Get out your copy of
Walter Houston singing "September Song" (...it is a long, long time,
from May to December...) and think about what's
coming.
Older stuff:
Let
them eat cake.
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)...
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 a special
session to act on criminal justice reforms before the next regular
session begins in February. The open-ended session is to begin
this
morning, but no date has been set for a vote on bills that are
proposed. Leaders of both parties sent mixed signals over whether
there would be a vote before February...
State Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven,
co-chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, said he was "100 percent" certain that a date would be
scheduled in January to vote on criminal justice and parole reform
bills.
"It would just be too complicated to do it in a
regular session,"
Lawlor said.
But the co-chairman, state Sen. Andrew McDonald,
D-Stamford, told
colleagues there was much to do before a bill would be ready for a vote.
"There are no promises," McDonald said.
The Judiciary Committee has been considering
changes in the parole
system and other criminal justice practices since three members of a
Cheshire family were murdered in a home invasion in July. Two paroled
burglars are charged with killing Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her 17- and
11-year-old daughters.
In late summer, the General Assembly's Republican
minority began
pressuring Democratic colleagues to immediately schedule a special
session to enact reforms. But Lawlor and McDonald and their
caucuses argued for a review that
would examine all options, the effects on the prison system and the
costs. The committee held a 12-hour public hearing Nov. 27 on 15
proposals
from Lawlor, McDonald, Republican leaders, other legislators and
criminal justice professionals.
The House of Representatives was the first
yesterday to take up the
Democrats' resolution to schedule an open-ended special session.
Proponents said it allows for the General Assembly to be called to
Hartford once legislation is ready for a vote.
"As soon as legislation's ready, we'll move
without delay," said House
Majority Leader Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden.
Republicans, including Minority Leader Lawrence
Cafero, R-Norwalk, and
state Rep. John Hetherington, R-New Canaan, unsuccessfully proposed a
resolution calling for a special session no later than Jan. 16.
"The resolution before us has painfully little
meaning," Hetherington
told the House. "It's hard to understand why we can't set a date."
Donovan said the Judiciary Committee was waiting
for a task force
established by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell to conclude its examination
of the criminal justice system. The task force is not expected to
submit a report until the end of the month. Cafero said the two
weeks between Dec. 31 and Jan. 16 is plenty of time
for lawmakers to consider the task force report, incorporate its
recommendations into the Judiciary Committee's proposals and vote.
"We've done it in two hours, let alone two weeks,"
he said.
Senators were less optimistic. McDonald told
the group there is
plenty to do besides collaborate with the task force.
"We will have to . . . engage in a broader
discussion with our
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee" about budget effects, he
said. "This is certainly an aggressive and ambitious agenda for the
Judiciary Committee, and we're trying to work through it as quickly as
possible. . . . There's no promises it will be completed in January."
Senate Republicans did not follow the lead of
House Republicans in
proposing a Jan. 16 deadline. State Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield,
ranking Republican on the Judiciary
Committee, said the hearing on criminal justice reforms was probably
the longest of his career, and it offered many competing views to
consider.
"I think we have our work cut out for us," Kissel
said.
LIKELY
TO BE COMING UP NEXT SESSION
(2008 "short session")...a bill that
mandates what the Department of Revenue Services has already done.
Limits Considered For State
'Liaisons'
Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | Capitol Bureau Chief
December 8, 2007
When are lobbyists not really lobbyists? When they
work for the
state of Connecticut.
In that case, they are called "legislative liaisons,"
although they
often do the same type of work as "black hat" lobbyists who are hired
by corporations or special interests: try to influence legislation.
The disclosure earlier this week of the relationship
between Sen.
Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden, and a legislative liaison for the Connecticut
State University system has focused a spotlight on the issue and
prompted some legislators to call for placing restrictions on this
category of state employees.
Gaffey and the liaison, Jill Ferraiolo, both worked this
fall on CSU's
controversial request for $1 billion in bond funds for construction
projects at the four-campus university system. The request was vetoed
by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell in the first bond package, but a
slightly smaller, $950 million package, was later passed.
The issue arose when Courant columnist Kevin Rennie
disclosed Gaffey
and Ferraiolo's relationship, questioning the propriety of their
working together on the CSU bonding package.
Since state ethics laws are based on whether a legislator
or family
member receives any financial gain, some legislators have said the
relationship between Gaffey and Ferraiolo violated no laws or ethical
principles. Although some Republicans called for an investigation,
Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn and the
highest-ranking senator, responded that there would be no probe into
Gaffey's actions.
But legislators still cannot agree whether the liaisons
are actually
lobbyists. Gaffey has argued that Ferraiolo is not a lobbyist.
Unlike the registered "black hat" lobbyists, the liaisons
represent
state agencies and are permitted to walk unrestricted onto the House
and Senate floors during legislative debates. By contrast, registered
lobbyists must stand behind ropes outside the chambers and must file
detailed reports with the state ethics office that list their clients
and the amounts they spend. The attorney general, governor's office,
secretary of the state, chief state's attorney, University of
Connecticut and most major state agencies all have their own state-paid
representatives who are assigned to the Capitol to influence bills.
State records show there are more than 50 people employed
as liaisons.
Often earning more than $100,000 a year, they are a constant presence
at hearings and in the hallways of the Capitol.
Rep. Christopher Caruso, co-chairman of the legislative
committee that
oversees ethics, said he will be offering a bill when the next session
starts in February that will explore placing restrictions on the
liaisons for the first time.
"Legislative liaisons are actual lobbyists," said Caruso,
D-Bridgeport,
who has served in the General Assembly since 1991. "They are promoting
their agency. There should be restrictions — proper disclosure, certain
restrictions as to what they can do and can't do. I don't think there
are any [restrictions now]. It's a free-for-all."
Not known for embracing lobbyists or for mincing words,
Caruso called
lobbyists "the fourth branch of government."
House Republican leader Lawrence Cafero, of Norwalk, who
often
disagrees with Caruso on many issues, agrees with him about the
liaisons. He said one possible reform is to prevent liaisons from
roaming the House floor and restricting them to the "well" of the House
— the carpeted area directly in front of the speaker's dais.
Another possible reform, Cafero said, is to prevent any
lobbying on the
House floor. The liaisons have a two-pronged mission: information and
advocacy. Providing information to the legislators about the state
budget or policies would be permitted on the floor. Pushing for a cause
would not.
But Cafero is very clear that the liaisons are not simply
state
employees.
"There's no doubt about it: they are advocates,
lobbyists," Cafero
said. "Free agents. They can do whatever they want."
Besides Gaffey, fellow Meriden Democrat Christopher
Donovan — the House
majority leader — said the liaisons must be treated differently than
their black-hat counterparts.
"They're not lobbyists," Donovan said. "They are a branch
of
government. We should have access to those people."
Since black-hat lobbyists are not permitted on the floor
to speak to a
legislator, they sometimes ask a legislative liaison to go inside the
chamber and ask the legislator to come back outside to talk to the
registered lobbyist. But Caruso said no liaison had ever approached him
on the House floor with such a request, saying that practice should be
outlawed. The problem, he said, would be trying to keep up with the
personal side of legislators spread all over the state.
"If we investigated the lives of legislators," Caruso
said, "we'd have
a 24-hour committee, nonstop."
Lawmakers
get personal on laptop theft
during state hearing
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Brian Lockhart, Staff Writer
Published September 25 2007
HARTFORD - Two area legislators said yesterday they were
personally affected by the theft of a state Department of Revenue
Services laptop containing tax data from nearly 109,000 individual
taxpayers and businesses. The revelation from state Reps. Carlo
Leone, D-Stamford, and Lile Gibbons, R-Greenwich, came during a
three-hour hearing held by the legislature's Finance, Revenue and
Bonding Committee on the August theft. Leone told committee
colleagues he was one of more than 29,000 taxpayers who have so far
taken the state up on its offer of free credit monitoring through Debix
Identity Protection Network.
"I'm hopeful it's going to work," Leone said.
Gibbons, who also sits on the Finance Committee, said her
husband's tax
information and Social Security number also were on the laptop.
Gibbons told revenue services staff that they have broken the trust of
residents who rely on the state to secure their personal information.
"In America, we have a voluntary system of paying our
taxes," she said.
"We do so because we believe our information won't be compromised."
The laptop theft occurred Aug. 17; Revenue Services
Commissioner Pam
Law said yesterday an internal investigation was ongoing. In her
first public comments on the theft, Law told legislators the computer
was taken from a department employee's car. Law said the
employee, who had traveled to Long Island, N.Y., for a family event,
had permission to take the laptop to test the department's new
electronic taxpayer service center that weekend. But she said the
taxpayer information should not have been on the computer.
"This information was not needed for the test," Law said,
adding the
data might have been left from another project in December and
mistakenly downloaded by the employee from his office computer. She
said that was part of the investigation.
But the information should not have been stored for so
long on the
worker's office computer, Law said.
"He was in breach of department policy, is that correct?"
said state
Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich, the committee's ranking Republican.
He was, Law said, but the unnamed employee remains at
work pending the
results of the internal probe. The department initially reported
the laptop contained the names and Social Security numbers of 106,000
taxpayers. But Law and her staff yesterday said other information, such
as federal adjusted gross income, Connecticut income taxes,
withholdings, overpayments and refunds also were on it. The
department yesterday also increased the number of affected taxpayers by
1,310 and said that the bank routing numbers and account information
for 1,618 businesses also were involved.
Law and her staff said they believe all affected
taxpayers and
businesses have been contacted. She said it took 11 days to
notify the public of the theft because revenue services staff had to
determine what was on the stolen laptop. Law and her staff sought
to assure lawmakers and the public that the credit-monitoring service
was sufficient and they should not be overly concerned.
"We have no indication any of this data has been accessed
or misused,"
Law said.
Cal Mellor, assistant chief of the state's tax division,
said identity
thieves typically act within two or three days after obtaining
necessary information.
"I hope that's true for my personal sake and everyone
else on the
list," Leone said.
But later in the hearing, Mellor was contradicted by
state Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal, who said taxpayers should remain worried
about theft of their Social Security numbers.
"They
are often
the keys to the kingdom," Blumenthal said. "(Loss of) that kind of
information alone is extremely and deeply troubling. The point is we
cannot know today the ramifications of this breach." The full
repercussions of the laptop theft may not be known for a year,
Blumenthal said.
Law
told the Finance Committee that her department has followed
Blumenthal's suggestions to offer two years of free credit protection,
instead of one, and to increase the amount of identity theft insurance
the state is offering from $5,000 to $25,000 for each affected
taxpayer. Revenue Services Deputy Commissioner Richard Nicholson
said that since the theft, the department also has concluded encryption
of all its 154 laptops; purged them of any sensitive data; and
established a written process for releasing laptops out of the office
and ensuring data is quickly purged. Nicholson said the
department also is working to establish random internal audits to
ensure employees are following procedures.
After the theft, Gov. M. Jodi Rell also issued orders to
improve
oversight of all state-owned laptops. State Rep. Brendan Sharkey,
D-Hamden, scolded Law and her staff for what he viewed as an initial
lack of communication from the department about the theft.
"It's a shame we had to go to the extreme of having a
public hearing to
get some of the information we got today," Sharkey said. He added
that it appeared the department had been nonchalant in addressing the
theft and its potential effect on taxpayers.
But Law said the department "did an extraordinarily large
amount of
work in a couple days" in trying to gauge the scope of the theft.
She also apologized more than once during the hearing for
the loss of
the taxpayer information, saying she sincerely regretted the
incident. Nicholson told Sharkey the department's entire staff
has been shaken by the event.
"There's really a pall over the
department right now,"
Nicholson said. "They take this very seriously. The employees are
extremely upset. They do not want this black mark on the department."
L O N
G S E S S I O N 2 0 0 7
No budget, no smart
growth...NADA.
There was to be an "Omnibus
Bill" in Special Session (S.B.1500 - June Special Session Public
Act No. 07- 4). Some bills
that passed during
the Long Session
HERE
Governor
Rell opened the Long Session on January 3rd - we looked for emphasis on
"Responsible Development." This website hoped the new Session
would itself be an exercize in "Responsible Government."
Our
favorite Committees' Bill Book links below (plus Appropriations
sub-Committee links):
Connecticut
General Assembly
(CGA) website or go directly to:
More great direct links:
- THE WHOLE
STORY OF HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW: WARNING: this
is pure fantasy. The most significant part of the "How a
bill becomes
a law" link previously noted is at the end..."bill becomes law if: 1.
the governor signs it; 2. the governor
fails to sign within 5 days during the legislative session or 15 days
after adjournment; 3. the vetoed bill is repassed in each house by a
2/3 vote of the elected membership."
- DEADLINES;
- Ethics changes mixed in with gifts
of State Land;
- Opening day procedural move...
- Associated
Press pitch on the new
Session...(starts this coming Wednesday);
- Office of Legislative Research (OLR)
- Legislative Commissioners' Office (LCO)
- Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA)
- FROM THE
PRINCIPAL ANALYST AT O.L.R.Every
year, legislative leaders ask the Office of Legislative Research (OLR)
to identify and provide brief descriptions of important issues that the
General Assembly may face in the coming session
OUR
SUMMARY...things we were watching out for that we were happy to see
included in Omnibus Senate Bill 1500...
- Read
interview with one of the "winners" this
Session.
- Read
about the
"incentives" housing legislation
passed as part of Omnibus Bill 1500 here!
- BLUE
RIBBON COMMISSION to
assess
the housing/economy linkage -
Click here.
- School
bus idling emissions;
- California
standards for auto
emissions - Section 34;
- Bio
Diesel - Section 51;
- MOVIE
BILL FIX - Section 69.
Some of
the new language
(46)
"Video service" means video
programming services provided through wireline facilities, a portion of
which are located in the public right-of-way, without regard to
delivery technology, including Internet protocol technology. "Video
service" does not include any video programming provided by a
commercial mobile service provider, as defined in 47 USC 332(d), any
video programming provided as part of community antenna television
service in a franchise area as of October 1, 2007, any video
programming provided as part of and via a service that enables users to
access content, information, electronic mail or other services over the
public Internet;
(47) "Certified competitive video service provider" means an entity
providing video service pursuant to a certificate of video franchise
authority issued by the department in accordance with section 2 of this
act. "Certified competitive video service provider" does not mean an
entity issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity in
accordance with section 16-331 or the affiliates, successors and
assigns of such entity or an entity issued a certificate of cable
franchise authority in accordance with section 13 of this act or the
affiliates, successors and assignees of such entity;
(48) "Certificate of video franchise authority" means an authorization
issued by the Department of Public Utility Control conferring the right
to an entity or person to own, lease, maintain, operate, manage or
control facilities in, under or over any public highway to offer video
service to any subscribers in the state; and
(49) "Certificate of cable franchise authority" means an authorization
issued by the Department of Public Utility Control pursuant to section
14 of this act conferring the right to a community antenna television
company to own, lease, maintain, operate, manage or control a community
antenna television system in, under or over any public highway to (A)
offer community antenna television service in a community antenna
television company's designated franchise area, or (B) use the public
rights-of-way to offer video service in a designated franchise area.
The certificate of cable franchise authority shall be issued as an
alternative to a certificate of public convenience and necessity
pursuant to section 16-331 and shall only be available to a community
antenna television company under the terms specified in sections 14 to
24, inclusive, of this act.
---------------------------------
Some more
new language:
Sec. 14.
(NEW) (Effective October
1, 2007) (a) The Department of Public Utility Control shall not require
a company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority to comply
with any facility build-out requirements or provide community antenna
television service or video service to any customer using any specific
technology.
(b) The Department of Public Utility Control shall not impose any
provision regulating rates charged by a community antenna television
company holding a certificate of cable franchise authority, except as
set forth in federal law.
Sec. 15. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) A company holding a cable
franchise authority certificate shall not deny access to service to any
group of potential residential subscribers based solely upon the income
of the residents in the local area in which such group resides. An
affected person may seek enforcement of this requirement by filing a
complaint with the Department of Public Utility Control. A municipality
within which the potential residential community antenna television
service or video service subscriber resides may be considered an
affected person for purposes of this section.
Sec. 16. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) A company issued a
certificate of cable franchise authority shall be subject to the
community access programming and operations provisions set forth in
subsections (b) to (i), inclusive, and subsections (k), (l) and (n) of
section 16-331a of the general statutes and any regulations pursuant
thereto, and subsection (c) of section 16-333 of the general statutes
and any regulations pursuant thereto.
(b) A company issued a cable franchise authority certificate shall
provide transmission of the Connecticut Television Network to all its
subscribers, including real-time transmission as technically feasible.
Sec. 17. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) A company issued a
certificate of cable franchise authority shall, twice a year, convene a
meeting with the advisory council established pursuant to its previous
certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to
section 16-331 of the general statutes. Members shall be appointed in
accordance with section 16-331d of the general statutes. No member of
the advisory council shall be an employee of a company providing
community antenna television service or video service. For the purposes
of this subsection, an employee includes any person working full or
part time or performing any subcontracting or consulting services for a
company providing community antenna television service or video
service.
(b) A company issued a cable franchise authority certificate shall
provide funding to the advisory council in the amount of two thousand
dollars per year.
(c) Members of the advisory council shall serve without compensation.
For the purposes of this section, compensation shall include the
receipt of any free or discounted community antenna television service
or video service.
(d) The Department of Public Utility Control shall designate the
advisory council as an intervenor in any contested case proceeding
before the department involving the company it advises. Such company
shall provide to the chairperson of the advisory council a copy of any
report, notice or other document it files with the department in any
applicable proceeding.
(e) Any company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority
shall, every six months, provide on bills, bill inserts or letters to
subscribers, a notice indicating the name and address of the
chairperson of the advisory council and describing the responsibilities
of such advisory council. The advisory council shall have an
opportunity to review such notice prior to its distribution.
Sec. 18. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) At the time of initial
subscription, and annually thereafter, a company issued a certificate
of cable franchise authority shall provide subscribers with a
description of the community antenna television service or video
service offerings and current rates, a description of the company's
credit policies, including any finance charges or late payment charges
and a description of the company's billing practices and complaint
procedures upon request.
(b) In accordance with 47 USC 551, at the time of entering into an
agreement to provide community antenna television or video service to a
subscriber, a company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority
shall inform the subscriber of its practices regarding the collection
and use of personally identifiable customer information, including (1)
the type of information collected, (2) the purposes for which it is
used, (3) the extent and manner in which it is shared with unaffiliated
third parties for purposes of enabling delivery of the community
antenna television or video service, and (4) its procedures to ensure
the subscriber's right to privacy. A holder of a certificate of cable
franchise authority shall not disclose personally identifiable customer
information other than anonymous or aggregate data to unaffiliated
third parties for their own marketing purposes without the consent of
such subscriber.
