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

L I S T   O F   B I L L S
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:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial Nominees

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

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

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

Regulatory Switch

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

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

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

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

Health Center

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

The House voted over the weekend in favor of the plan, which, in addition to making physical improvements to the 35-year-old John Dempsey Hospital in Farmington, including a new tower for patient beds, would also create a network among the health center and area private hospitals.

The plan depends on $237 million in state bonding and $100 million in federal grants for which Connecticut and at least a dozen more states are competing; the funding is not guaranteed.

Land Swap

Now comes an unexploded legislative bomb, important to residents in the Connecticut River valley, but not gaining wide notice yet amid everything else going on at the Capitol: It is a twice-killed proposal by developers in Haddam to trade as many as 85 privately owned wooded acres next to a state forest for 17 acres of state-owned, open-space land overlooking the Connecticut River.

Rell vetoed a seemingly routine land-conveyance bill last year, an annual measure to dispose of surplus state property — largely because it contained the land swap that some Haddam residents called an 11th-hour "backroom deal." That killed the land-swap proposal.

The proposed swap found its way back into this year's conveyance bill, but again it was cut out of the bill in recent weeks after further opposition from not only local residents, but also the state's new environmental commissioner. Still, in recent days it received vocal backing from Middlesex Chamber of Commerce President Larry McHugh, a political favorite of Rell's who serves as chairman of the UConn board of trustees and and who wrote an op-ed piece about it in The Courant.

An area legislator, Rep. James Spallone of Essex, said over the weekend that it's too late in the session to properly handle a proposal whose terms keep changing. Spallone, co-chairman of the legislative committee that recently removed the proposal from this year's conveyance bill, said that he would fight any attempt to restore it. If anything happens now, it will be closely watched.

Long List

And if all that's not enough between now and Wednesday, here are some of the dozens of other proposals still waiting final action:

•A bill to provide workers' compensation benefits to police who shoot mammals other than humans. The measure stemmed from the denial of such benefits, including counseling, to the police officer who shot the chimp that attacked a Stamford woman more than a year ago. The Senate has passed the bill, with no House vote yet.

•Three bills to curb domestic violence and assist victims of it, which have passed in the House but not the Senate.

•A bill to prevent student athletes from returning to action too soon after suffering concussions, which passed the Senate but needs House action.

•A modified bill calling for a study of seat belts on school buses, as well as financial incentives for towns to install them; the House approved it, but the Senate hasn't voted.

•A school reform bill that the Senate has passed, with no House vote yet. The wide-ranging bill would establish more rigorous requirements for high school students, and was written to help Connecticut with its application for federal Race to the Top funds.

Link here to LWVCT Fall Conference video on Health Care...
HEALTH CARE: Battle Over How To Curb Rising Health Care Costs In Connecticut
Hartford Courant
By MATTHEW STURDEVANT
February 28, 2010

Connecticut had the fifth most expensive group health insurance premiums in 2008 and has seen accelerating increases since, placing the state squarely in the national debate about out-of-control premium hikes.

The good news is, Connecticut has apparently slipped in the rankings from the most expensive state in 1998 and 1999, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which listed only 40 states for those years.

Soaring costs have ignited public outrage and political theater, particularly in Connecticut. State regulated group rates — premiums for plans bought through employers and other groups — went up 13 percent and more for a family this year, while individuals who buy insurance on their own saw an average increase of 20.7 percent.  Now, state legislators are weighing a bill to add further constraints on insurers raising premiums for individual plans, while Congress considers President Barack Obama's proposal for a new federal agency to monitor all rates.

In the intensifying battle over premiums, billions of dollars are at stake in a debate that pits insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, consumer groups and regulators in a complex web of discord. Depending on the proposal, various sides align as they blame others for the rising cost to consumers.

Consumers and small businesses are stuck in the middle, struggling in the slow post-recession recovery to pay for basics, as health care costs rise by double-digit increases year after year.

Reformers point to $12.2 billion in combined profits last year at the five largest health insurance companies — WellPoint, UnitedHealth Group, CIGNA Corp., Aetna, and Humana. Insurers say much of that was investment income recovered during a stock market rebound. The profit from each premium dollar has narrowed, they say, as medical expenses launch skyward.

Proponents of stronger state laws, primarily Connecticut Health Care Advocate Kevin Lembo and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, say state regulators should make rate hikes "reasonable" rather than "not excessive" as current statutes require. They point to the fact that the state Department of Insurance has approved rate increases exactly as requested by insurers in 22 of 26 cases since 2006.

"The current state regulatory system has failed consumers. It's broken, and it needs reform," Blumenthal said.

But state Insurance Commissioner Thomas Sullivan, who approves the rates, says they are based on actuarial science. Premiums, he says, are merely a reflection of both rising prices for goods and services — doctor visits, hospital expenses, pharmaceuticals and equipment — and added use of medical services.

"I don't think there's an area of medical cost that isn't experiencing significant increases in cost, whether that's imaging or pharmaceuticals or physician fees or inpatient care or outpatient surgery," said Keith Stover, a spokesman for the Connecticut Association of Health Plans, the lobbying group for insurers.

Charting The Rise

It's nearly impossible to track and compare premiums from state to state because of a huge variety of plans, changes in plans from year to year and myriad other factors. The federal government and nonprofits keep track of average premiums for employer-based insurance, but not individual plans. And those averages can be skewed by numbers at the high and low ends, saying nothing about the plans most people have.

Further, the average prices provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have enough margin of error that any state's ranking could in reality be significantly higher or lower than represented.

Average price in private insurance is also skewed by consumers' choices. Connecticut's high rank may show only that consumers and employers here are willing to spend more for better coverage, not that they're paying more for the same coverage.  What's undisputed is the alarming rise in price, generally.

The average annual premium for a family plan offered through a person's workplace was $13,436 in 2008, nearly double the $6,958 premium a decade before. The nation averaged $12,298 in 2008, more than twice the $6,058 average a decade before.

Looking only at the employee's contribution to a family plan premium — $3,075 on average in 2008 — Connecticut is 15th least expensive among all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Employers pick up the rest of the tab.

Making matters more confusing, the state regulates only the so-called fully insured plans, those in which the risk is taken on by the insurer. Premiums for self-insured plans, typically at large companies that hire the insurance companies only to run the plan, are regulated by the federal government (but are included in the HHS averages).

Fully-insured group plans sold to about 875,000 Connecticut residents this year had increases ranging from 13 to 19 percent, according to the state Office of Legislative Research. In 2009, that same range was 10 to 13 percent.

In individual plans, prices and options are so broad that comparisons are absurd — like comparing the price of a "meal" in one state vs. another. A chili dog or black caviar with the best Krug champagne? On average, though, individuals who buy their own plans in Connecticut saw their premiums rise this year by a 20.7 percent average — up from a 2009 increase of 16.7 percent.

Why The Hikes?

Health care eventually comes down to questions about why premiums cost so much and why they're rising faster than overall inflation.

Insurers point to medical costs.

"As provider prices and consumer utilization increase, so must health insurance premiums," said David Fusco, president of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut, the insurer with the largest state enrollment.

"If insurers are unable to raise premiums to adequately cover these increased expenses, they become unable to pay claims on behalf of their members," Fusco told lawmakers Thursday.

Among the factors that keep Connecticut prices higher than the norm: overall cost of living in the Northeast and the aging population of Connecticut.

"More patients need more care now than ever before," said Matthew Katz, executive vice president of the Connecticut State Medical Society.

Doctors, consumer activists and many Democrats, led by Obama, say insurers are reaping billions in profits with no restraint, as they add cost by forcing providers to spend ever more on the filing of claims.

"Health insurance companies and their profits are getting bigger and fatter while patient access to care suffers," Katz said.

Insurers fight back by saying that doctors are bilking the system with unnecessary charges. They also cite excessive and elaborate services, which doctors, in turn, say are forced by a culture that requires "defensive medicine."

Also at issue is whether premiums are higher in Connecticut because the state requires the insurers it regulates to provide coverage for services that aren't required in other states.

"While legislated regulations may add to the cost of fully insured plans vs. self-funded plans, probably a bigger factor are risk charges — the cushion that insurance companies build into the rates to cover them in the event of higher-than-expected costs — and profit," said Beth Umland, director of health and benefits research at Mercer, a benefits and health care consulting firm.

"In self-funded plans, employers are just paying for the claims cost and administration," she said.

Among other disputes about premium costs: Are doctors in Connecticut paid better than those in other states? How much of hospitals' services are provided out of fear of lawsuits? And how much are patients with private insurance subsidizing the lower-paying public medical plans, chiefly Medicaid and Medicare?

Dr. John A. Foley, a Norwich cardiologist who joined the medical society in testifying at a legislative hearing Thursday, said he has been getting paid less each year. He said most doctors practice defensive medicine for fear of being sued, more than many studies reveal. And he said none of those services is performed to make up for a loss from treating patients in public health plans.  Foley supports measures to rein in rate hikes because, he said, he believes insurers are pocketing most of the added money.

A detailed public investigation is impossible. That's because when insurers file rate requests, much of the information they give to the Connecticut insurance department is considered proprietary, and is kept private.

Lembo, the state health care advocate, says making that information public would help.

"There is insufficient information to research and to come to a final conclusion about what is actually in that premium dollar," Lembo said. "And that is not necessarily a quarrel with industry. It's just that more folks are priced out of the market, more employers drop coverage, the ranks of the uninsured swell, the shift in burden goes more onto employees than it ever has before.

"This has created a situation that is disastrous both for the health of the people of Connecticut, and for the economic security of the state as a whole," Lembo said.

Debating A Solution

Political proposals and supposed solutions abound.

Obama's idea for a new federal agency to monitor and perhaps regulate health premiums has so far not drawn wide scrutiny, but is opposed by the industry and many state regulators.

The bill by Lembo and Blumenthal, which would not apply to group rates, was drafted immediately after fury last year when Anthem requested rate hikes of 23 to 32 percent for its individual plans in the state.

"If states want to continue with the regulatory role they've had in the past rather than the shift of responsibility to a national regulator as the president has proposed, they have to do the right thing; they have to show they can perform and protect consumers," Blumenthal said.

The bill would require public hearings each time an insurer asked to raise rates. Public hearings are now held at the discretion of the insurance commissioner. The insurance department would also make public all of the supporting documentation that insurers provide to the department and would authorize the attorney general and health care advocate to intervene and cross-examine insurers during rate-hike proceedings.

The bill also calls for an appeal process, which currently doesn't exist.  If adopted, the reform would scare away insurers if they're not allowed to base rates on actuarial science, said Sullivan, the insurance commissioner.  Other states have adopted similar legislation and have seen insurers stop offering coverage to the individual market, Sullivan and insurers say. Maine is an example, though the experience of other states is often debated because they have different demographics, different income levels and other factors that would alter the outcome.

Sullivan, however, is certain the same would happen here.

"I fear that the unintended consequence would drive away competition," he said, "and hurt the very consumers that the proponents of this bill are trying to protect."

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant

House Passes A Watered-Down Seat Belt Bill
By AMANDA FALCONE, The Hartford Courant
May 1, 2010

HARTFORD —

School districts would not be forced to have seat belts on their buses under a measure that cleared the House of Representatives on Friday, although they would have a financial incentive if they chose to have students buckle up, anyway.

The House voted 125-18 in favor of the legislation, which specifies that lap-and-shoulder seat belts would be optional.

The bill would create an incentive program for school districts that buy buses with belts between July 1, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2017. The state would reimburse the districts half of the amount they paid in sales tax. For a $100,000 purchase, the reimbursement would amount to about $3,000, one lawmaker said.

The reimbursements would be administered by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the money would come from restoration fees paid for by those whose licenses have been suspended or revoked. The bill would increase the fee from $125 to $175, and the additional $50 would be placed in a school seat belt account.

The seat belt bill still needs to be passed by the Senate and signed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who has said that she supports the concept of getting students to buckle up.

Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D- Rocky Hill, co-chairman of the legislature's transportation committee, has pushed for requiring seat belts on school buses since 16-year-old Vikas Parikh died in a bus accident on I-84 in January.

Guerrera's proposal started out as an ambitious mandate that would put seat belts on all public school buses in Connecticut by 2011, but throughout the legislative process he has had to compromise. When the transportation committee passed the bill, seat belts would have only been required on new buses purchased in 2012 or after. The appropriations committee got rid of the mandate, calling for state agencies to study the feasibility of requiring all buses to have belts.

Money was a primary concern. The Office of Fiscal Analysis, the legislature's budget office, estimated that buying new buses with three-point belts would cost local and regional school districts an additional $45.2 million to $103.4 million over a 12-year period. It would cost the technical school system an additional $644,000 to $1.5 million.

Estimates are for 12 years because that is how long it is expected to take to replace the state's fleet of about 6,500 large buses. A new bus, on average, would cost $80,000 to $116,000, and a bus without the seat belts would cost, on average, $75,000 to $100,000, the budget office said.

When the appropriations committee voted, its chairman, Rep. John Geragosian, D- New Britain, said that a study was needed because of a "discrepancy" in the numbers.

