2011  LONG SESSION JAN. 5 - JUNE 8;  over now...Special Session on jobs coming up October 26, 2011...
Earlier Special Session June 30, 2011 balances budget;  did someone lay an egg?  who's sacrifice?  SEBAC loses to cities and towns as Senate passes tough union bill.  Governor's 696-WCV - another example.

L I S T   O F   B I L L S   A N D   O T H E R    C A P I T O L   M A T T E R S



Nonpartisan analysts: Malloy was way off in projected savings from pension givebacks
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
January 27, 2012

Pension concessions granted by unionized state employees last year will provide just over one-third of the $4.8 billion savings projected by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration, nonpartisan legislative fiscal analysts reported Friday.

The Office of Fiscal Analysis also reported that it thinks the pension fund will gain about $3.6 billion over the next decade -- which still falls 25 percent short of the administration's estimate. Yet only about $1.7 billion of that gain is due to the concessions, with the rest produced by a rebounding stock market.

"Investment returns are a significant factor," OFA analysts wrote in memos Friday to the top Republicans in the House and Senate, Lawrence F. Cafero Jr. of Norwalk and John P. McKinney of Fairfield.

But Malloy's budget chief responded that the report overestimates the role of investment gains while unfairly devaluing pension plan concessions over the long haul. Office of Policy and Management Secretary Benjamin Barnes also said that while pension savings might not match the 20-year projection, long-term salary savings stemming from higher-than-anticipated retirements could easily make up most of the difference.

"The Republicans can ask these questions any way they want, and they can use all sorts of interesting theatrics in the process, but the answer will always be the same thing: we are confident in OPM's numbers and the calculations provided by the State's pension plan actuary," Barnes said.

Republican leaders in both the House and Senate asked nonpartisan staff to review the pension concessions earlier this month after a new report from pension fund actuaries showed the cash-starved benefit program had improved slightly. That report attributed the improvement both to concessions and to a recovering Wall Street -- but didn't break down the impact of either factor.  One of the biggest flaws with the administration's $4.8 billion estimate, according to the nonpartisan analysts, is that it estimated savings for each pension change separately. The concessions deal raised regular retirement ages for several employee classes, increased penalties for early retirement, modified cost-of-living adjustments to pensions and offered a new hybrid retirement program.

The administration also was counting on these changes, most of which took effect after Oct. 1, 2011, to prompt a short-term surge in retirements.  It worked. More than 2,600 workers elected to retire from state service between January and Oct. 1, about 1,000 more than the administration expected.  But retirements drain a pension fund, since workers stop paying into the account and begin drawing benefits from it.

"A portion of the savings shortfall can be attributed to that fact that interrelated provisions were mutually exclusive," OFA analysts wrote.

McKinney argued Friday that the administration should have known that the value of individual pension changes couldn't be assessed separately.

"One obvious assumption (for doing so) is it yields a bigger savings," he said.  When Malloy and the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition first announced a tentative concessions deal on May 13, the administration estimated it would save $21.5 billion over the next two decades, including $4.8 billion from pension changes. That estimate later was upgraded to $21.7 billion. Unions ratified the concessions deal on a second vote in late August.

"This is just more bad news," Cafero said, referring both to the new report and an OFA projection issued earlier this week that showed the current $20.14 billion state budget to be $145 million in deficit. Malloy's administration says the budget is $1.4 million in the black.

"The legislature has to regain control over the state's finances in the coming legislative session," Cafero added. "We, as lawmakers, have to reclaim our responsibility to voters to rein in spending and get Connecticut back on track."

Malloy unveiled plans last week to bolster the pension fund dramatically, with state government paying a huge price up front, but then saving big dollars in future decades.  Under the governor's plan, state government would make an extra $3 billion in pension payments between next fiscal year and 2023. After 2024, the contribution would drop annually, and by 2031 Connecticut would be $5.8 billion ahead.  Barnes, whose office often is at odds with OFA over fiscal projections, suggested Friday that analyzing the pension fund was a job for actuaries, not budget analysts.

"While we respect the capabilities of the legislature's Office of Fiscal Analysis, they are not actuaries; their analysis of the pension fund is flawed," Barnes said. "The House minority should refer questions about the actuarial funding of the pension plan to actuaries. We have relied on the plan's actuaries and we are confident in their findings, which show billions of dollars in long-term savings to taxpayers as a result of plan changes negotiated by the administration last summer."

Barnes argued the legislative analysts' report is "logically incorrect," using unsustainable pension fund investment gains from the first full year after Connecticut emerged from recession.  The fund, which had its lowest point in nearly two decades on June 30, 2010, had a 21.4 percent return on investments in 2010-11 according to an actuarial valuation filed earlier this month by Cavanaugh Macdonald Consulting of Kennesaw, Ga. That return was more than two-and-a-half times the the 8.25 percent average annual return analysts use when calculating long-term projections over nearly 30 years.

About 48 percent of the pension fund's improvement last year was due to concessions and 52 percent due to huge investment returns and other factors, according to the OFA analysis. Barnes charged that OFA maintained this ratio when projecting concession savings over 20 years, even though no one expects 21.4 percent annual returns to continue for two decades.

Barnes added that he believes pension fund savings clearly top $3 billion over the next two decades. And while the surge in retirements helped scale back the savings from the initial $4.8 billion projection, that same trend means another savings forecast from the concessions deal should be increased.  The governor's office estimated $1.3 billion in salaries could be saved over two decades by permanently leaving vacant a portion of 1,000 anticipated retirements. Barnes said is state government maintains the staffing levels this administration is working -- after retirements surged over 2,600 -- it could easily double the $1.3 billion savings over 20 years.

"I feel pretty good arguing about how many billions we did save" in the pension fund, Barnes said. "It was less than we hoped, but still a strong number. And we absolutely make up most of that ground in extra PS (personal services) savings."

"The Republican assertions of the death of state pension savings are exaggerated and incorrect," Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Thompson, said. "The OFA analysis that they are touting is incomplete and they know it -- as the analysis states, it is "an attempt to isolate the SEBAC Agreement savings" based on "preliminary revised" numbers. ... This much is absolutely clear -- there were never discussions of long-term pension savings when Republican governors negotiated with SEBAC. Today we're talking about pension savings, and whether we save $2 billion, $3 billion, or $4 billion, Connecticut is moving in the right direction."
Legislative Analysts Say Deficit Is Bigger Than Initially Thought
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Christine Stuart | Jan 26, 2012 5:22am
(Updated 8:29 a.m.)

If you believe the non-partisan staff at the legislature’s Office of Fiscal Analysis, Connecticut’s budget picture is worse than anyone could have imagined.

Late Wednesday night the office pegged the current general fund deficit at nearly $145 million. It said the amount reflects an estimated net increase in spending of $130.7 million, and a net reduction in revenue of $94.7 million.

However, the numbers don’t include the nearly $79 million in rescissions Gov. Dannel P. Malloy released earlier this week in an effort to try and keep the budget his first budget in the black and in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

The Office of Fiscal Analysis is conducting an analysis of the rescissions and is expected to let lawmakers know if any of them overlap with existing lapses.

Office of Policy and Management Secretary Ben Barnes admitted Tuesday that some of the $79 million in rescissions may have already been counted as lapses. Early Thursday morning he released this list which shows about $44 million of the $79 million have already been counted as lapses and about $34 million are new spending cuts.

As it stands currently, OFA believes “The budget is heavily reliant on budgeted lapses to achieve balance.”

A lapse is an unallocated sum of money, which has been held back so it can’t be spent and it’s a normal occurrence in any budget. But this year’s lapses were larger than in previous budgets because many included targeted savings which were part of the union concessions deal.

“Of the $777.9 million budgeted, we have been able to identify $651.4 million in lapses,” OFA wrote in its report Wednesday. “About five months remain in the fiscal year and the remaining $126.5 million may still be achieved through various savings or budgeting mechanisms.”

The remarks about the lapses support the argument Republican lawmakers made earlier this week.

Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said Tuesday that he believes as much as $41.7 million of the governor’s proposed rescissions have already been identified as lapses. That leaves about only $37 million in new reductions, which means the budget will still be out of balance after Malloy makes the cuts.

Malloy has the power to cut up to 5 percent of any one line item in the budget without legislative approval. Before leaving for Switzerland Tuesday Malloy released the list of nearly $79 million in rescissions.

“Now Governor Malloy has a $145 million budget hole - $220 million if he intends to keep his promise to comply with GAAP - and only $32 million worth of ideas to fill it,” McKinney said Wednesday in a statement. “His math simply doesn’t add up.“

The Office of Policy and Management admitted the state’s revenues are declining and under GAAP the state is experiencing a deficit of $73.6 million, but has yet to put a number on any estimated increases in spending.

In his Jan. 20 letter  to state Comptroller Kevin Lembo, Barnes wrote that OPM is now projecting two significant net deficiencies in the account that funds health care for retired state employees, and a shortfall is also expected in the account that funds pension payments to state employees. Some of those shortfalls are related to changes in the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition agreement and the 2,700 retirements that followed.

But no numbers were attached to those potential deficiencies.

“Secretary Barnes is confident in OPM’s numbers,” Andrew Doba, Malloy’s communications director, said Wednesday. “He hasn’t had a chance to review OFA’s analysis, but he respects their work.”

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers expressed confidence in Malloy.

“Connecticut’s budget will be balanced through the rescissions Governor Malloy has already proposed and other savings that the legislature will enact if necessary,“ Sen. President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said in a statement Wednesday.

“Republicans who are pointing fingers of blame should remember that if the legislature had enacted their alternative budget the state would be facing nearly $1 billion in red ink through their smoke and mirrors budget tricks and borrowing,“ Williams said.

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, stressed Tuesday that it’s not so much about the budget the Democrats passed without the support of Republicans, but it’s about the legislature’s role in the budgeting process.

“We as a legislature have an obligation,” Cafero said. “We have to balance a budget.”

But it’s hard to do when the Office of Fiscal Analysis can’t get a straight answer from the governor’s Office of Policy and Management, he said.

He said he understands the governor may prefer it that way, but the legislature is one of the three branches of government.

This year’s $20.14 billion budget was projected to finish with a surplus of $83 million earlier this month, but lower than expected income tax and capital gain receipts pushed it into the red. Republicans have also expressed concern that other tax revenue is coming in under projections.

However, Rep. Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, said “it’s hard to tell when there’s a lack of checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches.”
State budget plunges into the red with promised savings in question
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
January 25, 2012

Despite repeated assurances from Gov. Dannel P. Malloy that savings from union concessions and other cost-cutting measures would be achieved, nonpartisan legislative analysts reported a nearly $145 million state budget deficit Wednesday evening.

The latest projection from the nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis doesn't include the nearly $79 million in new cost-cutting measures announced Tuesday by Malloy's budget office.

But legislative analysts did echo a warning a day earlier by Senate Minority Leader John McKinney: that Malloy's latest plan counts several reductions already incorporated into earlier forecasts, making the $79 million estimate suspect.

"The budget is heavily reliant on budgeted lapses to achieve balance," legislative analysts wrote, referring to nearly $778 million in lapses, or savings targets to be achieved by the administration, in general fund programs. The general fund, which stands this year at $18.7 billion, covers the bulk of the operating costs in this fiscal year's overall $20.14 billion budget.

Lapses are a regular function in the state budget process, and sufficient funds routinely are withheld from agencies and departments to ensure those savings targets are met.

But the $778 million lapse in the general fund was particularly high this fiscal year, more than three times the savings target built into last year's budget, because of expectations from the union concessions deal.

The administration said that plan would save $700 million this year -- including $657 million in the general fund -- from: a wage freeze, a new employee wellness program, large numbers of worker retirements, benefits changes and cost-saving ideas from three labor-management panels.

Yet legislative analysts noted that despite being responsible for $778 million in savings, the administration has withheld less than $652 million to date. "About five months remain in the fiscal year and the remaining $126.5 million may still be achieved through various savings or budgeting mechanisms," analysts wrote.

The labor-management panels were supposed to identify various efficiencies across state government to save $170 million this year alone. But two of the three panels hadn't even met until the fiscal year already was nearly 4 months old. Rather than wait, the administration drew up its own blueprint in October, assigning each agency a share -- regardless of whether these panels recommend any efficiency strategies.

And Malloy's latest budget challenge is further compounded by the fact that legislative analysts identified nine agencies with potential cost-overruns totaling more than $127 million. The largest of these involves the fringe benefits account for state employees. The administration initially hoped to save $120 million in this area this year with the wellness program. But while it estimated that half of all state employees would pay higher premiums rather than agree to receive regular physicals and other health care screenings, only 4 percent chose to pay more and to not participate.

Malloy's budget director, Office of Policy and Management Secretary Benjamin Barnes, said late Wednesday that his office would review the OFA forecast, but, "I have confidence in the projections released" by the administration.

Barnes' office reported a razor-thin general fund surplus last week of $1.4 million, which represents 1/134th of 1 percent. That also fell well short of the $75 million surplus level Malloy needs to continue the ongoing conversion of state finances to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles -- one of the governor's major campaign pledges.

Originally designed to run $88 million in the black, this year's budget took a hit earlier this month because of declining state tax projections. The new OFA report marks the first time the budget outlook worsened significantly due to concerns about rising spending.

The governor used his emergency fiscal authority Tuesday to cut the budget without legislative approval.

The executive branch will be responsible for $72.1 million of the cuts, with $5.76 million coming from the judicial branch and $800,000 from the legislature. More than one-third of the cuts, or $28.4 million, were assigned to the Department of Children and Families, with the Department of Mental Health and Addiction services getting the next biggest hit, $14.5 million.

Malloy cut the Department of Education by $3.2 million while more than $6 million was cut from public colleges and universities.

The cuts also will mean delays in filling vacant positions.

But McKinney, a Republican of Fairfield, said Tuesday he suspected that nearly $42 million of the reductions Malloy ordered involved savings the administration already had reported to meet its lapse target, leaving only about $37 million in new reductions.

Legislative analysts wrote in their report Wednesday that "We are currently conducting an analysis of these rescissions of programmatic impact as well as potential overlap with existing lapses."

"After passing the largest tax increase in state history, Democrats have still managed to spend us into deficit," McKinney said Wednesday.

"Among other things," he said, "today's projections confirm that the labor deal Governor Malloy cut with state employee unions will not yield the savings he promised taxpayers. Now Governor Malloy has a $145 million budget hole -- $220 million if he intends to keep his promise to comply with GAAP -- and only $32 million worth of ideas to fill it.

"His math simply doesn't add up," McKinney said. "It's time to go back to the table and discuss real spending reductions to protect Connecticut's economic future."

Malloy said Tuesday that his latest cuts don't reflect the maximum reduction he could have made, adding that further cuts could be ordered if the budget picture worsens before the fiscal year ends June 30.

The deficit projected by OFA falls less than $42 million shy of equaling 1 percent of the general fund. By law, if the comptroller's office certifies a deficit of that level, the governor must submit a deficit-reduction proposal to the legislature.
State Budget Deficit Grows To $144.5 Million
The Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, ckeating@courant.com
8:59 PM EST, January 25, 2012

In more bad financial news for the state, the legislature's nonpartisan fiscal office now says the state budget deficit has grown to a projected $144.5 million.

The Office of Fiscal Analysis released new numbers Wednesday night that say the state is spending more than expected and collecting less revenue than projected.

Only two months ago, the same office was estimating a surplus of about $100 million in an overall state budget of about $20 billion. But the state is not collecting tax money as quickly as expected, partly because Wall Street bonuses were lower than expected at Christmas. As a result, some major taxpayers in Fairfield County are not paying as much in taxes as originally hoped.

Overall, the state expects to collect $8.38 billion from the state income tax and $3.88 billion from the sales tax – the two biggest revenue generators by far. The tax on corporate profits is expected to generate $707 million in the current fiscal year, while another $444 million would be collected in cigarette taxes.

The income, sales, corporation and cigarette taxes were all increased last year by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the Democratic-controlled legislature in an attempt to close the state's budget deficit that started growing deeper with the collapse of the Lehman Brothers investment bank and the huge Wall Street downturn during the recession. The state economy remains sluggish as unemployment remains relatively high and real estate sales are far below the peak days of several years ago.

State officials are struggling to balance the budget through "lapses," which means that agencies are being ordered to spend less money than is allocated in their budgets. In other words, if an agency had a budget of $10 million, it might be ordered to spend only $9.5 million because of the difficult fiscal times and then essentially return $500,000 to the state.

"The budget is heavily reliant on budgeted lapses to achieve balance,'' the nonpartisan fiscal office said in a three-page summary. "Of the $777.9 million budgeted [for lapses], we have been able to identify $651.4 million in lapses. About five months remain in the fiscal year, and the remaining $126.5 million may still be achieved through various savings or budgeting mechanisms.''

The fiscal office noted that its projections were made before Malloy said this week that he was using his unilateral authority to make budget cuts of $78.7 million in order to keep the state in the black for the current fiscal year.

Republicans have complained that Malloy's strategy is flawed because he enacted the largest tax increase in Connecticut history and the state is still facing a deficit. Malloy has pledged that the state will finish the fiscal year on June 30 in the black.

Malloy Seeks Changes To State Employee Pension Fund
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Christine Stuart and Hugh McQuaid | Jan 23, 2012 4:23pm

One of the three Wall Street credit rating agencies downgraded Connecticut’s bond rating last week citing its enormous unfunded pension liability, but Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said the plan he proposed Monday to improve the pension funding ratio had nothing to do with the bond rating.  Malloy released the plan to improve the woefully underfunded pensions fund at a press conference outside his Capitol office.  The plan seeks to achieve 80 percent funding in 2025 and 100 percent in 2032.

In order to get there, it eliminates the provisions agreed to as part of the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition agreement in 1995 and 1997 by then-Gov. John G. Rowland, and allows the state to increase its annually required contribution by about $125 million this year. Currently the State Employees Retirement System is funded at about 48 percent, according to the last actuarial valuation.  Malloy is also asking that the spending cap be excluded from pension contributions in excess of the annually required contribution. He needs a super majority of General Assembly to approve the removal of the spending cap to these types of expenditures.

In its report Friday, Moody’s Investor Services said it downgraded the state because it believed “funded ratios are not likely to improve significantly until closer to the end of the remaining amortization periods,” which is 21 years in the case of the state employees pension fund. Malloy said he actually briefed Moody’s on the pension proposal he unveiled Monday. He said he’s been working on this with his Budget Director Ben Barnes, since Barnes joined his administration last year.

Malloy said he will find the additional $125 million to put toward the pension fund as part of the budget he releases on Feb. 8, but didn’t give any hints as to where the money would come from.

“We are realigning our budget objects to get to this goal, which is to get to 80 percent funding by 2025,” Malloy said. “The significance of 80 percent is the standard by which states are normally rated.”

He said what he’s doing is “strong and sound fiscal management that will inure to the benefit of the taxpayers to the extent of almost $6 billion.”

“It is no honor to have the worst funded pension program in the country,” Malloy said. “That’s not something governor’s should aspire to; certainly not something I aspire to.”

He brushed aside questions that the plan was reactionary and said he always told the media, even on the campaign trail that he was going to do this. He said he was waiting until he was able to “restack” his relationship with state employees.  SEBAC leadership would have to agree to the provision, but Sal Luciano of AFSCME Council 4 and Robert Rinker of CSEA/SEIU Local 2001, who watched the press conference, said they don’t see any reason why state employees wouldn’t want the state to improve the funding ratio.

“It’s the responsible thing to do,” Luciano said.

Rinker agreed. He said making sure the pension fund is solvent is good for state employees.  The SEBAC provisions allowed the state’s contribution to shrink so eliminating them will increase the solvency of the fund. Rinker said first provision was added to the contract when the stock market was doing well, but any gain the fund saw from a healthy stock market disappeared in 2008.

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero said he applauded the effort but said the proposal contradicts the state’s fiscal position right now.

“The governor’s plan calls for a payment $125 million. Now this is coming on the heels of his letter to us on Friday, wherein he says if you take the [Generally Accepted Accounting Principles] money out of the equation, we’re about $75 million in the hole,” he said.

Without GAAP accounting, the state has a surplus of only about a million, he said. Cafero questioned where the money would come from.

“He said he’s not going to raise revenues but we also learned last week, by consensus revenues, that our revenues are plummeting,” he said. “The principle is fantastic, we have to pay our obligations, but how this statement from the governor jibes with the fiscal news we learned this week, plus other things he’s stated, is still a question to be answered.”

The governor’s proposal raises some other questions, he said. Malloy’s plan aims to eliminate provisions of SEBAC agreements, which were negotiated settlements, Cafero said. He questioned how Malloy could just eliminate two provisions he didn’t like.  Cafero said the fact that the SEBAC agreement can be re-opened, it might be a good thing if economic conditions get worse and the state needs more savings. Former Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s agreement with the unions contained an emergency clause for such a scenario Malloy’s does not, he said.

“It seems like the SEBAC agreement is still up for negotiation. If that’s the case and we do have an economic downturn that we all hope we don’t have, but if we do have it, would that mean the unions would come back to the negotiations table?” he asked.

Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said he agrees with Malloy that “paying off our pension debts is a good thing.” However, “doing so outside of the spending cap shows that Governor Malloy is still not serious about reducing unnecessary state spending and, further, that he is not serious about pension reform.”

He questioned why Malloy didn’t handle the situation when he negotiated health and pension benefits with SEBAC this summer.

“Clearly, his deal with SEBAC failed to adequately deal with our long term indebtedness. Real leadership requires real reforms and that is what is needed in these difficult times,” McKinney said.

As part of those negotiations Malloy asked all state employees to contribute 3 percent of their salaries for 10 years to the “other post retirement benefits,” which includes mostly retiree health care benefits. That portion of the pension fund is underfunded to the tune of $26 billion and accounts for a greater portion of the state’s unfunded liabilities. Malloy said he believes the 3 percent contribution from all state employees adequately addressed the deficiency in that account.


Waiting 'til he's out of the country...

Malloy reports microscopic surplus, emergency budget cuts likely next week
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
January 20, 2012

The state's budget isn't drowning, but its fiscal nose is above water by such a small fraction -- 1/134th of 1 percent -- it's almost impossible to see.

The latest monthly report from Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration, released late Friday afternoon, projects a $1.4 million surplus, with the $88 million cushion originally built into the budget all but vanished.

Also Friday, Malloy's budget chief warned that the governor likely would exercise his unilateral authority to cut spending without legislative approval later this month.

The new General Fund surplus also falls well short of the $75 million surplus level Malloy needs to continue the ongoing conversion of state finances to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles -- one of the governor's largest campaign pledges. The General Fund, which stands this year at $18.7 billion, covers the bulk of the operating costs in this fiscal year's overall $20.14 billion budget.

The latest budget forecast, which now heads to Comptroller Kevin P. Lembo's office for review, is down from the $83.7 million surplus that the administration projected on Dec. 20, and that Lembo confirmed on Jan. 1.

The reduction was anticipated after fiscal analysts for the executive and legislative branches agreed on a consensus revenue report late Tuesday that showed revenues from the income tax and other sources coming in below budgeted levels.

Income tax projections alone are down more than $169 million from the revenue forecast in the adopted budget, but that loss was offset somewhat by gains in sales and wholesale fuel tax receipts.

Malloy pledged earlier this week that his administration would both keep the budget in balance and maintain his GAAP initiative by tightening spending rather than by seeking further tax hikes. The governor and the legislature approved more than $1.5 billion in new state taxes this year to help close a record-setting budget deficit.

"We're going to make spending cuts," Malloy said while talking with reporters Wednesday. "That's what we do. We balance the budget."

The legislature has long granted the governor limited authority to unilaterally rescind allocations in many line items by up to 5 percent, though municipal aid cannot be touched.

"By early next week I fully anticipate that the governor will exercise his rescissionary authority," Office of Policy and Management Secretary Benjamin Barnes wrote in his letter to Lembo, warning that the administration also may delay or cancel planned hirings in state government.

More than 2,600 state workers elected to retire from state service between January and Oct. 1, 2011 -- more than two-and-a-half times the number of retirements recorded over the same period in 2010. The 2011 total was driven largely by new restrictions in retirement benefits that took effect on Oct. 1, according to the concessions deal negotiated by Malloy with state employee unions.

The Democratic governor absorbed some criticism this week from Republican legislative leaders, who charged that last year's tax increases dampened Connecticut's economic recovery. And though keeping the budget out of the red may be a prime concern, House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero said Malloy also needs to find the $75 million to keep his GAAP initiative on pace.

GAAP rules are a series of common financial guidelines established by the Government Accounting Standards Board to emphasize transparency.

Unlike the modified cash basis state government has long used, GAAP rules require that funds be on hand to cover expenses as they are incurred. Similarly, revenues are counted in most situations in the year in which they are received.

The Malloy administration estimated in its Fiscal Accountability report in mid-November that state government would need another $1.7 billion in its coffers to cover all its obligations under GAAP rules. And that differential grows annually due to inflation.

When the budget was adopted in June, Malloy signed language that allowed him to delay the first of 15 annual payments to eliminate that $1.7 billion differential until 2014.

But the governor and legislature did agree to dedicate $75 million from the surplus originally projected for this year, and $50 million from a built-in surplus in 2012-13, to cover inflation-related costs and stop the GAAP differential from growing.


Pillars of society
Malloy says 'Goodbye, CCEDA' and 'Hello, CRDA'
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
January 19, 2012

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy today proposed a new public authority to broadly coordinate development in the Hartford region, the latest in a string of initiatives to be trumpeted in his upcoming State of the State Address.

Accompanied by regional officials, Malloy outlined plans for a 13-member Capital Region Development Authority that would replace an agency founded by former Gov. John G. Rowland, the Capital City Economic Development Authority.

Say goodbye to CCEDA, the agency Rowland created in 1998, and hello to CRDA.

Malloy said the new authority would have a broader focus than the big-ticket projects favored by Rowland, who dubbed his effort the "Pillars of Progress." They included a new convention center, downtown housing, redevelopment of the Civic Center and construction of Rentschler Field in East Hartford.

"Our approach will not be top down," Malloy said. "I won't tell you what the pillars are. The community will tell us what the pillars are."

The effort grows from a commitment Malloy made to Hartford Mayor Pedro Segarra to focus resources on Hartford in his second year as governor. It also is prompted by the looming expiration of the state's agreement governing the XL Center, the downtown arena formerly known as the Hartford Civic Center.

"I've made it very clear: I can't imagine the city or region without an XL Center," Malloy said.

The facility is owned by the city and leased to the Connecticut Development Authority, but the agreement expires in August 2013. Malloy said the city and state need to devise a new operating structure and a modernization plan.

He all but ruled out construction of a new arena to replace XL as too expensive, and he waved off the inevitable question about whether Connecticut is trying to produce a facility that could interest a National Hockey League franchise.

Improvements to XL are not tied to the NHL, he said.

"It's too speculative," Malloy said.

XL is now home to the minor-league hockey team, the Connecticut Whale, and it plays host to a share of home games for the University of Connecticut's basketball teams. Rentschler is home to UConn football.

Malloy said he would like to see use of the facilities increase, but it was unclear if he would push UConn to move more games downtown from Gampel Pavilion in Storrs. Starting a varsity hockey program at UConn seems unlikely.

Paul F. Pendergast, the UConn athletic director, said he often is asked about introducing varsity hockey in a region with a vibrant hockey conference, Hockey East. Boston University and Boston College are recent national champions.

But he said chances of introducing hockey were "remote," given the cost and the issues of gender equity if the university wanted to launch only a new men's team.

Malloy said the new authority, whose members would include representatives of his administration and the governments of Hartford and East Hartford, would try to better coordinate the use of existing facilities, such as XL, the Connecticut Convention Center and Rentschler

"Currently we operating facilities as though they are competitors of one another, and I want that to end," Malloy said. "This needs to be a unified effort, particularly if  we are going to make an investment in the XL Center. So this is a very different approach."

Malloy is slowly laying out his agenda for the legislative session that opens Feb. 8 with his annual State of the State Address. So far, it includes education reform, an overhaul of liquor and election laws, and regional development.

"Obviously, there is a calendar, and there is an ebb and flow in business," Malloy said. "And things get busy around here the closer we get to a legislative session."

Malloy Proposes Sweeping Changes To CT’s Liquor Laws
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Christine Stuart | Jan 14, 2012 3:44pm

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, with Rep. Kathy Tallarita and Sen. John Kissel of Enfield in the background
Surrounded by supporters at Enfield Town Hall on Saturday, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy unveiled a liquor law reform package that will allow for Sunday sales and a whole host of changes to how wine, beer, and liquor are distributed and regulated in the state. The governor said the proposed changes will allow Connecticut to compete with surrounding states in the liquor market.

“Over a relatively short period of time we will be pro-consumer, not just because it gives the right to buy when and where the consumer wants, but ultimately we are removing things in our current law that have worked to increase the cost of spirits, and wine and beer in our state,” Malloy said.

One industry expert estimates that Connecticut has lost $570 million in sales across its borders, but it’s difficult to know exactly how much the state loses.

He said he’s mindful that these proposed changes, which will have to be approved by the legislature, will have an adverse impact on some people’s business.

“That’s why this is more than just a Sunday sales proposal,” Malloy said. “That’s why we have moved the state in the direction of establishing a medallion system, so that the smaller shops that currently exist can be assured of a marketplace for what they have.”

But some may view the new medallion system as a severance package to some smaller liquor stores looking to get out of the business.

Malloy said he didn‘t see it that way.

“What it does on the medallion side is allow the movement of liquor stores and liquor licenses in the state subject to local zoning,” Malloy said. “This will allow for adjustments in the marketplace.”

Every current package store owner, there are 1,228, will receive a medallion and they will be able to transfer the medallion to a new town or sell it if they wish on a statewide basis. The proposal also increases the two package store limit to nine without increasing the number of permits for stores that currently exist.

Malloy’s proposal gives package store owners, who could have trouble competing on the beer side with grocery stores, an option to sell more than just cigarettes, bar utensils, and lottery tickets. They will now be able to offer snack foods and hors d’oeuvres. And it will give grocery stores the option of purchasing a medallion to open up a package store if they choose and would give some convenience stores the option to sell beer.

“What I’m saying to owners of shops is we’re working with you,” Malloy said.

Dominic Alamio, owner of Freashwater Package Store in Enfield, who has seen his sales disappear over the border to Massachusetts, said it’s not the increase in the excise and sales tax last year that’s impacting his business. He said it’s his inability to open on Sundays and keep longer hours. He also applauded the elimination of minimum price posting.

Malloy’s proposal will allow package stores to stay open until 10 p.m., instead of 9 p.m. and it will also give them the ability to receive quantity discounts from the distributors, and eliminate the minimum markup currently dictated to retailers.

Jay Hibbard, vice president of the Distilled Spirits Council, said taxes change all the time, but the package Malloy put forward Saturday is a package of far reaching proposals which will have a long term effect on the marketplace.

Hibbard said his organization supports the package of proposals put forth by Malloy on Saturday and believes the governor’s support will go a long way toward making them a reality.

But some package store owners believe the increase in the excise tax and the sales tax have impacted their business, more than Sunday sales will help them.

Mary Patenaude, who has owned the Pomfret Spirit Shoppe for 33 years, said she doesn’t think Sunday sales will increase revenue to the state. She believes people will still head over the border to Massachusetts for their booze because the Commonwealth removed the sales tax on liquor in 2010.

“I think once this new system is up and running and we can judge the increase in income then we’ll be in a position to adjust the taxes as well,” Malloy said when asked about the increase in liquor taxes.

“Quite frankly I had a $3.5 billion problem,” he said defending the tax increases.

With the state’s budget woes at the top of his list last year, Malloy sat on the sidelines and said he would sign a Sunday sales bill if it passed, but wasn’t going to get involved in the debate. This year he has had more time to think about it, which is why he offered the proposal Saturday.

“We can drive additional income to the state at the same time as we drive the price down to consumers. That’s known as a win-win,” Malloy said.

Carroll Hughes, the head of the Connecticut Package Store Association, said he met with the governor Saturday to go over the proposal, but has yet to form an opinion about it.

“It sounds good on paper, but I just don’t know how it’s going to work,” Hughes said. “I don’t know what all those things will do collectively.”

He said he’s taking it to the board of the association for discussion over the coming week.

Rep. Kathy Tallarita, D-Enfield, a longtime proponent of Sunday sales, said the backing of the governor will go a long way toward making sure the proposal becomes law.