(c) A company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority shall
implement an informal process for handling Department of Public Utility
Control and customer inquiries, billing issues, service issues and
other complaints. In the event an issue is not resolved through this
informal process, a customer may request from the department a
confidential, nonbinding mediation with the company, and a designated
member of the department staff shall serve as the mediator. If the
mediation is unsuccessful, the customer may file a formal complaint
with the department. The department's sole jurisdiction over the
complaint is to determine if the company is in compliance with sections
14 to 24, inclusive, of this act, or any other laws, regulations or
orders applicable to companies holding a certificate of cable franchise
authority. If the company is found to be in noncompliance, the
department shall order the company to remedy such noncompliance within
a reasonable period of time. Failure to comply may subject the company
to civil penalties and revocation of the certificate, as provided in
section 24 of this act.
(d) A company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority shall
comply with the customer service requirements of 47 CFR 76. 309(c) for
its community antenna television or video services. A company issued a
certificate of cable franchise authority shall not be subject to any
other state law or regulation or department order to the extent it
imposes customer service requirements in excess of or more stringent
than 47 CFR 76. 309(c).
Sec. 19. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) Except when otherwise
required by federal law, a company issued a certificate of cable
franchise authority shall inform the Department of Public Utility
Control of any planned programming or rate changes not less than thirty
days before implementing such changes unless (1) such changes are
required by law to be made in less than thirty days, or (2) in
appropriate circumstances where a shorter notice period is in the best
interest of the company's subscribers.
(b) Except when otherwise required by federal law, a company issued a
certificate of cable franchise authority shall inform each of its
subscribers, the chairpersons of the joint standing committee of the
General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to technology
and the chairperson of the applicable advisory council of any planned
elimination or reduction in programming or planned rate increases not
less than thirty days before implementing such changes unless (1) such
changes are required by law to be made in less than thirty days, or (2)
the department prescribes a longer or shorter notice period in
appropriate circumstances where such longer or shorter notice period is
in the best interest of the company's subscribers. The advisory council
may hold an advisory public hearing concerning the planned changes and
may then make a recommendation to the company before the planned
implementation date.
Sec. 20. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) If community antenna
television service or video service provided to a subscriber by a
company holding a certificate of cable franchise authority experiences
a service outage for more than twenty-four continuous hours, such
subscriber shall receive a credit or refund from such company in an
amount that represents the proportionate share of such service not
received in a billing period, provided such interruption is not caused
by the subscriber.
Sec. 21. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) A company issued a
certificate of cable franchise authority shall make closed captioning
available when simultaneously broadcast with video signals carried by
the company.
(b) A company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority shall
offer the concurrent rebroadcast of local television broadcast
channels, or utilize another economically and technically feasible
process for providing an appropriate message through the company's
community antenna television service or video service in the event of a
public safety emergency issued over the emergency broadcast system.
Sec. 22. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) A company issued a
certificate of cable franchise authority shall provide any library
serving the public and any school system, college or university,
located in a part of the company's franchise area where service is
available, with one outlet for basic community antenna television
service or video service at no charge if such library, school system,
college or university participates in educational or public access
programming offered throughout the company's franchise area. The
Department of Public Utility Control may exempt any company with a
certificate of cable franchise authority from providing such service at
no charge if it would have an adverse impact on such company. No
company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority shall be
required to provide this free service if the library or school is
receiving community antenna television service or video service from
another provider.
Sec. 23. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) Nothing in sections 14
to 24, inclusive, of this act shall be construed to relieve a company
issued a certificate of cable franchise authority from such company's
obligations under any federal or state laws or regulations or
Department of Public Utility Control orders applicable to community
antenna television companies or public service companies, or from any
other federal or state laws or regulations or department orders unless
specified in sections 14 to 24, inclusive, of this act.
(b) A company issued a certificate of cable franchise authority shall
not be subject to subdivisions (1), (2), (3), (5) and (6) of subsection
(d) of section 16-331 of the general statutes, subsections (f) and (h)
of section 16-331 of the general statutes, and subsections (e) and (f)
of section 16-333 of the general statutes or to any regulations or
department orders implemented or arising from said sections.
Sec. 24. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) A holder of a certificate of
cable franchise authority, and the officers, agents and employees of
such cable franchise authority, shall obey, observe and comply with
sections 14 to 24, inclusive, of this act and each applicable order
made by the Department of Public Utility Control pursuant to sections
14 to 24, inclusive, of this act. A holder of a cable franchise
authority certificate that the department finds has failed to obey or
comply with sections 14 to 24, inclusive, of this act or any applicable
order made by the department pursuant thereto may be fined, by order of
the department, not more than ten thousand dollars for each offense.
Each distinct violation of any such order shall be a separate offense
and, in the case of a continued violation, each day thereof shall be
deemed a separate offense. The department shall impose any such civil
penalty in accordance with the procedure established in section 16-41
of the general statutes. If such penalty is imposed, it shall be the
sole remedy for such violation. The department shall also have the
authority to revoke the certificate of cable franchise authority if the
holder of the certificate is found, after a department hearing with
notice to all interested parties, to be in substantial noncompliance
with the requirements of law or department orders.
--------------------------------
OLR
Bill Anaysis
sHB 7182 (as amended by House “A” and
“C”)*
AN ACT CONCERNING CERTIFIED COMPETITIVE VIDEO SERVICE.
Community
Access provisions below, summary of complete bill: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/SUM/2007SUM00253-R02HB-07182-SUM.htm
Community
Access. Within 120 days
after a provider begins offering service in an area under its
certificate, it must provide capacity over its video service to allow
community access programming in its basic service package. The provider
must provide
1. the same number of community access channels as currently is offered
by the incumbent cable TV company in the area;
2. funds for community access operations in the same way as cable TV
companies; and
3. for the transmission of community access programming with
connectivity up to at least 200 feet from its activated wireline
distribution facility and must do so without imposing additional
requirements for the creation of any content.
The community access programming must be submitted to the provider in a
form compatible with the technology or protocol it uses to deliver
video services over its network, and must be capable of being accepted
and transmitted by the provider, without requirement for additional
alteration or change in the content by the provider.
`Rat' Reigns As Law Of Land
Hartford
Courant editorial
July
22, 2007
Earlier
this month, Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed into law a bill with a
hastily tacked-on amendment - a legislative "rat" - that is a back-door
assault on the integrity of Connecticut's most pristine watershed
lands. That the General Assembly would adopt such legislation without
benefit of a public hearing is bad enough. That Mrs. Rell would see fit
to make it law is at least as disturbing.
The
amendment, introduced by New Britain's legislative delegation,
creates a custom-made exception to the state's water-pollution laws for
Tilcon Connecticut Inc., a New Britain-based company with strong
political connections.
Tilcon
operates a quarry in Plainville near some watershed land owned
by the city of New Britain.
Watershed
land (especially Class I watershed, which is within 250 feet
of a reservoir) enjoys stringent protections under Connecticut's
pollution laws. The law signed by Mrs. Rell waives those protections
and allows New Britain to enter into a 40-year, multimillion-dollar
lease with Tilcon to mine gravel on 131.4 acres of city-owned watershed
land - including Class I land - in an area known as Biddle Pass.
In
a statement released this week, Mrs. Rell admitted to some unease
over the law's underhanded origins. "I was disturbed that there was no
public hearing on this proposal and that the regular legislative
process was not followed," she said. Yet she said the amendment
contains "numerous safeguards," including public hearings by state and
city agencies and an independent environmental analysis, to ensure that
Tilcon's proposal undergoes a stringent review.
"I
am satisfied that the state's water supply and the health and safety
of the people of Connecticut will not be jeopardized," she said. We
hope that's true.
Still,
this amendment begins with a phrase that, while short, has
breathtaking implications: "Notwithstanding any provision of chapter
474 of the general statutes ..." In other words, for purposes of this
sweetheart deal between Tilcon, the city of New Britain and any state
lawmakers whose campaign coffers may benefit, Connecticut's pollution
laws protecting its watershed lands don't apply.
We
suspect there are many municipalities, water companies and other
businesses whose bottom lines would benefit from the corruption of
Connecticut's watershed lands. Now that the General Assembly and Mrs.
Rell have set the precedent, it may be only a matter of time before
those protections are further eroded.
Answers
About Gambling;
Connecticut has a chance to go where nobody's gone and figure out the
impact of its lucrative games of chance.
DAY
Editorial
Published on 7/15/2007
After a decade-long hiatus, the
General Assembly agreed this year to go
ahead with a fresh study of the impact of gambling on Connecticut. The
study at last will bring the state into conformity with a legal
mandate. But it should do more than satisfy the letter of the law. It
ought to rise above conventional wisdom and produce original insights
that help the public and its policy makers make sensible decisions in
the future about this increasingly pervasive social and economic
phenomenon.
The study will be undertaken by a
contractor for the state office that
regulates legalized gambling and harvests the lucrative proceeds for
the state government, the Division of Special Revenue. The agency has a
lot of territory to cover, and only $700,000 at its disposal to pay for
the job. Since the last study was published 10 years ago, a second
casino has emerged, and the two giants have gone through massive
expansions. In addition to Las Vegas-style gambling at the casinos,
Connecticut has a lottery and Off Track Betting. There is also
simulcast racing at Shoreline Star Greyhound Park in Bridgeport. Jai
alai, and live horse and greyhound racing are also legal in
Connecticut, although they are currently not available.
Here are a few of the issues the new
examination of legalized gambling
in Connecticut ought to touch upon:
•The economic impact of the state's
two Indian casinos. That inquiry
should be a nuanced one that goes beyond the jobs created and the money
these businesses produce in the economy. What effect does employment at
the casinos have on the labor market for other businesses, and how much
does gambling take away from other enterprises, or complement them? The
study needs to take a qualitative as well as quantitative look at the
new jobs, and how they add or subtract from the region's well being. It
should look to labor organizations for their perspective on issues
affecting job quality, a recommendation of the federal gambling impact
study completed in 1999.
•The burdens that the expansion of
gambling in eastern Connecticut has
placed upon public works, public services, housing and transportation.
A true-to-life picture of this impact would better inform the
legislature in making use of its gambling revenues to address
shortcomings and to develop new strategies for meeting housing and
transportation needs. The weight of casino growth on public schools
also needs attention.
•The social costs. The study should
provide an accurate and up-to-date
picture of the dimensions of problem gambling and its effects,
including bankruptcies, family problems, lost jobs and gambling-related
crime. A better understanding of the depth and breadth of these issues
and public-health aspects of gambling will help develop better methods
to deal with them.
•Government dependency on gambling
revenue. The state relies on
gambling for what is approaching $1 billion in revenue every year. That
makes the proceeds a significant part of the state income structure
that would be difficult to replace without increasing taxes
significantly. The study should examine the soundness of a fiscal
policy so heavily reliant on games of chance, as well as dependent upon
a single industry.
•Casino tourism. The eastern
Connecticut casinos have become a
cornerstone of the state's tourism industry. A good gambling study
would look at how well gambling has been assimilated into the state's
strategies to capitalize on tourism.
•Costs and benefits. This is one of
the conspicuous unknowns, in which
there are few if any good analytical tools. The study nevertheless must
take a stab at judging this crucial question.
•Way of life. There are two opposing
views about the impact the casinos
have had on Connecticut, and the larger question of how the growing
phenomenon of legalized gambling has affected the quality of life. The
pessimistic view is that gambling has had a corrosive effect. The
opposite perspective is that the economic growth, jobs and retail
expansion from casinos have enhanced the quality of life and made the
state a more interesting place. No gambling study, including the
federal one, has shed much light on this issue. Connecticut, with the
world's two biggest casinos, is in a good position to begin to
understand whether the growth of gambling is good or bad for us.
Everyone has a theory and point of
view on the impact of gambling. This
study offers a chance to get at the truth and help policy makers come
to terms with the growth of legalized gambling.
If it succeeds at this, it will be a
first. If it doesn't, Connecticut
risks leaving its future to chance.
Rell signs bill to
reduce shortfall in teachers' pension fund
DAY
Posted on Jul 10,
6:56 PM EDT
HARTFORD, Conn.
(AP) -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Tuesday
signed legislation that authorizes borrowing money to reduce a $6.9
billion shortfall in the state teachers' pension fund.
The law calls for issuing $2 billion in pension
obligation bonds, and
it requires the state to fund the pension system at 100 percent of the
actuarial-recommended level, which the government failed to do from
1992 to 2005.
"Teachers should not have to worry that there will be
insufficient
funds for their retirement pensions," Rell said in a statement.
The nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis said the net
impact of the
bill would be to reduce the teachers' pension fund liability by $1
billion.
While assets would increase by $3.6 billion from the bond
issue and
other moves, there would be an increase of $2.6 billion in liability
from reinstating guaranteed cost-of-living increases for retired
teachers.
The pension fund now holds $10.2 billion, representing
nearly 60
percent of its obligations, according to Rell's office. The new bonds
will be issued at an interest rate of about 5.6 percent.
The Connecticut Education Association, the state's
largest teachers'
union, said full funding of the pension system is vital because
Connecticut's teachers do not participate in Social Security.
"Adequately funded pensions are necessary if Connecticut
is to attract
and retain professionals in our schools," said John Yrchik, executive
director of the CEA.
Tied party primaries will no
longer settled by flip of coin
New Haven Register
Gregory B. Hladky, Capitol Bureau Chief
07/10/2007
HARTFORD — A new law that's just taken effect will do
away with an
obscure Connecticut provision — which was used only once in the past 50
years — to decide a tie vote in some party primaries by the flip of a
coin.
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said Monday that
the new law
will require that, in the case of a tie vote in a primary for state,
district, municipal or town committee nominations, a new primary
election be held three weeks after the initial vote.
The new legislation that Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed into
law last week
won't affect Connecticut's system for resolving tie votes in statewide
or legislative general elections, which are systems that don't depend
on pure luck.
"Tie votes are of course extremely uncommon in
elections," Bysiewicz
said.
The only one on record occurred in 2006 when the
candidates in Groton's
41st Assembly District Democratic primary each received 457 votes. The
contest between Elissa T. Wright and Rita Schmidt was decided on a coin
toss, and Wright won.
"In fact, there have been no other ‘ties' in Connecticut
in at least 50
years," Bysiewicz said.
Wright's experience in winning a primary by the toss of a
coin
convinced her to join Bysiewicz in supporting legislation this year to
change the system.
"No candidate should have to worry that a tie would mean
a coin-flip,
and, more importantly, no voter should feel disenfranchised," said
Bysiewicz. "All elections, no matter what the outcome, should be in the
hands of the voters."
Connecticut law has never used the flip of a coin to
decide a tie in a
general election vote.
In the case of a general election tie for a statewide
office such as
governor, the General Assembly would elect the winner. In the case of a
tie in a general legislative election, a runoff would be conducted
three weeks later.
But Connecticut is far from the only state that had coin
flips on the
books as a legitimate way to decide a primary tie.
The Connecticut Office of Legislative Research surveyed
18 other states
and found that at least 12 included drawing of lots or the toss of a
coin as one method of deciding a primary tie. Those states include
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
Idaho, Minnesota, Utah, Virginia and Washington decide
ties in either a
primary or a general election by drawing of lots or coin flips,
according to the OLR report.
Other states have tried different methods for resolving
ties in primary
elections. Louisiana, for example, allows any candidate who ties in a
primary to qualify for the general election ballot.
House approves new two-year, $36 billion
state budget
DAY
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated
Press Writer
Posted on Jun 23, 5:19 AM
EDT
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- -
The House of Representatives voted
overwhelmingly early Saturday to support a new two-year, $36 billion
state budget that spends historic sums on local education and health
care.
The 134-5 vote came at 2:25
a.m. after hours of 11th-hour, back room
negotiations, and more than two weeks after the legislature adjourned
its regular session on June 6.
The bill now moves to the
Senate for consideration Monday.
"I hope we can say by the
end of this session that every child in
Connecticut has access to health care," said Rep. Denise Merrill,
D-Mansfield, co-chairman of the legislature's Appropriations Committee.
Despite weeks of discussion
about cutting and raising taxes, the
package only raises the state's cigarette tax, from $1.51 to $2 per
pack.
"We have not gone back to
the taxpayers and put our hands further in
their pockets," said Rep. Kevin DelGobbo, R-Naugatuck, ranking
Republican on the Appropriations Committee.
The House also passed two
bills spelling out details of human services
and education programs in the budget. However, it did not vote on
several other budget-related bills, including the bonding package,
before adjourning at 5 a.m.
Members are expected to
return to the Capitol to vote on the bills,
possibly before the fiscal year ends on June 30.
The Senate, which originally
planned to meet Saturday, scrapped those
plans and scheduled a vote for Monday.
Various roadblocks popped up
Friday as lawmakers negotiated final
details. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell said much of the holdup was due
to disagreements over the wording in the complicated legislation.
Rell, who faces a
Democrat-heavy legislative with a veto-proof
majority, refused to sign off on breaking the state's constitutional
spending cap until she received all the budget bills and scrutinized
them.
"Legally I can't sign it,"
Rell said. Without her signature, the House
couldn't act.
The legislature's
nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis said the budget
exceeds the spending cap by $690.4 million in fiscal year 2008. It is
projected to be under the cap by about $29 million in fiscal year 2009.
Much of the increase in
spending stems from boosted education and
health care funding. The plan increases spending by 8.6 percent in
fiscal year 2008 and 4 percent in fiscal year 2009.
Saturday's vote came more
than two weeks after the legislature
adjourned its regular session on June 6 without an agreement.
Majority Democrats and the
Republicans had been sparring for weeks over
spending levels and whether certain taxes should be increased or
reduced. The impasse came in a fiscal year predicted to end with a
nearly $1 billion surplus.
The package includes an
additional $441 million over two years for
local school aid, the largest increase in state history. There are also
new measures requiring school districts to account for the funding and
measure their students' achievement.
It also includes $94 million
in the first year and $120.7 million in
the second to boost reimbursement rates to doctors, hospitals, clinics
and dentists that serve needy patients on Medicaid.
Physicians have not seen a
rate increase in 18 years, lawmakers said.
The low reimbursement rate has made some doctors reluctant to see
patients in state health insurance programs.
The budget also increases
funding for state parks, setting aside $1.7
million to hire additional park personnel. It also provides more money
for programs that help the elderly, such as personal care assistants
and Dial-a-Ride; and full funding for day programs provided to young
adults with developmental disabilities who recently graduated from high
school.
It includes 3 percent
funding increases for nursing homes and private,
nonprofit agencies that provide everything from group homes for the
mentally retarded to programs for the homeless.
Some Democrats voiced
disappointment Saturday that the plan does not
change the rate structure of the personal income tax.
Both House and Senate
Democrats touted a tax package they claimed would
have provided a tax cut to 95 percent of taxpayers. The proposal
lowered rates for lower- and middle-income wage earners, but raised
rates for wealthier taxpayers.
Rep. Henry Genga, D-East
Hartford, said he was disappointed that the
Democrats' proposal to double the maximum $500 property tax credit
against the income tax wasn't included.
"I think that would have
given the majority, the overwhelming majority
of people, real property tax relief," he said.
The budget also won't bring
relief at the gas pumps.
Lawmakers decided not to
suspend a July 1 increase in the state
petroleum products gross receipts tax, a tax that gas stations pass on
to consumers. The tax is set to rise 6.72 percent to 7.53 percent,
adding an extra 2 cents per gallon.
