larger and larger and larger numbers of employees will start to receive their notices, beginning today," the governor said at an afternoon news conference on the Bloomfield campus of CIGNA, the health insurance and financial company that announced it is moving its headquarters here from Philadelphia.

The governor declined to give the number of layoff notices happening today. He said his office will release a department-by-department list on Wednesday, with finalized details of his $700 million budget-cutting plan for the new fiscal year to follow on Thursday.

Malloy's administration has warned that as many as 6,500 layoffs could occur as a result of the failed ratification of a concessions agreement with the 15 state employee unions representing about 45,000 employees.

While a member of the governor's administration is in talks with union leaders, Malloy says that further discussions would be pointless until the unions loosen their strict bylaws governing contract changes.

The labor concessions agreement received 57 percent of the rank-and-file vote last month but needed 80 percent to pass.

Union: Connecticut prison cuts will result in riots
DAY
Associated Press
Article published Jul 12, 2011

NEW BRITAIN (AP) — Unionized prison guards are warning of inmate riots and other problems inside the state's lockups if the government goes ahead with planned budget cuts.

Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has asked the Department of Correction to cut the equivalent of 1,019 positions and trim $62.9 million from its budget in the current fiscal year and $78 million in the next. His request comes after state employee unions failed to ratify a $1.6 billion labor savings deal needed to balance the two-year, $40.1 billion state budget.

The state plans to close the Bergin Correctional Institution in Mansfield in August and the Enfield Correctional Institution in Enfield by October.

In an interview with The Associated Press this week, the presidents of three prison employee union locals, which represent about 5,000 prison workers, said the cuts will lead to overcrowding in the remaining prisons, dangerous inmate-to-staff ratios and even too few maintenance workers to keep all the showers and toilets working.

"Unfortunately, I think, without a doubt, we will have a riot by the end of the year in these prisons," said Luke Leone, president of AFSCME Local 1565 of the Connecticut Correction Employees Union.

Department of Correction spokesman Brian Garnett called those comments "irresponsible and unprofessional speculation." He said the state can absorb the 1,300 inmates from Bergin and Enfield because the prison population has declined by about 2,300 inmates since 2008 to a 10-year low of about 17,600.

Malloy, who also noted that the prison population has been declining, said he heard the concerns of the prison employee unions.

"I understand that people say things," he said Tuesday. "They are first and foremost advocates of their people, and I understand that."

The Malloy administration has said the cost-cutting in the prison system will include about 400 layoffs. Another 600 cuts will be made by not filling current vacancies. Other savings are planned through changes in overtime and vacation policies.

The union officials said the population numbers are misleading because they don't take into account everyone who is outside the prisons but is still under the department's supervision. They also note that two other prisons, the Webster Correctional Institution in Cheshire and the J.B. Gates prison in Niantic, have been closed since last year.

Leone, whose local also represents parole officers, said those officers have been told not to report all problems that would send violators back to prison and not to issue violations for failed drug tests.  He warned that more inmates on the streets could result in more crimes like the 2007 home invasion in Cheshire during which two men out on parole for burglary were accused of killing a mother and her two daughters.

"It's not now if another Cheshire happens but when a Cheshire happens," he said, "because I think another incident like that is capable of happening."

Garnett called that "ludicrous" and said the state would never ask a parole officer not to issue a violation. He said the Department of Correction's efforts to respond to the lack of union concessions were being carried out "with public safety as our foremost concern."

The unions also allege that the state continues to house inmates in spaces meant to be gymnasiums, dayrooms and even councilors' offices. The union presidents said that adding 1,300 displaced prisoners to the system will create an untenable situation.

"Does anyone want to sleep on the floor?" said Lisamarie Fontano, president of AFSME Local 387, which represents workers at prisons in Cheshire, where about 350 displaced inmates are slated to be sent.

The state plans to reopens a block of Cheshire Correctional Institution cells that had been closed for 15 years.  Fontano said those cells were kept empty to house inmates in case of a riot, fire or other emergency in the system.

"If we have an incident, we now have nowhere to contain them to," she said. "All the other spaces are being utilized for non-traditional housing. We can't move people to the gym anymore. Why? Because we have people sleeping there."

The union leaders said they believe prison workers have been targeted for layoffs and other cuts because they are one of the unions that voted to reject the concession agreement with Malloy.

"They are only targeting correctional staff," Leone said. "What about the wardens' cars? What about the 46 deputy wardens in 14 facilities? What about all the deputy wardens at the central offices? We have 46 deputy wardens making $4.6 million a year."

Garnett said cuts are being made across the board, and he noted that the warden at Bergin also received a layoff notice.  Besides layoffs, the state also is changing some overtime and vacation policy in an effort to save money.  Jon Pepe, president of AFSCME Local 391, which represents workers at Enfield and the other prisons in northern Connecticut, said they are being told that the number of staffers who can be on vacation at any one time is being cut in half.

He said that means many officers with lower seniority won't be able to use their vacation time. He said there will be more stress-related problems, workers' compensation claims and sick days used.

"On paper it looks like they're saving money, but in reality the costs are going to double," Pepe said.

Garnett noted that the changes in policy are now just on paper and can be reversed if the governor and the unions can reach another concession agreement.
Prison guards: Layoffs would result in riots, violence
CT POST
PAT EATON-ROBB, Associated Press
Published 11:29 a.m., Tuesday, July 12, 2011

NEW BRITAIN -- Unionized prison guards are warning of inmate riots and other violence inside Connecticut's lockups if the government goes ahead with planned budget cuts.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has asked the Department of Correction to cut the equivalent of 1,019 positions and trim $62.9 million from its budget in the current fiscal year and $78 million in the next. The state plans to close the Bergin in Mansfield this summer and the Enfield Correctional Institution by October.

The presidents of the three prison employee union locals tell The Associated Press that the cuts pose an imminent safety threat.

The Department of Correction has said the state can absorb the 1,300 inmates from Bergin and Enfield because the state prison population has declined by about 2,300 inmates to about 17,600 since 2008.


Agency head: Malloy's undermining watchdogs' fiscal autonomy
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
July 7, 2011

The state's watchdog agencies were promised fiscal autonomy when they were merged last month into the Office of Government Accountability, but one agency head is complaining that Gov. Dannel P. Malloy overstepped his authority by naming an acting director to cut OGA's budget.

Carol Carson, executive director of the division of state ethics within the new Office of Government Accountability, objected to Malloy's naming of an acting executive director of the new OGA to help determine how a $1.61 million budget cut will be apportioned among OGA's nine divisions.

"I don't think the governor has the authority to do this," Carson wrote in a July 5 email sent to the other eight watchdog divisions as well as to key lawmakers.

The new legislation merging the nine groups to share personnel, payroll, affirmative action and administration and business functions reserves each individual division's control over "budgetary issues and concerning the employment of necessary staff to carry out the statutory duties."

Besides ethics, other divisions within the new OGA are: the Freedom of Information Commission; the State Elections Enforcement Commission; the Office of the Victim Advocate; the Office of the Child Advocate; the Judicial Selection and Review commissions; the State Contracting Standards Board; and the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.

The new statute also sets up a Governmental Accountability Commission with representatives from all nine divisions and gives that panel authority to recommend three or more candidates for the new executive director's post. The governor must appoint a director from that list and the statute only allows him to appoint an acting director "If the Governmental Accountability Commission has not submitted such list to the governor on or before August 1, 2011."

Carson added in her email that "until such hiring occurs, I think the Governmental Accountability Commission ... could just as easily oversee the few issues arising."

One issue that arose last week was a decision by the General Assembly to expand the governor's emergency budgetary authority in light of the concession deal rejected by unionized state employees. That agreement was expected to save $700 million in the fiscal year that began July 1 and another $901 million in 2012-13.

Malloy's budget agency, the Office of Policy and Management, assigned savings targets last week to cover the gaps and recommended a total of 7,675 position cuts spread across more than 50 departments. OPM assigned the Office of Governmental Accountability to save $1.61 million this fiscal year and recommended 16 position cuts to help achieve that.

OPM Secretary Benjamin Barnes, Malloy's budget director, notified departments and agencies last week that they could offer proposals to mitigate the need for spending cuts, but those plans must be developed quickly because the administration must submit final details of its budget-balancing program to the legislature by July 15.

The governor named Karen Buffkin, OPM undersecretary for legal affairs, to serve as acting executive director and work with the divisions to divide the cuts. "Please assume the authority, responsibilities and duties of said position in an acting capacity effective July 1, 2011," the governor wrote in his June 30 appointment letter.

Barnes said Thursday that "we were not attempting to overstep our authority," and pledged that Buffkin's role "is a coordinating one, a facilitating one" and would work with -- not dictate to -- the watchdog divisions.

The divisions already faced cuts in staff and dollars in the new budget before additional reductions were ordered in connection with the failed concessions deal. And Barnes said the administration wanted "to ensure that they come up with realistic savings plans that meet our overall goals and protect their specific constituent groups."

Rep. Russell Morin, D-Wethersfield, co-chairman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, said he would ask administration officials for more details, adding that "I share many of the concerns" Carson raised in her email. "We wrote that legislation with the intent of giving them control over their own budgets. ... I'm not making any assumptions, but I want to get to the bottom of this."

The panel's other co-chair, Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, opposed the plan to merge the watchdog groups, but said Thursday that "my sense is that the governor's intent was to appoint somebody to help. I don't agree with this new structure, but somebody has to facilitate this."


Malloy Signs Haddam Land-Swap Bill
The Hartford Courant
By JON LENDER, jlender@courant.com
11:36 AM EDT, July 8, 2011

HARTFORD — Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said Friday that he has signed the controversial Haddam land swap bill into law, clearing the way for private developers to acquire 17 acres of open-space land with a scenic view of the Connecticut River that the state bought for $1.3 million in 2003.

The developers, who own the adjacent Riverhouse banquet facility on the hilltop overlooking river in Haddam's Tylerville section, would trade 87 wooded acres they own next to Cockaponset State Forest, away from the river in the town's Higganum section. They purchased the 87 acres in 2009 for $428,000.

The bill calls for independent appraisals of the two properties to assure that they are of equivalent value. It also says both sides should make "reasonable efforts" to conclude the swap by Dec. 31, and requires that the deal be approved by the State Properties Review Board before the properties can be traded.

Environmental groups have opposed the swap, saying it sets a bad precedent for the state to give developers land that it acquired under a program for the specific purpose of holding it as open space for the public. But local officials in Haddam, chamber of commerce representatives, and, most significantly, an influential legislative committee chairwoman, Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook, supported the swap as an economic boon to the area.

For months, while controversy raged over the swap in the legislature, Malloy and his appointed environmental commissioner, Daniel Esty, have come under criticism from opponents of the deal.

They said that Esty and his agency, now called the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, should have taken a position on the swap because the environmental agency had originally acquired the land for and as of last year had taken a firm stand against the deal. But Esty declined to take a stand this year, saying he would let the legislature decide.

Opponents said that Esty and the agency had been told to stay out of it by the governor's office because Daily wanted the deal to go through, and Malloy needed her cooperation as finance committee co-chairwoman on various issue during the past legislative session. Malloy has denied that assertion, saying he simply didn't want to get drawn into the local issue.

Environmentalists, however, have argued that it's not a local issue, but a statewide one; they say landowners in the future will not donate or sell parcels to the state for conservation purposes if they see that such a parcel in Haddam, first obtained under the state's open-space conservation program, is turned over for private development.

Although the Malloy administration has denied that the environmental commissioner and his agency were told to keep quiet, Esty did write in an April 1 e-mail, as environmentalists' opposition to the swap grew: "I cannot dodge this much longer."

That e-mail, featured in a June 26 Government Watch column, was one of many obtained from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection by The Courant through a Freedom of Information Act request.

However, Esty refused for several weeks to release the contents of four March e-mails that could have a bearing on the deal's legality, or reveal some of the agency's reasoning for switching to neutrality on the swap after opposing it in 2010. Two of the messages involved preparations for possible legislative testimony against the swap by Esty or someone else from the agency -- a position that would have been consistent with the agency's stance in the past.

And two others, written on March 23, concerned a suggestion by someone in the Department of Transportation that the land swap would violate the state constitution.

The agency originally refused to release those four e-mails to The Courant in late June, saying they were exempt from disclosure, claiming they were either drafts or communications protected by attorney-client privilege. The Courant filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission seeking to compel their release.

On Friday morning, Esty changed his mind, however, and released the documents to The Courant -- apparently in a coordinated effort by the administration to dispose of the swap and as many issues of controversy as possible.

Copyright © 2011, The Hartford Courant
Malloy Gets Haddam Land Swap Bill For Signature
The Hartford Courant
By JON LENDER, jlender@courant.com
7:40 PM EDT, July 5, 2011

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy now has the controversial Haddam "land swap" bill on his desk. And a legislative critic says that state environmental commissioner Daniel Esty, silent so far, should give his opinion before Malloy decides whether to sign the measure, which would allow developers to obtain 17 acres of state-owned open space overlooking the Connecticut River.

Malloy has until late next week to decide whether to sign the bill, after receiving it in its final form last Thursday. But first he needs to hear from Esty, says the third-ranking Republican in the state Senate, Sen. Andrew Roraback, R-Goshen.

"For the governor to make this decision without [Esty] going on record, on such an important question of public policy, will be a huge failure for … how our state government ought to work," Roraback said last week. He voted against the bill that passed June 8.

Colleen Flanagan, a spokeswoman for Malloy, said Tuesday she didn't know if Malloy would sign the bill. Observers say it would be a surprise if he doesn't. Also, Flanagan didn't know whether Malloy would communicate with Esty about it first.

Esty "is of course ready to discuss this, or any other issue, with the governor if asked," said Dennis Schain, spokesman for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, newly renamed because of a government consolidation bill that the legislature passed.

The bill includes several land conveyances, in various towns, in which the state is disposing of excess pieces of land such as highway rights of way. But the only part of the bill to make news is the section that would give a group of business partners 17 acres of state conservation land overlooking a scenic part of the river in Haddam. The partners, who own the Riverhouse banquet facility on adjacent land, would develop the 17 acres commercially. They would trade 87 wooded acres they own elsewhere in Haddam, next to Cockaponset State Forest.

Esty has been criticized by conservation groups for refusing all year to take a position on the land swap issue — after two previous years in which the former Republican governor and her environmental commissioner helped to kill the proposal. A few opponents of the swap have expressed suspicion that Esty had been told by Malloy's office not to discuss the swap because it was supported by an influential legislative committee co-chairwoman, Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook, whose support the Democratic governor needed on various legislative proposals.

Malloy denied this assertion. However, Esty did write in an April 1 e-mail, as environmentalists' opposition to the swap grew: "I cannot dodge this much longer."

That e-mail was one of many obtained by The Courant through a Freedom of Information Act request. However, Esty has refused to release the contents of four March e-mails that could reveal some of the agency's reasoning for switching to neutrality on the swap after opposing it in 2010. Two of the messages are said to contain language drafted for possible legislative testimony against the swap. And two others apparently concerned a suggestion by someone in the Department of Transportation that the land swap would violate the state constitution.

Schain says that the e-mails are exempt from disclosure. The Courant has filed a complaint with the state FOI Commission seeking their release, but no hearing has been scheduled. In the meantime, Flanagan was asked if Malloy would order Esty to release them in the interest of the "transparency" that Malloy has said is a tenet of his administration. She said the governor's legal counsel's office will look at the documents and decide, but said she doesn't know when.

Copyright © 2011, The Hartford Courant


SPECIAL SESSION JUNE 3O
What Connecticut needed was some Suffredge ladies to fix this!

Edith Prague: 'They're Out Of Their Minds' To Reject Union Deal
Lawmaker understandably astonished by state employees' failure to ratify pact
Hartford COURANT editorial
June 24, 2011

Among the many in Connecticut dumbfounded by state workers' apparent refusal this week to approve a concessions agreement that would save thousands of jobs is Sen. Edith Prague of Columbia, who aptly called labor's failure to do its share "a nightmare" and "a disaster."

She's right. Although there are still some votes to count, that looks to be just a formality. Now, lacking worker concessions, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy will have to lay off at least 7,500 state employees. He and the legislature will have to shred safety-net services for the poor and helpless and cut into state aid to cities and towns.

All of those alternatives, including a reduction in municipal aid, will have to be on the table. It's a nightmare and a disaster any way you look at it.

Ms. Prague, co-chairwoman of the legislature's labor and public employees committee, is distraught because the concessions deal negotiated between the Malloy administration and the State Employees Bargaining Agents Coalition was the only avenue — and a fair and reasonable one — to avert mass layoffs.

It produced $1.6 billion in savings over two years by, among other things, imposing a two-year wage freeze and making employees' health and pension benefits less costly to taxpayers. For their part, workers would have gotten a four-year no-layoff guarantee.

A majority of union members approved the agreement in voting this week, but not the unobtainable 80 percent supermajority required by the SEBAC bylaws. A minority of spoiled, perhaps misguided, clueless and selfish union members were able to sink the deal because of the 80 percent requirement, causing Ms. Prague to lament that "nobody in their right mind, under these circumstances, would turn down that agreement. The private sector folks would die for this kind of package."

The exasperated labor committee co-chairwoman added that state employees will "never get another thing out of me."

Strong words, but deserved.

Rejection of the concessions agreement was a kick in the teeth to pro-labor lawmakers like Ms. Prague.

And it is a major embarrassment to Mr. Malloy, who now must pink-slip a large part of the workforce that supported his candidacy last fall and present a draconian budget alternative to the legislature — all because a few thousand union members wouldn't vote for fair concessions.

Change collective bargaining laws

What's next, besides a special session of the legislature to close the budget gap caused by labor's failure?

For one thing, the legislature — yes, although heavily Democratic and pro-labor — should consider changes in the collective bargaining laws that would let the state take statutory action to get government costs under control.

The fiscal fate of Connecticut state government shouldn't depend on the selfish whims of a minority of unionized state workers voting on tentative concessions agreements.

Senate Republican leader John P. McKinney of Fairfield says he wants the legislature to vote on such things as eliminating costly and unnecessary longevity payments — does the state really need to pay people extra to keep them on the payroll? — and to discuss whether retirement rules can be changed to bar overtime pay from being figured into pension calculations.

In Wisconsin this year, the legislature passed a bill forbidding most government workers from collectively bargaining for wage increases beyond the rate of inflation, and requiring public workers to pay more toward their pensions and doubling their health insurance contribution.

Such changes might be appropriate for Connecticut or not — but they and other reforms should be discussed, especially when state unions turn down a fair agreement that would have helped put Connecticut state government on a fiscally sustainable course.

Union deal likely to be officially killed later this morning
CT POST
Brian Lockhart, Staff Writer
Updated 09:03 a.m., Friday, June 24, 2011

Acknowledging that state workers will likely vote down a $1.6 billion concessions package later this morning, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy prepared Thursday to make good on threats to lay off as many as 7,500 over the next two years and announced plans for a possible special Legislative session.

At some point this morning it's expected that two unions will have rejected the givebacks, sinking the deal for the entirety of the 15-union State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition. An 11 a.m. announcement is expected from union spokesman Larry Dorman, just as Malloy is set to hold a media availability following a meeting with the mayors of the state's five largest cities.

