Get out your copy of
Walter Houston singing "September Song" (...it is a long, long time,
from May to December...) and think about what's
coming.
Old stuff:
Highlights of energy
assistance bill
DAY
Posted on Aug 23, 1:20 AM EDT
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- The following are highlights of energy
assistance legislation that lawmakers passed Friday night and Saturday
morning.
- Decreases retail oil or propane dealers' minimum deliveries from 125
gallons to 100 gallons.
- Appropriates $8.5 million to Operation Fuel for emergency home
heating assistance for households with incomes between 150 and 200
percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, that is
incomes of $31,800 to $42,000.
- Appropriates $5 million to Operation Fuel for households with incomes
between 200 percent of the federal poverty level to 100 percent of the
state median income. For a family of four, that is incomes of $42,400
to $93,821.
- Provides Operation Fuel with $500,000 for administrative purposes.
- Appropriates $6.5 million to local and regional school districts for
school heating assistance.
- Appropriates $4 million for emergency home heating assistance to
people ages 65 and older with incomes at or below 100 percent of the
state median income. That is $48,786 for one person and $63,798 for two
people.
- Appropriates $3.5 million for home heating assistance grants to human
service and public health nonprofit organizations such as adult day
care providers, homeless shelters and domestic violence shelters.
- Provides an additional $3 million to expand an existing rebate
program for replacement of residential furnaces or boilers.
- Provides an additional $2 million for more rebates to income-eligible
residents for repairing and upgrading furnaces and boilers to achieve
greater efficiency.
- Appropriates $2 million for additional funding for a state loan
program for the purchase and installation of energy conservation
materials, replacement boilers and furnaces and alternative energy
devices.
- Creates a contingency fund of about $33.5 million with remaining
surplus funds to cover future emergency heating needs.
- Allocates $7 million for a new program to subsidize energy audits for
customers.
- Appropriates $2 million for a winter weatherization program targeting
low-income households in the Connecticut Energy Assistance Program.
Legislature Overrides Rell's Veto Of
Minimum-Wage Increase
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, MARK PAZNIOKAS And JON LENDER | Courant
Staff Writers
June 24, 2008
With one vote to spare in each chamber, the state legislature voted
Monday to override Gov. M. Jodi Rell's veto and guarantee a 35-cent
increase next year in the state's hourly minimum wage.
The unusual override marked a significant political defeat for Rell:
It's only the second time that the Democrat-controlled legislature has
overturned the Republican governor in the nearly four years since Rell
took office. It also marked the first override on a major policy issue.
Lawmakers tangled over the minimum wage, with Democrats calling the
small raise a matter of fundamental fairness for the state's
lowest-paid workers. Republicans countered that the increase would
backfire in tough economic times, arguing that small businesses would
be forced to postpone hiring and reduce the hours for workers in
restaurants and retail stores.
The razor-thin margin offered some high drama in the House of
Representatives as lawmakers rushed to return from vacation to ensure
that they had the necessary two-thirds vote.
Statement From Rell On Override Rep. Felipe Reinoso, a Bridgeport
Democrat, flew back from his native Peru — where he lived for 19 years
before moving to Connecticut — and landed Sunday night at John F.
Kennedy International Airport in New York City. He paid $1,250 for his
ticket, and he said he intends to fly back next Sunday for another
month in his native land.
"I'm very happy that I came, and I voted," Reinoso said after the
debate. "I had e-mails requesting my presence."
Rep. Peter Panaroni, a Branford Democrat, was stuck in traffic on I-84
and missed the vote.
"He's on 84 with his dump truck because he was working today," said
Rep. Bruce "Zeke" Zalaski of Southington, who was tallying votes for
the House Democrats. "We asked the Capitol police to be sure he was
able to park."
But Panaroni's vote was not needed. The measure passed 102-39 in the
House and 25-9 in the Senate. Under the rules, the House needed 101
votes and the Senate needed 24.
About 65,000 of the state's 1.7 million workers — less than 4 percent
of the workforce — are paid the minimum wage.
Minutes after the Senate vote finalized the measure, Rell issued a
statement calling the votes "a seriously short-sighted decision that —
even if well-intentioned — will have long-lasting negative consequences
for employers and employees alike all over Connecticut."
"An increase in the minimum wage will bring an increase in the costs of
goods and services, the loss of jobs and unrecognized costs to
employers in the form of higher Social Security, unemployment tax and
workers' compensation payments," Rell said.
The law will now increase the wage from the current $7.65 an hour to $8
on Jan. 1, 2009, and to $8.25 in 2010.
The override passed in the House with 101 Democrats and one Republican,
Rep. Linda Marie "Penny" Bacchiochi of Somers.
Bacchiochi initially appeared to miss the vote, which followed a brief
debate. She rushed to her desk before the tally was announced and asked
to be counted in support.
In the final seconds before the electronic vote tally, Bacchiochi had
hurried conversations with House Republican leader Lawrence Cafero and
the Republicans' legislative chief of staff, George Gallo. She then
rushed up the aisle to her desk, but was too late to push the green
button and vote in favor of the override.
Bacchiochi then stood and asked to be recognized by House Speaker James
Amann so that she could have her vote recorded in the affirmative. The
speaker allowed her to vote, and the little green light lit up next to
her name on the tally board as the 102nd vote.
"I work with people every day who actually earn minimum wage, so the
argument that people who earn minimum wage aren't supporting themselves
or a household is false," said Bacchiochi, owner of a property
management firm in Stafford Springs.
"I manage low-income apartments. … I see what people living on minimum
wage have to do to survive. Knowing that, and seeing that, it makes it
almost impossible for me to vote not to raise the minimum wage."
She said she had been contacted by Rell's staff in recent weeks,
although not by Rell herself, and had been asked to reconsider her
support for the bill. But she said no one pressured her.
In the rushed conversations before the voting closed, Bacchiochi said
she sought to make sure that her Republican colleagues "understood this
was not an affront to them or to the governor, but something that I
felt personally was the right thing to do."
The Senate originally passed the bill 25-11, with Republican Sens. Sam
S.F. Caligiuri of Waterbury and Anthony Guglielmo of Stafford and all
23 Democrats in favor.
Although the House had more than enough Democratic members to reach the
required two-thirds vote, the override in the Senate required at least
one Republican vote because Democrats hold a 23-13 majority, and a
two-thirds majority is 24.
That meant the vote of either Caligiuri or Guglielmo would decide the
issue. State GOP Chairman Christopher Healy noted that both Republicans
are running unopposed in this fall's election.
Both Republican senators said in interviews after the vote that they
had met personally with Rell last Friday, at her request, and that she
had politely offered what she said was new information about how the
economy had worsened since the regular legislative session, when they
supported increasing the minimum wage. But both based their support for
the override at least partly on contact with constituents in their
largely working-class districts.
"We had a very respectful conversation," Caligiuri said of his meeting
with Rell. "This is a good-faith disagreement about whether this is the
right way to help low-wage earners. The governor and others firmly
believe that in this economic climate, a minimum wage increase will do
more harm than good.
"I've done my research. I've looked at the data," Caligiuri said. "I've
talked to businesspeople, and I just have not been able to reach that
conclusion. I am convinced that it will not do any harm to business,
but that it will help people — including many of my constituents."
Said Guglielmo: "I thought that when you have people who are working
for minimum and they're paying over $4 a gallon for gas, and they're
paying increased food prices, and they're paying increased fuel oil
[prices], that this is a small tip of the hat toward them."
Guglielmo said Rell was "very gracious" Friday when she argued that
"the situation has changed since we voted on it originally," but he
said that "you could use that as an argument for why you should vote
for [increasing the minimum wage] as well. ... It's also gotten worse
for the people who are receiving minimum wage."
In advance of June 11th
special session?
Gas Tax Increase To Be Postponed On
July 1; Democrats Support Plan By Rell and GOP
Hartford Courant "Capitol Watchdog" blog
June 5, 2008 5:47 PM EDT
Cash-strapped motorists will get a break at the pump on July 1
because the legislature will block a planned increase in the state's
gasoline tax, lawmakers said Thursday.
