VETO PACKAGE - JUNE 21, 2010:  6 of 9 OVERRIDES DONE.


Legislators override six vetoes
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
June 21, 2010

The General Assembly Monday overrode Gov. M. Jodi Rell on six of the 13 bills she vetoed in the 2010 session, her last regular session before stepping down as governor in January.

The bills re-passed affect criminal background checks, sentencing policies, off-track betting, environmental permitting procedures, licensing for social workers, and a Stamford parking garage.

The only close vote today was on a master transportation plan that Rell vetoed over what the governor called an unaffordable provision to repair and replace a parking garage at the Stamford commuter rail station. It passed 25 to 11 in the Senate, one more than the minimum required.

The other bills passed easily as Rell, a lame-duck Republican, showed little evidence of working to have the Republican minority sustain her vetoes. Her chief legislative liaison already has left her administration.

"Obviously I am disappointed with the overrides," Rell said. "When I veto a bill it is after careful consideration and because I feel the legislation represents bad public policy, is too expensive or creates more bureaucracy. My vetoes were prudent and just decisions and I stand by them. However, lawmakers have voted their will. While I do not agree with their decisions, I respect their right to make them. It is part of the process and so now we must move on."

House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, said he told Democratic leaders that Republicans would debate at length any bill that had substantial GOP opposition during the regular session. The warning prompted Democrats to give up on re-passing a bill that would have allowed public-housing residents to elect tenant representatives to housing authorities.

Municipal officials now appoint the tenant representatives.

Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds vote, 101 in the House and 24 in the Senate. Democrats have 114 members in the House and 24 in the Senate, but Republicans have influence beyond their numbers during veto sessions.

The veto sessions typically last a single day, meaning the Republicans can stall if they are not consulted on overrides by the Democratic majority.

"You don't need my votes," Cafero said. "You need my cooperation."

The six overrides represent 46 percent of the 13 bills Rell vetoed, the highest percentage in her six years as governor. Last year, the legislature overrode seven of 24 vetoed bills, or 26 percent. They overrode none of 10 in 2005, none of three in 2006, one of seven in 2007 and two of six in 2008.

Her predecessor, John G. Rowland, vetoed 39 bills in 10 legislative sessions. The legislature overrode none.

Rell's relationship with Cafero and other legislative Republicans has been strained.

The bills becoming law over Rell's veto will:

• Ban state hiring managers from asking applicants about their criminal backgrounds or researching their histories until the last step of the hiring process. The override vote was 120 to 19 in the House and 31 to 5 in the Senate.

Proponents said that the ban will allow applicants to be judged on their skills. State managers still can use a felony conviction to deny an applicant, if the conviction was relevant.

• Create a state 23-member sentencing commission, which would operate without new expenditures, to review sentencing policies and recommend changes. The House vote, 130 to 9; Senate vote, 27 to 9.

• Allow off-track betting with televised simulcasting to expand in New London, Manchester and Windham. The state now has a dozen simulcasting facilities. The House vote, 110 to 28; Senate, 26 to 10.

Rell said in her veto message she was "troubled that these authorizations are being requested for particular restaurants or venues as quick fixes to a difficult economic climate and to offset low customer counts."
Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, a gambling opponent who originally voted against the bill, reversed herself during the veto session at the request of business groups desperate for any job creation.

"I'm not for gambling, but I'll take any jobs they offer," she said.

• Revise environmental permitting procedures. Rell said the bill was sound, except one provision written to allow a transfer station to be built in Newtown near a watershed. Rell said it could affect 19 facilities. The House vote, 140 to 0; Senate, 36 to 0.

• Create a new license for a "master social workers," to be administered by the Department of Public Health. The House vote, 138 to 1; Senate, 34 to 2.

• Amend the master transportation plan, including a controversial provision affecting the Stamford Transportation Center. House vote, 138 to 0; Senate, 25 to 11.

Senate votes to cancel projects slated for future borrowing...final story of session here.

Keith M. Phaneuf
April 30, 2010

The Senate voted unanimously Friday to tighten the limit on state government's credit card as lawmakers adopted a bill to cancel or reduce planned borrowing for dozens of community and regional projects in their home districts.

The measure, which now heads to the House of Representatives, also reduces bond authorizations for tourism programs, open space preservation and park improvements, energy efficiency projects, renovations to prisons and other state buildings and a host of economic development programs.