House Speaker James Amann,
D-Milford, said suspending the tax increase
would cost about $30 million. He said the legislature might revisit the
idea if state revenue estimates continue to improve.
No, they exempted
out of the course altogether! No final exam, no summer school - but may have to repeat this whole
exercise next Long Session!
Disappointing Compromise
DAY editorial
Published on 6/21/2007
This was supposed to be a year of substantive change by
our state
elected leaders. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell proposed an
across-the-board income tax increase, but with a purpose — property tax
reform.
State funding for education would be increased
significantly, easing
the burden on municipalities. The trade off would be a 3 percent cap on
increasing the property taxes in any one year. The governor also again
called for elimination of the car tax.
Democrats, with
veto-proof majorities
in the House and Senate, had their own ideas for substantive change.
The majority-party used its political muscle to produce a budget that
would install a progressive income tax system. Taxes for the wealthiest
income earners would increase, but most workers would see a tax cut,
and the property-tax credit for the middle class would be doubled to
$1,000. It is disappointing then that when a final budget deal
was struck these ambitious proposals had been replaced with business as
usual. There will be no progressive tax reform. No property tax
cap. No elimination of the car tax. No increase in the property-tax
credit.
But there will be a substantial increase in spending.
While the final
figures were still being calculated Wednesday, the estimated increase
is about 8 percent.
Flush with a current state surplus of $917 million, the
Republican
governor and Democratic legislative majority have concluded they can
increase education spending, expand health care for the poor, and
provide for increased pay and benefits for state workers without any
tax increases to pay for it. That may make for good short-term
politics, but it is bad long-term public policy. Capital gains tied to
a bullish stock market boosted income tax revenues, as did gross
receipts taxes that rose with the price of fuel and gasoline, producing
the surplus.
These unexpectedly high revenues may carry the bloated
budget forward
for a year or two, but it will not be sustainable.
In time the market and, probably, fuel prices will
flatten out, as will
the revenues. But demands on state spending will continue to grow, as
they always do, and our state elected leaders have not put in place a
tax structure to pay for it. Don't be surprised if in a year or
two education and other state aid to towns and cities is again being
cut, further obligating already overburdened homeowners to make up the
difference through ever-higher property taxes.
The budget still has to be approved by the governor and
signed into law
by the legislature, but at this point that appears to be a mere
formality. Gov. Rell has failed to deliver on promised property
tax relief. The Democratic legislative leadership failed to provide a
progressive income tax system.
That could have been the grand compromise — property tax
relief in
return for a progressive income tax system. Instead the state got
more of the same.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
- BONDING;
- QUESTION:
DID
THE LEGISLATURE TURN INTO
A PUMPKIN WEDNESDAY?
ANSWER: YES, IT DID.
- QUESTION:
DO
THEY HAVE A
BUDGET? ANSWER:
NOT YET.
- WHEN
WILL THERE BE
ONE? WHEN A SPECIAL SESSION IS CALLED AND ENACTS ONE
GOVERNOR RELL CAN SIGN.
- WHO
ANNOUNCES OR CALLS
THE SESSION? IT DEPENDS.
- WHO
SETS THE WORDING OF
THE 'CALL' (LEGAL NOTICE)
AND
- WHAT
CAN BE CONSIDERED AT
THE SPECIAL SESSION? SEE ANSWER TO #4,
- WHO
MAKES THE
PARLIAMENTARY RULES? THE TWO GUYS ABOVE AND
SENATOR WILLIAMS, WE
SUPPOSE. QUESTION:
WILL ANY SPECIAL SESSION INCLUDE ACTION TO APPROVE H.B. 5234 (NO
PESTICIDE USE ON SCHOOL PROPERTY)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOME
OF THE BILLS THAT PASSED IN REGULAR SESSION AND HOW THEY ARE BEING
USED:
State's Tax
Credits Play A Leading Role In Film-Studio Deal; Advocates Say Strategy
Is Working
DAY
By Ted
Mann
Published on
12/8/2007
State
officials are quietly nearing a deal to lure a leading digital
animation studio — the firm behind the “Ice Age” movies — from New York
to Greenwich, the latest sign that much-heralded tax incentives for
movie production are helping to grow Connecticut's film industry.
Officials from the
state Department of Economic and Community
Development would not comment Friday about the discussions with Blue
Sky Studios, the digital animation studio currently based in White
Plains, N.Y., which also made the children's movie “Robots” and created
special effects for the movies “Fight Club” and “Alien Resurrection.”
But a legislative
source said an agreement to bring the company across
the border to Greenwich could come soon.
Another source said
House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, one of the
most vocal proponents of the film incentives in the legislature, had
visited Blue Sky's headquarters in White Plains Thursday and spoken to
executives from the company. Amann's staff confirmed the visit on
Friday.
Amann declined to
comment on the matter in a phone interview on Friday,
but he has hinted for months that state officials were close to a deal
with an unnamed production company.
Blue Sky Studios
started as a small software and animation firm before
being purchased in 1997 by Fox Filmed Entertainment, a division of the
media giant News Corp. According to the studio's Web site, the firm
currently employs more than 300 people.
An individual familiar
with the discussions among state officials and
the company estimated Blue Sky's combined payroll at more than $50
million.
That Connecticut
officials are talking at all about luring major movie
productions and producers just shows how much the industry has grown
here, some of those who have backed the tax credits said.
In 2005, the year
before the credits were created, expenditures related
to film and TV productions totaled about $750,000. Amann and fellow
lawmakers, citing data from the state's film office, project that
figure would rise to roughly $300 million this year.
There has been a
“monumental change compared to prior to the
incentives,” said Fred Litty, a senior vice president at Sonalysts
Studios in Waterford, a longtime presence in the state's fledgling
industry and a supporter of the incentive program. “There will be
several hundred million dollars of eligible production in the state
this year, whereas prior to the credit becoming effective ... there was
a small fraction of that.”
The film tax credits
are “very popular” in the film industry, said Rob
Simmons, the state's business advocate and a former congressman from
the 2nd District in eastern Connecticut. And, Simmons said, the
relatively quick passage and implementation of the credits showed that
the state can be agile and responsive to economic conditions — at least
on occasion.
The legislature passed
a 30 percent tax break for production expenses
in 2006 and updated the law earlier this year to make the tax credits
more flexible and to apply them also to spending on infrastructure,
including studio buildings.
“Welcome to the new
world economy,” said Simmons, who agreed to speak
about the incentive program but declined comment when asked about Blue
Sky. “Connecticut has to be nimble and Connecticut has to be quick. And
these tax credits show that we're moving in the right direction, using
tax policy to create jobs and to build an interest.
“And if we don't act
this way in other industries, we lose.”
Film
industry tax incentive used to build soundstage
Greenwich
TIME
By Brian Lockhart, Staff
Writer
Published
August 17 2007
NORWALK -- A new movie
soundstage in a 345 Ely Ave. warehouse could be
a focal point for lower Fairfield County's burgeoning movie business.
A Stamford company,
Connecticut Film Center, has used a new state tax
incentive to establish the soundstage.
Film center President
Kevin Segalla yesterday confirmed that he and
partner The Spinnaker Cos. this week closed on a 122,000-square-foot
building vacated three years ago by leather-maker Swank Inc.
Segalla said his
company has been using the building for two months
while waiting for the $9.5 million sale to go through.
His Stamford operation
on Progress Drive, which provides offices for
producers and directors, production assistants, accountants and crews,
and space to store set decorations and wardrobes, will remain there.
"We're in," Segalla
said of the Norwalk warehouse. "We're using it for
production now."
Segalla would not
disclose what film is shooting in the building,
although sources said it likely is "Old Dogs," starring John Travolta
and Robin Williams, which is filming in lower Fairfield County.
Connecticut Film
Center helped bring the Disney production, in which
Travolta and Williams play a pair of friends raising twins, to the area.
The legislature began
offering the film tax credits in July 2006 and
the number of high-profile movie productions in the state has boomed.
Over the past few
weeks, Martin Lawrence was in Stamford and Norwalk
filming his latest comedy, "College Road Trip," a Disney production
about a high school student who travels around the country to choose
the perfect college, accompanied by her overprotective cop father.
Leonardo DiCaprio and
Kate Winslet have been in the area filming
"Revolutionary Road," a DreamWorks production about a 1950s suburban
couple with two children who are caught between their true desires and
the pressure to conform.
Steven Spielberg and
Harrison Ford recently shot scenes for the fourth
Indiana Jones movie in New Haven and Essex.
Segalla said another
production has been lined up to use the Norwalk
sound stage "and we're looking at a very good winter and spring as
well."
Lawmakers this year
decided to expand the tax credits to encourage
movie makers to not just pass through Connecticut but establish offices
and studios here. The revised film bill took effect July 1.
"If we want to develop
a permanent motion picture industry here in
Connecticut, we have to build infrastructure," Segalla said. "This is
forward-thinking."
According to Segalla,
Connecticut Film Center and Spinnaker stand to
receive about $2 million in tax credits on the Ely Avenue sound stage.
The new bill offers credits of 10 percent, 15 percent or 20 percent for
companies that create facilities to support the film industry. The
amount of the credit depends on the cost of the project.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell
yesterday held a ceremonial signing of the bill at
Putnam Memorial Park in Redding, where the "Old Dogs" crew was
preparing to shoot summer camp scenes.
Travolta was on hand
to take photos with star-struck lawmakers and
their families and to endorse the tax credits.
"This year,
Connecticut is winning as the most ideal state to film in,"
said Travolta, who is renting a house in Greenwich during the filming.
"It's not easy to get the breaks you need in any state. Trust me. I've
been all over."
Although the 36
projects approved for the credits stand to cost the
state more than $87 million in lost taxes, Rell said the film industry
has sunk more than $450 million into the state's economy during the
past year.
But
a recent study by the New England Public
Policy Center in Boston said states must do a better job weighing the
effects of lost tax revenue.
"The thought . . . 'Is there a better way to use the
money?' is not on
the forefront," said Darcy Rollins Sass, a policy analyst at the Public
Policy Center.
Rell said yesterday that "trying to weigh the benefits
versus tax
credits is always tricky."
But Karen Senich, director of operations for the
Connecticut Commission
on Culture and Tourism, said she is convinced that the state is coming
out on top.
"When a movie's filming and they need something, they're
going to buy
it," Senich said. "They are spending money. They really are."
Reps. Antonietta "Toni" Boucher, R-Wilton; Gerald Fox
III, D-Stamford;
Carlo Leone, D-Stamford; and John Stripp, R-Weston, also attended the
bill signing.
Spinnaker Chief Executive Officer Clayton Fowler said
Segalla's new
Norwalk soundstage takes up about half the warehouse and he is looking
for a second tenant with ties to the film industry.
"That's something Kevin and I will discuss. There's
interest in
dedicating the whole building to film-related businesses," Fowler said.
"Norwalk is totally wigged out about it."
Mayor Richard Moccia joked "we're going to have to start
putting in a
Norwalk walk of fame."
Officials are wrestling with how to handle the increased
interest in
using the city as a movie location, particularly if many productions
are filming at once, Moccia said.
"We're looking at a couple of things, like our permitting
fee schedule,
and some tighter guidelines on when they can start" filming, Moccia
said. "Right now it's a novelty -- 'Hey, there's Travolta' -- and we
want it. But you don't want to overburden people in town, either."
Lawmakers
Build On Success Of Tax Credit For Film Industry
DAY
By Susan
Haigh, Associated Press Writer
Published on 6/18/2007
Hartford — Last week
was a busy one for Connecticut's budding film
industry.
Actor Leonardo
DiCaprio was in Thomaston filming his new movie
“Revolutionary Road.” A casting call was held in New Haven for Steven
Spielberg's latest “Indiana Jones” film. And crews were in Kent
preparing for Monday's shoot of “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2.”
State officials
believe a new tax credit program, which kicked in on
July 1, 2006, is fueling the burgeoning interest for filming movies in
Connecticut. And they hope a new bill will lure digital media and sound
recording industries while encouraging everything from a sound studio
to post-production facilities to build a permanent home in the state.
“This bill that we
passed this year makes the bill that we did last
year look like nothing,” boasted House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford,
who never misses an opportunity to refer to Connecticut as “Hollywood
East.”
“It's good to have the
tax credits, but we know that Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Canada, New York are going to try to compete with us now,
because we are hot,” he said. “So what we need to do now is build
studios, we need to attract the businesses, we need to build the
employee base, we need to do the education.”
The bill is awaiting
Gov. M. Jodi Rell's signature.
As of May, the
Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism gave
preliminary approval to 36 projects that will be eligible for more than
$87 million in tax credits, according to the legislature's nonpartisan
Office of Fiscal Analysis. State law creates a tax credit equal to 30
percent of qualified production, preproduction and post-production
expenses incurred in Connecticut. The commission's film division is
required to conduct an economic impact analysis of the credit program
by March 2008.
But the numbers
already look good.
From Jan. 1, 2006 to
July 1, 2006, before the tax credit program
started, about $750,000 worth of film production was conducted in
Connecticut. From July 1, 2006 to Dec. 31, 2006, that figure jumped to
$52 million. It's expected to climb to $300 million worth of production
in 2007, said Kevin Segalla, president of Connecticut Film Center, LLC,
a Stamford company that started up the same day lawmakers passed last
year's tax credit bill.
“It's been nonstop
every since,” Segalla said.
The film center, which
Segalla created with a fellow producer, Bruce
Heller, encourages the motion picture industry to come to Connecticut
and then provides moviemakers with everything from deals at hotels to
assistance with the tax credits.
One of the biggest
beneficiaries is Bridgeport, the state's largest
city located along the Long Island Sound, about 60 miles northeast of
New York.
Robert DeNiro and Sean
Penn filmed “What Just Happened” there in April,
and DeNiro is expected to return in August to film “Righteous Kill”
with Al Pacino and rapper 50 Cent.
Action star Steven
Seagal shot “Marker” in eight Bridgeport locations,
and DiCaprio's “Revolutionary Road” and “Sisters of the Traveling Pants
2” is scheduled to shoot in the city this summer.
Other projects
featuring Meryl Streep, Robin Williams and John Travolta
are scheduled to shoot in Bridgeport and some other Connecticut towns
this summer. In all, at least nine major movie productions are
scheduled to film this year in the state.
“What this has done
has truly created an enhanced sense of pride and
excitement, which is great for the moniker of a city or town,”
Bridgeport Mayor John Fabrizi said.
The films have also
led to more revenues, such as rental payments for
city and private buildings, additional overtime pay for city police and
firefighters, hundreds of rented hotel rooms and a boost in business
for local retail stores.
Fabrizi praised the
state's financial efforts to draw the film
industry, but urged leaders to do more.
“They need to sustain
that drive by not allowing other states to
undercut their tax incentive,” he said. “The state has to do everything
within its power to ensure that they can be trendsetting and they can
be above the tax incentives being offered anyplace else.”
Twenty-one states
offer economic incentives to the film industry, said
Heidi Hamilton, director of the state's film division. While most offer
some form of tax credit or rebate, Connecticut's 30 percent credit is
among the highest.
California producer
Alwyn Kushner, who filmed scenes for “Marker” in
Bridgeport, said she would have made Seagal's movie in Rhode Island if
Connecticut didn't offer a 30 percent tax credit.
“Whether it's a studio
or independent filmmaker, it's so cost-effective
to shoot (in Connecticut) because of the tax credit,” she said. “It
would be hard for any other location to offer more.”
Fabrizi is hoping
film-related companies will move to the city, joining
sound companies and a Broadway set builder that already have set up
shop. Ultimately, he'd love someone to take advantage of the state's
proposed movie production infrastructure credit and build a studio in
Bridgeport.
Connecticut currently
has one such facility, Sonalysts Studios in
Waterford. Hamilton said the state also needs another in the southern
part to help New York-based directors and their crew who need to film
projects in December through March.
“We lose productions
because of our seasons,” she said, adding how such
a facility could also lead to more television production in the state.
Segalla said his
company is close to announcing plans to open stages
and post-production facilities in Fairfield County. Connecticut Film
Center currently rents some facilities in the area for visiting film
crews.
“There's a distinct
lack of infrastructure here in the state right now,
so these movies coming in are struggling to find all the things they
need,” he said. “When we put an infrastructure here, it will put us
that much closer to building a permanent industry.”
Once that
infrastructure is in place, Segalla said he won't worry about
competition from other states because of Connecticut's proximity to New
York and its crew base, as well as the many talent who live in both
states.
“I think we've set the
bar at a great spot,” he said. “And I think
we're in a unique place here in Connecticut.”
IN THE
HOUSE:
A picture is worth 1000 words, not to
mention 1000 friends (S.B. 1215) - do you have the same feeling that I
do...that Governor Rell ended up being the sensible person we all voted
for last November?
IN THE
SENATE:
Lt. Governor Tips Tie;
Senate
Votes To Bar Gas Price Tactic; House Mood Unclear
Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, Capitol Bureau Chief
June 1, 2007
Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele looked up at the roll-call board
Thursday and saw a tally that drew a hush from a surprised Senate
chamber: an 18-18 tie.
The dramatic deadlock thrust Fedele, who has had a
low-profile
tenure during the past five months, into the spotlight. It was his
first chance to break a tie on an important vote. The chamber fell
silent, waiting to see how Fedele would vote on the bill to ban the
major oil companies' controversial practice of "zone pricing" gasoline
deliveries.
"Well," Fedele said after a pause, "a decision has been
reached. The amendment is adopted."
Fedele was carrying out the wishes of Republican Gov. M.
Jodi Rell, who
favors the zone pricing ban as a way to provide relief for consumers at
the pumps.
Despite the mini-drama in the Senate, the bill's future
remains
uncertain. House Speaker James Amann was noncommittal Thursday night
when asked if the bill would be debated in his chamber before the
legislature's June 6 adjournment. Citing a lack of consensus among
legislators, Amann, of Milford, declined to hold a debate last year on
a similar bill.
In zone pricing, a longtime practice used by the major
oil companies,
retailers in different communities are charged different prices - even
when the gasoline is delivered by the same truck on the same day. As a
result, a truck could deliver gasoline to a station for one price and
then drive farther down the same street that day and charge a different
price to another retailer.
Some legislators and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
have decried
this practice for years, but the oil companies have responded that
chain hotels and other businesses act in the same way by charging
different prices in different locations.
Lawmakers in Fairfield County have harshly criticized the
practice,
saying it drives up prices, particularly in the state's southwest
corner.
"It's not fair that in my communities that the prices are
10 to 20
cents higher than in other areas of the state," said Sen. Robert Duff,
a Democrat who represents Norwalk and Darien. "This is a first step."
But Sen. Sam Caligiuri, a Waterbury Republican, said
proponents of the
bill were simply relying on anecdotes and could not prove the benefits
of banning zone pricing, even as pump prices have soared to about $3.25
per gallon and beyond.
"There is not a shred of evidence in the record -
credible evidence -
that banning zone pricing" would cut prices at the pump, Caligiuri
said. "You don't have a single bit of evidence it will help - just a
hope."