Guerrera amended the appropriations committee's version of the bill Friday, saying that he realized that a compromise was necessary to kick-start the seat belt initiative.

Guerrera has recognized that what is good for one district might not be good for another, said House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, complimenting Guerrera for helping his community and agreeing to compromise.

Lawmakers should now encourage districts to get buses with belts, said Rep. Timothy Larson, D- East Hartford. "The bill lets towns grow into the effort," he said.

Rocky Hill school board Chairman William MacDonald was pleased to hear about the House's vote Friday but said he had been hoping for a seat belt mandate. Rocky Hill is in the last year of its contract with Durham Transportation and is planning to discuss soon whether to require seat belts on buses, MacDonald said, adding that any incentive the state can offer will help.

"Our town has never been so proud of Tony," he said.

Although MacDonald had been hoping for a mandate, Mark Hughes, the chairman of the Meriden school board, was more hesitant. He said that he worried about the cost of seat belts, saying that bus companies would pass on the extra costs to school districts. His struggling school district is already facing a deficit for the next fiscal year.

Hughes also said that he had some practical and logistical concerns about monitoring seat belt usage and student behavior.

The Meriden school board has not discussed and does not have plans to discuss putting seat belts on buses.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant



Appropriations Panel Amends School Bus Seat Belt Bill — Calls For More Study
Hartford Courant
By AMANDA FALCONE
April 13, 2010

HARTFORD —

A fatal highway accident lent urgency to a bill that would require seat belts on school buses, but the tragedy and the wishes of Vikas Parikh's grieving family and friends ultimately were not enough to save the legislation.  The legislature's appropriations committee said it had concerns about the cost of the program.

The bill had called for putting lap-and-shoulder, or three-point, seat belts on all new buses purchased in 2012 or later. It was changed to require the commissioners for the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Education to study the feasibility of requiring all school buses to have seat belts. The study, which would be submitted to lawmakers by Oct. 1, would include information on safety issues and the cost to municipalities.

The committee's 41-10 vote in favor of the amended bill came after the legislature's budget office released cost estimates for buying buses with seat belts. There were discrepancies in the numbers, said Rep. John Geragosian, D- New Britain, the committee's chairman.

"It's clear that we need some better information," he said.

The Office of Fiscal Analysis, the legislative budget office, estimated that buying new buses with three-point seat belts would cost local and regional school districts an additional $45.2 million to $103.4 million over a 12-year period. It would cost the state technical school system an additional $644,000 to $1.5 million.

The estimates are for a dozen years because that is the projected time it would take to replace the state's fleet of roughly 6,500 large buses. A new bus with seat belts would cost, on average, $80,000 to $116,000, and a bus without the seat belts would cost, on average, $75,000 to $100,000, according to the budget office.

In addition, the office says there would be an increase in maintenance costs, and school districts probably would have to buy extra buses or add bus routes if buses had seat belts. The office says seat belts reduce seating capacity.

The DMV would also see some additional costs.

Despite Monday's vote, Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D- Rocky Hill, co-chairman of the transportation committee, remains optimistic. Guerrera, who proposed the bill after Parikh's death, said he intends to amend the bill when it comes up for a vote on the House floor. Guerrera said in the coming days he will work on crafting language that his colleagues might support. He said he might offer an amendment that would let cities and towns choose whether to put belts on buses — an option they already have under federal law. Guerrera's proposal, however, would offer those municipalities an incentive. Maybe it would be a sales tax exemption, he said.

"These bills may go to sleep, but they never die," Guerrera said.

Pratik Parikh also said he is hopeful. His son, Vikas Parikh, died Jan. 9 as a result of a bus crash on I-84, and since then, Pratik Parikh and his family and friends have been pushing for change. They believe that the 16-year-old would still be alive if buses had seat belts.

Pratik Parikh of Rocky Hill said that cutting the seat belt requirement from the bill was not a good sign, but he added that he would talk to lawmakers to find out what he can do to bring the proposal back.

"Everybody wants it," he said of a seat belt mandate. "That's why it's so surprising."

Although a Quinnipiac University poll did show that three of four state residents support requiring seat belts on school buses, groups including the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education have spoken out against the bill. They say the belts would be too expensive and are not needed because the high, cushy seats on buses are already designed to absorb impact in a crash.

Loan Forgiveness

The committee did not discuss Gov. M. Jodi Rell's proposal to create a loan forgiveness program for those who graduate from a Connecticut school with a bachelor's or associate's degree in green technology, life sciences or health-related information technology and who live and work in the state for at least two years. The bill died in committee.

Chimp Bill

The appropriations committee also voted 36-15 on a bill that would allow police officers who shoot animals while facing imminent danger to be eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The bill relates directly to Stamford police Officer Frank Chiafari, who shot and killed a chimpanzee last year after it mauled 56-year-old Charla Nash.

Chiafari testified at a legislative public hearing last month.

Although the bill passed Monday, it was amended. Because of concerns that the word "animal" was too broad, the bill now specifies that to be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, an officer must shoot a mammal.
SCHOOL BUSES: Officials Wary As Connecticut Lawmakers Consider Mandating School Bus Seat Belts
By AMANDA FALCONE, The Hartford Courant
March 1, 2010

State lawmakers are considering whether to require seat belts on public school buses, but some Connecticut students are already buckling up.

Cromwell, Danbury, Redding and Wilton have had seat belts on their buses for years. Students in those districts, however, are not required to wear the belts, and school administrators say that such a requirement would be difficult to enforce. Instead, they teach students how to wear the belts and encourage their use.

Most younger students wear them, officials say, while older students are less likely to do so.  Although seat belts have become an expected and accepted bus feature, school officials in those communities are still paying close attention to this year's debate. Mandates could affect districts equally, regardless of whether they already have seat belts on buses, and like others throughout the state, administrators in districts such as Cromwell and Redding wonder if the cost is worth it.

Just as they acknowledge that seat belt enforcement is difficult, school administrators say that, fortunately, there have been no major bus accidents in the four towns to put the belts to the test.
Few, if any, of her peers buckle up, said Hannah Vera, 16, a Cromwell High School freshman. She said that many would rather play with the seat belts.

"I have been hit with one of those before," Vera said, remembering how she was unintentionally struck twice by flying seat belts. Both times her lip was cut.

Some school administrators acknowledge that there have been reports of students swinging lap belts or using them as "weapons." The belts also get stuffed into seats, said Eva Colligan, business manager for Redding schools.

In the past, Cromwell has considered putting monitors on buses to help with enforcement, but officials rejected the idea because of the cost, said Rick Mandeville, director of operation services for Cromwell schools. He said the district's bus company, Dattco Inc., estimated that each monitor would cost $34 an hour, meaning that the cost to the district of putting monitors on every bus would be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Danbury, Redding and Wilton have contracts with First Student Inc.

Student's Death

Since the death of a Rocky Hill teenager in January, Vera said, her bus driver has been asking students why they choose against buckling up. Students tell the driver that they don't think wearing a seat belt is necessary, she said.

Vera said that seat belts are important and should be installed on all school buses, but she conceded that her thinking might have changed since Vikas Parikh, 16, was killed in a bus accident on I-84. Vera didn't know Parikh, a student at the Greater Hartford Academy of Math and Science, but she said she knows a student who was on the bus who told her about the accident.  Other students riding the bus with Parikh on Jan. 9 say their attitude toward seat belts also changed after the accident. They are now pushing for seat belts to be required. Sameer Laul, a student from Rocky Hill, said he was willing to travel throughout the state to talk to students about his experiences in an effort to change their minds.

It was Parikh's death that prompted Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, co-chairman of the legislature's transportation committee, to propose the seat belt bill being considered by lawmakers this session. The bill would require lap-and- shoulder, or three-point, belts — not lap belts. Only Danbury has lap-and-shoulder belts on its buses.

The debate over seat belts is not new. Lawmakers have proposed 23 other seat belt bills over the past two decades, but none made it out of committee.  Opponents say the belts are not needed because flexible, cushy bus seats are placed close together to absorb impact. They also worry about the costs associated with putting belts on buses.

Safety First

Former Cromwell Superintendent K. Alexander Paddyfote, who is now a consultant for school administrators and school boards, does not remember money being a problem in 1985, when Cromwell ordered seat belts for its buses — the first in the state to do so, according to a news report at the time.  Paddyfote said he advocated the purchase to the school board after a worried kindergarten parent approached him. The board and town residents were supportive, he said, and he helped encourage students to wear the belts by occasionally riding on the bus with them.

Paddyfote did not recall the cost of installing the belts. The bus company and school board worked together to make it happen when it was time for the contract to be renewed, he said.  Safety should come first, Paddyfote said, and people should think about money later. He said that more districts should have followed Cromwell's lead.

Cliff Gibson, the chief operating officer of Dattco Inc., was not with that company in 1985, but said that if school districts want seat belts, the cost would be factored into a bid package or would be part of negotiations.  Installing seat belts on school buses is expensive, Gibson said. Lap belts are cheaper than lap-and-shoulder belts, and putting belts on new buses coming out of the factory is less expensive than retrofitting belts on older buses, he said.

Retrofitting older buses with lap-and-shoulder belts would cost $20,000 to $22,000 per bus, and about $15,000 per vehicle on new buses, Gibson said.

Although Cromwell, Danbury, Redding and Wilton all have seat belts, school officials in those communities still worry about the possibility that the state will mandate using lap-and-shoulder belts. With the exception of Danbury, the districts would have to spend money to update from lap belts to lap-and-shoulder belts.

Mary Channing, the Wilton district's transportation coordinator, said that the district is already considering the upgrade because it plans to go to bid for all new buses next year.

School administrators — even in the towns that already have seat belts — are keeping a close watch on lawmakers. They worry about costs and liability issues, and they hope that they will be given enough time to comply with any mandates.  Mandeville, of Cromwell, suggested that perhaps lawmakers should start by requiring only buses traveling on the highway to have lap-and-shoulder belts.

Guerrera's bill is being considered by the transportation committee, which has until March 17 to vote on the matter.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant
Hearing At Capitol Considers Requiring Seat Belts On School Buses
By AMANDA FALCONE, The Hartford Courant
February 18, 2010

HARTFORD —

Family and friends of Vikas Parikh say the 16-year-old would still be alive if school buses had seat belts.

The state's chief medical examiner agrees.

"The science is clear," said H. Wayne Carver II. "Strap them in."

Carver, those who knew Parikh, and others testified Wednesday before the legislature's transportation committee in support of a bill that would require lap-and-shoulder, or three-point, seat belts to be installed on school buses by January 2011.

Others spoke against the bill, saying that the mandate would be expensive — and unnecessary. In addition, they said, forcing that many children to buckle up might be problematic.

Parikh's parents, Pratik and Dolly Parikh, said they were pushing for change to make sure that other families do not have to go through what they went through.

"They are trying to make some good out of this tragedy," said Sen. Paul Doyle, a Democrat who represents Rocky Hill.

On Jan. 9, Parikh, a student at both Rocky Hill High School and the Greater Hartford Academy of Math and Science, was traveling by school bus on I-84 to a kickoff event for a national robotics competition when the bus and a car collided, sending the bus down a 20-foot embankment. Police are investigating, and no charges have been filed.

Parikh was the only person killed, although several students and a teacher were injured. According to one student who was on the bus, two injured students still have not returned to the classroom and the teacher is not expected back for months.

Parikh was the first school bus passenger killed in a crash since the state began keeping records in 1972.

Parikh's classmates testified in support of the seat belt bill but also spoke about the friend they lost and the day of the crash.

"I lost my best friend," said Sameer Laul of Rocky Hill, at a press conference prior to the hearing. "I saw him fly over the seat. I saw him hit the win- dow. I saw him when he was lying in his own pool of blood."

As Laul shared his memory of the accident, a somber Pratik Parikh put his arm around his wife, who was wiping away tears.

In testimony before the transportation committee, Carver said that Laul was the first witness to say that Vikas Parikh hit the window. Police have not released details of their investigation.

Carver said there was a surveillance camera on the bus that caught the first part of the accident, which showed Parikh flipping out of his seat. The impact caused the camera to malfunction, and it did not record the bus's fall down the embankment, he said.

Describing the January crash as a perfect storm, Carver said that the events of the crash followed the laws of physics. He said that a seat belt would have saved Parikh.

Several emergency physicians who testified Wednesday said that seat belts on buses are necessary and would save lives and reduce the magnitude of injuries. The doctors acknowledged that school buses are safe but said that seat belts could only improve safety for children.

Although sympathetic to the recent tragedy, others spoke against installing seat belts, citing the costs involved and the difficulty of making sure that students wear them. Some referred to the safety afforded by seating space "compartmentalization" in school buses — cushy, high seats placed close together to absorb impact.

Representing the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, David Kennedy, a member of the Stratford school board, said that school boards want children to be safe, but are worried about the costs associated with seat belts.

Stratford has 39 buses, and to retrofit them with seat belts would be costly and hard to do before the January 2011 deadline, he said. There is no way the funds are there, especially during tough economic times, Kennedy said, suggesting that if lawmakers decide to require seat belts, a phase-in approach should be considered and that the state should look for creative ways to pay for the seat belts.