Prompted by a call earlier Thursday by Republican Gov. M. Jodi
Rell and a long-running call by legislative Republicans since late
April, top Democratic leaders said they would vote to stop the
scheduled increase in the gross receipts tax on the wholesale price of
gasoline. As a result, an expected tax hike of three to four cents per
gallon will not occur.
As gasoline prices have skyrocketed recently, Rell and lawmakers
have come under increasing political pressure to do something. The
General Assembly will hold a special session on Wednesday, but
lawmakers had not originally been expected to discuss gasoline taxes.
Saying that a 28 percent hike in gasoline prices has cost the
average two-car family nearly an extra $1,000 over the past year, Rell
declared that the legislature needed to act during the special session.
Only hours after Rell's statement, Senate President Pro Tem Donald
Williams and House Majority Leader Christopher Donovan, who is expected
to become House Speaker next year, told reporters outside the Capitol
press room that they will be taking action.
"We know that rising fuel prices not only affect the cost of
gas, but essentially everything, including food and clothing,''
Williams said. "While we can't stop fuel prices from rising, we can
prevent tax increases from further driving up the price.''
Senate Republican leader John McKinney of Southport and House
GOP leader Lawrence Cafero of Norwalk have been pushing for the tax cut
since April 28 - when they unveiled the Republican alternative budget.
Despite being in the minority, they have said they intended to drive
the debate on issues like the gas tax in the same way that they said
they drove the budget debate last year. Democrats have scoffed at that
notion.
"I caution my legislative colleagues not to stop at simply
postponing the scheduled tax increase,'' McKinney said. "We need to do
more, and we can. Republican legislators identified in April the
savings needed to cover the gas tax relief. In fact, the spending cuts
contained in the Republican alternative budget proposal would more than
offset the cost of eliminating the scheduled increase in the gross
receipts tax. It would also allow us to cap the tax once and for all,
and prevent it from increasing every time the price of oil goes up."
In the mid-afternoon Thursday, Cafero issued a press release and
a letter that pushed for the gasoline tax cut - hours before the 4 p.m.
news conference by Democrats.
"It took some time, but the Democrats who insisted on doing
nothing are hearing it every day from the people we all represent,''
Cafero said. "We said from the beginning that doing nothing in the face
of a mounting fiscal crisis and disgust at the gas pump was
unacceptable. People just don't understand why the Democratic leaders
chose to stand pat.''
Democratic leaders have been ripping the Republicans and their
alternative budget proposal for weeks. House Speaker James Amann
sharply dismissed the plan, saying that the GOP is "selling horse
meat.'' He recalled the case of a retail shop in his hometown of
Milford that was shut down because it was selling horse meat. In the
same way, he said, the Republican budget should be shut down.
Before the Democratic leaders announced their plan Thursday
afternoon, Cafero said, "Calling a special session to raise real estate
taxes when people are losing their homes, and then allowing the gas tax
to go up again July 1, is the clearest example of being out of touch
with what Connecticut needs right now.''
GOP: Early Reading Funding Loss Risks Jobs
Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | Capitol Bureau Chief
May 22, 2008
If the legislature fails to restore $20 million in state funding for
early reading programs, 316 employees could lose their jobs in 16
cities and towns on July 1, Republican legislators said
Wednesday. The early reading money fell out of the $18.7 billion
budget under the "do-nothing" plan favored by Republican Gov. M. Jodi
Rell and the Democrats who control the legislature. But
Republicans said that the money could be restored if the legislature
adopts their alternative budget proposal during a special session
before the state's fiscal year ends June 30.
Meanwhile, Rell announced that the projected deficit for the next
fiscal year has grown to as much as $150 million. The legislature's
nonpartisan fiscal office said the deficit for the current fiscal year
could be as high as $80 million.
The money for early reading programs was earmarked for 16
low-performing school districts. Losses would be $3.2 million in
Hartford, $2.5 million in Waterbury, $2.3 million in New Haven and $1
million in Norwalk. House GOP leader Lawrence Cafero, who lives in
Norwalk, said the cut would mean the loss of 13 positions in his town,
including literacy coaches and a secretary.
Each town would lose different positions, ranging from tutors to
full-time teachers, officials said.
"The reality of the do-nothing budget is setting in," Cafero said. "We
believe there is still time to do something."
But House Speaker James Amann rejected Cafero's idea, which he has
dubbed the "do something dumb" budget proposal. Republicans, he said,
need to drop the idea of reopening the budget because Rell and the
Democrats have decided to make no changes in the second year of the
two-year budget approved last year.
"I think the message is throw away the stick," Amann said. "The horse
is dead. Stop beating it. Let's move on. We've got a budget. It gets a
little silly that they're still trying to push a budget that no one is
going to support. We've got a budget in place."
Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams agreed, saying, "Once again,
legislative Republicans are out of step with their own governor. Their
so-called budget is a fantasy — built on false promises — and that's
why Gov. Rell doesn't even support it."
The General Assembly is expected to return to the Capitol by mid-June
to vote to extend the local portion of the state's real estate
conveyance tax, which could generate as much as $40 million for cities
and towns. Mayors and first selectmen — represented by lobbyists for
the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities — have pushed hard for the
extension because the increase in the tax is scheduled to expire June
30. If the legislature does nothing, the municipalities would not
receive the money in the next fiscal year.
Although Republicans are hoping to debate their budget alternative in
the June special session, Amann said, he is working to keep the agenda
as narrow as possible and focus only on the conveyance tax. He said he
has received about "two dozen" requests for action during the session,
but the Democrats, who control the legislature, can limit the agenda.
Rell is trying to reduce the current deficit by imposing an
out-of-state travel ban and other belt-tightening measures.
"We are seeing fall-offs in collections of a wide range of taxes and
fees — everything from income taxes and real estate conveyance taxes to
the cigarette and insurance company taxes, " Rell said. "All of these
reflect the softening national economy. We continue to position our
state to do well when the economy picks up again, as it inevitably
will. In the meantime, however, we must make sure that our spending is
controlled."
Water bottle deposit bill to fall short
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Brian Lockhart
Article Launched: 04/26/2008 01:00:00 AM EDT
HARTFORD - The General Assembly appears poised to pass legislation
expanding recycling within the state - just not the so-called bottle
bill that would place nickel deposits on water bottles. The
co-chairmen of the legislature's Environment Committee yesterday said
it is likely a proposal to expand curbside recycling will instead be
approved before the session ends May 7.
For several years, lawmakers have sought to expand the state's bottle
redemption program for beer and soda to water, juices, flavored teas
and energy drinks. Proponents came close last year, but could not
overcome intense lobbying by beverage companies and supermarkets that
did not want to handle the additional waste. This year, the
proposal was tailored to cover only water bottles.
But the bill does not have support in the House of Representatives,
state Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, an Environmental Committee
co-chairman, said yesterday. Meyer said Senate President Pro
Tempore Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, asked him to gauge House leaders'
thoughts on the bottle bill before the Senate considered whether to
vote on it.
"So I went down and talked to House leaders and they indicated to me
there was no signal that the House would ever take it up," Meyer said.
Co-chairman state Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, did not go that far but
called the bill a "moving target."
Meyer said the news this week that James Amann, D-Milford, will not
return as House speaker could affect the future of the measure.
"I think there's a feeling that we're going to get a new speaker who
may not have the alliances the current speaker has and we are going to
have a better shot at passing a bill next session," Meyer said.
Amann's spokesman, Larry Perosino, said if there were enough support
for the bottle bill among the House's rank-and-file members, the
speaker would allow it to come up for a vote. But Amann confirmed
that he opposes the bill. He said he believes expanding the
bottle redemption program would place an unfair financial burden on
supermarkets during a poor economy.
Amann said he plans to support what he considers to be a better
proposal, also backed by Meyer and Roy - the so-called single-stream
recycling bill. Single-stream recycling makes it easier for
residents to recycle household items, allowing them to place everything
in one bin for curbside pick-up rather than separating various
materials.