The senators debated sharply over a report issued by a
Quinnipiac
University professor earlier this year that said gasoline prices would
not be reduced by eliminating zone pricing. Opponents of the ban said
the report - paid for by the major oil companies - was a solid and
reputable academic report unswayed by the oil companies.
But Sen. Andrew McDonald, a Stamford Democrat, ripped the
report as a
useless piece of propaganda.
"That's not science. That's paid-for advocacy," McDonald
said on the
Senate floor. "That study is worth nothing, except for the petroleum
industry that paid for it. ... It lacked credibility when it was
brought to this General Assembly."
Despite support by the Senate and Rell, the fate of the
measure remains
uncertain. The House co-chairman of the committee that oversees the
issue, Rep. Christopher Stone of East Hartford, voted against the bill
when it was debated in the general law committee. Amann avoided a vote
last year, saying that a lengthy debate would waste too much time in
the waning days of the session. A similar bill had passed the Senate
last year by a 29-7 vote, but the bill died on the House calendar
without a vote.
This year's vote was different, partly because three of
the four
freshman senators who were elected in November voted against the ban.
Amann said he would follow the regular process of
consulting the
committee co-chairman and then his 107-member caucus before deciding.
"If the caucus decides they want to debate it, we'll
debate it," Amann
said in an interview Thursday night.
Blumenthal, who has testified often against zone pricing
through the
years, was pleased by the vote.
"It's an historic breakthrough," he said. "This is a
monumental step
for consumers that will have national reverberations."
Rell's spokesman, Rich Harris, noted that the legislation
could change
before reaching Rell's desk.
"Anything we can do to lower the costs of gasoline at the
pump for
consumers is worth taking a look at," Harris said.
SATURDAY...HOUSE AND SENATE BOTH VOTE
'YES' - WILL GOVERNOR SIGN IT?
Senate Vote On Tuition
Nears;
Illegal Immigrants Seek In-State Rate
By COLIN POITRAS, Courant Staff Writer
June 1, 2007
Supporters of a controversial bill allowing illegal
immigrants to pay
in-state tuition costs at Connecticut public colleges and universities
were working feverishly Thursday to secure support the day before a
probable vote in the state Senate.
Proponents of the measure said they had the minimum 19
Senate votes
necessary for the bill to pass. A vote in the 36-member Senate will
probably come today.
One of the leading opponents of the bill, state Sen.
Daniel Debicella,
R-Shelton, said he was prepared to introduce multiple amendments in an
effort to thwart its passage as it is currently written.
"Our [Republican] caucus is united that this bill right
now encourages
illegal immigration and gives tuition breaks to people who break the
law," Debicella said. "We think the Democrats' priorities are
misplaced," he said, referring to some of the bill's supporters.
The House of Representatives approved the bill two weeks
ago after an
hourslong emotional debate. The House vote was 76-67. After it passed,
lawmakers who supported the bill stood and applauded.
If the Senate passes the measure, the bill would go to
Gov. M. Jodi
Rell for her signature to become law. Rell has said she needs to see
the bill's final language before deciding whether to sign it.
The measure is being watched closely by thousands of
immigrants
statewide. A recent poll commissioned by The Courant showed that 53
percent of state residents support allowing illegal immigrants to pay
in-state tuition, while 41 percent oppose it.
Thursday's debate was a more subdued version of the
national argument
raging over illegal immigration. The number of illegal immigrants in
the United States has skyrocketed in recent years as tensions have
mounted about national security and job opportunities. While federal
efforts to recast immigration laws are unresolved, state and local
governments are searching for stop-gap solutions.
Meanwhile, many illegal immigrants and their supporters
have been
demanding a way to change their status, emphasizing their contributions
to the country and its economy.
Currently, the children of illegal immigrants must pay
out-of-state
tuition costs at Connecticut public colleges and universities, which
can present a huge barrier to their attempts to further their education.
The in-state tuition rate for one semester at Central
Connecticut State
University, for example, is $3,367, while the out-of-state rate is
$7,727.
The bill allows children of undocumented immigrants to
pay in-state
tuition if they graduate from a Connecticut high school after attending
school in Connecticut for at least two years. Those students must also
submit an affidavit stating that they will apply for citizenship as
soon as they are able to do so.
Students who qualify under the bill still would not be
eligible to
receive state or federal financial aid.
Bill proponents estimate the legislation would affect 250
illegal
immigrant students a year out of about 109,000 students enrolled in
state colleges and universities. Those proponents say the additional
students will not displace Connecticut students because higher
education enrollment is expected to decline between 2008 and 2015.
Supporters of the legislation also say most immigrant
families pay
state and federal taxes in state sales, motor vehicle and property
taxes and therefore deserve an in-state tuition rate. "These are young
people with promise," said state Sen. Jonathan A. Harris, D-West
Hartford. "They have stayed in school, graduated from high school,
they've gone through the rigorous process of being accepted at a state
university, and now the final hurdle is affording the high cost of
education."
State Senate OKs Changes for
Eminent
Domain Laws; Measure Would Strengthen Property-Seizure
Restrictions
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 6/1/2007
Hartford — The state Senate approved an overhaul of
Connecticut's
eminent-domain laws Thursday night, nearly two years after a U.S.
Supreme Court decision upholding the laws triggered nationwide protests
and efforts to restrict the rights of government to seize property for
private development.
The Senate voted 33-3 to approve the changes to the
state's
property-seizure law, which would require municipalities to surpass new
hurdles before approving the taking of private property, particularly
for economic development projects.
But the bill stops well short of prohibiting takings like
those that
generated the court fight in Kelo v. New London. In that case, the high
court upheld the city's right to take and raze a mixed-use urban
neighborhood to construct a conference center, hotel and housing.
State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of
the Judiciary
Committee, said the legislation — the product of debate for more than a
year in both judiciary and the Planning and Development Committee —
would add new protections to a power used by local governments in
Connecticut “for decades and decades.” It would not, he said, unduly
rein in municipalities that feel they need the power of eminent domain
to reinvigorate their communities.
“It is, in fact, one of the core opportunities and tools
of the
sovereign,” McDonald said. “But like all tools, it must be used wisely
and fairly.”
The bill would add requirements for municipalities
seeking to take
private property, including requirements that at least two-thirds of a
town's legislative body approve any economic development takings; that
property owners who lose their lands, homes or businesses for
development projects be granted 125 percent of their home's value as
compensation; and that municipal leaders affirm that the public
benefits of any takings outweigh the benefits to private interests.
Those provisions would ensure greater accountability for
property
takings in municipalities, McDonald said.
“Their fingerprints would have to be on it,” he said. “It
would have to
clearly be the goal, be the objective, be the desire of that community
to use that awesome power.”
But as in previous debates on the issue, the reforms
offered did not go
far enough for some senators.
“What this bill has done has set up some real
protections,” said Sen.
Ed Meyer, D-Guilford. “Unfortunately, you didn't go the last step. This
bill unfortunately and sadly still permits the taking of a private
home. ... That is very, very sad.”
Meyer, a former prosecutor who sided with Republicans on
several
unsuccessful efforts to amend the bill to tighten its restrictions,
also called the committee's proposal “a lawyer's dream,” one that adds
procedural obstacles while continuing to leave the definition of a
public purpose for land takings largely up to municipalities and their
development agencies.
“It moves the ball forward, but it doesn't come close to
doing enough,”
said Sen. David Cappiello, R-Danbury. “Why should the government be
able to take my house or my small business to allow someone else to use
it to make a private profit at all?”
The Kelo case was triggered by New London's state-funded
redevelopment
project on the Fort Trumbull peninsula. It was intended to replace that
neighborhood of modest dwellings and businesses with an upscale complex
featuring high-end housing units, a hotel and conference center, aqs
well as office space. The project was developed in conjunction with
Pfizer Inc., which received state and city assistance to build its $300
million research headquarters on a brownfield adjoining the
neighborhood.
A coalition of property owners contested the takings,
fighting the city
and the New London Development Corp. all the way to the U.S. Supreme
Court, which in June of 2005 upheld the constitutionality of
Connecticut's eminent-domain statute.
The project, said Sen. Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford,
might have been
better received if it had gotten the public vetting that is required
under the Senate bill, which now heads to the House of Representatives
for a vote.
“Had this legislation been in place,” McDonald said,
“there is no way
the developments in New London could have unfolded as they did.”
Senate Backs Workers' Comp Bill
Over
Objections Of Business
Hartford Courant
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press
June 1, 2007
The Senate voted Thursday to expand workers' compensation
benefits for injured employees, despite cries from business advocates
who claim the bill will help drive more companies out of Connecticut.
The bill passed 21-15. The House of Representatives has
until Wednesday
to act.
Proponents called the proposal a "modest step" toward
making
Connecticut's injured workers whole, while opponents said the bill is a
boon to lawyers and it could increase workers' compensation expenses
for employers by more than 50 percent.
Connecticut already has some of the highest workers'
compensation costs
in the country, according to the Connecticut Business and Industry
Association.
"I am absolutely shocked the Senate is taking this up,"
said Bonnie
Stewart, the association's vice president of government affairs. "This
bill would truly be devastating."
The bill extends the maximum number of weeks of
additional benefits for
partial permanent disabilities that a workers' compensation
commissioner may award after the worker has exhausted his or her
regular benefits.
"This is a fair measure. It is something that recognizes
that in many
cases, the mere partial permanent disability is not adequate," said
Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven.
A company's workers' compensation expenses can range from
3 to 30
percent of total payroll costs, said Michael Riley, president of the
Motor Transport Association of Connecticut and member of a coalition of
125 organizations opposing the bill.
The bill's approval comes two days after the Senate
passed a bill that
requires all employers with more than 50 workers to provide paid sick
days. Sen. David Cappiello, R-Danbury, said it's another cost that
lawmakers are passing on to struggling businesses in Connecticut.
"People who run businesses know something," he said. "If
your costs
outweigh your revenues, you're not making any money. And if you can
make money in another state, you will go there."
But Sen. Tom Colapietro, D-Bristol, said he's more
worried about the
workers.
"I happen to think if you don't have a worker, you don't
have a
business," he said.
Legislature Agrees On Energy
Reform
Proposal; Investment In Efficiency Projects Centerpiece Of Plan
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 6/1/2007
Hartford -- After months of negotiation, Democratic
lawmakers in
the state Senate and House of Representatives reached an agreement on a
proposal to reform the state's electricity market, encouraging greater
efficiency measures and plowing millions into an effort to lessen
Connecticut's demand for energy at peak hours.
The deal on an energy bill came after months of often
tense
negotiations, and virtual public silence, between the House and Senate
co-chairmen, Sen. John Fonfara and Rep. Steve Fontana.
As the legislative session neared its June 6 end date
with dueling
House and Senate energy bills seemingly no closer to being resolved,
Senate President Pro Tempore Donald E. Williams, D-Brooklyn, and House
Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, stepped in to break an impasse on
Thursday.
The agreement, as described late Thursday, appeared to
favor the
priorities that have defined the Senate proposal backed by Fonfara,
Williams, and the rest of that chamber's Democratic majority.
The centerpiece of that bill, which survived the
negotiations largely
intact, is an ambitious initiative to direct $90 million in
conservation investments toward energy efficiency projects that would
encourage consumers' ability to manage their own energy usage, and aim
to significantly lessen demand for electricity during the brief periods
of intense demand when it is most expensive to produce and procure.
Those provisions amount to a “Marshall Plan for
conservation,” Williams
said Thursday night, adding that the bill would do what both House and
Senate lawmakers have said is their ultimate goal - reducing electric
rates for their constituents as soon as possible.
“If you are able to reduce your demand, you are reducing
your bill
immediately,” Williams said.
Amann largely declined to discuss the provisions of his
agreement with
Williams, saying he had yet to brief Fontana about the details of their
discussion.
It appeared, however, that the concepts of the Senate
bill had largely
prevailed. The plan, according to Williams and Fonfara, will require
electricity companies to develop the communications systems,
time-of-use pricing plans, and advanced metering technologies that will
support the system the Senate bill has envisioned - one in which not
only large industrial plants but also individual households can monitor
their use of electricity minute by minute, conserving or shutting off
power when it is most expensive and demanding for the state's energy
system at large.
The so-called time-of-use rates, which would remain
optional for
consumers, would allow electric companies to charge rates based on the
ever-fluctuating cost of generating and delivering power, meaning
higher rates in the middle of hot summer afternoons than during the
cool of evenings, when fewer churning machines and air conditioners
mean less overall congestion and demand on the power grid.
The most significant Senate concession to House concerns,
Williams
said, was a change that doesn't require all residential customers to
acquire the new “smart” meters, but rather requires that they be
provided to customers on demand beginning in 2009.
Fonfara said the system will enable consumers to more
aggressively
manage their own electricity use, and give them a financial incentive
to do so - one directly reflecting the factors that have driven up
electricity bills in the years since the restructuring of the state
electrical markets in 1998.
The system as currently configured sustains its most
intense demand in
just a few hours, he said. Roughly 20 percent of the state's annual
power usage comes over a total of only about 200 hours. Those periods
of peak demand are when power generators fire up their least efficient,
most expensive, and most heavily polluting plants, Fonfara said, and
also when ratepayers incur between $300 million and $500 million in
congestion charges. So reducing demand in those times, he contends,
will help drive down costs.
“The signal you're getting right now is, 'Use energy
anytime,
regardless of what the price is,'” he said. “And we're saying, 'Give
people the tools ... to shift their use to times when the price is
less.' They'll benefit personally, the system will benefit, and it will
drive prices down.”
Fontana and his vice-chairwoman, Rep. Vickie Nardello,
D-Prospect, have
fervently contested those claims, however, instead contending that only
a significant step toward re-regulation of electric prices and
simplification of rates will be the only meaningful way to bring prices
under control.
That view is shared by some advocacy groups, including
the AARP and the
Connecticut Citizen Action Group, which has contended that the
efficiency partner program will only serve to enrich some niche energy
consultants and technology suppliers while allowing the current retail
middlemen and investment houses to keep raking in significant profits
on electric sales.
“it looks like the Senate has prevailed in siding with
Wall Street
instead of Connecticut's ratepayers,” said Tom Swan, the executive
director of CCAG. “Unfortunately, people will be able to see that as we
continue to get hosed on our utility bills and Goldman Sachs continues
to add nothing in energy production but makes millions off our backs.”
The metering program, said AARP lobbyist John
Erlingheuser, is “retail
market competition subsidized by the ratepayers, and we can't support
that.”
The House is tentatively scheduled to take up the energy
package today,
though Williams said a final decision on a starting point for debate on
the bill had not been made Thursday night.
The regular session adjourns at midnight on Wednesday.
Legislators dig in
on eminent domain bills
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Brian Lockhart, Staff Writer
Published May 22 2007
HARTFORD - Two weeks before the scheduled end
of the legislative
session, the General Assembly's Appropriations Committee yesterday
passed a pair of bills that members hope will be merged into a
comprehensive rewrite of the state's eminent domain laws.
"We're working very hard with the governor's
office to come up with a
very strong bill designed to make it as difficult as possible for
people's homes to be taken," state Rep. Art Feltman, D-Hartford, told
his colleagues.
One of the bills, No. 1054, approved
yesterday represents the work of
the Planning and Development Committee. Feltman is a committee
co-chairman. The second, No. 167, is the work of the Judiciary
Committee and its two co-chairmen - state Sen. Andrew McDonald,
D-Stamford, and state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven.
Feltman told the Appropriations Committee
that both bills need to be
kept alive so the governor and the co-chairmen of both committees can
continue drafting compromise legislation for the full House and Senate.
"The bottom line is, we are trying to get
something done this year . .
. without being absolutist about this," Feltman said.
Many states, including Connecticut, began
reconsidering their eminent
domain laws after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 ruled New London could
seize homes to make way for a waterfront redevelopment of condominiums,
a hotel and offices.
The case made headlines nationwide. Though
other legislatures acted,
Connecticut's General Assembly has been unable to reach consensus. It
created a property rights ombudsman post last year to help private
property owners navigate the eminent domain process.
McDonald last night said he was at the
Capitol all day working on the
eminent domain bill with Lawlor and Feltman. A similar effort at
compromise last year never made it to a vote.
"What we're trying to do is hammer out as
many of the details as
possible . . . so we don't have two separate bills going in different
directions, but hopefully, have one unified proposal for the
consideration of our colleagues," McDonald said. "There's an awful lot
of substantive issues being discussed."
Both bills would require two-thirds - a
super-majority - of a city or
town's legislative body to approve proposed seizure of property as part
of redevelopment plans.
Feltman yesterday told the Appropriations
Committee that some of the
biggest differences in the bills are in compensation. The
Planning and
Development Committee, along with Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, seeks
to reimburse private owners 125 percent of the fair market value of
owner-occupied residential and commercial properties that meet building
and housing codes.
The Planning and Development bill also would
compensate active
businesses for a loss of "good will."
"If a store is relocated to another block
(with) less traffic, is
compensation due for that?" Feltman said.
State Rep. Judith Freedman, R-Westport, an
Approprations Committee
member, voted for the two proposals yesterday, calling eminent domain
reform "long overdue. "I'll vote for both, hoping we get a very strong
bill out," she said.
State Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, vice
chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, told his colleagues he believes the state's
existing laws work.
"The city of New London have been made the
bad guys," said Hewett, a
former member of the New London City Council and the city's mayor from
2000 to 2001. "We crossed every 't' and dotted every 'i'. I was there
when (the eminent domain case) started and ended. We did it right."
But Hewett acknowledged that requiring
greater compensation for seized
properties than just fair market value "could have went a long, long
way" toward avoiding the controversy.
Lawmakers
Move To Revamp Income Tax. Rich would pay more, others
less in Democrats' plan
DAY
By Susan Haigh , Associated
Press Writer
Published on
4/17/2007
Hartford — Majority Democrats
in the state legislature moved closer
Monday toward overhauling Connecticut's personal income tax, passing a
tax package that lowers rates for most taxpayers while increasing rates
for wealthier ones.
The legislature's Finance
Committee voted 35-15 in favor of the plan,
sending it to the Senate. But the proposal could change amid any final
budget negotiations in the coming weeks with Republican Gov. M. Jodi
Rell, who has already said the spending levels in the Democrats'
two-year, $36.4 billion budget are unaffordable for state taxpayers.
Democrats said the proposal
will lower taxes for 90 percent of
Connecticut's income tax-filers, but Republicans called the proposed
changes “devastating” and “unconscionable.” They warned how it would
lead to greater spending and an over-reliance on the estimated 3,000
people who would pay 90 percent of state taxes. Currently, they pay
about 77 percent.
“If just 10 percent of them —
that's only 300 people — were to fall out
of bed, move, whatever, you would have a wrenching change in state
revenue,” said Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich, ranking Republican
on the tax-writing committee.
Republicans also criticized
Democrats for wanting to eliminate the
sales-tax exemption on clothing costing less than $50 per item, and
increase state fees on everything from amusement park licenses to
elevator operating certificates.
For years, many Democrats
have pushed the idea of making Connecticut's
income tax — first enacted 15 years ago amid a massive budget crisis —
more progressive, requiring those who earn more money to pay at higher
rates. They've claimed that higher income earners have already
benefited from reductions in federal tax rates.