She said there have been Sundays where she’s driven to Massachusetts to purchase beer or wine for a party and is excited at the opportunity to stay in the state to purchase it and keep the money here within the borders.

“It allows small businesses to create jobs and bring in more money to the state of Connecticut,” Tallarita said.

Stan Sorkin, president of the Connecticut Food Association, said the grocery store owners he represents support the package and believe the governor’s support will go a long way to making sure it’s passed.

Grocery stores which currently hold beer only permits would be allowed to purchase package store medallions, but they wouldn’t be able to sell wine or spirits for at least five years.

Malloy said his main goal in proposing the package was making sure Connecticut remained competitive with its neighboring states.

The ban on Sunday liquor sales “is reflective of another time and another age when people lived differently,” Malloy said. “There’s a whole lot of people who have to work all day Saturday and can’t get to a store.”

He said all the other states have recognized that because all but Indiana have Sunday sales.

2012 Session Will Bring Another Death Penalty Debate
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Hugh McQuaid | Jan 16, 2012 5:30am

With a new Democratic governor, 2011 seemed like the year the legislature would repeal Connecticut’s death penalty, until the sole survivor of a triple homicide appealed to lawmakers to wait. On Thursday a state senator said the wait may be over.

Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, said he will be sponsoring a prospective bill to repeal death penalty this legislative session. Three years ago the legislature passed a similar measure, but former Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed it.

Meyer said he’s confident enough votes exist in the House to pass the bill this year. However, it’s still unclear whether there are enough votes in the Senate. He said the issue will likely to come down to two Democrats—Senators Andrew Maynard and Edith Prague...full story here.

School finance panel finishes interim report
By Jacqueline Rabe Thomas, CT MIRROR
Jan 19, 2012 4:14pm

We offer these items from the MIRROR blog:  Consensus Recommendations

ECS Grants
Support efforts to (1) increase ECS funding, (2) establish clear year-to-year funding predictability, and (3) use the best available and most appropriate data to measure wealth, poverty, foundation, population, and other formula factors.

Magnet Schools
Support equitable state funding for all inter-district magnet schools regardless of location in the state.

Choice
Choice programs are an important part of Connecticut’s public education and they deserve fair and reasonable funding.

Accountability and Performance
In addition to base ECS funding, the state should provide funding for performance incentives tied to (1) state priorities for student achievement, (2) district and school accountability, and (3) transparency in education spending.

Early Childhood Education
Pursue greater access to, and the qualitative enhancement of, pre-school and kindergarten programs.

Special Educational Needs
Explore ways to provide a fairer and more reasonable approach to funding programs and services for students with special educational needs, including students eligible for special education, English language learners, and students identified as gifted or talented.
CCM wants education reform now, even if dollars follow later
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
January 17, 2012

Connecticut's cities and towns are hoping lawmakers will spend the next few months deciding to increase local education grants -- even if communities don't start to see the money for a few more years.

Following the governor's lead, education reform topped the 2012 legislative agenda released Tuesday by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. But the chief municipal lobbying agency also wants to: reform binding arbitration and prevailing wage laws; enact a constitutional ban on unfunded mandates; expand urban funding for economic development and public safety; and streamline intergovernmental relations.

"We know we can't fix this overnight," Simsbury First Selectwoman Mary Glassman, CCM's president, said of the Education Cost Sharing program, the single-largest state grant to cities and towns.

This year marks the third consecutive year the state will distribute $1.9 billion to districts through ECS, and municipal leaders concede that all political signs point -- at best -- to a fourth-year of flat funding in 2012-13.

But critics say the program, which distributes funds based on a complex formula that analyzes local wealth, past local spending, enrollment levels and other issues, hasn't undergone major reform since the late 1980s.

One of the system's biggest flaws, according to CCM Executive Director James Finley, is that ECS has been subjected to a series of artificial caps for years that have exacerbated fiscal problems for cities and towns. For example, though the state will distribute $1.9 billion in ECS grants this fiscal year, the program formula calls for communities to receive a total of $2.7 billion.

Just one year ago Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the legislature closed a record-setting $3.67 billion deficit built into 2011-12 finances with $1.5 billion in new taxes, a major union concessions program, agency consolidations and several other unpopular measures. But Malloy kept a campaign promise not to reduce ECS.

Without offering specifics, Malloy has designated education reform as his priority in 2012, leaving local officials waiting to see exactly what the governor has in mind for the session that begins Feb. 8.

Finley said Tuesday that municipal officials realize that the likelihood of a major increase in school funding is slim, given the slow recovery of Connecticut's economy. But given the governor's pledge to debate education reform issues in 2012, municipal officials are ready to have the discussion now as well.

At some point down the road, though, ECS reform will require more state spending.

"You can't do education reform on the cheap," Finley said.

CCM also is looking to increase state funding for special education, recommending that the state pay all per pupil costs once they exceed $25,000, or more than double a district's average per pupil expenditure.

Other components of CCM's 2012 legislative agenda include:
Malloy: More money needed for education
CT MIRROR 
By Jacqueline Rabe Thomas
January 6, 2012

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy may have given an energizing pep talk on education reform to a roomful of education advocates and leaders Thursday, but it was the comments he made to reporters afterward that will likely receive the largest cheers from those who have long said the state is shortchanging education.

"To make some of the progress we need to make in early childhood and teacher improvement, some additional monies are going to have to be expended. So, I believe that districts, and/or the state, are going to have to spend more money," he said.

These comments come as the task force he has asked to re-configure how schools are financed nears the finish line in making some first-round recommendations. That task force is scheduled to meet Friday afternoon and does have a long list of recommendations they are considering.

Malloy and Education Commissioner Stefan Pryor have routinely said more money needs to be directed to the lowest-performing districts, which they have said is about 25 districts.

On Thursday, in backing up the governor's statements, Pryor said the state will begin "focusing resources where they're needed and ensuring the right set of actions occur with the receipt of new funds."

Just how much additional funding Malloy and Pryor are thinking is unclear, but Pryor did get the approval from the State Board of Education for $25 million for new initiatives late last year. He has also indicated that he supports competitive grants -- or a statewide version of Race to the Top -- for these needy districts that make necessary reforms.

Martha J. Kanter, the undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Education, said competitive grants have proven to be a great success.

"Money, it's a great lever of change," Kanter told the educators and policy makers at Malloy's Education Workshop that took place Thursday afternoon at Central Connecticut State University.

But what happens to state funding for the districts that are the highest-achievement or middle of the pack? To say officials from those districts are nervous about their budgets, as Malloy and Pryor continue to tout the need to send more resources to poor districts, would be an understatement.

"Of course we are concerned they're going to yank our funding," said Lydia Todene, the chairwoman of Simsbury's Board of Education and president of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education. "We don't want them to rob Peter to pay Paul."

Malloy's comments thus far haven't suppressed those concerns of the better-off districts that their funding may be on the chopping block to pay for these low-achieving districts. But if he does intend to cut their funding, he has a huge political hill to climb.

"We have a good relationship with our legislators. We expect them to fight the fight for us at the Capitol to protect our funding," Todene said. "We hope the governor will consider all 161 districts when he is looking at funding, not just the lowest performing."

Cam Staples, a former state legislator and longtime chairman of the Education Committee, said reallocating the existing pot of money could make the most sense, but it's not something Malloy would get easy buy in from those set to lose money.

"Removing funding from districts would be extremely difficult," he said.

In Rhode Island, one of the panelists told the group they had to gradually phase in the "losers" over 10 years.

Dudley Williams, a member of the Connecticut Council for Education Reform, a business-backed reform group, and member of the school financiing task force, responded that he doesn't think that will work in Connecticut.

"I don't think you can have a funding formula where there are going to be losers," he said.

James Finley, the leader of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, offered a solution to avoid creating losers.

"We need more money," he said, estimating a price tag of nearly $800 million a year for state public school to get to where they need to be.

Pryor said according to a recent survey his office conducted, almost two-thirds of the superintendents in the state think the way the state finances schools is unfair.

CT state Legislative district and maps story here.

CD stands for "carpe diem"
Even more efficient - how about only five (5) members of the Legislature?  Republican 2012 redistricting map above, right.

Court favors Democrats in redistricting instructions
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
January 5, 2012

In a victory for Democrats, the Connecticut Supreme Court has directed its special master on redistricting to make minimal changes as he draws new lines for the state's five U.S. House districts.

Democrats and Republicans on the bipartisan Reapportionment Commission declined to comment Thursday, but the court's directions to Professor Nathaniel Persily of Columbia, the special master appointed last week, echo arguments made by the Democrats.

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

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

Democratic CD map

The Democratic map made minimal changes, leaving the awkward border of the 5th (red) and 1st (blue).

While the reference to "other applicable provisions" leaves the door open for other changes, the court pointedly ignored a GOP-suggested condition that would require significant changes to the current map: "geographic compactness."

The court also made no direct mention of "political fairness." In fact, it explicitly prohibited Persily from considering how the map favors or disfavors Democrats or Republicans.

"In fashioning his plan," the court said, "the Special Master shall not consider either the residency of incumbents or potential candidates or other political data, such as party registration statistics or election returns."

Democrats are proposing minimal changes in the existing map, arguing that it was fairly drawn 10 years ago by a bipartisan legislative commission. As such, they said, the court should give deference and use the map, with the minimal changes necessary to equalize the districts by population.

"The special master should use the current district lines as a baseline and shall adjust those lines only to the extent necessary to comply with those constitutional and statutory requirements," Aaron Bayer, the Democrats' lawyer, wrote in his brief.

GOP final CD map

The GOP map creates a 'compact' 1st and 5th, undoing the 'claw' created in 2001.

Ross Garber, the lawyer for the Republicans, urged the court to think more broadly by directing the special master to consider factors such as making the new districts politically fair and geographically compact, with an eye toward grouping municipalities that have a "community of interest."

Drawing the new map is far from an academic exercise: The map suggested by the GOP would make the 5th Congressional District, the only open seat in Connecticut next year, more amenable to Republicans, while the status quo favors Democrats, who now hold all five U.S. House seats.

The court is accepting proposed congressional maps and supporting data until noon Friday, and Persily will conduct a public hearing Monday at noon in the Legislative Office Building.

Persily must file his plan with the court no later than Jan. 27.

Under the state constitution, the state Supreme Court took over congressional redistricting after the commission failed to produce a new map by Nov. 30. The court granted the commission an extension until Dec 21, but the legislators on the panel declared a deadlock.

In taking over responsibility for the map, the court invited the commission to continue its work on what the court says is a legislative function. But Democrats declined to respond to the Republicans' last map, which made changes in the awkwardly drawn border between the 1st and 5th districts.

That border is  the result of a bipartisan gerrymander in 2001 to accommodate two incumbents, Democrat James Maloney and Republican Nancy Johnson, who both landed in the 5th after the state lost a House seat.

"That is why the district is shaped the way it is," Garber told the court last week. "That is why that district is a gerrymander."

Republicans say their map makes geographic sense, while also making the 5th District -- an open seat in 2012 -- less Democratic by stripping it of heavily Democratic New Britain.

Bayer responded that the 2001 map, even if oddly drawn, was the product of a bipartisan legislative commission, and with minor modifications it still can meet constitutional muster.

"It was a valid process," Bayer said.

Supreme Court to settle state congressional redistricting
DAY
By SUSAN HAIGH Associated Press
Article published Dec 22, 2011

Hartford - A legislative committee charged with redrawing the boundaries of Connecticut's five congressional districts missed its noontime deadline Wednesday to reach a bipartisan agreement, leaving it up to the State Supreme Court to decide how to settle the impasse over redistricting.  Lawyers representing Democrats and Republicans on the panel submitted separate legal briefs to the state's high court. The court now faces a Feb. 15 deadline for a final plan, but it's unclear what the justices' next step will be.

"This was unfortunate, regrettable and avoidable," said Senate President Donald Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn. "We did not want this matter to go to court. "

Democrats, who currently hold all five U.S. House seats, maintain that few changes are needed to district borders since the last reapportionment a decade ago because of minimal population changes. In their legal filing, they urged the court to adopt streamlined procedures to revise the existing district lines. Republicans, who lost control of their last U.S. House seat in 2008, urged the court to appoint a special master to develop a redistricting map for consideration.

During closed-door talks, the GOP advocated moving Democratic-heavy Bridgeport and New Britain into different congressional districts. In their final offer, they dropped the Bridgeport proposal, but stuck with shifting New Britain from the 5th District, which also includes Danbury and which is an open seat, into the 1st District, which includes Hartford.

Republicans argued that such a change made sense, given New Britain's proximity to Democrat-dominated Hartford.  While acknowledging removing New Britain would make the district more politically competitive for Republicans, they also argued there's a need to address gerrymandering that occurred 10 years ago during the last reapportionment. That's when Connecticut lost one congressional seat and created a new, somewhat oddly shaped 5th Congressional District.

Rep. Arthur O'Neill, a Southbury Republican who was a member of the 2011 and 2001 reapportionment committees, said the GOP was trying to "undo the damage" from a decade ago and "put the Humpty Dumpty back together again as much as we can."

Proposals to move Bridgeport and New Britain into more urban districts were met with strong resistance from some minority groups. State Rep. Robert Sanchez said moving New Britain into the Hartford-centric 1st District would concentrate racial minorities into one region and lessen their political influence with candidates.

"Leave the maps as they are," said Sanchez, D-New Britain. "There are no problems with the maps."

Democrats called the Republican plan politically motivated, radical and unnecessary. House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey said the task of identifying about 714,000 people for each of the five districts should have been simple considering the small number of changes that needed to be made. He said the 2nd District had the biggest variation in population, with nearly 15,000 people that had to be shifted outside its lines. The 5th District, he said, had just 523 people that needed to be moved.

"We had a relatively simple task in front of us," said Sharkey, D-Hamden. "Rather than pursue it in that way and in that vein, the Republicans chose to make this a political exercise to redraw the entire political map of the state of Connecticut so that they could benefit in one or more of the districts that we currently have."

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero accused Democrats of playing politics.

"The reason they want it the same is because they want to keep all seats, period. And the reason they won't budge in the 5th is because they want their candidates to keep the 5th, that's it, simple as that," said Cafero, R-Norwalk. "They like the crazy districts as it is because they're winning in them. Period. End of story."

House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, is among several Democrats vying for the 5th District. Originally a member of the redistricting commission, he stepped aside in November after finishing the newly drawn legislative districts.
-------------

* = Carpe diem is a phrase from a Latin poem by Horace (see "Source" section below) that has become an aphorism. It is popularly translated as "seize the day". Carpe literally means "to pick, pluck, pluck off, cull, crop, gather", but Ovid used the word in the sense of, "to enjoy, seize, use, make use of". (Wikipedia)

LeBeau hopes to renew debate on smaller legislature
Keith M. Phaneufn CT MIRROR
December 22, 2011

While a new report shows Connecticut outspends most other states in terms of legislative costs, an East Hartford lawmaker hopes it will breathe a second life into his Quixotic bid to eliminate jobs by shrinking the General Assembly.

Sen. Gary LeBeau said that when the next regular session convenes in February he either will re-introduce his plan to eliminate one of the two legislative chambers, or offer a new proposal to reduce membership in both.

"People hate waste," said LeBeau, a Democrat entering his 16th year in the Senate. "Everybody campaigns against it, but nobody does anything about it."

The "waste" LeBeau is referring to lies within the $65.3 million Connecticut is budgeted to spend this year on its House, Senate, and both partisan and nonpartisan support services.

The nonpartisan Office of Legislative Research issued a report earlier this month comparing legislative spending across all states in 2009, when Connecticut's legislative costs were slightly less at $60.5 million.

OLR analysts found Connecticut ranked ninth-highest in spending on a per capita basis. The $17.19 per person it spent on legislative functions was nearly double the national average of $9.54 per person. In terms of spending per legislator, Connecticut ranked 20th at $324,305.

It is difficult to rank legislative pay nationally, since some states award an annual salary, others pay based on time spent in session, and still others use a combination. But in terms of annual base salary, the $28,000 Connecticut legislators earned ranks 20th-highest according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Connecticut legislators also receive an annual stipend to cover unitemized expenses. Each of its 151 representatives receives $4,500 and each of 36 senators gets $5,500. Additional stipends are awarded to committee chairmen and other leaders to reflect additional responsibilities.

LeBeau first made the argument four years ago that Connecticut needed only one chamber with about 60 members.

"If you cut the number of legislators by two-thirds, it would be really hard to justify the current level of support staff," LeBeau said. He quickly added that the current support network isn't inefficient; the entire branch of government simply is too large.

Though only one state, Nebraska, currently features a unicameral legislature, LeBeau said he believes the otherwise national adherence to the two-chamber model stems from two factors: public misconceptions and political self-interest.

The latter, LeBeau said, is easy to understand. "It would mean there are fewer jobs for the politicians," he said. "They don't want that."

And though he couldn't cite any poll results on the subject here, he is confident Connecticut voters would endorse it. ""I think it would poll at 65, 70 percent or better," LeBeau said. "People hear about it and they say 'what a great idea.'"

The problem, he added, is that many voters are unaware of a crucial difference between state legislatures and the U.S. Congress.

Children learn early in elementary school of the "Connecticut Compromise," a proposal offered by Nutmeg State delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that solved a crisis over the nature of Congress: seats in the national House of Representatives would be assigned to each state based on population, while every state would have two senators.

But not as many learn that since the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, all state legislative chamber seats -- both House and Senate -- must be apportioned based on population.

"The Connecticut Compromise really isn't needed in Connecticut," LeBeau said.

Shifting to a unicameral legislature would mean re-writing the state Constitution, a process that would require approval both from the General Assembly and from the public at a future statewide election.

Legislative leaders recently re-wrote state legislative district maps to reflect population changes from the 2010 U.S. Census, and those will remain in effect for the next 10 years.  LeBeau said any plan for a scaled-back legislature wouldn't apply those changes for another decade.

So why raise the issue now?

"It's the perfect time," he said, noting that many of the legislators serving now will have ended their legislative careers by 2021. "It really takes the issue of self-interest out of the debate. It gives people time to adjust and time to plan."

LeBeau received a public hearing on his proposal four years ago, and said he hopes that if there's a second public airing next spring, it could develop into an issue in the 2012 statewide election.

Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, co-chairwoman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, didn't rule out any possibilities Wednesday.

"The idea didn't get a lot of traction the first time," she said. "It would depend on what the committee thinks, but we tend to be pretty open."

Slossberg added that despite LeBeau's optimism about public support, her panel heard complaints four years ago from constituents worried that a unicameral system would leave them fewer legislators to bring their concerns to. "You do take representation further away from the people when they have less access to legislators," she said.

LeBeau does have an ally in one former legislative leader who now chairs a state advisory panel that recommends compensation levels for elected officials and judges.

"I'd love to hear the debate on it," said Bloomfield attorney Lewis Rome, who served as both majority and minority leader in the state Senate during the 1970s.

Rome said the current system sometimes allows lawmakers to avoid taking stands on key issues. For example, if a senator from one town kills a popular bill, a representative from the same community who privately hoped for that result, might not take a public position.

"I think you would get greater responsibility," Rome said. "I'd favor it."

Experts: Category 3 hurricane would devastate CT
Ken Dixon, Staff Writer, CT POST
Updated 11:06 a.m., Tuesday, October 25, 2011

HARTFORD -- A Category 3 hurricane with winds of over 110 miles per hour could knock down 70 to 80 percent of Connecticut's trees and paralyze the state for more than a month.

The governor's task force on the effects of Tropical Storm Irene got the sobering facts Tuesday from state and federal officials who said another Category 3 hurricane similar to the infamous 1938 storm is inevitable and requires advanced planning.

Glenn Field, warning coordination meteorologist for the National Weather Service, told the panel that a Category 3 hurricane comes every 69 years, with the last such storm in 1954.

"What we've seen with Tropical Storm Irene is nothing compared to a major hurricane," said Doug Glowacki, a state emergency program specialist.


Nicest license plate!  I think we still can get these...

Nappier Case Highlights Personal Use Of State Cars
Hartford Courant
Jon Lender, Government Watch
September 11, 2011

The second incident in seven months involving Connecticut Treasurer Denise Nappier's state-issued official car puts the focus on an area of state regulations that, no matter how you try to sharpen it, remains somewhat fuzzy: the personal use of state cars by top elected officials after hours.

The state Department of Administrative Services, or DAS, maintains a written "policy for motor vehicles used for state business" by many regular state employees such as social workers, and some top appointed officials such as the state prisons commissioner. But the precision of the policy's language turns murky when it's applied to the top six statewide elected officials: governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of the state, treasurer, comptroller and attorney general.

Some people question whether these officials, aside from the governor, even need a state-issued vehicle. But, leaving that question aside and dealing with the reality that they have use of these cars, the fact remains that practices involving their vehicle use have evolved over the years, but aren't written anywhere in state law or regulations.

Even the state administrators who now follow those practices don't know how or why they originated.

A perfect example of this comes up in the more recent of Nappier's two vehicle episodes — which might have been avoided if the top six statewide elected officials weren't allowed to have two sets of plates for their official cars. In one set, each license has a single digit from 1 to 6, in order from governor to attorney general. The other set of license plates each has six characters, and looks just like any other driver's.

The officials can switch the recognizable single-digit plates for the six-character incognito ones at any time — depending on whether or not they want to be recognized — for reasons of privacy or security. There's no written policy for any of this; it's just the way it's been done for about two decades, officials say.

Nappier says she always uses her six-character incognito plates instead of the single-digit "4" plate that traditionally goes with her office — and those incognito plates figured prominently into incident of Sept. 1.

Here's what happened: At about 8:30 p.m. that night, Hartford police detained Nappier in the parking lot of an apartment complex at 385 Barbour St., in the city's North End, where she said she driven her state-issued 2011 black Ford Crown Victoria to drop off a friend. Police thought the new car looked out of place in the impoverished area and ran the plate through their system. It came up as unregistered.

They ticketed Nappier for three alleged motor-vehicle violations: operating an unregistered vehicle, having no insurance and misuse of registration plates. Then they had the car towed away and impounded, and Nappier says she walked three miles home in the dark.

It turns out that the "unregistered" reading on her license plate was the fault of the state Department of Motor Vehicles — which acknowledged Friday that it hadn't transferred the computerized registration data over to the "master" database that the police use to check plates.

But if Nappier had been using her single-digit plate of "4," rather than her incognito plate, there might not have been a question to begin with that it was a legitimately registered state vehicle.

And perhaps Nappier, the Hartford Police Department and Hartford State's Attorney Gail Hardy would not be enmeshed now in a public controversy that involves glaring contradictions in their versions of what happened.  There is plenty of unresolved trouble over the incident, including:

--Hardy's pronouncement last week that the charges are unjust and should be dropped.

--A pending internal investigation by Hartford police during which the white officer who played a leading role, Jill Kidik, has been reassigned temporarily.

--A meeting Friday among Hartford Police Chief Daryl Roberts, NAACP leaders and state Sen. Eric Coleman, D-Bloomfield, after which an NAACP official said the internal investigation will be watched closely in light of Nappier's statements that she may have been a victim of racial profiling.

--A defense by Hartford Police Union Vice President Nazario Figueroa of Kidik and the other two city policemen involved that contradicted Nappier's version of events.

In an interview Friday, Figueroa disputed Nappier's account by saying that on Sept. 1, the three officers offered to drive her home from the apartment complex but that she declined and decided to walk. Nappier had said last Wednesday, in an interview with The Courant, that one of the officers suggested that she call someone to pick her up because it was a dangerous neighborhood.

On Saturday, Nappier issued a prepared statement, calling Figueroa's statement "a fictional account."

Figueroa's statement that the officers offered her a ride also is at odds with a press release issued by Hardy Wednesday that said: "Treasurer Nappier was released at the scene and left to walk home when the vehicle was ordered towed by the police officer." Hardy said she had reviewed "the summons and accompanying police report and valid registration documents," but didn't say whether she had talked to Nappier and the three officers.

Meanwhile, the police department refuses to release any documents about the incident, saying it's still investigating.  Hardy said that there were no violations by Nappier, that there was no basis for towing the car and that she'll ask the court to dismiss the charges. 

One of the rules written in the state DAS's handbook for use of state vehicles is that their drivers take minimal care of them, such as "ensuring that fluid levels (engine oil, transmission fluid, radiator coolant and window washer fluid) … are checked and replaced when low."

Another written requirement is that the officials entrusted with the vehicles must make sure they are "obeying all motor vehicle laws." One of those laws says that "the certificate of registration and any automobile insurance identification card … shall be carried in the motor vehicle at all times." The penalty for not doing this is $50.

DAS spokesman Jeffrey Beckham has said another problem for Nappier on the night of Sept. 1 is that when the police asked for her registration, she provided the wrong one — the state-issued registration for the 2007 Crown Victoria she had been driving before she was issued the 2011 model she now drives.

Beckham said DAS fleet-operations personnel have assured him that the proper registration packet was provided to Nappier when the car was issued to her, but Beckham has been unable to confirm that the 2011 registration packet was with the car, as the 2007 packet was, when it was picked up Sept. 2 from the lot at which it had been impounded.

Nappier in the past had used her single-digit "4" plate, but said last Wednesday that she has switched to the six-character incognito one since a widely reported incident last February — when her car with "4" on it was ticketed for parking in a handicapped space in West Hartford.

She had apologized for that February incident, saying a political aide in her office who also served as her driver had parked it, without her knowledge, in a handicapped spot near a West Hartford restaurant where she was speaking to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. The aide, who still works for her, no longer drives her around, she said Wednesday.

Both incidents involving Nappier happened when she was not involved in the formal duties of her elected office. The speech in West Hartford is the kind of thing that elected officials see as part of their political role, but you'll never find it in statutes or the state Constitution.  Regular state officials are responsible for restricting the use of their vehicles to official business. The rules are not as rigid for the six elected officials. For example, the dollar value of any personal miles, such as daily commuting to and from their state offices, are reported to the IRS every year as income, and they are supposed to pay taxes on it.

But the DAS has told the governor and lieutenant governor that the provision does not apply to them, said Steve Jensen, a spokesman for Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman.

At least two of the six statewide elected officials, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill and Comptroller Kevin Lembo, say that they fill out monthly mileage reports to DAS that separate any of their personal miles from state-business ones. An office spokesman for Merrill, Av Harris, said that Merrill, the state's top official in charge of elections, "reimburses the state for personal miles at whatever the mileage reimbursement rate the state uses."

Attorney General George Jepsen says he's been told that his daily miles between home and office will be reported for income-tax purposes, but that he doesn't have to fill out detailed mileage reports.

Nappier has been unavailable to say if and how she reports her personal miles.  Here's the rundown on whether the six officials display their traditional single-digit plates or the incognito ones:

--Gov. Dannel Malloy generally has a six-character incognito plate for what his office describes as "security" reasons, instead of "1"; he's not the first governor to do this.

--Wyman usually uses her six-character plate for the same reason, but for appearances at "ceremonial events" such as parades, she uses "2," Jensen said.

--Secretary of the State Denise Merrill "mostly uses the number '3' plate," but sometimes goes to the six-character incognito one "if we feel there is a need for greater security," office spokesman Av Harris said. When would such a need be felt? "I'm not going into more detail on that," Harris said.

--Nappier, as mentioned above, uses "4," although when she talked about it Wednesday night it was in the context of the February incident and she didn't mention security concerns.

--Comptroller Lembo always uses his single-digit "5" plate, an office spokeswoman said, and Jepsen said he always uses "6."

Asked why he doesn't have security concerns like some of the others, Jepsen said, "I haven't really given that much thought."
Nappier Case: NAACP, Senator Meet With Police Chief;  Police Union Official Defends Actions Of Police Officers
The Hartford Courant
By JENNA CARLESSO and JON LENDER jcarlesso@courant.com
10:15 PM EDT, September 9, 2011

HARTFORD — NAACP officials who met with city Police Chief Daryl K. Roberts on Friday told him they would be watching closely as the department investigates a Sept. 1 police stop of state Treasurer Denise Nappier in the parking lot of a North End apartment complex, one participant said.

"We just wanted to let [Roberts] know the seriousness of the matter and how serious the NAACP looks at this situation," said Scot X. Esdaile, president of the Connecticut State Conference of NAACP Branches. "We let him know we're going to be monitoring the whole situation."

In separate developments Friday:

•A police union official appeared to contradict Nappier's version of what happened, defending the officers by saying that they offered to drive her home after confiscating her official state car and charging her with motor vehicle violations, including driving an unregistered car. Nappier had said in an interview Wednesday that she walked home in the dark for about an hour after an officer suggested that she call someone to pick her up. She has not returned calls from The Courant since Wednesday.

•The state Department of Motor Vehicles acknowledged that it had failed to properly enter registration information for Nappier's car into the computerized database that the police checked; the check indicated that the car was not registered.

City police stopped Nappier, the first African American woman in the nation to serve as a state treasurer, in the lot behind 385 Barbour St. After finding discrepancies with the registration of her state-issued car, they charged her with motor vehicle violations, and towed and impounded the vehicle. Nappier said that she then walked 3 miles to her home on Westerly Terrace.

Meeting at police headquarters Friday, in addition to Esdaile and Roberts, were Sen. Eric Coleman, D-Hartford, and Muhammad Ansari, president of the Greater Hartford branch of the NAACP. The meeting lasted for nearly an hour.

Esdaile said that the NAACP has had "major concerns" with the Hartford police in the past. He cited the case of Jashon Bryant, in which a Hartford police detective, Robert Lawlor, shot and killed Bryant, an 18-year-old African American, claiming that he saw Bryant reaching for a gun in 2005. No gun was found. Lawlor was acquitted of manslaughter and assault charges in 2009, four years after the shooting.

"He said he will seek to push forward to make sure anyone that is involved with any type of police misconduct or racial profiling — if that comes up — will be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law," Esdaile said, referring to Roberts, who is African American. "He understands the concerns of the community and the concerns of the NAACP."

"This type of behavior, if it could be pushed forward on the highest-ranking African American elected official [in Connecticut], it could happen to anyone," Esdaile said.

Nazario Figueroa, vice president of the police union, offered additional details Friday about the case and defended the officers' actions.

Figueroa said it was a 911 hangup call that brought Hartford police Officer Jill Kidik and two other officers to the Barbour Garden apartments on Sept. 1.

Nappier's state-issued 2011 Ford Crown Victoria was stopped by police in an apartment complex parking lot about 8:30 p.m. Nappier said that she had dropped off a friend there. She was ticketed for operating an unregistered vehicle, having no insurance and misuse of registration plates.

On Wednesday, Hartford State's Attorney Gail Hardy issued a statement saying that she had reviewed the Nappier case, found that all documents for the car were "valid," and determined that no violations had taken place. The next day, Roberts said, he had begun an internal investigation of the incident and reassigned Kidik, who issued Nappier's summons, to the booking division.

Figueroa said Friday that while responding to 385 Barbour St., Kidik noticed a black Ford Crown Victoria that had pulled into a housing complex parking lot. She ran the license plate and "it came back that no registration was found, so she effected a motor vehicle stop," Figueroa said.

He also said that Kidik, who is assigned to a district covering a stretch of the North End from Capen Street to Tower Avenue and Main Street to Vine Street, had seen that exact car before in the area but didn't know who was driving it.

"Police officers who work in the same area all the time — they're familiar with the goings-on," Figueroa said. "They know what sorts of things belong and if something is out of place through observations and knowing the neighborhood. That car just stuck out as she was entering the complex."

The other officers at the scene that night reported that Kidik acted "professionally at all times," he said. "She acted like a Hartford police officer should act."

Nappier, in earlier comments, said that the officers advised her to call someone to pick her up, but that she decided to walk home.

Contradicting that account, Figueroa said that each officer had offered Nappier a ride home once she was told she could not drive the vehicle, but that Nappier refused. The officers also asked if they could call someone for her — which is a department policy — but she declined, he said.

Nappier "wasn't happy" and "felt she was being treated unfairly," Figueroa said.

An official involved in the state's vehicle fleet operation had said Thursday that it was a "mystery" that Nappier's vehicle did not show up as registered to the state when the Hartford police ran the license plate through the computerized system. The 2011 car had been issued to Nappier in April, with all proper registration paperwork, so the information should have come up when the police did their check, said Jeffrey Beckham, a spokesman for the Department of Administrative Services, which runs the vehicle fleet.