"We are all compelled to advocate for projects in our districts and we shouldn't apologize for that," said Sen. Donald J. DeFronzo, D-New Britain, who as co-chairman of the legislature's bonding subpanel, tackled the unpopular task of asking his colleagues to cancel many projects they already had touted back home. "But over time they accumulate."

The reductions and cancellations would bring state government nearly $180 million under its borrowing limit for the new fiscal year, which begins July 1, said DeFronzo, who cut funds for projects tied to his community's Polish American Foundation and YWCA.

The bill was developed in response to sluggish state tax revenues which only recently have begun to rebound for the first time in two years. The statutory debt limit, which covers both borrowed funds and bonding given preliminary approval, shrinks when tax revenues decline.

All bonding given preliminary approval by the legislature also must be endorsed by the State Bond Commission, a 10-member panel chaired by Gov. M. Jodi Rell and comprised of other administration officials and constitutional officers as well as leaders of the legislature's Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee.

Connecticut's reputation on Wall Street and its ability to finance capital projects at low interest rates both were put at risk last fall. Two major bond rating agencies,  Moody's and Standard & Poor's, assigned a "negative outlook" to state government late last year, a move generally perceived as a warning before a bond rating is lowered.

The rating agencies also complained about the large amounts of revenue from one-time sources - such as the budget reserve and emergency federal stimulus grants - being used to support ongoing programs.

With more than $19 billion in outstanding bonded debt, Connecticut ranked second in the nation in debt per capita last year, according to the legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis.

To help Connecticut's three largest cities deal with a 15 percent reduction in bonding for their local projects, the bill places the remaining $58.6 million into undefined funding pools and allows municipal leaders in Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven to distribute the resources among projects in their respective communities.

Legislators wouldn't be the only ones forfeiting initiatives commonly referred to as "earmarks" or "pork-barrel" projects. The bill also eliminates $13 million from the Urban Act Program, which provides the governor with significant discretion to award state resources for economic development projects in large communities.

Jeffrey Beckham, spokesman for the governor's budget agency, the Office of Policy and Management, said Friday that the administration proposed a major reduction in planned bonding back in February and still supports that concept. Beckham added that the administration is still analyzing the bill adopted in the Senate and declined further comment.

Republicans, who are in the minority in both chambers, urged their Senate Democratic colleagues to be as open to cutting spending as they try to balance the 2010-11 state budget as they were in forfeiting bond funds for local projects.

"Let's not forget what we're facing as we move forward," said Sen. Andrew W. Roraback, R-Goshen. "The move that we've made here is substantial, it's significant and it's important. But there's more to do."

The preliminary $18.93 billion budget adopted last September for 2010-11 has been projected to be $726 million in deficit by the legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis since early February. A new forecast, based on new signs of revenue growth, is expected to reduce but not eliminate that shortfall. That report is likely to be completed by Monday, legislators said.

Despite Costs And Calls For Caution, Fatal Bus Crash Sparks Support For Seat Belts
Hartford Courant
By AMANDA FALCONE
January 22, 2010

Three out of four Connecticut residents support requiring seat belts on school buses, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

The poll surveyed nearly 1,600 registered voters less than two weeks after a Rocky Hill teenager died after a bus crash on I-84. It shows strong support for a seat belt law across party lines and in every area of the state, poll Director Douglas Schwartz said.

State lawmakers have proposed 23 seat belt bills over the past two decades, but it wasn't until the death of Vikas Parikh that the Quinnipiac polling institute, which started in 1999, asked residents about seat belts on buses. Although the legislative session does not begin until Feb. 3, state Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, co-chairman of the legislature's transportation committee, has already proposed a bill requiring seat belts on school buses. Guerrera said that his bill lacks detail, but that he will decide how to proceed after hearing from experts. Lap-and-shoulder seat belts, also called three-point belts, are being considered, as opposed to lap belts, he added.

If that bill passes, Connecticut would become the seventh state to require seat belts on school buses. The state or local districts would pay to install the belts.

As Guerrera and other proponents push for a school bus seat belt requirement, Thursday's poll numbers can only help their cause.

"Obviously, when you have that kind of support, it makes legislation easier to pass," Guerrera said.

Seat belt bills submitted in previous years have failed to make it out of committee, but many people think the measure has a better chance this year because of the Jan. 9 bus crash that killed Parikh, 16, and injured other students from the Greater Hartford Academy of Mathematics and Science in Hartford.

Parikh is the first Connecticut school bus passenger to die as the result of an accident since the state began keeping track in 1972.