The trade publication School Transportation News has estimated that it would cost between $1,500 to $2,000 per bus to install seat belts on new buses. It could cost between $1,500 and $11,000 to retrofit older buses with structural reinforcement and seat belts, the publication reported.

Requiring seat belts on all buses is both expensive and impractical, said representatives from the Connecticut School Transportation Association, adding that the state needs to consider several factors, including liability and responsibility.

The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities called the bill an unfunded mandate that has no proven safety benefits. It is well-intentioned but would give parents a false sense of security at a tremendous expense, said Donna Hamzy, who was representing CCM.

If a bill requiring seat belts on school buses is signed into law, Connecticut would become the seventh state to have such a mandate. New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, Louisiana and Alabama all have laws requiring seat belts.

In Connecticut, 23 bills requiring seat belts on school buses have been introduced in the General Assembly over the past two decades. None has made it out of committee.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell has said that she supports the concept, and a Quinnipiac University poll showed that three of four state residents support requiring seat belts on buses.

Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, co-chairman of the transportation committee and the lawmaker who introduced this year's bill, said that he was gathering more information about seat belts Wednesday and would use some suggestions to improve his bill.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant



Let them eat cake.  Or how about letting Route Seven extension possibilities get sold off?

Governor nixes budget legislation
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Susan Haigh, Associated Press
Posted: 10/06/2009 07:04:51 AM EDT
Updated: 10/06/2009 07:05:12 AM EDT

HARTFORD -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Monday she has vetoed one of several bills passed last week that spell out details of the new two-year $37.6 billion budget.  The bill is one of two that outlines certain general government spending. Rell said she vetoed the bill because it placed too many limits on where she can cut spending in order to keep the budget in balance over the coming months.  The Republican governor said the legislation would have removed options for her to save the state money. Rell is charged with finding hundreds of millions of dollars in spending reductions under the new budget.

For example, the bill extends a moratorium for two years on the sale, lease or transfer of state-owned group homes for the developmentally disabled. It also restricts reductions to certain parts of the Judicial Department's budget.

"We can't find savings if you tie the hands of the administration," she said.

House Speaker Chris Donovan, D-Meriden, said such provisions were included for important reasons. The extended moratorium on the sale of state-owned group homes was part of the bill to make sure efforts to privatize them would not harm disabled children and adults.

"We don't want the budget downturn to cause loss of services for the most vulnerable population of this state," he said.

Democrats, who control the General Assembly, are not expected to attempt to override Rell's veto of the budget bill because it did not pass with a large enough majority in the Senate. Donovan said legislative leaders have not yet discussed their next step.

A veto of this one budget bill will have limited effect on the overall budget because it only deals with about seven issues which range from creating new commission to review criminal sentences in Connecticut to a plan to sell the former Seaside Regional Center campus in Waterford, a former Department of Mental Retardation facility.

The two-year budget, passed by the Democratic-controlled General Assembly and reluctantly allowed by Rell to become law without her signature, includes $473.3 million in "largely unspecified savings" that still need to be found this fiscal year.

Rell called the intentional underfunding of state agency budgets, something she also included in her own budget proposal back in February, "a huge issue" and that the savings are "going to be very difficult to achieve."

Derek Slap, a spokesman for the Senate Democrats, said it was "disturbing" to see Rell building a case for why she can can't adequately cut spending in her agencies.

"She proposed nearly the same amount of cuts as were included in the final budget that she agreed to," Slap said. "Connecticut doesn't need excuses, it needs the governor to cut the bloat of bureaucracy as she promised she would."

Besides limiting her ability to save money, Rell criticized it for including new spending.

For example, the legislation calls for spending $1.4 million for a two-year study by students at Central Connecticut State University on the effects of incarceration on the children on inmates. Republican legislators have questioned the need for the study, saying there have been numerous national studies of the subject.

Rell said she will sign the remaining budget implementation bills. They include the second general government bill, as well as legislation that outlines education and social services spending. A fourth bill outlines changes to state tax policies.

Don't wait for the next crisis
Editorial CTPOST
Updated: 10/05/2009 04:54:20 PM EDT

Now that it's all said and done, the state budget set for the next two years, a bold plan put forth by Democrats to cut costs and overhaul the state's Department of Motor Vehicles just never happened.

Among other things, the plan would have closed some DMV offices and supplanted them with automated kiosks and would have distributed some of the department's functions to the state departments of public safety, environmental protection and consumer protection.

"This is the biggest change or reinvention in state government that anyone has proposed so far and I don't think we should miss this opportunity," Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, intoned at the time.

Well, the opportunity was missed.

The Legislature had an opportunity in these downturned economic times, with the state facing extreme fiscal hardship, to make some bold decisions.

Some of those bold decisions could have involved restructuring aspects of the sprawling state government.

It may indeed be that the proposal to reorganize the DMV was too complicated to fully effect in a couple of months, as was noted in retrospect by state Sen. Donald DeFronzo, D-New Britain, the Legislature's Transportation Committee chairman and the man who initially offered the plan to break up the DMV.

Even so, life goes on and Connecticut's fiscal challenges are far from gone. 

Rather than waiting for the next deadline and the next crisis, legislators should resume looking at ways to restructure certain state departments, most notably the DMV, to effect savings in the future.
House Votes To Consolidate Probate Courts, Seeks DMV Fee Hikes
The Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING
September 24, 2009

The state House of Representatives voted Wednesday night for a consolidation of the state's probate court system that would eliminate more than half of the courts.

The cash-strapped probate system, which dates to 1698, makes decisions on a daily basis that directly affect families, including interpretations of wills, estates and the termination of parental rights.

The new plan calls for realigning the Colonial-era system to 54 local courts -- down from the current 117 scattered throughout the state. As such, 63 probate judges will be losing their sought-after jobs -- an outcome that caused controversy for years because many judges fought to maintain the status quo.

Although the bitter battle lasted for years, a bipartisan compromise was reached that led to a vote of 134-7, with four Democrats and three Republicans opposed to the measure. The bill now goes to the state Senate, which is expected to vote today.

In other action, motor vehicle fees would increase under a bill approved late Wednesday night by the House.

The bill, which still requires approval by the state Senate, would increase essentially all fees at the state Department of Motor Vehicles, including those for the renewal of licenses and obtaining a learner's permit. The overall fee increase, including non-DMV fees, would generate about $50 million over two years. The fee for a four-year license would increase to $52, up from the current $44, according to the legislature's nonpartisan research office.

The fees would increase in all categories, including cars, motorcycles, hearses, recreational trailers and taxis.

The measure was approved, 106-34, with a veto-proof margin that was largely along party lines. Rep. Shawn Johnston, a conservative Democrat who has voted often against his party, joined with Republicans in voting against the bill.

Under the probate bill, Hartford, West Hartford and East Hartford would all remain as one-town courts. But the Simsbury court, for example, would be combined with those in Avon, Canton and Granby to form a Farmington Valley court. Towns would be bunched together throughout the state, and Bloomfield, East Granby, Windsor Locks and Suffield would be combined into one court. Two of the courts in eastern Connecticut would include eight towns each, while a new court in the northwestern corner of Litchfield County would include 12 small towns.

State Probate Court Administrator Paul Knierim, who is not seeking re-election as Simsbury's probate judge, noted that the legislature's original plan for 50 courts was expanded to 54 courts after a special commission heard the concerns of mayors and first selectmen. "I'm very happy because I think it's workable'' as a new system, Knierim said Wednesday.

The change was necessary because the probate system was rapidly running out of money and could no longer pay for the health benefits of the judges and clerks in the local courts.

"It was time to take this system that was created during Colonial times and bring it into the modern era so that it can see a significant reduction in costs and remain self-sustaining," said Rep. Robert Godfrey, a Danbury Democrat who served as chairman of the special redistricting commission.

The probate debate came after a behind-the-scenes battle that lasted for hours over the budget "implementation'' bills that provide the nuts-and-bolts details of the state's two-year, $37.6 billion budget.

The floor debate for the special session was delayed for hours after Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell threatened to veto one of the budget implementation bills because she said it would be a backdoor maneuver around her veto of a controversial health care pooling bill.

In a detailed letter to top legislators, Rell said that she would veto the bill because it did not meet certain requirements -- a rare, pre-emptive strike by a governor who has gained a reputation over the past five years for saying little about bills until they reached her desk.

"I must caution you that unless an implementer bill accurately reflects the terms of the budget bill, is supported by honest revenue estimates and contains properly drafted, workable language, I will veto it,'' Rell said in a six-page letter to House Speaker Christopher Donovan, Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams and other top legislators.

One of the troubling provisions, Rell said, is that Section 15 of the general government bill would allow the state comptroller, Democrat Nancy Wyman, to merge various insurance plans into the state's self-insured plan. The pooling bill would have allowed municipalities, nonprofit organizations and small businesses to join the state employees' gigantic health insurance pool in an attempt to drive down costs. Rell, though, said the costs to the state would actually increase.

"This effectively allows the comptroller to implement the 'pooling' concept ... that I have previously vetoed,'' Rell said. "As I noted in my veto message, pooling will likely result in a significant cost to the state. At a time when we are making cuts to virtually every program operated by state government, we simply cannot afford to burden our taxpayers with the potentially enormous costs associated with pooling.''

Overall, Rell objected to more than 25 different sections in seven different bills that were being considered. Once those objections became public, the House Democrats went into a lengthy caucus and no bills had been debated on the House floor as of 8:30 p.m. The probate bill was then the first debate of the day.

The pooling idea, Rell said, should not be contained in a budget implementation bill. As is tradition, the special session was called this week specifically to deal with the implementation bills.

Another controversial issue that was discussed behind closed doors was the potential merger of the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington with Hartford Hospital. UConn has been trying to get the legislature to approve bond funds to construct a new hospital on the Farmington campus, but Rell has opposed the idea as too expensive during the deepest economic downturn in decades.

Senate Republican leader John McKinney of Fairfield said that the idea had been "thwarted'' from the bond package after "a rather lively discussion in the Senate Democratic Caucus'' over the issue.

"If that deal is revisited, the governor should veto that,'' McKinney said.

UConn officials, however, have maintained for months that the merger with Hartford Hospital would help bring the best and the brightest students and scientists to the Farmington campus. The concept of building a new hospital for UConn has been delayed in the past and was the subject of a detailed study on the issue.

House members took only moments to approve 139-0 a bill conveying parcels of state-owned land, such as surplus property and old highway rights of way, to municipalities and individuals throughout the state.

Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant
State legislature overrides governor's vetoes seven times
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 7/20/2009

Hartford - Coming into its session Monday, the state legislature had overridden a veto from Gov. M. Jodi Rell just three times in her five years in office.

By the end of an unexpectedly quick workday, the Democrat-controlled General Assembly had reversed the Republican governor seven times.

It was an historic one-day total - no governor had been overridden so many times since Gov. Lowell P. Weicker in 1992 - and it reversed Rell’s vetoes of several key bills passed this year, including the SustiNet plan for expanding health care access, a new bi-state commission to oversee Long Island Sound, and a change in rules that govern the state’s projections of its future tax revenues.

And an eighth override try fell just short: the bill establishing the Connecticut Healthcare Partnership, which would have permitted municipalities and some small businesses and nonprofits to enroll their employees in the state’s health insurance pool, was re-passed by the House of Representatives.

But it died in the final minutes of the Senate’s session when Sen. Joan Hartley, D-Waterbury, who had opposed the concept, left the Senate chamber and did not vote, leaving the legislature short of the two-thirds majority necessary to override the governor.

'Backroom Deal' Stays Dead, As Rell's Veto Of Bill Is Left Intact
Hartford Courant
By Jon Lender
 on July 20, 2009 4:10 PM |

Lawmakers agreed Monday not to try to override Gov. M. Jodi Rell's veto of a bill that would have enabled private developers to obtain 17 acres of state wildlife habitat near the Connecticut River in Haddam.

After bitter controversy over what some Haddam residents were calling a "backroom deal," House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, said Monday that he had agreed with Democratic leaders in the Senate not to attempt an override of the governor's veto of a so-called "conveyance bill" that contained the land transfer.

Donovan said that the overall conveyance bill -- which would have transferred numerous pieces of state land to private parties and municipalities -- had encountered "a few bumps in the road" and needs "to be fixed," perhaps in a special session later this summer.

One of the "bumps," he acknowledged, was a proposed Haddam land swap between private developers and the state Department of Environmental Protection that was inserted into the bill that passed June 3 at 11:59 p.m., in the last minute before adjournment of the 2009 legislative session.

Many residents were outraged because they learned about it belatedly. The local monthly Haddam Bulletin's July issue carried a story headlined "Backroom Deal." Last week, at a town hall meeting, residents confronted two local legislators, Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook, and Rep. James Spallone, D-Essex, about it.  At the time, both would not commit themselves on whether they would vote at Monday's veto session to try to override Rell's July 7 veto of the bill...

"The project included potential economic development for Haddam and a new theater for the Goodspeed," Spallone said. "If the project has merit and benefits to the community, they will emerge during an open, public process, which is what my constituency has asked for, and what they deserve."