But the registration failed to check out properly for two reasons:

•First, when the police asked Nappier for the registration paperwork, they were given the wrong registration packet; it was for the previous vehicle that she had been using before April, a 2007 Crown Victoria.

•Second, it was acknowledged Friday that the state Department of Motor Vehicles had failed to update the registration information for the new car in a computerized "master registration file," which provides the information into which police departments tap when they run license-plate checks.

DMV spokesman William Seymour said that even though the department's internal computer system had shown that the car was registered March 11 as part of the state fleet, that information had not been entered manually into a "master" computer file available to outside law enforcement agencies. He said that an "antiquated," manual keyboard-entry method is used for a limited number of state vehicles, such as Nappier's, and that it is being eliminated under a modernization project.

Nappier's situation was complicated that night by the fact that her car was not displaying the single-digit "4" plate that is assigned to the state treasurer. Instead, she was exercising her option to use an incognito plate with six digits, like most Connecticut drivers have. Such incognito, six-digit plates are issued, along with the single-digit ones, for the cars of the six top statewide officials: governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of the state, treasurer, comptroller and attorney general. They are allowed to switch them any time they want, depending on if they want privacy or better security.

Nappier prefers to use her incognito six-digit plate, as some of the other top officials do — and so it was not apparent to the police, from her marker plate, that she was the state treasurer.

Nappier says she hasn't used the recognizable "4" plate since an embarrassing incident in February when her car was ticketed in a handicapped space — parked there, she said, by a driver she no longer uses while she was giving a speech in a restaurant.

Figueroa, the union vice president, said the police department should create a policy for dealing with politicians in situations like Nappier's, such as requiring that a supervisor respond to the scene.

"Sometimes people are not satisfied with speaking to a patrolman," Figueroa said.

It's unfair, he said, that Kidik was reassigned to the booking division during the internal investigation.

"She hasn't been found guilty of doing anything wrong yet," he said.

Kidik has been the subject of several citizen complaints. According to department records, five complaints have been filed against her since January 2010.

On July 16, 2010, a complaint for poor service was filed against Kidik and Officer Valentine Olabisi, alleging a civil rights violation for illegal arrest, two charges of verbal abuse and discourteous attitude and refusal to give name and arrest code. Kidik was exonerated of the civil rights violation and the department did not sustain the other charges against her.

From January to June 30, 2011, Kidik was named in four more citizen complaints, placing her with two other officers as receiving the highest number of complaints. On Feb 17, a citizen complaint charged her with discourteous attitude. The complaint was withdrawn Feb. 23.

On Feb 18, a citizen complaint charged her with discourteous attitude. On May 18, the department did not sustain the charge.

On June 2 and June 16, charges of discourteous attitude were lodged against Kidik. The determination of those charges is pending.

Figueroa said the union is conducting its own review.

Lawmakers Will Conduct Their Own Post-Irene Review
CT NEWSJUNKIE
by Christine Stuart | Sep 7, 2011 12:00pm

Legislative leaders said they will hold an informational forum as early as next week with executives from the Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating, the two utility companies responsible for restoring power to hundreds of thousands of customers. They will also invite executives from the telephone and cable companies, along with municipal leaders to assess the response and find out if the state could have done more to prepare for the storm.

The informational forum, which will not include a public comment period, will be held by the legislature’s Energy & Technology, Public Safety, Labor and Public Employees, and Planning & Development committees. And it is in addition to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s investigation of all parties involved in the storm related response by a panel he’s expected to announce later this week.

“My constituents want to know why it took so long to get the power back on in certain areas. Probing questions need to be asked and I’m confident the legislative hearing is the appropriate venue to get answers,” Sen. Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, said Tuesday.

Many lawmakers were in the thick of things after power remained out for many residents across the state. Some were getting frantic calls in the early morning hours from constituents searching for insulin because their previously refrigerated supply had gone bad, while others were helping constituents find places for their elderly or children to stay until power returned.

“We are hearing from folks across the state that we can do better than this, and we’re looking to explore ways that we can be better prepared next time. That’s why it is appropriate at this time to convene legislative hearings,” House Speaker Chris Donovan, D-Meriden, said.

Most of the questions will likely be directed at Connecticut Light & Power that serves 149 towns and had more than 830,000 customers without power.

“In meeting with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday, she confirmed to me that Connecticut had the highest percentage of homes without power of all states affected by Hurricane Irene,“ House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey, said. “With such a heavy burden, to me the question remains whether our local utilities are working together to bring the necessary resources to bear throughout the state, not just within their own coverage areas.”

CL&P’s response to the storm also attracted the attention of U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal and U.S. Rep. Joseph Courtney, who co-authored a letter to Jeffrey Butler, president and CEO of CL&P asking for him to include storm readiness, coordination with local officials, and staffing levels in its review.

Mitch Gross, spokesman for CL&P, said the company welcomes the legislative hearing and will be participating in the governor’s review too. That’s in addition to its own assessment of its performance, which Butler has said is done after any large storm event or incident.

“If you got your power back within a couple days you probably were very happy with the restoration effort, but for those who had to wait close to a week or more we need to understand what happened and why,“ Rep. Vicki Nardello, D-Prospect, said. “Many people who had to wait the longest also depend on electricity to run their well water pumps and that can become a health issue very quickly. We are fortunate these record outages weren’t the result of a winter storm and the time is now to figure out what can be done better.”
Malloy, legislature to review response to Irene
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
September 6, 2011

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy intends by the end of the week to name a panel that will review how the state, municipalities, non-profits and the utilities responded to Tropical Storm Irene.  The governor's review is intended to be broader than examining the performance of the state's two major power companies, Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating.  The General Assembly's leadership also announced hearings Tuesday into storm readiness, with a special emphasis on the utilities.

"My constituents want to know why it took so long to get the power back on in certain areas," said Senate Majority Leader Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven. "Probing questions need to be asked, and I'm confident the legislative hearing is the appropriate venue to get answers."

Some customers were without electricity for a week, prompting widespread complaints, though a federal energy official said the pace of restoration was reasonable given the extent of the damage.  U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal and U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney wrote to CL&P on Tuesday, pressing the state's largest utility to conduct its own review of storm issues, including readiness and staffing levels.  Roy Occhiogrosso, the governor's senior adviser, said Malloy is assembling a panel that will conduct the performance review the governor promised during the storm.

It will have a broad focus, looking at how people utilized the 211 phone system and how state agencies coordinated with municipalities, non-profits such as the Red Cross, and the utilities, Occhiogrosso said.

"Most people have already concluded that state government did a pretty decent job, but I'm sure that are things that upon review can be improved upon next time," Occhiogrosso said.

Occhiogrosso said that the governor's has no objection to the legislative hearings, which were announced in a joint press release by the House and Senate majorities.

"Legislators have every right to do that," he said.

The hearings will be conducted by members of four legislative committees:Energy and Technology; Public Safety; Planning and Development; and Labor and Public Employees.

"I am pleased that almost all Connecticut residents now have their power restored," said House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden. "Too many, however, suffered without power for too long. That posed more than just inconvenience for them -- it jeopardized their health, safety and livelihoods."



CONNECTICUT ELECTORATE GETS WHAT IT ASKED FOR...
Un-democratic practices?  One, or "uno" Party rule is what resulted from 2010 elections in CT.

Malloy’s Extraordinary Executive Authority: 5% to 10% to $700 Million with no Limit by Account
"What, Wait" blog
Jonathon Pelto
August 15, 2011

When it comes to the power of government, this may be the single most important story since Governor Malloy become Connecticut’s Governor.  During the General Assembly’s Regular Session the Malloy Administration proposed increasing the amount a governor can cut without legislative approval from 5% to 10%.  The Legislature said NO.

During the General Assembly’s June Special the Malloy Administration proposed increasing the amount a governor can cut without legislative approval from 5% to 10%.  The Legislature said NO.

In the end, on July 1, 2011 the Legislature adopted a bill and gave Governor Malloy TEMPORARY authority to cut up to 10% (but excluded municipal aid from that cut).

House Bill 6701, Section 6 provided that from July 1, 2011 until September 30, 2011 the Governor’s emergency authority to cut the budget was increased.  The language read “No Modification of an allotment requisition or an allotment in force made by the Governor pursuant to this section shall result in a reduction of more than ten per cent of the total appropriation from any fund or more than ten per cent of any specific appropriation.”

These are extraordinary times and Governor Malloy was given extraordinary authority to cut the budget up to 10% of any given line item.  But late last week we learned that Governor Malloy had targeted the “good government agencies” for 15 percent cuts and when asked by a reporter how they had the legal standing to make such a cut, the Malloy Administration pointed to Section 8 of House Bill 6701.

Section 8 reads “The Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management shall recommend to the Governor reductions in expenditures for the executive branch for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2013, and shall, upon approval of the Governor, reduce such expenditures by the amount of the executive branch budget savings and employee reduction…”  [The $700 million in concessions for this year and the $900 for next year].

The Malloy Administration claims that his section gives the Governor the authority to cut up to $700 million – WITH NO LIMIT BY ACCOUNT.

Putting aside why Governor Malloy would target the state’s ethics program, the state’s Freedom of Information program and the clean campaign program for disproportionate cuts is a far more serious question.

How did the Governor get such extraordinary authority when the entire debate revolved around whether he should be given TEMPORARY authority to cut up to 10 percent of an individual program?

The transcript from the House and Senate debate makes it clear that state legislators were told they were voting on a bill that gave the Governor temporary authority to cut 10 percent.  There is no mention of that the bill might be giving the Governor the power to make unlimited cuts to agencies.  So when and how did Connecticut get to a place where a sitting governor has the power to make cuts that no governor in history has ever had or ever asked for?

It would appear that the Chairs of the Appropriations Committee – the legislators who explained the bill on the floor of the Senate and House were not aware that this provision would be used in this way.  So, were legislators mislead before the vote and if so, by whom?  Did Speaker of the House Chris Donovan know about this unprecedented power grab before the vote?  Did President Pro-Tempore Don Williams know about the unprecedented power grab before the vote?

If legislators were completely mislead – it is inconceivable that the Malloy Administration did not tell key legislators after the vote that there were going to use this statute to violate the intent and spirit of the law.

So,

Did Governor Malloy tell Speaker Donovan that he was going to use this statute to grab this power?  Did Governor Malloy tell President Williams that we was going to use this statute to grab this power?  And knowing that rank and file legislators believed they voted for one thing and got something else why didn’t leadership tell the legislators what was going down?

This isn’t just some interesting academic exercise.  I am absolutely sure that if a Republican governor tried to grab power in this way, the Democratic Legislature would be moving to repeal the section or sue the Governor from implementing this cuts.

Agree or disagree with the need for cuts, this move is the single most extraordinary maneuver or gimmick that any governor has used and it is vital that Connecticut’s legislators and media determine who know what, when…



No plans to override Malloy's vetoes
Associated Press
Article published Jul 25, 2011

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Democratic leaders of Connecticut's General Assembly say they won't try to override any of fellow Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's six vetoes.

The legislature is scheduled to convene its annual veto session on Monday.

Democratic leaders are particularly concerned with Malloy's veto of a bill that imposed new requirements for individual and small group health insurance companies regarding rate increases, such as expanding the amount of time before a new rate can take effect.

Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams said lawmakers are working with Malloy to find a way to expand public involvement in the rate approval process for health insurance.

Some Republican lawmakers say they're disappointed the legislature will not try to override Malloy's veto of a proposed tax credit program to encourage development around Oxford Airport.

CT IN A HOLE
Senate passed bill to limit union reach, sort of...cities beat labor.

Unions still hoping to sidestep layoffs; 
SEBAC officials: Malloy will be offered alternative version of concessions plan
By JC Reindl Day Staff Writer
Article published Jul 2, 2011

Hartford - Union leaders will make no changes to the strict bylaws that would alter the outcome of last week's failed vote on contract concessions, labor spokesmen announced Friday.

However, leaders of the 15 state unions are willing to consider changes to the bylaws that would apply to future agreements - opening the possibility of a new deal with the governor to replace the one that union members voted down.  But it is unclear whether the governor is willing to give the unions a second chance.  Nevertheless, the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition plans to submit an alternative proposal to the governor Tuesday that would aim at avoiding the roughly 6,500 layoffs that could result if no agreement happens.

"What this [proposal] is I am not exactly sure - there are a lot of possibilities," Matt O'Connor, a coalition spokesman, said Friday. "The leaders still believe that they can reach an agreement with the Malloy administration that would avert the layoffs and make it unnecessary to contract out services or restrict workers' rights to negotiate."

The existing agreement, forged in May between the governor's administration and the union coalition, was to produce $1.6 billion in savings over two years. But it did not receive affirmative votes from the necessary 14 of 15 unions and 80 percent of voting members to pass; only 11 unions and 57 percent supported it.  State officials say they're preparing to lay off 5,466 workers to make up for the failed agreement. An additional 1,000 layoffs is also now possible after the General Assembly chose Thursday to preserve $54 million in annual aid to municipalities at the purported cost of more layoffs.

Coalition members had briefly considered changing their bylaws in a way that might allow the failed agreement to pass. But on Friday they adopted a resolution to not make any retroactive adjustments that would affect the outcome of the vote already taken. They did agree to consider changes to the bylaws for future agreements.

Colleen Flanagan, spokeswoman for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, said Friday that the governor is not willing to re-enter formal negotiations with the unions for a new labor agreement. But he is willing to make some changes to the language of the existing one.

"If the agreement that was reached in May needs to be clarified, the governor is happy to do it," Flanagan said.

On the question of what exactly the governor means by "clarified," Malloy's senior adviser Roy Occhiogrosso told reporters this week that a clarification could simplify parts of the agreement that have generated confusion among some rank-and-file union members, such as the proposed value-based health care plan.

However, "the substance of the deal would not change" under a clarification, Occhiogrosso said.

The state Senate passed a bill Thursday that would cap state workers' longevity payments and end the practice of counting overtime in calculating their pensions, excluding those perks from collective-bargaining contracts. House leaders decided against taking up the bill, but said their members could pass it later this summer if necessary.  The bill was suggested by Malloy to help rebalance the state's new budget without a concessions deal.

O'Connor, the union coalition spokesman, said the legislature's delay was "a real show of confidence on the part of House leaders that we'll work this out."
Union leaders unwilling to consider some changes to bylaws
JC Reindl, DAY
Article published Jul 1, 2011

Hartford – The likelihood of salvaging the concessions agreement between state union leaders and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy diminished further Friday when union leaders ruled out any retroactive changes to their strict bylaws that would alter the outcome of last week's failed ratification vote.

However, the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition is willing to consider changes to the bylaws that would apply to future agreements — opening the possibility of a new deal with the governor to replace the one that was voted down.

"The leaders still believe that they can reach an agreement with the Malloy administration that would avert the layoffs and make it unnecessary to contract out services or restrict workers' rights to negotiate," Matt O'Connor, a coalition spokesman, said Friday afternoon. It is unclear whether the governor would be willing to consider forging a new agreement with the 15 unions representing about 45,000 state employees.

Malloy's spokeswoman said in response to the union leaders' announcement Friday that "if the agreement that was reached in May needs to be clarified, the governor is happy to do it."

On the question of what exactly the governor means by "clarified," Malloy's senior adviser told reporters this week that a clarification could simplify parts of the existing agreement, such as the proposed value-based health care plan that has generated confusion among some rank-and-file union members.

However, "the substance of the deal would not change" under a clarification, Roy Occhiogrosso said.

State officials say they're preparing to lay off 5,466 workers as a result of the failed effort to ratify the labor agreement reached May 13 between SEBAC and the governor that was to produce $1.6 billion in savings over two years.

An additional 1,000 layoffs also could be possible after the General Assembly opted Thursday to preserve $54 million in annual state aid to municipalities. Malloy had sought to cut that funding, and the purported cost of restoring it is more layoffs.
Malloy adds up to 1,000 more layoffs, drops cuts to cities
Ken Dixon, CT POST Staff Writer
Updated 07:09 a.m., Friday, July 1, 2011

HARTFORD -- Gov. Dannel P. Malloy won some and lost some Thursday as majority Democratic lawmakers derailed a $108 million cut in municipal aid, but expanded the governor's power to make unilateral spending cuts.

After debate that lasted into the early hours of Friday morning, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a bill at 2:30 a.m. with a 21-14 vote, that essentially gave the Democratic governor the go-ahead to begin the process of making sweeping spending reductions across all state agencies and issuing thousands of layoff notices. Earlier the House of Represenatives had passed the measure by a vote of 78-56.

Malloy said the restoration of aid to towns and cities will cost an additional 1,000 layoffs, bringing to about 6,500 the number of state employees who would receive termination notices effective Sept. 1. Another 1,000 open positions would not be filled.

Malloy acknowledged that closing the deficit involves a lot of pain for people.

"But putting Connecticut on firm fiscal footing -- which is what we've done -- sends an important, much-needed message to the business community and to Wall Street. Now people will know we're serious about getting our fiscal house in order, and now we can re-focus our attention on job creation," he said in a statement shortly after the Senate passed the bill early Friday morning.

As the state entered the new fiscal year at 12:01 a.m. Friday, lawmakers who thought they had approved a two-year, $40 billion budget in early May faced a growing fiscal uncertainty.

Speaker of the House Christopher G. Donovan said he hopes the coalition of 15 state employee unions that rejected $1.6 billion in savings over the new two-year budget can rewrite their bylaws, adopt the concessions and stop the layoff process that Malloy has put into motion.

House Democrats declined to take up Malloy's request for major changes in employee benefits contained in a bill that passed the Senate on Thursday night 30-6 after a four-hour debate. Opponents of the bill included Sen. Edwin A. Gomes, D-Bridgeport, and Sen. Anthony Musto, D-Trumbull.

The pro-union House majority planned to let the bill sit on its calendar, with the hope that by the end of August, unions representing 45,000 full-time employees will somehow ratify concessions totaling $700 million in the first year and $900 million in the second.

The governor does not need legislative approval to enact most of the planned layoffs.

After a daylong intramural debate on what lawmakers would accept among Malloy's proposals, Donovan and House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, finally brought their bill up for debate at 7:45 p.m. It would give Malloy enhanced ability to make spending cuts, but preserve legislative oversight.

Three Republican attempts to amend the bill failed 82-49, 87-46 and 84-50. The bill was approved at 12:10 a.m. Friday in a 78-56 vote, then moved to the Capitol's third floor, where the Democratic-controlled Senate was prepared to debate it until the wee hours of Friday morning, then eventually approve it along party lines. The 21-14 vote to approve it came at 2:30 a.m.

Under the legislation, Malloy and his department heads have until the middle of the month to present rescission plans to the Legislature, which would have the option to review them in a public hearing and vote.

"Our hope is that we don't do any of these cuts and the state employees ratify the agreement and avert all layoffs and avert all cuts," Donovan told reporters outside the House chamber.

Malloy's plan to cut municipal aid over the next two years by $108 million was killed by House Democrats after hours of haggling with Malloy's office and Senate Democrats.

The governor's top adviser, Roy Occhiogrosso, said that saving local aid means another 1,000 layoffs on top of the 5,500 already planned to make up for the rejection of union concessions.

Occhiogrosso said while Malloy had "high expectations" for his proposals to the General Assembly, he understands the legislative process. "It's a lot more than has been done here in a long time and he should take credit for it," he said.

"Our caucus was very sure that the cuts to municipalities, which we have never done in terms of rescissions, was part of the agreement," Donovan said. "But also the governor will give us ideas for cuts in the middle of the month."

The Senate bill would freeze longevity pay when individual union contracts expire and eliminate overtime from pension calculations beginning in 2017. Its direct savings, however, would be a relatively small $8 million over the biennium.

Donovan said the Senate's bill would not be acted upon, but could be taken up later this summer if the unions' attempts to salvage the concession deal fail.

Republican leaders mocked the House proposal as a power grab by Malloy and an effort by Democrats to avoid making tough choices.

"A lot of us had thought that that time had come and gone," said House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, on the apparent hopes of Democrats that the unions will come around, ratify the concessions and avert the planned layoffs.

Cafero charged the General Assembly is essentially allowing Malloy to determine $1.6 billion in programming changes through "unprecedented power" in the executive branch that expires at the end of September.

"Is that what's we're about?" Cafero asked. "It's not a proud day for us."

House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, promised that the Appropriations Committee will scrutinize Malloy's plans. "If they recommend changes, we will call ourselves into special session," he said.

Malloy on Thursday morning told two reporters outside his office that this week has helped inform him on the workings of the General Assembly.

"I'm starting to learn how the Legislature operates and certainly want to be respectful of the processes that have to be engaged in," Malloy said. "I want to work with everyone."

Associated Press Staff Writer Susan Haigh contributed to this report. 

Cities and towns win, state employees lose in budget deal
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
June 30, 2011

The House Democratic majority and the administration of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy agreed today to spare municipalities from proposed cuts in state aid, a change that will come at the expense of additional layoffs of state employees if a failed concession deal is not salvaged.

The Democratic majority in the House refused to grant Malloy's request for authority to cut municipal aid by 2 percent, so Malloy instead says he will impose as many as 1,000 layoffs above the 5,500 previously announced.

But the legislators are gambling that SEBAC, the coalition of state employee unions, can deliver on its promise to salvage concessions voted down last week in voting by individual unions. SEBAC's board has delayed indefinitely what was expected to be a pro forma acceptance of those votes.

"Our hope is that we don't do any of these cuts, and that the state employees eventually ratify the agreement and avert all layoffs and avert all cuts. That's our number one hope," said House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden.

Cutting municipal aid would have had an immediate impact, forcing cities and towns to cut positions or raise taxes. But the unions still have time before jobs are lost, since a layoff notice issued now could not take effect for weeks under existing contracts.

But Donovan, a former union organizer and a staunch backer of organized labor, pointedly noted after a closed-door caucus of House Democrats that legislators clearly had set their priorities: saving municipal aid was paramount.

Roy Occhiogrosso, the governor's senior adviser, said Malloy understood the reluctance of legislators to make any cuts in state aid to cities and town since municipal budgets and tax rates already are set.

"It wasn't something he wanted to do, either," Occhiogrosso said.

Occhiogrosso said the administration made clear to legislative leaders that saving municipal aid would cost state jobs, and the leaders acknowledged that was the option being chosen.

"There will be other programmatic cuts that will be in the mix as well," he said.

But Matt O'Connor, a spokesman for the state employees unions, said the prospect of additional layoffs are real only if the unions fail to revive the concession deal.

"We are confident we are going to come up with a resolution," O'Connor said.

Fifty-seven percent of participating union members voted to ratify the tentative agreement, but SEBAC rules required affirmative votes from 14 of the 15 unions in the coalition and that AFSCME Council 4, the largest of the unions, be among the 14. Only 11 unions voted to ratify, and AFSCME was not among them.

Donovan said the tentative agreement struck by the Malloy Administration and SEBAC leadership preserves jobs and saves the state money now through a two-year wage freeze and for decades through health and pension changes.

"It's a good, fair deal, and the majority of the SEBAC union voted for it. I just see that there's a deal there," Donovan said.

It became clear this week that even a modest cut in state aid was politically unacceptable.

"There was a strong backlash in both the House and the Senate," said James Finley, the president of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. "Certainly the House led the charge, but I don't think there was a state legislator who didn't hear from at least one municipal official in their districts."

The House tonight is set to grant Malloy's request for additional budget-cutting authority in response to the rejection of the labor deal, but his proposal to curb some collective-bargaining rights will not be taken up in the House. It will pass the Senate tonight.

The budget cutting authority will come with strings: The legislature intends to retain the right to review Malloy's additional budget cuts, which would take effect automatically after a review period if lawmakers do not return for a second vote.

Rep. Toni E. Walker, D-New Haven, the co-chair of the Appropriations Committee, said there is a strong consensus for the legislature to retain the ability to shape the budget revisions after a review by her committee.

In an outline given to House Democrats, Malloy's rescission authority would increase from 5 percent to 10 percent of agency budgets. The Appropriations Committee would have from July 15 to Aug. 15 to hold hearings on any adjustments.

Republicans called the measure an abrogation of the General Assembly's budget responsibilities.

"Never before in the history of the state of Connecticut have we given such power to the governor," said Senate Minority Leader John P. McKinney, R-Fairfield. "My question to my colleagues is why did you run for office? If you're unwilling to make decisions, even tough decisions, get out. Step out of the way."

But House Minority Leader J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, said the governor already has the power to cut agency budgets by 5 percent without legislative oversight. Under the bill before the House, legislators will get to review every cut, giving lawmakers enhanced oversight.
Lawmakers send labor a stern warning with bargaining rights bill
Keith M. Phaneuf and Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
June 30, 2011

State legislators gave unionized employees an early taste Thursday of what labor negotiations could be like at the Capitol if major wage and benefit concessions aren't granted to help balance the new budget.

After the Senate overwhelmingly adopted a measure curtailing collective bargaining rights tied to pensions and longevity pay, the House of Representatives effectively tabled the matter, but only after its leaders warned it could be considered later this summer.

And while lawmakers made it clear their hope is that unions will use the grace period to reconsider a concession package voted down earlier this month - or adopt something similar - a union spokesman said Thursday that the message was received.

"We want them to come to agreement," House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, said. "I would think that the state employees would take notice that the bill is alive and on our calendar."

The notice came in the form of a bill that would implement several proposals Gov. Dannel P. Malloy offered earlier this week including:

    Freezing longevity payments - periodic bonuses for senior state employees - for non-union workers and eliminating those for non-union workers not yet eligible for them.
    Banning longevity pay from future contracts with state employee unions.
    Excluding earnings from overtime or longevity pay from pension calculations.

Legislative analysts estimated the changes could save $9 million in total over the next two fiscal years.

"It's not a punishment, it's a reaction to public outcry," said Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford, referring to a failed concession package that officials were counting on to save $700 million in the fiscal year that begins Friday, and $900 million in 2012-13.

"Nobody expected them to vote down that package," said Sen. Edith G. Prague, D-Columbia, co-chairwoman of the Labor and Public Employees Committee and a longtime advocate of state employees. "This is not New Jersey. This is not Wisconsin. That was a good package."

Prague, who introduced the package of collective bargaining changes on the Senate floor, said that while she believes good wages, health benefits and pensions should be provided to state employees, "I don't believe we should be paying people ... just because they have worked for 10 years."

The concession agreement would have ordered a two-year wage freeze, new restrictions on health care and pension benefits, an employee wellness program and various management-labor cost-saving committees. It was approved by 57 percent of the workers who cast ballots, but it failed under a rule requiring that majorities in unions representing 80 percent of all affected workers vote yes.

The State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition announced last Friday that it would not formally report the rejection vote to the administration but rather would survey its members and review its bylaws in hopes of finding a way to reconsider the deal.

"I don't know what the path forward is going to be, but there's going to be a path forward," SEBAC spokesman Matt O'Connor said.

Meanwhile, Malloy announced plans earlier this week for nearly 5,500 layoffs and elimination of 1,000 vacant jobs. And the administration cut a deal with lawmakers Thursday that could add another 1,000 layoffs in exchange for no reductions in municipal aid as they work to re-balance the state budgets for the next two fiscal years.

"We don't want to see layoffs. We don't want to see contracting out. We don't want to see working rights stripped," added O'Connor, who stopped short of saying the Senate bill would motivate union members to reconsider concessions. "There's no question that members have reacted to these proposals."

"It is critical that we have our fiscal house in order," Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn. "It is critical that we address financial problems facing the state of Connecticut... We know we can't continue on the course that has been set for many years."

Eighteen of the Senate's 22 Democrats joined with 12 of 14 Republicans to approve the bill.

Sen. John Fonfara of Hartford, who cast one of the opposition votes, said that the overtime change could weaken pensions for some lower paid state employees, such as truck drivers, who don't earn high salaries.

"It's not that I'm insensitive to the costs involved here, I am," Fonfara said, adding that he understands that the longevity system has been abused, particularly through bonus payments to senior administrators receiving six-figure salaries. "But I'd rather not take a hammer (approach) where everybody's impacted."

But Senate Minority Leader John P. McKinney, R-Fairfield, said Connecticut is generous to all of its state employees, contributing $10 for pensions for every $1 each worker contributes, a ratio topped by only three other states.

Republicans offered amendments to further constrict collective bargaining proposals, specifically to reduce sick days allowed in future contracts from 15 to 10--a proposal Malloy made earlier this week--and to remove all future pension changes from negotiations. Majority Democrats in the Senate rejected both in votes along party lines.

McKinney called the unfunded liabilities facing the state employee pension system one of the most important fiscal crises facing Connecticut.

The last actuarial report on that pension fund, received last November, showed the fund to be in its worst fiscal shape since the state began saving for pension obligations in the mid-1980s, holding less than 45 percent of the funds needed to meet its obligations.

"The choices are to have dramatic tax increases or to change that benefit structure," McKinney said.
Malloy seeking legislation to reduce employee benefits
Mark Pazniokas and Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
June 29, 2011

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said today he intends to ask the General Assembly to pass legislation changing the way state employee pensions are calculated, reducing their sick days and freezing longevity payments--relatively modest first steps in narrowing collective bargaining for union workers.

In a conference call with editorial writers, Malloy said he is submitting legislation for tomorrow's special session that would exclude longevity payments, overtime and other income beyond wages in pension calculations. The changes would become law now, but would not affect pensions until after the state's collective bargaining agreement on health and retirement benefits expires in 2017.

The changes to sick time and longevity payments would take effect as various unions' current contracts expire.

House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero, R-Norwalk, declined to speculate whether the Democrat-controlled House and Senate would support legislation to curtail the current array of wage and benefit issues that can be bargained collectively and submitted to arbitration.

But Cafero, who called Wednesday for Malloy and the legislature to "start from scratch," cut more spending and scale back tax hikes in place of the rejected union concession deal, said collective bargaining reform should be attempted regardless of the chances for success.

"If 'everything's on the table,'" Cafero said, offering one of Malloy's favorite quotes regarding options for cutting spending, "then I think we have to look at everything. I think it's a very legitimate thing to revisit and I think the time is now."

Malloy's proposal comes after the membership of SEBAC, the coalition of state employee unions, voted to reject a tentative agreement for concession and labor savings.  By the standards of some other states, where public-sector employees have been stripped of some collective bargaining rights, the governor's proposal is measured, but it is a marked departure for Malloy.

"None of this is contradictory," said Roy Occhiogrosso, the governor's senior adviser. "The underlying concept, the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively for thei wages and benefits, he is a strong supporter."

But Occhiogrosso said the governor felt obliged after the rejection of the labor savings deal, a significant portion of which were directed at long-term changes in health and retirement benefits, to seek legislation that he believes is necessary to stabilize the state's benefits structure.  The Connecticut Federation of Taxpayer Organizations, a coalition of 30 grassroots taxpayer groups, wrote to Malloy and the General Assembly this week calling for a panel to recommend reforms to statutorily-guaranteed collective bargaining rights.

"The recent rejection by the state employee unions of the proposed concession package offered by Governor Malloy placed a spotlight on the unhealthy control of state employee unions over our State, its budget, personnel and finances, as well as the devastating impact it will have on taxpayers throughout our state," wrote association President Susan G. Kniep, a former East Hartford mayor. "As union contracts are negotiated in secret, voters/taxpayers are frequently removed from the process although you expect us to pay the associated costs through the various forms of taxation you and municipal leaders impose upon us."

On Tuesday, Malloy said he would explore legislative options to curtail what he called state government's unsustainable, long-term health and pension costs, but he refused then to say if he was going to seek a curb on collective-bargaining rights for state employees.

On Tuesday, Malloy said he would explore legislative options to curtail what he called state government's unsustainable, long-term health and pension costs, but he refused to say if he was going to seek a curb on collective-bargaining rights for state employees.

"We attempted to do that through negotiation. That has failed," Malloy said then. "The people of Connecticut still need systemic change and still need to have a sustainable relationship with their employee base, which is a way of saying there is more than one way to get that done."

Union spokesmen were not immediately available for comment.
Malloy discloses layoff plan: 5,500 to go, on top of 1,000 open positions
CT POST
Ken Dixon, Staff Writer
Updated 07:05 p.m., Tuesday, June 28, 2011

HARTFORD -- Fourteen percent of the state workforce -- including about 5,500 current workers -- would be eliminated under a wide-ranging plan to save $1.6 billion over the next two years announced late Tuesday afternoon by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

The governor, left in the lurch after state unions rejected a tentative concessions deal last week, said agency commissioners would have latitude in reaching targets for savings.