Under SEBAC rules, if two of its 15 unions oppose the deal or less than 80 percent ratify it, concessions are rejected.

One union, Service Employees International Local 511, voted Thursday to oppose the givebacks. And the largest, the 15,600 member Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees , is expected to follow.

The last of Council 4's nine bargaining units to vote is composed of corrections employees who refused concessions in 2009. On Thursday the leader of one of their locals, Jon Pepe, told The Associated Press he hopes his 1,850 members vote for the deal but believes many will not.

"My members are voting, but I believe the early release of everybody's returns didn't help matters," Pepe said. "All they hear is no, no. They feel, let me vote no, too."

Council 4's final results are scheduled for release at 11 a.m.

"I think we probably know what the results (will be)," Malloy told reporters yesterday in Hartford. "Which means that we'll proceed with what we have to do, which is exactly what I told everyone we would do all along."

A few hours later he called for the General Assembly, which wrapped up the 2011 session June 8, to reconvene next Thursday to act on a plan to balance the two-year budget passed in May without givebacks.

Observers said job cuts are the only possible move for the new Democratic governor, who for weeks has warned SEBAC's 45,000 members to share in the sacrifice needed to close a $3 billion-plus deficit or face the consequences.

"He can try to say ... `I didn't really mean it,' but as soon as he does that he becomes very vulnerable," ex-House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, said. "He needs to be a governor, a leader, and say, `Listen, I was not kidding'."

But proceeding with layoffs does not mean the administration and union officials will not be working behind-the-scenes to salvage the concessions package. A re-do vote is possible, allowing labor leaders time to address what they allege has been a misinformation campaign directed by outside conservative groups at rank-and-file workers.

The Malloy administration Wednesday ruled out a renegotiation but said it was open to "clarifying" aspects of the deal.

"They're going to keep talking," said Stanley Twardy, a Republican who served as chief of staff to independent Gov. Lowell Weicker. "In some ways it's like the National Football League right now. You have the owners and players talking even while (a) lawsuit is pending. Pink slips are the lawsuit. From the time they go out to when they take effect will be the period the governor and unions will have to come up with something short of layoffs."

The fiscal year begins July 1, but Malloy said state employees on average will likely leave the payroll around Sept. 1.

But even that is not necessarily the end. In February 2003, then Republican Gov. John Rowland laid off 3,000 after labor talks fell apart, but many were later re-hired beginning that May.

House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, a longtime ally of labor, postponed the launch of his congressional bid to focus on salvaging the deal. Donovan said he has spoken with the governor, Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, and union leaders.

"My discussions have been trying to figure out ways to get this agreement ratified," Donovan said. "My services are there if there's anything I can do to assist them."

John Olsen, president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, said if Malloy and the Legislature are forced to make additional budget cuts, they could target municipal aid, resulting in further layoffs.

"We also have private-sector unions effected by the budget," Olsen said. "Everybody somewhere is touched by this."

Mark Ojakian, Malloy's lead negotiator, said it was frustrating watching something he worked for falling apart.

"I was a deputy comptroller when we had to issue layoff notices to people at the comptroller's office, and it was probably one of the hardest things I've ever had to do in my life. That was 16 individuals," Ojakian said. "I would like to see anything done that's possible and comports with the SEBAC bylaws to ratify this agreement. If that means re votes, absolutely."

But Jack Fowler, of Milford, publisher of the National Review, said he is glad the concessions are falling through. Fowler is chairman for the Roger Sherman Liberty Center, a conservative think tank which has sued to have the budget declared "null and void" because it was passed with a $1.6 billion hole.

"I'm glad it's going down because it gives the Legislature an opportunity to enact a budget that's much better for the economy than the piece of insanity adopted last month," Fowler said.

Malloy Talks Tough About Layoffs; Calls Special Session Next Week To Balance Budget
The Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, ckeating@courant.com
8:29 PM EDT, June 23, 2011

 HARTFORD — Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is preparing to lay off as many as 7,500 state workers under the assumption that the employee unions will reject a savings and concessions deal that had been designed to balance the state budget.

Malloy called Thursday for state legislators to return to Hartford in a special legislative session next Thursday, the day before the new fiscal year begins.

With a projected deficit of more than $700 million in the next fiscal year if the union deal collapses, Malloy is also seeking increased budget-cutting authority from the General Assembly so that he could make cuts unilaterally without legislative approval. Malloy's senior adviser, Roy Occhiogrosso, said the loss of thousands of workers would have a "fairly large'' impact on state services, but he would not say, for example, whether parks and beaches such as Hammonasset State Park could be closed at times.

The fast-breaking developments showed the urgency with which Malloy and his budget team are scrambling to balance the two-year, $40 billion budget as the union deal appeared to be going down.

The layoffs and special session would have been unthinkable only one month ago when it was widely assumed that the 15 state employee unions would approve the four-year, no-layoff deal that their union leaders had crafted with Malloy. But Malloy and legislators now believe that the deal's survival is particularly in doubt because of a large number of negative votes from the AFSCME union, whose members were concluding their voting Thursday at six prisons in northern Connecticut.

Since AFSCME covers about one third of all unionized state employees, the union has the power to reject the overall deal under the complicated and weighted union voting rules. The results of the votes by the prison workers were not expected to be released until 11 a.m. Friday.

Roy Occhiogrosso, Malloy's senior adviser, said there could be as many as 7,500 layoffs, far above Malloy's original projection of 4,700.

"I think 7,500 is a good ballpark number, but we don't have a final number yet,'' Occhiogrosso said.

Many state employees, along with Senate Republican leader John McKinney of Fairfield, have suspected that the 7,500 figure was a bluff used by Malloy to convince state employees to ratify the agreement made by the State Employee Bargaining Agent coalition, known as SEBAC. On Thursday afternoon, McKinney said that 7,500 is "more of a scare tactic'' than a real number.

But Occhiogrosso said the spending cuts and layoffs, which will be announced soon, could be far deeper than many citizens expect.

"This is bad,'' Occhiogrosso said. "I definitely think people don't realize how bad this is.''

When told that McKinney does not believe Malloy would lay off as many as 7,500 employees, Occhiogrosso said: "Not for long. They will soon be disabused of that notion.''

With difficult budget choices ahead, Malloy is also seeking approval from the legislature for more rescission authority — which would allow the governor increased budget-cutting power without approval from the legislature. Malloy had sought similar power earlier this year, but that was rejected by the Democratic-controlled legislature as lawmakers refused to give him authority to cut state aid to cities and towns.

Frustration has been building at the Capitol, even among longtime union supporters like Sen. Edith Prague, a liberal Democrat who co-chairs the labor committee. In an e-mail to his caucus members, Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams wrote: "The failure to ratify by state employees does more harm to them and the cause of labor than anything their enemies could possibly achieve. It's unbelievable that they don't understand that.''

Both Republicans and Democrats are surprised at the stunning turnaround with the unions because many believed this year would substantially shift power toward the unions, which worked successfully to elect the first Democratic governor in Connecticut in 20 years. In addition, the unions had the support of the Democrats in the state legislature and state Rep. Christopher Donovan, the most pro-union Speaker of the House in many years.

But now the plans for layoffs of state employees are proceeding. State budget director Ben Barnes is working with a team at the state Office of Policy and Management in Hartford to arrange the layoffs in a way that would have the least impact on state services.

As union representatives talked with reporters about the deal on the fourth floor of the state Capitol about 1:35 p.m. Thursday, Malloy walked out of the building's first-floor entrance toward his car to be driven to a public appearance in West Hartford.

Asked about the apparent rejection of the agreement, his reaction was brief. "I've got a job to do,'' Malloy said. "I told everybody what I was going to do. And now I'm going to do it."

And so, he said, "We move on."

Later, Malloy released a statement that called for the special session to close the state's projected budget deficit before the start of the new fiscal year.

"It was always my hope that the SEBAC agreement would be ratified and we could move forward with the process of getting our state's fiscal house in order and creating new jobs," Malloy said in a statement. "But that looks increasingly unlikely. Calling both chambers into session next week is necessary to close the budget deficit that we will be facing. I am loathe to make the decisions facing us at this juncture — including layoffs, programmatic and municipal aid cuts — but I am left with no choice. Working with the legislature, we will have a balanced budget and one that, while making painful cuts and difficult decisions, will be balanced honestly without tricks or gimmicks."

Malloy's comments came on a day when the SEBAC coalition was announcing that four more unions had approved the four-year, no-layoff deal that would change the health care benefits and pensions for state employees.

The 1,150-member Connecticut State University faculty approved the deal by 90 percent to 10 percent, 1,054 to 114. The 550-member University of Connecticut Health Center faculty also favored the deal 90 percent to 10 percent.

The 3,300-member Administrative and Residual Union, known as A & R, voted in favor of the agreement, as did the 2,000-member Congress of Community Colleges, which is known as the 4Cs.

Despite those approvals, the pending rejection by the 15,600-member AFSCME union loomed large over the Capitol on Thursday.

Some legislators have described the four-year, no-layoff agreement as a sweetheart deal that would never be rejected by workers in the private sector who have seen pay cuts and layoffs in recent years. But thousands of state employees say it is definitely a bad deal for various reasons, including the claim that it would drastically alter their health care benefits by pushing them into the state's SustiNet health plan. Malloy and union leaders, however, have strongly denied any ties with SustiNet.

The charges about SustiNet have continued, and the union leaders have been unable to dissuade some state employees from believing that the overall agreement is a bad deal for them. Many insiders believe that the union leaders did a bad job in selling the deal to their members.

When asked if there are any rabbits to pull out of the hat to avert the layoffs and spending cuts, Occhiogrosso said, "Not that I'm aware of.''

With the special session set for next week, Republicans are hoping that Malloy will cut spending in the way that they had originally proposed earlier this year.

"Republicans are ready to move forward with him,'' McKinney said. "I don't, nor have I ever believed, that the governor is going to lay off as many as 7,500 people. I don't think the layoffs will be that massive. That assumes the entire hole is going to be made up just in layoffs. ... There are a number of programs that Republicans offered to reduce or cut. We're hopeful that the governor will look at those spending cuts anew if he did look at them the first time - and work with us on putting a package together.''

Courant Staff Writer Jon Lender contributed to this report.

States Brace for End of Extra Payments for Medicaid
NYTIMES
By ROBERT PEAR
June 15, 2011

WASHINGTON — Faced with a deepening recession two years ago, the Obama administration injected billions of dollars into Medicaid, the nation’s low-income health program. The money runs out at the end of this month, and benefits are being cut for millions of people, even though unemployment has increased.

From New Jersey to California, state officials are bracing for the end to more than $90 billion in federal largess specifically designated for Medicaid. To hold down costs, states are cutting Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals, limiting benefits for Medicaid recipients, reducing the scope of covered services, requiring beneficiaries to pay larger co-payments and expanding the use of managed care.

As a result, costs can be expected to rise in other parts of the health care system. Cuts in Medicaid payments to doctors, for example, make it less likely that they will accept Medicaid patients and more likely that people will turn to hospital emergency rooms for care. Hospitals and other health care providers often try to make up for the loss of Medicaid revenue by increasing charges to other patients, including those with private insurance, experts say.

Neither the White House nor Congress has tried to extend the extra federal financing for Medicaid, even though the number of beneficiaries is higher now than when Congress approved the aid as part of an economic recovery package in February 2009.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal Medicaid spending will decline in 2012 for only the second time in the 46-year history of the program. But states say they will have to have to spend more on Medicaid as they struggle to make up for the loss of federal money.

State officials say they are resigned to the loss of the extra federal matching payments, given the climate in Congress, where deficit reduction is a paramount goal.

“We all see the reality of what’s going on in Congress,” said Mark W. Rupp, director of the Washington office of Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State, a Democrat who is chairwoman of the National Governors Association. “It’s more about cutting than spending. Why put a lot of effort into something that did not seem likely to have a positive outcome? It would have been fairly futile.”

Although Medicaid provides health insurance to one in five Americans at some point in a year, it is more vulnerable to cuts than Medicare and Social Security, which have broader political support.

“Medicaid is very much on the chopping block,” said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care. “Seniors vote. But if you are poor and disabled, you might not vote, and if you are a child, you do not vote — that’s a lot of Medicaid’s population. They don’t have money to do lobbying.”

Medicaid is financed jointly by the federal government and the states, with the federal government paying a larger share in poorer states like Mississippi and West Virginia and a smaller share in higher-income states like New York and Connecticut.

The aid ending next month increased the federal share of Medicaid spending in all states, with additional help for states where unemployment rates had risen sharply. The extra aid was scheduled to expire last December, but Congress extended it for six months at the urging of the White House and state officials.

The additional money pushed the average federal share of Medicaid spending nationwide to 67 percent. It will revert to 57 percent next month. The cutback in federal Medicaid money has put pressure on states to cut the budget for other programs, including education and social services.

Toby J. Douglas, director of the California Department of Health Care Services, said the federal Medicaid cut was causing “very consequential reductions in health care and other public programs.”

California is cutting Medicaid payments to doctors and many other providers by 10 percent; has established new co-payments for drugs, doctors’ services and hospital care; and will limit beneficiaries to seven doctor’s office visits a year unless a doctor certifies a need for more.

With 7.6 million Medicaid beneficiaries — 50 percent more than any other state — California faces bigger problems, but its response has been typical. A survey issued this month by the National Association of State Budget Officers found that 24 states were reducing Medicaid payments to providers, while 20 were limiting benefits in some way.

R. Andrew Allison, who is executive director of the Kansas Health Policy Authority and president of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, said Medicaid was gobbling up new revenues as states recovered slowly from the recession.

Kansas illustrates the predicament most states are facing. Federal Medicaid payments in Kansas are expected to decline by more than $250 million, or 13 percent, in the state’s new fiscal year, which starts July 1, Mr. Allison said. But the amount of state revenue spent on Medicaid is expected to increase by more than $300 million, or 39 percent.

New York has just imposed a cap on state Medicaid spending, with a separate limit for each sector like hospitals, nursing homes and managed care plans. Under a new state law, if it appears that the state share of Medicaid spending will exceed the cap, New York officials must devise and carry out a plan to reduce spending, by modifying benefits, provider payment rates or other features of the program.

“This is an enormous sea change for Medicaid,” said Jeffrey Gordon, a spokesman for the New York State Health Department.

In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, said, “Medicaid’s growth is out of control,” and he has proposed numerous changes “to fill in the hole created by the loss of over a billion dollars of federal stimulus money” for the program. He would tighten eligibility, reduce Medicaid payment rates for nursing homes, move older and disabled Medicaid recipients into managed care, and charge co-payments for medical day care services.

The New Jersey Legislature appears likely to accept some of the changes in a budget to be adopted this month.

Connecticut has avoided major cuts in Medicaid, but the State Legislature has set new limits on vision and dental coverage for adults.

State of CT, Google, P. Gary - Tower One in Weston, sources for the photos below.  Google ("x") pix of NGA 2011 Conference in Salt L:ake City.


No Matter How Debt Debate Ends, Governors See More Cuts for States
NYTIMES
By MICHAEL COOPER
July 15, 2011

SALT LAKE CITY — The rancorous debate in Washington over whether to raise the federal debt ceiling is alarming many of the nation’s governors from both parties, who fear that whatever the outcome, much-needed money will almost certainly be drained from their states.

If the federal debt limit is not raised, several governors said as they gathered here on Friday for the semiannual meeting of the National Governors Association, the ensuing default will harm the economy, make it difficult for states to borrow money and delay some of the vital federal payments that states count on for everything from Medicaid to unemployment benefits.

But even if the debt ceiling is raised, as many governors expect it ultimately will be, states could still pay a high price. Both Democrats and Republicans in Washington want to pair any increase in the debt limit with deep new spending cuts — cuts that many governors fear will hurt their states as they are still recovering slowly from the Great Recession.

“If I can use a whitewater analogy here, the two rocks we need to shoot between is, on the one side, being needlessly driven into default, which will kill the jobs recovery,” said Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, the chairman of the Democratic Governors Commission. “The other rock is massive public sector cuts, by whatever name, that would also kill the jobs recovery.”

Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a Republican, said that a default stemming from a failure to increase the borrowing limit would be “terrible” for states. But he said that states must also brace themselves for managing a new set of cuts even if the limit is raised. “No matter what happens, states are going to get less money from the federal government,” he said.

The uncertainty for states, coming just two weeks after most put new budgets into effect, was a new black cloud on the horizon for governors just when many thought they would have a moment’s respite. State tax collections are improving, but are still below their pre-recession levels, and this month the federal stimulus aid that has helped states balance their budgets in recent years dried up. Now states, already struggling to pay for Medicaid for the many people who lost their jobs and health care in the downturn, face the prospect of less federal money for it.

The impact of the standoff in Washington is already being felt in states.

Moody’s Investors Service warned more than a dozen states this week that their credit ratings would be re-evaluated in light of the uncertainty in Washington, which could saddle them with higher borrowing costs. Governor O’Malley learned that Maryland was one of them when he stepped off the plane here. “This happens at a time when we’re about to go out for a bond sale,” he said.

Governors from around the country — including Christine O. Gregoire of Washington, a Democrat, and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican — said that employers in their states had been reluctant to hire new workers because of the uncertainty. And Gov. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, an Independent, said that the threat of dwindling federal aid gave him pause last week before he signed a bill in which his state agreed to pay for heating assistance for the poor that the federal government was expected to cut.

“My argument — and I did sign it — was that this was the first of many,” he said. “I don’t know how much Rhode Island taxpayers can do that.”

Behind the scenes, governors have been trying to avert the worst cuts by twisting the arms of their Congressional delegations and working nervously with their budget directors. Some even held a conference call with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Governors in both parties said they were most worried by talk that both President Obama and Congressional Republicans wanted to cut Medicaid payments to the states by $100 billion over the next decade.

The leaders of the governors association — its chairwoman, Governor Gregoire of Washington, and its vice chairman, Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican — wrote to Mr. Obama and Congressional leaders in both parties last week urging them to reconsider, warning that such a cut would “result in reduced Medicaid expenditures, in increased state taxes or reductions in K-12 education, transportation and public safety funding.”

But deep partisan divisions remain among the governors. The Democratic Governors Association held a news conference calling for the debt ceiling to be raised, and saying that any accompanying plan to reduce the federal deficit should include tax increases as well as service cuts. And they complained that moderate Republicans were failing to speak up to avert catastrophe.

“We want this deficit solved, and we want it solved in a bipartisan way, but we don’t want it solved on the backs of states,” said Gov. Beverly Perdue of North Carolina, a Democrat. “Because at the end, it’s just another pass down to us, which results in state unemployment, state layoffs.”

Some Republican governors, though — including Rick Perry of Texas and Nikki Haley of South Carolina, neither of whom are members of the association — have said that the debt limit should not be lifted without also moving toward a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. Such an amendment is unlikely to pass in Washington.

Other Republicans — including Mr. Barbour and Mr. Walker — said that they hoped that a default could be averted but opposed raising taxes and said that Washington should seize the moment to cut spending significantly.

The normally outspoken Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a Republican, declined to take a position on the debt ceiling. “I’m not doing any press today,” he said, when asked about it here.

Some states are already weighing contingency plans. Governor Walker said that he had asked his administration this week to study what would happen if the federal government did not raise its borrowing limit, and also what to expect in the way of likely cuts if it did.