History Of Failure
Previous bills have been backed by a number of political heavyweights, including former Rep. James A. Amann, D-Milford, who later became House speaker and is now running for governor, and former state Rep. Christopher S. Murphy, who now represents the state's 5th Congressional District. Political clout, however, was not enough to propel the issue through the legislative process.

The last seat belt bill to get a public hearing was introduced in 2006 and was prompted by a high school student's essay. In that year, Guerrera and former Sen. Biagio Ciotto, a past deputy commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles, chaired the transportation committee.

Ciotto blamed the failure of earlier bills on the cost, and on reports by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that seat belts aren't needed on large school buses.

"It's a difficult situation," Ciotto said, urging lawmakers not to act on emotion and to carefully look at all sides of the issue.

Since Ciotto left the legislature, the traffic safety administration has acknowledged safety concerns on school buses. While it does not mandate seat belts, the agency requires all school buses manufactured after Oct. 21, 2011, to have 24-inch seat backs, rather than the current 20-inch backs. It also set standards for school districts that choose to install three-point belts in large school buses.

The NHTSA still refers to a 2002 study that says school buses have a fatality rate of 0.2 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, compared with 1.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles in cars.

Because of those statistics, groups like the Connecticut School Transportation Association have opposed bills that call for the seat belt mandate.

Buses rely on compartmentalization, meaning seats are placed close together and are flexible and cushy to absorb impact, said William D. Moore, the association's executive director.

The NHTSA "has been repeatedly asked to require belts on buses, has repeatedly reanalyzed the issue, and has repeatedly concluded that compartmentalization provides a high level of safety protection that obviates the safety need for the federal requirement necessitating the installation of seat belts," a 2008 agency report says.

But Sen. Thomas P. Gaffey, D- Meriden, co-chairman of the education committee, said seat belt bills have failed in part because of lobbying efforts. Bus organizations have made the issue confusing and have brought unrelated factors into the discussion, he said.

"The bill has been bogged down in the past because of bad information," said Gaffey, who supports installing seat belts on buses. "The safety of kids should be paramount in everyone's minds."

Moore said his association is not against making buses safer. If lawmakers mandate seat belts, his group would support three-point belts but not lap belts, which could cause injury if used improperly, he said. Local school leaders echo Moore's comments.

New Britain administrators have attended bus seminars and spoken with representatives from DATTCO, the district's bus contractor, but have not learned of an effective restraint for large buses, said Assistant Superintendent Ron Jakubowski. Large buses are used at different times by small children and by high school students, raising the question of whether seat belts could be adjusted for varying heights and who would make the adjustments, he said.

Until experts resolve those questions, New Britain children will continue to ride buses designed with the "egg carton" approach, Jakubowski said, referring to compartmentalization.

"We have fender benders from time to time," he said. "Very, very rarely does a kid get any kind of injury unless they're sitting improperly. ... or doing something they shouldn't be."

In Southington, as in many other districts, the seat belt debate has stalled over concerns such as the fear of injury from the belts themselves. Still, if experts unveiled a safe seat belt design, the district would likely outfit its buses with them, Southington Superintendent Joseph Erardi said.

"It would not be about money," he said. "I can just about assure this community that the board would find some way, somehow, to make sure that every bus had a seat belt."

Money

The NHTSA said in 2008 that installing three-point seat belts on all large school buses in the country would cost between $183 million and $252 million.

According to the trade publication School Transportation News, the cost of adding seat belts to a new 66- to 78-passenger school bus could be $1,500 to $2,000, plus $100 to $500 to repair or replace damaged belts. The publication gave a wide estimate of the cost — from $1,500 to $11,000 — to retrofit one older bus with structural reinforcement and seat belts.

The cost is not the reason groups like the Connecticut School Transportation Association have opposed seat belt bills, Moore said.

"That's so far from the truth, it's frightening," he said, adding that actual costs are largely unknown, but would be minimal over the lifetime of a bus.

Money, however, remains a sticking point for lawmakers, especially during tough economic times.

House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, is already saying the legislature needs to be mindful of the costs of seat belts.

State residents need to realize the costs, too, he said when commenting on the Quinnipiac poll.

Donovan said that while few would argue that putting seat belts on buses is not a good idea, the challenge for Connecticut is to figure out how it can require seat belts and be fiscally responsible.

Cost Vs. Benefit

Lawmakers ultimately must weigh the costs and benefits of seat belts, said Robin Leeds, president of the board of directors of the Pupil Transportation Safety Institute, a nonprofit group. The Groton resident is an independent consultant whose primary client is the National School Transportation Association.