Malloy and his budget chief, Benjamin Barnes, recommended that 6,466 jobs be eliminated, a figure that includes 1,000 positions now vacant. The reductions would include 1,019 employees in the Department of Correction, nearly 16 percent of the agency's work force.

Correction offices were among the four bargaining units that rejected the concession package, including higher insurance co-pays and benefit reductions in a deal that currently runs until 2017.

"We can't wait until 2017 to bring about the changes that need to be brought," Malloy said to reporters. "I've got to balance the budget. That's what I'm going to concentrate on. Right now I've got a whole bunch of changes I have to bring about so we have a balanced budget."

The Department of Transportation would see 817 layoffs. The Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services would lose 486 employees. Courts would terminate 450 jobs, while UConn would shed 333 workers.

"We will create the efficiencies we will need to," Malloy told more than 100 agency heads gathered in the Capitol Tuesday morning.

He said that "disappointed and angry" state residents are depending on the administration to cut $700 million from the budget that starts July 1, following the rejection of concessions by state unions that would have totaled $1.6 billion over two years.

"We're capable of closing that hole and we simply have to do it," Malloy said, adding that commissioners would be briefed throughout the day on expected staffing cuts.

"We're all capable of rising to this particular occasion," Malloy said. "I really want everyone to understand this is an extraordinary opportunity as well."

As the meeting ended, Kevin B. Sullivan, commissioner of the Department of Revenue Services, said he expected the governor's plan to be similar to a plan earlier in the year, when Malloy anticipated that unions would not go along with the concession proposal.

"Every agency, because of the old Plan B, has already been through much of this exercise," Sullivan said in a brief interview. "So it should not take long for the agency to respond." Under Malloy's plan, DRS would lay off 85 employees, nearly 12 percent of their current staff.

Additionally, municipal aid would get cut $54 million a year, about 2.4 percent. Overall, the governor's proposal would cut $704 million in the first year and $905 million in the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2012.

Speaking to reporters after his staff meeting, Malloy said it's too late for unions to reconsider their recent concessions votes, which labor officials said Monday were targets for misinformation aimed at killing the agreement. Union leaders indefinitely tabled final action on the apparent rejection and hinted that local bargaining units might apply to revote.

Democratic majority leaders and their staffs were briefed Tuesday afternoon on the overall proposals, which will require the approval of lawmakers during a special legislative session set for Thursday. But the briefing did not include the exact extent of additional recission authority Malloy will seek in order to make unilateral cuts to the two-year, $40.1 billion budget that takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Friday.

"Connecticut over the next few months needs to get to a position where we have systemic change" similar to the benefits and insurance concessions approved by union leaders but rejected by the rank and file, Malloy said. The governor added that he doubts everything which needs to be done will be accomplished Thursday. "In the absence of an agreement we have to find another way to do that," he said.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, in a letter to fellow lawmakers late Tuesday afternoon, warned that Malloy might be making a power grab of "unprecedented" scope.

"It is clear that granting Gov. Malloy broad authority to make cuts potentially totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in order to create a balanced biennial budget would be unprecedented," McKinney wrote. "It is my strong belief that such a sweeping delegation of legislative power would be unconstitutional."

"One-party control, I think, is a dangerous thing," said Sen. Andrew W. Roraback, R-Goshen, to reporters in the Capitol. "Our ideas have been summarily rejected."
Malloy recommends nearly 5,500 layoffs, $54M cut in town aid
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
June 28, 2011

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy recommended nearly 5,500 state employee layoffs, elimination of 1,000 other vacant positions and a $54 million cut in municipal aid to help offset the planned savings from the failed union concession deal.

It was unclear from limited details released late Tuesday afternoon how much savings could be achieved over the next two fiscal years from the 6,466 recommended job cuts.

Malloy spokeswoman Colleen Flanagan wrote that commissioners and other agency heads will be charged with finding the $700.7 million in savings needed to balance finances in the $20.14 billion budget for the fiscal year that starts July 1, and another $901.2 million in the $20.4 billion budget for 2012-13.

And though the governor's budget agency, the Office of Policy and Management, "thinks the number of suggested layoffs will help them get there," Flanagan wrote, "some commissioners might choose to lay off more people" to achieve their savings target. "Some might choose to lay off a lower number and find additional savings elsewhere."

State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition Larry Dorman responded late Tuesday that unionized workers remain committed to playing a "positive role" to help balance the budget.

"Laying-off thousands of workers and slashing public services is not what Connecticut needs to get the economy moving," he said. "Cutting thousands of middle-class jobs will only add to our stagnant unemployment rate. Slashing services that every resident and business owner relies on will only degrade our quality of life The damage that these layoffs would cause make clear how important it is we come up with a solution that works for everyone in Connecticut."

The Malloy plan likely would hinge on state legislators granting his request for expanded emergency budgetary authority. The governor technically can reduce most line items by up to 5 percent, though municipal aid is exempt, and many others cannot be touched because of contractual or other legal obligations.

Malloy has asked lawmakers to boost the authority up to 10 percent, and to lift the exemption on town aid. With those powers, plus his existing authority to order layoffs, Malloy has said he believes he can close the fiscal holes created by the failed labor deal without any additional tax hikes.

The governor's fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives' majority caucus were wary of ceding that power during the regular session, and reportedly were still pressing Malloy last week to provide more details about how he would reshape the budget.

The legislature will be in special session on Thursday, either to consider expanded powers for the governor or to consider other budget adjustments on their own to rebalance state finances.

Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams,. D-Brooklyn, said his caucus is "in complete agreement that we have to take decisive action on Thursday." He said Senate Democrats are prepared to give Malloy temporary authority to cut line items up to 10 percent and to reduce municipal aid.

"If we make these cuts through the governor's recision authority, there's more flexibility" to adapt to changing conditions," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, said legislators still hope the unions will reconsider the concession package. Williams said "there's a lot of frustration" with the defeat of the deal.

"Folks are very interested in looking at the whole big picture of how we address wages and benefits for state employees," he said.

Douglas Whiting, spokesman for the House Democratic Caucus, said Tuesday evening that Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, had begun to review Malloy's budget adjustment outline. "He wants to have a conversation with caucus members about the document Thursday morning," Whiting said, adding that "we're still awaiting more detail from the administration."

Malloy's budget director, OPM Secretary Benjamin Barnes, who briefed Democratic legislative leaders on Tuesday, said they were interested and understandably have questions about the plan. "The clearly do need to and intend to discuss this in caucus," he said. "It's an unusual time we're in and many of the decisions before the General Assembly are unprecedented."

The single-largest number of recommended job reductions 1,019, were recommended for the Department of Correction, with the administration also announcing plans Tuesday to close the Bergin Correctional Institution, a mid-level security prison in Mansfield.

Those job cuts would represent 15.7 percent of the work force within the department, which has seen the system-wide inmate population shrink steadily for much of this calendar year. According to administration statistics, there were 17,520 inmates in Connecticut facilities in June, the lowest mark for that month since 2001.

Correction Commissioner Leo C. Arnone, who would be responsible for finding $62.9 million in savings next fiscal year under this plan, announced Tuesday that his department would close Bergin on Aug. 15, and that an undisclosed number of layoff notices would go to staff assigned there by the end of this week.

Correction Department spokesman Brian Garnett could not be reached for comment late Tuesday afternoon, but according to the department's website, 931 inmates were housed in the Mansfield facility when the year began.

The administration also would delve deep into transportation, cutting 817 jobs - or nearly 25 percent of all positions - and ordering $78 million in savings in the agency and nearly $105 million across the entire Special Transportation Fund. The latter not only supports DOT operations, but also covers debt financing for much of the state's highway and bridge repair program.

The state's public colleges and universities are handled differently than departments and agencies within the state budget, receiving a block grant and greater autonomy over how those operating dollars are spent.

And while the $20 million reduction recommended for the University of Connecticut next year - as well as the $9.9 million cut proposed for the UConn Health Center - was backed up by the administration with a recommendation to 333 jobs in the former and 165 in the latter, the decision whether to do so rests with the university's Board of Trustees. That group also could consider other options, such as raising tuition and fees to offset the block grant reductions.

The administration plan did not identify how much savings within each agency would be achieved through job reductions versus other cost-cutting measures.

But across the entire plan, about $258 million in savings would have to come from cuts other than job eliminations or higher education block grant reductions in 2011-12, and another $251 million from other options in 2012-13, Barnes said.

Malloy, who pledged not to shred the state's social services safety net during last fall's campaign, warned repeatedly that he would be hard pressed to keep that pledge if union concessions were rejected.

And Tuesday the governor recommended cutting 1,624 positions across four departments involving: Developmental Services, Social Services, Children and Families, and Mental Health and Addiction Services.

The governor also had warned he likely couldn't keep his pledge to avoid cuts to municipal aid if the labor deal fell through, and the $54.4 million reduction he proposed represents 1.8 percent of all municipal aid.

Barnes said the town aid reductions still are being discussed, but the administration is not recommending any cuts at this time to the single-largest grant, the Education Cost Sharing program, which would provide about $1.9 billion in aid to school districts next fiscal year.

The single-largest reduction proposed for municipal aid involves $15 million that would be taken from the $30 million Town Aid Road program.

Smaller education programs would be hit, though, with more than $23 million in total being cut from a combination of after-school programs, health services for private school students, priority schools, youth service bureaus, charter schools, bilingual education programs and interdistrict programs other than those included in the ongoing school desegregation program.

Another $9.4 million would come from the PILOT, or Payment In Lieu Of Taxes grants that reimburse communities for lost revenue tied to property tax-exempt colleges, hospitals and state-owned buildings and land.

"A $54 million cut is going to be a real problem," James Finley, executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said Tuesday. "We're going to be looking to the General Assembly to reject these cuts."

Finley has said repeatedly that cuts to approved aid would leave cities and towns with an array of unpleasant choices: either cut programs, lay off staff, issue supplemental tax bills, or some combination.

"Virtually every town in the state has adopted a budget, set their tax rate and mailed out their tax bills," he said, adding that to deal with the proposed cuts "there are no good options."
This Is Malloy's Chance To Find Bipartisan Solution To Budget Nightmare
Hartford COURANT
Rick Green
June 28, 2011

Just how bad is it for the anti-Christie?

First the unions stab him in the back. Then the real Christie trashes him on national TV Tuesday morning, rubbing Gov. Dannel Malloy's face in the state employee unions' rejection of a concessions agreement.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie mocked Dan Malloy's can't-we-just-get–along approach to dealing with state employee unions after they humilated the governor and his intriguing bid to show the nation there's an alternative to what's taking place to the union-gutting in Wisconsin and New Jersey.

"Now what do the people of Connecticut have? Big tax increases with no concessions because the unions stuck it to him," Christie said on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "What these folks in the public sector unions respect is strength … not weakness."

Christie, an egomaniac of Titanic proportions, is right about that. Folks who know Malloy say we now will be treated to the real Dannel Malloy. Not Angry Dan or Limp Noodle Dan but Dannel-Who-Does-What-He-Says.  That will mean layoffs, though Malloy said Monday this number will be less than the much-discussed 7,500 figure.

The man who says he loathes layoffs must embrace them to prove to the state that he's got any backbone at all.

"We are going to cut $700 million of additional spending from the budget. I don't want to do it. It's not the right thing," Malloy told the Business Council of Fairfield County's annual meeting over lunch in Stamford. "The overarching concern is whether Connecticut is prepared to live within its means."

I'm ready for Take-Your-Medicine Dan, but in his effort to be resolute, Malloy ought not to ignore the opportunity that has fallen in his lap.  The irony here is that just as it looks like traitorous unions have sunk him, Malloy could fashion a new coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans who truly represent the sentiments of Connecticut. Malloy can still take his bold new path, just one that's not dictacted by the knee-jerk left in his party.

Part of this can begin with Republican Minority Leader John McKinney, who privately reached out to Malloy the other day, suggesting that there may be some common ground.  McKinney, eager to talk to the press, was also at the same luncheon Malloy appeared at Monday. When we spoke he sounded almost like the moderate Republican leader he might one day become.

"I don't think anybody wants to see 7,500 people lose their jobs," McKinney told me. "We have an opportunity here in this rejection,'' he said, pointing out that Connecticut doesn't have to be like New Jersey or Wisconsin, where public employees have been senselessly demonized by governors.

This might mean going after the much maligned "longevity payments" that state employees receive just for remaining on the job or equally noxious use of overtime to inflate pensions. Both changes would be popular with voters sick of union arrogance.

"There is a coalition of Republicans and Democrats who could put together a package," McKinney said, before adding that he'd be willing to risk a split with the just-say-no-to-everything Republicans now mulitplying in Hartford and Washington. "The opportunity is still there."

But if Malloy is willing to challenge the union-dominated left wing of his party, he wasn't giving any hints Monday, instead emphasizing that Connecticut's budget problems are "too big to cut our way out of."

"There didn't need to be a human cost … but we need to move forward,'' Malloy told reporters, before thanking unionsts who voted for "the common interest above the personal interest."

He told the Stamford business group – which notably endorsed Malloy's budget balancing package and union concession proposal – that "what we really need is for the state of Connecticut to get back into the game again."

First, we need to see whether there's any real leadership. Will McKinney step up to the right fringe that too often controls his party? Will Malloy forge a new path for Connecticut Democrats, one that is not dominated by a union litmus test?

Yes, it looks bad, but the anti-Christie has a rare do-over opportunity. I hope he makes the best of it.


State police want separate talks as unions seek way to influence Malloy and Legislature
CT POST
Ken Dixonand Brian Lockhart, Staff Writers
Published 08:56 p.m., Wednesday, June 29, 2011

HARTFORD -- The union representing Connecticut State Police, one of four to reject a $1.6 billion concessions package, has asked Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration to engage in separate talks for givebacks.

The request comes as leaders of the 15-union State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition continue to search desperately for a way to salvage the giveback deal and avoid thousands of layoffs over the summer. One labor source said SEBAC leadership may change its bylaws to allow the 26 of 34 bargaining units that supported the health care and pension givebacks to accept them, leaving the eight in opposition operating under the status quo.

But, the source noted, SEBAC leaders would be unable to act on any proposed rule changes until 30 days from their being put on the table. And Malloy Thursday set a deadline of Aug. 31 for SEBAC to ratify the concessions.

Under what many say are exceptionally tough ratification standards, 14 SEBAC unions had to back the $1.6 billion deal their negotiators reached in the spring with Malloy, a Democrat elected last November with help from organized labor.

And at least 80 percent of SEBAC's voting members had to cast "yes" ballots.

When voting ended last weekend, four unions had balked at the deal, even though 57 percent of members overall embraced it.

That left Malloy and the General Assembly scrambling to plug the $1.6 billion hole in the new two-year budget before the start of the fiscal year Friday. The Legislature meets in special session Thursday to consider the governor's plan to eliminate 6,500 jobs -- including about 5,500 by layoffs -- and to grant him extraordinary powers to privatize services and enact deep service cuts.

SEBAC's leadership on Monday decided to indefinitely delay finalizing the vote, arguing 57 percent of its members -- a solid majority -- wanted the concessions and there must be a way out of the current crisis.

"We're respectful of the voting process but we have to figure out what we can do to be part of a positive solution moving forward," SEBAC spokesman Larry Dorman said Wednesday. "We can't simply pack our bags and go home with all of these potential layoffs, service cuts and devastation waiting around the corner."

Speculation SEBAC officials may seek re-votes or alter ratification rules has led to dissension.

"People are talking about hiring labor attorneys and organizing," Gene Mauro, a Danbury-based probation officer who opposed the givebacks, said. "This is just a mess. The vote went down by their (SEBAC's) rules. If it had gone their way, would they have allowed us to have a revote? You lost something by your own rules."

But Rob Ramonas, a correctional head nurse working in New Haven who voted "yes," said, "To get 14 out of 15 unions to agree on anything, even if it's the sky is blue, is a difficult benchmark to reach. I think that fundamentally it's wrong to change the rules after the game. (But) I think it's in our long-term best interests to approve this thing."

Lois McCracken, a librarian at Housatonic Community College in Bridgeport, supported the concessions. She believes some workers who opposed them, such as the state police, did so because they are considered immune from layoffs.

"I've lost faith in this whole SEBAC unit when we don't all have the same stakes," McCracken said.

Andrew Matthews, president of the state police union, in a letter this week to Malloy obtained by Hearst Connecticut Media Group, argued his members face unique professional challenges.

"In order to continue to be a part of the (budget) solution and to ensure a successful conclusion to the process and the overall agreement between SEBAC and the administration, the Connecticut State Police Union is respectfully and formally requesting to bargain separately," Matthews wrote.

Malloy's office declined comment. Dorman did as well, saying it is an internal SEBAC matter.
From our favorite Capitol correspondent earlier in the 2011 Long Session:
Christmas trees in June can rile up taxpayers, lawmakers alike
CT POST
Ken Dixon
Published 05:06 p.m., Friday, May 27, 2011

A lot of readers -- aka miffed Connecticut taxpayers who want to watch their lawmakers' inaction -- have lately been held hostage to CTN, the broadcast-propaganda arm of the General Assembly.  The multimillion-dollar, taxpayer-financed monopoly is available on most cable-TV systems and runs endless hours of legislative committee meetings and sessions of the House and Senate, with their own language and rules of decorum that often seem a mystery.

There are at least a couple of undesirable side effects from all this exposure to the gavel-to-grovel coverage of the General Assembly. Debates are now extended ad infinitum and first-term lawmakers have disobeyed the unspoken rule to be seen and not heard until their first successful re-election.  Some of these freshmen have even blatantly violated the rules against reading verbatim statements during debate.

The rules say you can use notes and refer to state statutes, but that's all.  At one point recently, a first-term Republican read prepared staff talking points from his not-so-smart phone and kept prattling on and on, eyes down at the device, until Rep. Themis Klarides, R-Derby, swanned behind him and whispered words of discouragement.

The CTN-enhanced coverage reached the point of comedy a couple weeks back when a pro-labor bill on rules governing so-called captive audiences in workplaces sparked an 11-hour debate.  That was a slightly different case of prolonged CTN exposure, because House Minority Leader Larry Cafero, R-Norwalk, thought he was lied to by a Democrat who previously stated that he had only wanted to get the bill out of committee, not to the floor.

At 1 a.m. the bill passed in the Democrat-dominated House. The Senate isn't even expected to take it up, so you could argue that the "captive audience" bill was a waste of time and made inconsequential viewing on the state-run CTN and its own perplexed captives.  It reminded me of some of the legislative lexicon that readers should be aware of as we steam toward the midnight June 8 adjournment hour.

"Amendment": A means to change legislation during debate. It's a lobbyist's dream and its effective use can strip all meaning from a bill. Take the recent international incident surrounding the brief suspension of Shelton High School senior James Tate from the prom. Lawmakers including Rep. Jason Perillo, R-Shelton, drew up an amendment for an education bill that would have forced the school's insular administrators to wake from their stupor and let him attend. A long-shot amendment would also be the last chance that Rep. Kathy Tallarita, R-Enfield, has to get a vote this year on Sunday retails sales of alcohol.

"Vehicle": A bill with enough relevance for an amendment to be attached. A major bill, say on transportation issues, can become "a Christmas tree" with amendments attached by a wide variety of lawmakers whose previous efforts failed to gain individual bills.  Enough amendments can turn a Christmas tree into a "battleship," which can sink from the excessive weight of amendments and a correlating opposition in the rank-and-file.

"Stakeholders": A bureaucratic term often referring to all sides of an issue. In the case of a utility-rate case, it would mean consumers and the electric company. It most often underscores the powerlessness of consumers or the general public.

"J.F.": In committees, it means a "joint favorable" vote on a bill. Since Democrats control both the House and Senate, legislative committees are joint House and Senate panels. The term would have new meaning if the marijuana-decriminalization bill can become law.

"Sweeps": In TV land, it means a month of overblown stories attempting to attract viewers so stations can charge more for advertising. In state government, sweeps are raids on sources of revenue, such as the eventually abandoned tactic a couple years back to steal the money generated by the "Preserve Long Island Sound" license plates for the General Fund.

"A handshake deal": Among lawmakers, it usually comes before a single-finger salute.

"Bipartisan": A rare agreement between minority Republicans and Democrats. Its appearance in a debate is often an indicator of the relative unimportance of the legislation.

"Taxes": Enhanced state revenue, provided by you.

"My colleagues": When uttered in floor debate, it often means "You rat bastards."

"Nice to see you": Continually uttered in the lobbies of the Capitol and Legislative Office Building, it means nothing of the kind.

"Pleasure seeing you up there Mr. Speaker": Usually declared at the start of a floor speech to the deputy speaker running the House, it can mean "I hope you explode in a million pieces."

"At the end of the day": When hell freezes over.

"A work in progress": A bill that never should have been voted out of committee in the first place, but which leadership wants so it can become a vehicle, a Christmas tree or a battleship.


ACTION IN OUR FAVORITE COMMITTEES HERE.   THIS YEAR OUR FOCUS IS ENVIRONMENT  AND HOW THIS COMMITTEE RESPONDS TO DIFFICULT DECISIONS IN RESTRUCTURING STATE GOVERNMENT AND GENERALLY, KEEPING CT AFLOAT. 

VIA A CHANGE OF REFERENCE, sHB5202 CAN BE FOLLOWED ON THE WEBPAGE OF THE FINANCE REVENUE AND BONDING COMMITTEE HERE
The bill is drafted with all the right legal language (one would hope) and it is clear that this is a bill intended to provide funding for purchase of development rights.  Reference is made to where the funds will come and who directs them:

Section 1. (Effective July 1, 2011) (a) For the purposes described in subsection (b) of this section, the State Bond Commission shall have the power, from time to time, to authorize the issuance of bonds of the state in one or more series and in principal amounts not exceeding in the aggregate twenty million dollars.

(b) The proceeds of the sale of said bonds, to the extent of the amount stated in subsection (a) of this section, shall be used by the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of purchasing development rights to agricultural lands in accordance with section 22-26cc of the general statutes.

Environment Committee JFS HB5202 to the Finance Revenue and Bonding Committee at March 9, 2011 meeting...we know now for sure:
"3/9/2011    (ENV)    Joint Favorable Substitute Change of Reference / Finance, Revenue and Bonding"  Moved to "consent calendar"

HB5376 and HB5202 (drafted by Committee), Environment Committee of interest.  How are they doing?  Is this the beginning of a revitalization of farming in CT?  "Community Farming" something Weston knows about ("2-acre residential and farming" district only here)!

H.B. No. 5363 (COMM) AN ACT TRANSFERRING THE CONSERVATION FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - at Environment Committee...restructuring some functions of DEP, from the Minority.
NEWS from this Session on bills we are watching - in other areas than Planning and Development or Environment.
                            --------------------------------------------------
Previous "Long Session"...
Even longer ago...

WE WATCH PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEES TO GET A FEELING FOR LAND USE CHANGES IN THE WIND...
What's on deck so far?



P l a n n i n g   &   D e v e l o p m e n t

HB 6108 - AN ACT CONCERNING INCENTIVES FOR REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND COST EFFICIENCIES.
SB 176 - Super-majority to pass bills for new municipal mandates
HB 5336 - Making sure there is a tax benefit to regionalization

-------------------------------------------------------


 E n v i r o n m e n t

Referred to Committee on Environment
Introduced by: (ENV)   

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR THE COMMUNITY FARMS PROGRAM.
HB5376
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (Effective July 1, 2011) (a) For the purposes described in subsection (b) of this section, the State Bond Commission shall have the power, from time to time, to authorize the issuance of bonds of the state in one or more series and in principal amounts not exceeding in the aggregate two million dollars.

(b) The proceeds of the sale of said bonds, to the extent of the amount stated in subsection (a) of this section, shall be used by the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of funding the community farms program, as described in section 22a-26nn of the general statutes.

(c) All provisions of section 3-20 of the general statutes, or the exercise of any right or power granted thereby, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this section are hereby adopted and shall apply to all bonds authorized by the State Bond Commission pursuant to this section, and temporary notes in anticipation of the money to be derived from the sale of any such bonds so authorized may be issued in accordance with said section 3-20 and from time to time renewed. Such bonds shall mature at such time or times not exceeding twenty years from their respective dates as may be provided in or pursuant to the resolution or resolutions of the State Bond Commission authorizing such bonds. None of said bonds shall be authorized except upon a finding by the State Bond Commission that there has been filed with it a request for such authorization which is signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management and states such terms and conditions as said commission, in its discretion, may require. Said bonds issued pursuant to this section shall be general obligations of the state and the full faith and credit of the state of Connecticut are pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on said bonds as the same become due, and accordingly and as part of the contract of the state with the holders of said bonds, appropriation of all amounts necessary for punctual payment of such principal and interest is hereby made, and the State Treasurer shall pay such principal and interest as the same become due.

------------------------------------

Referred to Committee on Environment
Introduced by:  (ENV)   
HB5202

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR FARMLAND PRESERVATION.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (Effective July 1, 2011) (a) For the purposes described in subsection (b) of this section, the State Bond Commission shall have the power, from time to time, to authorize the issuance of bonds of the state in one or more series and in principal amounts not exceeding in the aggregate twenty million dollars.

(b) The proceeds of the sale of said bonds, to the extent of the amount stated in subsection (a) of this section, shall be used by the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of purchasing development rights to agricultural lands in accordance with section 22-26cc of the general statutes.

(c) All provisions of section 3-20 of the general statutes, or the exercise of any right or power granted thereby, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this section are hereby adopted and shall apply to all bonds authorized by the State Bond Commission pursuant to this section, and temporary notes in anticipation of the money to be derived from the sale of any such bonds so authorized may be issued in accordance with said section 3-20 and from time to time renewed. Such bonds shall mature at such time or times not exceeding twenty years from their respective dates as may be provided in or pursuant to the resolution or resolutions of the State Bond Commission authorizing such bonds. None of said bonds shall be authorized except upon a finding by the State Bond Commission that there has been filed with it a request for such authorization which is signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management and states such terms and conditions as said commission, in its discretion, may require. Said bonds issued pursuant to this section shall be general obligations of the state and the full faith and credit of the state of Connecticut are pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on said bonds as the same become due, and accordingly and as part of the contract of the state with the holders of said bonds, appropriation of all amounts necessary for punctual payment of such principal and interest is hereby made, and the State Treasurer shall pay such principal and interest as the same become due.

----------------------------

SB 830 - AN ACT PROHIBITING THE USE OF CERTAIN OUTDOOR WOOD-BURNING FURNACES.
HB 5518 - State - wide  water use plan - will probably get a public hearing and be worked into another bill (just our thought)
SB 58 - Plastic bag tax come again

Committees approve Malloy's two-year, $40.2 billion budget
By JC Reindl, Publication: theday.com
Published 04/21/2011 12:00 AM
Updated 04/21/2011 09:21 PM

Hartford — Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's newly amended budget plan passed through two committees of the state legislature Thursday, a rare feat for a governor before Good Friday.

The finance committee voted 32-20 to adopt the tax portion of the Democratic governor's two-year, $40.2 billion budget. Two Democrats, Sen. Ed Meyer of Guilford and Rep. Charlie Stallworth of Bridgeport, broke party lines in voting against the plan that would raise taxes by $1.4 billion in the fiscal year starting July 1.

Ninety minutes later, members of the appropriations committee passed the spending portion of the budget, ultimately voting 33-21, with three Democrats in opposition: Sen. Joan Hartley, Rep. Kim Fawcett and Rep. Linda Schofield.

"Is it the best budget that possibly could come out of here? No," said appropriations member Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, who voted for the plan. "But with a $3.3 billion deficit, I think this was the best we could do at this time."

The committee meetings occurred almost simultaneously on the same floor of the state Capitol complex — yet another unusual occurrence in this year's uncharacteristically speedy budget process.

Malloy is the first governor in two decades to serve with a House and Senate controlled by members of his same political party. Seldom do governors and lawmakers reach general agreement on a budget this early in the legislative session.

Despite being outnumbered, Republicans spoke at length on Thursday in both committee meetings to criticize the budget as hurtful to taxpayers and businesses, and counter to Connecticut's long-term economic interests.

"We can't be saying that we're open for business and then increase the corporate tax surcharge by 100 percent, from 10 percent to 20 percent," said L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich. "Even if doesn't affect you, it sends out a message. It sends out a message to the marketplace that Connecticut may in fact have the door partially open to business, but is it really open for business?"

The two portions of the biennial budget now go to the House and Senate chambers of the General Assembly for action after the holiday weekend.

But the attention is now back on the executive branch, as Malloy has yet to gain $1 billion in cost-savings and concessions from state workers. The governor said earlier that the legislature could still pass a final budget and he could still sign it using place holders for the expected concessions.

Republican leaders have criticized the governor for celebrating an early budget deal without the labor concessions in hand.

New, higher taxes

The budget in its current shape would introduce a number of new and higher taxes. If enacted, consumers could expect to pay more for cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, cosmetic surgery, manicures, cremations, rental cars, limo service, airport valets, pet grooming and a day at the spa.

Malloy dropped plans to tax other things as part of his agreement with legislators. Those items included haircuts, carwashes, boat services (cleaning, storage, repair, tow), coupon discount rates, and clothing and shoes priced under $50.

The budget would also raise the sales-tax rate to 6.35 percent from 6 percent for most retail items. It expands income tax brackets from three to eight, and establishes a higher top rate of 6.7 percent. And it creates a "luxury" tax for pricey cars, boats, jewelry and clothing, although at a lower rate than first proposed.

The $500 property tax credit has been cut back to $300 for most households. Malloy initially sought to eliminate the credit, but said he changed his mind after citizens voiced concerns during his statewide listening tour on the budget.

The budget also creates an earned income tax credit for low-income workers.

Democratic unity

Republicans in both committees tried unsuccessfully Thursday to replace the tax and spending portions of the plan with parts from the GOP's own "no tax increase" budget. The GOP budget calls for significant cuts to state government and some social services programs but would maintain current funding levels to cities and towns.

"The taxpayer has had it. They have had enough," said Sen. Sean Williams, R-Watertown, ranking Republican on the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee. "Nobody is looking at Connecticut as a good place to do business after we pass [the governor's budget]... all the people we know, our neighbors, friends and family. They can't afford it."

But most Democrats stuck together in the final votes.

"The budget that is on the table is a difficult one, it is a balanced one, it addresses the needs of the people in the state of Connecticut with a vision of going forward and encouraging job growth," said Rep. Patricia Widlitz, D-Guilford, co-chairwoman of the finance committee.

All Democratic committee members from the New London area voted with their party.

"I ultimately would like to have seen us trim back a bit more on spending and taxes, but I'm very pleased we were able to beat back the proposed taxes on the marine industry" said Rep. Andrew Maynard, D-Stonington, an appropriations committee member. "And I was pleased that we were able to restore the bulk of the property tax credit. So a number of the most objectionable things were removed."

State Rep. Diane Urban, D-North Stonington, was also glad to see boating taxes removed from the plan. She complimented Malloy for shifting the state to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, thus avoiding any budgetary "smoke screens."

Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, an appropriations committee vice-chair, said she approves of the budget plan and is happy that Malloy opted to reduce the property tax credit rather than eliminate it.

"I have to give the governor credit, he listened to the people who complained about that," Prague said. "Nobody likes taxes, but that's the way it is. They're not as bad on the middle class as we thought they might be."

Meyer, the Senate Democrat who voted against the budget's tax portion, said he couldn't support a plan that continues longevity bonuses for some state workers, pension payouts at age 50 for others, and a top-heavy managerial structure in several state agencies, among other reasons.

Legislature weighing job impact statements for bills
February 2, 2011 at 8:15 pm by Brian Lockhart, Stamford ADVOCATE

The General Assembly’s Commerce Committee is scheduled Thursday to consider a proposal requiring job impact statements be attached to all bills affecting employment.

The idea is a favorite among Republicans who argue the Democrat-controlled legislature has made it harder and harder for businesses to survive in Connecticut.

When, for example, news broke Tuesday pharmaceutical giant Pfizer was laying off 1,100 and moving those jobs to Massachusetts, Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield said: “Recently (Democratic) Governor (Dannel) Malloy announced to all that ‘Connecticut is open for business,’ yet Democratic leaders in Hartford are simultaneously preparing to consider a number of job-killing bills, including paid sick leave and captive audience … Legislative leaders of the Governor’s party still fail to recognize the consequences of their actions.”