Massachusetts could face a “serious cash flow issue” if the federal debt limit is not raised and the state stops receiving the $200 million in federal reimbursements it counts on each week for programs like Medicaid and food assistance, Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, wrote Friday in a letter to Congress. He wrote that “state governments are still reeling from the recession and can ill afford to bear the brunt of such a preventable crisis.”

Most governors here said that while the talk of not raising the debt ceiling was alarming and irresponsible, ultimately not raising the ceiling was unlikely. Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana, who wore his trademark bolo to a news conference held by the Democratic Governors Association, used a Western analogy to explain why he thought a federal default would be averted.

“Aw, hell, they’re not going to do it,” he said. “Listen: remember ‘Blazing Saddles’? Remember the scene where the sheriff holds the pistol to his own head?” Ultimately, he said, “They’ve got to come together and put together a deal.”
Salt Lake City conference likely to draw 35 governors
By Robert Gehrke, The Salt Lake Tribune
First published Jul 14 2011 05:07PM
Updated Jul 14, 2011 11:50PM

Thirty-five governors from across the country are flocking to Salt Lake City this weekend for the 2011 summer conference of the National Governors Association.

It marks the first time since 1947 that Utah hosts the event and, according to Gov. Gary Herbert, is a chance for Utah to get some national attention.

Herbert was to host a reception for his fellow governors Thursday evening, but meetings will begin Friday with a discussion of higher education as an economic driver and a meeting between the U.S. governors and four representatives of Chinese governments.

Friday evening, there will be a reception at the Utah Museum of Natural History and a gourmet picnic at Red Butte Garden.

On Saturday, governors will discuss international trade, job growth, health insurance exchanges, energy jobs and immigration.

That night they will travel to the Utah Olympic Park, where the governors can run the bobsled track and watch an aerial skiing display.

Sunday morning, governors are invited to a performance by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and will hear a keynote speech from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Thomas Friedman.

The event costs about $1.5 million to stage — a slightly smaller budget than the $2 million target that organizers had originally anticipated.

The money is raised from corporations, with Herbert’s donors hit up to contribute up to $150,000 to sponsor the event. Event sponsors get special admission to the weekend events.

Herbert said he is pleased to have 35 of the governors who have registered to attend and was told by the association that it is a near-record turnout.

"I know for some states, [they said] ‘We want to come, Gary, but we can’t. We don’t have the money in the budget to pay for travel,’ " Herbert said. "For some it is budgetary, for some it is other pressing problems of the day."

---

Comment online at Salt Lake Trib:

Has Connecticut taken a hard turn to the left?  Here in July we ask, is "left" the same thing as "west" or going to the NGA in Salt Lake City, Utah?
By ROBERT KOCH, Norwalk Hour Staff Writer
9 June 2011

Long a blue state, Connecticut has moved further left with the passage of legislation that mandates paid sick leave, decriminalizes small amounts of marijuana and affords undocumented immigrants in-state tuition rights at public colleges.

House Republican Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr. of Norwalk voted against all those bills. He said passage of the state's new $40.1 billion budget and other Democrat-backed legislation is the consequence of one-party rule in Hartford.

"What we've witnessed is one branch of government dominating and having their way with everything," said Cafero, R-142. "What (Gov. Dannel Malloy) has demonstrated is that he has a propensity to taxing and spending, the largest tax increase in the state of Connecticut. He actually increased spending. He demonstrated a cozy and beholden relationship with organized labor, and he has demonstrated that he is on the left end of the spectrum when it comes to social policies."

State Sen. Bob Duff, D-25, however, described the recent Democratic legislative victories in Hartford as moving the state in a "positive direction" by passing a balanced budget, consolidating state agencies and investing in transportation and education.

The Norwalk Democrat focused on legislation that passed with bipartisan support.

"Early Tuesday morning, we passed 80 bills on our consent calendar," Duff said. "There are some high profile bills that may be partisan but having 80 bills on the consent calendar says we're working hard and getting business done."

As for the legislation that didn't receive bipartisan support, Duff said he voted to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana because the existing law ties up police and courts. He voted for providing in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants, saying the policy requires no subsidies. But Duff voted against the paid sick- leave bill, labeling it a "mandate on business."

Malloy, the state's first Democratic governor in two decades, described his budget as a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts. On recent legislation, he hailed paid sick-leave as "good public health," the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana as "common-sense reforms to our criminal justice system," and new energy bill as "a strategic new approach to our state's energy policy that will reduce future energy costs and decrease our dependence on fossil fuels."

Professor Gary L. Rose, chairman of the Department of Government and Politics at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, said the election of Malloy combined with a strong Democratic Legislature indicates that Connecticut is moving in a decidedly liberal direction in terms of public policy. He doesn't see that trend reversing itself.

"We've embarked upon a very liberal era in Connecticut politics," Rose said. Malloy "is much more of a strident liberal Democrat than most people anticipated. In all the voting behavior patterns, what this really demonstrates is just how much Connecticut has changed politically."

A Gallup telephone survey conducted last December ranked Connecticut as the fifth most liberal state in the nation with 26.7 percent of respondents identifying themselves as liberal. Only the District of Columbia, Vermont, Rhode Island and Massachusetts have more self-described liberals. Mississippi has the greatest number of self-described conservatives (50.5 percent), followed by Idaho, Alabama, Wyoming and Utah, according to Gallup.

Sal Liccione, a Westport resident and Fairfield County leader of Democracy for America, a liberal political action committee founded by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, praised Malloy and Democratic lawmakers on the new state budget, and said the recently passed legislation "proves that Connecticut can be a progressive state."

Members of the Greater Norwalk Chamber of Chamber of Commerce, a pro-business organization, had mixed reactions to Malloy's budget but strongly opposed the paid sick-leave bill, according to chamber President Edward J. Musante Jr.

"We were very disappointed that it was passed, particularly at a time when we should be showing to the region that Connecticut supports business, and Connecticut is business-friendly," Musante said. "This sends the exact opposite message."
Malloy celebrates briefly, then looks ahead to the next session
Mark Pazniokas and Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
June 9, 2011

He is the first Connecticut governor in 40 years without legislative experience, but Gov. Dannel P. Malloy dominated a productive first session that ended at midnight Wednesday, defying expectations that a fiscal crisis would mean gridlock stretching into summer.

Malloy struck a mildly celebratory tone early today in marking the end of a legislative session that yielded him an unbroken string of victories, then called for a special session next fall on job creation and asked for education reform to be the focus in 2012.

"In the legislative session that just ended, we made some real progress on some important issues, and we began to fix what was broken for so long in Hartford," Malloy said. "We should feel good about what we did, but we should also be mindful of how much more there is to do."

Malloy made a mark his first session with a hyperkinetic style, constantly making demands for quick action on his initiatives and working restlessly to shape the emerging narrative of his young administration, one that broke with other governors by proposing and passing a record tax increase to erase a deficit.

When the legislature dispatched a ceremonial escort to bring him into the House chamber for a closing speech, a tradition that his predecessor, M. Jodi Rell, eschewed in her final years as governor, the joke was that he already was waiting at the door.

Malloy, who defended his budget with a series of 17 town-hall style meetings, said he is going back out on the road, this time to brand his administration as focused on economic development, a recognition that the state's unemployment remains above 9 percent. He said he and his commissioner of economic development, Catherine Smith, will crisscross the state.

"Here's what we need to focus on now: jobs.  It's an emergency, and we need to continue to treat it as such," Malloy said. "To that end, I am marshaling the resources from every corner of state government by asking all agency heads to participate in a tangible way with plans for job creation and economic growth."

Working with Democratic majorities led by two men who backed his opponent in a Democratic primary, Malloy won passage of a difficult budget with relative ease, followed by a series of major initiatives: a new energy department, an $864 million project to remake the UConn Health Center, and a new airport authority.

From fiscal to social issues, including a transgender rights bill and the nation's first state mandate on private employers to provide paid sick days, Malloy prevailed throughout the five-month session that opened with his inaugural Jan. 3 as the first Democratic governor in 20 years.

The governor touched lightly on all the major bills.

"I mentioned all of your accomplishments not as a shared victory lap, but as acknowledgement of your collective  hard work," Malloy said. "But as much progress as we've made, in some ways our work has just begun."

Senate President Pro Tempore Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, and House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, pronounced the session a success born from the first time in two decades that a Democratic governor worked with a Democratic majority.

"The folks who were predicting gloom and doom about the legislative session back in December and January have to re-evaluate," Williams said. "We were able to show with a united government we can get things done, and we can set a new direction for the state of Connecticut."

Donovan said Connecticut, which began the year with a deficit estimated as high as $3.65 billion, has stabilized its finances with a minimum of disruption in state services.

"I think if you look across the United States, looking at the states that had problems, I would think anyone who looks at it would say Connecticut is probably the most stable of all the states, dealing with this deficit and moving forward," Donovan said.

But the state's largest business group, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, offered a dour view, worrying that the record tax increase would dampen economic activity, and that the paid-sick days bill would brand Connecticut as hostile to business.

Joseph F. Brennan, a CBIA vice president, said the hefty tax increase and the bill mandating most businesses with 50 or more employees to provide paid sick leave worked against progress Malloy made in other areas such as a new job creation tax incentives, a major investment in the University of Connecticut Health Center, and a new authority to market and operate Bradley International Airport.

"All of the economic development programs are fine," Brennan said. "But you need to create a business climate that is conducive and welcoming, and what we are hearing from our members is Connecticut isn't there right now."

Brennan reserved judgment on the planned fall session on jobs, but gave Malloy high marks for pledging to work with all agency heads this summer to ensure all follow a consistent, pro-business agenda.

"A lot of little things can make a big difference," Brennan said, adding that simply streamlining the process for issuing permits or conducting audits can assist businesses greatly. "We need all of the agencies pulling together and it was good to hear that.

Republicans were not as generous about Malloy and the session.

"It was historic in all the wrong ways," said House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk.

In one breath, Cafero conceded Malloy's dominance and dismissed it.

"He got what he wanted," Cafero said. "D'uh. Democratic governor, first time in 24 years. Ninety-nine of 151 reps are Democrat, 22 of 36 senators are Democrat. He got what he wanted. Is that a surprise?"

Though Malloy acknowledged a $1.6 billion question mark in the new budget -- the concession package still pending before state employee unions -- Republican lawmakers said the governor's declaration of balanced state finances and an end to fiscal gimmickry was premature.

"We have an agreement that has yet to be approved, and we have an Office of Fiscal Analysis that has yet to affirm the savings," said Sen. Robert Kane of Watertown, ranking GOP senator on the Appropriations Committee. "So, no, was can't say the games are over."

"Sadly we leave here tonight with many more unknowns than knowns in the budget," added Sen. Andrew W. Roraback of Goshen, the top Senate Republican on the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee.

Sen. Gayle Slossberg of Milford, one of the Democrats who opposed the budget compromise between Malloy and the legislature, said she remains optimistic that Connecticut's economy is on the rebound and added, "I'm thrilled about the governor's focus on jobs."

But the governor's call for a fall special session on jobs elicited a few groans, even out of his supporters, who conceded they are exhausted from the task of solving a $3 billion-plus budget deficit for the coming fiscal year.

"It is supposed to be a part-time legislature yet it has become very full-time," Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook, who as co-chairwoman of the Finance panel had to spearhead development of the budget's tax package. "Still, it is our job, our responsibility. The governor is right."

Democratic Rule Remakes Connecticut’s Legislature
NYTIMES
By PETER APPLEBOME
June 7, 2011

HARTFORD — In a year when conservative politics have dominated even traditionally Democratic states like New Jersey and New York, Connecticut is closing out its most activist, liberal legislative session in memory.

Lawmakers over the last several weeks have enacted the largest tax increase in Connecticut history and approved the nation’s first law to mandate paid sick leave for some workers. They voted to extend protections for transgender people, to charge in-state college tuition rates to illegal immigrants, to extend an early-release program for prisoners and to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.

As legislators wrap up the first session in 20 years with a Democratic governor, who is working with two chambers in the Legislature under Democratic control, it is clear that either they did not receive or they decided to tear up the antitax, budget-slashing, confront-the-unions script that has characterized state legislative sessions elsewhere.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and legislative Democrats characterize the session that is scheduled to end at midnight Wednesday as one in which tough and balanced decisions were made on fiscal and job-creation issues while social issues that had lingered for many years were addressed. Republicans say the last five months of lawmaking have been a liberal joy ride and a capitulation to the state’s powerful unions.

The session provides a glimpse into the politics of a state that largely avoided the Republican tide that swept the country last year. And the way that voters respond could say a lot, not just about Connecticut’s future, but also about national politics as the fevers of the 2010 elections begin to cool.

The Senate president, Donald E. Williams Jr., a Democrat from Brooklyn, Conn., said the legislation passed on social issues was forward-looking and relatively modest, and he insisted Connecticut had made difficult but smart economic choices that would benefit the state over the long run.

“We’re not interested in burning the bridges leading to our economic future,” Mr. Williams said in an interview. “Governor Malloy and the Democratic Legislature have decided to dig in and not do what other states are doing: using a flamethrower when it comes to municipal aid, state support for education, state support for pathways that lead to opportunity.”

But Republicans, for the most part, have been sharply critical.

“Their solution is to tax the wealthy in Fairfield County, redistribute income and hope people in Greenwich and Darien don’t move to Florida,” said Christopher Healy, the state Republican Party chairman.

An editorial on Monday in The Republican-American of Waterbury, considered the state’s most conservative daily newspaper, was more blunt: “It now is fair to say the state of Connecticut has left the gravitational pull of planet Earth. Just when you thought state government’s policies couldn’t get any more absurd, they move to a new level of, well, absurdity.”

The session has run on two parallel tracks — social and economic — with the end result still unclear.

On finances, the Legislature adopted a $40.1 billion budget that relies on $1.4 billion in tax increases, about $800 million in cuts and a projected $1.6 billion in union concessions on pay and benefits over two years. The concessions are subject to ratification by state employee unions by June 24. Reaction from union members so far has been wildly mixed, and a failure to approve the givebacks would leave the budget in tatters.

Republicans, who question the accuracy of the budget numbers, say that, under one-party rule, Democrats seem oblivious to the economic forces buffeting states around the nation.

“You have Democrats who get elected by doing a masterful job of behaving like middle-of-the-road, moderate people,” Mr. Healy said, “and when they gather together in Hartford, it’s like they’re overtaken by some kind of zombielike spirit.”

The social and public policy agenda has been a grab bag of liberal issues, many of them stagnant in the pipeline for years either because of division in the Democratic ranks or because of threats of vetoes by Republican governors.

The most conspicuous Democratic victory was the passage of a bill last weekend that will make Connecticut the nation’s first state to require employers to provide paid sick days to workers. It applies only to businesses in service industries with 50 or more employees, and exempts nationally chartered nonprofit organizations, day laborers, independent contractors and temporary workers, providing the benefit to an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 workers, including waiters and nursing home aides. The bill was significantly watered down, but its passage was hailed by worker advocates as a landmark effort that would add momentum to similar measures proposed in other cities and states.

Some of the bills, like the protections for transgender people and the decriminalization of marijuana in small quantities, are forms of legislation already enacted in other states. Mr. Malloy said the marijuana measure simply put Connecticut in line with the laws in neighboring New York and Massachusetts, and would make it one of 13 states with such statutes.

“Final approval of this legislation accepts the reality that the current law does more harm than good — both in the impact it has on people’s lives and the burden it places on police, prosecutors and probation officers of the criminal justice system,” the governor said in a statement.

Still, Republicans said the cumulative impact of the session constituted the kind of social engineering that had gotten Democrats in trouble in the past.

Mr. Healy said, “What the Democrats in Hartford are doing is very similar to what the Democrats in Washington did in 2009, which was to pass a radical agenda without any Republican support.”

Some politicians suggest that Mr. Malloy, who was elected governor last fall, had decided to tackle the most controversial budgetary and policy issues early in his term, with the hope that an improved economy would take the edge off any early-term grievances. And Thomas D’Amore, an independent political consultant who was chief of staff for Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., an independent, in 1990, said that for all the partisan atmospherics, the session and Mr. Malloy’s approach stood out primarily because of the contrast with other states.

“If you get beyond the headlines and look at the details, most of what you’ll find is pretty moderate and full of compromises,” Mr. D’Amore said. “I think at the end of the day, voters understand common sense and respect the argument that it was necessary to share the pain. But if things don’t turn around, then the outcome is going to be beyond the control of this governor.”

House passes bill to balance state budget
Susan Haigh, Stamford ADVOCATE
Updated 01:28 a.m., Tuesday, June 7, 2011

HARTFORD -- The Connecticut House of Representatives passed a wide-ranging budget bill early Tuesday morning that included Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's plans to close a $400 million gap in the two-year, $40.1 billion budget lawmakers passed in May.

The plan passed 83-63 following six-and-a-half hours of debate. The Senate is expected to take up the massive, 277-page bill on Tuesday.

When lawmakers approved the budget package last month, they assumed the Democratic governor's negotiators could reach a two-year, $2 billion labor savings agreement with state employee unions. Instead, that deal was $1.6 billion, $400 million short.

Malloy's plan to make up the difference relies on using more than $319 million of the approximately $1 billion surplus built into the budget -- a move that was criticized during Monday's debate by the Republican minority and one Democrat.

"We are still in an economic recession and there's talk now of a double-dip recession," said Rep. Steven Mikutel, D-Griswold. "It seems to me it would not be a prudent decision to use our surplus to close the gap."

The bill also sets up a method for the General Assembly to approve the tentative labor savings and concessions agreement, should lawmakers choose to act on it. The approximately 45,000 unionized state employees are not expected to finish voting on the deal until June 24, after the legislature adjourns on June 8.

Lawmakers can call themselves into a special session by June 30 to approve the contract. If they don't, the agreement is deemed to be approved by the legislature.

House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, said it was responsible for lawmakers to pass the budget now, even though the unions have not yet ratified the deal. Not adopting a budget would send a signal to the state employees that the labor savings and concessions are not necessarily needed to balance the state's books.

The 277-page bill, he said, "provides the framework for ratification."

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, took issue with lawmakers essentially approving a labor deal he said doesn't add up financially, saying they were abdicating their responsibility as a Legislature. He pointed to a review of the agreement by the General Assembly's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis that was requested by the House Republicans.

Throughout much of the report, OFA said it was unclear how certain savings would be achieved because the agency has not yet received all of the detailed, backup information it needs to assess the estimates. For example, a voluntary value-based health and dental plan, which requires participating employees to get specific medical exams such as annual physicals, assumes $102.5 million in each year of the two-year budget. But OFA said there was no backup information to assess how the Malloy administration assumed 50 percent of state employees would participate, as well as other details.

The OFA said there also was no data available to determine how many people would pay a new $35 co-pay to use a hospital emergency room or whether the projected savings from using new technologies -- $90 million over two years -- or pursuing union member savings ideas -- $180 million over two years -- are realistic.

Cafero said it was important that lawmakers have an accurate assessment of the labor savings.

"It is incredibly important that we get this right because, remember, we took an oath to support this constitution and our constitution says we shall have a balanced budget by the end of this fiscal year," he said.

The massive budget bill includes 175 different sections that spell out the details of budget. Some sections make changes to the plan already approved last month, such as rolling back the planned 3 percent cabaret tax on establishments that offer live music, dancing or other entertainment while serving alcohol, and capping the tax on cigars at 50 cents apiece.