Lawmakers also need to be careful when they write the bill, and should include a provision that would prevent school districts, bus companies and bus drivers from being sued if there are any injuries related to the seat belts, Leeds said.

Like many others, Leeds believes Vikas Parikh's death changes the conversation about seat belts in Connecticut.

She also said technology changes the equation. Lap belts have been the only option for buses in the past, but now there is the three-point belt, which was introduced in the early 2000s, she said.

As the legislative process moves forward, Leeds, much like Ciotto, urges caution. Fatal bus crashes are not common occurrences, she said, and the state needs to be careful when reacting to rare events.

•Staff writers Monica Polanco and Matthew Sturdevant contributed to this story.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant

Rell stands firm in not raising taxes
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Ken Dixon, STAFF WRITER
Posted: 08/21/2009 09:55:18 PM EDT
Updated: 08/22/2009 08:22:14 AM EDT

HARTFORD -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell says she's fighting for Connecticut families by refusing a Democratic proposal to raise taxes by $1.8 billion at a time when the state should be cutting its budget to meet a $2-billion shortfall in revenue.

During an interview Friday, the Republican governor said she's not sure how much longer the budget impasse will continue, but she won't agree to Democratic plans at a time when the state should create a climate to save existing jobs and create new ones.

As the state budget battle was poised to eclipse the record of 1991 on Saturday -- when lawmakers finally approved the personal income tax on Aug. 22 of that year -- Speaker of the House Christopher Donovan and other Democrats on Friday warned that Rell's proposed spending cuts are Draconian and will hurt the needy.

The Democrat's higher income-tax rates -- an extra $20 a week from joint income filers who make $600,000 a year -- are a small price to pay to continue the state's social spending, Donovan said.

Rell, speaking with three reporters in her Capitol office, denied Democratic charges that she's defending the state's wealthy by opposing the Democrats' higher tax rates. She said all 1.4 million tax filers in the state would be affected by higher spending and borrowing that would increase the state's debt.

"Who do you think is paying that debt service?" Rell said. "It's not just about taxes and it's not just about any one particular tax and that's been the fallacy. It's about cutting spending."

Rell, looking tired and sitting at a table with a calculator, a BlackBerry and some budget statistics, said she doesn't know when, or if, a deal can be reached. She's preparing another executive order to keep government functioning if Sept. 1 arrives without a deal.

"I don't relish this fight, but it is a fight worth having because it is a fight I believe for the people of the state of Connecticut and the families of the state," she said.

She said she wants a new budget as much as anyone, but she won't agree to a deal just to finish the controversy.

"It has to be something that's good for our state, won't kill jobs, won't force people out of our state and cuts spending and puts us in a favorable position when the economy turns around," Rell said.

Budget talks headed nowhere
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 8/14/2009

After a flurry of somewhat noisy activity last week and quieter talks Monday and Tuesday, legislative leaders and Gov. M. Jodi Rell are ending the week with relative inaction on the state budget.

There were no talks Wednesday and Thursday, and none were scheduled for today.

Rell's budget director, Robert Genuario, met with the nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis Thursday afternoon, according to the governor's office, in preparation for upcoming negotiations. The governor wasn't a part of the meeting.

But that wasn't good enough, according to Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn.

”We waited the entire month of July with those types of logistical steps and it really didn't get us anywhere,” Williams said in a phone interview Thursday. “I think we have the makings of a budget deal on the table; we just need to press forward and get it done. I'm available 24/7 and so is the speaker (House Speaker Christopher Donovan).”

Democrats met with Rell Monday and Tuesday and were having staff-level meetings Wednesday and Thursday, according to Williams, who said he didn't know when the next face-to-face with the governor would be.

Williams said the two sides have “closed about 85 to 90 percent of the problem,” referring to Democrats and Rell closing the gap on their two proposed budgets.

Rell has proposed a $36.9 billion two-year plan, while the Democrats offered a $37.8 billion budget; the Republicans' proposal was $36.4 billion.

The governor's office Thursday said only that “meetings continue” and could not confirm when Rell would meet again with legislative leaders.

Connecticut is one of just two states in the country without a budget; Pennsylvania is the other.

According to an Associated Press story, Rell called Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell Monday to commiserate about being the last two states to pass budgets for the current fiscal year, and jokingly warned Rendell not to sign a budget before she does.