The proposed legislation would establish single-stream pilot programs
in a few municipalities.
"Why would you go with this pilot program and then do the bottle bill
at the same time?" Amann said.
That opinion is shared by spokesmen for Greenwich-based Nestle Waters
North America, who say the firm loses money in Maine's expanded bottle
redemption program. Because its bottles are distributed
differently than beer or soda, the redemption process is more
complicated for the company, Nestle said.
"A nickel on a bottle is very likely to get that into the recycling
stream," Nestle spokesman Brian Flaherty said. "However, the proposal
will bring it into a beer and soda system that just doesn't work for
our product."
Flaherty said the bottle bill for years has "stifled" talk of
single-stream recycling efforts at the Capitol. Companies like his are
doing their part by reducing the amount of plastic in their bottles, he
said.
"You take a bottle of Poland Spring or Nestle Pure Life. We have the
lightest half-liter on the market in the U.S. today," Flaherty said.
"It's a 30 percent reduction in plastic."
But Meyer said water bottle companies are misleading lawmakers when
they claim passing the single-stream recycling bill is an alternative
to the bottle bill. Single-stream programs deal with waste
generated at home. he said.
"The problem we have with water bottles and other bottles is that they
are spread all over Connecticut's landscape," Meyer said. "We find them
in schoolyards, parks, on streets. Single-stream recycling won't stop
that litter."
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, the ranking
Republican on the Environmental Committee, said, "I think you can do
both."
"I have supported the expansion of the bottle bill because I think it
has proven to be an important recycling measure and an important
anti-litter measure," McKinney said. "It doesn't make sense to not
capture such a large percentage of the bottle market - waters, juices
or teas."
P &
D B I L L S T O W A T C
H - 2 0 0 8
AN ACT CONCERNING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ZONES
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/TOB/H/2008HB-05634-R00-HB.htm
AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW OF PROJECTS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE BY
REGIONAL PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/TOB/H/2008HB-05673-R00-HB.htm
AN ACT CONCERNING AN EMERGENCY RELIEF PLAN FOR
CONNECTICUT FAMILIES FOR HOUSING COSTS.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=2&which_year=2008
INCREASING PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES TO MUNICIPALITIES.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5286&which_year=2008&SUBMIT1.x=11&SUBMIT1.y=12
AN ACT INCREASING THE STATE GRANT IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5290&which_year=2008&SUBMIT1.x=14&SUBMIT1.y=9&SUBMIT1=Normal
AN ACT CONCERNING PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR PROPERTY OF NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/TOB/H/2008HB-05293-R00-HB.htm
Fiscal 'patches'
last year could make for tricky state 2008 budget process
By Keith M. Phaneuf, Journal Inquirer
02/04/2008
In Part One of a three-part legislative preview, the Journal Inquirer
reviews key fiscal issues facing state lawmakers when the 2008 General
Assembly session begins Wednesday.
HARTFORD - In theory, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and majority
Democratic legislators should have a much easier time crafting the next
state budget than they did last year. With the state and
the national economies slumping, neither side is talking about major
tax hikes. And because both proposed and won major spending initiatives
in 2007 - for Rell it involved education grants; for Democrats, health
care programs - the chief goal in 2008 might be maintaining what's in
place.
But there's a problem: Lawmakers cut corners to make possible their
$17.6 billion budget - complete with its 8.6 percent spending increase
- without one major tax hike. And that could cost them in the
upcoming budget year. First, both sides dramatically increased
expectations for tax revenue, forecasts that may not hold up if the
economy worsens. They also budgeted little or nothing in several
key areas in crafting the preliminary $18.4 billion budget for 2008-09
last June. Before the final plan is completed this spring, officials
know many of those fiscal "goose eggs" must be replaced with hard
numbers.
Further complicating matters is that growing pressure to end fuel and
real estate taxes could cut into revenue on both the state and the
local levels.
"The good news is that Connecticut is well-poised to cope with an
economic downturn," Rell said this week. "Our economy is much more
diverse than during the devastating recession of 1989-92, when we lost
10 percent of the state's jobs.
"What we need are smart taxing and spending decisions," the governor
added. "It is vital that we write our budget with prudence and finesse.
The actions we take in the coming days will have consequences far down
the road."
Rell's budget director, Robert L. Genuario, said the administration is
determined to safeguard the historic investments made over the past
year in education and health care. That means lawmakers must be
especially cautious elsewhere.
A modest surplus
Both Rell's budget office and the legislature's nonpartisan Office of
Fiscal Analysis project a modest surplus of about $260 million for the
current fiscal year. That's a far cry from 12 months ago, when
state officials were hailing a mid-year surplus of more than $500
million. The state ended the 2006-07 fiscal year in June with a
record-setting cushion of more than $1 billion. Besides the
economic slowdown, this year's smaller surplus forecast stems from a
decision Rell and legislative leaders reached last June.
Both she and Democrats initially recommended income tax hikes, noting
that long-term spending forecasts showed a need for more state revenue
by 2009 or 2010. Though their plans differed in terms of the
rates and the income groups they targeted, both would have raised
upward of $300 million in additional revenue. Rell came under
pressure from fellow Republicans to scrap her income tax hike as the
surplus grew.
Democrats had their own problems. A proposal to boost taxes on the
wealthy while lowering them for the middle class won majority support,
but not by the two-thirds margin needed to override a Rell veto.
Ultimately, both sides agreed to scrap their tax hikes even though the
budget included a huge spending increase, arguing that the tax system
could be counted on to perform better - at least for one or two more
years. But counting on more revenue from taxes wasn't the only
move needed to make the last budget possible.
Plugging fiscal potholes
Democrats and Rell built some questionable assumptions into
their preliminary budget for the 2008-09 year, which starts July
1. Both sides already are conceding that more dollars have to be
found in several areas before a spending plan is adopted this spring.
Some problem areas are:
* Nursing homes. Connecticut spends more than $1.3 billion annually on
its 240 nursing homes, providing about two-thirds of their funding
through Medicaid. Lawmakers and Rell included no increase for nursing
homes in the preliminary budget. Yet Senate Democrats have called for
increases in mandatory minimum staffing levels.
* Prisons and criminal justice. Correction Department costs in the
current budget are running about $25 million in the red as Connecticut
tries to manage an inmate population of more than 19,000 in a system
designed to hold closer to 17,000.
Rell has acknowledged the state needs at least another 100 beds for
offenders with mental illnesses and addiction problems. Lawmakers
agreed in special session last month to add five full-time
professionals, including one psychiatrist, to the state parole board,
and want to add parole and probation officers to better monitor inmates
released into the community.
* Nonprofit social service providers. Like nursing homes, private
nonprofit social service agencies are slated to receive no increase
under the preliminary budget. These agencies, which provide the bulk of
services to state clients - at about half the pay of state employees -
will be relied on more heavily as the state tries to control its prison
population by treating more nonviolent offenders outside prison.
But many nonprofit agencies, suffering from what they say is nearly two
decades of state underfunding, are freezing or reducing program slots
as they struggle to fill staff positions and deal with a 27 percent
turnover rate.
* Health care. After a historic investment in expanded health care,
state officials might be hard-pressed in 2008 just to maintain the
ground gained over the past 12 months.
Analysts' reports warn that costs tied to Medicaid and related programs
to assist the poor and needy will grow much faster than expected.
Rell's budget office has cautioned that Medicaid-related programs could
cost $139 million above the spending growth already anticipated in the
preliminary 2008-09 budget.
"Health care is still a hot issue," House Speaker James A. Amann,
D-Milford, said, adding that lawmakers still are searching for ways to
help more people who lack adequate access to health care. "There's no
way we're going to take a step backward."
Tax cuts on the table
Further complicating matters is that legislators are talking
about tax cuts to help taxpayers and businesses as the economy
slumps. In the past week lawmakers have floated ideas for helping
residents deal with rising costs for home heating, health care, and
property taxes. They also announced proposals to help small- and
mid-sized businesses in an effort to spur job growth.