“It's the fairest way of
taxing people on the basis of income,” said
Sen. Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden, of the graduated tax rates.
Monday's bill expands the
number of personal income tax brackets from
two to six. It increases the highest marginal tax rate from 5 percent
to 6.15 percent for the 2007 tax year and to 6.95 percent for the 2008
tax year. Taxable incomes over $150,000 for joint filers, $79,700 for
singles, $120,000 for heads of household, and $75,000 for married
couples filing jointly would be affected by the higher rate.
But Republicans said it's not
unusual for a middle class couple to earn
$150,000. Also, they argued that small business owners and
entrepreneurs who don't pay the state's corporate income tax would be
have to pay the higher personal income tax.
“This, ladies and gentlemen,
is not the rich,” Nickerson said.
Democrats stressed how their
plan, overall, is more fair, lowering the
income tax rate from 5 percent to 4.85 percent for the 2007 tax year,
and to 4.75 percent in the 2008 tax year. It would affect joint filers
earning between $20,000 and $100,000; $10,000 and $53,125 for singles;
$16,000 and $80,000 for heads of household; and $10,000 and $50,000 for
married couples filing separately.
Meanwhile, the bill increases
the maximum property tax credit against
the income tax from $500 to $1,000. The credit phases out at higher
income levels.
Citing a report from the
Office of Fiscal Analysis, Democrats said
their budget plan will save joint income tax filers earning $200,000 or
less, and single income tax filers earning $150,000 or less, anywhere
from several hundred dollars to more than $1,000 compared with Rell's
budget.
Other highlights of the
Democrats' tax plan include:
• Those who qualify for, and
claim, the federal earned income tax
credit would receive a refundable credit against their state income tax
liability. It would be equal to 20 percent of their federal credit.
• Exemptions from the 6
percent state sales tax would be eliminated for
clothing and footwear costing less than $50 per item and certain
funeral expenses.
• State sales tax would be
exempted from health and athletic club
services, computer and data processing services, and items sold through
honor boxes, such as newspapers. The bill extends the current sales tax
exemption on weatherization products.
• Connecticut would be
required, by Oct. 1, to apply to become part of
a multistate sales tax agreement aimed at tapping uncollected sales
taxes from Internet purchases.
• Cigarette tax would be
increased by 49 cents, from $1.51 to $2 per
pack of 20 cigarettes, starting July 1.
• The 0.25 percent municipal
tax paid on real estate transactions would
become permanent. It is currently scheduled to drop from 0.25 percent
to 0.11 percent on July 1. The Connecticut Association of Realtors,
which opposes the tax, said homeowners last year paid $45 million to
municipalities to sell their properties.
• Various fees imposed by the
Department of Public Safety would
increase anywhere from 17 percent to 400 percent. For example, the fee
charged for reviewing plans for a movie theater or projection room
would climb from $10 to $25. The fee for a state fireworks dealer or
wholesaler license would jump from $50 to $200.
New
Thread In Tax Plan - Clothes Under $50 Would No Longer Get State
Exemption
Hartford
Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, Capitol Bureau Chief
April
14, 2007
The
governor is calling it a hidden
tax. But maybe it should just be called the L.L. Bean clause.
If the legislature approves a Democratic
plan to collect taxes on
Internet sales, people would end up paying an extra $284 million over
the next two years when they buy clothes, she said Friday.
That's because, if Connecticut joins
other states in the Streamlined
Sales Tax Compact concerning Internet sales, the state would be forced
to drop the sales tax exemption on clothing under $50. The compact's
rules require the elimination of any sales tax exemptions.
In offering their alternative to
Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell's budget
proposal, Democrats Thursday said that if Connecticut joins the
compact, the state would earn extra revenue by collecting taxes on
Internet sales.
The provision would force Connecticut
taxpayers to pay an extra $140
million on clothing purchases in the first year and $144 million in the
second year.
"There are a variety of troubling
elements in the Democratic spending
plan, but this may be the worst part," Rell said. "Eliminating the
sales tax exemption on clothing will hit each and every family in
Connecticut.
"At a time when our citizens are
struggling with sky-high gasoline and
energy costs and ever-increasing property taxes, they should not have
to pay an additional tax on every item of clothing they purchase for
their family."
But Rep. Cameron Staples, D-New Haven, a
co-chairman of the
legislature's tax-writing finance committee, said the state could
receive an estimated $520 million from Internet and mail-order sales
each year.
To offset the newly added sales tax,
citizens would receive two other
tax breaks under the Democratic plan. First, an increase in the annual
property tax credit to $1,000, up from the current maximum of $500,
that is taken against the state income tax.
Then, the Democrats intend to initiate a
state earned income tax credit
for the first time. The 20 percent state credit means that a family
that gets $1,000 from the federal government would get an additional
$200 from the state.
"We have a completely different view of
it," Staples said of Rell's
stance on an Internet sales tax. "We think it's a real loss of
revenue," by not collecting the levy.
Rell's budget team studied the Internet
sales tax extensively before
deciding against trying to implement it in the fiscal year that starts
July 1. The loss of the sales tax exemption, officials said, was a key
factor in deciding to study the issue further. Rell is calling for a
task force to analyze the matter in a comprehensive fashion.
Patrick Scully, a spokesman for the
Senate Democrats, said Friday that
the Rell administration is making a mistake by not capturing Internet
sales tax.
"Everything they do, budget-wise, is
shortsighted," Scully said.
"They have no ability to look beyond the
immediate. It's worth the
price from everything we know. You get more than you lose," he said.
"The fact that the governor is talking about this little, tiny piece
shows that she's reeling from the Democrats' tax break. That's her
answer?"
But Rell's spokesman, Christopher Cooper,
said Connecticut taxpayers
would receive a double hit by paying the sales tax on both clothing and
Internet sales.
Democrats were still basking Friday in
delight from the budget and tax
package they offered Thursday. Besides an increase in the property tax
credit, Democrats called for cuts in the income tax that they said
would help 88 percent of Connecticut taxpayers.
However, House Speaker James Amann,
D-Milford, summoned reporters to a
conference room Friday to announce that the Democrats had made a
mistake on the percentage of taxpayers who would receive tax cuts.
"The actual number is 90 percent," Amann
said.
At the same time, Amann expressed regret
that the Democrats agree with
Rell in calling for an increase in the cigarette tax to $2 a pack, up
from the current $1.51. Tobacco lobbyists were stunned to learn about
the plan because they believed that Amann and other Democrats would
never allow the tax to increase on lower-income and middle-income
smokers.
"I hate the cigarette tax. I do," Amann
told reporters. "But it's in
the budget. Not everybody gets everything they want, including the
speaker of the House."
If the tax increases to $2 a pack,
Connecticut still would rank behind
Rhode Island and New York City, which both have higher rates. The
Connecticut legislature has not increased the cigarette tax since 2003
- when a major fiscal shortfall prompted the hike to $1.51 a pack under
Gov. John G. Rowland.
Amann was particularly perturbed by
Rell's characterization Thursday of
the Democratic budget plan as "unconscionable." Rell had ripped the
plan because it would increase spending by 10.4 percent and raise taxes
by more than $1.5 billion over two years. But Amann emphasized the more
popular aspects of the plan.
"What is unconscionable about an income
tax cut for 90 percent of our
citizens?" Amann asked. "What is unconscionable about a $1,000 property
tax credit?"
Democrats Raise The Ante
By
CHRISTOPHER KEATING And COLIN POITRAS,
Courant Staff Writers
April
13, 2007
By proposing tax cuts for the vast
majority of Connecticut taxpayers -
to be paid for largely by increases on those earning more than $190,000
a year - Democratic legislators appeared Thursday to be setting up a
classic Democrat vs. Republican debate.
Calling their plan historic, the
Democrats' 10.4 percent spending
increase supports some of Gov. M. Jodi Rell's new education
initiatives, while adding millions more in certain health care and
social services areas than she had proposed.
Rell immediately threatened a veto, but
simultaneously she said she is
willing to begin negotiations with the Democrats, who hold veto-proof
majorities in the Senate and the House. Rell was particularly concerned
that the Democrats want to raise taxes by more than $1 billion,
including an income-tax rate increase of nearly 40 percent on couples
earning more than $250,000 a year.
"It is unacceptable and, frankly, it's
unconscionable," Rell told
reporters at the Capitol. "The taxpayers in the state cannot afford
that."
But Democrats had an entirely different
viewpoint, which was evident
during a news conference that seemed more like a pep rally. Lawmakers
constantly applauded themselves as speakers stepped to the lectern and
provided various details about the plans. One of the biggest
responses came for boosting the popular property tax credit to a
maximum of $1,000, double the current maximum of $500. More than 80
percent of the credits are claimed by those earning less than $100,000,
which is the highest level to claim the full rate. Couples earning
above $191,000 are not eligible for the credit.
The Democrats are also proposing an
earned income tax credit - a
controversial issue that has been opposed by Republicans and some
conservative Democrats in the past. The credit would be 20 percent of
the federal credit - meaning a family that receives $1,000 from the
federal government would receive an additional $200 from the state.
In an unusual move, the Democrats
unveiled both the budget and the tax
packages together - a rarity because those sections of the fiscal plan
are approved by two separate committees. On Thursday, though, all the
top Democrats gathered in a room at the Capitol complex to make the
announcement.
"The Democratic plan is better, smarter
and fairer" than Rell's, said
Senate President Pro Tempore Donald E. Williams Jr. "It's an exciting
and historic day for the people of the state of Connecticut."
The Democrats are funding the income-tax
cuts, in part, by agreeing
with Rell to increase the cigarette tax by 49 cents to $2 a pack. That
move stunned tobacco lobbyists at the Capitol. Many Democrats said they
would oppose such an increase because it disproportionately hits the
poor and the middle class.
"I certainly was not in favor of that
cigarette tax increase," said
Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook, who co-chairs the tax-writing finance
committee. "But in order to do all these other things, it became
necessary. This is like doing a puzzle."
Raising the cigarette tax has been a
popular idea across the nation and
in Connecticut, where polls have shown that only about 20 percent of
the adult population smokes. The legislature last increased the tax in
2003 to the current rate of $1.51 a pack.
After a relatively short debate Thursday
on the spending side of the
two-year plan, the appropriations committee approved the package in a
36-17 vote. Rather than debating into the night, the Republicans had
agreed in advance simply to vote against the plan. The finance
committee is expected to vote Monday on the tax proposals. The final
budget compromise is not expected to be completed until late May or
early June.
The Democratic budget supports Rell's
education plans in many ways but
makes cuts in others. For example, the Democrats cut $50 million that
Rell wanted to spend on textbooks, saying that an increase in
educational cost-sharing money to cities and towns could cover the cost
of the books. Overall, the Democrats say they send $31 million more to
municipalities than the governor does in all funding categories by
pouring money into areas that include town aid for roads.
The Democratic plan would provide more
than $3 billion each year for
elementary and secondary education, down by about $245 million from
Rell's proposal.
The income-tax plan, if signed into law
by Rell, would provide
reductions for all couples earning under $190,000 a year and increases
on those earning above that level. The highest rate is currently 5
percent, but few taxpayers actually pay that rate because of the
complexities of the state income tax. Like Rell, Republican
legislators were flabbergasted by the level of taxes and spending, even
though Democrats said it was a relatively small increase over Rell's
own plan.
"I'm numb. I'm not being flip," said Sen.
John McKinney of Fairfield,
the deputy Senate GOP leader. "I expect the Democrats to bring this
budget to the floor. That is exactly why I am numb and fearful."
Health
Care
Some lobbyists were also upset. Toni
Fatone, a lawyer who heads an
association of nursing homes, said the Democrats essentially approved a
2 percent funding cut for nursing homes at a time of financial distress
for many homes. Even though the homes got a higher than normal increase
last year, the five previous years they received only tiny
increases.
"We've barely been able to crawl out of
the financial abyss we've been
in, and they've kicked us back over the cliff," Fatone said. "You find
me anybody out there who can keep a company or service going [for five
years] on one-half of 1 percent."
Rell's budget director, Robert
Genuario, was dumbfounded that the Democrats had failed to provide
increases for union workers in the nursing homes, which are represented
by District 1199 of the New England Health Care Employees union, a
powerful Democratic constituency.
"I would hope this is the ceiling.
But you know what?" Genuario asked before laughing. "When 1199 gets at
them, this may not be the ceiling. I don't know what 1199 did to them.
They're the only ones they said no to."
Like the nursing homes, the state's
nonprofit providers - who help those with a wide variety of
disabilities and addictions - called the proposed 3 percent
cost-of-living increase insufficient. They've asked for a 7 percent
increase next year and 5 percent in the second year.
"We are astounded that both the
legislature and the governor are proposing hundreds of millions of
dollars in new spending, while at the same time not giving sufficient
attention to the basic human services needs of thousands of
Connecticut's children, adults and families," said Terry Edelstein,
president of the Connecticut Community Providers Association.
Rell withheld any cost of living
increase for the providers in her proposed budget, instead offering a
$32 million "low-wage pool" over two years to help underpaid agency
employees receive more competitive wages. The providers' request for a
12 percent cost-of-living adjustment over two years would have cost
$180 million.
The Democratic budget provides $303
million for various health care programs in the first year but comes
nowhere near endorsing the "single-payer" system or providing universal
health care that some advocates sought.
Democrats also eliminated virtually
all funding for the governor's touted Charter Oak Health Plan that
would help the uninsured acquire care through state-subsidized
insurance premiums. The committee left in $2 million in planning money
only.
Overall Spending
The budget funds everything in state
government - from dental care for prison inmates to salaries for more
than 50,000 state employees.
Cumulatively, the appropriations
committee is calling for spending $17.79 billion in the fiscal year
starting July 1 and $18.64 billion in the second year of the two-year
budget. This is $333.5 million more than Rell's proposal in the first
year and $316.5 million higher in the second year.
In various categories, the Democrats
are proposing $5.1 billion in spending for the Department of Social
Services in the first year, $3 billion on elementary and secondary
education and $707 million on higher education.
Among key proposals the committee
approved Thursday:
Increased Medicaid fee-for-service
rates with $126.3 million in new funds in 2008 and $157.7 million in
2009. To increase the chronic under-funding of Medicaid rates, the
Democrats are offering a 50 percent increase in reimbursement for
physician fees and 40 percent each for clinic fees, dental fees and
vision services. Managed care organizations would get a 10 percent
increase.
Increased eligibility for
state-administered general assistance or SAGA programs from 60 percent
to 70 percent of the federal poverty level. The cost would be $36.7
million a year for the next two years.
Reduced the governor's $38.7 million
request for funding for Husky medical benefits by $11.5 million in 2008
and reduced her request for $70.8 million for Husky benefits in 2009 by
$17.6 million because of adjusted caseload expectations. At the same
time, the Democrats increased eligibility for the Husky program for
parents from 150 percent of the federal poverty level to 185 percent.
Appropriated $3.5 million a year for
the next two fiscal years to expand Medicaid eligibility for pregnant
women.
Expanded the governor's initiative
to provide free Husky health insurance to eligible families from two to
six months after birth at a cost of $3.9 million in the first year and
$8.2 million in the second year. The plan also calls for providing $20
million in each of the two years to expand Husky rates to dentists.
Restored a $4 million subsidy to the
Connecticut Children's Medical Center in Hartford that the governor had
proposed cutting from the budget.
Provided $7.2 million over two years
to fund an additional 220 service slots for Medicaid-eligible children
with special medical needs, known as the Katie Beckett waiver. The
state would be able to recover about 65 percent of the total cost
through federal matching funds.
Established a new Autism Spectrum
Disorders Board with $1.1 million in the second year to serve
individuals with autism disorders who do not have mental retardation.
Joseph F. Brennan, the chief Capitol
lobbyist for the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, said
the proposed new state income tax structure would hurt entrepreneurs
and small businesses looking to retain or create jobs. Connecticut
already lags behind many other states in job creation, he said, and the
budget released Thursday may do further damage.
Genuario seemed at a loss in
considering how the Republican administration and Democratic
legislature would find common ground.
"This package is a lot of money," he
said. "We're not interested in this type of spending increase. It is
not a small increase over the governor. ... We're a long way apart."
Health
Plan
Sticker Shock; Universal Care Might Cost State Almost $18
Billion; Proposal Seen As Dead
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, Courant Capitol Bureau Chief
April 10, 2007
In a year when legislators pledged to cure the state's
health care
ills, the most ambitious plan of all would have the state fund coverage
for everyone in Connecticut under age 65.
But a staggering price tag - as much as $18 billion -
left the plan on
life support Monday, and legislators are virtually certain to pull the
plug.
The cost is slightly more than the entire state budget
proposed by the
governor.
Without a cost affixed to it, the so-called single-payer
plan was
approved 12-7 by the legislature's insurance committee last month. It
is awaiting action by the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis
estimated the
costs at $11.8 billion to $17.7 billion, depending on variables. Gov.
M. Jodi Rell has proposed a state budget of $17.5 billion.
The estimate sent shock waves through the state Capitol
Monday,
prompting key legislators to say that passing universal health care
this year is unrealistic.
"There are reality checks when you put a fiscal note to a
bill," said
House Speaker James Amann, a Milford Democrat. "There are some ideas
that are so unattainable, so far out of reach, that you have to have a
reality check."
Amann Monday evening said lawmakers would have to scale
back plans to a
level that is affordable over a sustained period. There is only "a very
slim hope" that all of those currently without health insurance could
be covered by the legislature this session, he said.
Instead, Amann said he would work to improve access for
children who
have not been signed up for the state's HUSKY health insurance program.
While the estimates vary, state officials say there are thousands of
children who are eligible for the program and have not yet been signed
up by their parents.
Among health care watchers in Connecticut, the estimate
for providing
health coverage for nearly 3 million people was the biggest topic of
the day. The cost would be $17.7 billion if annual health insurance
premiums were $6,000 per person; $11.8 billion if annual premiums were
$4,000 per person.
"Even we were quite shocked [by] the enormity of the
cost. ... A lot of
people are just scratching their heads and saying, `Wow!,'" said Eric
George, associate counsel of the Connecticut Business and Industry
Association, the state's largest business lobby.
The Republican governor does not support the
"single-payer" option,
saying that 94 percent of Connecticut residents are currently covered
by programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and employer-subsidized
insurance.
"Why would we spend $17 billion when the target we need
to hit [the
uninsured] is 6 percent of the population?" asked Christopher Cooper,
Rell's spokesman. "The price tag is unrealistic. I'm sure that's going
to have a chilling effect on the next committee to look at it -
appropriations."
The budget-writing appropriations committee is still
crafting its
formal response to the budget proposal Rell unveiled two months ago.
The committee planned to finish its work this week with a wide variety
of recommendations on spending - including health care.
Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, the
highest-ranking senator,
said he expects the committee to offer improved access to the HUSKY
program for children, which many legislators believe is underused
because eligible families have failed to sign up. Williams also expects
to see more money for Medicaid reimbursements for doctors and
hospitals, along with money for community health centers and
school-based clinics.