Income tax hike blocking budget;  Battle waged over effects of increase
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Ken Dixon, STAFF WRITER
Posted: 08/08/2009 09:18:48 PM EDT
Updated: 08/09/2009 12:03:49 AM EDT

HARTFORD -- For a solution to the state budget impasse, lawmakers -- and the voters who elect them -- are arguing whether a couple earning $600,000 a year should pay another $20 a week in income taxes for the benefits of living in Connecticut.

In a nutshell, it's the obstacle that's on the verge of giving Connecticut the dubious distinction of being one of only two states without a new budget.

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and GOP legislators, who are a 37-114 minority in the House of Representatives and 12-24 in the Senate, said that raising income taxes in the recession will result in the exodus of wealthy residents, particularly in southwestern Connecticut's Gold Coast enclaves.

Where would they go? Florida has no income tax, and Republican lawmakers said it could become the destination of choice for wealthy Connecticut residents who don't want to pay more than the current 5 percent income tax rate.

But other nearby states with proximity to New York City have top tax rates much higher than those proposed by Connecticut's legislative Democrats.

Majority Democrats here said they believe that higher taxes on the rich will create the kind of assured flow of revenue that the state is going to need in the future, especially in two years, when federal stimulus money is gone, along with Connecticut's $1.4 billion in emergency reserves.

Unfortunately for Democrats, Senate leaders are still scrambling to come up with enough support to reach the 24 needed for a potential veto override should Rell reject them.

The battle, which has been raging in one form or another since Rell offered in February a two-year, $38.4 billion budget that was $2 billion in deficit, is threatening to make Connecticut -- in some surveys the nation's richest state per capita -- possibly the last state to approve a budget this year.

On Wednesday, lawmakers in North Carolina, a state of 9.2 million residents, approved a one-year, $19 billion budget with $1 billion in new taxes that the governor said she'd sign. That leaves Pennsylvania and Connecticut. Connecticut has about 3.3 million residents and nearly the same amount of state spending.

Even the dysfunctional New York State Assembly, which was the site of an

intraparty mutiny this spring that shut down action in the state Senate, was able to cobble together a newstate Senate, was able to cobble together a new budget, which raised its top tax bracket to nearly 9 percent.

Connecticut Democrats want to raise the marginal income tax rate, from the current 5 percent to 6 percent on joint incomes more than $500,000; 6.5 percent on those more than $600,000; and 7 percent on incomes more than $750,000.

The partisan battle over the income tax is the last piece of the puzzle. Rell and Democrats, to various extents, have agreed to add a surcharge on corporate income taxes and to raises taxes on cigarettes.

But the difference between Rell's plan to raise taxes by $391 million and Democratic proposals to raise them by $1.8 billion is the main obstacle.

"I think everyone has to pay their fair share," said state Rep. Christopher L. Caruso, D-Bridgeport, the longest-serving member of the city's legislative delegation.

"Over the years, the wealthiest have benefited by not having to do that," Caruso said in a phone interview. He said that in the wheeling and dealing to gain a majority for the creation of the income tax back in 1991, lawmakers agreed to sharply reduce the capital gains tax to attract support from Gold Coast lawmakers.

"For all these years, the wealthiest have done very well, but it meant less funds for the state," Caruso said. "Now we're in tough times, so the wealthiest have to step up, so those among the poorest aren't the most affected."

The couple making $12,000 a week -- $600,000 a year -- can easily afford an extra $20 a week, 35 percent of which could be deducted from federal income tax, Caruso said.

A recent Quinnipiac University Poll found that state voters, by a two-to-one margin, prefer cutting services to raising taxes.

However, 71 percent approved raising the income rate on couples who make $500,000 a year.

The Quinnipiac Poll also indicated that by 55 percent to 42 percent, voters reject the premise that raising taxes will lead to the migration of the wealthy out of the state.

According to the nonprofit National Conference of State Legislatures, nine states, most notably California and New York, increased income taxes this year, while 10 cut them.

The state Department of Revenue services said last week that among all tax filers in 2007, including singles and couples, there were 15,746 tax returns submitted that reported incomes of $350,000 to $500,000.

There were 15,536 returns for incomes of $500,000 to $1 million dollars; 6,483 for incomes of $1 million to $2 million; and 5,256 returns filed for incomes in excess of $ $2 million.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said last week that Connecticut has the opportunity to use its lower taxes to make the state more attractive.

"As a general matter, I think raising taxes in an economic recession is bad policy because it's harmful to job-growth creation, and it hurts the economy," he said.

McKinney pointed to commercial vacancy rates of 25 percent in Stamford and 19 percent in Greenwich as potential competitive weapons in the region competition for new tenants.