Rep. Patricia Widlitz, D-Guilford, co-chairwoman of the tax-writing committee, said the new legislation "made it a better budget."
Report questions budget cost savings
By JC Reindl Day Staff Writer
Article published Jun 7, 2011

Non-partisan analysis can't verify numbers that add up to $1.6 billion in spending plan

Hartford - Since Gov. Dannel P. Malloy announced his administration's concessions agreement last month with state union leaders, Republicans and other critics have questioned whether the cost savings in the deal - $1.6 billion over two years - were too good to be true.

On Monday, they seized on a new informal report by the nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis as validation of their concerns that some of the expected savings from the agreement may not materialize, placing the state's new biennial budget at potential risk of falling out of balance.

The fiscal analysts were "unable to determine or verify" the level of savings in the administration's agreement with 15 state employee unions representing about 45,000 workers, according to the analysis.

"Basically, they don't know where the numbers came from," House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, said during debate on a budget implementer bill containing the concessions agreement. "If these savings aren't achieved, then our budget is out of balance."

Alan Calandro, director of the fiscal analysis office, told The Day in an interview that his office hasn't formed an opinion on whether or not the full savings will happen. The informal analysis on the union deal was done at the request of Republicans.

"I couldn't say that the numbers are impossible to achieve. I couldn't say that they're likely to achieve, either," he said.

Calandro said his staff encountered two chief problems: they did not have enough time to fully analyze the union deal, and the Office of Policy and Management wasn't entirely forthcoming with the information his office asked for.

"We waited and never really got what we wanted" from OPM, Calandro said.

Benjamin Barnes, the OPM secretary, strongly disagreed with that assessment and insisted that his office gave fiscal analysis everything it requested if the information was available.

"I am not aware of any information that we have that we have not turned over," Barnes said Monday night. "Our position is we absolutely stand by the numbers we have."

Fiscal analysts raised several red flags while trying to size up the agreement. They had questions about several budget lines, including:

? $205 million in savings over two years by adopting "value-based" health and dental care programs. The programs require individuals to agree to physician-recommended tests and preventative care in the hope of reducing big medical expenses;

? $180 million in savings by implementing employee suggestions;

? $90 million is savings by reducing computer software purchases and utilizing new technologies; and

? $75 million in cost savings to be identified by a Health Care Cost Containment Committee.

Analysts also noted that $13.5 million of concessionary savings to be achieved by switching to generic medications once certain drugs came off patent didn't require a union agreement to be achieved.

The analysts' report put forth the following question for the administration regarding "value-based" programs: "Please explain why claims will not increase in (year one and year two of the agreement) as participants in the value-based plan increase their utilization of services to meet the conditions of the plan."

Barnes told The Day that Calandro's office should already have the "value-based" information.

"We provided a detailed analysis of that from our health care actuaries," he said, adding that an additional report on the union agreement is being compiled by actuaries.

Barnes acknowledged that some savings figures in the agreement are targets, such as the $180 million in employee suggestions. He said it's common practice for labor agreements to include such targets.

"To suggest that the entire SEBAC accord is like that is erroneous," Barnes said, using the acronym for the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition.

Negotiators reached the agreement May 13, although union rank-and-file have until late June to ratify the concessions package.

House deliberations on the budget implementer bill went late into Monday night.

Election cops take the biggest hit in agency consolidation
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
June 1, 2011

Just a week after the Malloy Administration effortlessly filled a $400-million gap in the biennial budget, the state's watchdog agencies were slashed Wednesday in a consolidation that saves a relatively modest $3.3 million in the next two years.  Senate Democrats gave final legislative approval Wednesday to a budget bill that cuts the staffs of the three biggest watchdogs by about one-third and ends mandatory audits of publicly-financed legislative campaigns.

The State Elections Enforcement Commission, which has clashed with legislators over campaign audits, suffered the biggest hit, losing 37 percent of its 52 authorized positions. The staffs of the Freedom of Information Commission and Office of State Ethics will shrink by 35 percent and 28 percent, respectively.

"For a minute amount of money to be saved out of the state budget, in the end I fear we have made the watchdogs far weaker and made it much harder for them to do their job," said Karen Hobert Flynn, vice president of Common Cause.

On Friday, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy recommended that lawmakers significantly reduce the surplus already built into the next two fiscal years to close a $400 million gap left by a concession-and-labor savings deal that fell short of the governor's $2 billion goal.  Some of the staff reductions in the watchdog agencies will be offset by the consolidation of some administrative functions as nine separate entities are brought under the umbrella of a new Office of Government Accountability.  Malloy proposed the changes in February as he outlined his plans to erase what then was estimated at a $3.5 billion deficit for the coming fiscal year, the biggest per-capita deficit of any state.

"There are difficult decisions. There are difficult spending cuts. There are difficult tax increases," said Roy Occhiogrosso, the governor's senior adviser. "That's what happens when you have a $3.5 billion deficit."

Occhiogrosso said the changes are meant to make government "more efficient and cost effective."

"In the perfect world, would this restructuring have occurred in this fashion?" Occhiogrosso said. "Probably not. But we don't live in a perfect world."

Senate Minority Leader John P. McKinney, R-Fairfield, said the reduction in resources and a consolidation that he says undermines the agencies' independence are ill-considered.

"When you are talking about the integrity of government, the freedom of people to get information from government, the protection of our ethical standards, the cleanliness of our elections, to me that should be solely independent to as much of a degree as possible," he said. "And that s not what the governor's recommended."

Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, the co-chairwoman of the Government Administrations and Elections Committee, joined the Republican minority in voting for amendments that would have undone some of the changes. She also voted against the bill. The final vote was 21 to 14.

"I just think that the proposal in front of us undermines the independence and the integrity of the watchdog agencies," Slossberg said.

Hobert Flynn, the Common Cause executive who worked with Democratic legislators to craft the public financing law passed during a special session in 2005, said Malloy and the legislature did abandon some of the more draconian changes of earlier versions.  Malloy's original plan would have stripped the commissions of all autonomy, including a hard-won ability to submit their budget proposals to the legislature without interference from the executive branch.  Changes apparently drafted by legislators--the authors never stepped forward--would have stripped the State Elections Enforcement Commission of its investigators and audit staff.

"We've come a long way. We've come a long way from elections enforcement being spread among three agencies," Hobert Flynn said. "But at the end of the day, we will have to keep a close eye on whether the watchdogs truly remain independent."

The bill leaves the commission with the authority to audit every statewide campaign, but its audits of legislative races will be limited to random audits. No more than half the races will be examined in any year.  It also cuts the terms of the elections commissioners from five to three years and bars them from serving consecutive terms--a move critics said would give staff too much influence over inexperienced commission members.

"CT open for business" indeed!
Marijuana decriminalization bill approved by House
JC Reindl, DAY
Article published Jun 7, 2011

Hartford -- A marijuana decriminalization bill cleared the state House of Representatives Tuesday afternoon by a 90-57 vote and is expected to become law.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has said he will sign the legislation, making Connecticut the 14th state in the country to adopt decriminalization for cannabis possession. The Senate passed the measure Saturday.

The bill reduces the penalty for possessing less than a half ounce of marijuana from a crime with a potential prison sentence to a $150 violation on the first offense. Second and subsequent offenses carry a $200-$500 fine, and third-time offenders must enroll in a drug education program at their own expense.

To further deter youths, violators under age 21 will have their driver's licenses suspended for 60 days. Those who don't yet drive would have to wait an additional 150 days to obtain their license.

Under current state law, individuals holding less than 4 ounces of marijuana could face a fine up to $1,000 for a first offense and imprisonment of up to a year. In practice, however, most first-time offenders pay a fine closer to $200 and jail time is extremely rare.

Second or subsequent offenses carry fines fine up to $3,000 and up to five years in prison. And it's a mandatory two-year prison sentence if possession happens within 1,500 feet of a school or day care center, unless the offender is a student at the school.

Malloy said he applauds the House's vote.

"Final approval of this legislation accepts the reality that the current law does more harm than good – both in the impact it has on people's lives and the burden it places on police, prosecutors and probation officers of the criminal justice system," the governor said in a statement.
Senate votes to regulate ‘fake pot’
By JC Reindl
Publication: theday.com
Published 06/07/2011 12:00 AM
Updated 06/07/2011 06:29 AM

Hartford – Connecticut could soon have stricter criminal penalties for possessing “fake pot.”

 The state Senate on Monday approved its second marijuana bill in as many days, voting 36-0 to designate five synthetic versions of marijuana and an herb called Salvia divinorum as controlled substances to be regulated by the Department of Consumer Protection.

The synthetic products mimic the effects of the traditional marijuana plant but were sold in stores and considered legal before the federal government in March classified its chemicals as Schedule I controlled substances.

 The bill now goes to the state House where it joins a bill the Senate passed Saturday that would decriminalize marijuana possession of a half ounce or less. If that bill passes, first-time possession would be a $150 fine and a second offense would be between $200 and $500 with required enrollment in a drug education program.

Eric Coleman, D-Bloomfield, acknowledged that if both bills become law, an individual would face a criminal record in Connecticut if caught with a small amount of synthetic marijuana once bought in a store, but not for a similar amount of traditional marijuana that he or she obtained in a back alley.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, also pointed out the peculiarity during floor debate late Monday night. He was among the 18 senators who voted against marijuana decriminalization on Saturday. Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman broke the 18-18 tie.

“For the life of me, I don’t know how I am going to explain to my constituents that we have one penalty for the fake pot but another for the real pot,” McKinney said.

Under current law, those possessing less than 4 ounces of marijuana can face punishment of up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine.  However, Coleman said that jail is in practice extremely rare for first-time offenders, and the typical fine is now about $200.

Sen. Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford, spoke in favor of the bill that would make synthetic marijuana a controlled substance.

She noted how officers at the Naval Submarine Base in Groton have warned of the dangerous health effects of using the synthetic drug and had banned sailors from entering certain convenience stores where the products were once legally sold under names such as Spice and K2.

Navy officials said in March that five to 10 people at the Groton base and submarine school were caught using or possessing synthetic marijuana products in the past year, and all had to leave the service.
Time running out for marijuana bills
Stamford ADVOCATE
Brian Lockhart, Staff Writer
Updated 06:43 a.m., Thursday, June 2, 2011

HARTFORD -- Proponents hope amended language and a persuasive governor will guarantee the General Assembly passes one of a pair of controversial marijuana bills before next Wednesday's adjournment.

"At least one of the two is going to pass," Michael Lawlor, Gov. Dannel Malloy's criminal justice undersecretary, said Wednesday as lawmakers worked behind the scenes to refine proposals decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana and legalizing it for medicinal purposes.

The two bills survived the Legislative Committee process and await action in the Senate, which must pass them on to the House of Representatives.

"We've been under the assumption they're not coming out of the Senate," House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, said Wednesday.

But Lawlor and Sen. Eric Coleman, D-Bloomfield, a Judiciary Committee chairman, were optimistic the proposals are off life support thanks to recent changes.  Coleman said the fine for possessing less than a half-ounce of marijuana has been increased from $99 to $200 for the first offense and $500 for the second.  Possession of under 4 ounces is now punishable by up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. Minors will also lose driving privileges for a period of time, Coleman said.

And he said the revised medical marijuana legislation scraps the section allowing home-grown plants, replacing it with a controlled distribution process with four regional growers overseen by the state Department of Consumer Protection.  State Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, said she cannot be swayed to back decriminalizing marijuana no matter the proposal.

But state Sen. Edith Prague, D-Colombia, said she will back the revised medical marijuana legislation.

"I wasn't going to vote for the bill when people had plants in their houses," she said.

Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, who supports decriminalization but has opposed medicinal marijuana, said, "If it's a system treating (marijuana) like other prescription drugs, I'd be willing to take a look." Coleman and Lawlor said that is essentially the intent of the new language.

But Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said federal law prohibits efforts to truly control dispersal of medical marijuana and treat is as a doctor-prescribed drug distributed by pharmacies.  McKinney also argues decriminalizing marijuana will increase its use among minors, who may then turn to other dangerous substances.

"There is no big fear of getting caught. It's just an infraction," McKinney said.

Prague, who is on the fence about decriminalizing, said with the clock ticking and Senate debates dragging on for hours, "I don't think we'd be able to do two bills."

Coleman said the Malloy administration Wednesday indicated if only one of the bills can realistically pass the Senate, the governor would prefer to decriminalize marijuana. Coleman also said the administration has been talking to potential swing votes.  Malloy's own family has been touched by drug use. In 2007 police accused the governor's son, Benjamin Malloy, of being a marijuana dealer and he entered into a probationary program that would have wiped his record clean. But in late 2009, Benjamin was sentenced to five years probation for trying to rob a Darien man of his marijuana with a BB gun.

The governor has declined to discuss his son's case, but in March told Hearst Connecticut Media Group current marijuana laws needlessly ruin lives as part of a losing drug war.

"Let's accept reality," he said.

During a brief interview Wednesday, Tim Bannon, Malloy's chief of staff, said, "We're still hopeful both (marijuana bills) are going to make it out."

Asked to confirm the governor was having conversations with individual senators about their support, Bannon said, "I'm sure he is. He's not hesitated to reach out to legislators on bills he thinks are important."

Senate passes first state mandate for paid sick days
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
May 25, 2011

With strong support from Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, the Senate voted 18 to 17 Wednesday to pass the nation's first state mandate on private employers to offer paid sick days. It now goes to the House, where passage is expected.  The bill, which passed with only one Republican vote, has a limited reach, applying to dozens of specific types of service workers at companies with more than 50 employees. Sponsors say it will affect 300,000 workers.

But it was celebrated by labor as an important victory for low-wage workers and bemoaned by business as an ill-timed symbol of Connecticut's hostile business climate.

"It makes our state a leader in terms of better public health and common sense and common decency," said Jon Green, director of the Working Families Party.

The Connecticut Business and Industry Association called the bill a betrayal by an administration and legislature that has promise to declare Connecticut "open for business."

"This bill is a travesty. It's an incredible disappointment," said Bonnie Stewart, a vice president of CBIA. "What this measure really does is slam the door in the face of business."

The bill, which is expected to pass the House despite strong Republican opposition, requires affected companies to give one hour of sick time for every 40 hours of work, up to a maximum of five days a year. It is effective Jan. 1.

An employer can count vacation time, personal days and any other paid time off against the requirement. Seasonal and temporary workers are not covered.  Supporters broke into applause as the tally was announced. Outside the chamber, the advocates posed for a photograph.  Sen. Edith G. Prague, D-Columbia, the lead sponsor, walked across the Senate chamber and shook hands with the sole Republican to vote yes, John A. Kissel of Enfield.

"I am so proud we passed this legislation," Prague said, as supporters lined up to congratulate her.

Prague said the comptroller's office estimated the bill could mean new benefits for 300,000 workers, most them women and many of them with young children. The bill allows a parent to take a sick day to care for a sick child.

"I applaud the 18 senators who voted for this bill. This piece of legislation is a reasonable compromise that represents good public policy. It exempts industries where appropriate, it ensures that the benefit won't be abused, and most importantly, it protects public health," Malloy said.

To win the votes for its narrow passage, proponents exempted manufacturers, municipalities and, at the insistence of one senator, YMCAs.  Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, worried about the impact on the Soundview YMCA in his district, so bill exempted any nationally charted, tax-exempt organization that provides recreation, child care and education.  The exemptions led Republican opponents to claim the bill was crafted with an eye toward political expediency, not public policy.

Senate Minority Leader John P. McKinney, R-Fairfield, noted that benefit is required of a large restaurant, but not the school cafeteria where his children eat daily.

"It's OK if our kids are served food from someone who is sick, but it's not OK if someone goes into a restaurant?" McKinney said.

Child care workers at the YWCA in his district are not covered, but they could be at other day care centers.

"I guess some children are more important than others," McKinney said.

But Prague said the bill extends the most basic of benefits to low-wage service workers such as school bus drivers, health aides and food servers.

"This is a public health issue," Prague said. "If they go to work sick, they infect people around them."

Last week, it appeared the bill would pass on an 18 to 18 vote, with Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman breaking the tie in favor of passage.  Then one of two Republican senators who favored the bill, Leonard Fasano of North Haven, left the Capitol after the unexpected death of his law partner's wife.  But Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook, who had voted against a similar bill, told leaders Tuesday she could vote for the revised version with the exemptions of manufacturers and seasonal employees.

"Up and down the river and the Sound, there is a lot of seasonal stuff," Daily said.

Daily said no other political considerations went into her change of vote.  With the new Democratic governor making the bill a priority, the Republicans tried to pressure Kissel, the only GOP senator to vote yes, to reconsider.  Kissel refused, saying he had made a comittment. But he did publicly address one concern of opponents: That the sponsors will be back next year with a broader version.

"I will be very hesitant to revisit it," Kissel said.

The bill passed over the opposition of every other Republican present and five Democrats: Bob Duff of Norwalk, Paul Doyle of Wethersfield, Gayle Slossberg of Milford, Andrew Maynard of Stonington and Joan Hartley of Waterbury.  Opponents dominated the six-hour debate, portraying the legislation as an unnecessary intrusion into business.

"I think a lot of the attitude in this chamber is that business peiople are bad guys," said Sen. Rob Kane, R-Watertown, a small business owner. "The backbone of the economy in Connecticut are people like me."

McKinney said one provision of the bill give the Department of Labor greater authority to regulate disputes over time off that reach beyond paid sick days. The measure seemed aimed at AT&T, which has had a long dispute with a union, the Communication Workers of America, he said  The Republican leader also said the timing was awful, coming as the state still is struggling to grow jobs.

But Senate President Pro Tempore Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, called the bill a modest measure.

"It is talking about a handful of sick days," Williams said.

He said the arguments by opponents that the measure is an ill-timed intrusion by government into the world of business were used against the passage of the nation's child labor laws, the 40-hour work week and the eight-hour work day.

As for bad timing, Williams said child labor protections were passed in the depths of the Great Depression.

House adopts budget measure designed to shrink inmate population
CT MIRROR
By Keith M. Phaneuf
May 24, 2011

The state House of Representatives adopted the first in a series of measures Tuesday designed to implement the new $40.11 billion biennial budget, ordering new policies to drive down prison populations, ordering several agency mergers and passing several costs onto cities and towns.

The Democrat-controlled House voted 93-52 to approve the measure following a more than three-hour debate. It now heads to the Senate.

With Connecticut's prison population already down about 1,100 inmates since last September and at its lowest total--17,486--since May 2000, the state is poised to shrink that number by nearly 3,000 more over the next two years.

"This is a way to get better results for less money," former state Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, who heads the Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division said in reference to a provision that would allow the Correction Department commissioner to transfer some inmates serving time for drunken driving, driving with a suspended license, or certain drug possession crimes, to home confinement.

The program, which is focused heavily on rehabilitation, would require participants to take part in treatment services, Lawlor said. It also would use advanced technologies such as global positioning and personal alcohol monitoring systems, as well as video monitoring, to ensure convicts follow all terms of their home confinement.

Lawlor estimated that about 300 current inmates, would be eligible for consideration. It costs about $28,000 annually to incarcerate the male offenders, and slightly more for women, he said. According to nonpartisan legislative fiscal analysts, this could save $1.8 million next fiscal year.