"On the one hand, $17 billion seems staggering, and it
is," Williams
said in the Capitol press room. "At the same time, the Connecticut
Business Policy Council estimated that in Connecticut we spend $22
billion on health care costs each year - and that was in 2004 - for 3.5
million people."
Williams conceded that the legislature will be unable to
resolve all
the issues by the time the legislative session ends at midnight on June
6.
"No state has done what I would like to see us do, which
is to have a
Medicare-for-all type system," Williams said. "It will be difficult to
get it all done this year."
Based on predictions made late last year, health care was
supposed to
be the predominant issue in this year's legislative session. But Rell
has largely stolen the spotlight from the Democrats by offering a $3.4
billion, five-year education plan. She would fund it with a 10 percent
increase in the state income tax, retroactive to Jan. 1.
She dominated the news again by calling for a 3 percent
spending cap on
municipal budgets, with certain exceptions, to ensure that the
increased state aid for schools would lead to property tax relief.
Regarding HUSKY, Rell has said the number of children
enrolled
increased for eight consecutive months as nearly 9,000 children
enrolled for the first time between July 2006 and March. Overall, more
than 223,000 children are covered by the program.
Cooper added that the state needs to focus on helping
those who have
not been placed in any state programs.
"If 6 percent of the people need health insurance, the
program should
be focused on those 6 percent," Cooper said.
Westonites will pay because the median
income in Weston is (that means precisly the middle individual
household--if there are 3400 households, 1700 earn more than the median
income). What is Weston's median household (lower than "family")
income?
Rell And Democrats At Odds Over
Taxes; Income Taxes May Rise To Help
Cap Property Taxes, But Who Pays More?
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 4/8/2007
Hartford — Minutes after Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced her
plan to cap
local property taxes late last month, the majority leader of the state
Senate was asked to offer a counter-proposal from the Democrats.
Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, having
criticized
the governor's proposal as “sketchy,” said his party had its own plan
to hold down property taxes: More state aid for cities and towns, paid
for with an increase in the income tax.
Over the years, he said, “We have proposed a much more
progressive
state income tax as a way of raising a significantly increased amount
of money at the state level ... (and) that a significant portion of
that could be given back to municipalities ...”
But a few days later, the cards were back against the
vest for Looney
and Senate President Donald E. Williams, D-Brooklyn.
The two joined a pair of big-city Democratic mayors,
Eddie Perez of
Hartford and John DeStefano Jr. of New Haven, to denounce the
governor's proposal for failing to adequately fund local governments.
However, when pressed, they resisted saying where new state funding
should come from.
Though Rell kicked off an income tax debate this year,
proposing a 10
percent, across-the-board increase as a way to generate more money for
education, the Democrats — longtime supporters of a more progressive
tax structure — are still vague about how they might try to accomplish
that feat this year.
It seems increasingly clear, however, that Democratic
proposals will
deal with the amount of income tax Connecticut residents pay. What that
change might be, no one is ready to say.
“You're asking me likelihood?” said House Speaker James
A. Amann,
D-Milford, who initially cast doubt on the need for an income tax hike
when Rell proposed it. Later he suggested he would be willing to see
the income tax rise progressively for those making $100,000 or more.
“There could be (an increase),” he said, “but not the way
the governor
laid it out.”
•••••••••••It's still early in the game.
Lawmakers on the legislature's Appropriations Committee
are expected to
finish work at the end of the week on a spending plan. And it will
likely be another week before the Finance Committee releases its tax
plan.
Robert L. Genuario, the governor's budget chief, said in
an interview
last week that he had informal talks with leaders of the Appropriations
Committee about their spending proposals, and expected more intense
work to begin when the committee releases a draft.
“This is a year in which there are a tremendous amount of
proposals out
there and proposals of great significance,” Genuario said. “There's a
lot on our plates, but I'm cautiously optimistic about being able to
come to a resolution.”
Genuario said he expected significant debate on the
income tax,
particularly since Democratic legislators have criticized Rell's budget
for skimping in some areas — including payments to local governments to
cover non-taxable property — but have not revealed how they would raise
the money to cover those gaps.
“I think it's going be the topic of discussion,” Genuario
said. “I
certainly don't anticipate a spending package coming out of
appropriations that can be balanced by existing revenue.”
In earlier conversations with reporters, after debuting
the tax cap
proposal, Genuario took a shot at Democratic calls over the years for a
“millionaire's tax” — in other words, an increase in the income tax on
the wealthy.
Maybe, he said, the majority party would rather talk
about property
taxes than take action to limit them, while blaming the state's budget
woes on “millionaires in Greenwich.”
•••••••••••The Democratic leadership is vague but
increasingly willing
to push the conversation toward increasing property taxes on the
wealthiest citizens, particularly as opposed to implementing more
regressive measures the governor has backed. Those include increasing
the per-pack tax on cigarettes or boosting bus and rail fares to help
pay for transportation.
“What we're saying is maybe we should be a more
progressive (system)
that basically keeps the burden off the middle class,” Amann said last
Wednesday. “So what does that mean? Maybe we don't raise taxes on some
people.”
The Democrats, he added, are “still running the numbers.”
The speaker was more demonstrative in his comments about
Rell's tax
cap, which was announced roughly seven weeks after she introduced her
budget. The governor presented the cap plan as a device to ensure her
proposed infusion of state funds to municipalities would necessarily
lead to lower property tax rates in cities and towns.
Amann unveiled his newest nickname for Rell — “Jodi come
lately” — and
said she “threw out her bags of money to the municipalities ... and now
she's trying to play catch-up and do the accountability part. Forget
it.”
But the Democrats will have to strike a balance of their
own in
crafting tax policy, their opponents say, as they try to devise an
income tax increase that will not seem to burden the middle class.
Republican aides said they had heard that the majority
was considering
a rate increase that begins for incomes of $150,000 or more.
“You get rid of a lot of the people you don't want to
unnecessarily
piss off, like middle-class people,” said Patrick O'Neil, a spokesman
for the House Republicans.
While Amann has suggested beginning an income tax hike on
individuals
making $100,000 a year, that was likely to meet strong resistance from
some voters who don't consider themselves wealthy enough to deserve a
tax aimed at the rich, O'Neil said.
“So,” he said, “I think that they've got to get it higher
than that.”
The Appropriations Committee deadline to present a
spending bill is
April 19. The Finance Committee's deadline is the following day.
IN COMMITTEE AT JFS deadline:
We
watched it live on CT-N!
Legislative panel kills bill to 'rein in'
ethics agency
By Keith M. Phaneuf, Journal Inquirer Staff
03/30/2007
HARTFORD - Amid strong criticism from Gov. M. Jodi Rell
and
Connecticut's top ethics official, a state legislative panel abandoned
a bill Friday that critics said would have undermined state
government's ethics agency.
Rell also chastised the Democrat-controlled General
Assembly's top four
leaders for seeking a last-minute delay of a proposed Office of State
Ethics ruling involving House Speaker James A. Amann's lucrative,
part-time job as a fundraiser for the Multiple Sclerosis Society.
The office's draft ruling,
released this week, concluded
Amann should stop soliciting Capitol lobbyists and their business
clients to give to MS events.
The Government
Administration and Elections Committee, which
faced its deadline Friday for approving bills, chose not to act on a
measure that would have expanded opportunities to challenge ethics
rulings, and also would have restricted ethics officials' ability to
make public comments.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, "undermines
and erodes the independence, integrity, and functioning of the state's
ethics agency," Executive Director Benjamin Bycel wrote in a letter
issued to lawmakers Friday afternoon.
The timing of the
controversial bill language - which wasn't
available for public review as late as 3 p.m. Thursday - "may be
coincidental," Bycel wrote. "However, it does occur immediately after
the staff has written a draft opinion for consideration by the board
dealing with the speaker of the House, and is undertaking other
significant issues."
Those "other significant
issues" are believed by many
legislators to be a more comprehensive ruling on potential conflicts of
interest between legislators' public duties and their private jobs.
Amann, D-Milford, has come
under fire recently by new
Republican State Chairman Christopher Healy who has questioned whether
the speaker is violating an ethics statute that prohibits an official
from using a public post for personal gain. Amann, who earns just under
$39,000 per year as speaker, makes $67,500 annually from the MS society
in his part-time fundraising job.
The Journal Inquirer first
disclosed in May 2005 that Amann
had been shifting funds directly from political action committees under
his control into MS Society fund drives - a practice he ended shortly
thereafter.
In response to Healy's
criticism, Amann asked the ethics
office this month to review his private working arrangement. He also
announced he no longer would seek donations from lobbyists - but
refused to rule out soliciting funds from their clients.
Healy called this a stunt
to enable Amann to continue seeking
help in his private job from companies that want to curry favor with
the speaker in his public capacity.
Barbara Housen, general
counsel for the Office of State
Ethics, issued a draft this week that called for Amann to avoid
soliciting lobbyists and clients. But on Wednesday, one day
before the
office's oversight panel was scheduled to take final action on the
draft, Amann, Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr. of
Brooklyn, House Majority Leader Christopher G. Donovan of Meriden, and
Senate Majority Leader Martin M. Looney of New Haven, wrote to the
Citizens' Ethics Advisory Board seeking a one-month delay.
"We believe the proposed
ruling will have a significant
impact on the members of the House and Senate," not just Amann, "and
would like the opportunity to have a reasonable period of time to
thoroughly research and prepare our response," the Democratic leaders
wrote.
The advisory board agreed
Thursday to table the matter to
April 26. But also on Thursday, Slossberg introduced new language that
would allow anyone disagreeing with ethics agency rulings to have two
appeal options. In addition to an appeal in Superior Court, an option
that already exists, parties could go to a judge trial referee - a
quicker and cheaper alternative.
Bycel wrote this is
"unprecedented," and the multiple appeal
option "undermines the independence and freedom of the OSE to rule on
ethical issues."
Slossberg's new legislative
language also would have
restricted ethics agency staff from making public statements about
cases, and would have limited the agency's ability to revoke previous
advisory opinions.
Amann said he believes a
2005 ruling from the former State
Ethics Commission - which was disbanded and replaced with the Office of
State Ethics that same year because of numerous controversies -
approved his part-time work arrangement.
Rell, a Republican, said
Friday there is no reason to tamper
with Connecticut's new ethics agency.
"The last thing we need is another watchdog watching the watchdog," the
governor said. "This is an independent agency. We should let them do
their work."
Rell also said Democratic
legislative leaders had
"undermined" the ethics agency's efforts by asking for the delay.
"I cannot imagine what all
of you would be saying," she told
Capitol reporters, "if I had asked the ethics commission to postpone
for a month" an unfavorable ruling affecting the governor's office.
Slossberg said following
Friday's Government Administration
and Elections Committee meeting that she still believes her proposal
was a good idea, but said they shouldn't be discussed in what has
become a "politically-charged" atmosphere.
"I believed that the
provisions within that bill deserved a
full and fair debate," she said, adding she hopes it can be revived as
an amendment to another bill before the 2007 legislative session ends
June 6. Slossberg added that her bill wasn't called Friday
because her
committee's other co-chairman, Rep. Christopher L. Caruso,
D-Bridgeport, opposed it.
"If we expect an agency to
be a watchdog, we can't keep on
shortening its leash," said Caruso, one of the most vocal advocates for
a comprehensive study of all potential conflicts of interest among
legislators.
Senate Democratic leaders
declined to comment Friday about
Rell's criticisms.
Larry Perosino, spokesman for the House Democratic Caucus, said, "We
appreciated the extra time that the Office of State Ethics gave us to
offer a well-researched and thoughtful response."
Perosino added that
ethics officials have made changes to
their draft ruling since it first was issued Monday, showing they also
recognize there are concerns about the ruling's potential impact.
"So the request for the postponement clearly was
justified," he
said.
----------------------------------------------------
Ethics Board Embroglio
Hartford Courant
Associated Press
5:13 PM EDT, March 30, 2007
HARTFORD -- A contentious proposal to add a layer of
oversight for the
newly created state ethics board met strong opposition today from state
ethics regulators, the governor and a co-chairman of the legislature's
elections committee.
The bill was pulled from the committee's agenda on its
final day of
action.
"I just think it's the wrong time to be infusing politics
into the
office of ethics. It's exactly the problems we saw with the previous
commission and why we had to revamp it and create this new one," said
Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, elections committee co-chairman.
His co-chairwoman, Gayle Slossberg, who sponsored the
bill, did not
rule out trying to amend another bill this session with similar
language. She said her intentions for the legislation have been
misunderstood.
"Given the politically charged situation on this
committee right now,
and in this building, at some point cooler heads have to prevail,
common sense has to come back into the equation," she said. "I think
with all of the things that have happened in the last 24 hours, the
well has been poisoned to have this discussion."
Slossberg wants to require that a judge trial referee, on
request,
examine advisory ethics opinions issued by the state's new Citizen's
Ethics Advisory Board. A judge trial referee already issues enforcement
actions, such as fines, from the new Office of State Ethics. Both
entities replaced the old State Ethics Commission.
Slossberg said she decided that judicial oversight of the
board's
decisions was needed after the advisory board ruled last year that
state agencies, including state universities, were prohibited from
accepting gifts and donations from lobbyists, state-regulated
companies, and people doing or seeking to do business with the state.
State universities and technical high schools complained
that the
interpretation of the law prevented them from accepting donations such
as money for scholarships and cars for auto shop classes. University of
Connecticut officials said donations to the school's foundation are
down $7 million.
The legislature earlier this session passed a bill to fix
the glitch.
Slossberg said her proposal would strengthen the state's
ethics laws
and cut down on the legislature having to get involved in matters such
as donations to state agencies.
"It makes sure that that ethics board, just like everyone
else, is
following the law," she said. "It provides for a quick and reasonable
turnaround where the other alternative is to have the legislature come
into session every time there is an issue."
Benjamin Bycel, executive director of the Office of State
Ethics,
maintains that Slossberg's bill interferes with the internal workings
of the ethics agency and is an attempt by the legislature to "shackle"
it.
He said people dissatisfied with an opinion from the
ethics board, on
matters such as a legislator's potential conflicts of interest, can
already go to court. He said Slossberg's proposed judicial review is
unnecessary and a waste of the state's money.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, said today that she also
disagrees
with Slossberg's proposal.
"We reconstituted the ... state commission on ethics
because of the
structure and the belief the old ethics commission was subject to undue
influence," the governor said. "The last thing we really need right
now, I believe, is another watchdog watching the watchdog. This is an
independent agency. We should let them do their work."
------------------------------
Mood
Tense Over
Ethics; Lawmakers Collide On Bill Designed To Curb Office's Power
By MARK
PAZNIOKAS, Courant
Staff Writer
March 30, 2007
Days
after proposing tighter
conflict-of-interest standards on the General Assembly, the Office of
State Ethics is facing a legislative effort to curb its powers.
The timing appears coincidental - the bill's sponsor, Sen. Gayle
Slossberg, D-Milford, has been
working on the curbs for months - but it still has created a charged
political atmosphere.
"Now is not the time to start playing politics with the ethics board,"
said Rep. Christopher L. Caruso, D-Bridgeport, who is trying to stop
Slossberg. "It says to the public, it's politics as usual."
Slossberg is proposing a new layer of judicial review and other
restrictions in response to a decision by the Citizens Ethics Advisory
Board that, for a time, barred charitable gifts to state universities.
Unable to resolve the issue privately, Caruso and Slossberg will
publicly oppose each other today during a meeting of the government
administration and elections committee - a panel they jointly run as
co-chairs.
Adding to the drama of one co-chairperson trying to kill another's bill
is the looming deadline of 5 p.m. today for the committee to send bills
to the floor. Any legislation still awaiting action at 5 is dead.
If that wasn't enough drama, the proposed conflict-of-interest
standards, which were summarily abandoned Thursday by ethics
regulators, arose from a case involving one of the most powerful
legislators: House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford.
Barbara E. Housen, general counsel to the Citizens Ethics Advisory
Board and the Office of State Ethics, completed a draft opinion Monday
advising Amann to stop soliciting lobbyists and their clients for
donations to his private employer, the National Multiple Sclerosis
Society.
Elements of the opinion were construed by legislative attorneys to
broadly set new conflict standards, possibly jeopardizing the ability
of many legislators to hold jobs outside the part-time General
Assembly. If adopted by the ethics advisory board, the opinion
would have been binding on legislators. But Housen told the board
Thursday that she revised the opinion to narrow its focus, saying she
did not intend to set a sweeping new standard.
"I believe there has been much confusion regarding the reach and scope
of the draft," Housen told board members.
A spokesman for House Democrats said legislative attorneys still were
unsure whether the new language was sufficiently narrow. In her
revised opinion, Housen did not retreat from her conclusion, which is
offered for the board to adopt or reject, that Amann was using his
office to benefit his private employer.
"In the board's view, solicitations directed at lobbyists are effective
precisely because they are unavoidably and inherently coercive and tend
to create an atmosphere of pressure," she wrote.
The only concession to Amann was slight. In the original, she referred
to an atmosphere of "intimidation," instead of "pressure."
At the request of Democratic legislative leaders, the board postponed
action on Housen's draft opinion for a month. Tensions have been
building for months among the newly organized ethics agency and some
state officials and legislators.
The Office of State Ethics and the ethics advisory board were created
by the legislature in 2005 in response to dissatisfaction with the
office's predecessor agency, the state Ethics Commission.
The new ethics advisory board quickly became controversial by broadly
interpreting a ban on gifts from state contractors to rule out
charitable gifts to state universities, including a proposal by Bayer
HealthCare to give valuable surplus lab equipment to the state
university system.
The board's own lawyers had advised that the legislature never intended
such a broad ban. Earlier this year, the legislature clarified the law
to explicitly permit such gifts.
Slossberg
said her bill was a response
to what she called the board's obvious misinterpretation of state law.
It provides a new layer of judicial review not imposed on the ethics
board's regulatory peers - the Freedom of Information Commission and
Elections Enforcement Commission.
Decisions of all three
agencies now can be appealed to the Superior
Court. Slossberg's bill would allow those affected by the ethics board
a quicker and cheaper review by trial referees, who are semi-retired
judges.
"It is small thing. It
is a simple thing," Slossberg said. "This
predates any of the controversy that is going on now."
Benjamin Bycel, the
executive director of the Office of State Ethics,
said the legislation subjects the agency to a level of review beyond
other agencies. It also would bar agency staff from making statements
to the press that could prejudice "an existing or potential" proceeding.
The bill also
restricts the ability of agency staff to revoke previous
advisory opinions.
"It's a direct missile
hit on the Office of State Ethics," Bycel said.
"I think it is a sad day."
Caruso said Slossberg
clearly was motivated by the board's action on
the gift ban, but he believes the Amann opinion has prompted other
legislators to take a closer look at the ethics agency.
"Now, because of the
recent opinion, some people are saying, `We have
the proof. We have to rein these people in,'" Caruso said.
Slossberg disagreed.
"As long as the board
is acting within their statutory authority, they
have free rein," she said. "There is not a problem with this board - as
long as they are following the law."
|
H.B.
No. 7076
REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT MAKING
DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2007',
to implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. APPROPRIATIONS
|
|
H.B.
No. 7077
REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING
THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2009, AND MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS THEREFOR', to implement the Governor's budget
recommendations.