"We have an opportunity to reverse the migration we've seen and actually attract people to Connecticut rather than New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island, where there are significant taxes," McKinney said. "If we can hold the line on higher taxes, the tax differential will attract more people to Connecticut, and we could end up with more jobs, more taxpayers and more revenue without raising the tax rates."

In the past few years, the General Assembly has passed several bills to discourage sprawl. These have provided some funding as well as plans and studies. Sweeping legislation proposed on Monday would vastly increase the state's efforts to grow more compactly and efficiently.

The legislative package is the result of a year's work by the bipartisan, public/private Smart Growth Working Group assembled by state Rep. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden. The proposed laws place a heavy emphasis on regional planning and cooperation. Mr. Sharkey and his colleagues believe that regionalism and other smart-growth measures will shrink the overall cost of government and make the state more competitive.

This is a threshold moment for the state's smart-growth movement. If we really believe that sprawl is damaging the economy as well as the scenery, the bills should pass.

A core problem with the present system is that it almost requires sprawl. Towns have to pay for education and other services, and virtually the only way they can raise revenue is the property tax. So the incentive is to develop all available land, whether the development is appropriate or not.

Sharing revenue

Hartford - James A. Amann, a Democrat from Milford, served as speaker of the state House of Representatives for four years until he retired at the beginning of the current legislative session to focus on a run for his party's gubernatorial nomination.

Just moving money won't solve problem 
DAY editorial  
Published on 1/16/2009

Democratic lawmakers are going to have to do a whole lot better than this if they want to get serious about the huge deficits facing the state of Connecticut.

STATE DEFICIT 

State Finds Way To Uncap Cash In Bottle Law
The Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING
January 14, 2009

Lobbyists for the beer and soda distributors thought they had won a huge victory two months ago when the state legislature rejected Gov. M. Jodi Rell's plan to seize the nickel deposits on unclaimed bottles and cans.

But now, the state environmental department is saying that little-noticed language that was buried deep in a 34-page bill says that the wholesalers can no longer keep the money. Instead, the unclaimed nickels must be set aside in interest-bearing accounts that must be established by the wholesalers. The state says these accounts could eventually total about $25 million per year.

Based on the Department of Environmental Protection's interpretation of the new law — which went into effect Jan. 5 and is retroactive to Dec. 1, 2008 — the distributors can no longer gain access to the money. In the past, wholesalers have kept unclaimed deposit money and used it to help offset their recycling costs.

"It's in limbo," said Patrick Sullivan, a longtime lobbyist for the state's beer wholesalers. "The state doesn't have the money, and we can't use it to pay our expenses. The money is sitting in an account — our account. Our lawyer says that's ridiculous."

Today, when the legislature meets in special session to vote on Rell's latest deficit-cutting package, Sullivan will try to get the law changed back to the way it had been for decades. But Rell is still battling to seize the deposit money to help close a budget deficit that some fear could reach as high as $1 billion in the current fiscal year. In addition, the state is facing a projected deficit that could reach more than $6 billion to maintain current services over the next two years.

The battle over the unclaimed deposits became the most high-profile issue at the Capitol during a special session before Thanksgiving. An estimated 500 million bottles and cans in Connecticut each year are never returned to the store — ending up in the garbage or in recycling bins. Those 500 million nickels translate into $25 million per year.

Capitol insiders say that the beverage lobbyists got outsmarted and outmaneuvered in a high-stakes game of political power as somewhat unclear language got slipped into the bill.

"The worst of all worlds came with the DEP ruling," Sullivan said. "Just fix the amendment so we can deduct our expenses as we've done for the last 30 years." The lobbyist said he disagrees strongly with the interpretation by the DEP, which stands by its ruling.

Dennis Schain, a spokesman for the DEP, said the department is taking no position on the latest maneuvering to change the law. Any decisions on changing public policy are up to the legislature and not the DEP, he said.

"We believe the intent of this [law] was to determine how much was left after the bottles were redeemed and to provide an accounting of what's left in the system," Schain said Tuesday.

Other Moves To Save

Latest report on Connecticut budget woes
DAY
By Ted Mann    
Published on 1/2/2009

The state will end the current fiscal year more than $340 million in deficit, Comptroller Nancy Wyman estimated Friday, in the latest gloomy report on Connecticut's budget woes.

Legislature Puts Off Budget Cuts 
DAY
By Ted Mann 
Published on 12/31/2008

CANTON, Conn.