But minority Republicans in the House argued that the program would run afoul of the state Constitution while giving Connecticut a national black eye as a state that is soft on drunken driving.

Rep. John Shaban, R-Redding, said the broad discretion and "loosey-goosey" standards given the correction commissioner to place inmates in home confinement on a case-by-case basis contradicts the legislature's authority to define appropriate sentencing. "To blanket release somebody steps over the line," he said, adding that "jamming this into a budget implementer bill causes more problems that it was designed to repair."

Individuals who could be serving more than a year in prison, a typical sentence for a third conviction for drunken driving, could be released from jail in as little as 30 days, said Rep. David K. Labriola, R-Oxford. "I think this sends an awful signal, not only to the people of Connecticut, but throughout the whole country," he added. "If you already have a DUI conviction, come to Connecticut."

A second controversial correction-related provision would reinstate in limited form a "risk reduction" credit system that reduces inmates sentences for good behavior. But unlike the program Connecticut abandoned in 1994, it would not reduce sentences by up to 40 percent, said Rep. Gerald Fox, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Instead it would reduce sentences by no more than five days per month.

Those credits would hinge on inmates not only avoiding bad behavior, but participating in adult education, mental health or substance abuse counseling or any other programs designed to help them function in society after release.

"This is what the vast majority of other states already do," Lawlor said, noting that Connecticut would join 42 other states by offering risk reduction credits.

Legislative analysts Connecticut could save $41.8 million combined over the next two fiscal years while reducing the prison population by just under 2,650 inmates. The administration is closing the J.B. Gates Connecticut Correctional Institution in East Lyme on Friday and hopes to close another facility a year from now, Lawlor said.

Another controversial provision in the bill would eliminate cost-sharing of overtime expenses tied to the resident state trooper program. More than 50 smaller communities rely on state troopers to lead their local police forces; the state curently pays 30 percent of all costs and the towns 70 percent.

The new bill would shift all costs associated with overtime to the towns, at a combined cost of $840,000.

"I would submit that $840,000 is an impact and to smaller communities it is a significant one," said Rep. Craig Miner, R-Litchfield.

But Rep. Stephen Dargan, D-West Haven, co-chairman of the Public Safety Committee, noted that the new budget closes a $3 billion-plus projected budget deficit while reducing none of the major statutory grants to cities and towns, a package that totals $2.8 billion. "I think the 169 cities and towns made out pretty well overall," he said.

"There's no question that overall the budget was a big plus for towns and cities and the resident trooper program remains a bargain," James Finley, executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities said afterward. "The challenge for towns now will be to try to control the overtime costs."

The bill also reduced the share of municipal school construction costs funded with state dollars. Currently, the share ranges between 20 and 80 percent, per project, depending on a community's wealth. The new range would be 10 to 70 percent.

The biennial budget adopted in early May was expected to enact most of the agency consolidations and mergers Gov. Dannel P. Malloy unveiled in February, when he sought to boil 81 departments and offices down to 57. But the administration and top lawmakers still are negotiating several other policy bills needed to implement the new budget, and though sources said Tuesday that the final total likely would be close to the governor's February proposal, the exact number remained undetermined.

Still, the measure approved Tuesday in the House included several mergers and related changes in departmental jurisdiction, including:

    Dissolving the Department of Public Works. The bill would create a new Department of Construction Services to oversee construction and management of state-owned buildings, while shifting responsibility for acquiring, selling and leasing property to the Department of Administrative Services.
    Dissolving the Department of Information Technology, the state's chief technology agency, and merging its functions with Administrative Services.
    Merging the Public Safety and Emergency Management & Homeland Security departments into a new Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.
    Dissolving the Division of Special Revenue and transferring authority for overseeing state gaming operations to the Department of Consumer Protection.
    Dissolving the Commission on Child Protection, which ensures children and indigent parents receive needed legal services, and transferring those responsibilities to Public Defender Services Commission.
    Transferring primary responsibility for staffing the state's six highway weigh stations from the Motor Vehicles and Public Safety departments to Motor Vehicles.

Unintended consequences: A tax on insurers hits filmmakers
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
May 23, 2011

A modest tax increase on insurers seemed to be the least of the Malloy Administration's fiscal challenges in February. But it triggered a string of unintended consequences that threaten the complicated underpinnings of Connecticut's emerging film industry: the market value of tax credits.

The unresolved dispute over a seemingly minor tax change is a story of how a new administration found itself in a thicket of competing interests: a financial services company in Louisiana, insurance giants in Hartford, and Twentieth Century Fox's digital animation subsidiary, Blue Sky Studios of Greenwich.

"This is a very heavily lobbied issue," said Benjamin Barnes, secretary of the Office of Policy and Management. Weeks after the legislature adopted a budget, the matter remains a subject of behind-the-scenes negotiation.

Buried in the record $1.5 billion in tax increases proposed on Feb. 16 by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy was a bump in the tax on insurance premiums, from 1.75 percent to 1.95 percent. The administration viewed the increase as the insurers' contribution to what Malloy called the "shared sacrifice" to stabilize the state's finances.  Major Connecticut-based insurers--Aetna, CIGNA, The Hartford, Travelers and United Health Care--say they didn't object to the amount of additional taxes--anywhere from $645,660 to $1.2 million each, with a collective jump of $4.7 million. That was a relief to an administration with great hopes for growing jobs in one of Connecticut's best-known industries.

But they did have a problem with the specific tax Malloy chose to raise that additional revenue.  And that brings us to the first unintended consequence in this tale.  The insurers warned that raising the premium tax would trigger a retaliatory tax by other states, costing them tenfold: For Connecticut to collect $4.7 million, the five would pay $49 million to other states.

Forty-nine states, including Connecticut, have retaliatory, or reciprocal, tax laws. The premise is simple: Keep a level playing field, so an Iowa company selling insurance to Connecticut residents isn't taxed more on premiums than a Connecticut company selling in Iowa.

"If Connecticut increases its premium tax rate, Connecticut insurers doing business across the country will suffer increased retaliatory tax liabilities in numerous states," Robert A. Kehmna of the Insurance Association of Connecticut warned the legislature's Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee.  "The degree of impact will vary from insurer to insurer, based on the specifics of their business."

As a result, according to the IAC, the big winners of the Malloy premium tax actually would be Texas and Florida, collecting $10 million and $8 million respectively from Connecticut insurers, who sell 90 percent of their policies outside the state.

That is one big unintended consequence, and it got Barnes's .  The view from his desk is reminder enough of the importance of insurance to the administration's hopes for job growth. Sitting at his computer, Barnes stares every day at thousands of insurance jobs in Aetna's vast brick, neo-Colonial headquarters.  Happily, the insurers offered a compromise, an alternative way to tax them. They offered to to reduce from 70 percent to 30 percent the amount of their premium tax liability they could reduce by using tax credits.

The state would get needed revenue. The insurers would avoid a retaliatory tax. A win-win, right?

Not exactly.  It resolved the insurers' problem, but created one for two other industries: brokers of tax credits, and the film production business, including Blue Sky and other companies, such as ESPN, NBC Universal and World Wrestling Entertainment.

And that brings us to a second unintended consequence.  The tax credits promised to Blue Sky are worth far more than the company's own tax liability. But they are transferable, so the real value is what they can fetch on the open market from other companies looking to decrease their taxes.  Companies like insurers.  Barnes said an insurer looking to offset its premiums tax liability can buy film tax credits for, say, 85 cents on the dollar.

"It gives them this ability to go out and buy 85-cent dollar bills.," Barnes said. "If you could do that a few million times a year, you'd be happy to do it."

The recipients of film tax credits--technically, Blue Sky is the recipient of a separate credit for animation--love selling to insurers. It is a stable industry, whose book of business does not fluctuate with the economy. And it is full of executives who understand the investment business.

"The insurance premiums tax is the darling of the film-tax credit folks," Barnes said.

So, in April, when Malloy and legislative leaders announced a revised budget deal, the recipients of film-tax credits were distressed to see the insurers now would be able to use credits toward only 30 percent of their tax liability.  With the cap dropping from 70 percent to 30 percent, the market for film credits was devalued.  No one will say publicly, but Barnes said that the film lobby immediately suggested they had been betrayed by the insurance lobby.

But the Hartford insurers are not in the film credit market. They had reached their 70 percent cap using a credit for their electronic data processing equipment, a provision inserted into the state tax code in the 1990s by House Speaker Thomas D. Ritter of Hartford as a way to keep insurers from bolting the city over personal property taxes.

The market for the credits lay with out-of-state insurers who do business in Connecticut.

The impact on Blue Sky seemed potentially dire. The company is owed $1.5 million annually in credits for 10 years, and proceeds from the sale of those credits were built into the  business plan for moving to Greenwich and building a new studio.

What's worse, Blue Sky has a long-term contract with a syndicator, Stonehenge Capital of Louisiana, which is committed to buying and reselling the credits. But the long-term contract can be abrogated if the cap on the redemption value of those credits drops below 50 percent. And Malloy dropped it to 30 percent.

Days after Malloy and legislative leaders released revisions to his proposed budget and tax package, two lobbyists, Patrick McCabe and P.J. Cimini, escorted a Blue Sky executive into Malloy's office to personally explain.

Cimini said that neither he nor his client had any comment on the issue.

But Mark Brennan, a lobbyist who represents Stonehenge and ESPN, said the administration was trying to find a way to avoid devaluing the credits. The Department of Economic and Community Development has joined the talks.

"I am reasonably confident we are going to end up in a good place,"  Brennan said.

Brennan, a lobbyist for 17 years, said the cascade of unintended consequences seen in this case is not surprising, especially since it grew from a new administration trying to close a deficit of more than $3.2 billion.

"The fact there have been only a couple of hiccups is not remarkable," he said.

Malloy already had his doubts about the reach of the state's six-year-old film credit program

Blue Sky Studios relocated to Greenwich two years ago as the state's film tax credit program was coming under fire. Critics said it was so generous that only 11 percent of the $113.2 million spent on tax credits went for "actual Connecticut expenditures."

Malloy has proposed curtailing the tax credit program, but he was happy to join Blue Sky executives and former Sen. Christopher Dodd, the new chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, in celebrating Blue Sky and its new release, Rio.

"This is the poster child for what we want done in Connecticut," Malloy said, noting that the credits prompted a company to locate and build in the state.

But Barnes said the price to attract Blue Sky was high: At $1.5 million a year for 10 years, the 400 jobs at the studio cost the state $37,500 each. Barnes acknowledge the per-job cost will drop as more jobs are added, but it remains an expensive economic development tool.

Barnes said the administration is working to protect the value of Blue Sky's credits, without further unintended consequences.

"It's an interesting puzzle," he said.

High Court: Tax on utility bills may remain
Jacqueline Rabe, CT MIRROR
Argued March 23—officially released May 24, 2011

The State Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the utility tax added to resident's utility bills to help close the state's deficit last year. If the court had ruled in favor of the lawsuit brought by state Sen. Joe Markley, the state would have had a new $432.5 million budget hole to close.

Markley said he was disappointed in the decision, but is glad he "put the state on notice" that someone is questioning the legality of budget-balancing plan in which the state borrowed money to be repaid by the tax. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts ruling that the lawsuit against the Department of Public Utility Control is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Link to breaking reports
Special session called for Thursday
CT Political Mirror
Mark Pazniokas
23 June 2011

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy called a special session for Thursday at 10 a.m. to deal with the budget revisions.

His statement:

"It was always my hope that the SEBAC Agreement would be ratified and we could move forward with the process of getting our state's fiscal house in order and creating new jobs," said Governor Malloy. "But that looks increasingly unlikely. Calling both chambers into session next week is necessary to close the budget deficit that we will be facing. I am loathe to make the decisions facing us at this juncture - including layoffs, programmatic and municipal aid cuts - but I am left with no choice. Working with the legislature, we will have a balanced budget and one that, while making painful cuts and difficult decisions, will be balanced honestly without tricks or gimmicks."

Senate President Pro Tempore Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, told senators in an email that they will likely will be asked to approve significant layoffs and to give the governor temporary authority to cut the budget.

"We all wish this were unnecessary. The failure to ratify by state employees does more harm to them and the cause of labor than anything their enemies could possibly achieve. It's unbelievable that they don't understand that," Williams said. "Thank you for your willingness to step up once more in these difficult times."

Malloy: Layoffs will be 'large scale' and quick
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
June 23, 2011

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said today he will outline spending reductions and mass layoffs next week in response to the apparent collapse of his $1.6 billion concessions deal with state employees.

"We're talking about large-scale position reductions pretty quickly," Malloy said after speaking at an economic development event at the University of Hartford.

With notice requirements, most of the affected employees will lose their jobs by Sept. 1, he said.

Speaking publicly for the first time since it became clear Wednesday that the concession deal was faltering, Malloy was restrained and even rueful in his response.

Voting on the deal continues through Friday, but he offered little optimism that the concessions can be saved.

"I think we probably know what the results are, which means that we'll proceed with what we have to do," Malloy said.

A special session of the legislature is expected next week to approve a revised budget that Malloy says will be ready Monday. It is likely to call for 7,500 layoffs, a number large enough to bump the unemployment rate from 9.1 percent to 9.4 percent.

He waved off a question about whether he was disappointed that Connecticut soon would join the ranks of states slashing its public-sector workforce.

"I don't have time to be disappointed," Malloy said. "We move forward. I've been clear that one way or another we were going to have a balanced budget."

The $40 billion biennial budget passed last month by the General Assembly relied on Malloy obtaining concessions and labor savings worth $700 million in the fiscal year that begins July 1 and $900 million the following year.  A majority of state employees already have approved the deal, but under the complex rules of SEBAC, the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, ratification appears certain to fail.

Ratification requires two things: approval by 14 of the 15 unions in the coalition; and the unions in favor must represent 80 percent of unionized state employees.  The likely rejection by AFSCME Council 4 will block SEBAC from reaching the 80-percent threshold, since the union represents about one-third of all state employees.

Malloy said he will try to minimize the impact of the budget revisions on the cities and towns in the first year of the biennium, since they already have set their budgets. They should expect cuts, however, in the second year.  He has ruled out additional tax increases.  The governor said he expected the legislature to be receptive to his plan.

"I think there's an understanding that the world is changing, that despite many people's best efforts, we have to go down a different road," Malloy said. "I believe that ultimately we'll have the authority to do that what's necessary."
Malloy again warns of town aid cuts if labor deal falls through
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
June 16, 2011

CROMWELL--After being praised Thursday for expanding municipal aid in the new state budget, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy warned local officials that he might take some of that back should labor unions reject a tentative concession package.

Addressing the annual meeting of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, the governor told more than 100 mayors, first selectmen and town managers gathered at the Crowne Plaza that he is optimistic that the deal, which his administration believes would save $1.6 billion over two years, will be accepted.

"I know there's a lot of angst... about what the unions are going to do," Malloy, a former mayor of Stamford and former CCM president, told the crowd, adding that his goal since he inherited a nearly $3.7 billion projected deficit for 2011-12 was to solve the problem without further burdening municipalities.

"I will keep municipalities in mind when we restack the budget," if the concession plan fails, the governor said. "But I can't make you any guarantee at the moment."

The state's 34 bargaining units and their 15 parent unions aren't expected to finish voting on the tentative deal before June 24, according to spokesmen for the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition. But Malloy cited Wednesday's report in The Connecticut Mirror that the first five bargaining units to finish balloting all endorsed the deal, calling it a positive sign.

Without the agreement the governor and the General Assembly face sizeable holes in the coming biennium.

The $20.14 billion budget approved for next fiscal year was designed to run $89 million in surplus. But without the $700 million in labor savings built into that package, it would face a $611 million shortfall.

The $20.4 billion budget set for 2012-13 was designed to run $555 million in the black, but instead would be $346 million in deficit without the $901 million in concession savings built into the plan.

Malloy has insisted that major state employee layoffs would be part of any alternative budget-balancing plan and told municipal officials as many as 7,500 could be ordered across two fiscal years.  But the governor also has said other cuts might be needed to balance the budgets and he has ruled out any tax hikes beyond the $1.5 billion in new state taxes already approved for the coming fiscal year.  Municipal aid not only is a significant part of annual spending, $2.9 billion or 14 percent of the total budget, but it is one of the few areas not yet reduced to help balance the budget,

"I did not attempt to balance the budget on your backs," Malloy told municipal leaders, adding that he also helped carve out two new revenue streams for cities and towns - granting them a $56 million share of state sales tax revenues and $37 million from the state real estate conveyance tax. "It may not be a gigantic step, but it is a first step" in reducing communities' reliance on the local property tax.

Simsbury First Selectwoman Mary Glassman, who challenged Malloy for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination last summer and who was elected the new CCM president on Thursday, said no one was surprised that the governor wouldn't rule out cuts to town aid.

"We're realistic. We've been here before," she said. In 2003 the General Assembly and then-Gov. John G. Rowland canceled $40 million in previously approved municipal aid to help close a mid-year deficit.

Both Glassman and CCM Executive Director James Finley said Malloy deserves praise for shielding town aid from cuts to date and for diversifying municipal revenue streams.  But they also said that if grants are reduced, all of the options facing cities and towns - layoffs, program cuts and supplemental tax bills - are ugly.

"We know compared to any other state in the nation that Connecticut cities and towns got a lot of good things in this budget," Finley said. "But if aid is cut, we're headed into uncharted territory."

Glassman, who is in her 12th year as Simsbury's chief executive, said most communities exhausted their available surpluses during the last recession. "There's no room to find the money there" to replace cuts in state aid, she said.

Glassman added that municipalities also will face a hit if massive numbers of state workers are laid off, predicting increases in foreclosures, demand for municipal social services, and delinquent property tax payments. "The ripple effects will be huge," she said.
Session over, now.  Democrats wait on two big bets
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
June 14, 2011

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the Democratic legislature made two bold wagers in adopting the governor's first biennial budget: that 45,000 unionized state employees will ratify a concession-and-labor savings deal, and that the $1.6 billion in purported savings are real.

With a ratification vote under way, they will know soon if they won the first bet.  Because the legislature pre-ratified the deal last week without benefit of a nonpartisan fiscal analysis of the savings in purported savings, it will be months before anyone knows if the second will pay off.

Democratic legislative leaders insisted the unorthodox pre-ratification move was meant to signal labor there is no alternative to the deal, but critics said they ducked having to vote on the controversial deal later this summer under a brighter public spotlight -- and possibly in the face of a fiscal note that refutes some of the savings.

"I think some of your more liberal Democrats, who are more endeared to the unions, may not have wanted to vote on it after the session," said Rep. Steven Mikutel of Griswold, a Democrat who opposed the $40.54 billion biennial budget that relies on $1.6 billion in wage, benefit and other givebacks to remain in balance. "I think the legislature is uneasy about voting on contracts in general, and this one in particular."

"Their members did not want one [special] session and one vote on this issue," Senate Minority Leader John P. McKinney, R-Fairfield, said of the Democratic majority.

Two years ago, when then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell negotiated a concession package, the legislature waited first for labor unions to ratify the deal before voting to do so as well.

But rather than wait again, Democratic leaders included a provision inside a 277-page budget policy bill stipulating that if the unions approve the deal later this month, and if the legislature doesn't call itself into special session within five days of that action, then "the agreement is deemed approved by the General Assembly."