"Low- and middle-income Connecticut residents are facing steep
increases in the price of life's essentials, without significant
increases in wages," said Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams
Jr., D-Brooklyn, whose caucus was the first to propose a relief plan.
"Families are having a hard time making ends meet. It is imperative we
work together in a bipartisan manner to help families right now," he
added.
Another levy that may draw attention in 2008 is the state's wholesale
tax on fuel sales: the petroleum products gross receipts tax. The
levy, which adds some 17 cents per gallon to the price of gasoline in
Connecticut - over and above the state's flat 25-cent tax - brings in
close to $300 million a year. The state has since 2003 been diverting
more than $100 million of that revenue every year away from its
intended purpose - transportation - to support other government
programs.
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, this week told the
Connecticut Council of Small Towns that if the state better controlled
spending, it wouldn't need to divert those funds. And be
prepared: The gross receipts tax is slated to increase July 1, for the
fourth consecutive year.
Lawmakers OK Home Invasion Law
DAY
Published on 1/23/2008
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) _ The General
Assembly early Wednesday approved
legislation intended to toughen laws against home invasions and improve
how the judicial system handles prisoners on parole. The bill,
which
is the first legislative action in response to a deadly home invasion
in Cheshire last July, now heads to Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who has said she
will sign it.
The Senate voted 36-0 to approve the
measure and was followed at about
2:30 a.m. Wednesday by the House of Representatives, which passed the
bill on a vote of 126-12.
The arrest of two paroled burglars
who were charged in the killings of
Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters, Hayley and Michaela, prompted
debate about how to make state law stronger and improve Connecticut's
parole system. The bill is a compromise between Republican Gov. M. Jodi
Rell, who convened a task force to study the issue, and Democrats who
control the General Assembly.
"The people in my district have had
it. They're done." Sen. Thomas
Gaffey, D-Meriden, said during Senate debate. "When you don't feel safe
in your home what else do you have?"
The legislation would establish a
new crime of home invasion and
increases the penalty for burglary of a home at night by making it a
first-degree burglary instead of second-degree. Anyone who is
convicted of second-degree burglary or home invasion would not be
eligible for parole until after serving at least 85 percent of the
sentence under terms of the legislation.
The bill would require global
positioning system monitoring of an
additional 300 parolees. It also would require the criminal justice
system to develop a comprehensive information technology system to
improve information sharing among state agencies, board, commissions,
local police departments and other law enforcement officials.
Legislative leaders agreed to Rell's
demand that they drop a provision
requiring prosecutors to prove a suspect knew a home was occupied to
charge that suspect with home invasion.
"These changes are just the
beginning of a much-needed, top-to-bottom
reform of our entire criminal justice system," Rell said in a statement
Tuesday night.
Other changes will be taken up in
the General Assembly when its annual
session begins next month, she said. The Senate defeated an
amendment,
supported by the governor, that would have kept offenders convicted of
three violent crimes in prison for at least 30 years. Sen. Andrew
McDonald, the Senate chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said
lawmakers acted to achieve a compromise and Cooper said Rell is
satisfied with the legislation.
Many of the Republican governor's
reform ideas were similar to
proposals put forward by the majority Democrats, such as creating a
full-time Board of Pardons and Paroles and retooling the state's
persistent felony offender law. But Rell and the Democratic
leaders
differed on how to handle persistent offenders.
The so-called "three-strikes"
amendment called for a Superior Court
review of a third-time offender's sentence after 30 years or after the
inmate is eligible for release, whichever is later.
"We don't want people going into
corrections on the installment plan
and being cycled out and committing these horrible crimes," said Sen.
John Kissel, R-Enfield.
Democrats, acknowledged that the
Republican proposal was a tempting
law-and-order issue, but argued that judges need flexibility went
imposing sentences on violent criminals.
"I urge you not to take that
discretion away," said Sen. Edward Meyer,
D-Guilford.
ACLU questions prison
overcrowding
New London DAY
Posted on Dec 7, 6:06 AM EST
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- The American
Civil Liberties Union is raising
questions about what it calls potentially dangerous and inhumane
conditions from prison overcrowding in Connecticut.
The civil liberties organization is
asking Connecticut prison officials
for a response to complaints about conditions.
The ACLU letter to state Correction
Commissioner Theresa C. Lantz warns
about alleged unconstitutional treatment of prison inmates. Gov.
M. Jodi Rell says she has directed the commissioner to look into the
charges and take any corrective action that is necessary.
The governor has repeatedly said she
doesnt believe the state currently
needs to expand its prison system.
Lawmakers vote to call special session on
criminal justice reform
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Brian Lockhart
Published December 6 2007
HARTFORD - The General Assembly voted yesterday to
open a special
session to act on criminal justice reforms before the next regular
session begins in February. The open-ended session is to begin
this
morning, but no date has been set for a vote on bills that are
proposed. Leaders of both parties sent mixed signals over whether
there would be a vote before February...
State Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven,
co-chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, said he was "100 percent" certain that a date would be
scheduled in January to vote on criminal justice and parole reform
bills.
"It would just be too complicated to do it in a
regular session,"
Lawlor said.
But the co-chairman, state Sen. Andrew McDonald,
D-Stamford, told
colleagues there was much to do before a bill would be ready for a vote.
"There are no promises," McDonald said.
The Judiciary Committee has been considering
changes in the parole
system and other criminal justice practices since three members of a
Cheshire family were murdered in a home invasion in July. Two paroled
burglars are charged with killing Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her 17- and
11-year-old daughters.
In late summer, the General Assembly's Republican
minority began
pressuring Democratic colleagues to immediately schedule a special
session to enact reforms. But Lawlor and McDonald and their
caucuses argued for a review that
would examine all options, the effects on the prison system and the
costs. The committee held a 12-hour public hearing Nov. 27 on 15
proposals
from Lawlor, McDonald, Republican leaders, other legislators and
criminal justice professionals.
The House of Representatives was the first
yesterday to take up the
Democrats' resolution to schedule an open-ended special session.
Proponents said it allows for the General Assembly to be called to
Hartford once legislation is ready for a vote.
"As soon as legislation's ready, we'll move
without delay," said House
Majority Leader Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden.
Republicans, including Minority Leader Lawrence
Cafero, R-Norwalk, and
state Rep. John Hetherington, R-New Canaan, unsuccessfully proposed a
resolution calling for a special session no later than Jan. 16.
"The resolution before us has painfully little
meaning," Hetherington
told the House. "It's hard to understand why we can't set a date."
Donovan said the Judiciary Committee was waiting
for a task force
established by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell to conclude its examination
of the criminal justice system. The task force is not expected to
submit a report until the end of the month. Cafero said the two
weeks between Dec. 31 and Jan. 16 is plenty of time
for lawmakers to consider the task force report, incorporate its
recommendations into the Judiciary Committee's proposals and vote.
"We've done it in two hours, let alone two weeks,"
he said.
Senators were less optimistic. McDonald told
the group there is
plenty to do besides collaborate with the task force.
"We will have to . . . engage in a broader
discussion with our
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee" about budget effects, he
said. "This is certainly an aggressive and ambitious agenda for the
Judiciary Committee, and we're trying to work through it as quickly as
possible. . . . There's no promises it will be completed in January."
Senate Republicans did not follow the lead of
House Republicans in
proposing a Jan. 16 deadline. State Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield,
ranking Republican on the Judiciary
Committee, said the hearing on criminal justice reforms was probably
the longest of his career, and it offered many competing views to
consider.
"I think we have our work cut out for us," Kissel
said.
LIKELY
TO BE COMING UP NEXT SESSION
(2008 "short session")...a bill that
mandates what the Department of Revenue Services has already done.
Limits Considered For State
'Liaisons'
Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | Capitol Bureau Chief
December 8, 2007
When are lobbyists not really lobbyists? When they
work for the
state of Connecticut.
In that case, they are called "legislative liaisons,"
although they
often do the same type of work as "black hat" lobbyists who are hired
by corporations or special interests: try to influence legislation.