"If a bill is submitted in the next regular session of the General Assembly, all parties can be heard at a legislative public hearing and an informed decision can be made," Spallone said.  "Such a process will best serve the public interest and the people of Haddam."

Vetoed 'Backroom Deal' For State Land Could Be Revived
Hartford Courent
Jon Lender
Government Watch
July 19, 2009

A small group of political insiders and officials quietly arranged a deal in recent months for private interests to obtain and develop 17 acres of state-owned, wooded wildlife habitat overlooking the Connecticut River in Haddam.

The plan — calling for the developers to swap land of their own for the Department of Environmental Protection's acreage near the river — was inserted into a legislative bill that passed on June 3, literally in the middle of the night: at 11:59 p.m., a minute before the 2009 legislative session ended.

Local residents were outraged to learn belatedly of what they have labeled a "backroom deal." It could profoundly affect their town by putting a new Goodspeed Opera House theater and a private hotel on what up to now has been called the state's Clark Creek Wildlife Management Area.

But that's the way you get things done in government, sometimes — especially if you have access to an influential legislator such as state Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook.

Daily, co-chairwoman of the powerful legislative finance committee, spearheaded arrangements for the would-be developers. She helped to organize meetings for them with the state DEP commissioner and shepherded the newly passed legislation, giving momentum to the plan for the land swap inside her legislative district before it became known publicly.

But the local opponents who felt steamrolled now see some hope — because Gov. M. Jodi Rell on July 7 vetoed the mundane annual "conveyance bill" of which it is a part.

These annual bills — like the current one — always contain a laundry list of transfers of odd pieces of excess state land, such as unused highway right of ways to private landowners or municipalities.

They are not generally controversial. But the big question now is whether legislative Democrats, who hold "veto-proof" majorities in the House and Senate, will put the conveyance bill, with its controversial Haddam deal, on the list of bills that they try to salvage by overriding the Republican governor's veto. It's all or nothing; the Haddam deal can't be separated from the other conveyances.

Rell vetoed 20 bills this year, several more prominent, such as creation of a state universal health care system. Lawmakers will convene Monday at 10 a.m. in a "veto session" to consider overrides.

In her July 7 veto message, Rell said only that the state didn't appear to be getting full market value for its land in some of the transfers in the bill, which "would be irresponsible" during the current budget crisis.

When asked last week about the Haddam deal, however, she said it was among the reasons for her veto.

"The public should have the opportunity to scrutinize the details of any large transaction that would have a major impact on the community," Rell said. "Had I not vetoed this bill, the public would have been shut out of the process and would have been denied any input on the project."

Daily, in an interview, denied that the land swap was "a backroom deal."

She did acknowledge talking with, and arranging meetings for, people interested in expanding tourism in the Tylerville section of Haddam by the Connecticut River. Key among them were representatives of both of the private parties that would be involved in the swap:

•Steven Rocco, one of the developers of the Riverhouse at Goodspeed Station, a hilltop banquet and conference facility in Haddam that looks down on the west bank of the river and abuts the DEP's 17 acres. He and his business partners proposed swapping 54 acres from an 87-acre parcel they own in the town's Higganum section — away from the river but abutting Cockaponset State Forest — for the DEP's 17 acres. Those 17 acres stretch up a hill from other land that the DEP would retain on the actual river shore: Eagle Landing State Park.

•Michael Price, executive director of the nonprofit Goodspeed Opera House in East Haddam, which is visible on the east bank of the river across the picturesque metal "swing bridge" from Haddam. According to the bill, Goodspeed would give DEP about 2.7 acres it owns on the eastern shore in East Haddam. The theater foundation would split or share the 17 acres in an unspecified way with the Riverhouse business.

Neither Price nor Rocco returned Courant calls for comment on Friday.

Rocco and his partners would try to put a small hotel on the land abutting their existing Riverhouse banquet facility, and Goodspeed would build a new theater spacious enough for larger traveling productions, Daily said.

Often, when a major arts facility wants to expand, there is a big announcement and publicity. But not this time. Daily said Price may have wanted to avoid that because a previously announced effort to move into Middletown failed.

DEP records show that Rocco, Price and others attended a meeting July 15, 2008, with Daily and then-DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy at the DEP's Hartford office, and that McCarthy, Rocco and Price were listed as attending a meeting Sept. 23, 2008, that Daily scheduled in her finance committee area in the Legislative Office Building.

Daily reiterated her denial of "backroom" dealings at a raucous town hall meeting in Haddam this past Wednesday night with about 40 residents. Many opposed the plan, but some were more bothered by the way the players went about it.

"It stinks," said Joseph Rossi, a local finance board member. He said that the land that the developers want to trade by the state forest may be worth several hundred thousand dollars — nowhere near the $1.35 million the DEP paid in 2003 to for the 17 acres.

Daily and Rep. James Spallone, D-Essex, who played a lesser role in the episode, both told residents that the legislation requires a public hearing before the swap goes through, although it also says that after the hearing, the DEP commissioner "shall enter into an agreement with" Goodspeed and Riverhouse.

Daily said the bill also requires that the land swapped must be of equal value, so a major disparity would kill the deal. She also said that Haddam would still have its normal development controls, such as zoning.

But residents still had questions, such as why no other private parties got a chance to bid on the DEP land.

Price and his wife gave a combined $200 to Daily's last re-election campaign, and Rocco's wife gave $50. But Daily told The Courant that their political support had nothing to do with the meetings she arranged with the DEP commissioner or anything else she did. She said that she would arrange such a meeting for any constituent.
Fairfield County’s $250,000 “middle class”
CT POST
Brian Lockhart's blog
July 14, 2009 at 8:59 pm

Hartford Courant columnist Colin McEnroe weighs in on the oft-repeated argument from Fairfield County Democrats that households earning $250,000 are considered “middle class” in this neck of the woods.

It might be more honest for Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford and other area legislators to say: “Look, I’d be raising taxes on too many people who vote for me and that could hurt next election when I’m challenged by a ‘I’ll never raise your taxes’ Republican. It’s my job to represent my constituents, and most of them aren’t all too eager to pay more of their hard-earned money to the state government, so I’m opposing these tax hikes.”

But clearly the whole “$250,000 is middle class” argument raises some eyebrows.

Of course, reporters whose households earn faaaaarrrrr less than that but who live in Fairfield County and have always considered themselves “middle class” have no opinion on the subject.

We’ll just quietly admit that we’ve been fooling ourselves and living solidly “lower class” lifestyles all these years in an area of the state we should be grateful to call home.
Rell says she will veto budget bill 
DAY
Published on 6/27/2009

Governor M. Jodi Rell announced today she will veto upon receipt the legislative Democrats’ budget bill that passed the state Senate on Thursday and the House of Representatives on Friday.

“The flaws and failures of the tax and spending proposals contained in the Democrats’ budget are obvious and they are a recipe for disaster,” Rell said in a statement issued late Saturday morning. “It is neither balanced nor remotely realistic in its assumed ‘savings’ and ‘spending cuts.’"

Rell said the budget “does nothing to reduce the size of a government that has outgrown the taxpayers’ ability to pay for it. By not reducing the size or cost of state government now, the Democrats’ budget sets the stage for further – and larger – deficits in the years to come.”

Rell said there is still time to develop a budget before midnight Tuesday and she called for legislative leaders to meet with her Sunday afternoon at the Executive Residence to work on a budget.

At the same time, the governor said, she is preparing an executive order to run the state government in a new budget’s absence.
House Approves Two-Year Budget That Rell Is Expected to Veto
Hartford Courant
By Christopher Keating on June 26, 2009

After months of deliberations and angst over the state's huge budget deficit, the House of Representatives approved a Democratic-written, two-year budget that Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell is expected to veto.

After nearly five hours of debate, the House voted, 91 to 48, at about 3:30 p.m. Friday. Since neither the House nor the Senate were able to generate veto-proof margins, the legislature is expected to resume negotiations with Rell in order to craft another spending plan.

The Democratic bill calls for steep increases in the income, estate, cigarette and corporate profits tax in order to close a projected deficit of $8.85 billion over the next two fiscal years.

Republicans, who often represent many wealthy residents in lower Fairfield County, decried the proposed increases in the income and a 30 percent surcharge on estate taxes. Democrats have fought for a more graduated income tax for years and said that it was only fair that the wealthy and corporations should pay more.

Still, the vast majority of Connecticut taxpayers would not be affected by the proposed income-tax changes. Couples earning less than $500,000 annually and individuals earning less than $265,000 would not see any changes in their current income taxes.

But those earning above those levels would see three new rates up to a top rate of 7.5 percent.

Even though the maximum rate is 5 percent, no one earning less than $100,000 is currently paying that rate for the full amount of their income. The state tax tables clearly show that individuals earning $100,000 currently pay at an overall rate of 4.8 percent - paying $4,801 in taxes for the full year. Couples with an adjusted gross income of $100,000 currently pay $4,555 or a rate of 4.55 percent.

House Republican leader Larry Cafero of Norwalk said the biggest problem with the document was that it includes "the largest tax increase in the history of the state of Connecticut.''

Another problem is that the budget is balanced in part with $2 billion in federal stimulus funds and $1.4 billion from the rainy day fund for fiscal emergencies. That money will not be available in the future.

"Will we have to increase taxes in 2012-2013?'' Cafero asked his colleagues. "Maybe, possibly, probably, yeah.''

Citing the high unemployment rate that is 9.4 percent nationally, Cafero mentioned Connecticut companies from Stamford to Clinton that are laying off workers. The legislature, he said, needs to create the proper atmosphere to create jobs.

"You can't love employees and hate employers because employers employ employees,'' Cafero said. "This isn't about people protecting the rich. ... Before we vilify and single out by taxation the very people we need to get out of this recession, let's think twice, folks. ... The number one job we should have is to make sure that people have jobs.''

"If you look at the document, we're destroying jobs - the very thing we need right now,'' Cafero said of the Democratic budget. "If we wait another two or three months to do another political document ... that's not helping anybody. We've all got to give a little here. Let's get this out of our system and start today.''

But House Majority Leader Denise Merrill countered in summarizing the Democratic position by saying the budget accurately reflects the values of the state. Because of its proximity to New York City and Wall Street, Connecticut has been hit particularly hard by the national economic downturn, she said. The only way to solve the budget crisis, she said, is to do three things: cut spending, raise taxes, and borrow money.

"This is not just another budget. This is not just another partisan fight,'' Merrill said. "We have to do the best we can with the hand that we've been dealt with.''

Quoting liberal Democrat Hubert Humphrey, Merrill said that the state needs to help both the young and the elderly - and she cited a series of programs that have been saved in the Democratic proposal. The budget restores funding for food vouchers for poor senior citizens, provides nursing-home funding at a time when 11 nursing homes are in foreclosure or bankruptcy, restores funding for the ConnPACE prescription-drug subsidy program, as well as providing money for elderly housing and homelessness services. The budget also restores money for teen-pregnancy prevention and an early-intervention program for children at risk, as well as youth service bureaus that help children after school. It restores $6 million in funding in each of two years for family resource centers that Rell had proposed eliminating, as well as money for the Children's Trust Fund.

The plan also restores $1.4 million in each of the next two years as the state's subsidy for the LifeStar emergency helicopter that has been known to save lives by providing quick transportation to Hartford Hospital.

The document reverses the plan to close Riverview Hospital, which treats troubled youths with major psychiatric problems. Money will also go to job-training programs, the Spanish American Merchant Association, the STRIDE prisoner reentry program, the Shubert Theatre, the National Theatre For the Deaf, college scholarships for thousands of students, and $23 million for the University of Connecticut that had been in jeopardy.

"We reversed the governor's decision to close courthouses'' in Norwalk, Derby, Putnam, and other communities, Merrill said. "We couldn't figure out what would happen if we closed these courthouses. ... The judicial branch told us it would be very, very difficult to imagine'' how cases would be handled with fewer courts.

"There are more, but I think you get the idea,'' Merrill said on the House floor. "Connecticut will emerge from this economic crisis. That's what we have to remember today. ... We can't cut everything.''

Throughout a debate that lasted nearly five hours in the historic and cavernous Hall of the House, Republicans sharply criticized the Democratic-written spending and tax proposols.

"It is probably one of the most anti-job packages that we've seen,'' said Rep. Vincent Candelora, a North Branford Republican who serves as the ranking member of the finance committee. "It's going to affect the engine of the state of Connecticut. ... It's about the small business owners who may be employing 50 people who own a business that might be worth $2 million on paper. ... We are choking the golden goose of business here. ... This budget is attempting to Obama-nize the state of Connecticut. We need to sit down and make real cuts.''

In the first vote of the day on the projected revenue estimates, the amendment was passed by 86 to 35 with 30 members absent at about 11:22 a.m. Traditionally, more legislators arrive as the debate is continuing, but 30 members absent for a budget vote is a high number.

The bill Friday did not include any money for the Special Transportation Fund, which funnels millions of dollars to the state transportation and motor vehicle departments. The bill also did not include the amounts of various fee increases, but Democrats said they are virtually exactly the same as the fee increases proposed in February by Rell.