Further complicating matters, the budget policy bill sent to Malloy's desk just two days before the regular session's June 8 adjournment was adopted despite a warning from the legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis that it could vouch for less than 40 percent of the $1.6 billion in labor savings because of unanswered questions or insufficient data from the administration.

House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero, R-Norwalk, has been particularly critical of nearly $350 million in unspecified savings to be found by employee-management panels studying health care, technology and general government spending, and of a wellness health program that hopes to save $205 million over two years through illness prevention.

When asked why they would pre-ratify the deal without the second fiscal opinion normally provided by OFA, Democratic leaders were uniform in their two-fold response: they trust the governor's math, and they wanted to reinforce with labor how badly state government needs the deal.

"I think that the governor and [his budget office] are confident that their projections are accurate," Senate Majority Leader Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, said, calling the concession deal "the linchpin the entire budget was built around. We are, in effect, assuming those concessions will be granted."

"I think it was important for us to send a message to labor," House Majority Leader J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, said. "If we left a lot of loose ends hanging it would have created the impression it wasn't all that important."

McKinney said he isn't buying it. "I think their members would have been embarrassed" had they waited for a nonpartisan analysis of the deal, and Democratic leaders realized this.

Mikutel also said he believes some of his fellow Democrats wanted the matter resolved before nonpartisan analysts could comment on some of the less-precise savings estimates from the Malloy administration. "All I know is there is some room for doubt and it is making some people uneasy."

Sen. Edith G. Prague, D-Columbia, co-chairwoman of the Labor and Public Employees Committee, voted for the pre-ratification measure, but said that while she hopes unions will ratify the deal, she is wary about the lack of information provided to legislative analysts.

"I am hoping that the unions will accept this agreement," Prague said, noting that Malloy has said the alternative is layoffs well in excess of the 4,700 pink slips he issued - and then later canceled - prior to the tentative deal being announced last month. "It's very scary to think of Plan B and the consequences of laying off that many people. But I still have to ask how could we have voted on something this critical when we didn't have the numbers?"

The State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition hasn't weighed in on the pre-ratification vote, saying only that its leaders are focused on answering members' questions and preparing bargaining units for votes on the deal, which are expected to run through June 24.

And while Democratic leaders have noted that the bill still gives them the option of calling the legislature back into special session to vote on a labor deal, if ratified by the unions, Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, conceded when pressed during a floor debate last week that this scenario was unlikely.

"Why would we want to come back and waste the taxpayers' money?" he said.

House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, said last week that he's optimistic the agreement will pass, adding that the alternative has to be avoided.

"We need that to balance the budget," he said. "I think the state employees understand that and they will do the right thing."

Malloy advisors expect unions to pass agreement after June 8th
By Kenton Robinson
Publication: theday.com
Published 05/20/2011 12:00 AM
Updated 05/20/2011 01:31 PM

East Hartford - Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's economic advisors revealed Friday that they don't expect the state employee unions to ratify their concession agreement until sometime after June 8, when the legislative session ends.  

What that means is the General Assembly will be passing a budget based on the assumption that the unions will sign on to the agreement.  

Either way, that's likely to mean the legislature will have to meet in special session this summer to finish the job of balancing the budget.  

Roy Occhiogrosso, the governor's senior advisor, Ben Barnes, his finance chief, and Mark Ojakian, deputy secretary of the state Office of Policy and Management, met with the press for two hours Friday to defend the projected savings in the concession agreement.  

But the pivotal words in that defense were always "assume" and "assumption," as in "Our package will assume ratification" by the state employees' bargaining units, as Barnes put it.  

The men recognized that not every one of the state employees' unions would necessarily sign on.  

As to specific savings projected, they were based on various actuarial assumptions, such as how many state employees were likely to get sick or take early retirement.  

Responding to Republican charges that the projected savings were "mythical," Occhiogrosso said he believed the Republicans were "frustrated," as Malloy is accomplishing something previous Republican administrations have been unable to do: real long-term restructuring of state government.


Governor Malloy Statement On Agreement With State Employee Union Leaders
Hartford Courant
3:02 PM EDT, May 13, 2011

Governor Dannel P. Malloy made the following remarks at a news conference this afternoon announcing an agreement between his administration and state employee union leaders.

“I am pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement with our fellow state employee leaders that will, over the next 20 years, save Connecticut taxpayers a total of 21 and a half billion dollars.

“This is the most significant agreement with state employees in Connecticut history, not just because it solves a short-term problem – but because it produces the kind of long-term, structural reform WE – Connecticut’s residents, elected leaders and our state’s workforce – so desperately need if we are to again grow, produce new jobs, and prosper together.

“Our agreement is also historic because of the way we achieved it. We respected the collective bargaining process and we respected each other, negotiating in good faith, without fireworks and without anger. To my friends in SEBAC, thank you. You have stepped up to the plate and said you want to be part of the solution. Under this agreement, we will all share in the sacrifices necessary to stabilize the state’s finances.

“In the short-term, over the next two years, this agreement will save taxpayers 1.6 billion dollars. The remaining 400 million dollars we need to balance this budget will come from a mix of additional spending cuts and existing budgeted revenues.

“Taxes will not rise beyond what is already in this budget.

“This is the definition of structural savings: these savings are real, and they will provide relief to Connecticut taxpayers now and into the future for years to come. This agreement should serve as the foundation for affordable public services for a generation, and does not leave the bill for those services to the generations that follow.

“These savings were achieved in the areas of healthcare and pension benefits, and wages.  Our fellow state employee leaders have asked us to refrain from discussing the specific details within each of those categories until they’ve had a chance to communicate them to their members.  We’re happy to comply with that request.

“One more point: there are no furlough days in this agreement, nor is there a reduction in the 40-hour work week.  This means we’ve achieved these savings without reducing government’s ability to serve its constituents, and without reducing employees’ productivity.

“I want to thank the Democratic leaders for the strength and leadership they have demonstrated. We would not be standing here today without them.

“I want to thank Mark Ojakian and Linda Yelmini. They negotiated on behalf of my Administration, and that we are standing here today is in part a testament to their thoughtfulness, patience, and determination.

“I also want to thank the person who has been my true partner in this Administration since Day 1: Nancy Wyman, the best Lt. Governor a Governor could ever ask for.  As many of you know, Nancy has a long-standing relationship with our state employee unions and their members, and her guidance and wisdom throughout this process has been invaluable.  Thank you, Nancy.

“I want to be very clear that, as I said the day I signed the budget that was passed by the Legislature, this is not a day to celebrate. Yes, it’s a significant accomplishment, and yes, it will save taxpayers an enormous amount of money over time – but anytime you ask sacrifices of people you need to be mindful of the impact on their lives. And I am.

“In return for all the sacrifices they have made, state employees have received job security. But let me be very clear about this: the work of revitalizing state government has just begun, and it will continue. Over the next few years, I intend to reduce the number of state employees, but rather than doing that by layoffs, we will do it by attrition, and by eliminating managerial positions. And we will make the state workforce more efficient by making smart investments in technology. We will give our state employees the tools they need to succeed.

“Now this agreement must be ratified by the individual employee bargaining units. As a show of good faith, I’ve directed OPM to immediately suspend the issuance of layoff notices, and to rescind the ones that have been issued so far. I urge my fellow state employees to approve this agreement in a timely fashion. Once ratified by the rank-and-file workers, we stand ready to work with the leadership of the General Assembly to secure final approval.  When that happens, come July 1, the state will have in place a budget that is balanced with no gimmicks, and one that provides something the state hasn’t had in many years: fiscal stability.

“Most of all, it will contain the type of structural reform Connecticut so desperately needs.

“Finally...so much for Friday the 13th being an unlucky day!

“Thank you.”
May 10, 2011

GOV. MALLOY ON STATUS OF UNION NEGOTIATIONS, "PLAN B" BUDGET 

(HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Dannel P. Malloy released the following statement regarding the status of negotiations between his administration and the state employee unions, as well as the "Plan B" budget. 

"After more than two months of talks, I'm afraid that my administration and the state employee unions have not reached agreement.  Our talks have been respectful and forthright so far, and I remain willing to continue the discussions if the unions are willing to do so.  However, we must all be willing to work toward a settlement that Connecticut taxpayers can afford in the long run. 

"We need to cut an additional $1 billion in spending in order to balance the budget in each year of the biennium, because I refuse to raise taxes beyond what has already been agreed to.  We held off on any layoff notifications while we tried to complete a deal over the weekend and on Monday night.  Unfortunately, absent an agreement and in order to comply with contractual notice requirements and the provisions of the budget agreement signed last week, we need to begin those notifications today. 

"Therefore, I have directed OPM to begin issuing layoff notices in an orderly fashion to the first 4,742 state employees.  Those layoffs will result in savings of approximately $455 million.  I've also directed OPM to begin the process necessary to cut an additional $545 million in spending; those cuts, many of them programmatic, will be spread across state government, and will, in all likelihood, result in additional layoffs. 

"I want to be clear that this is not the road I wanted to go down.  I didn't want to lay people off, and I didn't want to make additional spending cuts beyond the $780 million in spending we've already cut.  

"But I have no choice.  I promised the people of Connecticut that I would change the way we do business in Hartford.  I promised to deliver a budget that is balanced with no gimmicks, and I will.  

"My preference is to do that by asking everyone to share in the sacrifice, including my fellow state employees. 

"The savings we are seeking to achieve with our state workforce are predicated on two principles: we need to achieve the short-term savings necessary to balance this budget, and we need long-term, structural savings in order to make state government sustainable.  To do so, I am attempting to bring the benefits enjoyed by state employees -- wages, healthcare, and pension benefits -- more in line with those enjoyed by their counterparts in the private sector and in the federal workforce. 

"The state employee representatives have thus far not offered enough. 

"I want to say to the people of Connecticut, again, that this is not the road I want to go down.  But I simply refuse to dig us into a deeper hole. 

"Come July 1, we will have a balanced budget in place - one that is balanced honestly, with no gimmicks, and one that begins the process necessary to build a smaller, leaner, more affordable state government."
Negotiators for Malloy, unions fail to reach agreement overnight
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
May 10, 2011

Negotiators for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and state employees talked into the early hours this morning without reaching a deal to lower the state's labor and retirement costs, leading the administration to say it will begin to issue layoff notices today. Both sides say they are willing to resume talks.

"After more than two months of talks, I'm afraid that my administration and the state employee unions have not reached agreement," Malloy said in a statement issued at 8 a.m. "Our talks have been respectful and forthright so far, and I remain willing to continue the discussions if the unions are willing to do so. However, we must all be willing to work toward a settlement that Connecticut taxpayers can afford in the long run."

The State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition posted a statement on its website this morning saying they also will attempt one final day of negotiations: "The discussions have been extraordinarily complex and demand our continued efforts to find mutual resolution."

"SEBAC is disappointed the administration has decided to begin issuing layoff notices. We have said time and again that laying off workers, whether in the public or private sector, and slashing vital public services will prove disastrous to our shared goal of creating jobs and rebuilding the middle class - especially at a time when our 9.1% unemployment rate is already higher than the national average," the union said.

Malloy, whose full statement is available on his web site, said he has no choice but to begin the layoff notices if he is to have the flexibility to reduce the workforce soon after the new fiscal year begins July 1. Without the labor concessions and savings, the budget approved last week by the legislature has a $1 billion shortfall.

"We need to cut an additional $1 billion in spending in order to balance the budget in each year of the biennium, because I refuse to raise taxes beyond what has already been agreed to. We held off on any layoff notifications while we tried to complete a deal over the weekend and on Monday night. Unfortunately, absent an agreement and in order to comply with contractual notice requirements and the provisions of the budget agreement signed last week, we need to begin those notifications today," Malloy said.

Malloy said notices will go out to 4,742 employees, the number he shared with legislative leaders last week. The administration says the layoffs will save $455 million, with another $545 million coming in other spending cuts.

"I want to be clear that this is not the road I wanted to go down. I didn't want to lay people off, and I didn't want to make additional spending cuts beyond the $780 million in spending we've already cut," Malloy said. "But I have no choice. I promised the people of Connecticut that I would change the way we do business in Hartford. I promised to deliver a budget that is balanced with no gimmicks, and I will."

Neither Malloy nor labor has specified the sticking points in their talks, but sources say retirement age remained an issue. Malloy in his statement said he is seeking immediate and long-term savings.

"The savings we are seeking to achieve with our state workforce are predicated on two principles: We need to achieve the short-term savings necessary to balance this budget, and we need long-term, structural savings in order to make state government sustainable," Malloy said. "To do so, I am attempting to bring the benefits enjoyed by state employees -- wages, healthcare, and pension benefits -- more in line with those enjoyed by their counterparts in the private sector and in the federal workforce.

"The state employee representatives have thus far not offered enough."

On Monday, allies of labor at the Capitol said their sense was that talks were going well.  Union negotiators returned to the Office of Policy and Management at 10 p.m. Monday after hours of consultation with representatives of the 15 unions in State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition about the administration's latest offer. Mark Ojakian, the deputy secretary of OPM, is Malloy's lead negotiator.

"It's going to be a long night," Matt O'Connor, a spokesman for the coalition of state employee unions, had said Monday night.

Both sides have imposed a news blackout on the talks, but O'Connor said the negotiations resumed after a lengthy briefing by the unions' lead negotiator, Dan Livingston. The union leaders intended to remain available in Hartford should the negotiators emerge with a potential agreement.  The union leaders' decision to remain nearby seemed to point to optimism that a tentative agreement could be reached over night, but O'Connor declined to describe the mindset of the union negotiators or leaders, other to say they are aware of the clock.

"Folks are very mindful of deadlines and the possibility of layoff notices going out tomorrow," O'Connor said.

At midday Monday, Malloy had declined to cite a precise deadline.

"They know the deadline. I know the deadline," Malloy said of the unions."There's not a lot of time before we have to start to do things."

Those things include layoff notices, originally planned for last week, that would allow the administration to cut the workforce soon after the start of the fiscal year on July 1 if the concession talks fail to yield a significant portion of the $1 billion in savings demanded by Malloy.

The close consultation of the unions' leaders by their negotiators are the latest sign that the talks are focusing on a shrinking number of contested issues. Sources who have talked to individuals briefed on the negotiations say, not surprisingly, that retirement age remains a sticking point.


House Gives Final Approval To Budget With Higher Taxes, Fees
The Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, ckeating@courant.com
12:38 a.m. EDT, May 4, 2011

HARTFORD — The House of Representatives granted final legislative approval to Gov. Dannel Malloy's budget just before midnight Tuesday, but the debate that emerged this week will likely echo through the end of the legislative session and into future election campaigns.

The question is who represents the best interests of the so-called average person living in Connecticut? Those legislators — including some Democrats — who oppose the budget, or those — all of them Democrats — who support it?

With the state facing the largest tax increase in its history, Republicans staked out a strong stance against Malloy with a no-tax-increase budget. By contrast, Democrats say they are finally wrestling the state's fiscal problems to the ground after 16 years of Republican governors. Malloy and his supporters have repeatedly said they have finally offered a budget with no fiscal gimmicks or financial smoke and mirrors.

By a vote of 83 to 67 after nearly 10 hours of debate, the House passed a budget that includes a placeholder for $2 billion in concessions and savings over the next two years from the state employee unions. Since no agreement has been announced between the unions and the state, layoff notices could go out as early as Friday.

All 52 Republicans voted against the budget, and they were joined by 15 fiscally conservative Democrats, led by Rep. Linda Schofield of Simsbury and others.

Malloy released a statement early Wednesday morning in which he thanked the top House Democratic leaders.

"As I said yesterday, I know it's a tough vote - it's also the right vote,'' he said. "This budget is balanced, honest, and contains none of the gimmicks that helped get us into this mess. It will provide the stability we need to foster much-needed job creation - which is everyone's top goal.''

Malloy continued, "Now it's up to my Administration to reach an agreement with our fellow state employees and to present it to the legislature for ratification. I remain hopeful that we'll get there. If we don't, I remain committed to presenting an alternative budget to the General Assembly in the next couple of weeks.''

In the final summation of the Democratic view, House Majority Leader J. Brendan Sharkey told his colleagues that lawmakers had crafted a solid budget that rejects the recent practice of borrowing to cover operating expenses.

"We can now move on to what we all want to achieve over the next couple of years. That's what the citizens want us to do,'' Sharkey said on the House floor. "They want us to get the job done right now because they want to move forward. Do you feel that? Do you feel that sense that we are turning a corner? There's a positive sense of change in the air.''

House Republican leader Larry Cafero of Norwalk and other lawmakers warned Tuesday that the legislature is forgetting about the average person living in Connecticut. Cafero told the tale of a landscaper who said it costs $400 a week to power his business' lawnmowers. But the skyrocketing price of gas has recently pushed his fuel costs up by 40 percent, and he asked Cafero how he could possibly budget for that type of increase.

"What do I tell that landscaper buddy of mine?'' Cafero asked on the House floor. " 'Suck it up. I realize you have two kids in college. I realize that we're going to increase taxes on everything you buy.' Is that what we're going to tell him, folks? Is that our judgment today? There's a better way.''

A Republican senator had said Monday that the middle class will be taxed from head to toe under Malloy's budget, but Cafero phrased it a different way.

"When they go to buy clothes for their kids — pajamas, underwear, sneakers — now they have to pay [sales] taxes on that. It was zero. Now, it's 6.35 percent,'' Cafero said. "We're going to put tax on things you never paid taxes on before.''

But Malloy's senior adviser and chief spokesman, Roy Occhiogrosso, said that Cafero is "entertaining, but wrong'' in his analysis.

"The governor is asking everyone to make sacrifices and not asking any one group of people to bear a burden that he doesn't think they can bear,'' Occhiogrosso said. "He acknowledges that he's asking a lot of people but also continues to point out that the alternative is one of two things: to go back to playing the financial games that got us into this mess or to go down the road with an alternative budget that would just shred the safety net and lay thousands of people off. He's aware of what he's asking people to do but thinks that it is not unfair given what people will get in return, which is stabilizing the state's finances and allowing the state to create jobs.''

Occhiogrosso added, "The governor believes that the tax structure that he is proposing ... will stabilize the state's finances, which will allow the private sector to make decisions they haven't been able to make because they're afraid the state is going to pull the rug out from under them.''

The House debate Tuesday night was essentially a continuation of the Senate debate Monday — which ended Tuesday with a vote just after 3 a.m. — over the largest tax increase in state history. Malloy praised the 19 Senate Democrats who voted to approve the budget in a 19-17 vote.

Malloy was asked about the three Democratic senators who voted against the budget. He said he prefers to "dwell on the fact that the state Senate … approved the budget, which is groundbreaking. They demonstrated a great leadership, and I'm very thankful for that leadership.''

He dismissed talk of a state surplus of more than $1 billion over two years at a time when the budget package calls for significant tax increases.

"This idea of continuing to talk about surpluses when we have billions of dollars of obligations, when in fact by any reasonable measurement, we're flat broke, doesn't make a lot of sense,'' Malloy said. "I think very frequently it's put forward by folks who want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to be able to talk about the unfunded obligations of the state of Connecticut at the same time that they want to be able to talk about other things.''