The disclosure earlier this week of the relationship
between Sen.
Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden, and a legislative liaison for the Connecticut
State University system has focused a spotlight on the issue and
prompted some legislators to call for placing restrictions on this
category of state employees.
Gaffey and the liaison, Jill Ferraiolo, both worked this
fall on CSU's
controversial request for $1 billion in bond funds for construction
projects at the four-campus university system. The request was vetoed
by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell in the first bond package, but a
slightly smaller, $950 million package, was later passed.
The issue arose when Courant columnist Kevin Rennie
disclosed Gaffey
and Ferraiolo's relationship, questioning the propriety of their
working together on the CSU bonding package.
Since state ethics laws are based on whether a legislator
or family
member receives any financial gain, some legislators have said the
relationship between Gaffey and Ferraiolo violated no laws or ethical
principles. Although some Republicans called for an investigation,
Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn and the
highest-ranking senator, responded that there would be no probe into
Gaffey's actions.
But legislators still cannot agree whether the liaisons
are actually
lobbyists. Gaffey has argued that Ferraiolo is not a lobbyist.
Unlike the registered "black hat" lobbyists, the liaisons
represent
state agencies and are permitted to walk unrestricted onto the House
and Senate floors during legislative debates. By contrast, registered
lobbyists must stand behind ropes outside the chambers and must file
detailed reports with the state ethics office that list their clients
and the amounts they spend. The attorney general, governor's office,
secretary of the state, chief state's attorney, University of
Connecticut and most major state agencies all have their own state-paid
representatives who are assigned to the Capitol to influence bills.
State records show there are more than 50 people employed
as liaisons.
Often earning more than $100,000 a year, they are a constant presence
at hearings and in the hallways of the Capitol.
Rep. Christopher Caruso, co-chairman of the legislative
committee that
oversees ethics, said he will be offering a bill when the next session
starts in February that will explore placing restrictions on the
liaisons for the first time.
"Legislative liaisons are actual lobbyists," said Caruso,
D-Bridgeport,
who has served in the General Assembly since 1991. "They are promoting
their agency. There should be restrictions — proper disclosure, certain
restrictions as to what they can do and can't do. I don't think there
are any [restrictions now]. It's a free-for-all."
Not known for embracing lobbyists or for mincing words,
Caruso called
lobbyists "the fourth branch of government."
House Republican leader Lawrence Cafero, of Norwalk, who
often
disagrees with Caruso on many issues, agrees with him about the
liaisons. He said one possible reform is to prevent liaisons from
roaming the House floor and restricting them to the "well" of the House
— the carpeted area directly in front of the speaker's dais.
Another possible reform, Cafero said, is to prevent any
lobbying on the
House floor. The liaisons have a two-pronged mission: information and
advocacy. Providing information to the legislators about the state
budget or policies would be permitted on the floor. Pushing for a cause
would not.
But Cafero is very clear that the liaisons are not simply
state
employees.
"There's no doubt about it: they are advocates,
lobbyists," Cafero
said. "Free agents. They can do whatever they want."
Besides Gaffey, fellow Meriden Democrat Christopher
Donovan — the House
majority leader — said the liaisons must be treated differently than
their black-hat counterparts.
"They're not lobbyists," Donovan said. "They are a branch
of
government. We should have access to those people."
Since black-hat lobbyists are not permitted on the floor
to speak to a
legislator, they sometimes ask a legislative liaison to go inside the
chamber and ask the legislator to come back outside to talk to the
registered lobbyist. But Caruso said no liaison had ever approached him
on the House floor with such a request, saying that practice should be
outlawed. The problem, he said, would be trying to keep up with the
personal side of legislators spread all over the state.
"If we investigated the lives of legislators," Caruso
said, "we'd have
a 24-hour committee, nonstop."
Lawmakers
get personal on laptop theft
during state hearing
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Brian Lockhart, Staff Writer
Published September 25 2007
HARTFORD - Two area legislators said yesterday they were
personally affected by the theft of a state Department of Revenue
Services laptop containing tax data from nearly 109,000 individual
taxpayers and businesses. The revelation from state Reps. Carlo
Leone, D-Stamford, and Lile Gibbons, R-Greenwich, came during a
three-hour hearing held by the legislature's Finance, Revenue and
Bonding Committee on the August theft. Leone told committee
colleagues he was one of more than 29,000 taxpayers who have so far
taken the state up on its offer of free credit monitoring through Debix
Identity Protection Network.
"I'm hopeful it's going to work," Leone said.
Gibbons, who also sits on the Finance Committee, said her
husband's tax
information and Social Security number also were on the laptop.
Gibbons told revenue services staff that they have broken the trust of
residents who rely on the state to secure their personal information.
"In America, we have a voluntary system of paying our
taxes," she said.
"We do so because we believe our information won't be compromised."
The laptop theft occurred Aug. 17; Revenue Services
Commissioner Pam
Law said yesterday an internal investigation was ongoing. In her
first public comments on the theft, Law told legislators the computer
was taken from a department employee's car. Law said the
employee, who had traveled to Long Island, N.Y., for a family event,
had permission to take the laptop to test the department's new
electronic taxpayer service center that weekend. But she said the
taxpayer information should not have been on the computer.
"This information was not needed for the test," Law said,
adding the
data might have been left from another project in December and
mistakenly downloaded by the employee from his office computer. She
said that was part of the investigation.
But the information should not have been stored for so
long on the
worker's office computer, Law said.
"He was in breach of department policy, is that correct?"
said state
Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich, the committee's ranking Republican.
He was, Law said, but the unnamed employee remains at
work pending the
results of the internal probe. The department initially reported
the laptop contained the names and Social Security numbers of 106,000
taxpayers. But Law and her staff yesterday said other information, such
as federal adjusted gross income, Connecticut income taxes,
withholdings, overpayments and refunds also were on it. The
department yesterday also increased the number of affected taxpayers by
1,310 and said that the bank routing numbers and account information
for 1,618 businesses also were involved.
Law and her staff said they believe all affected
taxpayers and
businesses have been contacted. She said it took 11 days to
notify the public of the theft because revenue services staff had to
determine what was on the stolen laptop. Law and her staff sought
to assure lawmakers and the public that the credit-monitoring service
was sufficient and they should not be overly concerned.
"We have no indication any of this data has been accessed
or misused,"
Law said.
Cal Mellor, assistant chief of the state's tax division,
said identity
thieves typically act within two or three days after obtaining
necessary information.
"I hope that's true for my personal sake and everyone
else on the
list," Leone said.
But later in the hearing, Mellor was contradicted by
state Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal, who said taxpayers should remain worried
about theft of their Social Security numbers.
"They
are often
the keys to the kingdom," Blumenthal said. "(Loss of) that kind of
information alone is extremely and deeply troubling. The point is we
cannot know today the ramifications of this breach." The full
repercussions of the laptop theft may not be known for a year,
Blumenthal said.
Law
told the Finance Committee that her department has followed
Blumenthal's suggestions to offer two years of free credit protection,
instead of one, and to increase the amount of identity theft insurance
the state is offering from $5,000 to $25,000 for each affected
taxpayer. Revenue Services Deputy Commissioner Richard Nicholson
said that since the theft, the department also has concluded encryption
of all its 154 laptops; purged them of any sensitive data; and
established a written process for releasing laptops out of the office
and ensuring data is quickly purged. Nicholson said the
department also is working to establish random internal audits to
ensure employees are following procedures.
After the theft, Gov. M. Jodi Rell also issued orders to
improve
oversight of all state-owned laptops. State Rep. Brendan Sharkey,
D-Hamden, scolded Law and her staff for what he viewed as an initial
lack of communication from the department about the theft.
"It's a shame we had to go to the extreme of having a
public hearing to
get some of the information we got today," Sharkey said. He added
that it appeared the department had been nonchalant in addressing the
theft and its potential effect on taxpayers.
But Law said the department "did an extraordinarily large
amount of
work in a couple days" in trying to gauge the scope of the theft.