Chances are there aren’t a lot of State Senate debates that end with one candidate’s citing Elliot L. Richardson’s two rules for deciding how to cast your vote. (Does a candidate have a good sense of history? To what extent does the candidate appreciate the consequences of his or her decisions?)

Of course, there can’t be many debates that cite Mr. Richardson at all. But one reason this one did was that one of the candidates, Art House, actually served on a board with Mr. Richardson, the former attorney general, and brings to a modest State Senate race experience that includes public affairs positions with four major corporations, work on the National Security Council and high-level jobs with a former Connecticut senator, Abraham A. Ribicoff, and a current one, Christopher J. Dodd.

Mr. House, 66, a Democrat, is in a tight race with State Representative Kevin D. Witkos, 44, a police sergeant and three-time Republican state representative, for the open seat in the Eighth Senate District in northwest Connecticut. But they’re both players in an enterprising experiment in the public financing of campaigns that has made the process much more interesting than the individual races.

“Would I have run if we didn’t have public financing? I don’t know — maybe yes, maybe no,” Mr. House said. “But I can certainly say public financing was definitely an inducement for me to take the plunge. You begin knowing that politics doesn’t have to be a money game where you spend all your time on the phone dialing for dollars instead of meeting people, talking about issues and campaigning.”

The big story about public financing of campaigns nationally has been Barack Obama’s decision to opt out of the national system. But what’s unfolding in Connecticut may end up being far more influential.

At a time when roughly half the states are seriously considering public financing of campaigns, Connecticut’s initial experience has exceeded the expectations of even its most enthusiastic supporters. Of the 343 candidates running in General Assembly elections, 258 — about 75 percent — are seeking public financing.

“I think that for many reasons, Connecticut has made history this election season,” said Beth A. Rotman, Connecticut’s director of public financing. “We’ve had an unprecedented participation rate for the first elections with voluntary public campaign finance, and we’ve virtually eliminated special-interest money from the elections.”

Connecticut’s experiment with campaign finance reform happened only when it hit bottom. After the resignation of Gov. John G. Rowland in 2004 and a spate of other public corruption cases, with the state’s image moving from “the Land of Steady Habits” to “Corrupticut,” public financing suddenly became something other than a pet topic for good-government types.

A 2005 Zogby poll showed that 76 percent favored the public finance bill in the legislature and 82 percent backed measures to limit the influence of money on politics. That year, Connecticut became the third state, joining Maine and Arizona, with full public financing of statewide elections.

Under Connecticut’s new law, candidates for the House and Senate must first raise threshold levels — $5,000 for the House and $15,000 for the Senate in small contributions of $5 to $100, excluding firms doing business with the state. If they reach that, they then get an additional $85,000 for a Senate race and $25,000 for a House race. They can get more if their opponent decides not to accept public financing. Money comes from the sale of unclaimed and abandoned assets in the state’s possession.

For challengers, the appeal is obvious. Suddenly, they can have resources equal to an incumbent’s without hitting up major donors.

Incumbents have mostly gone along either because it looks bad not to or because, like challengers, they’d rather be campaigning than raising money.

Representative Witkos, whose three terms give him some of the traditional advantages of an incumbent, voted against the public finance bill. It had more support from Democrats than from Republicans, but was signed into law by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican.

Mr. Witkos figures that if voters did not support him, their money should not go to his campaign. That said, he likes the fact that the current system allows candidates to spend more time meeting with voters and discussing issues rather than raising money. He wants to see how the election cycle plays out statewide before deciding what he thinks of the new system.

“If all the incumbents get re-elected, we’re spending a lot of money and getting the same result,” he said.

Karen Hobert Flynn, vice president for state operations for Common Cause, a nonpartisan citizens’ lobby that supported the new law, said there would be many ways to evaluate it beyond whether incumbents are re-elected. Did it bring new people into the races? Does the behavior of elected officials change when they’re not beholden to those who paid for their campaigns? Are there more contested races?

But the candidates, like Chris Coutu, a 32-year-old financial adviser and one-term alderman from Norwich taking on a 14-year incumbent in the race for state representative there, says the process has already created a more level playing field.

“It lets the candidates focus on the issues,” said Mr. Coutu, a Republican. “In the past, you’d be out begging for money in the final days. Chances are, if you were close, an incumbent could get out multiple mailers in the homestretch and pound home his message while you had run dry. Now you’ve both got your money, and you can focus on the issues and the voters instead of being out begging for money.”

Republicans are asking what top House Democratic leaders knew about the case of state Rep. George Wilber, a Colebrook Democrat who resigned suddenly Tuesday after the revelation that he paid a woman $100,000 as part of a civil settlement following allegations of sexual abuse when she was a minor.