REF. APPROPRIATIONS
|
|
H.B.
No. 7078 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CULTURAL TREASURES ACCOUNT', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. COMMERCE
|
|
H.B.
No. 7079 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING BROWNFIELD REMEDIATION AND REDEVELOPMENT', to implement
the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. COMMERCE
|
|
H.B.
No. 7080 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CREATING A STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY', to implement the Governor's
budget recommendations.
REF. ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY
|
|
H.B.
No. 7081 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING CONNECTICUT'S ENERGY VISION', to implement the
Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY
|
|
H.B.
No. 7082 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING AN ELECTRIC CONSERVATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY
|
|
H.B.
No. 7083 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
ELIMINATING THE PROPERTY TAX ON CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING
|
|
H.B.
No. 7084 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
ESTABLISHING AN URBAN VIOLENCE REDUCTION GRANT PROGRAM', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. JUDICIARY
|
|
H.B.
No. 7085
REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN SEXUAL ASSAULT
OFFENSES USING DNA EVIDENCE', to implement the Governor's budget
recommendations.
REF. JUDICIARY
|
|
H.B.
No. 7086 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING REGISTRATION OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS', to implement the
Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. JUDICIARY
|
|
H.B.
No. 7087 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING METHAMPHETAMINES', to implement the Governor's budget
recommendations.
REF. GENERAL LAW
|
|
H.B.
No. 7088 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING A CONSOLIDATED UNIFORM PROCUREMENT CODE', to implement
the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
AND ELECTIONS
|
|
H.B.
No. 7089 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING SUPERVISING PHYSICIANS FOR PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. PUBLIC HEALTH
|
|
H.B.
No. 7090 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING RESPONSIBLE GROWTH', to implement the Governor's budget
recommendations.
REF. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
|
|
H.B.
No. 7091 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING FEES COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY
|
|
H.B.
No. 7092 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
ESTABLISHING A COMMISSION ON SOLID WASTE HAULING', to implement the
Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY
|
|
H.B.
No. 7093 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING WEIGH STATION OPERATIONS', to implement the Governor's
budget recommendations.
REF. TRANSPORTATION
|
|
H.B.
No. 7094 REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS', to implement the
Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. TRANSPORTATION
|
|
H.B.
No. 7095
REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST.; SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING
TUITION WAIVERS FOR CHILDREN AND SPOUSES OF VETERANS KILLED IN THE LINE
OF DUTY ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, PROTECTIONS FOR RESIDENTS ON OR
COMPLETING ACTIVE DUTY, VETERAN BURIAL SUBSIDIES AND THE MILITARY
FAMILY RELIEF FUND', to implement the Governor's budget
recommendations.
REF. SELECT COMMITTEE ON
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
|
And in the
Senate...
|
S.B.
No. 1113 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 EDUCATION CREDIT', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendation.
REF. EDUCATION
|
|
S.B.
No. 1114
SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT IMPLEMENTING
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING EDUCATION', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. EDUCATION
|
|
S.B.
No. 1115 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
PHASING OUT THE UNIFIED GIFT AND ESTATE TAX', to implement the
Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING
|
|
S.B.
No. 1116 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING THE STATE PERSONAL INCOME TAX AND OTHER REVENUES', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING
|
|
S.B.
No. 1117 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
INCREASING CERTAIN BOND AUTHORIZATIONS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS',
to implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING
|
|
S.B.
No. 1118 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT', to implement the Governor's
budget recommendations.
REF. FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING
|
|
S.B.
No. 1119
SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT AUTHORIZING
BONDS OF THE STATE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER PURPOSES', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING
|
|
S.B.
No. 1120 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING STATE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES SELECTION PANELS', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
AND ELECTIONS
|
|
S.B.
No. 1121 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING CONSULTANT SERVICES', to implement the Governor's budget
recommendations.
REF. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
AND ELECTIONS
|
|
S.B.
No. 1122 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
ESTABLISHING A STATE COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL INTERNSHIP PROGRAM',
to implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
AND ELECTIONS
|
|
S.B.
No. 1123 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING CORE-CT', to implement the Governor's budget
recommendations.
REF. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
AND ELECTIONS
|
|
S.B.
No. 1124
SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT PROVIDING
ESSENTIAL PLANNING FOR CATASTROPHIC EVENTS IMPACTING THE STATE', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
AND ELECTIONS
|
|
S.B.
No. 1125 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING POLITICAL ADVERTISING AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
AND ELECTIONS
|
|
S.B.
No. 1126 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING THE STATE SET-ASIDE PROGRAM', to implement the
Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
AND ELECTIONS
|
|
S.B.
No. 1127 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING THE CHARTER OAK HEALTH PLAN AND HEALTH CARE ACCESS', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. HUMAN SERVICES
|
|
S.B.
No. 1128
SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT IMPLEMENTING
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO SOCIAL SERVICES
PROGRAMS', to implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. HUMAN SERVICES
|
|
S.B.
No. 1129
SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING
THE CREATION OF AN EMERGENCY HOUSING REPAIR FUND FOR STATE ASSISTED
HOUSING', to implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOUSING
|
|
S.B.
No. 1130 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING A POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TASK FORCE', to implement the
Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. LABOR AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
|
|
S.B.
No. 1131 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING EMINENT DOMAIN', to implement the Governor's budget
recommendations.
REF. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
|
|
S.B.
No. 1132 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT
PROHIBITING OPEN CONTAINERS OF ALCOHOL IN MOTOR VEHICLES', to
implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
REF. TRANSPORTATION
|
|
S.B.
No. 1133
SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING
THE AUTHORIZATION OF SPECIAL TAX OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE STATE FOR
CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES', to implement the Governor's
budget recommendations.
REF. TRANSPORTATION
|
|
S.B.
No. 1134
SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.; REP. CAFERO, 142nd DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING
THE AUTHORIZATION OF BONDS OF THE STATE FOR CAPITAL RESURFACING AND
RELATED PROJECTS', to implement the Governor's budget
recommendations.
REF. TRANSPORTATION
|
SPECIAL
NON-LAND USE BILLS OF
INTEREST:
This
year we will try something new...focus on Planning&Development
- related issues, on the CGALand Use
page. And follow each to see where it ends up!
ALSO, when the big "Committee" bills show up, we'll follow those with
LAND USE implications; early in the Session we will pick up some
interesting-sounding bills NOT in our area, too!
- S.B. No. 1386 (RAISED) PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. 'AN
ACT CONCERNING COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT', to establish (1) a
program of small business financial assistance, (2) a program promoting
the entrepreneurial potential of youth, (3) a program of grants to
small artistic or cultural organizations for annual events, and to
provide funds for (A) the undergrounding of power lines in the area of
Blue Hills Avenue in Hartford, and (B) facade and other street
improvements in the Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Zone in
Hartford.
- S.B. No. 1385 (RAISED) PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. 'AN
ACT CONCERNING PROPERTY TAX REFORM', to reform the state and local
tax system by (1) increasing the personal income tax rate from five per
cent to five and one-quarter for joint filers; (2) eliminating the
property tax credit to the income tax; (3) establishing a state
refundable credit of twenty per cent of the federal earned income tax
credit; (4) reducing the sales tax rate from six per cent to four and
one-half per cent and eliminating all exemptions except groceries,
prescription drugs, clothing, residential utilities, medical and legal
expenses, sales for resale, sales to state or federal agencies,
purchases by charitable organization and fuel purchases; (5) increasing
tax on C corporations from $250 to $400; (6) adopting a unified gift
and estate tax; (7) participating in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax
Agreement; (8) providing funds from the sales tax for joint performance
of activities by two or more municipalities; and (9) establishing a
spending cap on municipalities.
- S.B.
No. 1093 (RAISED) PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY. 'AN
ACT CONCERNING THE STATE BUILDING CODE', to allow the State
Building Inspector to increase the education fee assessed by the
inspector to a maximum of four cents each year, to delete references to
the now obsolete BOCA and to delete obsolete references to the mayor,
warden, and first selectman acting as a building inspector, and to
raise the fine for failing to comply with a written order of a building
inspector.
- H.B.
No. 6981 (RAISED) GENERAL LAW. 'AN ACT CONCERNING ENFORCEMENT OF
ELECTRONIC MAIL PHISHING AND IDENTITY THEFT LAWS',to
provide the Attorney General with investigatory authority regarding
electronic mail phishing and identity theft statutes.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 988 SEN. MEYER,
12th DIST. 'AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IDLING OF MOTOR VEHICLES', to prohibit
the idling of any automobile or truck.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 987 SEN. MEYER,
12th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY OF CLIMATE CHANGE', to require
a study on the effects of climate change.
- H.J.
No. 15 REP. URBAN,
43rd DIST.; REP. FONTANA, 87th DIST. 'RESOLUTION PROPOSING A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO LIMIT THE DUAL-JOB BAN FOR MEMBERS OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY', to allow
members of the General Assembly to teach part-time at a state
university. (Is this a
reason for switching
Parties?)
- Proposed H.B.
No. 6809 REP. HAMZY,
78th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT STATE
SPENDING', to allow
the public to track state spending and to promote transparency in
government.
- Proposed H.B.
No. 6807 REP. DAVIS,
117th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING TELEVISION MAIL ORDER ADVERTISEMENTS', to prevent
deceptive advertising.
- Proposed H.B.
No. 6802 REP.
O'CONNOR, 35th DIST.; SEN. DAILY, 33rd DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING ANIMAL
GROOMING FACILITIES', to improve
standards necessary to operate grooming facilities in order to better
protect animals.
- Proposed H.B.
No. 6794 REP.
REYNOLDS, 42nd DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING INSPECTIONS OF BARBER SHOPS AND
HAIRDRESSING AND NAIL SALONS', to reduce
the financial burden on the owners of barber shops, hairdressing and
nail salons who are subject to state-mandated health inspections.
- Proposed H.B.
No. 6794 REP.
REYNOLDS, 42nd DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING INSPECTIONS OF BARBER SHOPS AND
HAIRDRESSING AND NAIL SALONS', to reduce
the financial burden on the owners of barber shops, hairdressing and
nail salons who are subject to state-mandated health inspections.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6756
REP. CANDELARIA, 95th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING FULL FUNDING OF THE
EXCESS COST GRANT', to fund the excess cost grant using the threshold
of four and one-half times the average per pupil expenditure, as
legislated.
Proposed H.B. No. 6757 REP.
CANDELARIA, 95th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE EXCESS COST GRANT', to
provide for a reduction in the threshold for reimbursement of special
education costs to three times the average per pupil costs to be paid
directly to the school district.
Proposed H.B. No. 6758 REP.
CANDELARIA, 95th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING APPROPRIATE FUNDING UNDER THE
ECS GRANT', to provide that funding under the education cost sharing
grant cover increases in basic operating expenditures for contracted
salaries, utilities, special education and transportation.
- Proposed H.B.
No. 6742 REP. LEWIS,
8th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR'S
COMMISSION ON EDUCATION FINANCE', to raise
the foundation of the ECS formula to the recommended level of the
Governor's Commission on Education Finance over a five-year period.
- Proposed H.B.
No. 6735 REP.
FONTANA, 87th DIST.; REP. URBAN, 43rd DIST.; SEN. FASANO, 34th DIST.
'AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL FUNDING EQUITY AMONG TOWNS', to increase
educational funding equity among towns.
- Proposed H.B.
No. 6732 REP. DYSON,
94th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE EDUCATION COST SHARING FORMULA', to reform
the education cost sharing formula so that it better meets the diverse
regular and special education needs of our towns and cities.
- Proposed H.B.
No. 6730 REP. CAFERO,
142nd DIST.; REP. HAMZY, 78th DIST.; REP. KLARIDES, 114th DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING A NEW EDUCATION EQUALIZATION GRANT', to reform
the ECS formula and more fairly distribute education funding back to
our municipalities.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 961 SEN.
WILLIAMS, 29th DIST.; SEN. LOONEY, 11th DIST.; SEN. COLAPIETRO, 31st
DIST.; SEN. COLEMAN, 2nd DIST.; SEN. CRISCO, 17th DIST.; SEN. DAILY,
33rd DIST.; SEN. DEFRONZO, 6th DIST.; SEN. DOYLE, 9th DIST.; SEN.
FINCH, 22nd DIST.; SEN. FONFARA, 1st DIST.; SEN. GAFFEY, 13th DIST.;
SEN. GOMES, 23rd DIST.; SEN. HANDLEY, 4th DIST.; SEN. HARP, 10th DIST.;
SEN. HARRIS, 5th DIST.; SEN. HARTLEY, 15th DIST.; SEN. LEBEAU, 3rd
DIST.; SEN. MAYNARD, 18th DIST.; SEN. MEYER, 12th DIST.; SEN. PRAGUE,
19th DIST.; SEN. SLOSSBERG, 14th DIST.; SEN. STILLMAN, 20th DIST.; REP.
O'BRIEN, 24th DIST. 'AN ACT ESTABLISHING A SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR
EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM', to
establish a Security Assistance for Education (SAFE) Schools grant to
help school districts pay for new or updated school security equipment
and related training.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 955 SEN.
HANDLEY, 4th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATION COST SHARING', to reform
the education cost sharing formula so that it better meets the diverse
regular and special education needs of our towns and cities.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 927 SEN.
FREEDMAN, 26th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING POLITICAL SOLICITATION CALLS', to place
certain restrictions on political campaign calls.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 917 SEN.
MAYNARD, 18th DIST.; REP. WRIGHT, 41st DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE
STATE SHARE OF EDUCATION FUNDING', to reduce
the over reliance on property taxes for the funding of public education.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 913 SEN.
MCDONALD, 27th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING A CONNECTICUT YOUTH CORPS', to create a
Connecticut Youth Corps consisting of high school students in their
junior year, who will be assigned to various public service jobs around
the state based on a student's essay from the Who Wants to Change the
World student contest.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 912 SEN.
FREEDMAN, 26th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING AVAILABILITY OF TRAINED
EMERGENCY PERSONNEL AT SCHOOL ATHLETIC EVENTS', to promote
the availability of trained personnel at school athletic events,
including practices, by encouraging EMTs to participate in training of
coaches and athletic trainers in use of defibrillators and first aid.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 910 SEN. FINCH,
22nd DIST.; SEN. LEBEAU, 3rd DIST.; SEN. MCDONALD, 27th DIST.; SEN.
PRAGUE, 19th DIST.; SEN. RORABACK, 30th DIST.; REP. WILLIAMS, 68th
DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING EDUCATION
LAW', to change
Connecticut education law in accordance with recommendations made by
the winner of the Who Wants to Change the World student contest.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 897 SEN. MEYER,
12th DIST. 'AN ACT REQUIRING PRETRIAL SCREENING IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
CASES', to require
pretrial review of medical malpractice claims by screening panels in
order to prevent the litigation of frivolous claims.
-
Proposed S.B.
No. 893 SEN. DELUCA,
32nd DIST.; SEN. MCKINNEY, 28th DIST.; SEN. CALIGIURI, 16th DIST.; SEN.
CAPPIELLO, 24th DIST.; SEN. DEBICELLA, 21st DIST.; SEN. FASANO, 34th
DIST.; SEN. FREEDMAN, 26th DIST.; SEN. GUGLIELMO, 35th DIST.; SEN.
HERLIHY, 8th DIST.; SEN. KISSEL, 7th DIST.; SEN. NICKERSON, 36th DIST.;
SEN. RORABACK, 30th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE SEXUAL ASSAULT, ABUSE
OR EXPLOITATION OF A CHILD UNDER THIRTEEN YEARS OF AGE', to provide
for increased penalties and supervision of persons convicted of a
sexual offense where the victim of the offense is a child under
thirteen years of age.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 884 SEN.
DEFRONZO, 6th DIST. 'AN ACT ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT', to
establish penalties for violations of the Freedom of Information Act.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 883 SEN.
FREEDMAN, 26th DIST. 'AN ACT ESTABLISHING REGISTRATION AND REGULATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR TANNING SALONS', to
establish registration and regulation requirements for tanning salons.
- Proposed S.B.
No. 877 SEN.
FREEDMAN, 26th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING A SPECIAL TAX CODE FOR ELECTRIC
GENERATORS', to clarify
the requirement of imposing and collecting the sales tax for ancillary
services rendered in connection with sales of electric generators to
residences.
- Proposed
S.B. No. 858
SEN. LEBEAU, 3rd DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF
FATHERLESSNESS ON SOCIETY', to attempt to examine one of the root
causes of poverty and other social ills.
- H.B.
No. 6715 (RAISED)
JUDICIARY. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE PALLIATIVE USE OF MARIJUANA',
to allow Connecticut residents with certain debilitating medical
conditions to cultivate and use marijuana for palliative purposes under
certain circumstances and with certain restrictions when a treating
physician provides a professional opinion that the benefits of the
palliative use of marijuana outweigh the health risks for the patient.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6693
REP. OLSON, 46th DIST.; REP. RITTER, 38th DIST.; REP. O'BRIEN, 24th
DIST.; REP. LEWIS, 8th DIST.; REP. NARDELLO, 89th DIST.; REP. WILLIS,
64th DIST.; REP. ZALASKI, 81st DIST.; REP. ARESIMOWICZ, 30th DIST.;
REP. RYAN, 139th DIST.; REP. FONTANA, 87th DIST.; REP. PERONE, 137th
DIST.; REP. FLEISCHMANN, 18th DIST.; REP. TERCYAK, 26th DIST.; REP.
PAWELKIEWICZ, 49th DIST.; REP. GERAGOSIAN, 25th DIST.; REP. MCCLUSKEY,
20th DIST.; REP. MERRILL, 54th DIST.; REP. NAFIS, 27th DIST.; REP.
ORANGE, 48th DIST.; REP. URBAN, 43rd DIST.; REP. MALONE, 47th DIST.;
REP. TALLARITA, 58th DIST.; REP. GODFREY, 110th DIST.; REP. THOMPSON,
13th DIST.; REP. O'ROURKE, 32nd DIST.; REP. GONZALEZ, 3rd DIST.; REP.
LAWLOR, 99th DIST.; REP. WALKER, 93rd DIST.; REP. MEGNA, 97th DIST.;
REP. MUSHINSKY, 85th DIST.; REP. GENGA, 10th DIST.; REP. BYE, 19th
DIST.; REP. KEHOE, 31st DIST.; REP. VILLANO, 91st DIST.; REP.
CANDELARIA, 95th DIST.; REP. REINOSO, 130th DIST.; REP. WRIGHT, 41st
DIST.; REP. ABERCROMBIE, 83rd DIST.; REP. HENNESSY, 127th DIST.; REP.