She also apologized more than once during the hearing for
the loss of
the taxpayer information, saying she sincerely regretted the
incident. Nicholson told Sharkey the department's entire staff
has been shaken by the event.
"There's really a pall over the
department right now,"
Nicholson said. "They take this very seriously. The employees are
extremely upset. They do not want this black mark on the department."
L O N
G S E S S I O N 2 0 0 7
No budget, no smart
growth...NADA.
There was to be an "Omnibus
Bill" in Special Session (S.B.1500 - June Special Session Public
Act No. 07- 4). Some bills
that passed during
the Long Session
HERE
Governor
Rell opened the Long Session on January 3rd - we looked for emphasis on
"Responsible Development." This website hoped the new Session
would itself be an exercize in "Responsible Government."
Our
favorite Committees' Bill Book links below (plus Appropriations
sub-Committee links):
Connecticut
General Assembly
(CGA) website or go directly to:
More great direct links:
- THE WHOLE
STORY OF HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW: WARNING: this
is pure fantasy. The most significant part of the "How a
bill becomes
a law" link previously noted is at the end..."bill becomes law if: 1.
the governor signs it; 2. the governor
fails to sign within 5 days during the legislative session or 15 days
after adjournment; 3. the vetoed bill is repassed in each house by a
2/3 vote of the elected membership."
- DEADLINES;
- Ethics changes mixed in with gifts
of State Land;
- Opening day procedural move...
- Associated
Press pitch on the new
Session...(starts this coming Wednesday);
- Office of Legislative Research (OLR)
- Legislative Commissioners' Office (LCO)
- Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA)
- FROM THE
PRINCIPAL ANALYST AT O.L.R.Every
year, legislative leaders ask the Office of Legislative Research (OLR)
to identify and provide brief descriptions of important issues that the
General Assembly may face in the coming session
OUR
SUMMARY...things we were watching out for that we were happy to see
included in Omnibus Senate Bill 1500...
- Read
interview with one of the "winners" this
Session.
- Read
about the
"incentives" housing legislation
passed as part of Omnibus Bill 1500 here!
- BLUE
RIBBON COMMISSION to
assess
the housing/economy linkage -
Click here.
- School
bus idling emissions;
- California
standards for auto
emissions - Section 34;
- Bio
Diesel - Section 51;
- MOVIE
BILL FIX - Section 69.
Some of
the new language
(46)
"Video service" means video
programming services provided through wireline facilities, a portion of
which are located in the public right-of-way, without regard to
delivery technology, including Internet protocol technology. "Video
service" does not include any video programming provided by a
commercial mobile service provider, as defined in 47 USC 332(d), any
video programming provided as part of community antenna television
service in a franchise area as of October 1, 2007, any video
programming provided as part of and via a service that enables users to
access content, information, electronic mail or other services over the
public Internet;
(47) "Certified competitive video service provider" means an entity
providing video service pursuant to a certificate of video franchise
authority issued by the department in accordance with section 2 of this
act. "Certified competitive video service provider" does not mean an
entity issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity in
accordance with section 16-331 or the affiliates, successors and
assigns of such entity or an entity issued a certificate of cable
franchise authority in accordance with section 13 of this act or the
affiliates, successors and assignees of such entity;
(48) "Certificate of video franchise authority" means an authorization
issued by the Department of Public Utility Control conferring the right
to an entity or person to own, lease, maintain, operate, manage or
control facilities in, under or over any public highway to offer video
service to any subscribers in the state; and
(49) "Certificate of cable franchise authority" means an authorization
issued by the Department of Public Utility Control pursuant to section
14 of this act conferring the right to a community antenna television
company to own, lease, maintain, operate, manage or control a community
antenna television system in, under or over any public highway to (A)
offer community antenna television service in a community antenna
television company's designated franchise area, or (B) use the public
rights-of-way to offer video service in a designated franchise area.
The certificate of cable franchise authority shall be issued as an
alternative to a certificate of public convenience and necessity
pursuant to section 16-331 and shall only be available to a community
antenna television company under the terms specified in sections 14 to
24, inclusive, of this act.
---------------------------------
Some more
new language:
Sec. 14.
(NEW) (Effective October
1, 2007) (a) The Department of Public Utility Control shall not require
a company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority to comply
with any facility build-out requirements or provide community antenna
television service or video service to any customer using any specific
technology.
(b) The Department of Public Utility Control shall not impose any
provision regulating rates charged by a community antenna television
company holding a certificate of cable franchise authority, except as
set forth in federal law.
Sec. 15. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) A company holding a cable
franchise authority certificate shall not deny access to service to any
group of potential residential subscribers based solely upon the income
of the residents in the local area in which such group resides. An
affected person may seek enforcement of this requirement by filing a
complaint with the Department of Public Utility Control. A municipality
within which the potential residential community antenna television
service or video service subscriber resides may be considered an
affected person for purposes of this section.
Sec. 16. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) A company issued a
certificate of cable franchise authority shall be subject to the
community access programming and operations provisions set forth in
subsections (b) to (i), inclusive, and subsections (k), (l) and (n) of
section 16-331a of the general statutes and any regulations pursuant
thereto, and subsection (c) of section 16-333 of the general statutes
and any regulations pursuant thereto.
(b) A company issued a cable franchise authority certificate shall
provide transmission of the Connecticut Television Network to all its
subscribers, including real-time transmission as technically feasible.
Sec. 17. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) A company issued a
certificate of cable franchise authority shall, twice a year, convene a
meeting with the advisory council established pursuant to its previous
certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to
section 16-331 of the general statutes. Members shall be appointed in
accordance with section 16-331d of the general statutes. No member of
the advisory council shall be an employee of a company providing
community antenna television service or video service. For the purposes
of this subsection, an employee includes any person working full or
part time or performing any subcontracting or consulting services for a
company providing community antenna television service or video
service.
(b) A company issued a cable franchise authority certificate shall
provide funding to the advisory council in the amount of two thousand
dollars per year.
(c) Members of the advisory council shall serve without compensation.
For the purposes of this section, compensation shall include the
receipt of any free or discounted community antenna television service
or video service.
(d) The Department of Public Utility Control shall designate the
advisory council as an intervenor in any contested case proceeding
before the department involving the company it advises. Such company
shall provide to the chairperson of the advisory council a copy of any
report, notice or other document it files with the department in any
applicable proceeding.
(e) Any company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority
shall, every six months, provide on bills, bill inserts or letters to
subscribers, a notice indicating the name and address of the
chairperson of the advisory council and describing the responsibilities
of such advisory council. The advisory council shall have an
opportunity to review such notice prior to its distribution.
Sec. 18. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) At the time of initial
subscription, and annually thereafter, a company issued a certificate
of cable franchise authority shall provide subscribers with a
description of the community antenna television service or video
service offerings and current rates, a description of the company's
credit policies, including any finance charges or late payment charges
and a description of the company's billing practices and complaint
procedures upon request.
(b) In accordance with 47 USC 551, at the time of entering into an
agreement to provide community antenna television or video service to a
subscriber, a company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority
shall inform the subscriber of its practices regarding the collection
and use of personally identifiable customer information, including (1)
the type of information collected, (2) the purposes for which it is
used, (3) the extent and manner in which it is shared with unaffiliated
third parties for purposes of enabling delivery of the community
antenna television or video service, and (4) its procedures to ensure
the subscriber's right to privacy. A holder of a certificate of cable
franchise authority shall not disclose personally identifiable customer
information other than anonymous or aggregate data to unaffiliated
third parties for their own marketing purposes without the consent of
such subscriber.
(c) A company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority shall
implement an informal process for handling Department of Public Utility
Control and customer inquiries, billing issues, service issues and
other complaints. In the event an issue is not resolved through this
informal process, a customer may request from the department a
confidential, nonbinding mediation with the company, and a designated
member of the department staff shall serve as the mediator. If the
mediation is unsuccessful, the customer may file a formal complaint
with the department. The department's sole jurisdiction over the
complaint is to determine if the company is in compliance with sections
14 to 24, inclusive, of this act, or any other laws, regulations or
orders applicable to companies holding a certificate of cable franchise
authority. If the company is found to be in noncompliance, the
department shall order the company to remedy such noncompliance within
a reasonable period of time. Failure to comply may subject the company
to civil penalties and revocation of the certificate, as provided in
section 24 of this act.