"The fees are in the revenue estimates, and I know they're not in the bill,'' said Rep. Cameron Staples, a New Haven Democrat who co-chairs the tax-writing finance committee.

Rep. Craig Miner, a Litchfield Republican, questioned the Democratic plan to close two unidentified prisons in an attempt to save $70 million over the next two fiscal years. Rell's office says the difference is that Rell had called for studying the feasibility of closing one prison if the prison population drops, while the Democratic plan would close two prisons under law. Miner wanted to know what would happen "when we finally close the doors on a prison and turn it into a museum.''

"We give the commissioner a lot of latitude,'' said Rep. John Geragosian, a New Britain Democrat who co-chairs the budget-writing appropriations committee. "These are exactly the kinds of problems that come up when you do an early retirement program.''

To counter the Democratic prison-closure plan, Rell's office released a letter that was written by Rep. Michael P. Lawlor on October 17, 2007 after he had toured a prison in Enfield upon the request of prison guards who work at that facility. The letter was written about three months after the tragic murders in Cheshire - when the prison population had increased by 791 since the day of the triple murders on July 23, 2007.

"We need more prison cells,'' Lawlor wrote. "We need more corrections officers. We need more parole officers to monitor non-violent offenders using GPS surveillance, and we must ensure adequate resources for this surveillance. We need more halfway house beds for nonviolent offenders with mental illness and substance abuse issues, and we need secure inpatient beds for sex offenders.''

"It was accurate at the time it was written,'' Lawlor told Capitol Watch in an interview on Friday afternoon. "The prison population was going up very rapidly. It got to almost 20,000. ... Rell stopped parole. She stopped it all together. We were in sort of crisis management at the time. Rell was saying at the time that we did not have to change any budget in the prison system at the time. ... As it turned out, the population did come down - way down. It's lower now than it was on the day of the Cheshire murders. It went up about 1,200 and came down about 1,200. If you could get the prison population down another 1,000 or 2,000, then you could save $100 million per year.''

At about $45,000 to $50,000 per year, a reduction of 1,000 prisoners could save $50 million and 2,000 fewer inmates could save $100 million per year in prison costs.

"The budget doesn't require them to pick two prisons and close them,'' Lawlor said Friday. "It could be a wing in five different prisons. ... The Department of Corrections has a plan to do this. They won't tell us which ones. By the way, they've already closed down some wings of some prisons because the population has come down.''

But Cafero said the prison plan was incomplete.

"We don't tell anyone what we're going to do with the inmates that are currently in the prisons,'' Cafero said.

Republicans complained that the massive budget bill also contains a little-noticed provision for cash-strapped Bridgeport to avoid making payments to its pension plan in difficult economic times when the city is struggling to balance its budget.

"This is amazing,'' Miner said. "We haven't learned our lesson here. ... This is absolutely unbelievable.''

"I think it's a very unusual circumstance, and I don't think it's something to do lightly or frequently,'' Staples said. "These are times that require some real sensitivity in this building'' to the plight of cities and towns.

Miner also criticized the Democrats for offering a budget that calls for borrowing money to pay for operating expenses - even though both Republicans and Democrats have essentially agreed to do that for the current fiscal year.

"It's like going to Home Depot - except it's not a $200 lawnmower,'' Miner said. "What we're doing is building an increasing problem for 2012 and 2013. ... What are we doing? We're borrowing money and we're not paying for it.''

"Closing courthouses is a bad idea that the governor proposed,'' Miner said. "We are digging a hole deeper for the state of Connecticut.''

 "We're punting this to the governor to make the hard decisions,'' said Rep. Christopher Coutu, a Norwich Republican. "We can't punt it off to the governor month after month.''

Noting that a prominent investment bank stated that real estate in the United States will likely not return to its 2007 levels until 2017, Rep. John Stripp of Weston said that legislators cannot expect the economy to rebound strongly and solve all the budget problems two years from now.

"You may not feel sympathy toward the wealthy people, but they are not going to sit still while we continue to tax them,'' Stripp said.

While the first two hours of the debate focused on taxes and spending, the House took a major detour in the middle of the day and started an intensive debate on campaign finance reform. Many insiders believed that the issue had already been settled, but it came up in an amendment. One Republican called it "a side-show discussion'' to the more important issue of the budget.

Rep. Corky Mazurek, a Wolcott Democrat, said one of the many problems in the budget is the public funding of election campaigns for politicians. While that number is a relatively small amount in an overall budget of more than $18 billion per year, Mazurek said he would continue to speak out against the public financing system. In an unusual move for a Democrat on a Democratic-written budget, Mazurek offered an amendment that would change the majority party's bill and return to the long-running system of elections that the state had in 2006.

"That 400-pound gorilla is the campaign finance law in the state of Connecticut,'' Mazurek said. "Most importantly, we were told it would take special-interest money out of campaigns. ... We had the same percentage of incumbents win as we did with the old system. I believe our $9 million experiment with taxpayers' money was a failure.''

Rep. James Spallone, an Essex Democrat, said that public financing helped lead to an increase in the number of primaries from 2006 - eight more primaries in 2008, including more primaries in the House and Senate.

Rep. Gary A. Holder-Winfield, who replaced Rep. William R. Dyson in New Haven, strongly defended the public financing program.

"I would not have run if the system was not in place,'' he said.

"Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank Rep. Mazurek for breaking the rules today,'' said Rep. Shawn Johnston, known by many as a renegade Democrat who often votes against his fellow party member. "There are unwritten rules'' that Democrats don't offer amendments against the party's majority.

"I think that was gutsy of Representative Mazurek,'' Johnston said, adding that he was pleased that Mazurek's amendment had been ruled as germane.

Rep. Christopher Caruso, an outspoken Bridgeport Democrat, mentioned a Democratic woman who ran in a primary against Mazurek - although he didn't mention Mazurek's name on the House floor. A single mother who worked two jobs, she was symbolic of a candidate who had no access to lobbyists and would not have run if there was no public financing system, Caruso said.

"To those who say this was a complete failure - please,'' Caruso said. "It was not a failure. ... We, as incumbents, do not own this government.''

But deputy House Republican leader William Hamzy supported Mazurek's amendment and said it is accurate to say that public financing is a failure. In Maine and Arizona, there has been no major change since the system began, he said.
Senate passes budget
Greenwich TIME
By Susan Haigh, Associated Press
Posted: 06/25/2009 09:55:45 PM EDT

HARTFORD -- The Connecticut Senate, with the end of the fiscal year looming, approved a Democratic budget on Thursday that Gov. M. Jodi Rell is expected to veto because it increases taxes by $2.5 billion, including income taxes on the wealthy.

While the Democratic leader of the Senate urged Rell to reconsider and sign the legislation, which is expected to pass the House of Representatives on Friday, some state legislators said they hope this exercise will spark bipartisan budget talks. Rell, a Republican, and the General Assembly, controlled by Democrats, have been at odds for months over how to cover a massive budget deficit, which the legislature's fiscal office now estimates could be as much as $8.8 billion over two years starting July 1.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said after Rell vetoes the Democrats' package, the governor and legislative leaders should "close the door, throw away the key and not come out until we all agree."

The Democrats' budget, which passed on a 19-16 vote, with five Democrats joining the minority Republicans in opposition, covers $35.7 billion in spending over two years. That figure does not include transportation funding, which will supposedly be voted on before the fiscal year ends Tuesday.

The overall budget package is expected to be more than $37 billion.

Rell said the proposal goes "in precisely the wrong direction at precisely the wrong time" and is "neither balanced nor remotely realistic."

But Democrats touted how their proposal restores funding to various programs that Rell had cut in her budget, such as the Medicaid coverage for eyeglasses and dental care, college scholarships, employment services, the Life Star emergency medical helicopter and a program that assists inmates leaving prison.

At the same time, Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, said the package cuts about $3.5 billion in spending, including the closure of two prisons.

"Yes, this budget makes tough choices. Yes, this budget cuts billions of dollars in spending. Yes, this budget demands shared sacrifice and has everyone at the table, including the wealthy," Williams said.

The ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, Sen. Dan Debicella, R-Shelton, criticized the package for raising taxes on businesses during a difficult economic downturn and called the plan "an attack on the middle class in the largest tax increase in Connecticut history."

He estimated the average family will pay $500 to $1,000 more in taxes and fees under the Democrats' plan.

However, the Democrats targeted their personal income tax increases to the wealthy. Under their plan, those with taxable incomes of more than $500,000 for joint filers, $265,000 for single filers, $400,000 for heads of household and $250,000 for married people filing separately will be charged higher rates ranging from 6 percent to 7.5 percent.

The budget plan also delays scheduled income tax reductions for single filers for three years. The maximum personal exemption for single filers for the 2008 tax year is $13,000. It was supposed to rise to $15,000 by 2012.

While they scrapped earlier plans to scale back the popular $500 property tax credit against the personal income tax, the Democrats increased the cigarette tax from $2 to $2.75 per pack, and increased the tobacco products tax from 20 percent to 27.5 percent of the wholesale price of items such as cigars and pipe tobacco.

They've also proposed a 25 percent surcharge on the state's corporation tax for income years 2009, 2010 and 2011, and a 30 percent estate tax surcharge on taxable estates of those who die in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Democrats said the fee increases they've proposed are the same ones Rell proposed in her budget back in February. They include everything from fees for bakeries to licenses for accountants.


Rell to sign Conn. law in wake of Madoff scandal
NYTIMES
Posted on Jun 29, 10:25 AM EDT

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell is signing a bill into law that requires money and property obtained through securities fraud be forfeited and used to compensate victims.

The bill signing falls on the same day that disgraced financier Bernard Madoff is to be sentenced for a multibillion-dollar fraud scheme.

Thousands of people lost billions of dollars investing with Madoff, including many from Connecticut.

Rell is to sign the bill at the Center for Children's Advocacy, a Hartford-based, nonprofit legal advocacy group for children that lost money because of the scheme.

The New York-based JEHT Foundation, which had pledged the center $85,000, had invested with Madoff.


Rell signs bill to protect doctors who treat Lyme disease
By TOM EVANS, Hour Staff Writer
Posted on 06/27/2009

Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced Sunday that she has signed into law House Bill 6200, which allows physicians to prescribe long-term antibiotics in the treatment of persistent Lyme disease.

The bill, unanimously passed through both houses of the Connecticut General Assembly, allows doctors to go outside standard guidelines without fear of sanctions from state health regulators if the patient's clinical diagnosis of the deer tick-borne disease and treatment have been documented by a licensed physician.

"Doctors in Connecticut -- the absolute epicenter of Lyme disease -- can continue to do what is best for their patients suffering from this complex illness," Gov. Rell said. "I think most people know someone who has been infected. The bill also recognizes that Lyme disease patients must have the freedom to choose which remedy or regimen best meets their needs."

The disease gets its name from the shoreline town of Lyme, where in 1975 a cluster of children and adults there experienced uncommon arthritic symptoms.

Caused by bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, Lyme disease is spread through the bites of infected deer ticks. Symptoms include a a circular rash radiating from the bite point, fatigue, headache, fever, and achy muscles and joints.

Later symptoms may include arthritis, and neurological and heart problems.

This law comes from months of negotiations between legislative leaders, the state Department of Public Health, and patients-rights groups including Lyme Disease Association, Inc., Newtown Lyme Disease Task Force, Ridgefield Lyme Disease Task Force, Time for Lyme, Inc., and Lyme Disease Association, Eastern Connecticut Chapter.

"Justice has been served," said Pat Smith, president of the national Lyme Disease Association. "Human health has finally triumphed over vested interest in the Lyme capital of the world. Lyme patients and treating physicians in Connecticut can breathe a collective sigh of relief. For years, they have not only been battling the disease, but also battling the politics which have prevented patients from getting treatment and physicians from treating. Rell and the legislature have come down on the side of the people."

Maggie Shaw of the Newtown Lyme Disease Task Force has been a state leader in the effort to get the bill signed into law.

"This law will be a relief to families in Connecticut who will be able to receive care in their own communities and their own state," Shaw said. "One of the burdens of Lyme disease -- finding treatment -- will be lifted from their shoulders, as this law offers hope to residents that more physicians who are knowledgeable about Lyme disease will be encouraged to practice within the state of Connecticut."

The governor pointed out one important caveat to the new law.

"Doctors will have the right to use treatment guidelines based on their clinical experience and best medical judgment," Rell said. "This bill does not, however, shield any physician who provides sub-standard care."

Rell Backs Off, Signs Bill Removing Her Senate Vacancy Power
Hartford Courant
By Jon Lender on June 26, 2009

In a dramatic reversal Friday, Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced that she has signed a bill that she and her lieutenants had previously belittled -- a measure that takes away her appointment power to fill vacancies for U.S. Senate, and instead requires direct elections to choose successors for senators who leave office during their terms.

Rell and her Republican legislative allies had bitterly denounced the bill recently, after the Democrat-controlled House and Senate approved it by strong majorities.  The Republicans called it an unwarranted infringement on a longstanding power of the governor in this and other states.

The strength of those previous denunciations magnified the impact of Friday's reversal -- and it suggested that Rell and her people came to believe that Democrats could make good on their recent talk of overriding any Rell veto of the bill.