MCMAHON, 15th DIST.; REP. ALDARONDO, 75th DIST.; REP. HEWETT, 39th
DIST.; REP. CLEMONS, 124th DIST.; REP. AYALA, 128th DIST.; REP. CARUSO,
126th DIST.; REP. HAMM, 34th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING CREATION OF A
STATE HEALTH CARE PLAN', to create a state health care plan to provide
quality, affordable health care coverage to all Connecticut residents.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6641
REP. AMANN, 118th DIST. 'AN ACT AUTHORIZING BONDS OF THE STATE FOR THE
MILFORD REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING PARTNERSHIP', to provide funds to the
Milford Housing and Redevelopment Partnership to maintain and improve
the housing stock of the partnership.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6636
REP. MIKUTEL, 45th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING A MERIT-BASED COLLEGE
SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM', to help parents and students pay for college and
to reduce the "brain drain" by providing an incentive for talented
students to stay in Connecticut.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6635 REP.
LEONE, 148th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING FOUR-YEAR PROGRAMS OF STUDY AT
UCONN BRANCHES', to provide greater flexibility to students who would
like to attend college closer to their homes.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6622
REP. LEONE, 148th DIST.; REP. FOX, 146th DIST.; REP. TRUGLIA, 145th
DIST.; REP. FLOREN, 149th DIST.; SEN. MCDONALD, 27th DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING THE ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT
WITHIN THE CITY OF STAMFORD', to allow the city of Stamford to create a
special taxing district to provide environmental remediation, promote
revitalization and foster economic development and smart growth.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6618 REP.
O'BRIEN, 24th DIST.; REP. GERAGOSIAN, 25th DIST.; REP. TERCYAK, 26th
DIST.; REP. ARESIMOWICZ, 30th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING A "PROPERTY TAX
FAIRNESS ACT"', to create fairness in the property tax system.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6541
REP. URBAN, 43rd DIST. 'AN ACT EXEMPTING SCHOOL YEARBOOKS COSTING UNDER
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS FROM THE SALES TAX', to exempt school yearbooks
costing under one hundred dollars from the sales tax.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6536
REP. BYE, 19th DIST.; SEN. HARRIS, 5th DIST.; REP. FLEISCHMANN, 18th
DIST.; REP. MCCLUSKEY, 20th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE EDUCATION COST
SHARING GRANT AND THE FOUNDATION', to improve the ECS formula and make
it more equitable.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6533
REP. WITKOS, 17th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AGE FOR KINDERGARTEN',
to require children to be five years of age by the October first of the
year they enter school in order to ensure they are developmentally
ready for school.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6532
REP. POWERS, 151st DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING CHARTER SCHOOLS', to
provide additional funds to charter schools and to allow them to add
more classes.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6527 REP.
FAWCETT, 133rd DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING AID FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION', to
assist all towns with the cost of special education which is a growing
section of their annual education budget.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6524
REP. DAVIS, 117th DIST.; REP. DARGAN, 115th DIST.; REP. ESPOSITO, 116th
DIST.; SEN. SLOSSBERG, 14th DIST.; SEN. HARP, 10th DIST. 'AN ACT
CONCERNING UNIVERSAL FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN', to give all students in
the state an opportunity to attend a full day of kindergarten in order
to help develop social and educational skills.
- Proposed H.B.
No. 6510 REP. ROWE,
123rd DIST. 'AN ACT PROHIBITING MUSIC WITH VIOLENT LYRICS IN SCHOOLS', to prohibit
music with violent lyrics from being brought into schools.
- Proposed
H.B. No. 6490
REP. WILLIAMS, 68th DIST.; SEN. FINCH, 22nd DIST.; SEN. LEBEAU, 3rd
DIST.; SEN. MCDONALD, 27th DIST.; SEN. PRAGUE, 19th DIST.; SEN.
RORABACK, 30th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT PREFERENCES REGARDING
THE BANKING LAW OF CONNECTICUT', to change the banking law of
Connecticut in accordance with the winner's essay for the Who Wants To
Change The World Contest.
- Proposed
S.B. No. 826
SEN. HANDLEY, 4th DIST.; REP. THOMPSON, 13th DIST.; SEN. LOONEY, 11th
DIST. 'AN ACT ELIMINATING THE DEATH PENALTY', to eliminate the death
penalty and replace it with the penalty of life imprisonment without
the possibility of parole or other release. (This is the first we
notoces and then we saw more!)
- Proposed
S.B. No. 794
SEN. FINCH, 22nd DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE SALE OF ALCOHOL ON
SUNDAY', to allow Sunday sales of alcohol.
- Proposed
S.B. No. 787
SEN. FINCH, 22nd DIST.; SEN. LEBEAU, 3rd DIST.; SEN. MCDONALD, 27th
DIST.; SEN. PRAGUE, 19th DIST.; SEN. RORABACK, 30th DIST.; REP.
WILLIAMS, 68th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE WHO WANTS TO CHANGE THE
WORLD CONTEST', to change Connecticut's tax policy as written by the
winner of the "Who Wants to Change the World" contest.
- Proposed
S.B. No. 777
SEN. FINCH, 22nd DIST.; REP. ROWE, 123rd DIST. 'AN ACT REQUIRING A
HEARING PRIOR TO THE EUTHANIZATION OF A DOG THAT HAS ATTACKED ANOTHER
DOG', to require a hearing prior to euthanizing a dog that has attacked
another dog.
MEOW!!!
- Proposed
S.B. No. 762
SEN. FREEDMAN, 26th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
DEPARTMENT OF EARLY CHILDHOOD', to eliminate confusion between
departments by establishing a Department of Early Childhood that shall
be responsible for receiving money and administering programs relating
to early childhood.
- Proposed
S.B. No. 718
SEN. RORABACK, 30th DIST. 'AN ACT MAKING CERTAIN PRIVATE ROADS SUBJECT
TO STATE TRAFFIC LAW', to permit towns to enforce traffic laws on
private roads.
- Proposed
S.B. No. 706
SEN. FASANO, 34th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING A LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
TERMINAL HAZARD ZONE', to provide a mechanism for the state to play a
role regarding any hazard zone designated in relation to a proposed
liquefied natural gas terminal.
- Proposed
S.B. No. 658
SEN. HANDLEY, 4th DIST. 'AN ACT PROHIBITING SMOKING IN CONDOMINIUMS',
to relieve persons who reside in condominiums from exposure to
secondhand smoke.
- Proposed
S.B. No. 659
SEN. PRAGUE, 19th DIST.; SEN. DOYLE, 9th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING
LIVING WILLS', to ensure workable and enforceable living wills that
provide clear directions to families of persons who are dying as to the
desires of such persons.
- Proposed
S.B. No. 660 SEN.
HARRIS, 5th DIST. 'AN ACT RESTRICTING USE OF THE TERM "ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITY"', to restrict use of the term "assisted living facility" to
those facilities licensed as such by the Department of Public Health.
- Proposed
S.B. No. 661
SEN. FINCH, 22nd DIST.; SEN. LEBEAU, 3rd DIST.; SEN. RORABACK, 30th
DIST.; SEN. PRAGUE, 19th DIST.; SEN. MCDONALD, 27th DIST.; REP.
WILLIAMS, 68th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT PREFERENCES REGARDING
THE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT RELATED TO PUBLIC HEALTH', to revise the laws
of Connecticut related to public health in accordance with the winner's
essay for the Who Wants To Change The World Contest.
- Proposed
S.B. No. 691
SEN. DOYLE, 9th DIST.; REP. GUERRERA, 29th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING
REGULATION OF BURIAL GROUNDS', to provide for increased regulation of
burial grounds in Connecticut.
- Emergency personnel
abatement: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6318.htm
- Conveyance tax - keep it: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6315.htm
- AN ACT
CONCERNING REIMBURSEMENTS FOR
MANDATED PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS.http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6313.htm
- Eminent domain fix:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6309.htm
- Flag pole bill (or is this the way
to pay off the cell
phone companies?)http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6308.htm
- AN ACT MAKING SESSIONAL AND
INTERIM CLERKS OF GENERAL
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES PERMANENT EMPLOYEES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLYhttp://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6304.htm
- AN ACT
CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF
MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT HEAD.http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6296.htm
- One of several education
ideas: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6196.htm
- AN ACT CONCERNING A PROGRAM TO
INCENTIVIZE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS TO START HIGH SCHOOL NO EARLIER THAN NINE O'CLOCK A.M.http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6192.htm
- Regional solutions to educational
problems:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6189.htm
- AN ACT
CONCERNING A STATE-WIDE MOTOR
VEHICLE TAX.http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6183.htm
- AN ACT
AUTHORIZING BONDS OF THE STATE
FOR REVITALIZATION OF THE HISTORIC VILLAGE CENTER IN EAST HAMPTON.http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6180.htm
- Small town revitalization:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6162.htm
- Bridgeport redevelopment:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6159.htm and http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6160.htm
- Bullying:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-6154.htm
- Letting the gambling industry
explode across CT (our
opinion):
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/S/SB-0218.htm
- Send to G.A.E. - Removal of old
campaign signs: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-5383.htm
- Likewise: CAMPAIGN
SIGNS: on State property http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-5384.htm
- Proposed S.B.
No. 167 SEN. PRAGUE,
19th DIST.; SEN. SLOSSBERG, 14th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING A PROPERTY
OWNER'S RIGHT TO REPURCHASE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY EMINENT DOMAIN', to allow an
individual or the individual's heir to repurchase property acquired by
eminent domain when the public use for which the property was acquired
is not completed within fifteen years after the acquisition.
- Ballroom Polka:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/S/SB-0228.htm the State Polka
bill, again: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-5328.htm
- From Rep. Dyson, about the death
penalty: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/H/HB-5333.htm
- PHB-5107
AA AUTHORIZING BONDS OF THE STATE FOR THE WESTPORT HISTORICAL
SOCIETY. REPRESENTATIVE MIOLI, 136TH DIST.
- Proposed
S. B. No. 119 SEN. GUGLIELMO, 35th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING
ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE', to increase the qualifying threshold of
ownership of property for voting which has been at one thousand dollars
for more than fifty years.
- THIS ONE IS THE PROPOSED
BILL TO PUT A TOLL BOOTH AT THE ENTRANCE TO FOXWOODS:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/S/SB-0121.htm
- College
savings idea: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/cbs/S/SB-0125.htm
Mood Tense
Over
Ethics; Lawmakers Collide On Bill Designed To Curb Office's Power
By MARK PAZNIOKAS, Courant
Staff Writer
March 30, 2007
Days
after proposing tighter
conflict-of-interest standards on the General Assembly, the Office of
State Ethics is facing a legislative effort to curb its powers.
The timing appears coincidental - the bill's sponsor, Sen. Gayle
Slossberg, D-Milford, has been
working on the curbs for months - but it still has created a charged
political atmosphere.
"Now is not the time to start playing politics with the ethics board,"
said Rep. Christopher L. Caruso, D-Bridgeport, who is trying to stop
Slossberg. "It says to the public, it's politics as usual."
Slossberg is proposing a new layer of judicial review and other
restrictions in response to a decision by the Citizens Ethics Advisory
Board that, for a time, barred charitable gifts to state universities.
Unable to resolve the issue privately, Caruso and Slossberg will
publicly oppose each other today during a meeting of the government
administration and elections committee - a panel they jointly run as
co-chairs.
Adding to the drama of one co-chairperson trying to kill another's bill
is the looming deadline of 5 p.m. today for the committee to send bills
to the floor. Any legislation still awaiting action at 5 is dead.
If that wasn't enough drama, the proposed conflict-of-interest
standards, which were summarily abandoned Thursday by ethics
regulators, arose from a case involving one of the most powerful
legislators: House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford.
Barbara E. Housen, general counsel to the Citizens Ethics Advisory
Board and the Office of State Ethics, completed a draft opinion Monday
advising Amann to stop soliciting lobbyists and their clients for
donations to his private employer, the National Multiple Sclerosis
Society.
Elements of the opinion were construed by legislative attorneys to
broadly set new conflict standards, possibly jeopardizing the ability
of many legislators to hold jobs outside the part-time General
Assembly. If adopted by the ethics advisory board, the opinion
would have been binding on legislators. But Housen told the board
Thursday that she revised the opinion to narrow its focus, saying she
did not intend to set a sweeping new standard.
"I believe there has been much confusion regarding the reach and scope
of the draft," Housen told board members.
A spokesman for House Democrats said legislative attorneys still were
unsure whether the new language was sufficiently narrow. In her
revised opinion, Housen did not retreat from her conclusion, which is
offered for the board to adopt or reject, that Amann was using his
office to benefit his private employer.
"In the board's view, solicitations directed at lobbyists are effective
precisely because they are unavoidably and inherently coercive and tend
to create an atmosphere of pressure," she wrote.
The only concession to Amann was slight. In the original, she referred
to an atmosphere of "intimidation," instead of "pressure."
At the request of Democratic legislative leaders, the board postponed
action on Housen's draft opinion for a month. Tensions have been
building for months among the newly organized ethics agency and some
state officials and legislators.
The Office of State Ethics and the ethics advisory board were created
by the legislature in 2005 in response to dissatisfaction with the
office's predecessor agency, the state Ethics Commission.
The new ethics advisory board quickly became controversial by broadly
interpreting a ban on gifts from state contractors to rule out
charitable gifts to state universities, including a proposal by Bayer
HealthCare to give valuable surplus lab equipment to the state
university system.
The board's own lawyers had advised that the legislature never intended
such a broad ban. Earlier this year, the legislature clarified the law
to explicitly permit such gifts.
Slossberg
said her bill was a response
to what she called the board's obvious misinterpretation of state law.
It provides a new layer of judicial review not imposed on the ethics
board's regulatory peers - the Freedom of Information Commission and
Elections Enforcement Commission.
Decisions of all three agencies now
can be appealed to the Superior
Court. Slossberg's bill would allow those affected by the ethics board
a quicker and cheaper review by trial referees, who are semi-retired
judges.
"It is small thing. It is a simple
thing," Slossberg said. "This
predates any of the controversy that is going on now."
Benjamin Bycel, the executive
director of the Office of State Ethics,
said the legislation subjects the agency to a level of review beyond
other agencies. It also would bar agency staff from making statements
to the press that could prejudice "an existing or potential" proceeding.
The bill also restricts the ability
of agency staff to revoke previous
advisory opinions.
"It's a direct missile hit on the
Office of State Ethics," Bycel said.
"I think it is a sad day."
Caruso said Slossberg clearly was
motivated by the board's action on
the gift ban, but he believes the Amann opinion has prompted other
legislators to take a closer look at the ethics agency.
"Now, because of the recent opinion,
some people are saying, `We have
the proof. We have to rein these people in,'" Caruso said.
Slossberg disagreed.
"As long as the board is acting
within their statutory authority, they
have free rein," she said. "There is not a problem with this board - as
long as they are following the law."
H.
R. No. 2 REP. DONOVAN, 84th DIST. RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE HOUSE
RULES.
The
resolution was explained by Representative Donovan of the 84th. The
resolution was discussed by Representative Belden of the 113th. The
resolution was further discussed by Representative Cafero of the 142nd
who offered House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 729) and moved its
adoption. The amendment was discussed by Representative Hamzy of the
78th who moved that when the vote be taken it be taken by roll call
The Speaker ordered the vote be
taken by roll call at 5: 26 p. m.
The following is the result of
the vote:
Total Number Voting 137,
Necessary for Adoption 69
Those voting Yea 40
Those voting Nay 97
Those absent and not voting 14
On
a roll call vote the amendment was rejected.
The following is the roll call
vote:
| |
N
|
|
ABERCROMBIE
|
|
N
|
|
HURLBURT
|
|
N
|
|
SAYERS
|
Y
|
|
|
FLOREN
|
| |
N
|
|
ALDARONDO
|
|
N
|
|
JANOWSKI
|
|
N
|
|
SCHOFIELD
|
Y
|
|
|
FREY
|
| |
N
|
|
ARESIMOWICZ
|
|
N
|
|
JARMOC
|
|
|
X
|
SERRA
|
Y
|
|
|
GIBBONS
|
| |
N
|
|
AYALA
|
|
N
|
|
JOHNSTON
|
|
N
|
|
SHAPIRO
|
Y
|
|
|
GIEGLER
|
| |
|
X
|
BACKER
|
|
N
|
|
JUTILA
|
|
N
|
|
SHARKEY
|
Y
|
|
|
GIULIANO
|
| |
N
|
|
BARRY
|
|
N
|
|
KEELEY
|
|
N
|
|
SPALLONE
|
Y
|
|
|
GREENE, L.
|
| |
N
|
|
BARTLETT
|
|
N
|
|
KEHOE
|
|
N
|
|
STAPLES
|
Y
|
|
|
HAMZY
|
| |
N
|
|
BERGER
|
|
N
|
|
LAWLOR
|
|
N
|
|
STONE, C.
|
Y
|
|
|
HARKINS
|
| |
N
|
|
BOUKUS
|
|
N
|
|
LEONE
|
|
N
|
|
TABORSAK
|
Y
|
|
|
HETHERINGTON
|
| |
N
|
|
BUTLER
|
|
N
|
|
LEWIS
|
|
N
|
|
TALLARITA
|
Y
|
|
|
HOVEY
|
| |
N
|
|
BYE
|
|
|
X
|
MALONE
|
|
N
|
|
TERCYAK
|
|
|
X
|
KALINOWSKI
|
| |
|
X
|
CANDELARIA, J.
|
|
N
|
|
MAZUREK
|
|
N
|
|
THOMPSON
|
Y
|
|
|
KLARIDES
|
| |
N
|
|
CARUSO
|
|
N
|
|
MCCLUSKEY
|
|
N
|
|
TONG
|
Y
|
|
|
LABRIOLA
|
| |
N
|
|
CHRIST
|
|
N
|
|
MCCRORY
|
|
N
|
|
TRUGLIA
|
|
|
X
|
MILLER
|
| |
N
|
|
CHRISTIANO
|
|
N
|
|
MCMAHON
|
|
N
|
|
URBAN
|
Y
|
|
|
MINER
|
| |
N
|
|
CLEMONS
|
|
N
|
|
MEGNA
|
|
|
X
|
VILLANO
|
Y
|
|
|
NOUJAIM
|
| |
N
|
|
DARGAN
|
|
N
|
|
MERRILL
|
|
N
|
|
WALKER
|
Y
|
|
|
O'NEILL
|
| |
N
|
|
DAVIS
|
|
N
|
|
MIKUTEL
|
|
N
|
|
WIDLITZ
|
Y
|
|
|
PISCOPO
|
| |
N
|
|
DILLON
|
|
N
|
|
MIOLI
|
|
N
|
|
WILBER
|
Y
|
|
|
POWERS
|
| |
N
|
|
DONOVAN
|
|
N
|
|
MORIN
|
|
N
|
|
WILLIS
|
Y
|
|
|
ROWE
|
| |
N
|
|
DREW
|
|
N
|
|
MORRIS
|
|
N
|
|
WRIGHT
|
Y
|
|
|
RUWET
|
| |
N
|
|
DYSON
|
|
N
|
|
MOUKAWSHER
|
|
N
|
|
ZALASKI
|
|
|
X
|
RYAN,
J.
|
| |
|
X
|
ESPOSITO
|
|
N
|
|
MUSHINSKY
|
|
|
|
|
Y
|
|
|
SAWYER
|
| |
|