(d) A company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority shall
comply with the customer service requirements of 47 CFR 76. 309(c) for
its community antenna television or video services. A company issued a
certificate of cable franchise authority shall not be subject to any
other state law or regulation or department order to the extent it
imposes customer service requirements in excess of or more stringent
than 47 CFR 76. 309(c).
Sec. 19. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) Except when otherwise
required by federal law, a company issued a certificate of cable
franchise authority shall inform the Department of Public Utility
Control of any planned programming or rate changes not less than thirty
days before implementing such changes unless (1) such changes are
required by law to be made in less than thirty days, or (2) in
appropriate circumstances where a shorter notice period is in the best
interest of the company's subscribers.
(b) Except when otherwise required by federal law, a company issued a
certificate of cable franchise authority shall inform each of its
subscribers, the chairpersons of the joint standing committee of the
General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to technology
and the chairperson of the applicable advisory council of any planned
elimination or reduction in programming or planned rate increases not
less than thirty days before implementing such changes unless (1) such
changes are required by law to be made in less than thirty days, or (2)
the department prescribes a longer or shorter notice period in
appropriate circumstances where such longer or shorter notice period is
in the best interest of the company's subscribers. The advisory council
may hold an advisory public hearing concerning the planned changes and
may then make a recommendation to the company before the planned
implementation date.
Sec. 20. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) If community antenna
television service or video service provided to a subscriber by a
company holding a certificate of cable franchise authority experiences
a service outage for more than twenty-four continuous hours, such
subscriber shall receive a credit or refund from such company in an
amount that represents the proportionate share of such service not
received in a billing period, provided such interruption is not caused
by the subscriber.
Sec. 21. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) A company issued a
certificate of cable franchise authority shall make closed captioning
available when simultaneously broadcast with video signals carried by
the company.
(b) A company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority shall
offer the concurrent rebroadcast of local television broadcast
channels, or utilize another economically and technically feasible
process for providing an appropriate message through the company's
community antenna television service or video service in the event of a
public safety emergency issued over the emergency broadcast system.
Sec. 22. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) A company issued a
certificate of cable franchise authority shall provide any library
serving the public and any school system, college or university,
located in a part of the company's franchise area where service is
available, with one outlet for basic community antenna television
service or video service at no charge if such library, school system,
college or university participates in educational or public access
programming offered throughout the company's franchise area. The
Department of Public Utility Control may exempt any company with a
certificate of cable franchise authority from providing such service at
no charge if it would have an adverse impact on such company. No
company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority shall be
required to provide this free service if the library or school is
receiving community antenna television service or video service from
another provider.
Sec. 23. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) Nothing in sections 14
to 24, inclusive, of this act shall be construed to relieve a company
issued a certificate of cable franchise authority from such company's
obligations under any federal or state laws or regulations or
Department of Public Utility Control orders applicable to community
antenna television companies or public service companies, or from any
other federal or state laws or regulations or department orders unless
specified in sections 14 to 24, inclusive, of this act.
(b) A company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority shall
not be subject to subdivisions (1), (2), (3), (5) and (6) of subsection
(d) of section 16-331 of the general statutes, subsections (f) and (h)
of section 16-331 of the general statutes, and subsections (e) and (f)
of section 16-333 of the general statutes or to any regulations or
department orders implemented or arising from said sections.
Sec. 24. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) A holder of a certificate of
cable franchise authority, and the officers, agents and employees of
such cable franchise authority, shall obey, observe and comply with
sections 14 to 24, inclusive, of this act and each applicable order
made by the Department of Public Utility Control pursuant to sections
14 to 24, inclusive, of this act. A holder of a cable franchise
authority certificate that the department finds has failed to obey or
comply with sections 14 to 24, inclusive, of this act or any applicable
order made by the department pursuant thereto may be fined, by order of
the department, not more than ten thousand dollars for each offense.
Each distinct violation of any such order shall be a separate offense
and, in the case of a continued violation, each day thereof shall be
deemed a separate offense. The department shall impose any such civil
penalty in accordance with the procedure established in section 16-41
of the general statutes. If such penalty is imposed, it shall be the
sole remedy for such violation. The department shall also have the
authority to revoke the certificate of cable franchise authority if the
holder of the certificate is found, after a department hearing with
notice to all interested parties, to be in substantial noncompliance
with the requirements of law or department orders.
--------------------------------
OLR
Bill Anaysis
sHB 7182 (as amended by House “A” and
“C”)*
AN ACT CONCERNING CERTIFIED COMPETITIVE VIDEO SERVICE.
Community
Access provisions below, summary of complete bill: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/SUM/2007SUM00253-R02HB-07182-SUM.htm
Community
Access. Within 120 days
after a provider begins offering service in an area under its
certificate, it must provide capacity over its video service to allow
community access programming in its basic service package. The provider
must provide
1. the same number of community access channels as currently is offered
by the incumbent cable TV company in the area;
2. funds for community access operations in the same way as cable TV
companies; and
3. for the transmission of community access programming with
connectivity up to at least 200 feet from its activated wireline
distribution facility and must do so without imposing additional
requirements for the creation of any content.
The community access programming must be submitted to the provider in a
form compatible with the technology or protocol it uses to deliver
video services over its network, and must be capable of being accepted
and transmitted by the provider, without requirement for additional
alteration or change in the content by the provider.
`Rat' Reigns As Law Of Land
Hartford
Courant editorial
July
22, 2007
Earlier
this month, Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed into law a bill with a
hastily tacked-on amendment - a legislative "rat" - that is a back-door
assault on the integrity of Connecticut's most pristine watershed
lands. That the General Assembly would adopt such legislation without
benefit of a public hearing is bad enough. That Mrs. Rell would see fit
to make it law is at least as disturbing.
The
amendment, introduced by New Britain's legislative delegation,
creates a custom-made exception to the state's water-pollution laws for
Tilcon Connecticut Inc., a New Britain-based company with strong
political connections.
Tilcon
operates a quarry in Plainville near some watershed land owned
by the city of New Britain.
Watershed
land (especially Class I watershed, which is within 250 feet
of a reservoir) enjoys stringent protections under Connecticut's
pollution laws. The law signed by Mrs. Rell waives those protections
and allows New Britain to enter into a 40-year, multimillion-dollar
lease with Tilcon to mine gravel on 131.4 acres of city-owned watershed
land - including Class I land - in an area known as Biddle Pass.
In
a statement released this week, Mrs. Rell admitted to some unease
over the law's underhanded origins. "I was disturbed that there was no
public hearing on this proposal and that the regular legislative
process was not followed," she said. Yet she said the amendment
contains "numerous safeguards," including public hearings by state and
city agencies and an independent environmental analysis, to ensure that
Tilcon's proposal undergoes a stringent review.
"I
am satisfied that the state's water supply and the health and safety
of the people of Connecticut will not be jeopardized," she said. We
hope that's true.
Still,
this amendment begins with a phrase that, while short, has
breathtaking implications: "Notwithstanding any provision of chapter
474 of the general statutes ..." In other words, for purposes of this
sweetheart deal between Tilcon, the city of New Britain and any state
lawmakers whose campaign coffers may benefit, Connecticut's pollution
laws protecting its watershed lands don't apply.
We
suspect there are many municipalities, water companies and other
businesses whose bottom lines would benefit from the corruption of
Connecticut's watershed lands. Now that the General Assembly and Mrs.
Rell have set the precedent, it may be only a matter of time before
those protections are further eroded.
Answers
About Gambling;
Connecticut has a chance to go where nobody's gone and figure out the
impact of its lucrative games of chance.