Although the allegations were made by the woman to Democrats in 2002, Wilber served for six years at the state Capitol before newspaper reports this past weekend made the matter public for the first time.

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Tuesday called the allegations "absolutely disgusting," and said she is concerned about how they were handled. Top Democrats knew about the allegations when Wilber ran for the legislature in the fall of 2002 and before he took office in January 2003. Then-House Speaker Moira Lyons oversaw an internal investigation that included interviews with Wilber and his accuser, but no action was ever taken because the information was conflicting and was deemed inconclusive, officials said.

The current speaker, James Amann, had not yet been elected majority leader when he received a briefing on the matter in 2002.

"I'm a little bit dismayed that the speaker knew about this before, several years before, and to the best of my knowledge, he never told anyone," Rell told reporters. "I do not know if there has ever been a criminal investigation or even if one is warranted, but I can tell you that the allegations are absolutely shameful."

But Amann said his role in the matter was limited to a briefing by a staff member, and that he was never involved in any investigation or questioning of Wilber.

"I never once had a conversation with him about this," Amann said of Wilber. "I have no idea [about the details]. I have no clue. I don't know what the allegations are."

Although Wilber paid $100,000 to settle the issue in 2005, Amann said he knew nothing about the settlement until the story broke.

"I wish Wilber would have told somebody," Amann said. "I haven't talked to him."

Amann talked to Rell on the telephone Tuesday afternoon to clarify his position and stress that he had limited knowledge of the issue in 2002 and now.

"She's talking about the wrong speaker," Amann said. "It was fully investigated by Speaker Lyons."

The accuser, who is now 47, has not publicly spoken about the allegations. But she claimed through her attorney that Wilber had sexually abused her more than 30 years ago — from the time she was 11 until she was 18.

No civil lawsuit was ever filed in the case, after Wilber agreed to pay his accuser $100,000. Criminal charges were never filed.

Lyons asked her administrative chief of staff, Lynn C. Blackwell, to investigate the allegations after House Democrats received a letter on the issue, Amann said. Blackwell talked to both the accuser and Wilber, who denied doing anything improper.

"It was a he-said, she-said," Amann said.

Blackwell said Tuesday night that the woman was never specific in her allegations against Wilber. Blackwell said that the accuser was unable to corroborate her contentions about Wilber and that she was unable to provide any witnesses from that time. Wilber admitted knowing the woman and her father, but he denied doing anything to her, Blackwell said. She added that only a small circle of people in the House Democratic office knew about the case.

"I never talked to Jimmy [Amann] about it," said Blackwell, who is an attorney. "He certainly didn't know about it from me."Democratic Rep. Stephen Dargan, who has served 18 years at the Capitol, said that even committee co-chairs and longtime legislators had no idea about the allegations or that Wilber had paid $100,000 to settle the matter.

"There was only a handful of people who supposedly knew about it," Dargan said.

A retired dairy farmer, Wilber represented his hometown of Colebrook and six other towns in northwestern Litchfield County near the Massachusetts border. He previously served for 19 years as Colebrook's first selectman and two years as Gov. Ella Grasso's secretary of agriculture.

Wilber's name will be taken off the ballots. Republican John Rigby is expected to be the only candidate with his name on the ballot in the Nov. 4 election.

State Republican Chairman Christopher Healy questioned why the House Democrats backed Wilber with campaign money in his 2004 and 2006 races. Public records show that Wilber's campaign received money or in-kind contributions from the House Democratic Majority PAC, the Capitol Democrats PAC and the Connecticut Democratic Leadership Coalition, among others.

Healy called the case reminiscent of Democratic support for former Rep. Jefferson B. Davis, who remained in the House for months after being arrested on charges stemming from his relationship with his foster son. Davis eventually pleaded guilty in 2004 to risk of injury to a minor after admitting to committing a sex act with his foster son, after the boy told investigators that Davis assaulted him 50 to 100 times.

"We've been down this path with Jeff Davis," Healy said. "He was accused of this, and he was allowed to participate in the process. No one was calling from the Democratic side for him to step down. I dare say if it was a Republican, the hue and cry from the other side would be pretty loud."

Wilber, 63, officially submitted his resignation Tuesday to Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who oversees state elections.

The two-sentence letter said, "Effective November 1, 2008, I am resigning my position as state representative of the 63rd House District. Effective today, I am withdrawing my nomination for election to the 63rd House District."