(To be fair, Massachusetts’ lawmakers have also put paid sick leave on the table.)

State Sen. Gary LeBeau, D-East Hartford, a Commerce Committee co-chairman, said the concept of job impact statements is not a bad one, which is why the committee decided to raise it for discussion.

“I like the idea,” LeBeau said, adding: “I think we should recognize that any impact is still only a best guess. There are so many factors … But it’s better to have some knowledge than no knowledge.”

But, LeBeau said, there are plenty of unanswered questions regarding implementation, like who would produce the impact statements – a state agency or an outside consultant – and for what bills?

“I don’t think we can afford to have a job impact statement on every piece of legislation,” LeBeau said. “Then the question is where is that line drawn and how is that line drawn? Who draws it?”

Timing is another issue. Bills evolve during the course of a legislative session. At what stage should the job impact statement be drafted? Would new statements be drafted each time proposals are altered?

Since, as McKinney noted, Malloy wants to improve Connecticut’s business climate, I asked his spokesman for a comment on the impact statement idea.

Malloy took a similar approach the other week when he unveiled his first bond agenda chock full of projects that would increase Connecticut’s already enormous debt. In an effort to sell the agenda, he attached estimated jobs saved/created to each item.

Here’s what Malloy spokesman Colleen Flanagan had to say about the job impact statements: “The Governor’s major focus at the moment is finishing the budget (scheduled to be unveiled February 16). He believes that all elected officials must be mindful of actions which will spur job growth and expansion. He and his staff will monitor this proposal as it makes its way through the legislative process.”


Malloy seeks authority to make emergency cuts to local aid
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
February 24, 2011

A week after winning accolades from municipal officials for proposing a budget that largely maintains state aid to cities and towns, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is under fire for seeking authority to reduce that assistance unilaterally if the state's financial problems worsen.

Allowing the governor to reduce aid mid-year "is non-negotiable for us," James Finley, executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Cities and Towns, said Wednesday, responding to new budget legislation drafted by Malloy's office. "We're going to fight this."

Malloy, who was CCM president while mayor of Stamford, inherited a built-in shortfall ranging from $3.2 billion to $3.67 billion for the fiscal year that begins July 1. To help close a gap equal to nearly one-fifth of current spending, the governor proposed several unpopular steps, including:

    * More than $1.5 billion in new annual state taxes including increases in levies on income, sales, gasoline, cigarettes, liquor. insurance companies and electricity generation.
    * $1 billion from labor concessions and management savings in each of the next two years.
    * And $750 in additional cuts affecting social services, health care, higher education and other programs.

He left grants to cities and towns--about 14 percent of the budget--largely untouched, and proposed allowing communities added tax revenue streams. However, he also sought expansion of his budgetary powers--including authority for the governor to cut up to 10 percent of municipal aid without legislative approval.

Current law already gives the state's chief executive broad discretion to reduce most accounts unilaterally by up to 5 percent whenever "the governor determines that due to a change in circumstances since the budget was adopted certain reductions should be made."

Certain spending areas, such as debt payments on bonding and employee salaries and benefits effectively are excluded from deep rescissions because of contractual obligations. But the statute specifically forbids cuts to approved municipal aid without legislative approval.  Malloy's proposal would double the maximum allowable reduction from 5 to 10 percent, and remove the exemption for municipal aid.  Those grants total nearly $2.8 billion, meaning the governor's proposal would allow up to $280 million in potential annual reductions.

"Municipal aid is a promise the state makes to its government partners at the local level," Finley said, adding that a mid-year reduction equal to even a portion of Malloy's proposal would wreak fiscal havoc.

"Cities and towns have already exhausted every opportunity to maintain services and avoid layoffs," Finley said, adding that few communities have any available fiscal reserves above the 5 percent level needed to maintain their local bond rating--and some already have dipped below that threshold.

If the governor were allowed to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from approved aid levels, Finley added, many communities likely would issue supplemental property tax bills.  The co-chairwomen of the legislature's Appropriations Committee reacted cautiously to the governor's proposal Wednesday.

"There's got to be a lot more detail presented to us," Rep. Toni Walker, D-New Haven, said adding she and others also wants more details on the administration's proposed agency consolidations.

"I think there are good reasons why the former legislatures have exempted municipal aid," said Sen. Toni R. Harp, D-New Haven.

The legislature last reduced previously approved town aid levels as part of a state budget deficit reduction measure in February 2003, canceling $40.1 million.  But Harp added that given the scope of the deficit Malloy and the legislature faces, lawmakers have to be careful not to dismiss any proposals too quickly.

"If he doesn't get the $1 billion from labor, where does he go?" she said. "He's got to get it somewhere and this (municipal aid) is one of the major areas in the budget. Municipal grants represent nearly 15 percent of the $19.01 billion overall budget approved for this year.

But Rep. Craig Miner of Litchfield, ranking House Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said he believes the administration is seeking too much power with its proposal.

Malloy's budget director, Office of Policy and Management Secretary Benjamin Barnes, said Wednesday that "I can appreciate why local governments can be concerned. But we believe that it is incumbent on the governor to be able to ensure every year that we live within our means.

Barnes said the governor's proposal does not reflect a lack of appreciation for the property tax burden municipalities face. Malloy, who has called property taxes the single-most regressive tax in the state, not only spared municipal aid from the budget axe, but set communities up to gain $129 million in new annual revenue by 2013 through increased taxing powers and new shares of the state's revenue streams.  His budget proposal would subject aircraft, boats and large commercial vehicles to local property taxes, double the real estate conveyance levy in most communities, and give communities new shares of revenue tied to retail sales, hotel stays, music performances and car rentals.

Barnes noted that state tax revenues tend to shrink rapidly during economic slides. General Fund tax revenues plunged by 14 percent during the depths of the last recession, from $12.5 billion in 2007-08 to $10.7 billion in 2008-09. "Things can change very quickly," he added.













Plan addresses heat affordability;  State lawmakers are urged to consider a discounted utility rate
By Patricia Daddona Day Staff Writer
Article published Jan 11, 2011

Hartford - High energy costs that are causing some people to go without prescription medicine or a day's meal can be better met with a new discounted utility rate in Connecticut.

That's the message a nonprofit emergency energy-assistance agency brought to lawmakers Monday...see heat affordability issue here.


Supporters, foes of outdoor wood furnaces square off in hearing
Christine Woodside, CT MIRROR
February 9, 2011

The tension between use of local, low-cost energy sources and the health effects of breathing wood smoke played out for hours in a hearing room Wednesday, as the Environment Committee heard testimony from at least 68 people about a bill that would ban outdoor wood-burning furnaces everywhere but farms.

About 3,000 of these furnaces are in operation in Connecticut. They resemble square metal sheds and burn low-temperature fires to heat buildings or water supplies, mostly in rural areas. Unlike wood stoves used indoors, outdoor furnaces are not regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Supporters of a ban said the 2005 law setting a 200-foot minimum distance between furnaces and neighbors, and smokestack heights above nearby rooflines, is not working. They said that neighbors of some furnaces continue to complain of respiratory problems and nuisance smoke in their houses 24 hours a day.

Those against the bill cited the economic and environmental value of heating with local timber.

Despite an intensive campaign by opponents of the furnaces, the speakers who came out to say the furnaces operate without problems outnumbered those wanting a ban, and committee members seemed inclined to look for ways to regulate the problem furnaces without a full ban.

“I think it’s going to go more toward enforcement of the current rules,” Environment Committee co-chair state Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, said after hearing four hours of testimony. He said the state has laws on its books to regulate nuisance smoke.

The case of a Newtown resident who testified about a furnace so bothered Roy that he handed his testimony and a photo to a Department of Environmental Protection staffer at the hearing. He said he didn’t even have to say, “Do something.”

The resident in question was Richard Creaturo, who testified nearly at the end of the night. He lives 137 feet away from an outdoor furnace. He’s been told the unit is grandfathered in so not covered by the 200-foot rule set in 2005. “Can you imagine being next to 20 wood stoves?” he asked, referring to a common comparison. “I have no rights. I have complained. I am tired. This smoke has caused my family many major health issues.”

“We’ve got to enforce certain regulations that are supposed to mitigate any of the problems caused by smoke,” Roy said.

State Sen. Edward Meyer, co-chair of the Environment Committee, pondered a call he'd gotten from a constituent while questioning a representative of an outdoor furnace manufacturer, Central Boiler. Meyer said the complaint was that someone was using a furnace in the summer to heat a swimming pool and asked if perhaps the units ought to be shut down in the warm months.

"Not necessarily," said David MacDonald, an environmental relations staffer for the company.

So you would advocate running these things 12 months a year?" asked Environment Committee co-chair state Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford.

"Only those who need them," McDonald replied.

Since the 2005 law went into effect, the DEP told the Connecticut Mirror in December, it has fielded 932 complaints and issued 80 notices of violation. Of those, 16 owners were asked to fix or stop using their units. Officials said individual furnaces often received multiple complaints. One unit in Brooklyn generated more than 100 complaints, the DEP said.

Others on Wednesday quoted slightly different figures. David Boomer, a lobbyist for the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association, a trade group, testified that the state had had 736 complaints since 2005 and that 524 of those complaints had been on only 10 pieces of equipment.

The strongest voice for a total ban came from Nancy Alderman, the head of Environmental and Human Health Inc., which published a report earlier targeting the furnaces as harmful to susceptible people as far as 800 feet away from the furnaces.

EHHI has taken on such causes as the effects on children of diesel fumes from school buses and the dangers of ground-up tires in artificial turf fields.

"This is the first thing we have ever done in 14 years where the people are sick now," as opposed to fearing sickness in the future, she said.

"Environmental and Human Health is not after wood. We're not after indoor wood stoves. We are only after outdoor wood furnaces, which use a flawed technology," she said.

David Brown, who wrote the report for EHH, said that one person, a Vermont resident, is known to have died from the effects of outdoor furnace emissions.

Among those in favor of banning the outdoor furnaces were town health directors. The Connecticut Association of Directors of Health cited the health problems from particulate matter and organic compounds in wood smoke. Robert Miller, a health director serving 10 eastern Connecticut towns, spoke on behalf of that group, saying that the potential health effects from wood smoke include exacerbated asthma, chronic bronchitis, heart attacks, and premature death in people with heart or lunch disease.

But state Rep. Mike Alberts, R-Woodstock, said he considered banning outdoor furnaces "to be a direct assault on the quality of life of hundreds of my rural district's constituents. In this difficult economy, many of these famlies have no option except these furnaces to heat their homes." Alberts said the state should establish standards for future installations.

He also said he did not trust the provision exempting farmers, saying it is "just the beginning of an effort to remove that exemption."

Even though the bill would exempt them, farmers testified against the outdoor furnace ban too. They suggested the state could address the air problems by requiring newer units known as Phase 2 technology. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not regulate the units now, it is considering doing so.

Wayne Budney, president of the New London County Farm Bureau, said that current regulations should suffice to control the furnaces and that the state could regulate better with fines. "I am a farmer in New London County. I do not own a wood burning furnace, but my neighbors do. I take offense when the legislature discriminates between farmers utilizing these furnaces and other lower income residents. The people that use these economical sources of home heating are not relaxing around a crackling fire roasting s'mores. These are good folks living in New England where wood is plentiful and income is scarce."
Our prediction on the success in passing such a bill over farm lobby objection:  Forgetaboutit
Outdoor furnaces facing possible ban
Christine Woodside, CT MIRROR
December 26, 2010

Connecticut is a state looking for renewable energy sources, where wood is in abundant supply. But one method of heating with renewable fuel, outdoor wood furnaces, could be all but banned under terms of a bill to be introduced next General Assembly session.  State Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, co-chair of the General Assembly's Environment Committee, said he has received so many complaints about the units, which resemble small metal sheds with round stacks, that he will introduce a bill to outlaw them for everyone but farmers.

"I was getting messages from homeowners who were extremely concerned about smoke that was coming into their homes from wood burning furnaces," Meyer said. The furnaces currently are banned by local regulation in 14 towns.

The Connecticut Farm Bureau will oppose Meyer's bill despite its plan to exempt farmers, said Steven Reviczky, executive director of the non-profit group representing about 4,000 farmers. He said wood harvesting itself is farming, and a ban would eliminate a market for locally-produced renewable energy.  Reviczky also said the exemption wouldn't cover farmers using outdoor furnaces to heat their houses. He called the proposed ban "applying a sledgehammer to the problem when a scalpel is what's required."

Current state law says outdoor wood furnaces must be located at least 200 feet from the nearest neighbor, and the smokestacks must be higher than the nearest roofline. A health advocacy group in North Haven said that in many cases, the smoke travels much farther than 200 feet before dispersing. Particulate pollution from wood smoke is linked to respiratory problems.

Meyer said that the 2005 state law "increasingly appears not to be relevant."

Outdoor wood furnaces, also known as hydronic heaters, aren't federally regulated in the way that wood stoves are. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires newer wood stoves to be equipped with devices such as catalytic converters to cut back particulates going out the stack.  For outdoor wood furnaces, the EPA only suggests standards for cleaner burning. Twenty-three models of outdoor furnace now meet those standards, said David Deegan, an EPA spokesman in Boston.

"EPA is considering federal standards that reflect today's best demonstrated technology," Deegan said. He said a proposal would be out in June.

Nancy Alderman, the head of the non-profit organization, Environment and Human Health Inc., said that people who lived near outdoor furnaces came to them a few years ago, saying they could not stop the units' use through normal policy channels and that they were suffering from respiratory illnesses.

"These people are sick, and most of them can't sell their houses," said Alderman, who has previously lobbied for a bill to ban the units. EHHI's report on outdoor wood furnaces concludes that the units emit smoky plumes that hang in the air and then fall, rather than blowing up and away. Alderman believes that the basic design of these units is flawed.

"An indoor wood stove or fireplace, you put wood in it and it burns completely and hot. It will smoke quite a bit until it gets hot, but then it dissipates. An outdoor wood furnace never gets as hot," she said. "It's always cycling on and off. It heats a water jacket and then it's on and off, on and off, 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

The state does not disagree with this characterization. Jaimeson Sinclair, a supervising engineer in the state Department of Environmental Protection's air bureau, said that the fire burns cooler in outdoor furnaces because its function is only to heat a jacket of water around it, which in turn transfers heat from the unit to the house or other building via pipes.

"The fire doesn't burn at its normal combustion temperature," he said. "The water is removing heat from the fire too quickly."

Sinclair said that since the 2005 law limiting the siting and chimney heights went into effect, his office has fielded 932 complaints and issued 80 notices of violation. Of those, 16 owners were asked to fix or stop using their units.  He said his office does not have easily accessible data on how many individual units the 932 complaints covered because in some cases multiple calls were about one furnace. One in Brooklyn generated more than 100 complaints.

But Sinclair said the outdoor furnaces can be appropriate if sited in the right place. "It depends on the topography of your neighborhood." Thr DEP offers several factsheets on outdoor furnaces.

The 14 towns that have banned outdoor wood furnaces are: Granby, Tolland, Hebron, Woodbridge, South Windsor, Portland, Norfolk, Ridgefield, Haddam, Cheshire, West Hartford, Hamden, North Haven, and Avon.

A vocal opponent to a full ban is state Rep. Bryan Hurlburt, D-Tolland, who said he wants to preserve "a whole menu of options for people if they don't want to use oil." Hurlburt said the outdoor furnaces should be regulated, and that he is not sure regulations are strong enough now. But he said the complaints are far outweighed by the units operating without any complaint.

Even though the state does not have a list of how many outdoor furnaces are sold or operating, Hurlburg estimates it at a few thousand. He said that last year there were 120 units that were the subject of complaints. "At this point, I think a ban is a pretty strong tool, especially when you look at the fact that there are multiple thousand units," he said. "Banning them is overstepping what needs to be done."


2010 Short Session plus veto session news...

REPRIEV-ED, REPRIEV-ED...Did you hear the good news? Thanks to concerned citizens like you CFE, and a timely letter from Attorney General Blumenthal, the state legislature and governor reinstated the Long Island Sound License Plate Fund and returned over $600,000 that had been stripped from it since June. This is a major victory for the Sound-the fund will now be able to continue to spark projects like coastal trails, public education, and town docks. We thank you for your support.  BUCKLE UP.

Democrats Blast Rell Veto, Hint At June 21 Override Attempt
Hartford Courant
By Jon Lender  on June 7, 2010 7:26 PM

Democrats decried Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell's veto Monday of a bill to create a commission to review the state's criminal sentencing policies, and said they are considering an override attempt at a newly-scheduled June 21 veto session at the Capitol.

In issuing her veto Monday, Rell cited what she said would be an added $130,000 cost to taxpayers and said that the proposed panel's function is already performed by the General Assembly's judiciary committee.

However, Democratic legislative leaders said the veto resulted from "petty politics" by Rell's chief of staff, M. Lisa Moody, and charged that Rell's cost fears are inflated. "This would be a fine candidate for a veto override" on June 21, said Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the legislature's judiciary committee.

Lawlor and his fellow judiciary co-chairman, Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said the bill was recommended by a sentencing task force created under a 2006 state law and including many Rell appointees and other Republicans. The bill also received virtually no opposition in the General Assembly, passing unanimously in the House and 34-1 in the Senate, they said.

"One of the frustrating things about this veto is we never had any input from the governor's office until we received her veto message," said McDonald. "She was disengaged and disconnected from the process. There was no opposition."

The bill would have required that the new commission to maintain a database to evaluate current sentencing statutes, analyze trends and identify areas of disparity. Lawlor said it would include members from the same government agencies represented on the sentencing task force he said has been so productive in recent years -- agencies involved in law enforcement, prisons, parole, the state budget, victims' advocacy, and criminal prosecution.

Those officials, working on the proposed panel, can analyze complicated problems involving criminal sentencing and probation -- and then agree on language for better bills for legislators to act on, Lawlor said.

In issuing her veto Monday, Rell said many of the duties of the proposed sentencing commission already have been performed by the legislature's judiciary committee in its policy-making role. She added: "I believe that the Judiciary Committee is the appropriate body to carry out these functions, as they have done in the past."

"While I appreciate the need for review of our sentencing statutes and practices, given our State's ongoing economic challenges, this is simply the wrong time to create yet another state entity," Rell said.

Rell administration officials had feuded earlier this year with Lawlor and McDonald, the co-chairmen of the judiciary committee, over issues including funding for the state's courts. Lawlor called Monday's veto "another example" of "petty politics" by Moody, the powerful chief of staff in the governor's office. He also expressed doubt that Rell had even dealt directly with rejection of the proposal that fellow Republicans and members of her administration had supported. "I doubt if the governor had any direct contact with this herself," he said.

Lawlor said no new personnel would have had to be hired under the bill, and he called the veto "a slap in the face" to the bipartisan task force members who work on the "front lines" of criminal justice.

Rell's office issued a statement later in response to Lawlor and McDonald, saying: ""While the Governor clearly understands the co-chairs' disappointment, after her personal and thorough review of the bill with her attorneys, the Governor determined a veto was in order. This bill, though well-intentioned, would result in more bureaucracy for state government and more cost for state taxpayers. Neither of which is necessary or affordable.
 
"Furthermore, the Legislature has an annual budget of $59 million, hundreds of professional staff, including researchers and others. Certainly, the Legislature can find enough existing resources and personnel to assist the Judiciary Committee in fulfilling the duties that were to be assigned to this new committee."

Hoping for federal aid, Rell signs sweeping education reform bill
CT MIRROR
Jacqueline Rabe and Robert A. Frahm
May 26, 2010

Hoping for a second chance at millions of dollars in federal stimulus money for school reform, Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed into law today a massive education bill.

"We're moving in one direction and one direction only and that's to the top," she said during a bill signing ceremony at Hockanum School in East Hartford. "We've all been talking about this for the past couple of years. Now we're going to do it."

The new law is aimed at transforming the education system in hopes of strengthening the state's chances of winning some of the $4.3 billion in federal Race to the Top dollars.

So far, only Tennessee and Delaware have been given grants totaling $600 million during a first round of awards announced by the U.S. Department of Education in March.  Of the 40 states and the District of Columbia that applied in the first round, Connecticut's application was ranked 25th by federal reviewers. It is expected that 10 to 15 states will win grants in the second round.  Whether the state wins up to $195 million won't be known until late August or early September, but lawmakers and educators said this law significantly improves the chances.

"Our race to the top application will probably be a stronger contender now," Department of Education Commissioner Mark McQuillan said. "You don't get an opportunity like this very often."

Connecticut's new law requires teacher evaluations based partly on student performance as well as attendance, class size and student mobility.

The law also expands graduation standards by requiring students acquire additional credits in mathematics, science and foreign language. Starting with the class of 2018, students also would be required to complete a senior project and pass graduation exams in algebra, geometry, biology, American history and English.  The reforms also ease restrictions on charter schools, create a fast-track system for training and licensing school principals and revamp the state's education data collection system.

In addition, the bill requires low-performing schools to establish governance councils of parents, teachers, and community leaders with the authority to recommend a complete overhaul of schools that consistently fail to improve.

"Nothing like putting on a little pressure, right commissioner?" joked Rell, adding she is sure the state Department of Education will meet the challenge. "The standards are higher for everyone."

An unlikely coalition crafted the bill, including the state's two major teachers' unions, the superintendents' association, administrators' association and the school reform group ConnCAN.  ConnCAN's advocacy for charter schools was at odds with teacher unions, and the group also was strongly critical of the initial Race to the Top application prepared by McQuillan.

In a handful of states such as Massachusetts, Louisiana and Colorado, school reform legislation has failed to win union endorsements - something lawmakers believe will be critical as the U.S. Department of Education judges the next Race to the Top applications.

The legislature's Black and Puerto Rican Caucus also was involved in the effort, pushing legislation known as the Achievement Gap bill aimed at turning around failing schools, including provisions to give parents more authority to fix those schools.  Rep. Jason W. Bartlett, D-Bethel, a member of the caucus, said during an interview everyone is happy.

"This is the most comprehensive bill ever done and may be the only opportunity for us to ever do such a sweeping reform," he said.

The House debated the package for seven hours, approving it just before 3 a.m. on the final day of the legislative session. Later that day, only hours before the deadline, the Senate approved the bill.  Some lawmakers have questioned the potential cost of the reforms, saying there is no guarantee Connecticut will win the stimulus funds.  The bill could require the hiring of as many as 380 additional teachers statewide at a cost of nearly $21 million, according to an estimate by the legislature's Office of Fiscal Analysis. Another $7 million is projected in training costs related to the new teacher evaluation program.

Rell said if the state isn't awarded the federal dollars, it will still be money well spent by the state.

During an interview following the bill signing ceremony, she said "we're going to have to spend this money anyway, but federal dollars absolutely would help."

Rell vetoes energy reform bill
New London DAY
Article published May 26, 2010

Hartford (AP) - Gov. M. Jodi Rell has vetoed a massive bill that would have overhauled Connecticut' energy policy, saying the legislation would have led to higher rates for electric customers.

Rell vetoed the 129-page bill on Tuesday, as expected.

She says the legislation is "well-intentioned" but she cannot approve such sweeping changes without fully knowing how they'd affect the energy market, the state's economy and consumers' electricity bills.

The bill would have provided numerous changes, including how the industry is regulated, provided incentives for renewable energy, mandated rate reductions and imposed new efficiency standards for appliances.

Connecticut Fund for the Environment criticized Rell's veto, saying she turned down a chance to reduce consumer costs, create long-term jobs and protect the environment.
Energy overhaul debate is put on hold.  Fate of controversial plan remains in doubt as state Senate leaders call time out.
By Ted Mann Day Staff Writer
Article published May 4, 2010

Hartford - Late Monday night, state Senate leaders postponed debate on a massive proposal to overhaul state energy policy, pushing a vote back at least until today and leaving its fate unclear.

But any visitor wondering about the scope and import of the bill needed search no further than the crowds of lobbyists, activists and aides clustered in the marble hall outside the Senate chamber.

The attempt to make the most sweeping changes in Connecticut's electricity markets since their deregulation in 1998 has provoked an aggressive show of force by power companies, business interests, environmentalists and advocates for consumers, the elderly and the poor.

Swarms of lobbyists monitored the progress of the reform bill as Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, and Rep. Vickie Nardello, D-Prospect, the co-chairs of the Energy and Technology Committee, made last minute changes to it all Monday afternoon...full story here.
Many Bills Await Action In Legislative Session's Final Three Days
Hartford Courant
By JON LENDER
May 3, 2010

With lawmakers approving bills in General Assembly-line fashion during recent days, it's easy to forget that several high-profile proposals still await action before the 2010 session's adjournment Wednesday, such as: overhauling the state's regulation of electricity supply to consumers; granting workers' compensation to police who shoot chimps or other mammals; and averting a projected $700 million state budget deficit in 2011.

The "to-do" list for legislators between now and Wednesday at midnight — when the state constitution says it all must end — is a long one.

"Yes, and I would say that the top 10 things are the budget," state Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams said Sunday, in phrasing meant to emphasize his priority on resolving the big deficit for the fiscal year that ends June 30, 2011.

Williams said that he and the other Democratic leaders, who hold strong majorities in both the House and Senate, believe that they have "a framework" for an agreement with Gov. M. Jodi Rell for a budget bill that she'll agree to sign resolving tax and spending issues through the end of the two-year "biennium."

Whether an agreement on the state budget bill is easy or difficult will determine how much time there is to debate and vote on some high-profile bills, and at least one or two not-so-prominent proposals that are lurking like unexploded legislative bombs.

Judicial Nominees

One of the most prominent proposals hanging in the session's final days is Rell's nomination of nine lawyers to Superior Court judgeships — including two of her political favorites: her budget director, Robert Genuario, and her public safety commissioner, John Danaher.

Williams said his position is that the nine nominees, who have cleared the legislative judiciary committee, won't get final votes in the House and Senate until after a budget bill is passed by both chambers and signed by the governor.

Asked if he is holding the votes on the judicial nominees as budget-bill leverage, Williams preferred to call it a desire for "consistency." He said that all judicial branch budget issues, including judges' pay and well-publicized funding shortages affecting courthouses and security personnel, need to be resolved in the context of the entire state budget.

Regulatory Switch

Emerging late in the session, and raising hopes among environmentalists and consternation among the business committee, is a sweeping electric regulatory reform bill, drafted by the two Democratic co-chairmen of the legislature's energy and technology committee.

The bill, crafted by Sen. John Fonfara of Hartford and Rep. Vickie Nardello of Prospect, would reconfigure the state agency that now sets consumer electricity rates in Connecticut, the Department of Public Utility Control, into a new Connecticut Energy and Technology Authority.

It would call for a 15 percent reduction in electric rates, toughen regulation of retail marketing of electric service to customers and promote the generation of solar power. Environmental and consumer advocates say the bill would set straight a number of issues that electric deregulation promised to resolve more than a decade ago, but never did. Industry representatives are mobilizing for a major fight, claiming that it would undermine competition among electricity suppliers just as the state is trying to emerge from a recession.

The bill, which has the support of Democratic legislative leaders, has not been voted on in either chamber. It was supposed to be taken up Saturday in the Senate, Williams said, but the two energy committee co-chairmen had to talk more with Rell's office about language the governor might be willing to sign.

Health Center

The Senate still needs to vote on one of the session's major initiatives — the proposed renovation and expansion of the financially troubled University of Connecticut Health Center.

The House voted over the weekend in favor of the plan, which, in addition to making physical improvements to the 35-year-old John Dempsey Hospital in Farmington, including a new tower for patient beds, would also create a network among the health center and area private hospitals.

The plan depends on $237 million in state bonding and $100 million in federal grants for which Connecticut and at least a dozen more states are competing; the funding is not guaranteed.

Land Swap

Now comes an unexploded legislative bomb, important to residents in the Connecticut River valley, but not gaining wide notice yet amid everything else going on at the Capitol: It is a twice-killed proposal by developers in Haddam to trade as many as 85 privately owned wooded acres next to a state forest for 17 acres of state-owned, open-space land overlooking the Connecticut River.

Rell vetoed a seemingly routine land-conveyance bill last year, an annual measure to dispose of surplus state property — largely because it contained the land swap that some Haddam residents called an 11th-hour "backroom deal." That killed the land-swap proposal.

The proposed swap found its way back into this year's conveyance bill, but again it was cut out of the bill in recent weeks after further opposition from not only local residents, but also the state's new environmental commissioner. Still, in recent days it received vocal backing from Middlesex Chamber of Commerce President Larry McHugh, a political favorite of Rell's who serves as chairman of the UConn board of trustees and and who wrote an op-ed piece about it in The Courant.

An area legislator, Rep. James Spallone of Essex, said over the weekend that it's too late in the session to properly handle a proposal whose terms keep changing. Spallone, co-chairman of the legislative committee that recently removed the proposal from this year's conveyance bill, said that he would fight any attempt to restore it. If anything happens now, it will be closely watched.

Long List

And if all that's not enough between now and Wednesday, here are some of the dozens of other proposals still waiting final action:

•A bill to provide workers' compensation benefits to police who shoot mammals other than humans. The measure stemmed from the denial of such benefits, including counseling, to the police officer who shot the chimp that attacked a Stamford woman more than a year ago. The Senate has passed the bill, with no House vote yet.

•Three bills to curb domestic violence and assist victims of it, which have passed in the House but not the Senate.

•A bill to prevent student athletes from returning to action too soon after suffering concussions, which passed the Senate but needs House action.

•A modified bill calling for a study of seat belts on school buses, as well as financial incentives for towns to install them; the House approved it, but the Senate hasn't voted.

•A school reform bill that the Senate has passed, with no House vote yet. The wide-ranging bill would establish more rigorous requirements for high school students, and was written to help Connecticut with its application for federal Race to the Top funds.

Link here to LWVCT Fall Conference video on Health Care...
HEALTH CARE: Battle Over How To Curb Rising Health Care Costs In Connecticut
Hartford Courant
By MATTHEW STURDEVANT
February 28, 2010

Connecticut had the fifth most expensive group health insurance premiums in 2008 and has seen accelerating increases since, placing the state squarely in the national debate about out-of-control premium hikes.

The good news is, Connecticut has apparently slipped in the rankings from the most expensive state in 1998 and 1999, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which listed only 40 states for those years.

Soaring costs have ignited public outrage and political theater, particularly in Connecticut. State regulated group rates — premiums for plans bought through employers and other groups — went up 13 percent and more for a family this year, while individuals who buy insurance on their own saw an average increase of 20.7 percent.  Now, state legislators are weighing a bill to add further constraints on insurers raising premiums for individual plans, while Congress considers President Barack Obama's proposal for a new federal agency to monitor all rates.

In the intensifying battle over premiums, billions of dollars are at stake in a debate that pits insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, consumer groups and regulators in a complex web of discord. Depending on the proposal, various sides align as they blame others for the rising cost to consumers.

Consumers and small businesses are stuck in the middle, struggling in the slow post-recession recovery to pay for basics, as health care costs rise by double-digit increases year after year.

Reformers point to $12.2 billion in combined profits last year at the five largest health insurance companies — WellPoint, UnitedHealth Group, CIGNA Corp., Aetna, and Humana. Insurers say much of that was investment income recovered during a stock market rebound. The profit from each premium dollar has narrowed, they say, as medical expenses launch skyward.

Proponents of stronger state laws, primarily Connecticut Health Care Advocate Kevin Lembo and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, say state regulators should make rate hikes "reasonable" rather than "not excessive" as current statutes require. They point to the fact that the state Department of Insurance has approved rate increases exactly as requested by insurers in 22 of 26 cases since 2006.

"The current state regulatory system has failed consumers. It's broken, and it needs reform," Blumenthal said.

But state Insurance Commissioner Thomas Sullivan, who approves the rates, says they are based on actuarial science. Premiums, he says, are merely a reflection of both rising prices for goods and services — doctor visits, hospital expenses, pharmaceuticals and equipment — and added use of medical services.

"I don't think there's an area of medical cost that isn't experiencing significant increases in cost, whether that's imaging or pharmaceuticals or physician fees or inpatient care or outpatient surgery," said Keith Stover, a spokesman for the Connecticut Association of Health Plans, the lobbying group for insurers.

Charting The Rise

It's nearly impossible to track and compare premiums from state to state because of a huge variety of plans, changes in plans from year to year and myriad other factors. The federal government and nonprofits keep track of average premiums for employer-based insurance, but not individual plans. And those averages can be skewed by numbers at the high and low ends, saying nothing about the plans most people have.