DAY
Editorial
Published on 7/15/2007
After a decade-long hiatus, the
General Assembly agreed this year to go
ahead with a fresh study of the impact of gambling on Connecticut. The
study at last will bring the state into conformity with a legal
mandate. But it should do more than satisfy the letter of the law. It
ought to rise above conventional wisdom and produce original insights
that help the public and its policy makers make sensible decisions in
the future about this increasingly pervasive social and economic
phenomenon.
The study will be undertaken by a
contractor for the state office that
regulates legalized gambling and harvests the lucrative proceeds for
the state government, the Division of Special Revenue. The agency has a
lot of territory to cover, and only $700,000 at its disposal to pay for
the job. Since the last study was published 10 years ago, a second
casino has emerged, and the two giants have gone through massive
expansions. In addition to Las Vegas-style gambling at the casinos,
Connecticut has a lottery and Off Track Betting. There is also
simulcast racing at Shoreline Star Greyhound Park in Bridgeport. Jai
alai, and live horse and greyhound racing are also legal in
Connecticut, although they are currently not available.
Here are a few of the issues the new
examination of legalized gambling
in Connecticut ought to touch upon:
•The economic impact of the state's
two Indian casinos. That inquiry
should be a nuanced one that goes beyond the jobs created and the money
these businesses produce in the economy. What effect does employment at
the casinos have on the labor market for other businesses, and how much
does gambling take away from other enterprises, or complement them? The
study needs to take a qualitative as well as quantitative look at the
new jobs, and how they add or subtract from the region's well being. It
should look to labor organizations for their perspective on issues
affecting job quality, a recommendation of the federal gambling impact
study completed in 1999.
•The burdens that the expansion of
gambling in eastern Connecticut has
placed upon public works, public services, housing and transportation.
A true-to-life picture of this impact would better inform the
legislature in making use of its gambling revenues to address
shortcomings and to develop new strategies for meeting housing and
transportation needs. The weight of casino growth on public schools
also needs attention.
•The social costs. The study should
provide an accurate and up-to-date
picture of the dimensions of problem gambling and its effects,
including bankruptcies, family problems, lost jobs and gambling-related
crime. A better understanding of the depth and breadth of these issues
and public-health aspects of gambling will help develop better methods
to deal with them.
•Government dependency on gambling
revenue. The state relies on
gambling for what is approaching $1 billion in revenue every year. That
makes the proceeds a significant part of the state income structure
that would be difficult to replace without increasing taxes
significantly. The study should examine the soundness of a fiscal
policy so heavily reliant on games of chance, as well as dependent upon
a single industry.
•Casino tourism. The eastern
Connecticut casinos have become a
cornerstone of the state's tourism industry. A good gambling study
would look at how well gambling has been assimilated into the state's
strategies to capitalize on tourism.
•Costs and benefits. This is one of
the conspicuous unknowns, in which
there are few if any good analytical tools. The study nevertheless must
take a stab at judging this crucial question.
•Way of life. There are two opposing
views about the impact the casinos
have had on Connecticut, and the larger question of how the growing
phenomenon of legalized gambling has affected the quality of life. The
pessimistic view is that gambling has had a corrosive effect. The
opposite perspective is that the economic growth, jobs and retail
expansion from casinos have enhanced the quality of life and made the
state a more interesting place. No gambling study, including the
federal one, has shed much light on this issue. Connecticut, with the
world's two biggest casinos, is in a good position to begin to
understand whether the growth of gambling is good or bad for us.
Everyone has a theory and point of
view on the impact of gambling. This
study offers a chance to get at the truth and help policy makers come
to terms with the growth of legalized gambling.
If it succeeds at this, it will be a
first. If it doesn't, Connecticut
risks leaving its future to chance.
Rell signs bill to
reduce shortfall in teachers' pension fund
DAY
Posted on Jul 10,
6:56 PM EDT
HARTFORD, Conn.
(AP) -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Tuesday
signed legislation that authorizes borrowing money to reduce a $6.9
billion shortfall in the state teachers' pension fund.
The law calls for issuing $2 billion in pension
obligation bonds, and
it requires the state to fund the pension system at 100 percent of the
actuarial-recommended level, which the government failed to do from
1992 to 2005.
"Teachers should not have to worry that there will be
insufficient
funds for their retirement pensions," Rell said in a statement.
The nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis said the net
impact of the
bill would be to reduce the teachers' pension fund liability by $1
billion.
While assets would increase by $3.6 billion from the bond
issue and
other moves, there would be an increase of $2.6 billion in liability
from reinstating guaranteed cost-of-living increases for retired
teachers.
The pension fund now holds $10.2 billion, representing
nearly 60
percent of its obligations, according to Rell's office. The new bonds
will be issued at an interest rate of about 5.6 percent.
The Connecticut Education Association, the state's
largest teachers'
union, said full funding of the pension system is vital because
Connecticut's teachers do not participate in Social Security.
"Adequately funded pensions are necessary if Connecticut
is to attract
and retain professionals in our schools," said John Yrchik, executive
director of the CEA.
Tied party primaries will no
longer settled by flip of coin
New Haven Register
Gregory B. Hladky, Capitol Bureau Chief
07/10/2007
HARTFORD — A new law that's just taken effect will do
away with an
obscure Connecticut provision — which was used only once in the past 50
years — to decide a tie vote in some party primaries by the flip of a
coin.
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said Monday that
the new law
will require that, in the case of a tie vote in a primary for state,
district, municipal or town committee nominations, a new primary
election be held three weeks after the initial vote.
The new legislation that Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed into
law last week
won't affect Connecticut's system for resolving tie votes in statewide
or legislative general elections, which are systems that don't depend
on pure luck.
"Tie votes are of course extremely uncommon in
elections," Bysiewicz
said.
The only one on record occurred in 2006 when the
candidates in Groton's
41st Assembly District Democratic primary each received 457 votes. The
contest between Elissa T. Wright and Rita Schmidt was decided on a coin
toss, and Wright won.
"In fact, there have been no other ‘ties' in Connecticut
in at least 50
years," Bysiewicz said.
Wright's experience in winning a primary by the toss of a
coin
convinced her to join Bysiewicz in supporting legislation this year to
change the system.
"No candidate should have to worry that a tie would mean
a coin-flip,
and, more importantly, no voter should feel disenfranchised," said
Bysiewicz. "All elections, no matter what the outcome, should be in the
hands of the voters."
Connecticut law has never used the flip of a coin to
decide a tie in a
general election vote.
In the case of a general election tie for a statewide
office such as
governor, the General Assembly would elect the winner. In the case of a
tie in a general legislative election, a runoff would be conducted
three weeks later.
But Connecticut is far from the only state that had coin
flips on the
books as a legitimate way to decide a primary tie.
The Connecticut Office of Legislative Research surveyed
18 other states
and found that at least 12 included drawing of lots or the toss of a
coin as one method of deciding a primary tie. Those states include
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
Idaho, Minnesota, Utah, Virginia and Washington decide
ties in either a
primary or a general election by drawing of lots or coin flips,
according to the OLR report.
Other states have tried different methods for resolving
ties in primary
elections. Louisiana, for example, allows any candidate who ties in a
primary to qualify for the general election ballot.
House approves new two-year, $36 billion
state budget
DAY
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated
Press Writer
Posted on Jun 23, 5:19 AM
EDT
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- -
The House of Representatives voted
overwhelmingly early Saturday to support a new two-year, $36 billion
state budget that spends historic sums on local education and health
care.
The 134-5 vote came at 2:25
a.m. after hours of 11th-hour, back room
negotiations, and more than two weeks after the legislature adjourned
its regular session on June 6.
The bill now moves to the
Senate for consideration Monday.
"I hope we can say by the
end of this session that every child in
Connecticut has access to health care," said Rep. Denise Merrill,
D-Mansfield, co-chairman of the legislature's Appropriations Committee.
Despite weeks of discussion
about cutting and raising taxes, the
package only raises the state's cigarette tax, from $1.51 to $2 per
pack.
"We have not gone back to
the taxpayers and put our hands further in
their pockets," said Rep. Kevin DelGobbo, R-Na