Then, he added, they "vote against budgets that actually take a substantial step towards ultimately addressing the unfunded obligations of the state of Connecticut."

Cafero said that Budget Day 2011 was his 19th at the state Capitol — giving him perspective on the single most important bill that the legislature debates each year.

When Malloy was elected, Cafero said it was a new day in state government with a new governor and great expectations.

"All of us, myself included, wished him Godspeed and good health,'' Cafero told colleagues on the House floor. "We had this great expectation on Jan. 5 that we were going to work together. ... There was no one clapping louder than this guy in this chair.''

But Cafero says that his high hopes were dashed sharply when Malloy and his budget team completely cut off the Republicans from substantive deliberations. The budget was a Democratic-written document, and the closed-door negotiations were conducted between the Office of Policy and Management and the Democratic leaders of the legislature's budget and tax committees.

"That's when my expectations were shattered,'' Cafero said. "I listened to what our governor said, and then I saw what he did. ... We are led to believe there is no other choice. This is the only way we can do it.''

Rep. Livvy Floren, a Greenwich Republican who also represents a portion of Malloy's hometown of Stamford, said it was ironic that Malloy traveled around the state to 17 town hall meetings to learn what people were thinking but "couldn't bother to walk across the aisle'' to obtain Republican ideas for the budget.

But Occhiogrosso said that Malloy "has made many compromises to make it a better product.''

Prompted by the global recession and a huge downdraft on Wall Street that only recently has partially recovered, the state was plunged into huge deficits. The Wall Street collapse started with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in mid-September 2008, and the stock market went cascading downward after that.

"How many people had to pull their kids out of college — mid-semester — because they couldn't afford the tuition anymore?'' Cafero asked.

"You guys in government, what have you done to sacrifice?'' Cafero asked. "We didn't reduce spending. We increased it. ... Last year, we spent $19.3 billion. This year, it's $19.8 and next year, it's $20.2 Hello? We increased spending.''

Cafero turned to his House colleagues and asked them to think about their constituents.

"I implore you to think about what we are doing today,'' Cafero said. "To close your eyes and think about the faces of the people you represent. That's who we represent, and they expect better judgment from what we are doing today.''

Cafero says they are losing sight of the people who are being impacted by Malloy's budget.

"What they're telling us is they just can't afford government anymore,'' he said. "They keep paying and paying and paying.''

Rep. Gail Lavielle, a freshman Republican from Wilton, scoffed at Malloy's oft-repeated notion of shared sacrifice.

"These people have sacrificed enough,'' she said on the House floor. "This budget doesn't just hit people hard. It hits them hard when they're down!''


Conn. Senate approves Democratic budget deal
CT POST
SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press
Updated 04:45 a.m., Tuesday, May 3, 2011

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The state Senate bucked a national trend of forgoing tax increases early Tuesday and instead passed a two-year, $40.1 billion budget that attempts to tackle the state's deficit with a combination of cuts, labor savings and wide-ranging tax hikes.

The Democrat-controlled Senate passed the deal reached between legislative leadership and Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy with a 19-17 vote around 3:10 a.m., nearly 11 hours after debate on the bill had begun.

After voting as a group against a steady stream of amendments from the minority Republicans, three Democrats — Sens. Ed Meyer of Guilford, Gayle Slossberg of Milford and Joan Hartley of Waterbury — broke ranks and joined the GOP in opposing the package.

The House of Representatives, also controlled by Democrats, is scheduled to take up the same budget bill on Tuesday afternoon.

Malloy, who took office in January, said those who supported the package should be commended "for making the tough decisions necessary to begin the process of getting Connecticut's fiscal house in order." The state is facing an estimated $3.3 billion deficit beginning July 1, the start of the new fiscal year.

"That was a tough vote to make," Malloy said in a written statement. "It was a vote for an honest budget, one that's balanced with no gimmicks and one that will stabilize the state's finances and lead to our ultimate goal: job creation."

But Republican lawmakers warned the opposite will happen. They said the cornucopia of increased taxes — about $1.4 billion in the first year and $1.2 billion in the second year — on everything from personal and corporate income to diesel fuel, yoga studios, alcohol and pedicures hurts specific industries and everyday taxpayers still struggling from the recession.

"Hold on to your hat. We're going to tax you from head to toe and everything in between," warned Sen. Andrew Roraback, R-Goshen, the ranking Republican senator on the tax committee. "It's the middle class that is taking it the hardest with the budget."

Malloy's senior adviser, Roy Occhiogrosso, disagreed that the burden will be too daunting for the average taxpayer. He estimated a joint filer earning up to $100,000 a year will pay about $20 more a month in taxes.

"It's not nothing, but it's also — given the state of the state's finances — it's not an enormous burden for them," said Occhiogrosso, who called Malloy the "most fiscally responsible governor that's been around in a long time."

Throughout the lengthy debate, the GOP accused Democrats of being too afraid to make "real cuts" like those made by counterparts in neighboring states, including New York, and too quick to embrace tax hikes. Connecticut Democrats said their budget plan reduces spending by about $3 billion over two years, but that figure includes $2 billion in labor savings that have not been finalized with the state employee unions. It also whittles 51 state agencies down to 37.

Republicans offered their own budget proposal which does not raise taxes, but it was shot down on a party-line 22-14 vote. Democrats said the plan was not balanced and savings estimates were unrealistic. Other GOP amendments that would have scaled back some of the taxes also died.

"We still have time," Sen. Joe Markley, R-Southington, pleaded with his Democratic colleagues. "We make a mistake when we rush the process so people cannot be heard from properly, and I fear we do that tonight."

The GOP also questioned the wisdom in raising enough taxes to create $1 billion in surplus over two years. Members argued that some of that money should be used to offset the tax increases. Malloy has said he believes it's fiscally prudent to begin rebuilding the state's depleted Rainy Day Fund and stabilize its finances by paying down debt.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, accused Democrats of taking money out of the state's economy through tax increases to feed "the monster of government." The plan spends slightly more than the current year's budget, but Democrats say that's due to increased federal funding.

The marathon Senate debate marked one of the earliest state budget votes in recent memory. Malloy, the state's first Democratic governor in two decades, has been pushing the General Assembly for a vote in early May, even though his administration has yet to reach an agreement with the state employee unions over $2 billion in labor savings over two years.

The budget proposal assumes the $2 billion in labor savings will be accomplished. If not, the governor has until May 31 to submit to lawmakers a plan on how he intends to fill the gap.

Malloy's lead negotiator, Mark Ojakian, said last week that he hoped to reach a deal with the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition, which represents 13 state employee unions, this week. If a deal is not reached, Malloy has said, union layoffs will be likely. Cuts in managerial jobs are also expected.

Occhiogrosso defended the move to push ahead with the budget even though the labor savings remain unsettled. He said businesses are looking for "predictability and stability" and want in place a balanced state budget that doesn't include gimmicks, such as borrowing money to balance the plan like past budgets did....full blow by blow from the Courant, long story, here.

REORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENTS BILL AT E&T
http://cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/2011SB-00001-R01-SB.htm


FROM CAMPAIGN 2010:  THREE DIFFERENT VIEWS
L. to R.:  Don't raise taxes, don't cut town aid and raise taxes



Oops!  that's not exactly what was intended...
Weston not one of the biggest winners in the "no decrease in LOCIP funding" pledge;  Solution?  See blow-up of "April Proposal" at right re:  sharing the pain of higher tax rates.

Fairfield County is biggest winner under Malloy town aid plan
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
March 8, 2011

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's municipal aid plan has hit a snag after an analysis showed 15 percent of all communities--including more than a dozen of Connecticut's poorest--lose funding, while Fairfield County towns are the biggest winners.  The administration conceded this week that this was an unintended consequence of the Democratic governor's bid to protect municipalities from taking a fiscal hit as state officials try to close a $3 billion-plus gap in state finances.

But Democratic lawmakers, who control both the House and Senate, as well as municipal leaders, are pressing the administration to settle on a fix now, noting that most communities will adopt their next budgets at least a month or two before the state's spending plan for 2011-12 is resolved.

"The administration was very receptive in terms of understanding the issue and wanting to rectify it," said Sen. Gary D. LeBeau, D-East Hartford, whose community stands to lose nearly $2.9 million next fiscal year, an amount equal to about 6 percent of its current state aid package. "But we need to find a way to hold these towns harmless and we need to find it soon."

East Hartford, which is ranked 162nd out of the state's 169 towns in terms of wealth based upon both the value of its taxable property and the personal income of its residents, isn't alone.  Of the 27 communities that would lose resources next fiscal year under the Malloy plan, 21 are in the bottom half in terms of wealth, 13 are in the bottom third, and 5 are among the poorest 10.

"The fact of the matter is towns are putting their budgets together now," James Finley, executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said Friday, adding that absent an immediate solution, many communities might build a loss in state aid into their budget -- and cut vital programs or increase property taxes to cover it. "This is sort of prime time right now."

"This budget is a delicate balancing act and there are no easy answers," Roy Occhiogrosso, Malloy's senior adviser, said Monday. "The governor is trying to find the right mix. Some answers will have to be found along the way and this may be one of them."

Malloy, who inherited a deficit projected between $3.2 billion and $3.67 billion for 2011-12, a gap equal to one-fifth of current spending, said on numerous occasions he hoped to avoid passing that burden onto municipalities, calling the property tax the most regressive levy in Connecticut.  The governor, a former mayor of Stamford, recommended no cuts to the nine major statutory grants to cities and towns, and kept the overall aid level at $2.8 billion in the $19.74 billion budget he proposed for next fiscal year.

That plan would eliminate a $47.9 million program that reimburses communities for a portion of the property taxes they cannot collect on exempt manufacturing equipment and machinery, while maintaining the exemption.

But the governor also wants to provide communities with several new sources of revenue, which are worth an estimated $85 million next fiscal year and $129 million by 2012-13. These come from subjecting aircraft, boats and commercial vehicles to property taxes, doubling a levy on real estate conveyances and sharing a portion of state sales and hotel taxes collected within each community.  The problem, though, is that for some communities, those potential revenue gains aren't enough to counter the lost grant tied to manufacturing.

"This is a pretty significant revenue problem," said Rep. Jeffrey Berger, D-Waterbury, whose community ranks 165 in terms of wealth, yet still stands to lose more than $937,600 next fiscal year.

And an analysis by the administration's budget office showed a second problem that could pose as many political challenges for the governor as fiscal ones: The communities that do benefit the most from this trade-off are among Connecticut's wealthiest.  Greenwich, which ranks first in wealth under the Education Cost Sharing program's formula, gains the most under the governor's plan, picking up an extra $7.1 million next fiscal year.

Malloy's home community of Stamford, which ranks 27th in terms of wealth, enjoys the fourth-highest jump in resources under the governor's plan, gaining just over $2 million.

Among the 12 top winners in the budget are the four wealthiest communities in the state, seven of the top 31, and only one -- West Hartford -- that falls outside of the wealthiest 51.  Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich and a member of the finance committee, said the shift in town aid should be considered in the context of the overall tax burden: Fairfield County has the highest median income in the state, and will bear the brunt of Malloy's proposed increase in income tax rates.

Malloy's budget director, Office of Policy and Management Secretary Benjamin Barnes, told the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee during a public hearing Monday that he was aware of the wealth debate, and optimistic a solution could be found. "I'm not yet come to the conclusion that these issues are so significant that they should undermine our efforts" to close the deficit, he said.

But Barnes also did not offer any timetable for resolving the dispute. Traditionally, the state budget isn't adopted before the final days of the legislative session, and the regular 2011 session adjourns on June 8. 
Further complicating matters, Malloy is proposing more than $1.5 billion in new tax hikes, including five new income tax rates topped by a 6.7 percent levy on earnings above $500,000 for singles and $1 million for individuals.

State could face sanctions for food stamp problems
CT MIRROR
Arielle Levin Becker
February 23, 2011

Connecticut wrongly denies food stamps to eligible residents at a higher rate than any other state. It ranks among the worst in the nation in processing food stamp applications on time and paying out accurate levels of benefits. And federal officials warn that without a "tremendous turnaround," the state could face significant financial sanctions.

"We're really concerned with what's happening in Connecticut," James Arena-DeRosa, northeast regional administrator for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service, told members of the Human Services and Appropriations committees Tuesday.

Legislators called the figures he presented shocking. Twenty-six percent of cases in which food stamps were denied or cut off were the result of errors, according to preliminary fiscal-year 2010 figures based on a sample of cases. Fewer than 60 percent of applications were processed in a timely manner, and the rate of inaccurate benefit payments was second-worst in the country.

Arena-DeRosa noted that the state Department of Social Services, which administers the program, has faced a "tremendous challenge" addressing the increased demand for food stamps. The number of state residents receiving food assistance grew by 30 percent from the 2009 to 2010 fiscal years, to more than 336,000 people.

But Arena-DeRosa and deputy regional administrator Mary Ferris warned that the state could face financial sanctions if it does not improve its performance. Ferris estimated that the sanctions could range from $800,000 to $1 million.

Appropriations co-chairwoman Sen. Toni N. Harp, D-New Haven, called the numbers embarrassing for both the department and the General Assembly.

"Not because we're last," she said. "But more so because of the people who've been denied benefits inappropriately and people who've had a hard time getting them in the first place."

DSS Commissioner Michael Starkowski said the problems are the result of understaffing, outdated technology and the surge in demand for services the department administers.

"The underinvestment that we've made in the staff and the underinvestment that we've made in the technology has come home to roost," he told legislators.

Food stamps--known formally as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP--are fully funded by the federal government, and the state receives federal reimbursement for 50 percent of the cost of administering the program.

Starkowski described DSS as attempting to address rising demand for services with a dwindling staff, which is down more than 19 percent since 2001. The department was only allowed to hire 58 workers to evaluate applicant eligibility after losing 120 in a 2009 early retirement incentive program, he said.

DSS administers a vast array of health and welfare programs, from child care subsidies to elderly prescription assistance, and staff members evaluate clients' eligibility for all programs the department administers. The 586 people currently doing intake and case management each handle an average of 1,750 cases a month, Deputy Commissioner Claudette Beaulieu said.

"That is frankly staggering," she said.

And workers have to process applications using technology Starkowski referred to as "our dinosaur." The enrollment management system the department uses was designed in 1989 and uses a programming language so outdated it can take 3 to 6 months to make a change in how it works, he said.

"We're saying we know we have a problem," he said.

The USDA officials pointed to other factors that set Connecticut apart. Many other states have workers specialize in a particular portion of the eligibility process, such as intake, verifying information or recertification, rather than handling an individual case from start to finish.

Ferris said the DSS workers who once specialized in SNAP now have other responsibilities too. No other state in the region has done that, she said.

Arena-DeRosa said Vermont is hiring more workers to handle applications. And he suggested learning lessons from some DSS offices that are performing better than the state as a whole. "In some places, it's not as bad," he said.

He and Ferris also noted that DSS' information technology system has serious shortcomings.

They said their agency can serve as a partner for the state in addressing the problems, and said the federal government can provide technical assistance.

Other states that have successfully modernized their systems have used online applications, call centers that can free eligibility workers to handle cases, and document imaging centers that allow for paperless functioning, they said.

Starkowski said implementing a new eligibility system could be a multi-year process and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, although much of it could be reimbursed by the federal government. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's proposed budget calls for $2 million and 10 staff over the next two years to work with consultants to write a request for proposals for a new system.

As for more immediate fixes, Starkowski said there's no silver bullet, but the department is trying to chip away at the edges until it can get a new eligibility system and more staff to handle the caseload.

The department received authorization to hire 25 eligibility service workers and expects to get final approval within the week, he said.

In three months, an interactive voice response telephone system should be available that would allow people to call in and receive information about the status of their applications or the level of benefits they'll get without requiring staff time, Starkowski said. After that, the department is expected to get a document imaging system that will make it easier for workers to access files. The department handles more than 3.7 million pieces of paper each month, he said.

DSS is also looking into arrangements that would allow community agencies to help process food stamp applications. The state must determine eligibility, but outside agencies could help clients prepare applications.

And officials are developing pilot programs for some offices. Some have SNAP-only units, and one office will get a call center for SNAP and HUSKY health plan cases. The department has also increased accountability, including requiring supervisors to review cases.

But Starkowski noted that the department is facing increased demand across the range of social service programs it administers. If he dedicated 30 percent of his staff to processing food stamp applications, he told legislators, he would probably be back in front of legislators in a few months, explaining why applications for HUSKY or other programs are not being processed in time.

Malloy, lawmakers headed for a clash over electric rates?
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
February 21, 2011

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy would use more than $350 million in budget surpluses across the past two fiscal years to mitigate a controversial electricity rate hike his predecessor approved to help balance her last budget.
But the governor could be in for a battle as clean energy advocates, key legislative leaders -- and even the state's largest utility company -- are targeing those funds to protect a popular energy conservation program.

"These (electric) bills are too high already and I will make sure that we reduce that tax as much as possible," Malloy said last week in his budget address to the General Assembly.

At issue is nearly $1 billion total -- including $956 million in borrowing --  built into the $19.01 billion state budget adopted last spring and tied to Connecticut's energy consumers.  Specifically, then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the legislature ordered a three-pronged plan to prop up the budget Malloy inherited when he took office on Jan. 5: 

    * A charge of 0.379 cents per kilowatt hour - or $2.42 per month for the typical residential customer using 700 kilowatt hours per month - was imposed solely on Connecticut Light & Power Co.'s roughly 1.2 million residential and business customers starting in January and running through June 30. It will raise $40 million for the General Fund.
    * That surcharge climbs to 0.47 cents per kilowatt hour, or $2.65 per month for the typical residential customer, starting July 1. It is limited to CL&P customers at first and is designed to raise $112.9 million per year to help cover the $141 annual debt on the borrowing, which would be financed over eight years. After October 2013, though, the rate on CL&P customers would be reduced and the 324,000 customers of United Illuminating, the state's other major electric utility also would begin contributing toward the debt service.
    * And $28.7 million would be drawn each year for the next eight from the $82 million reserved annually for the Energy Conservation and Load Management Fund, which helps households cut their heating bills while creating hundreds of energy efficiency jobs. That $28.7 million also would be used to help cover debt service on the borrowing.

But state officials now have an opportunity to slash more than 35 percent off that plan.

That's because the last fiscal year ended with a surplus $310 million above expectations when the 2010-11 was adopted. And the Malloy administration and Comptroller Kevin Lembo projected the current budget is running $43 million to $57 million in the black.  State officials could scrap the energy conservation raid entirely, wipe out 40 percent of the new surcharge, or some combination.

Malloy, who campaigned on a pledge to address electric rates that are among the nation's highest, said last week that the plan adopted last year "is really just a way to tax us on our electric bills."

The new governor isn't the only one to refer to a new, controversial surcharge on consumer electricity bills as a "tax."

Connecticut Light & Power Co., one of the state's two largest utilities, has blasted the surcharge as a "hidden tax" and argued it is unfair that its customers are targeted to bear the initial brunt of the cost of this budget borrowing scheme.  Legislators defended the staggered surcharge arrangement noting they didn't want to impose new burdens until utility customers finished paying off another surcharge that dates back to 2000 and involves a state-ordered deregulation process.

But CL&P indicated Monday it wasn't ready to back Malloy's proposal.