Privately, Democratic legislators had been expressing confidence that they could muster the required two-thirds majority necessary for an override in both chambers. There was even a sense that they looked forward to a public victory to boost them during what is expected to be a contentious and difficult period of budget negotiations with the Rell administration.

Even so, Democratic sources said they were stunned when Rell reversed herself and signed the bill; they said they saw it as an unexpected capitulation after such strong rhetoric against the bill previously.

Republican legislators, in keeping with the governor's views, had attacked the bill in unusually strong terms during the final weeks of the legislative session that ended June 3.

They decried it as a "brazen power grab."  They said the current system -- in which the governor appoints the successor of a departing senator to fill the vacancy until the next congressional election, in an even-numbered year -- had worked well, and that changing it would tinker with the separation of powers.

The Republican lawmakers also said that a statewide special election in all 169 cities and towns would cost more than $2 million, and potential primaries would cost even more.

The strong rhetoric did not end with legislative Republicans, but came directly from Rell's office. Rell's spokesman, Chris Cooper, rejected the idea of the Democrats' bill as "blatant, partisan politics.'' Cooper said that the current system of gubernatorial appointments "has worked well for 50 years, and the governor believes that there are many, many more important things for the legislature to be spending its time on."

Rell has applied the position of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" to other reform legislation she does not like this year.  For example, last week she vetoed a judicial reform bill that would make quasi-judicial family support magistrates in state courthouses subject to legislative confirmation hearings -- instead of being installed directly through a political appointment by the governor with no confirmation.

But, on the Senate vacancy bill, at least, Rell now has backed off.

Friday, she found a rhetorical route to reconciling herself with the Senate vacancy measure that she and her allies had so strongly denounced: "This law is consistent with my long-held belief that we should take every action possible to involve our citizens in their government," she said.

"Although the current process for filling a Senate vacancy has worked well in our state for many decades, this bill gives directly to the people of Connecticut the decision on who would fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate," Rell said. "Since taking office as Governor, I have done everything in my power to make Connecticut a model for all states when it comes to openness, transparency and citizen participation in government."

A leading Democratic proponent of the bill, state Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, co-chair of the General Assembly's Government Administration and Elections Committee, praised Rell for giving in.

"Governor Rell clearly recognized the importance of this legislation and has agreed with the legislature that the authority to elect an official to serve in the United States Senate should rest with the people of our state," Slossberg said. "I thank her for upholding the interest of the electorate, doing the right thing and signing this bill."

"No one person, no one party and no one special interest group should have the power to put an individual in this powerful seat. The people should have the right to choose who represents them in the Senate," Slossberg said. "This is a victory for the people of Connecticut today, one that will prevent the type of corrupt behavior we've seen in other states and that will uphold democracy in ours."

The bill calls for a direct election by voters to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy within a total of 160 days of the vacancy. Or it would take place at the next regular state or municipal election, if that election took place 63 to 25 days from the date of the Senate vacancy.

If the vacancy occurs in the last year of the Senate term, the governor nominates a candidate to serve the rest of the term, subject to approval by two-thirds of the members in both chambers of the Legislature.  If the Senate seat is already on the ballot at the next state election, and the vacancy occurs not more than 62 days before the election, no special election will be held.

WHAT DID THE LEGISLATURE DO THIS PAST SESSION?  We checked today (June 18, 2009)...how's that again moment here:

Substitute House Bill No. 6467
Public Act No. 09-230
AN ACT CONCERNING SMART GROWTH AND THE STATE PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES PLAN.

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

Section 1. (Effective from passage) As used in this section and section 2 of this act:

(1) "Smart growth" means economic, social and environmental development that (A) promotes, through financial and other incentives, economic competitiveness in the state while preserving natural resources, and (B) utilizes a collaborative approach to planning, decision-making and evaluation between and among all levels of government and the communities and the constituents they serve; and

(2) "Principles of smart growth" means standards and objectives that support and encourage smart growth when used to guide actions and decisions, including, but not limited to, standards and criteria for (A) integrated planning or investment that coordinates tax, transportation, housing, environmental and economic development policies at the state, regional and local level, (B) the reduction of reliance on the property tax by municipalities by creating efficiencies and coordination of services on the regional level while reducing interlocal competition for grand list growth, (C) the redevelopment of existing infrastructure and resources, including, but not limited to brownfields and historic places, (D) transportation choices that provide alternatives to automobiles, including rail, public transit, bikeways and walking, while reducing energy consumption, (E) the development or preservation of housing affordable to households of varying income in locations proximate to transportation or employment centers or locations compatible with smart growth, (F) concentrated, mixed-use, mixed income development proximate to transit nodes and civic, employment or cultural centers, and (G) the conservation and protection of natural resources by (i) preserving open space, water resources, farmland, environmentally sensitive areas and historic properties, and (ii) furthering energy efficiency.

Sec. 2. (Effective from passage) The Continuing Legislative Committee on State Planning and Development, established pursuant to section 4-60d of the general statutes, shall study the state plan of conservation and development, including, but not limited to, the process for adopting such state plan, the incorporation into such plan of the principles of smart growth as defined in section 1 of this act, the application of such plan and principles of smart growth to actions undertaken by state agencies, and the integration of such plan with municipal and regional plans of conservation and development. In conducting such study, the committee shall consult with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, municipalities, regional planning organizations, state agencies and the public. On or before February 1, 2010, the committee shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly in accordance with the provisions of section 11-4a of the general statutes.

Sec. 3. Section 16a-27 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(a) The secretary, after consultation with all appropriate state, regional and local agencies and other appropriate persons, shall, prior to March 1, [2009] 2011, complete a revision of the existing plan and enlarge it to include, but not be limited to, policies relating to transportation, energy and air. Any revision made after May 15, 1991, shall identify the major transportation proposals, including proposals for mass transit, contained in the master transportation plan prepared pursuant to section 13b-15. Any revision made after July 1, 1995, shall take into consideration the conservation and development of greenways that have been designated by municipalities and shall recommend that state agencies coordinate their efforts to support the development of a state-wide greenways system. The Commissioner of Environmental Protection shall identify state-owned land for inclusion in the plan as potential components of a state greenways system.

(b) Any revision made after August 20, 2003, shall take into account (1) economic and community development needs and patterns of commerce, and (2) linkages of affordable housing objectives and land use objectives with transportation systems.

(c) Any revision made after March 1, 2006, shall (1) take into consideration risks associated with natural hazards, including, but not limited to, flooding, high winds and wildfires; (2) identify the potential impacts of natural hazards on infrastructure and property; and (3) make recommendations for the siting of future infrastructure and property development to minimize the use of areas prone to natural hazards, including, but not limited to, flooding, high winds and wildfires.

(d) Any revision made after July 1, 2005, shall describe the progress towards achievement of the goals and objectives established in the previously adopted state plan of conservation and development and shall identify (1) areas where it is prudent and feasible (A) to have compact, transit accessible, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development patterns and land reuse, and (B) to promote such development patterns and land reuse, (2) priority funding areas designated under section 16a-35c, and (3) corridor management areas on either side of a limited access highway or a rail line. In designating corridor management areas, the secretary shall make recommendations that (A) promote land use and transportation options to reduce the growth of traffic congestion; (B) connect infrastructure and other development decisions; (C) promote development that minimizes the cost of new infrastructure facilities and maximizes the use of existing infrastructure facilities; and (D) increase intermunicipal and regional cooperation.

(e) Any revision made after October 1, 2008, shall (1) for each policy recommended (A) assign a priority; (B) estimate funding for implementation and identify potential funding sources; (C) identify each entity responsible for implementation; and (D) establish a schedule for implementation; and (2) for each growth management principle, determine three benchmarks to measure progress in implementation of the principles, one of which shall be a financial benchmark.

(f) Thereafter on or before March first in each revision year the secretary shall complete a revision of the plan of conservation and development.

Sec. 4. Section 16a-28 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(a) The secretary shall present a draft of the revised plan of conservation and development for preliminary review to the continuing legislative committee on state planning and development prior to September first in [2008] 2010 and prior to September first in each prerevision year thereafter.

(b) After December first in [1985] 2010 and after December first in each prerevision year thereafter the secretary shall proceed with such further revisions of the draft of the revised plan of conservation and development as he deems appropriate. The secretary shall, by whatever means he deems advisable, publish said plan and disseminate it to the public on or before March first in revision years. The secretary shall post the plan on the Internet web site of the state.

(c) [Within] Not later than five months [of] after publication of said revised plan the secretary shall hold public hearings, in cooperation with regional planning agencies, to solicit comments on said plan.

Sec. 5. Section 16a-29 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

The secretary shall consider the comments received at the public hearings and shall make any necessary or desirable revisions to said plan and within three months of completion of the public hearings submit the plan to the continuing legislative committee on state planning and development, for its approval, revision or disapproval, in whole or in part. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the secretary shall submit the state Conservation and Development Policies Plan, [2004-2009] 2012-2017, to said committee on or before December 1, [2004] 2011.

Sec. 6. Section 16a-32a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

The Office of Policy and Management shall amend the state plan of conservation and development adopted pursuant to this chapter to include therein a goal for reducing carbon dioxide emissions within this state [. Said office, in consultation with the Department of Environmental Protection, shall submit a report to the General Assembly on or before the thirtieth day following May 22, 1995, on or before May 1, 1996, and annually thereafter, which details the net amount of carbon dioxide emitted annually within this state. Subsequent to the May 1, 2000, submittal, said report shall be submitted every three years with the first such report due May 1, 2003] consistent with the recommendations of the Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan prepared in accordance with section 22a-200a.

Sec. 7. Subsection (b) of section 8-23 of the general statutes, as amended by section 3 of public act 07-239, section 4 of public act 07-5 of the June special session and section 17 of public act 08-182, is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2010):

(b) [Until the plan is amended in accordance with this subsection the municipality] On and after the first day of July following the adoption of the state Conservation and Development Policies Plan 2012-2017, in accordance with section 16a-30, a municipality that fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) of this section shall be ineligible for discretionary state funding unless such prohibition is expressly waived by the secretary.

Approved July 8, 2009
Here are some of the bills that passed and were signed so far by the Governor (that we could see as affecting Weston):


Substitute Senate Bill No. 760
Public Act No. 09-131

AN ACT CONCERNING SCHOOL CRISIS RESPONSE DRILLS AND FIRE DRILLS.

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

Section 1. Section 10-231 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2009):

(a) Each local and regional board of education shall provide for a fire drill to be held in the schools of such board not later than thirty days after the first day of each school year and at least once each month thereafter, except [that once every three months a crisis response drill may be substituted for a fire drill] as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Each such board shall substitute a crisis response drill for a fire drill once every three months and shall develop the format of such crisis response drill in consultation with the appropriate local law enforcement agency. A representative of such agency may supervise and participate in any such crisis response drill.

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

Substitute House Bill No. 5519
Public Act No. 09-88

AN ACT CONCERNING WORKERS' COMPENSATION PREMIUMS AND VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE COMPANIES.

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

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective from passage) On or before October 1, 2009, the rating organization licensed pursuant to section 38a-672 of the general statutes shall file with the Insurance Commissioner a method of calculating workers' compensation premiums for volunteer staff which does not base such premium calculation primarily on the number of ambulances owned by the municipality or volunteer ambulance service. Such method shall be based primarily on ambulance usage and shall apply to workers' compensation insurance policies issued or renewed on or after October 1, 2009. Ambulance usage shall be determined by the estimated number of calls responded to annually. For purposes of this section, "municipality or volunteer ambulance service" means a volunteer organization or municipality licensed by the Commissioner of Public Health to transport patients.

Approved June 2, 2009

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

Substitute Senate Bill No. 966
Public Act No. 09-171

AN ACT PROHIBITING BLOCKING THE BOX.

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

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2009) (a) No operator of a motor vehicle, other than a tractor-trailer unit, as defined in section 14-1 of the general statutes, shall proceed into an intersection that has been designated, posted and marked by a municipality in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, except when making a turn, unless there is sufficient space on the opposite side of the intersection to accommodate such motor vehicle without obstructing the passage of other vehicles or pedestrians, notwithstanding the indication of a traffic control signal that would permit such operator to proceed into the intersection.

(b) Any municipality may, by ordinance, designate one or more intersections within that municipality to which the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall apply. The municipality shall (1) post signs at each such designated intersection indicating that blocking the intersection is prohibited and violators are subject to a fine, and (2) mark, in white paint, the boundary of such intersection with a line not less than one-foot in width and the area within such boundary line with parallel diagonal lines not less than one-foot in width.

(c) Any person who violates the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall have committed an infraction.

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

Substitute Senate Bill No. 735
Public Act No. 09-154

AN ACT IMPROVING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.

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

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2009) (a) For the purposes of this section:

(1) "Department" means the Department of Transportation;

(2) "Funds" means any funds from the Special Transportation Fund, bond allocations and any other source that is available for the construction, maintenance and repair of roads in this state;

(3) "User" means a motorist, transit user, pedestrian or bicyclist;

(4) "Bikeway" means any road, street, path or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, including the provision of a bicycle lane, regardless of whether such facility is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or is to be shared with other modes of transportation; and

(5) "Total project cost" means the cost of the entire corridor plan project.