Further, the average prices provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have enough margin of error that any state's ranking could in reality be significantly higher or lower than represented.

Average price in private insurance is also skewed by consumers' choices. Connecticut's high rank may show only that consumers and employers here are willing to spend more for better coverage, not that they're paying more for the same coverage.  What's undisputed is the alarming rise in price, generally.

The average annual premium for a family plan offered through a person's workplace was $13,436 in 2008, nearly double the $6,958 premium a decade before. The nation averaged $12,298 in 2008, more than twice the $6,058 average a decade before.

Looking only at the employee's contribution to a family plan premium — $3,075 on average in 2008 — Connecticut is 15th least expensive among all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Employers pick up the rest of the tab.

Making matters more confusing, the state regulates only the so-called fully insured plans, those in which the risk is taken on by the insurer. Premiums for self-insured plans, typically at large companies that hire the insurance companies only to run the plan, are regulated by the federal government (but are included in the HHS averages).

Fully-insured group plans sold to about 875,000 Connecticut residents this year had increases ranging from 13 to 19 percent, according to the state Office of Legislative Research. In 2009, that same range was 10 to 13 percent.

In individual plans, prices and options are so broad that comparisons are absurd — like comparing the price of a "meal" in one state vs. another. A chili dog or black caviar with the best Krug champagne? On average, though, individuals who buy their own plans in Connecticut saw their premiums rise this year by a 20.7 percent average — up from a 2009 increase of 16.7 percent.

Why The Hikes?

Health care eventually comes down to questions about why premiums cost so much and why they're rising faster than overall inflation.

Insurers point to medical costs.

"As provider prices and consumer utilization increase, so must health insurance premiums," said David Fusco, president of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut, the insurer with the largest state enrollment.

"If insurers are unable to raise premiums to adequately cover these increased expenses, they become unable to pay claims on behalf of their members," Fusco told lawmakers Thursday.

Among the factors that keep Connecticut prices higher than the norm: overall cost of living in the Northeast and the aging population of Connecticut.

"More patients need more care now than ever before," said Matthew Katz, executive vice president of the Connecticut State Medical Society.

Doctors, consumer activists and many Democrats, led by Obama, say insurers are reaping billions in profits with no restraint, as they add cost by forcing providers to spend ever more on the filing of claims.

"Health insurance companies and their profits are getting bigger and fatter while patient access to care suffers," Katz said.

Insurers fight back by saying that doctors are bilking the system with unnecessary charges. They also cite excessive and elaborate services, which doctors, in turn, say are forced by a culture that requires "defensive medicine."

Also at issue is whether premiums are higher in Connecticut because the state requires the insurers it regulates to provide coverage for services that aren't required in other states.

"While legislated regulations may add to the cost of fully insured plans vs. self-funded plans, probably a bigger factor are risk charges — the cushion that insurance companies build into the rates to cover them in the event of higher-than-expected costs — and profit," said Beth Umland, director of health and benefits research at Mercer, a benefits and health care consulting firm.

"In self-funded plans, employers are just paying for the claims cost and administration," she said.

Among other disputes about premium costs: Are doctors in Connecticut paid better than those in other states? How much of hospitals' services are provided out of fear of lawsuits? And how much are patients with private insurance subsidizing the lower-paying public medical plans, chiefly Medicaid and Medicare?

Dr. John A. Foley, a Norwich cardiologist who joined the medical society in testifying at a legislative hearing Thursday, said he has been getting paid less each year. He said most doctors practice defensive medicine for fear of being sued, more than many studies reveal. And he said none of those services is performed to make up for a loss from treating patients in public health plans.  Foley supports measures to rein in rate hikes because, he said, he believes insurers are pocketing most of the added money.

A detailed public investigation is impossible. That's because when insurers file rate requests, much of the information they give to the Connecticut insurance department is considered proprietary, and is kept private.

Lembo, the state health care advocate, says making that information public would help.

"There is insufficient information to research and to come to a final conclusion about what is actually in that premium dollar," Lembo said. "And that is not necessarily a quarrel with industry. It's just that more folks are priced out of the market, more employers drop coverage, the ranks of the uninsured swell, the shift in burden goes more onto employees than it ever has before.

"This has created a situation that is disastrous both for the health of the people of Connecticut, and for the economic security of the state as a whole," Lembo said.

Debating A Solution

Political proposals and supposed solutions abound.

Obama's idea for a new federal agency to monitor and perhaps regulate health premiums has so far not drawn wide scrutiny, but is opposed by the industry and many state regulators.

The bill by Lembo and Blumenthal, which would not apply to group rates, was drafted immediately after fury last year when Anthem requested rate hikes of 23 to 32 percent for its individual plans in the state.

"If states want to continue with the regulatory role they've had in the past rather than the shift of responsibility to a national regulator as the president has proposed, they have to do the right thing; they have to show they can perform and protect consumers," Blumenthal said.

The bill would require public hearings each time an insurer asked to raise rates. Public hearings are now held at the discretion of the insurance commissioner. The insurance department would also make public all of the supporting documentation that insurers provide to the department and would authorize the attorney general and health care advocate to intervene and cross-examine insurers during rate-hike proceedings.

The bill also calls for an appeal process, which currently doesn't exist.  If adopted, the reform would scare away insurers if they're not allowed to base rates on actuarial science, said Sullivan, the insurance commissioner.  Other states have adopted similar legislation and have seen insurers stop offering coverage to the individual market, Sullivan and insurers say. Maine is an example, though the experience of other states is often debated because they have different demographics, different income levels and other factors that would alter the outcome.

Sullivan, however, is certain the same would happen here.

"I fear that the unintended consequence would drive away competition," he said, "and hurt the very consumers that the proponents of this bill are trying to protect."

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant

House Passes A Watered-Down Seat Belt Bill
By AMANDA FALCONE, The Hartford Courant
May 1, 2010

HARTFORD —

School districts would not be forced to have seat belts on their buses under a measure that cleared the House of Representatives on Friday, although they would have a financial incentive if they chose to have students buckle up, anyway.

The House voted 125-18 in favor of the legislation, which specifies that lap-and-shoulder seat belts would be optional.

The bill would create an incentive program for school districts that buy buses with belts between July 1, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2017. The state would reimburse the districts half of the amount they paid in sales tax. For a $100,000 purchase, the reimbursement would amount to about $3,000, one lawmaker said.

The reimbursements would be administered by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the money would come from restoration fees paid for by those whose licenses have been suspended or revoked. The bill would increase the fee from $125 to $175, and the additional $50 would be placed in a school seat belt account.

The seat belt bill still needs to be passed by the Senate and signed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who has said that she supports the concept of getting students to buckle up.

Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D- Rocky Hill, co-chairman of the legislature's transportation committee, has pushed for requiring seat belts on school buses since 16-year-old Vikas Parikh died in a bus accident on I-84 in January.

Guerrera's proposal started out as an ambitious mandate that would put seat belts on all public school buses in Connecticut by 2011, but throughout the legislative process he has had to compromise. When the transportation committee passed the bill, seat belts would have only been required on new buses purchased in 2012 or after. The appropriations committee got rid of the mandate, calling for state agencies to study the feasibility of requiring all buses to have belts.

Money was a primary concern. The Office of Fiscal Analysis, the legislature's budget office, estimated that buying new buses with three-point belts would cost local and regional school districts an additional $45.2 million to $103.4 million over a 12-year period. It would cost the technical school system an additional $644,000 to $1.5 million.

Estimates are for 12 years because that is how long it is expected to take to replace the state's fleet of about 6,500 large buses. A new bus, on average, would cost $80,000 to $116,000, and a bus without the seat belts would cost, on average, $75,000 to $100,000, the budget office said.

When the appropriations committee voted, its chairman, Rep. John Geragosian, D- New Britain, said that a study was needed because of a "discrepancy" in the numbers.

Guerrera amended the appropriations committee's version of the bill Friday, saying that he realized that a compromise was necessary to kick-start the seat belt initiative.

Guerrera has recognized that what is good for one district might not be good for another, said House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, complimenting Guerrera for helping his community and agreeing to compromise.

Lawmakers should now encourage districts to get buses with belts, said Rep. Timothy Larson, D- East Hartford. "The bill lets towns grow into the effort," he said.

Rocky Hill school board Chairman William MacDonald was pleased to hear about the House's vote Friday but said he had been hoping for a seat belt mandate. Rocky Hill is in the last year of its contract with Durham Transportation and is planning to discuss soon whether to require seat belts on buses, MacDonald said, adding that any incentive the state can offer will help.

"Our town has never been so proud of Tony," he said.

Although MacDonald had been hoping for a mandate, Mark Hughes, the chairman of the Meriden school board, was more hesitant. He said that he worried about the cost of seat belts, saying that bus companies would pass on the extra costs to school districts. His struggling school district is already facing a deficit for the next fiscal year.

Hughes also said that he had some practical and logistical concerns about monitoring seat belt usage and student behavior.

The Meriden school board has not discussed and does not have plans to discuss putting seat belts on buses.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant



Appropriations Panel Amends School Bus Seat Belt Bill — Calls For More Study
Hartford Courant
By AMANDA FALCONE
April 13, 2010

HARTFORD —

A fatal highway accident lent urgency to a bill that would require seat belts on school buses, but the tragedy and the wishes of Vikas Parikh's grieving family and friends ultimately were not enough to save the legislation.  The legislature's appropriations committee said it had concerns about the cost of the program.

The bill had called for putting lap-and-shoulder, or three-point, seat belts on all new buses purchased in 2012 or later. It was changed to require the commissioners for the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Education to study the feasibility of requiring all school buses to have seat belts. The study, which would be submitted to lawmakers by Oct. 1, would include information on safety issues and the cost to municipalities.

The committee's 41-10 vote in favor of the amended bill came after the legislature's budget office released cost estimates for buying buses with seat belts. There were discrepancies in the numbers, said Rep. John Geragosian, D- New Britain, the committee's chairman.

"It's clear that we need some better information," he said.

The Office of Fiscal Analysis, the legislative budget office, estimated that buying new buses with three-point seat belts would cost local and regional school districts an additional $45.2 million to $103.4 million over a 12-year period. It would cost the state technical school system an additional $644,000 to $1.5 million.

The estimates are for a dozen years because that is the projected time it would take to replace the state's fleet of roughly 6,500 large buses. A new bus with seat belts would cost, on average, $80,000 to $116,000, and a bus without the seat belts would cost, on average, $75,000 to $100,000, according to the budget office.

In addition, the office says there would be an increase in maintenance costs, and school districts probably would have to buy extra buses or add bus routes if buses had seat belts. The office says seat belts reduce seating capacity.

The DMV would also see some additional costs.

Despite Monday's vote, Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D- Rocky Hill, co-chairman of the transportation committee, remains optimistic. Guerrera, who proposed the bill after Parikh's death, said he intends to amend the bill when it comes up for a vote on the House floor. Guerrera said in the coming days he will work on crafting language that his colleagues might support. He said he might offer an amendment that would let cities and towns choose whether to put belts on buses — an option they already have under federal law. Guerrera's proposal, however, would offer those municipalities an incentive. Maybe it would be a sales tax exemption, he said.

"These bills may go to sleep, but they never die," Guerrera said.

Pratik Parikh also said he is hopeful. His son, Vikas Parikh, died Jan. 9 as a result of a bus crash on I-84, and since then, Pratik Parikh and his family and friends have been pushing for change. They believe that the 16-year-old would still be alive if buses had seat belts.

Pratik Parikh of Rocky Hill said that cutting the seat belt requirement from the bill was not a good sign, but he added that he would talk to lawmakers to find out what he can do to bring the proposal back.

"Everybody wants it," he said of a seat belt mandate. "That's why it's so surprising."

Although a Quinnipiac University poll did show that three of four state residents support requiring seat belts on school buses, groups including the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education have spoken out against the bill. They say the belts would be too expensive and are not needed because the high, cushy seats on buses are already designed to absorb impact in a crash.

Loan Forgiveness

The committee did not discuss Gov. M. Jodi Rell's proposal to create a loan forgiveness program for those who graduate from a Connecticut school with a bachelor's or associate's degree in green technology, life sciences or health-related information technology and who live and work in the state for at least two years. The bill died in committee.

Chimp Bill

The appropriations committee also voted 36-15 on a bill that would allow police officers who shoot animals while facing imminent danger to be eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The bill relates directly to Stamford police Officer Frank Chiafari, who shot and killed a chimpanzee last year after it mauled 56-year-old Charla Nash.

Chiafari testified at a legislative public hearing last month.

Although the bill passed Monday, it was amended. Because of concerns that the word "animal" was too broad, the bill now specifies that to be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, an officer must shoot a mammal.
SCHOOL BUSES: Officials Wary As Connecticut Lawmakers Consider Mandating School Bus Seat Belts
By AMANDA FALCONE, The Hartford Courant
March 1, 2010

State lawmakers are considering whether to require seat belts on public school buses, but some Connecticut students are already buckling up.

Cromwell, Danbury, Redding and Wilton have had seat belts on their buses for years. Students in those districts, however, are not required to wear the belts, and school administrators say that such a requirement would be difficult to enforce. Instead, they teach students how to wear the belts and encourage their use.

Most younger students wear them, officials say, while older students are less likely to do so.  Although seat belts have become an expected and accepted bus feature, school officials in those communities are still paying close attention to this year's debate. Mandates could affect districts equally, regardless of whether they already have seat belts on buses, and like others throughout the state, administrators in districts such as Cromwell and Redding wonder if the cost is worth it.

Just as they acknowledge that seat belt enforcement is difficult, school administrators say that, fortunately, there have been no major bus accidents in the four towns to put the belts to the test.
Few, if any, of her peers buckle up, said Hannah Vera, 16, a Cromwell High School freshman. She said that many would rather play with the seat belts.

"I have been hit with one of those before," Vera said, remembering how she was unintentionally struck twice by flying seat belts. Both times her lip was cut.

Some school administrators acknowledge that there have been reports of students swinging lap belts or using them as "weapons." The belts also get stuffed into seats, said Eva Colligan, business manager for Redding schools.

In the past, Cromwell has considered putting monitors on buses to help with enforcement, but officials rejected the idea because of the cost, said Rick Mandeville, director of operation services for Cromwell schools. He said the district's bus company, Dattco Inc., estimated that each monitor would cost $34 an hour, meaning that the cost to the district of putting monitors on every bus would be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Danbury, Redding and Wilton have contracts with First Student Inc.

Student's Death

Since the death of a Rocky Hill teenager in January, Vera said, her bus driver has been asking students why they choose against buckling up. Students tell the driver that they don't think wearing a seat belt is necessary, she said.

Vera said that seat belts are important and should be installed on all school buses, but she conceded that her thinking might have changed since Vikas Parikh, 16, was killed in a bus accident on I-84. Vera didn't know Parikh, a student at the Greater Hartford Academy of Math and Science, but she said she knows a student who was on the bus who told her about the accident.  Other students riding the bus with Parikh on Jan. 9 say their attitude toward seat belts also changed after the accident. They are now pushing for seat belts to be required. Sameer Laul, a student from Rocky Hill, said he was willing to travel throughout the state to talk to students about his experiences in an effort to change their minds.

It was Parikh's death that prompted Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, co-chairman of the legislature's transportation committee, to propose the seat belt bill being considered by lawmakers this session. The bill would require lap-and- shoulder, or three-point, belts — not lap belts. Only Danbury has lap-and-shoulder belts on its buses.

The debate over seat belts is not new. Lawmakers have proposed 23 other seat belt bills over the past two decades, but none made it out of committee.  Opponents say the belts are not needed because flexible, cushy bus seats are placed close together to absorb impact. They also worry about the costs associated with putting belts on buses.

Safety First

Former Cromwell Superintendent K. Alexander Paddyfote, who is now a consultant for school administrators and school boards, does not remember money being a problem in 1985, when Cromwell ordered seat belts for its buses — the first in the state to do so, according to a news report at the time.  Paddyfote said he advocated the purchase to the school board after a worried kindergarten parent approached him. The board and town residents were supportive, he said, and he helped encourage students to wear the belts by occasionally riding on the bus with them.

Paddyfote did not recall the cost of installing the belts. The bus company and school board worked together to make it happen when it was time for the contract to be renewed, he said.  Safety should come first, Paddyfote said, and people should think about money later. He said that more districts should have followed Cromwell's lead.

Cliff Gibson, the chief operating officer of Dattco Inc., was not with that company in 1985, but said that if school districts want seat belts, the cost would be factored into a bid package or would be part of negotiations.  Installing seat belts on school buses is expensive, Gibson said. Lap belts are cheaper than lap-and-shoulder belts, and putting belts on new buses coming out of the factory is less expensive than retrofitting belts on older buses, he said.

Retrofitting older buses with lap-and-shoulder belts would cost $20,000 to $22,000 per bus, and about $15,000 per vehicle on new buses, Gibson said.

Although Cromwell, Danbury, Redding and Wilton all have seat belts, school officials in those communities still worry about the possibility that the state will mandate using lap-and-shoulder belts. With the exception of Danbury, the districts would have to spend money to update from lap belts to lap-and-shoulder belts.

Mary Channing, the Wilton district's transportation coordinator, said that the district is already considering the upgrade because it plans to go to bid for all new buses next year.

School administrators — even in the towns that already have seat belts — are keeping a close watch on lawmakers. They worry about costs and liability issues, and they hope that they will be given enough time to comply with any mandates.  Mandeville, of Cromwell, suggested that perhaps lawmakers should start by requiring only buses traveling on the highway to have lap-and-shoulder belts.

Guerrera's bill is being considered by the transportation committee, which has until March 17 to vote on the matter.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant
Hearing At Capitol Considers Requiring Seat Belts On School Buses
By AMANDA FALCONE, The Hartford Courant
February 18, 2010

HARTFORD —

Family and friends of Vikas Parikh say the 16-year-old would still be alive if school buses had seat belts.

The state's chief medical examiner agrees.

"The science is clear," said H. Wayne Carver II. "Strap them in."

Carver, those who knew Parikh, and others testified Wednesday before the legislature's transportation committee in support of a bill that would require lap-and-shoulder, or three-point, seat belts to be installed on school buses by January 2011.

Others spoke against the bill, saying that the mandate would be expensive — and unnecessary. In addition, they said, forcing that many children to buckle up might be problematic.

Parikh's parents, Pratik and Dolly Parikh, said they were pushing for change to make sure that other families do not have to go through what they went through.

"They are trying to make some good out of this tragedy," said Sen. Paul Doyle, a Democrat who represents Rocky Hill.

On Jan. 9, Parikh, a student at both Rocky Hill High School and the Greater Hartford Academy of Math and Science, was traveling by school bus on I-84 to a kickoff event for a national robotics competition when the bus and a car collided, sending the bus down a 20-foot embankment. Police are investigating, and no charges have been filed.

Parikh was the only person killed, although several students and a teacher were injured. According to one student who was on the bus, two injured students still have not returned to the classroom and the teacher is not expected back for months.

Parikh was the first school bus passenger killed in a crash since the state began keeping records in 1972.

Parikh's classmates testified in support of the seat belt bill but also spoke about the friend they lost and the day of the crash.

"I lost my best friend," said Sameer Laul of Rocky Hill, at a press conference prior to the hearing. "I saw him fly over the seat. I saw him hit the win- dow. I saw him when he was lying in his own pool of blood."

As Laul shared his memory of the accident, a somber Pratik Parikh put his arm around his wife, who was wiping away tears.

In testimony before the transportation committee, Carver said that Laul was the first witness to say that Vikas Parikh hit the window. Police have not released details of their investigation.

Carver said there was a surveillance camera on the bus that caught the first part of the accident, which showed Parikh flipping out of his seat. The impact caused the camera to malfunction, and it did not record the bus's fall down the embankment, he said.

Describing the January crash as a perfect storm, Carver said that the events of the crash followed the laws of physics. He said that a seat belt would have saved Parikh.

Several emergency physicians who testified Wednesday said that seat belts on buses are necessary and would save lives and reduce the magnitude of injuries. The doctors acknowledged that school buses are safe but said that seat belts could only improve safety for children.

Although sympathetic to the recent tragedy, others spoke against installing seat belts, citing the costs involved and the difficulty of making sure that students wear them. Some referred to the safety afforded by seating space "compartmentalization" in school buses — cushy, high seats placed close together to absorb impact.

Representing the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, David Kennedy, a member of the Stratford school board, said that school boards want children to be safe, but are worried about the costs associated with seat belts.

Stratford has 39 buses, and to retrofit them with seat belts would be costly and hard to do before the January 2011 deadline, he said. There is no way the funds are there, especially during tough economic times, Kennedy said, suggesting that if lawmakers decide to require seat belts, a phase-in approach should be considered and that the state should look for creative ways to pay for the seat belts.

The trade publication School Transportation News has estimated that it would cost between $1,500 to $2,000 per bus to install seat belts on new buses. It could cost between $1,500 and $11,000 to retrofit older buses with structural reinforcement and seat belts, the publication reported.

Requiring seat belts on all buses is both expensive and impractical, said representatives from the Connecticut School Transportation Association, adding that the state needs to consider several factors, including liability and responsibility.

The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities called the bill an unfunded mandate that has no proven safety benefits. It is well-intentioned but would give parents a false sense of security at a tremendous expense, said Donna Hamzy, who was representing CCM.

If a bill requiring seat belts on school buses is signed into law, Connecticut would become the seventh state to have such a mandate. New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, Louisiana and Alabama all have laws requiring seat belts.

In Connecticut, 23 bills requiring seat belts on school buses have been introduced in the General Assembly over the past two decades. None has made it out of committee.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell has said that she supports the concept, and a Quinnipiac University poll showed that three of four state residents support requiring seat belts on buses.

Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, co-chairman of the transportation committee and the lawmaker who introduced this year's bill, said that he was gathering more information about seat belts Wednesday and would use some suggestions to improve his bill.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant



Let them eat cake.  Or how about letting Route Seven extension possibilities get sold off?

Governor nixes budget legislation
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Susan Haigh, Associated Press
Posted: 10/06/2009 07:04:51 AM EDT
Updated: 10/06/2009 07:05:12 AM EDT

HARTFORD -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Monday she has vetoed one of several bills passed last week that spell out details of the new two-year $37.6 billion budget.  The bill is one of two that outlines certain general government spending. Rell said she vetoed the bill because it placed too many limits on where she can cut spending in order to keep the budget in balance over the coming months.  The Republican governor said the legislation would have removed options for her to save the state money. Rell is charged with finding hundreds of millions of dollars in spending reductions under the new budget.

For example, the bill extends a moratorium for two years on the sale, lease or transfer of state-owned group homes for the developmentally disabled. It also restricts reductions to certain parts of the Judicial Department's budget.

"We can't find savings if you tie the hands of the administration," she said.

House Speaker Chris Donovan, D-Meriden, said such provisions were included for important reasons. The extended moratorium on the sale of state-owned group homes was part of the bill to make sure efforts to privatize them would not harm disabled children and adults.

"We don't want the budget downturn to cause loss of services for the most vulnerable population of this state," he said.

Democrats, who control the General Assembly, are not expected to attempt to override Rell's veto of the budget bill because it did not pass with a large enough majority in the Senate. Donovan said legislative leaders have not yet discussed their next step.

A veto of this one budget bill will have limited effect on the overall budget because it only deals with about seven issues which range from creating new commission to review criminal sentences in Connecticut to a plan to sell the former Seaside Regional Center campus in Waterford, a former Department of Mental Retardation facility.

The two-year budget, passed by the Democratic-controlled General Assembly and reluctantly allowed by Rell to become law without her signature, includes $473.3 million in "largely unspecified savings" that still need to be found this fiscal year.

Rell called the intentional underfunding of state agency budgets, something she also included in her own budget proposal back in February, "a huge issue" and that the savings are "going to be very difficult to achieve."

Derek Slap, a spokesman for the Senate Democrats, said it was "disturbing" to see Rell building a case for why she can can't adequately cut spending in her agencies.

"She proposed nearly the same amount of cuts as were included in the final budget that she agreed to," Slap said. "Connecticut doesn't need excuses, it needs the governor to cut the bloat of bureaucracy as she promised she would."

Besides limiting her ability to save money, Rell criticized it for including new spending.

For example, the legislation calls for spending $1.4 million for a two-year study by students at Central Connecticut State University on the effects of incarceration on the children on inmates. Republican legislators have questioned the need for the study, saying there have been numerous national studies of the subject.

Rell said she will sign the remaining budget implementation bills. They include the second general government bill, as well as legislation that outlines education and social services spending. A fourth bill outlines changes to state tax policies.

Don't wait for the next crisis
Editorial CTPOST
Updated: 10/05/2009 04:54:20 PM EDT

Now that it's all said and done, the state budget set for the next two years, a bold plan put forth by Democrats to cut costs and overhaul the state's Department of Motor Vehicles just never happened.

Among other things, the plan would have closed some DMV offices and supplanted them with automated kiosks and would have distributed some of the department's functions to the state departments of public safety, environmental protection and consumer protection.

"This is the biggest change or reinvention in state government that anyone has proposed so far and I don't think we should miss this opportunity," Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, intoned at the time.

Well, the opportunity was missed.

The Legislature had an opportunity in these downturned economic times, with the state facing extreme fiscal hardship, to make some bold decisions.

Some of those bold decisions could have involved restructuring aspects of the sprawling state government.

It may indeed be that the proposal to reorganize the DMV was too complicated to fully effect in a couple of months, as was noted in retrospect by state Sen. Donald DeFronzo, D-New Britain, the Legislature's Transportation Committee chairman and the man who initially offered the plan to break up the DMV.

Even so, life goes on and Connecticut's fiscal challenges are far from gone. 

Rather than waiting for the next deadline and the next crisis, legislators should resume looking at ways to restructure certain state departments, most notably the DMV, to effect savings in the future.
House Votes To Consolidate Probate Courts, Seeks DMV Fee Hikes
The Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING
September 24, 2009

The state House of Representatives voted Wednesday night for a consolidation of the state's probate court system that would eliminate more than half of the courts.

The cash-strapped probate system, which dates to 1698, makes decisions on a daily basis that directly affect families, including interpretations of wills, estates and the termination of parental rights.

The new plan calls for realigning the Colonial-era system to 54 local courts -- down from the current 117 scattered throughout the state. As such, 63 probate judges will be losing their sought-after jobs -- an outcome that caused controversy for years because many judges fought to maintain the status quo.

Although the bitter battle lasted for years, a bipartisan compromise was reached that led to a vote of 134-7, with four Democrats and three Republicans opposed to the measure. The bill now goes to the state Senate, which is expected to vote today.

In other action, motor vehicle fees would increase under a bill approved late Wednesday night by the House.

The bill, which still requires approval by the state Senate, would increase essentially all fees at the state Department of Motor Vehicles, including those for the renewal of licenses and obtaining a learner's permit. The overall fee increase, including non-DMV fees, would generate about $50 million over two years. The fee for a four-year license would increase to $52, up from the current $44, according to the legislature's nonpartisan research office.

The fees would increase in all categories, including cars, motorcycles, hearses, recreational trailers and taxis.

The measure was approved, 106-34, with a veto-proof margin that was largely along party lines. Rep. Shawn Johnston, a conservative Democrat who has voted often against his party, joined with Republicans in voting against the bill.

Under the probate bill, Hartford, West Hartford and East Hartford would all remain as one-town courts. But the Simsbury court, for example, would be combined with those in Avon, Canton and Granby to form a Farmington Valley court. Towns would be bunched together throughout the state, and Bloomfield, East Granby, Windsor Locks and Suffield would be combined into one court. Two of the courts in eastern Connecticut would include eight towns each, while a new court in the northwestern corner of Litchfield County would include 12 small towns.

State Probate Court Administrator Paul Knierim, who is not seeking re-election as Simsbury's probate judge, noted that the legislature's original plan for 50 courts was expanded to 54 courts after a special commission heard the concerns of mayors and first selectmen. "I'm very happy because I think it's workable'' as a new system, Knierim said Wednesday.

The change was necessary because the probate system was rapidly running out of money and could no longer pay for the health benefits of the judges and clerks in the local courts.

"It was time to take this system that was created during Colonial times and bring it into the modern era so that it can see a significant reduction in costs and remain self-sustaining," said Rep. Robert Godfrey, a Danbury Democrat who served as chairman of the special redistricting commission.

The probate debate came after a behind-the-scenes battle that lasted for hours over the budget "implementation'' bills that provide the nuts-and-bolts details of the state's two-year, $37.6 billion budget.

The floor debate for the special session was delayed for hours after Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell threatened to veto one of the budget implementation bills because she said it would be a backdoor maneuver around her veto of a controversial health care pooling bill.

In a detailed letter to top legislators, Rell said that she would veto the bill because it did not meet certain requirements -- a rare, pre-emptive strike by a governor who has gained a reputation over the past five years for saying little about bills until they reached her desk.

"I must caution you that unless an implementer bill accurately reflects the terms of the budget bill, is supported by honest revenue estimates and contains properly drafted, workable language, I will veto it,'' Rell said in a six-page letter to House Speaker Christopher Donovan, Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams and other top legislators.

One of the troubling provisions, Rell said, is that Section 15 of the general government bill would allow the state comptroller, Democrat Nancy Wyman, to merge various insurance plans into the state's self-insured plan. The pooling bill would have allowed municipalities, nonprofit organizations and small businesses to join the state employees' gigantic health insurance pool in an attempt to drive down costs. Rell, though, said the costs to the state would actually increase.

"This effectively allows the comptroller to implement the 'pooling' concept ... that I have previously vetoed,'' Rell said. "As I noted in my veto message, pooling will likely result in a significant cost to the state. At a time when we are making cuts to virtually every program operated by state government, we simply cannot afford to burden our taxpayers with the potentially enormous costs associated with pooling.''

Overall, Rell objected to more than 25 different sections in seven different bills that were being considered. Once those objections became public, the House Democrats went into a lengthy caucus and no bills had been debated on the House floor as of 8:30 p.m. The probate bill was then the first debate of the day.

The pooling idea, Rell said, should not be contained in a budget implementation bill. As is tradition, the special session was called this week specifically to deal with the implementation bills.

Another controversial issue that was discussed behind closed doors was the potential merger of the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington with Hartford Hospital. UConn has been trying to get the legislature to approve bond funds to construct a new hospital on the Farmington campus, but Rell has opposed the idea as too expensive during the deepest economic downturn in decades.

Senate Republican leader John McKinney of Fairfield said that the idea had been "thwarted'' from the bond package after "a rather lively discussion in the Senate Democratic Caucus'' over the issue.

"If that deal is revisited, the governor should veto that,'' McKinney said.

UConn officials, however, have maintained for months that the merger with Hartford Hospital would help bring the best and the brightest students and scientists to the Farmington campus. The concept of building a new hospital for UConn has been delayed in the past and was the subject of a detailed study on the issue.

House members took only moments to approve 139-0 a bill conveying parcels of state-owned land, such as surplus property and old highway rights of way, to municipalities and individuals throughout the state.

Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant
State legislature overrides governor's vetoes seven times
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 7/20/2009

Hartford - Coming into its session Monday, the state legislature had overridden a veto from Gov. M. Jodi Rell just three times in her five years in office.

By the end of an unexpectedly quick workday, the Democrat-controlled General Assembly had reversed the Republican governor seven times.

It was an historic one-day total - no governor had been overridden so many times since Gov. Lowell P. Weicker in 1992 - and it reversed Rell’s vetoes of several key bills passed this year, including the SustiNet plan for expanding health care access, a new bi-state commission to oversee Long Island Sound, and a change in rules that govern the state’s projections of its future tax revenues.

And an eighth override try fell just short: the bill establishing the Connecticut Healthcare Partnership, which would have permitted municipalities and some small businesses and nonprofits to enroll their employees in the state’s health insurance pool, was re-passed by the House of Representatives.

But it died in the final minutes of the Senate’s session when Sen. Joan Hartley, D-Waterbury, who had opposed the concept, left the Senate chamber and did not vote, leaving the legislature short of the two-thirds majority necessary to override the governor.

'Backroom Deal' Stays Dead, As Rell's Veto Of Bill Is Left Intact
Hartford Courant
By Jon Lender
 on July 20, 2009 4:10 PM |

Lawmakers agreed Monday not to try to override Gov. M. Jodi Rell's veto of a bill that would have enabled private developers to obtain 17 acres of state wildlife habitat near the Connecticut River in Haddam.