"At CL&P, we have opposed this kind of burden being placed on our customers in any form," CL&P President Jeff Butler said Monday. "If only a portion of that burden can be removed, we advocate restoring the energy efficiency fund first because those dollars support and create green jobs and help our customers use energy more wisely."

Various clean energy advocates also have espoused first protecting the Energy Conservation and Loan Management Fund, which supports hundreds of jobs in the energy efficiency and weatherization fields and also helps pay for home energy audits that can promote everything from new windows and weather-stripping to improved insulation.

"Consumers save $3 to $4 for every $1 that goes into the fund," said former state Rep. Jessie Stratton, who co-chaired the Environment Committee as a lawmaker and now represents the private, nonprofit advocacy group Environment Northeast.

Stratton added that every $1 million invested in the fund supports an estimated 41 energy efficiency-related jobs.  The Senate chairmen of the Finance, Revenue & Bonding and Energy & Technology committees, Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook and John Fonfara, D-Hartford, have expressed similar arguments.

Rep. Vickie Nardello, D-Prospect, House chairman of the Energy & Technology, predicted lawmakers would closely analyze the issue but declined Monday to predict what counter-proposals might be made to the administration, adding the governor's complaints about high electricity rates are valid. "Energy efficiency is a concern, but rates are also concern -- always," she added. "It's a careful balance that we have to strike."

Finance panel revives 'Amazon Law' to pursue online sales tax
Keith M. Phaneufn CT MIRROR
April 7, 2011

The General Assembly's tax-writing committee once again is trying to force online retail giants to collect state sales taxes by targeting their Connecticut-based affiliates.

The Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee voted 38-14 on Thursday to adopt a measure commonly referred to as the "Amazon Law" and patterned after legislation enacted in New York three years ago.

But both advocates and opponents of the Connecticut bill conceded that regardless of whether it is enacted here or not, some businesses will be harmed, and that the only equitable solution lies with the federal government.

"We have to stand up to this and close this loophole," added Rep. Patricia Widlitz, D-Guilford, co-chairwoman of the committee and another supporter of the bill. "I feel very strongly that we need to take a stand."

The "loophole" Widlitz referred to involves the 6 percent sales tax Connecticut levies on most transactions, and the fact that most online retailers do not collect and forward the tax to the state. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that a state cannot force businesses to collect sales taxes unless they have a physical presence within that state.

Consumers still are obligated to report their online purchases and pay any sales tax owed through their annual income tax filings, but lawmakers concede that relatively few households actually do so.

While the sales tax raised just under $3.1 billion last fiscal year, less than $8.3 million of that involved online sales later reported and paid through consumers' income tax filings, according to the Department of Revenue Services.

In all, states lose a total of $7 billion a year in sales tax revenue, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit fiscal and public policy group based in Washington, D.C. Amazon.com is one of the nation's largest online retailer with thousands of affiliates nationwide, the center says.

Advocates of the bill contend neighborhood book stores and other small businesses, which must force their customers to pay sales tax, simply cannot compete with Amazon.com and other major online retailers.

Suzanne Staubach, manager of the University of Connecticut's Co-Op Bookstore on its main campus in Storrs, recently told lawmakers the story of a mother who read a child's storybook to her young son in the store, but didn't purchase it. "He loved it. He wanted to keep it," Staubach testified. "But I heard her say, 'Mommy will order it on the computer for you, honey.'"

The bill adopted in committee Thursday hinges on sales affiliates, local companies that receive a small commission for redirecting customers to the retailer's web site. Any firm with more than $2,000 in annual sales generated through its Connecticut affiliates effectively has a "nexus" or physical presence in the state, according to the bill, and therefore must collect and report sales tax.

Amazon.com did not respond Thursday to an invitation to comment. The online retailer is challenging the New York law in court, but has stopped doing business with thousands of affiliates both in that state and in others, such as Colorado and Rhode Island, where similar measures were adopted.

Amazon sent the Connecticut legislature a letter last year threatening to do the same here if a similar statute is enacted. And though the Finance panel adopted a similar bill last year, the full legislature opted not to act on it.

"They're kind of dictating to us right now. They're really muscling us around," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, a supporter of the measure. "They've got to be having an effect on all of the brick-and-mortar stores here in Connecticut."

But others argued that confronting Amazon and other retailers head-on is not the best solution.

"We heard from companies in Connecticut that said 'Amazon will shut us down,'" said Rep. Sean J. Williams of Watertown, ranking House Republican on the Finance committee, who said he's convinced adopting such a law now "is basically throwing up a Berlin Wall" between Amazon-affiliated companies and the Connecticut residents who need the jobs they offer.

"There is an inherent inequity in the law and I'm not happy to be in this situation at all," added Williams, who voted against the bill but said he sympathizes with small businesses being harmed by the status quo.

Rebecca Madigan, executive director of the southern California-based Performance Marketing Association, testified that nearly 2,800 Connecticut companies are affiliated with online retailers such as Amazon, Google, Yahoo and eBay, and would likely be dropped if such legislation were enacted.

"The state will gain no new sales tax revenue and will devastate 2,800 businesses in the process," she said.

Williams, Widlitz and Guglielmo all said the ultimate solution rests with Congress, which has authority to impose a nationwide mandate on all online retailers to collect and remit sales taxes.

Bonnie Stewart, vice president and tax specialist for the state's primary business lobby, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, echoed that position, noting that the CBIA has taken no position on the bill.

"We just don't have enough information," she said, adding it is clear, though, that some businesses face harm if the bill is adopted, and others are being harmed without it.

Governor Malloy's budget FY12-13:  Special Session will get into this issue
   
Four unions voted down the concessions contract
By JC Reindl Day Staff Writer
Article published Jun 27, 2011

Hartford - It was only last month that Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and Democratic lawmakers applauded themselves for having passed a "balanced" and gimmick-free budget so early in the legislative session.
On Thursday, they'll attempt to rebalance it with only hours to spare before a fiscal deadline.

The striking turnabout resulted from last week's ratification failure of a labor concessions agreement between the governor and unions representing about 45,000 state employees. While the deal gained the support of a majority of members, it didn't reach the supermajority threshold - 80 percent of voting members, no more than one union's rejection - that was needed to pass.

On Sunday night, The Day obtained final unofficial results of the union vote, which showed 11 of the 15 unions voted for the agreement, and four unions voted it down. Fifty seven percent of the participating members voted yes. Of the 34 bargaining units within those unions, 26 voted in favor of the agreement.

The agreement, worth $1.6 billion in savings over two years, was critical to Connecticut's new $40.1 billion biennial budget that starts Friday, July 1, and was to close a $3.3 billion deficit.

In addition to a two-year wage freeze followed by three years of 3 percent wage increases, it guaranteed no layoffs for four years and made numerous adjustments to a 20-year contract for pension and health care benefits that was signed in 1997 by former Gov. John G. Rowland.

The moment ratification collapsed, the budget acquired a gaping $1.6 billion hole.  Malloy, a Democrat, responded by calling a special session of the legislature, directing all General Assembly members back to Hartford on Thursday to vote on his "Plan B" for bridging the new gap without the unions' help. The session will occur on the final day of the current fiscal year.  Meanwhile, the governor says he is moving forward this week with issuing 7,500 layoff notices to state employees. "Every day that we delay will increase the number of layoffs that have to take place," he told reporters Friday.

Officials with the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, which represents the 15 state unions, called on Malloy to hold back the pink slips.

"Issuing layoffs now is the wrong choice," said SEBAC spokesman Matt O'Connor. "We will do everything in our power to fight job cuts."

SEBAC leaders are scheduled to meet this morning to cast their own final votes on the failed concessions package and determine how to proceed. Union representatives have been reluctant to discuss the possibility of a revote, or if it's possible to change the coalition bylaws to lower the threshold for labor agreements to pass.

"We don't want to see mass layoffs," Larry Dorman, another SEBAC spokesman, said Friday. "But we also do have to respect the democratic will of our members" in voting down the deal.

Malloy is also seeking greater rescission authority from the General Assembly that would allow him to make bigger cuts to the budget without legislative approval. Rowland was temporarily granted similar powers by the legislature during a budget crunch nine years ago.  Senate President Donald Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, seemed ready to help grant Malloy the authority. Senate Democrats were scheduled to caucus by phone over the weekend.

"Given the rejection of the labor agreement, it's critical that we act decisively before the beginning of the new fiscal year," Williams said in a statement. "We support the governor's call to action and will work with him to ensure that Connecticut has a balanced budget."

But the GOP is less willing to hand him the authority.

"Rescission powers exist to deal with fiscal emergencies that arise after a balanced budget has been passed, not before," Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said Friday. "Republicans also believe Thursday's special session is an opportunity to begin addressing our state's long-term pension and health care liabilities."

As for his new plan to slim the budget, Malloy has said that "all options are on the table" except for new, additional tax increases or diverting surplus funds. The budget already contains the largest tax increase in Connecticut in 20 years, with new income tax rates that will be retroactive to Jan. 1.

"I have a big job to do and we're going to do it," the first-term governor told reporters Friday.

Malloy warned of future state aid cuts to Connecticut's 169 cities and towns - an unnerving prospect for local governments, which have already passed their own budgets.  The governor has yet to say how large those reductions will be, but promised to limit their size in the first year of the budget, which begins Friday.

"I will do everything in my power to avoid serious, damaging cuts to municipal governments," he said.

Lawmakers wary of allowing governor to cut town aid
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
May 18, 2011

State legislators have cooperated with Gov. Dannel P. Malloy for the most part in solving one of the largest budget deficits in Connecticut history.

But lawmakers remain wary of giving Malloy the unilateral authority to reduce municipal aid if the state's finances turn bad.

Leaders of the Democrat-controlled legislature said their reluctance isn't tied to the new governor, but rather reflects their beliefs about separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches.

"I think we've had a certain dance all legislative session in which we try to identify the relative roles of the two branches of government as we deal with this deficit," House Majority Leader J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, said referring to a projected shortfall that once stood at $3.67 billion for the coming year. "I think many people believe certain authority should rest with the legislature and I think this falls into that category."

"I don't care who's sitting in the governor's office," said Sen. Edith G. Prague, D-Columbia, a veteran member of the Appropriations Committee. "Once the legislature decides what the town aid is going to be, that's it. The towns count on those numbers."

Since the enactment of the state income tax, the legislature has granted the governor limited authority to unilaterally reduce many budget accounts, though municipal aid cannot be touched. The governor has proposed ending the exemption for municipal aid.

Malloy, a Democrat, took considerable political risk in proposing $1.5 billion in annual state tax hikes and seeking $1 billion more per year in union concessions. He got lawmakers to approve the taxes, and the administration and state employee unions announced a tentative concession deal last Friday worth a reported $700 million in 2011-12 and $900 million in 2012-13.

The $40.11 billion biennial budget that legislators adopted in early May also is designed to run an unprecedented $1 billion in surplus over the next two fiscal years combined.

Even if $400 million of that fiscal cushion is whittled away to fill the gaps between the union concession deal and the larger labor savings target Malloy had set, that still leaves about $600 million for fiscal contingencies.

But Malloy's budget director, Office of Policy and Management Secretary Benjamin Barnes, said that potential surplus is more than offset by several other larger fiscal challenges, including:
  •     The concession deal is not ratified. Though union leaders said this week they are hopeful that rank-and-file members would approve the agreement, pension and health care givebacks would be nullified if even two of the state's 15 unions reject them. And though the 34 bargaining units within those 15 unions decide separately whether to accept the two-year wage freeze called for in the tentative deal, that also is not a foregone conclusion. Two bargaining units involving Correction Department workers rejected a one-year wage freeze in 2009.
  •     The state's emergency reserve, commonly known as the Rainy Day Fund, was depleted under the administration of former Gov. M. Jodi Rell.
  •     The state employee pension fund is in its worst fiscal shape since state government began saving for pension obligations in the mid-1980s. An actuarial report last November showed the account held less than 45 percent of the funds needed to meet its obligations.
  •     State government hasn't even saved 1 percent of its $26.6 billion obligation to fund retirement health care for its current workers.
  •     And the planned conversion to generally accepted accounting principles will mean between $1 billion and $1.5 billion would have to be added gradually to the state budget in future years to close deficits not recognized under the existing accounting system.

"We're really operating without a net," Barnes said. "We don't have a Rainy Day Fund and we still have significant long-term liabilities. We don't have a whole lot of flexibility."

The governor's proposal regarding municipal aid would add some flexibility.

Municipal grants total about $2.8 billion, or about 14 percent of next fiscal year's budget. Were the governor allowed to reduce them by as much as 10 percent, that would allow Malloy to cut $280 million from one segment of the budget alone.

But James Finley, executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said it also would cripple local governments statewide because they have few options to adjust mid-year to reductions in state aid.

"To pull the rug out from them mid-year would only leave painful fiscal choices," such as layoffs, program cuts or supplemental property tax bills, Finley added.

Rep. Patricia Dillon, D-New Haven, a 27-year veteran of the House of Representatives, recalled when the current rescission language was enacted, noting that legislators--already fearing public backlash for adopting the state income tax--didn't want to be the "bad guys" if significant mid-year budget cuts had to be made. So they placed that responsibility on then-Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr.

Though that statute has gained its supporters and critics since then, Dillon said the reluctance of many legislators to expand that power doesn't have anything to do with either Malloy or his predecessors.

"It's about the separation of powers," she said. "The most important thing the legislature does it adopt the budget."

Barnes noted that lawmakers did grant a temporary expansion of rescissionary powers in the past. The 2002 General Assembly empowered then Gov. John G. Rowland to reduce, if necessary, some municipal grants by up to 5 percent. But the administration was barred from touching the two largest programs: the Education Cost Sharing grant and the Payment In Lieu Of Taxes, or PILOT grants, which reimburse towns for lost revenues tied to properties exempted from municipal taxation.

Barnes said the administration would be willing to discuss a temporary extension of authority with legislators.

Rep. Pamela Z. Sawyer, R-Bolton, another member of the Appropriations Committee, said a limited extension might get a better reception, but warned the many legislators from both parties simply feel that adopting the annual budget is their biggest responsibility. "We need to do our job," she said.

OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALISIS SYNOPSIS

TUNED IN ONLINE TO CT-N!  GOVERNOR MALLOY'S  FEB. 16, 2011 ADDRESS ON THE BUDGET & STATE OF THE STATE...GOT GOOD REVIEWS (IN PUBLIC - see below for what is going on)


Open for business?  Fairfield County an ATM for CT?  And a new twist on the welfare state.
Democrats Approve Malloy's Budget In Early Morning Vote
The Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, ckeating@courant.com
5:05 a.m. EDT, May 3, 2011

HARTFORD—

The Democratic-controlled state Senate today narrowly approved Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's budget that will become the largest tax increase in state history - raising more than $1.5 billion in taxes on income, corporations, retail sales, estates, electric power plants, hospitals, alcohol, cigars, and cigarettes.

After a sometimes-contentious, all-day marathon debate that ended after 3 a.m. Tuesday, the Senate voted by 19 to 17 in favor of the budget with three Democrats breaking with their party by voting against the measure. The three Democrats - Senators Joan Hartley of Waterbury, Gayle Slossberg of Milford, and Edward Meyer of Guilford - did not explain their reasons on the Senate floor.

The two-year, $40.2 billion state budget increases spending by 2.14 percent in the first year and 2.32 percent in the second year as the state tries to close a massive deficit that was created in part by the sluggish economy and high unemployment.

Republicans complained that the Democratic budget proves that tax increases are too high because the increases will allow the state to generate surpluses of more than $1 billion over the next two years. But Malloy and Democrats said the money is needed to pay off debt and restore the state's now-depleted "rainy day'' fund for fiscal emergencies.

Malloy's budget raises taxes on more than 50 items in different categories, including charging the state's sales tax for the first time on previously tax-free items like non-prescription drugs, clothing and shoes under $50, pet grooming, automotive towing and storage, limousine rides, manicures, pedicures, repairs of small planes, and cosmetic surgery. The tax on retail sales will increase to 6.35 percent, while the maximum rate on the state income tax will increase to 6.7 percent for millionaires and hedge-fund kingpins.

Sen. Andrew Roraback, a Litchfield County Republican, said the Democratic budget is deeply flawed because taxes will go up on everything from hats to shoes.

"For the middle class, the message is hold onto your hat. We're going to tax you from head to toe,'' Roraback said on the Senate floor. "Nothing is sacred.''

Republicans complained bitterly that Malloy had promised bipartisan cooperation and then negotiated the budget exclusively with the Democratic majority. Malloy is "unwilling to compromise, unwilling to listen, headstrong, and not willing to be flexible,'' said House Republican leader Larry Cafero of Norwalk. "It's his way or the highway.''

Cafero's counterpart, Senate Republican leader John McKinney of Fairfield, said, "He's a tax-and-spend liberal. His rhetoric may be different, but the rhetoric is over because this budget is real.''

McKinney mocked Malloy's often-repeated statement that Connecticut is "open for business'' at a time when taxes are being increased on the profits of corporations.

"How can you be open for business when you have a 100 percent increase on the corporate surcharge?'' McKinney asked on the Senate floor. "You cannot preach and talk and scream and say we're open for business and increase the corporate surcharge. At some point, the talk is hollow and meaningless.''

But Malloy's senior adviser and chief spokesman, Roy Occhiogrosso, said Republicans are incorrect in their analysis.

"This is the most fiscally responsible governor that has been around in a long time,'' Occhiogrosso said. "This is the most fiscally responsible budget that is currently pending in the entire country.''

Occhiogrosso had said that the budget would affect average taxpayers by only $20 per month or about $5 per week because they would lose $200 from a reduction in the popular property tax credit. But Republicans argued that the increase would be much higher at about $1,000 per year for middle-class families.  With tax hikes on cigarettes, income and high-priced items, the biggest impact will be on chain-smoking millionaires who buy luxury cars.

Malloy was pleased with the vote as his staff released an e-mail at about 3:45 a.m.

"The senators who voted for this budget early this morning should be commended for making the tough decisions necessary to begin the process of getting Connecticut's fiscal house in order,'' Malloy said in a statement. "That was a tough vote to make, but it was the right vote to make. It was a vote for an honest budget, one that's balanced with no gimmicks, and one that will stabilize the state's finances and lead to our ultimate goal: job creation. I'd like to thank Senate President Don Williams, Majority Leader Marty Looney, Appropriations Chairman Toni Harp and Finance Chairman Eileen Daily in particular. They took the budget I proposed, they made it better, and they passed it."

Williams strongly defended the budget, saying it is balanced with no borrowing and no one-time revenues. The general public, he said, does not want to see gridlock, filibusters or endless debates about the budget.

"It's refreshing that on May 2 that we are ready to go to start moving this state,'' Williams said Monday. "We want to get on with our business right now. ... No governor in the history of this state has asked for more from our state employees. ... The reason why we have that placeholder [for $2 billion in savings and concessions from state employees in two years] is we want to keep the pressure on.''

With his voice rising to a crescendo at the end of his speech, Williams said that Malloy's budget "will put us back on the road to recovery!''

Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney of New Haven described the Democratic-written document as "a balanced, comprehensive, responsible budget.''

Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams said he had expected between 18 and 20 Democratic votes in the 36-member Senate.

The lengthy debate started at 4:18 p.m. Monday and ended at about 3