(b) Accommodations for all users shall be a routine part of the planning, design, construction and operating activities of all highways, as defined in section 14-1 of the general statutes, in this state.

(c) From funds received by the department or any municipality for the construction, restoration, rehabilitation or relocation of highways, roads or streets, a reasonable amount shall be expended to provide facilities for all users, including, but not limited to, bikeways and sidewalks with appropriate curb cuts and ramps. On and after October 1, 2010, not less than one per cent of the total amount of any such funds received in any fiscal year shall be so expended. The department or municipality shall take future transit expansion plans into account where appropriate. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, such provisions shall not apply in the event of a state or municipal transportation emergency.

(d) The provision of facilities pursuant to subsection (c) of this section shall not be required if the Commissioner of Transportation or a municipal legislative body determines, with respect to a highway, road or street that: (1) Nonmotorized usage is prohibited; (2) there is a demonstrated absence of need; (3) the accommodation of all users would be an excessively expensive component of the total project cost; or (4) the accommodation of all users is not consistent with the state's or such municipality's, respectively, program of construction, maintenance and repair.

Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2009) (a) There is established a Connecticut Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board which shall be within the Department of Transportation for administrative purposes only.

(b) The board shall consist of eleven members appointed as follows: The Governor shall appoint five members and the speaker of the House of Representatives, the president pro tempore of the Senate, the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the House of Representatives and the minority leader of the Senate shall each appoint one member. The members shall be electors of the state and have a background and interest in issues pertaining to walking and bicycling, one of whom shall be a representative of an organization interested in the promotion of bicycling, one of whom shall be a representative of an organization interested in the promotion of walking, one of whom shall be an owner or manager of a business engaged in the sale or repair of bicycles, one of whom shall be a representative of visually-impaired persons, one of whom shall be a representative of mobility-impaired persons, one of whom shall be a representative of transit workers and one of whom shall be a person sixty years of age or older.

(c) All members shall serve for a term of four years, except that of the members first appointed by the Governor, three members shall serve for an initial term of two years and two members shall serve for an initial term of three years. Any vacancy in the membership of the board shall be filled by the appointing authority for the unexpired term. Members shall receive no compensation for their services.

(d) The board shall, at its first meeting and annually thereafter, select a chairperson, vice-chairperson and secretary from among its members. The board shall meet at least once during each calendar quarter and at such other times as the chairperson deems necessary or upon the request of a majority of the members.

(e) The duties of the board shall include, but not be limited to, examining the need for bicycle and pedestrian transportation, promoting programs and facilities for bicycles and pedestrians in this state, and advising appropriate agencies of the state on policies, programs and facilities for bicycles and pedestrians.

(f) The board may apply for and accept grants, gifts and bequests of funds from other states, federal and interstate agencies, independent authorities and private firms, individuals and foundations, for the purpose of carrying out its responsibilities.

(g) The Department of Transportation shall assist the board in carrying out its responsibilities by making available department reports and records related to the board's responsibilities and, within available appropriations, printing the board's annual report, distributing copies of such report and mailing notices of the board's meetings.

(h) Not later than January 15, 2010, and annually thereafter, the board shall submit a report, in accordance with section 11-4a of the general statutes, to the Governor, the Commissioner of Transportation and the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to transportation on (1) the progress made by state agencies in improving the environment for bicycling and walking in this state, (2) recommendations for improvements to state policies and procedures related to bicycling and walking, and (3) specific actions taken by the Department of Transportation in the preceding year that affect the bicycle and pedestrian environment.

Sec. 3. (Effective July 1, 2009) On or before October 1, 2009, and on or before October 1, 2010, the Commissioner of Transportation shall submit (1) to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to transportation, and (2) to the Connecticut Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board established by section 2 of this act, a list of transportation projects funded by the Special Transportation Fund established by section 13b-68 of the general statutes or Title 23 of the United States Code, including, but not limited to, the Interstate Maintenance Program, the National Highway Safety Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program and the Transportation Enhancement Program, which contain bicycle and pedestrian access. Such list shall include the project title, project scope, funding source, description and cost of the bicycle or pedestrian component of the project, and estimated time frame for completion of the project.

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

Senate Bill No. 846
Public Act No. 09-176

AN ACT CONCERNING THE DISABLED VETERANS' PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION.

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

Section 1. Subdivision (20) of section 12-81 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(20) Subject to the provisions hereinafter stated, property not exceeding three thousand dollars in amount shall be exempt from taxation, which property belongs to, or is held in trust for, any resident of this state who has served, or is serving, in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard or Air Force of the United States and (1) has a disability rating by the Veterans' Administration of the United States amounting to ten per cent or more of total disability, provided such exemption shall be fifteen hundred dollars in any case in which such rating is between ten per cent and twenty-five per cent; two thousand dollars in any case in which such rating is more than twenty-five per cent but not more than fifty per cent; twenty-five hundred dollars in any case in which such rating is more than fifty per cent but not more than seventy-five per cent; and three thousand dollars in any case in which such person has attained sixty-five years of age or such rating is more than seventy-five per cent; or (2) is receiving a pension, annuity or compensation from the United States because of the loss in service of a leg or arm or that which is considered by the rules of the United States Pension Office or the Bureau of War Risk Insurance the equivalent of such loss. If such veteran lacks such amount of property in his or her name, so much of the property belonging to, or held in trust for, his or her spouse, who is domiciled with him or her, as is necessary to equal such amount shall also be so exempt. When any veteran entitled to an exemption under the provisions of this section has died, property belonging to, or held in trust for, his or her surviving spouse, while such spouse remains a widow or widower, or belonging to or held in trust for his or her minor children during their minority, or both, while they are residents of this state, shall be exempt in the same aggregate amount as that to which the disabled veteran was or would have been entitled at the time of his or her death. No individual entitled to exemption under this subdivision and under one or more of subdivisions (19), (22), (23), (25) and (26) of this section shall receive more than one exemption. No individual shall receive any exemption to which he or she is entitled under this subdivision until he or she has complied with section 12-95 and [until he or she has, in each year in which such exemption is being sought, submitted evidence satisfactory to the assessors as to his or her actual disability rating on the assessment day as of which such exemption is being sought, except that proof of disability of persons who have attained the age of sixty-five years or who have presented Veterans' Administration certificates showing permanent total disability need be filed but once] has submitted proof of his or her disability rating, as determined by the Veterans' Administration of the United States, to the assessor of the town in which the exemption is sought. If there is no change to an individual's disability rating, such proof shall not be required for any assessment year following that for which the exemption under this subdivision is granted initially. If the Veterans' Administration of the United States modifies a veteran's disability rating, such modification shall be deemed a waiver of the right to such exemption until proof of disability rating is submitted to the assessor and the right to such exemption is established as required initially. Any person who has been unable to submit evidence of disability rating in the manner required by this subdivision, or who has failed to submit such evidence as provided in section 12-95, may, when he or she obtains such evidence, [satisfactory to the assessors,] make application to the collector of taxes within one year after he or she obtains such proof or within one year after the expiration of the time limited in section 12-95, as the case may be, for abatement in case the tax has not been paid, or for refund in case the whole tax has been paid, of such part or the whole of such tax as represents the service exemption. Such abatement or refund may be granted retroactively to include the assessment day next succeeding the date as of which such person was entitled to such disability rating as determined by the Veterans' Administration of the United States, but in no case shall any abatement or refund be made for a period greater than three years. The collector shall, after examination of such application, refer the same, with his recommendations thereon, to the board of selectmen of a town or to the corresponding authority of any other municipality, and shall certify to the amount of abatement or refund to which the applicant is entitled. Upon receipt of such application and certification, the selectmen or other duly constituted authority shall, in case the tax has not been paid, issue a certificate of abatement or, in case the whole tax has been paid, draw an order upon the treasurer in favor of such applicant for the amount without interest which represents the service exemption. Any action so taken by such selectmen or other authority shall be a matter of record and the tax collector shall be notified in writing of such action.

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

Substitute House Bill No. 6463
Public Act No. 09-80

AN ACT CONCERNING MEMBERSHIP ON REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCIES.

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

Section 1. Section 8-31a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2009):

Within any planning region of the state as defined or redefined by the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, or his designee under the provisions of section 16a-4a a regional planning agency may be created by the adoption of sections 8-31a to 8-37a, inclusive, by ordinance of the legislative bodies of two or more towns, cities or boroughs within such region, provided the total number of representatives of such towns, cities or boroughs shall equal sixty per cent or more of the total number of representatives possible of all the towns, cities or boroughs within such region computed as prescribed in this section. Any other town, city or borough within such region may join such regional planning agency by the adoption of said sections by ordinance of its legislative body. [Each] The chief elected official of each town, city or borough within such region, or the designee of such official, shall be a representative on such agency and each such town, city or borough, except as provided herein, shall be entitled to two other representatives on such agency and [shall be entitled to] additional representation on such agency at the ratio of one representative for each fifty thousand of population or fraction thereof over and above a population of twenty-five thousand as determined by the last-completed federal census. Cities and boroughs with boundaries not coterminous with the boundaries of the town in which they are located, upon adoption of the provisions of said sections, may have their chief elected official, or the designee of such official, and one other representative on such agency provided the population of the city or borough is greater than fifty per cent of the total population of the town as determined by the last-completed federal census, and the town, upon adoption of the provisions of said sections, may have the chief elected official of such town, or the designee of such official, and one other representative on such agency. If the total population of the town is greater than twenty-five thousand, the town may elect or appoint the extra representative or representatives as prescribed above, except that, for each fifty thousand population residing in the city or borough, the city or borough may have one additional representative. Noncoterminous cities or boroughs which do not contain fifty per cent or more of the total population of the town in which they are located shall not adopt the provisions of said sections and shall not join such regional planning agency. Where a planning commission exists in a town, city or borough established under the provisions of the general statutes or any special act, at least one of the representatives from such town, city or borough to the regional planning agency shall be appointed by such planning commission. The other representative or representatives shall be elected or appointed in the manner provided by ordinance adopted by the legislative body of such town, city or borough.

Approved June 2, 2009

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

House Bill No. 5873
Public Act No. 09-92

AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS TO APPROVE MUNICIPAL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.

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

Section 1. Section 8-24 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2009):

No municipal agency or legislative body shall (1) locate, accept, abandon, widen, narrow or extend any street, bridge, parkway or other public way, (2) locate, relocate, substantially improve, acquire land for, abandon, sell or lease any airport, park, playground, school or other municipally owned property or public building, (3) locate or extend any public housing, development, redevelopment or urban renewal project, or (4) locate or extend public utilities and terminals for water, sewerage, light, power, transit and other purposes, until the proposal to take such action has been referred to the commission for a report. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a municipality may take final action approving an appropriation for any proposal prior to the approval of the proposal by the commission pursuant to this section. The failure of the commission to report within thirty-five days after the date of official submission of the proposal to it for a report shall be taken as approval of the proposal. In the case of the disapproval of the proposal by the commission the reasons therefor shall be recorded and transmitted to the legislative body of the municipality. A proposal disapproved by the commission shall be adopted by the municipality or, in the case of disapproval of a proposal by the commission subsequent to final action by a municipality approving an appropriation for the proposal and the method of financing of such appropriation, such final action shall be effective, only after the subsequent approval of the proposal by (A) a two-thirds vote of the town council where one exists, or a majority vote of those present and voting in an annual or special town meeting, or (B) a two-thirds vote of the representative town meeting or city council or the warden and burgesses, as the case may be. The provisions of this section shall not apply to maintenance or repair of existing property, [public ways or] buildings or public ways, including, but not limited to, resurfacing of roads.
Speech laws in need of updating
Connecticut Post Staff
Posted: 02/06/2009 08:24:51 PM EST

Americans are guaranteed freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, but it doesn't apply to every person to the same degree.
It's one of the rights every citizen takes for granted. This isn't a nation where the government can lock someone up for questioning its decisions. But courts have consistently ruled that certain groups face restrictions. Among those who are limited are students.

But, as in so many other areas, the law has not kept up with technology. What was originally planned to limit criticism of schools and administrators during class hours has spread to include chat rooms, message boards and social networking sites. The way judges are interpreting laws, offhand comments on a Web site with no connection to a school could result in disciplinary action.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz ruled in favor of school administrators in Burlington who were accused of violating the First Amendment rights of a student who had been disciplined for a blog post she wrote off school grounds. In response, state lawmakers are considering a law that would prohibit schools from punishing students for such actions, provided there is no threat and the action takes place without using school property.

It's a good idea. The meaning of the word "public" has changed dramatically in just the last decade. What might have once been confined to a small group in a passing moment can now be spread to millions of people and preserved indefinitely. As it has across a variety of issues, the Internet has changed the dynamics.

Because schools are funded by taxpayers, the notion of administrators exerting some control over what is printed and disseminated within their boundaries has been accepted for years. But because the Internet blurs the distinction between in school and out, those rules may no longer apply. As the Burlington case shows, under current interpretations, something written or posted outside the classroom can make its way inside without hindrance.