After bitter controversy over what some Haddam residents were calling a "backroom deal," House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, said Monday that he had agreed with Democratic leaders in the Senate not to attempt an override of the governor's veto of a so-called "conveyance bill" that contained the land transfer.

Donovan said that the overall conveyance bill -- which would have transferred numerous pieces of state land to private parties and municipalities -- had encountered "a few bumps in the road" and needs "to be fixed," perhaps in a special session later this summer.

One of the "bumps," he acknowledged, was a proposed Haddam land swap between private developers and the state Department of Environmental Protection that was inserted into the bill that passed June 3 at 11:59 p.m., in the last minute before adjournment of the 2009 legislative session.

Many residents were outraged because they learned about it belatedly. The local monthly Haddam Bulletin's July issue carried a story headlined "Backroom Deal." Last week, at a town hall meeting, residents confronted two local legislators, Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook, and Rep. James Spallone, D-Essex, about it.  At the time, both would not commit themselves on whether they would vote at Monday's veto session to try to override Rell's July 7 veto of the bill...

"The project included potential economic development for Haddam and a new theater for the Goodspeed," Spallone said. "If the project has merit and benefits to the community, they will emerge during an open, public process, which is what my constituency has asked for, and what they deserve."

"If a bill is submitted in the next regular session of the General Assembly, all parties can be heard at a legislative public hearing and an informed decision can be made," Spallone said.  "Such a process will best serve the public interest and the people of Haddam."

Vetoed 'Backroom Deal' For State Land Could Be Revived
Hartford Courent
Jon Lender
Government Watch
July 19, 2009

A small group of political insiders and officials quietly arranged a deal in recent months for private interests to obtain and develop 17 acres of state-owned, wooded wildlife habitat overlooking the Connecticut River in Haddam.

The plan — calling for the developers to swap land of their own for the Department of Environmental Protection's acreage near the river — was inserted into a legislative bill that passed on June 3, literally in the middle of the night: at 11:59 p.m., a minute before the 2009 legislative session ended.

Local residents were outraged to learn belatedly of what they have labeled a "backroom deal." It could profoundly affect their town by putting a new Goodspeed Opera House theater and a private hotel on what up to now has been called the state's Clark Creek Wildlife Management Area.

But that's the way you get things done in government, sometimes — especially if you have access to an influential legislator such as state Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook.

Daily, co-chairwoman of the powerful legislative finance committee, spearheaded arrangements for the would-be developers. She helped to organize meetings for them with the state DEP commissioner and shepherded the newly passed legislation, giving momentum to the plan for the land swap inside her legislative district before it became known publicly.

But the local opponents who felt steamrolled now see some hope — because Gov. M. Jodi Rell on July 7 vetoed the mundane annual "conveyance bill" of which it is a part.

These annual bills — like the current one — always contain a laundry list of transfers of odd pieces of excess state land, such as unused highway right of ways to private landowners or municipalities.

They are not generally controversial. But the big question now is whether legislative Democrats, who hold "veto-proof" majorities in the House and Senate, will put the conveyance bill, with its controversial Haddam deal, on the list of bills that they try to salvage by overriding the Republican governor's veto. It's all or nothing; the Haddam deal can't be separated from the other conveyances.

Rell vetoed 20 bills this year, several more prominent, such as creation of a state universal health care system. Lawmakers will convene Monday at 10 a.m. in a "veto session" to consider overrides.

In her July 7 veto message, Rell said only that the state didn't appear to be getting full market value for its land in some of the transfers in the bill, which "would be irresponsible" during the current budget crisis.

When asked last week about the Haddam deal, however, she said it was among the reasons for her veto.

"The public should have the opportunity to scrutinize the details of any large transaction that would have a major impact on the community," Rell said. "Had I not vetoed this bill, the public would have been shut out of the process and would have been denied any input on the project."

Daily, in an interview, denied that the land swap was "a backroom deal."

She did acknowledge talking with, and arranging meetings for, people interested in expanding tourism in the Tylerville section of Haddam by the Connecticut River. Key among them were representatives of both of the private parties that would be involved in the swap:

•Steven Rocco, one of the developers of the Riverhouse at Goodspeed Station, a hilltop banquet and conference facility in Haddam that looks down on the west bank of the river and abuts the DEP's 17 acres. He and his business partners proposed swapping 54 acres from an 87-acre parcel they own in the town's Higganum section — away from the river but abutting Cockaponset State Forest — for the DEP's 17 acres. Those 17 acres stretch up a hill from other land that the DEP would retain on the actual river shore: Eagle Landing State Park.

•Michael Price, executive director of the nonprofit Goodspeed Opera House in East Haddam, which is visible on the east bank of the river across the picturesque metal "swing bridge" from Haddam. According to the bill, Goodspeed would give DEP about 2.7 acres it owns on the eastern shore in East Haddam. The theater foundation would split or share the 17 acres in an unspecified way with the Riverhouse business.

Neither Price nor Rocco returned Courant calls for comment on Friday.

Rocco and his partners would try to put a small hotel on the land abutting their existing Riverhouse banquet facility, and Goodspeed would build a new theater spacious enough for larger traveling productions, Daily said.

Often, when a major arts facility wants to expand, there is a big announcement and publicity. But not this time. Daily said Price may have wanted to avoid that because a previously announced effort to move into Middletown failed.

DEP records show that Rocco, Price and others attended a meeting July 15, 2008, with Daily and then-DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy at the DEP's Hartford office, and that McCarthy, Rocco and Price were listed as attending a meeting Sept. 23, 2008, that Daily scheduled in her finance committee area in the Legislative Office Building.

Daily reiterated her denial of "backroom" dealings at a raucous town hall meeting in Haddam this past Wednesday night with about 40 residents. Many opposed the plan, but some were more bothered by the way the players went about it.

"It stinks," said Joseph Rossi, a local finance board member. He said that the land that the developers want to trade by the state forest may be worth several hundred thousand dollars — nowhere near the $1.35 million the DEP paid in 2003 to for the 17 acres.

Daily and Rep. James Spallone, D-Essex, who played a lesser role in the episode, both told residents that the legislation requires a public hearing before the swap goes through, although it also says that after the hearing, the DEP commissioner "shall enter into an agreement with" Goodspeed and Riverhouse.

Daily said the bill also requires that the land swapped must be of equal value, so a major disparity would kill the deal. She also said that Haddam would still have its normal development controls, such as zoning.

But residents still had questions, such as why no other private parties got a chance to bid on the DEP land.

Price and his wife gave a combined $200 to Daily's last re-election campaign, and Rocco's wife gave $50. But Daily told The Courant that their political support had nothing to do with the meetings she arranged with the DEP commissioner or anything else she did. She said that she would arrange such a meeting for any constituent.
Fairfield County’s $250,000 “middle class”
CT POST
Brian Lockhart's blog
July 14, 2009 at 8:59 pm

Hartford Courant columnist Colin McEnroe weighs in on the oft-repeated argument from Fairfield County Democrats that households earning $250,000 are considered “middle class” in this neck of the woods.

It might be more honest for Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford and other area legislators to say: “Look, I’d be raising taxes on too many people who vote for me and that could hurt next election when I’m challenged by a ‘I’ll never raise your taxes’ Republican. It’s my job to represent my constituents, and most of them aren’t all too eager to pay more of their hard-earned money to the state government, so I’m opposing these tax hikes.”

But clearly the whole “$250,000 is middle class” argument raises some eyebrows.

Of course, reporters whose households earn faaaaarrrrr less than that but who live in Fairfield County and have always considered themselves “middle class” have no opinion on the subject.

We’ll just quietly admit that we’ve been fooling ourselves and living solidly “lower class” lifestyles all these years in an area of the state we should be grateful to call home.
Rell says she will veto budget bill 
DAY
Published on 6/27/2009

Governor M. Jodi Rell announced today she will veto upon receipt the legislative Democrats’ budget bill that passed the state Senate on Thursday and the House of Representatives on Friday.

“The flaws and failures of the tax and spending proposals contained in the Democrats’ budget are obvious and they are a recipe for disaster,” Rell said in a statement issued late Saturday morning. “It is neither balanced nor remotely realistic in its assumed ‘savings’ and ‘spending cuts.’"

Rell said the budget “does nothing to reduce the size of a government that has outgrown the taxpayers’ ability to pay for it. By not reducing the size or cost of state government now, the Democrats’ budget sets the stage for further – and larger – deficits in the years to come.”

Rell said there is still time to develop a budget before midnight Tuesday and she called for legislative leaders to meet with her Sunday afternoon at the Executive Residence to work on a budget.

At the same time, the governor said, she is preparing an executive order to run the state government in a new budget’s absence.
House Approves Two-Year Budget That Rell Is Expected to Veto
Hartford Courant
By Christopher Keating on June 26, 2009

After months of deliberations and angst over the state's huge budget deficit, the House of Representatives approved a Democratic-written, two-year budget that Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell is expected to veto.

After nearly five hours of debate, the House voted, 91 to 48, at about 3:30 p.m. Friday. Since neither the House nor the Senate were able to generate veto-proof margins, the legislature is expected to resume negotiations with Rell in order to craft another spending plan.

The Democratic bill calls for steep increases in the income, estate, cigarette and corporate profits tax in order to close a projected deficit of $8.85 billion over the next two fiscal years.

Republicans, who often represent many wealthy residents in lower Fairfield County, decried the proposed increases in the income and a 30 percent surcharge on estate taxes. Democrats have fought for a more graduated income tax for years and said that it was only fair that the wealthy and corporations should pay more.

Still, the vast majority of Connecticut taxpayers would not be affected by the proposed income-tax changes. Couples earning less than $500,000 annually and individuals earning less than $265,000 would not see any changes in their current income taxes.

But those earning above those levels would see three new rates up to a top rate of 7.5 percent.

Even though the maximum rate is 5 percent, no one earning less than $100,000 is currently paying that rate for the full amount of their income. The state tax tables clearly show that individuals earning $100,000 currently pay at an overall rate of 4.8 percent - paying $4,801 in taxes for the full year. Couples with an adjusted gross income of $100,000 currently pay $4,555 or a rate of 4.55 percent.

House Republican leader Larry Cafero of Norwalk said the biggest problem with the document was that it includes "the largest tax increase in the history of the state of Connecticut.''

Another problem is that the budget is balanced in part with $2 billion in federal stimulus funds and $1.4 billion from the rainy day fund for fiscal emergencies. That money will not be available in the future.

"Will we have to increase taxes in 2012-2013?'' Cafero asked his colleagues. "Maybe, possibly, probably, yeah.''

Citing the high unemployment rate that is 9.4 percent nationally, Cafero mentioned Connecticut companies from Stamford to Clinton that are laying off workers. The legislature, he said, needs to create the proper atmosphere to create jobs.

"You can't love employees and hate employers because employers employ employees,'' Cafero said. "This isn't about people protecting the rich. ... Before we vilify and single out by taxation the very people we need to get out of this recession, let's think twice, folks. ... The number one job we should have is to make sure that people have jobs.''

"If you look at the document, we're destroying jobs - the very thing we need right now,'' Cafero said of the Democratic budget. "If we wait another two or three months to do another political document ... that's not helping anybody. We've all got to give a little here. Let's get this out of our system and start today.''

But House Majority Leader Denise Merrill countered in summarizing the Democratic position by saying the budget accurately reflects the values of the state. Because of its proximity to New York City and Wall Street, Connecticut has been hit particularly hard by the national economic downturn, she said. The only way to solve the budget crisis, she said, is to do three things: cut spending, raise taxes, and borrow money.

"This is not just another budget. This is not just another partisan fight,'' Merrill said. "We have to do the best we can with the hand that we've been dealt with.''

Quoting liberal Democrat Hubert Humphrey, Merrill said that the state needs to help both the young and the elderly - and she cited a series of programs that have been saved in the Democratic proposal. The budget restores funding for food vouchers for poor senior citizens, provides nursing-home funding at a time when 11 nursing homes are in foreclosure or bankruptcy, restores funding for the ConnPACE prescription-drug subsidy program, as well as providing money for elderly housing and homelessness services. The budget also restores money for teen-pregnancy prevention and an early-intervention program for children at risk, as well as youth service bureaus that help children after school. It restores $6 million in funding in each of two years for family resource centers that Rell had proposed eliminating, as well as money for the Children's Trust Fund.

The plan also restores $1.4 million in each of the next two years as the state's subsidy for the LifeStar emergency helicopter that has been known to save lives by providing quick transportation to Hartford Hospital.

The document reverses the plan to close Riverview Hospital, which treats troubled youths with major psychiatric problems. Money will also go to job-training programs, the Spanish American Merchant Association, the STRIDE prisoner reentry program, the Shubert Theatre, the National Theatre For the Deaf, college scholarships for thousands of students, and $23 million for the University of Connecticut that had been in jeopardy.

"We reversed the governor's decision to close courthouses'' in Norwalk, Derby, Putnam, and other communities, Merrill said. "We couldn't figure out what would happen if we closed these courthouses. ... The judicial branch told us it would be very, very difficult to imagine'' how cases would be handled with fewer courts.

"There are more, but I think you get the idea,'' Merrill said on the House floor. "Connecticut will emerge from this economic crisis. That's what we have to remember today. ... We can't cut everything.''

Throughout a debate that lasted nearly five hours in the historic and cavernous Hall of the House, Republicans sharply criticized the Democratic-written spending and tax proposols.

"It is probably one of the most anti-job packages that we've seen,'' said Rep. Vincent Candelora, a North Branford Republican who serves as the ranking member of the finance committee. "It's going to affect the engine of the state of Connecticut. ... It's about the small business owners who may be employing 50 people who own a business that might be worth $2 million on paper. ... We are choking the golden goose of business here. ... This budget is attempting to Obama-nize the state of Connecticut. We need to sit down and make real cuts.''

In the first vote of the day on the projected revenue estimates, the amendment was passed by 86 to 35 with 30 members absent at about 11:22 a.m. Traditionally, more legislators arrive as the debate is continuing, but 30 members absent for a budget vote is a high number.

The bill Friday did not include any money for the Special Transportation Fund, which funnels millions of dollars to the state transportation and motor vehicle departments. The bill also did not include the amounts of various fee increases, but Democrats said they are virtually exactly the same as the fee increases proposed in February by Rell.

"The fees are in the revenue estimates, and I know they're not in the bill,'' said Rep. Cameron Staples, a New Haven Democrat who co-chairs the tax-writing finance committee.

Rep. Craig Miner, a Litchfield Republican, questioned the Democratic plan to close two unidentified prisons in an attempt to save $70 million over the next two fiscal years. Rell's office says the difference is that Rell had called for studying the feasibility of closing one prison if the prison population drops, while the Democratic plan would close two prisons under law. Miner wanted to know what would happen "when we finally close the doors on a prison and turn it into a museum.''

"We give the commissioner a lot of latitude,'' said Rep. John Geragosian, a New Britain Democrat who co-chairs the budget-writing appropriations committee. "These are exactly the kinds of problems that come up when you do an early retirement program.''

To counter the Democratic prison-closure plan, Rell's office released a letter that was written by Rep. Michael P. Lawlor on October 17, 2007 after he had toured a prison in Enfield upon the request of prison guards who work at that facility. The letter was written about three months after the tragic murders in Cheshire - when the prison population had increased by 791 since the day of the triple murders on July 23, 2007.

"We need more prison cells,'' Lawlor wrote. "We need more corrections officers. We need more parole officers to monitor non-violent offenders using GPS surveillance, and we must ensure adequate resources for this surveillance. We need more halfway house beds for nonviolent offenders with mental illness and substance abuse issues, and we need secure inpatient beds for sex offenders.''

"It was accurate at the time it was written,'' Lawlor told Capitol Watch in an interview on Friday afternoon. "The prison population was going up very rapidly. It got to almost 20,000. ... Rell stopped parole. She stopped it all together. We were in sort of crisis management at the time. Rell was saying at the time that we did not have to change any budget in the prison system at the time. ... As it turned out, the population did come down - way down. It's lower now than it was on the day of the Cheshire murders. It went up about 1,200 and came down about 1,200. If you could get the prison population down another 1,000 or 2,000, then you could save $100 million per year.''

At about $45,000 to $50,000 per year, a reduction of 1,000 prisoners could save $50 million and 2,000 fewer inmates could save $100 million per year in prison costs.

"The budget doesn't require them to pick two prisons and close them,'' Lawlor said Friday. "It could be a wing in five different prisons. ... The Department of Corrections has a plan to do this. They won't tell us which ones. By the way, they've already closed down some wings of some prisons because the population has come down.''

But Cafero said the prison plan was incomplete.

"We don't tell anyone what we're going to do with the inmates that are currently in the prisons,'' Cafero said.

Republicans complained that the massive budget bill also contains a little-noticed provision for cash-strapped Bridgeport to avoid making payments to its pension plan in difficult economic times when the city is struggling to balance its budget.

"This is amazing,'' Miner said. "We haven't learned our lesson here. ... This is absolutely unbelievable.''

"I think it's a very unusual circumstance, and I don't think it's something to do lightly or frequently,'' Staples said. "These are times that require some real sensitivity in this building'' to the plight of cities and towns.

Miner also criticized the Democrats for offering a budget that calls for borrowing money to pay for operating expenses - even though both Republicans and Democrats have essentially agreed to do that for the current fiscal year.

"It's like going to Home Depot - except it's not a $200 lawnmower,'' Miner said. "What we're doing is building an increasing problem for 2012 and 2013. ... What are we doing? We're borrowing money and we're not paying for it.''

"Closing courthouses is a bad idea that the governor proposed,'' Miner said. "We are digging a hole deeper for the state of Connecticut.''

 "We're punting this to the governor to make the hard decisions,'' said Rep. Christopher Coutu, a Norwich Republican. "We can't punt it off to the governor month after month.''

Noting that a prominent investment bank stated that real estate in the United States will likely not return to its 2007 levels until 2017, Rep. John Stripp of Weston said that legislators cannot expect the economy to rebound strongly and solve all the budget problems two years from now.

"You may not feel sympathy toward the wealthy people, but they are not going to sit still while we continue to tax them,'' Stripp said.

While the first two hours of the debate focused on taxes and spending, the House took a major detour in the middle of the day and started an intensive debate on campaign finance reform. Many insiders believed that the issue had already been settled, but it came up in an amendment. One Republican called it "a side-show discussion'' to the more important issue of the budget.

Rep. Corky Mazurek, a Wolcott Democrat, said one of the many problems in the budget is the public funding of election campaigns for politicians. While that number is a relatively small amount in an overall budget of more than $18 billion per year, Mazurek said he would continue to speak out against the public financing system. In an unusual move for a Democrat on a Democratic-written budget, Mazurek offered an amendment that would change the majority party's bill and return to the long-running system of elections that the state had in 2006.

"That 400-pound gorilla is the campaign finance law in the state of Connecticut,'' Mazurek said. "Most importantly, we were told it would take special-interest money out of campaigns. ... We had the same percentage of incumbents win as we did with the old system. I believe our $9 million experiment with taxpayers' money was a failure.''

Rep. James Spallone, an Essex Democrat, said that public financing helped lead to an increase in the number of primaries from 2006 - eight more primaries in 2008, including more primaries in the House and Senate.

Rep. Gary A. Holder-Winfield, who replaced Rep. William R. Dyson in New Haven, strongly defended the public financing program.

"I would not have run if the system was not in place,'' he said.

"Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank Rep. Mazurek for breaking the rules today,'' said Rep. Shawn Johnston, known by many as a renegade Democrat who often votes against his fellow party member. "There are unwritten rules'' that Democrats don't offer amendments against the party's majority.

"I think that was gutsy of Representative Mazurek,'' Johnston said, adding that he was pleased that Mazurek's amendment had been ruled as germane.

Rep. Christopher Caruso, an outspoken Bridgeport Democrat, mentioned a Democratic woman who ran in a primary against Mazurek - although he didn't mention Mazurek's name on the House floor. A single mother who worked two jobs, she was symbolic of a candidate who had no access to lobbyists and would not have run if there was no public financing system, Caruso said.

"To those who say this was a complete failure - please,'' Caruso said. "It was not a failure. ... We, as incumbents, do not own this government.''

But deputy House Republican leader William Hamzy supported Mazurek's amendment and said it is accurate to say that public financing is a failure. In Maine and Arizona, there has been no major change since the system began, he said.
Senate passes budget
Greenwich TIME
By Susan Haigh, Associated Press
Posted: 06/25/2009 09:55:45 PM EDT

HARTFORD -- The Connecticut Senate, with the end of the fiscal year looming, approved a Democratic budget on Thursday that Gov. M. Jodi Rell is expected to veto because it increases taxes by $2.5 billion, including income taxes on the wealthy.

While the Democratic leader of the Senate urged Rell to reconsider and sign the legislation, which is expected to pass the House of Representatives on Friday, some state legislators said they hope this exercise will spark bipartisan budget talks. Rell, a Republican, and the General Assembly, controlled by Democrats, have been at odds for months over how to cover a massive budget deficit, which the legislature's fiscal office now estimates could be as much as $8.8 billion over two years starting July 1.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said after Rell vetoes the Democrats' package, the governor and legislative leaders should "close the door, throw away the key and not come out until we all agree."

The Democrats' budget, which passed on a 19-16 vote, with five Democrats joining the minority Republicans in opposition, covers $35.7 billion in spending over two years. That figure does not include transportation funding, which will supposedly be voted on before the fiscal year ends Tuesday.

The overall budget package is expected to be more than $37 billion.

Rell said the proposal goes "in precisely the wrong direction at precisely the wrong time" and is "neither balanced nor remotely realistic."

But Democrats touted how their proposal restores funding to various programs that Rell had cut in her budget, such as the Medicaid coverage for eyeglasses and dental care, college scholarships, employment services, the Life Star emergency medical helicopter and a program that assists inmates leaving prison.

At the same time, Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, said the package cuts about $3.5 billion in spending, including the closure of two prisons.

"Yes, this budget makes tough choices. Yes, this budget cuts billions of dollars in spending. Yes, this budget demands shared sacrifice and has everyone at the table, including the wealthy," Williams said.

The ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, Sen. Dan Debicella, R-Shelton, criticized the package for raising taxes on businesses during a difficult economic downturn and called the plan "an attack on the middle class in the largest tax increase in Connecticut history."

He estimated the average family will pay $500 to $1,000 more in taxes and fees under the Democrats' plan.

However, the Democrats targeted their personal income tax increases to the wealthy. Under their plan, those with taxable incomes of more than $500,000 for joint filers, $265,000 for single filers, $400,000 for heads of household and $250,000 for married people filing separately will be charged higher rates ranging from 6 percent to 7.5 percent.

The budget plan also delays scheduled income tax reductions for single filers for three years. The maximum personal exemption for single filers for the 2008 tax year is $13,000. It was supposed to rise to $15,000 by 2012.

While they scrapped earlier plans to scale back the popular $500 property tax credit against the personal income tax, the Democrats increased the cigarette tax from $2 to $2.75 per pack, and increased the tobacco products tax from 20 percent to 27.5 percent of the wholesale price of items such as cigars and pipe tobacco.

They've also proposed a 25 percent surcharge on the state's corporation tax for income years 2009, 2010 and 2011, and a 30 percent estate tax surcharge on taxable estates of those who die in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Democrats said the fee increases they've proposed are the same ones Rell proposed in her budget back in February. They include everything from fees for bakeries to licenses for accountants.


Rell to sign Conn. law in wake of Madoff scandal
NYTIMES
Posted on Jun 29, 10:25 AM EDT

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell is signing a bill into law that requires money and property obtained through securities fraud be forfeited and used to compensate victims.

The bill signing falls on the same day that disgraced financier Bernard Madoff is to be sentenced for a multibillion-dollar fraud scheme.

Thousands of people lost billions of dollars investing with Madoff, including many from Connecticut.

Rell is to sign the bill at the Center for Children's Advocacy, a Hartford-based, nonprofit legal advocacy group for children that lost money because of the scheme.

The New York-based JEHT Foundation, which had pledged the center $85,000, had invested with Madoff.


Rell signs bill to protect doctors who treat Lyme disease
By TOM EVANS, Hour Staff Writer
Posted on 06/27/2009

Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced Sunday that she has signed into law House Bill 6200, which allows physicians to prescribe long-term antibiotics in the treatment of persistent Lyme disease.

The bill, unanimously passed through both houses of the Connecticut General Assembly, allows doctors to go outside standard guidelines without fear of sanctions from state health regulators if the patient's clinical diagnosis of the deer tick-borne disease and treatment have been documented by a licensed physician.

"Doctors in Connecticut -- the absolute epicenter of Lyme disease -- can continue to do what is best for their patients suffering from this complex illness," Gov. Rell said. "I think most people know someone who has been infected. The bill also recognizes that Lyme disease patients must have the freedom to choose which remedy or regimen best meets their needs."

The disease gets its name from the shoreline town of Lyme, where in 1975 a cluster of children and adults there experienced uncommon arthritic symptoms.

Caused by bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, Lyme disease is spread through the bites of infected deer ticks. Symptoms include a a circular rash radiating from the bite point, fatigue, headache, fever, and achy muscles and joints.

Later symptoms may include arthritis, and neurological and heart problems.

This law comes from months of negotiations between legislative leaders, the state Department of Public Health, and patients-rights groups including Lyme Disease Association, Inc., Newtown Lyme Disease Task Force, Ridgefield Lyme Disease Task Force, Time for Lyme, Inc., and Lyme Disease Association, Eastern Connecticut Chapter.

"Justice has been served," said Pat Smith, president of the national Lyme Disease Association. "Human health has finally triumphed over vested interest in the Lyme capital of the world. Lyme patients and treating physicians in Connecticut can breathe a collective sigh of relief. For years, they have not only been battling the disease, but also battling the politics which have prevented patients from getting treatment and physicians from treating. Rell and the legislature have come down on the side of the people."

Maggie Shaw of the Newtown Lyme Disease Task Force has been a state leader in the effort to get the bill signed into law.

"This law will be a relief to families in Connecticut who will be able to receive care in their own communities and their own state," Shaw said. "One of the burdens of Lyme disease -- finding treatment -- will be lifted from their shoulders, as this law offers hope to residents that more physicians who are knowledgeable about Lyme disease will be encouraged to practice within the state of Connecticut."

The governor pointed out one important caveat to the new law.

"Doctors will have the right to use treatment guidelines based on their clinical experience and best medical judgment," Rell said. "This bill does not, however, shield any physician who provides sub-standard care."

Rell Backs Off, Signs Bill Removing Her Senate Vacancy Power
Hartford Courant
By Jon Lender on June 26, 2009

In a dramatic reversal Friday, Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced that she has signed a bill that she and her lieutenants had previously belittled -- a measure that takes away her appointment power to fill vacancies for U.S. Senate, and instead requires direct elections to choose successors for senators who leave office during their terms.

Rell and her Republican legislative allies had bitterly denounced the bill recently, after the Democrat-controlled House and Senate approved it by strong majorities.  The Republicans called it an unwarranted infringement on a longstanding power of the governor in this and other states.

The strength of those previous denunciations magnified the impact of Friday's reversal -- and it suggested that Rell and her people came to believe that Democrats could make good on their recent talk of overriding any Rell veto of the bill.

Privately, Democratic legislators had been expressing confidence that they could muster the required two-thirds majority necessary for an override in both chambers. There was even a sense that they looked forward to a public victory to boost them during what is expected to be a contentious and difficult period of budget negotiations with the Rell administration.

Even so, Democratic sources said they were stunned when Rell reversed herself and signed the bill; they said they saw it as an unexpected capitulation after such strong rhetoric against the bill previously.

Republican legislators, in keeping with the governor's views, had attacked the bill in unusually strong terms during the final weeks of the legislative session that ended June 3.

They decried it as a "brazen power grab."  They said the current system -- in which the governor appoints the successor of a departing senator to fill the vacancy until the next congressional election, in an even-numbered year -- had worked well, and that changing it would tinker with the separation of powers.

The Republican lawmakers also said that a statewide special election in all 169 cities and towns would cost more than $2 million, and potential primaries would cost even more.

The strong rhetoric did not end with legislative Republicans, but came directly from Rell's office. Rell's spokesman, Chris Cooper, rejected the idea of the Democrats' bill as "blatant, partisan politics.'' Cooper said that the current system of gubernatorial appointments "has worked well for 50 years, and the governor believes that there are many, many more important things for the legislature to be spending its time on."

Rell has applied the position of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" to other reform legislation she does not like this year.  For example, last week she vetoed a judicial reform bill that would make quasi-judicial family support magistrates in state courthouses subject to legislative confirmation hearings -- instead of being installed directly through a political appointment by the governor with no confirmation.

But, on the Senate vacancy bill, at least, Rell now has backed off.

Friday, she found a rhetorical route to reconciling herself with the Senate vacancy measure that she and her allies had so strongly denounced: "This law is consistent with my long-held belief that we should take every action possible to involve our citizens in their government," she said.

"Although the current process for filling a Senate vacancy has worked well in our state for many decades, this bill gives directly to the people of Connecticut the decision on who would fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate," Rell said. "Since taking office as Governor, I have done everything in my power to make Connecticut a model for all states when it comes to openness, transparency and citizen participation in government."

A leading Democratic proponent of the bill, state Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, co-chair of the General Assembly's Government Administration and Elections Committee, praised Rell for giving in.

"Governor Rell clearly recognized the importance of this legislation and has agreed with the legislature that the authority to elect an official to serve in the United States Senate should rest with the people of our state," Slossberg said. "I thank her for upholding the interest of the electorate, doing the right thing and signing this bill."

"No one person, no one party and no one special interest group should have the power to put an individual in this powerful seat. The people should have the right to choose who represents them in the Senate," Slossberg said. "This is a victory for the people of Connecticut today, one that will prevent the type of corrupt behavior we've seen in other states and that will uphold democracy in ours."

The bill calls for a direct election by voters to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy within a total of 160 days of the vacancy. Or it would take place at the next regular state or municipal election, if that election took place 63 to 25 days from the date of the Senate vacancy.

If the vacancy occurs in the last year of the Senate term, the governor nominates a candidate to serve the rest of the term, subject to approval by two-thirds of the members in both chambers of the Legislature.  If the Senate seat is already on the ballot at the next state election, and the vacancy occurs not more than 62 days before the election, no special election will be held.

WHAT DID THE LEGISLATURE DO THIS PAST SESSION?  We checked today (June 18, 2009)...how's that again moment here:

Substitute House Bill No. 6467
Public Act No. 09-230
AN ACT CONCERNING SMART GROWTH AND THE STATE PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES PLAN.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (Effective from passage) As used in this section and section 2 of this act:

(1) "Smart growth" means economic, social and environmental development that (A) promotes, through financial and other incentives, economic competitiveness in the state while preserving natural resources, and (B) utilizes a collaborative approach to planning, decision-making and evaluation between and among all levels of government and the communities and the constituents they serve; and

(2) "Principles of smart growth" means standards and objectives that support and encourage smart growth when used to guide actions and decisions, including, but not limited to, standards and criteria for (A) integrated planning or investment that coordinates tax, transportation, housing, environmental and economic development policies at the state, regional and local level, (B) the reduction of reliance on the property tax by municipalities by creating efficiencies and coordination of services on the regional level while reducing interlocal competition for grand list growth, (C) the redevelopment of existing infrastructure and resources, including, but not limited to brownfields and historic places, (D) transportation choices that provide alternatives to automobiles, including rail, public transit, bikeways and walking, while reducing energy consumption, (E) the development or preservation of housing affordable to households of varying income in locations proximate to transportation or employment centers or locations compatible with smart growth, (F) concentrated, mixed-use, mixed income development proximate to transit nodes and civic, employment or cultural centers, and (G) the conservation and protection of natural resources by (i) preserving open space, water resources, farmland, environmentally sensitive areas and historic properties, and (ii) furthering energy efficiency.

Sec. 2. (Effective from passage) The Continuing Legislative Committee on State Planning and Development, established pursuant to section 4-60d of the general statutes, shall study the state plan of conservation and development, including, but not limited to, the process for adopting such state plan, the incorporation into such plan of the principles of smart growth as defined in section 1 of this act, the application of such plan and principles of smart growth to actions undertaken by state agencies, and the integration of such plan with municipal and regional plans of conservation and development. In conducting such study, the committee shall consult with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, municipalities, regional planning organizations, state agencies and the public. On or before February 1, 2010, the committee shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly in accordance with the provisions of section 11-4a of the general statutes.

Sec. 3. Section 16a-27 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(a) The secretary, after consultation with all appropriate state, regional and local agencies and other appropriate persons, shall, prior to March 1, [2009] 2011, complete a revision of the existing plan and enlarge it to include, but not be limited to, policies relating to transportation, energy and air. Any revision made after May 15, 1991, shall identify the major transportation proposals, including proposals for mass transit, contained in the master transportation plan prepared pursuant to section 13b-15. Any revision made after July 1, 1995, shall take into consideration the conservation and development of greenways that have been designated by municipalities and shall recommend that state agencies coordinate their efforts to support the development of a state-wide greenways system. The Commissioner of Environmental Protection shall identify state-owned land for inclusion in the plan as potential components of a state greenways system.

(b) Any revision made after August 20, 2003, shall take into account (1) economic and community development needs and patterns of commerce, and (2) linkages of affordable housing objectives and land use objectives with transportation systems.

(c) Any revision made after March 1, 2006, shall (1) take into consideration risks associated with natural hazards, including, but not limited to, flooding, high winds and wildfires; (2) identify the potential impacts of natural hazards on infrastructure and property; and (3) make recommendations for the siting of future infrastructure and property development to minimize the use of areas prone to natural hazards, including, but not limited to, flooding, high winds and wildfires.

(d) Any revision made after July 1, 2005, shall describe the progress towards achievement of the goals and objectives established in the previously adopted state plan of conservation and development and shall identify (1) areas where it is prudent and feasible (A) to have compact, transit accessible, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development patterns and land reuse, and (B) to promote such development patterns and land reuse, (2) priority funding areas designated under section 16a-35c, and (3) corridor management areas on either side of a limited access highway or a rail line. In designating corridor management areas, the secretary shall make recommendations that (A) promote land use and transportation options to reduce the growth of traffic congestion; (B) connect infrastructure and other development decisions; (C) promote development that minimizes the cost of new infrastructure facilities and maximizes the use of existing infrastructure facilities; and (D) increase intermunicipal and regional cooperation.

(e) Any revision made after October 1, 2008, shall (1) for each policy recommended (A) assign a priority; (B) estimate funding for implementation and identify potential funding sources; (C) identify each entity responsible for implementation; and (D) establish a schedule for implementation; and (2) for each growth management principle, determine three benchmarks to measure progress in implementation of the principles, one of which shall be a financial benchmark.

(f) Thereafter on or before March first in each revision year the secretary shall complete a revision of the plan of conservation and development.

Sec. 4. Section 16a-28 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(a) The secretary shall present a draft of the revised plan of conservation and development for preliminary review to the continuing legislative committee on state planning and development prior to September first in [2008] 2010 and prior to September first in each prerevision year thereafter.

(b) After December first in [1985] 2010 and after December first in each prerevision year thereafter the secretary shall proceed with such further revisions of the draft of the revised plan of conservation and development as he deems appropriate. The secretary shall, by whatever means he deems advisable, publish said plan and disseminate it to the public on or before March first in revision years. The secretary shall post the plan on the Internet web site of the state.

(c) [Within] Not later than five months [of] after publication of said revised plan the secretary shall hold public hearings, in cooperation with regional planning agencies, to solicit comments on said plan.

Sec. 5. Section 16a-29 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

The secretary shall consider the comments received at the public hearings and shall make any necessary or desirable revisions to said plan and within three months of completion of the public hearings submit the plan to the continuing legislative committee on state planning and development, for its approval, revision or disapproval, in whole or in part. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the secretary shall submit the state Conservation and Development Policies Plan, [2004-2009] 2012-2017, to said committee on or before December 1, [2004] 2011.

Sec. 6. Section 16a-32a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

The Office of Policy and Management shall amend the state plan of conservation and development adopted pursuant to this chapter to include therein a goal for reducing carbon dioxide emissions within this state [. Said office, in consultation with the Department of Environmental Protection, shall submit a report to the General Assembly on or before the thirtieth day following May 22, 1995, on or before May 1, 1996, and annually thereafter, which details the net amount of carbon dioxide emitted annually within this state. Subsequent to the May 1, 2000, submittal, said report shall be submitted every three years with the first such report due May 1, 2003] consistent with the recommendations of the Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan prepared in accordance with section 22a-200a.

Sec. 7. Subsection (b) of section 8-23 of the general statutes, as amended by section 3 of public act 07-239, section 4 of public act 07-5 of the June special session and section 17 of public act 08-182, is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2010):

(b) [Until the plan is amended in accordance with this subsection the municipality] On and after the first day of July following the adoption of the state Conservation and Development Policies Plan 2012-2017, in accordance with section 16a-30, a municipality that fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) of this section shall be ineligible for discretionary state funding unless such prohibition is expressly waived by the secretary.

Approved July 8, 2009
Here are some of the bills that passed and were signed so far by the Governor (that we could see as affecting Weston):


Substitute Senate Bill No. 760
Public Act No. 09-131

AN ACT CONCERNING SCHOOL CRISIS RESPONSE DRILLS AND FIRE DRILLS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. Section 10-231 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2009):

(a) Each local and regional board of education shall provide for a fire drill to be held in the schools of such board not later than thirty days after the first day of each school year and at least once each month thereafter, except [that once every three months a crisis response drill may be substituted for a fire drill] as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Each such board shall substitute a crisis response drill for a fire drill once every three months and shall develop the format of such crisis response drill in consultation with the appropriate local law enforcement agency. A representative of such agency may supervise and participate in any such crisis response drill.

-----------------

Substitute House Bill No. 5519
Public Act No. 09-88

AN ACT CONCERNING WORKERS' COMPENSATION PREMIUMS AND VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE COMPANIES.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective from passage) On or before October 1, 2009, the rating organization licensed pursuant to section 38a-672 of the general statutes shall file with the Insurance Commissioner a method of calculating workers' compensation premiums for volunteer staff which does not base such premium calculation primarily on the number of ambulances owned by the municipality or volunteer ambulance service. Such method shall be based primarily on ambulance usage and shall apply to workers' compensation insurance policies issued or renewed on or after October 1, 2009. Ambulance usage shall be determined by the estimated number of calls responded to annually. For purposes of this section, "municipality or volunteer ambulance service" means a volunteer organization or municipality licensed by the Commissioner of Public Health to transport patients.

Approved June 2, 2009

-------------------

Substitute Senate Bill No. 966
Public Act No. 09-171

AN ACT PROHIBITING BLOCKING THE BOX.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2009) (a) No operator of a motor vehicle, other than a tractor-trailer unit, as defined in section 14-1 of the general statutes, shall proceed into an intersection that has been designated, posted and marked by a municipality in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, except when making a turn, unless there is sufficient space on the opposite side of the intersection to accommodate such motor vehicle without obstructing the passage of other vehicles or pedestrians, notwithstanding the indication of a traffic control signal that would permit such operator to proceed into the intersection.

(b) Any municipality may, by ordinance, designate one or more intersections within that municipality to which the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall apply. The municipality shall (1) post signs at each such designated intersection indicating that blocking the intersection is prohibited and violators are subject to a fine, and (2) mark, in white paint, the boundary of such intersection with a line not less than one-foot in width and the area within such boundary line with parallel diagonal lines not less than one-foot in width.

(c) Any person who violates the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall have committed an infraction.

---------------

Substitute Senate Bill No. 735
Public Act No. 09-154

AN ACT IMPROVING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2009) (a) For the purposes of this section:

(1) "Department" means the Department of Transportation;

(2) "Funds" means any funds from the Special Transportation Fund, bond allocations and any other source that is available for the construction, maintenance and repair of roads in this state;

(3) "User" means a motorist, transit user, pedestrian or bicyclist;

(4) "Bikeway" means any road, street, path or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, including the provision of a bicycle lane, regardless of whether such facility is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or is to be shared with other modes of transportation; and

(5) "Total project cost" means the cost of the entire corridor plan project.

(b) Accommodations for all users shall be a routine part of the planning, design, construction and operating activities of all highways, as defined in section 14-1 of the general statutes, in this state.

(c) From funds received by the department or any municipality for the construction, restoration, rehabilitation or relocation of highways, roads or streets, a reasonable amount shall be expended to provide facilities for all users, including, but not limited to, bikeways and sidewalks with appropriate curb cuts and ramps. On and after October 1, 2010, not less than one per cent of the total amount of any such funds received in any fiscal year shall be so expended. The department or municipality shall take future transit expansion plans into account where appropriate. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, such provisions shall not apply in the event of a state or municipal transportation emergency.

(d) The provision of facilities pursuant to subsection (c) of this section shall not be required if the Commissioner of Transportation or a municipal legislative body determines, with respect to a highway, road or street that: (1) Nonmotorized usage is prohibited; (2) there is a demonstrated absence of need; (3) the accommodation of all users would be an excessively expensive component of the total project cost; or (4) the accommodation of all users is not consistent with the state's or such municipality's, respectively, program of construction, maintenance and repair.

Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2009) (a) There is established a Connecticut Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board which shall be within the Department of Transportation for administrative purposes only.

(b) The board shall consist of eleven members appointed as follows: The Governor shall appoint five members and the speaker of the House of Representatives, the president pro tempore of the Senate, the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the House of Representatives and the minority leader of the Senate shall each appoint one member. The members shall be electors of the state and have a background and interest in issues pertaining to walking and bicycling, one of whom shall be a representative of an organization interested in the promotion of bicycling, one of whom shall be a representative of an organization interested in the promotion of walking, one of whom shall be an owner or manager of a business engaged in the sale or repair of bicycles, one of whom shall be a representative of visually-impaired persons, one of whom shall be a representative of mobility-impaired persons, one of whom shall be a representative of transit workers and one of whom shall be a person sixty years of age or older.

(c) All members shall serve for a term of four years, except that of the members first appointed by the Governor, three members shall serve for an initial term of two years and two members shall serve for an initial term of three years. Any vacancy in the membership of the board shall be filled by the appointing authority for the unexpired term. Members shall receive no compensation for their services.

(d) The board shall, at its first meeting and annually thereafter, select a chairperson, vice-chairperson and secretary from among its members. The board shall meet at least once during each calendar quarter and at such other times as the chairperson deems necessary or upon the request of a majority of the members.

(e) The duties of the board shall include, but not be limited to, examining the need for bicycle and pedestrian transportation, promoting programs and facilities for bicycles and pedestrians in this state, and advising appropriate agencies of the state on policies, programs and facilities for bicycles and pedestrians.

(f) The board may apply for and accept grants, gifts and bequests of funds from other states, federal and interstate agencies, independent authorities and private firms, individuals and foundations, for the purpose of carrying out its responsibilities.

(g) The Department of Transportation shall assist the board in carrying out its responsibilities by making available department reports and records related to the board's responsibilities and, within available appropriations, printing the board's annual report, distributing copies of such report and mailing notices of the board's meetings.

(h) Not later than January 15, 2010, and annually thereafter, the board shall submit a report, in accordance with section 11-4a of the general statutes, to the Governor, the Commissioner of Transportation and the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to transportation on (1) the progress made by state agencies in improving the environment for bicycling and walking in this state, (2) recommendations for improvements to state policies and procedures related to bicycling and walking, and (3) specific actions taken by the Department of Transportation in the preceding year that affect the bicycle and pedestrian environment.

Sec. 3. (Effective July 1, 2009) On or before October 1, 2009, and on or before October 1, 2010, the Commissioner of Transportation shall submit (1) to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to transportation, and (2) to the Connecticut Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board established by section 2 of this act, a list of transportation projects funded by the Special Transportation Fund established by section 13b-68 of the general statutes or Title 23 of the United States Code, including, but not limited to, the Interstate Maintenance Program, the National Highway Safety Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program and the Transportation Enhancement Program, which contain bicycle and pedestrian access. Such list shall include the project title, project scope, funding source, description and cost of the bicycle or pedestrian component of the project, and estimated time frame for completion of the project.

------------------

Senate Bill No. 846
Public Act No. 09-176

AN ACT CONCERNING THE DISABLED VETERANS' PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. Subdivision (20) of section 12-81 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(20) Subject to the provisions hereinafter stated, property not exceeding three thousand dollars in amount shall be exempt from taxation, which property belongs to, or is held in trust for, any resident of this state who has served, or is serving, in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard or Air Force of the United States and (1) has a disability rating by the Veterans' Administration of the United States amounting to ten per cent or more of total disability, provided such exemption shall be fifteen hundred dollars in any case in which such rating is between ten per cent and twenty-five per cent; two thousand dollars in any case in which such rating is more than twenty-five per cent but not more than fifty per cent; twenty-five hundred dollars in any case in which such rating is more than fifty per cent but not more than seventy-five per cent; and three thousand dollars in any case in which such person has attained sixty-five years of age or such rating is more than seventy-five per cent; or (2) is receiving a pension, annuity or compensation from the United States because of the loss in service of a leg or arm or that which is considered by the rules of the United States Pension Office or the Bureau of War Risk Insurance the equivalent of such loss. If such veteran lacks such amount of property in his or her name, so much of the property belonging to, or held in trust for, his or her spouse, who is domiciled with him or her, as is necessary to equal such amount shall also be so exempt. When any veteran entitled to an exemption under the provisions of this section has died, property belonging to, or held in trust for, his or her surviving spouse, while such spouse remains a widow or widower, or belonging to or held in trust for his or her minor children during their minority, or both, while they are residents of this state, shall be exempt in the same aggregate amount as that to which the disabled veteran was or would have been entitled at the time of his or her death. No individual entitled to exemption under this subdivision and under one or more of subdivisions (19), (22), (23), (25) and (26) of this section shall receive more than one exemption. No individual shall receive any exemption to which he or she is entitled under this subdivision until he or she has complied with section 12-95 and [until he or she has, in each year in which such exemption is being sought, submitted evidence satisfactory to the assessors as to his or her actual disability rating on the assessment day as of which such exemption is being sought, except that proof of disability of persons who have attained the age of sixty-five years or who have presented Veterans' Administration certificates showing permanent total disability need be filed but once] has submitted proof of his or her disability rating, as determined by the Veterans' Administration of the United States, to the assessor of the town in which the exemption is sought. If there is no change to an individual's disability rating, such proof shall not be required for any assessment year following that for which the exemption under this subdivision is granted initially. If the Veterans' Administration of the United States modifies a veteran's disability rating, such modification shall be deemed a waiver of the right to such exemption until proof of disability rating is submitted to the assessor and the right to such exemption is established as required initially. Any person who has been unable to submit evidence of disability rating in the manner required by this subdivision, or who has failed to submit such evidence as provided in section 12-95, may, when he or she obtains such evidence, [satisfactory to the assessors,] make application to the collector of taxes within one year after he or she obtains such proof or within one year after the expiration of the time limited in section 12-95, as the case may be, for abatement in case the tax has not been paid, or for refund in case the whole tax has been paid, of such part or the whole of such tax as represents the service exemption. Such abatement or refund may be granted retroactively to include the assessment day next succeeding the date as of which such person was entitled to such disability rating as determined by the Veterans' Administration of the United States, but in no case shall any abatement or refund be made for a period greater than three years. The collector shall, after examination of such application, refer the same, with his recommendations thereon, to the board of selectmen of a town or to the corresponding authority of any other municipality, and shall certify to the amount of abatement or refund to which the applicant is entitled. Upon receipt of such application and certification, the selectmen or other duly constituted authority shall, in case the tax has not been paid, issue a certificate of abatement or, in case the whole tax has been paid, draw an order upon the treasurer in favor of such applicant for the amount without interest which represents the service exemption. Any action so taken by such selectmen or other authority shall be a matter of record and the tax collector shall be notified in writing of such action.

------------

Substitute House Bill No. 6463
Public Act No. 09-80

AN ACT CONCERNING MEMBERSHIP ON REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCIES.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. Section 8-31a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2009):

Within any planning region of the state as defined or redefined by the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, or his designee under the provisions of section 16a-4a a regional planning agency may be created by the adoption of sections 8-31a to 8-37a, inclusive, by ordinance of the legislative bodies of two or more towns, cities or boroughs within such region, provided the total number of representatives of such towns, cities or boroughs shall equal sixty per cent or more of the total number of representatives possible of all the towns, cities or boroughs within such region computed as prescribed in this section. Any other town, city or borough within such region may join such regional planning agency by the adoption of said sections by ordinance of its legislative body. [Each] The chief elected official of each town, city or borough within such region, or the designee of such official, shall be a representative on such agency and each such town, city or borough, except as provided herein, shall be entitled to two other representatives on such agency and [shall be entitled to] additional representation on such agency at the ratio of one representative for each fifty thousand of population or fraction thereof over and above a population of twenty-five thousand as determined by the last-completed federal census. Cities and boroughs with boundaries not coterminous with the boundaries of the town in which they are located, upon adoption of the provisions of said sections, may have their chief elected official, or the designee of such official, and one other representative on such agency provided the population of the city or borough is greater than fifty per cent of the total population of the town as determined by the last-completed federal census, and the town, upon adoption of the provisions of said sections, may have the chief elected official of such town, or the designee of such official, and one other representative on such agency. If the total population of the town is greater than twenty-five thousand, the town may elect or appoint the extra representative or representatives as prescribed above, except that, for each fifty thousand population residing in the city or borough, the city or borough may have one additional representative. Noncoterminous cities or boroughs which do not contain fifty per cent or more of the total population of the town in which they are located shall not adopt the provisions of said sections and shall not join such regional planning agency. Where a planning commission exists in a town, city or borough established under the provisions of the general statutes or any special act, at least one of the representatives from such town, city or borough to the regional planning agency shall be appointed by such planning commission. The other representative or representatives shall be elected or appointed in the manner provided by ordinance adopted by the legislative body of such town, city or borough.

Approved June 2, 2009

-------------------

House Bill No. 5873
Public Act No. 09-92

AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS TO APPROVE MUNICIPAL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. Section 8-24 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2009):

No municipal agency or legislative body shall (1) locate, accept, abandon, widen, narrow or extend any street, bridge, parkway or other public way, (2) locate, relocate, substantially improve, acquire land for, abandon, sell or lease any airport, park, playground, school or other municipally owned property or public building, (3) locate or extend any public housing, development, redevelopment or urban renewal project, or (4) locate or extend public utilities and terminals for water, sewerage, light, power, transit and other purposes, until the proposal to take such action has been referred to the commission for a report. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a municipality may take final action approving an appropriation for any proposal prior to the approval of the proposal by the commission pursuant to this section. The failure of the commission to report within thirty-five days after the date of official submission of the proposal to it for a report shall be taken as approval of the proposal. In the case of the disapproval of the proposal by the commission the reasons therefor shall be recorded and transmitted to the legislative body of the municipality. A proposal disapproved by the commission shall be adopted by the municipality or, in the case of disapproval of a proposal by the commission subsequent to final action by a municipality approving an appropriation for the proposal and the method of financing of such appropriation, such final action shall be effective, only after the subsequent approval of the proposal by (A) a two-thirds vote of the town council where one exists, or a majority vote of those present and voting in an annual or special town meeting, or (B) a two-thirds vote of the representative town meeting or city council or the warden and burgesses, as the case may be. The provisions of this section shall not apply to maintenance or repair of existing property, [public ways or] buildings or public ways, including, but not limited to, resurfacing of roads.
Speech laws in need of updating
Connecticut Post Staff
Posted: 02/06/2009 08:24:51 PM EST

Americans are guaranteed freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, but it doesn't apply to every person to the same degree.
It's one of the rights every citizen takes for granted. This isn't a nation where the government can lock someone up for questioning its decisions. But courts have consistently ruled that certain groups face restrictions. Among those who are limited are students.

But, as in so many other areas, the law has not kept up with technology. What was originally planned to limit criticism of schools and administrators during class hours has spread to include chat rooms, message boards and social networking sites. The way judges are interpreting laws, offhand comments on a Web site with no connection to a school could result in disciplinary action.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz ruled in favor of school administrators in Burlington who were accused of violating the First Amendment rights of a student who had been disciplined for a blog post she wrote off school grounds. In response, state lawmakers are considering a law that would prohibit schools from punishing students for such actions, provided there is no threat and the action takes place without using school property.

It's a good idea. The meaning of the word "public" has changed dramatically in just the last decade. What might have once been confined to a small group in a passing moment can now be spread to millions of people and preserved indefinitely. As it has across a variety of issues, the Internet has changed the dynamics.

Because schools are funded by taxpayers, the notion of administrators exerting some control over what is printed and disseminated within their boundaries has been accepted for years. But because the Internet blurs the distinction between in school and out, those rules may no longer apply. As the Burlington case shows, under current interpretations, something written or posted outside the classroom can make its way inside without hindrance.

But the principle is the same. The issue may go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the state should come out in favor of greater free speech rights. If students are not taking advantage of school property or privileges, the school should not have a right to censor their speech.

Did this pass by way of being added to another bill?  As SB772 it didn't!
AN ACT CONCERNING THE POSTING OF PUBLIC AGENCY MINUTES UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-00772-R02-SB.htm

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. Section 1-225 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(a) The meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions, as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public. The votes of each member of any such public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours and shall also be recorded in the minutes of the session at which taken. Within seven days of the session to which such minutes refer, such minutes shall be available for public inspection and, within fourteen days of such session, posted on such public agency's Internet web site, if available. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, no public agency of any municipality shall be deemed to be in violation of this chapter for the failure to post minutes of such agency's sessions on the Internet web site of such public agency within fourteen days of the session to which such minutes refer, (1) for the period beginning October 1, 2008, and ending December 31, 2009, if such public agency files a notice with the town clerk of the applicable municipality indicating the reason for such failure, and (2) for the period beginning January 1, 2010, and ending January 1, 2011, following a vote of the applicable legislative body of such municipality, if such public agency files a notice with the commission describing the hardship that prevents such public agency from complying with such requirement. For informational purposes only, a copy of any notice filed with a town clerk pursuant to this subsection shall be filed with the commission. Each [such] public agency shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings.

Towns seek relief from state Web site rule 
DAY
By Jenna Cho 
Published on 1/29/2009
 
Visitors to the Voluntown municipal Web site are greeted with two red circles with slashes across them - the universal sign for “No” - framing a notice stating the site has been shut down due to recently expanded Freedom of Information laws requiring that all towns post meeting agendas and minutes on their Web sites.

”The town has no IT department, and complying with the bill will put a burden on each board in town,” the site states.

Town officials in Voluntown, Griswold and Lyme are among a group throughout the state pushing for a repeal of the law that since Oct. 1 has required municipalities and other public agencies to post board, commission and committee agendas and minutes on their Web sites.

The three towns all took down their Web sites last fall rather than risk keeping them up and being in violation of the new law.

Now, the Connecticut General Assembly is faced with at least 13 proposals for legislation calling for either a repeal or a delay of the mandate.

The state legislature's Committee on Government Administration and Elections raised a bill that would postpone implementation of the law to Oct. 1 and give municipalities an opportunity to explain their inability to comply with the law to the FOI Commission.

The state committee will hold a public hearing on the proposed bill at 9:45 a.m. on Monday in room 2B of the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.

Town officials have argued that in small towns without staff webmasters, complying with the new law is a strain on the town's finances and on employees' time. Lyme First Selectman Ralph Eno said the law also exposes towns to FOI complaints because the towns may not always be able to comply with such requirements as uploading meeting minutes within the mandated seven days of the meeting date.

A delay of the law, Eno said, isn't enough.

”It simply says that if you show as a municipality that there's a compelling reason that you couldn't get the posting done … then the FOI Commission can let you off the hook,” Eno said. “So you've still got to go to (an FOI) hearing. It does nothing for mandate relief.”

Eno, a member of the Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST), prefers Proposed Bill number 5379, which COST pushed for. That bill would completely eliminate the requirement that towns post meeting agendas and minutes on their Web sites.

COST executive director Barton Russell sent the FOI Commission a letter on Oct. 3 requesting clarification of the law and pointing to seven “anecdotal examples of how the real world works in small towns” and how that might prevent towns from being in full compliance of the law, he said Wednesday.

”It's those kinds of questions that just postponing the law won't address,” said Russell, whose council represents 120 towns with populations under 30,000.

Russell said the problem goes beyond the new FOI law.

”It is an unfunded mandate, and we've been spending the first several weeks of this new session urging legislators and particularly committee chairs and the leadership to kill bills … if they have a municipal fiscal impact that the state is not prepared to fund,” Russell said. “In this economic climate, unless they're clear who's going to pay for this … even good ideas, if you can't afford them, have to be postponed.”

A strain on small towns

The public's right to information was adequately protected before the FOI amendment in October, Eno argued. In fact, he said, Lyme this year budgeted about $5,000 to $6,000 to revamp the town's Web site, which he said had “languished” over the years.

The plan, Eno said, was to “do a decent public service and expand the way we put out information to people instead of biannual newsletters.”

Lyme selectmen are still working on the new Web site and have retained Haddam-based TechNet Computing for the job. Eno makes no apologies for removing the town's Web site to protest the FOI law on Web postings and said he hopes to have the new site ready to launch if and when the law is repealed.

On Tuesday night, Griswold selectmen decided to bring the old municipal Web site back, at least temporarily, according to First Selectman Philip Anthony Jr. The board is currently shopping for a contractor to manage the site and provide the necessary platform to host the information.

Neighboring First Selectman Gil Grimm of Voluntown submitted his concerns over the October amendment to the FOI laws to COST staff and said he expects they will present his and other small-town officials' arguments at Monday's public hearing.

”I can't see them changing their minds because the selectman from Voluntown says it's a hardship to manage a daily Web site with a part-time staff,” Grimm said.

In the meantime, Grimm said he has spoken to a couple of people about what it will take, financially and otherwise, to manage the municipal Web site.

Salem shut down its site for six weeks last fall. And while Salem First Selectman Bob Ross said the town chose to comply with the law with a new Web site, the proposed legislation to delay the Web site mandate was “not a good solution for other small Towns,” according to a letter he sent Wednesday to state Sen.

Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford, and state Rep. Ed Jutila, D-East Lyme.

”Small Towns should not have to demonstrate a hardship to be found 'not in violation,'” Ross wrote. “This mandate should never have been passed in the first place. Now, once again, the burden falls to the municipality to either post or demonstrate hardship.”

STAFF WRITERS MEGAN BARD AND MICHAEL NAUGHTON CONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPORT
---------------------

THIS ISSUE IMPORTANT TO SMALL TOWNS, ESPECIALLY!
GOVERNOR'S BILL ON REGIONALIZATION:  http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/H/2009HB-06389-R00-HB.htm

PROPOSED BILLS - There are at lease 13 proposed pieces of legislation to repeal, postpone or make exemptions to the FOI law implemented on Oct. 1 that requires that meeting agendas and minutes be posted on town Web sites:

 Raised bill No. 772
1) Postpone implementation until Oct. 1, 2009, and 2) give a town or public agency the opportunity to exempt itself by explaining its inability to comply with the new law to the FOI Commission.  Introduced by: Connecticut General Assembly's Committee on Government Administration and Elections H.B. 5009

Give towns 14 days rather than the current seven to post meeting minutes on their Web sites
Introduced by: state Rep. Vickie Orsini Nardello, D-Prospect H.B. 5218

Postpone implementation until July 1, 2012
Introduced by: state Rep. Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk; state Rep. William A. Hamzy, R-Plymouth; state Rep. Themis Klarides, R-Derby H.B. 5251

Postpone implementation until Oct. 1, 2012
Introduced by: state Rep. John Hetherington, R-New Canaan H.B. 5365

Repeal law
Introduced by: state Rep. Jim O'Rourke, D-Cromwell H.B. 5368

Postpone implementation until July 1, 2012
Introduced by: state Rep. Bill Aman, R-South Windsor H.B. 5371

1) Postpone implementation, 2) give towns 14 days to post meeting minutes, 3) eliminate requirement to post special meeting notices within 24 hours, and 4) require notice postings only on Web sites used for official business

Introduced by: state Rep. John W. Thompson, D-Manchester; state Sen. Mary Ann Handley, D-Manchester; state Rep. Ryan Barry, D-Manchester; state Rep. Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford H.B. 5379

Repeal law
Introduced by: state Rep. Pamela Z. Sawyer, R-Bolton; state Rep. Joan Lewis, D-Coventry; state Rep. Bryan Hurlburt, D-Tolland; state Rep. Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford; state Rep. Linda Schofield, D-Simsbury; state Rep. Jim O'Rourke, D-Cromwell H.B. 5384

Postpone implementation until July 1, 2012
Introduced by: state Rep. Deborah Heinrich, D-Madison; state Rep. Patricia M. Widlitz, D-Guilford; state Rep. Lonnie Reed, D-Branford H.B. 5564

Postpone implementation until July 1, 2012
Introduced by: state Rep. Livvy R. Floren, R-Greenwich S.B. 68

Exempt municipalities with populations of 30,000 or less
State Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford S.B. 87

Exempt municipalities with populations of 30,000 or less
Introduced by: state Sen. Rob Kane, R-Watertown S.B. 333

 Repeal law
Introduced by: state Sen. Andrew Roraback, R-Goshen

Madison Man Charged With Trying To Bribe Lawmaker
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | The Hartford Courant
December 11, 2008

A 74-year-old man was arrested and charged with bribery Wednesday after trying to hand an envelope with cash to a Democratic state legislator at the state Capitol complex in Hartford, police said.

Anthony P. Perrelli of Madison opened his briefcase and tried to give the cash to state Rep. Deborah W. Heinrich of Madison during a meeting in her office on proposed legislation, said Chief Michael J. Fallon of the State Capitol Police. Heinrich immediately refused the offer and told Perrelli that she intended to report his action.

Heinrich then spoke to the Capitol police, and officers apprehended Perrelli without incident as he was attempting to get into his car in the parking garage at the Legislative Office Building, police said.

"He attempted to persuade her not to report anything," Fallon said. "He [later] said he was trying to make a donation to a Christmas party. But when my officers were questioning him, he said, 'Do you have Christmas parties here?' He's got to know better than that."

Perrelli was charged with bribery, which is a Class C felony that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000. He was released Wednesday night after posting $2,500 bail.

"As soon as it happened, the meeting ended," Heinrich said Wednesday night. "I was totally shocked. I was also very upset. I'm upset that anyone would think that it was OK to offer me money like that. I said, 'We're done. I am reporting this now.'"

The envelope was later seized as evidence, but Fallon declined to reveal the exact amount it contained. Perrelli also had "a large amount of money on his person," Fallon said.

The incident occurred at about 3:20 p.m. during a 40-minute meeting concerning issues regarding condominium associations. Perrelli lives in a condominium and has spoken at public hearings about his concerns as a member of the Madison Property Owners Association.

Heinrich has known Perrelli, who is an unaffiliated voter, since she was elected four years ago as state representative for the 101st District, which consists of Madison and part of Guilford. Perrelli wants to see reforms to how condominium associations work, and he supports having condominium managers licensed in the state. Currently, they are not licensed. He also supported a bill, later signed into law by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, to ensure that those who serve on condominium boards have some minimum training in the law.

Along with Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Heinrich, Perrelli has supported a bill to create a statewide condominium review board — where condominium owners could have their complaints heard instead of going to Superior Court. That bill has not been passed.

During Wednesday's meeting, Perrelli told Heinrich that he had had a meeting earlier in the day with the chief state's attorney's office, which is participating in potential draft legislation on condominiums.

Nothing seemed amiss during the meeting as the legislator and her constituent talked about the issues he is concerned about.

"It was just a regular constituent meeting like all the others," Heinrich said.

"He was giving me some background information on other meetings he had had."

While Perrelli had never been actively involved in any of Heinrich's campaigns, he did make a campaign contribution this year during her latest campaign. Since she has served only four years, Heinrich is not chairwoman of any committees and is not considered among the most powerful legislators at the Capitol.

Public records show that Perrelli, who is retired, lived in Hamden before moving to Madison 17 years ago.

He is scheduled to appear in state Superior Court in Hartford on Dec. 19.

Christopher Keating is the Courant's Capitol bureau chief.

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."

It will succeed this year (2009) so figure out a way to pay the extra money on each little bottle (???) and put each little bottle through the clunky machine...well, since people are unemployed anyway, they have nothing better to do!  Or, as the Legislators may be thinking, no one will bother to redeem the deposit and thus, this will become a "slush fund" for them!
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