But the principle is the same. The issue may go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the state should come out in favor of greater free speech rights. If students are not taking advantage of school property or privileges, the school should not have a right to censor their speech.

Did this pass by way of being added to another bill?  As SB772 it didn't!
AN ACT CONCERNING THE POSTING OF PUBLIC AGENCY MINUTES UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-00772-R02-SB.htm

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

Section 1. Section 1-225 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(a) The meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions, as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public. The votes of each member of any such public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours and shall also be recorded in the minutes of the session at which taken. Within seven days of the session to which such minutes refer, such minutes shall be available for public inspection and, within fourteen days of such session, posted on such public agency's Internet web site, if available. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, no public agency of any municipality shall be deemed to be in violation of this chapter for the failure to post minutes of such agency's sessions on the Internet web site of such public agency within fourteen days of the session to which such minutes refer, (1) for the period beginning October 1, 2008, and ending December 31, 2009, if such public agency files a notice with the town clerk of the applicable municipality indicating the reason for such failure, and (2) for the period beginning January 1, 2010, and ending January 1, 2011, following a vote of the applicable legislative body of such municipality, if such public agency files a notice with the commission describing the hardship that prevents such public agency from complying with such requirement. For informational purposes only, a copy of any notice filed with a town clerk pursuant to this subsection shall be filed with the commission. Each [such] public agency shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings.

Towns seek relief from state Web site rule 
DAY
By Jenna Cho 
Published on 1/29/2009
 
Visitors to the Voluntown municipal Web site are greeted with two red circles with slashes across them - the universal sign for “No” - framing a notice stating the site has been shut down due to recently expanded Freedom of Information laws requiring that all towns post meeting agendas and minutes on their Web sites.

”The town has no IT department, and complying with the bill will put a burden on each board in town,” the site states.

Town officials in Voluntown, Griswold and Lyme are among a group throughout the state pushing for a repeal of the law that since Oct. 1 has required municipalities and other public agencies to post board, commission and committee agendas and minutes on their Web sites.

The three towns all took down their Web sites last fall rather than risk keeping them up and being in violation of the new law.

Now, the Connecticut General Assembly is faced with at least 13 proposals for legislation calling for either a repeal or a delay of the mandate.

The state legislature's Committee on Government Administration and Elections raised a bill that would postpone implementation of the law to Oct. 1 and give municipalities an opportunity to explain their inability to comply with the law to the FOI Commission.

The state committee will hold a public hearing on the proposed bill at 9:45 a.m. on Monday in room 2B of the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.

Town officials have argued that in small towns without staff webmasters, complying with the new law is a strain on the town's finances and on employees' time. Lyme First Selectman Ralph Eno said the law also exposes towns to FOI complaints because the towns may not always be able to comply with such requirements as uploading meeting minutes within the mandated seven days of the meeting date.

A delay of the law, Eno said, isn't enough.

”It simply says that if you show as a municipality that there's a compelling reason that you couldn't get the posting done … then the FOI Commission can let you off the hook,” Eno said. “So you've still got to go to (an FOI) hearing. It does nothing for mandate relief.”

Eno, a member of the Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST), prefers Proposed Bill number 5379, which COST pushed for. That bill would completely eliminate the requirement that towns post meeting agendas and minutes on their Web sites.

COST executive director Barton Russell sent the FOI Commission a letter on Oct. 3 requesting clarification of the law and pointing to seven “anecdotal examples of how the real world works in small towns” and how that might prevent towns from being in full compliance of the law, he said Wednesday.

”It's those kinds of questions that just postponing the law won't address,” said Russell, whose council represents 120 towns with populations under 30,000.

Russell said the problem goes beyond the new FOI law.

”It is an unfunded mandate, and we've been spending the first several weeks of this new session urging legislators and particularly committee chairs and the leadership to kill bills … if they have a municipal fiscal impact that the state is not prepared to fund,” Russell said. “In this economic climate, unless they're clear who's going to pay for this … even good ideas, if you can't afford them, have to be postponed.”

A strain on small towns

The public's right to information was adequately protected before the FOI amendment in October, Eno argued. In fact, he said, Lyme this year budgeted about $5,000 to $6,000 to revamp the town's Web site, which he said had “languished” over the years.

The plan, Eno said, was to “do a decent public service and expand the way we put out information to people instead of biannual newsletters.”

Lyme selectmen are still working on the new Web site and have retained Haddam-based TechNet Computing for the job. Eno makes no apologies for removing the town's Web site to protest the FOI law on Web postings and said he hopes to have the new site ready to launch if and when the law is repealed.

On Tuesday night, Griswold selectmen decided to bring the old municipal Web site back, at least temporarily, according to First Selectman Philip Anthony Jr. The board is currently shopping for a contractor to manage the site and provide the necessary platform to host the information.

Neighboring First Selectman Gil Grimm of Voluntown submitted his concerns over the October amendment to the FOI laws to COST staff and said he expects they will present his and other small-town officials' arguments at Monday's public hearing.

”I can't see them changing their minds because the selectman from Voluntown says it's a hardship to manage a daily Web site with a part-time staff,” Grimm said.

In the meantime, Grimm said he has spoken to a couple of people about what it will take, financially and otherwise, to manage the municipal Web site.

Salem shut down its site for six weeks last fall. And while Salem First Selectman Bob Ross said the town chose to comply with the law with a new Web site, the proposed legislation to delay the Web site mandate was “not a good solution for other small Towns,” according to a letter he sent Wednesday to state Sen.

Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford, and state Rep. Ed Jutila, D-East Lyme.

”Small Towns should not have to demonstrate a hardship to be found 'not in violation,'” Ross wrote. “This mandate should never have been passed in the first place. Now, once again, the burden falls to the municipality to either post or demonstrate hardship.”

STAFF WRITERS MEGAN BARD AND MICHAEL NAUGHTON CONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPORT
---------------------

THIS ISSUE IMPORTANT TO SMALL TOWNS, ESPECIALLY!
GOVERNOR'S BILL ON REGIONALIZATION:  http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/H/2009HB-06389-R00-HB.htm

PROPOSED BILLS - There are at lease 13 proposed pieces of legislation to repeal, postpone or make exemptions to the FOI law implemented on Oct. 1 that requires that meeting agendas and minutes be posted on town Web sites:

 Raised bill No. 772
1) Postpone implementation until Oct. 1, 2009, and 2) give a town or public agency the opportunity to exempt itself by explaining its inability to comply with the new law to the FOI Commission.  Introduced by: Connecticut General Assembly's Committee on Government Administration and Elections H.B. 5009

Give towns 14 days rather than the current seven to post meeting minutes on their Web sites
Introduced by: state Rep. Vickie Orsini Nardello, D-Prospect H.B. 5218

Postpone implementation until July 1, 2012
Introduced by: state Rep. Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk; state Rep. William A. Hamzy, R-Plymouth; state Rep. Themis Klarides, R-Derby H.B. 5251

Postpone implementation until Oct. 1, 2012
Introduced by: state Rep. John Hetherington, R-New Canaan H.B. 5365

Repeal law
Introduced by: state Rep. Jim O'Rourke, D-Cromwell H.B. 5368

Postpone implementation until July 1, 2012
Introduced by: state Rep. Bill Aman, R-South Windsor H.B. 5371

1) Postpone implementation, 2) give towns 14 days to post meeting minutes, 3) eliminate requirement to post special meeting notices within 24 hours, and 4) require notice postings only on Web sites used for official business

Introduced by: state Rep. John W. Thompson, D-Manchester; state Sen. Mary Ann Handley, D-Manchester; state Rep. Ryan Barry, D-Manchester; state Rep. Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford H.B. 5379

Repeal law
Introduced by: state Rep. Pamela Z. Sawyer, R-Bolton; state Rep. Joan Lewis, D-Coventry; state Rep. Bryan Hurlburt, D-Tolland; state Rep. Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford; state Rep. Linda Schofield, D-Simsbury; state Rep. Jim O'Rourke, D-Cromwell H.B. 5384

Postpone implementation until July 1, 2012
Introduced by: state Rep. Deborah Heinrich, D-Madison; state Rep. Patricia M. Widlitz, D-Guilford; state Rep. Lonnie Reed, D-Branford H.B. 5564

Postpone implementation until July 1, 2012
Introduced by: state Rep. Livvy R. Floren, R-Greenwich S.B. 68

Exempt municipalities with populations of 30,000 or less
State Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford S.B. 87

Exempt municipalities with populations of 30,000 or less
Introduced by: state Sen. Rob Kane, R-Watertown S.B. 333

 Repeal law
Introduced by: state Sen. Andrew Roraback, R-Goshen
Madison Man Charged With Trying To Bribe Lawmaker
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | The Hartford Courant
December 11, 2008

A 74-year-old man was arrested and charged with bribery Wednesday after trying to hand an envelope with cash to a Democratic state legislator at the state Capitol complex in Hartford, police said.

Anthony P. Perrelli of Madison opened his briefcase and tried to give the cash to state Rep. Deborah W. Heinrich of Madison during a meeting in her office on proposed legislation, said Chief Michael J. Fallon of the State Capitol Police. Heinrich immediately refused the offer and told Perrelli that she intended to report his action.

Heinrich then spoke to the Capitol police, and officers apprehended Perrelli without incident as he was attempting to get into his car in the parking garage at the Legislative Office Building, police said.

"He attempted to persuade her not to report anything," Fallon said. "He [later] said he was trying to make a donation to a Christmas party. But when my officers were questioning him, he said, 'Do you have Christmas parties here?' He's got to know better than that."

Perrelli was charged with bribery, which is a Class C felony that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000. He was released Wednesday night after posting $2,500 bail.

"As soon as it happened, the meeting ended," Heinrich said Wednesday night. "I was totally shocked. I was also very upset. I'm upset that anyone would think that it was OK to offer me money like that. I said, 'We're done. I am reporting this now.'"

The envelope was later seized as evidence, but Fallon declined to reveal the exact amount it contained. Perrelli also had "a large amount of money on his person," Fallon said.

The incident occurred at about 3:20 p.m. during a 40-minute meeting concerning issues regarding condominium associations. Perrelli lives in a condominium and has spoken at public hearings about his concerns as a member of the Madison Property Owners Association.

Heinrich has known Perrelli, who is an unaffiliated voter, since she was elected four years ago as state representative for the 101st District, which consists of Madison and part of Guilford. Perrelli wants to see reforms to how condominium associations work, and he supports having condominium managers licensed in the state. Currently, they are not licensed. He also supported a bill, later signed into law by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, to ensure that those who serve on condominium boards have some minimum training in the law.

Along with Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Heinrich, Perrelli has supported a bill to create a statewide condominium review board — where condominium owners could have their complaints heard instead of going to Superior Court. That bill has not been passed.

During Wednesday's meeting, Perrelli told Heinrich that he had had a meeting earlier in the day with the chief state's attorney's office, which is participating in potential draft legislation on condominiums.

Nothing seemed amiss during the meeting as the legislator and her constituent talked about the issues he is concerned about.

"It was just a regular constituent meeting like all the others," Heinrich said.

"He was giving me some background information on other meetings he had had."

While Perrelli had never been actively involved in any of Heinrich's campaigns, he did make a campaign contribution this year during her latest campaign. Since she has served only four years, Heinrich is not chairwoman of any committees and is not considered among the most powerful legislators at the Capitol.

Public records show that Perrelli, who is retired, lived in Hamden before moving to Madison 17 years ago.

He is scheduled to appear in state Superior Court in Hartford on Dec. 19.

Christopher Keating is the Courant's Capitol bureau chief.

Highlights of energy assistance bill 
DAY
Posted on Aug 23, 1:20 AM EDT
 
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- The following are highlights of energy assistance legislation that lawmakers passed Friday night and Saturday morning.

- Decreases retail oil or propane dealers' minimum deliveries from 125 gallons to 100 gallons.

- Appropriates $8.5 million to Operation Fuel for emergency home heating assistance for households with incomes between 150 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, that is incomes of $31,800 to $42,000.

- Appropriates $5 million to Operation Fuel for households with incomes between 200 percent of the federal poverty level to 100 percent of the state median income. For a family of four, that is incomes of $42,400 to $93,821.

- Provides Operation Fuel with $500,000 for administrative purposes.

- Appropriates $6.5 million to local and regional school districts for school heating assistance.

- Appropriates $4 million for emergency home heating assistance to people ages 65 and older with incomes at or below 100 percent of the state median income. That is $48,786 for one person and $63,798 for two people.

- Appropriates $3.5 million for home heating assistance grants to human service and public health nonprofit organizations such as adult day care providers, homeless shelters and domestic violence shelters.

- Provides an additional $3 million to expand an existing rebate program for replacement of residential furnaces or boilers.

- Provides an additional $2 million for more rebates to income-eligible residents for repairing and upgrading furnaces and boilers to achieve greater efficiency.

- Appropriates $2 million for additional funding for a state loan program for the purchase and installation of energy conservation materials, replacement boilers and furnaces and alternative energy devices.

- Creates a contingency fund of about $33.5 million with remaining surplus funds to cover future emergency heating needs.

- Allocates $7 million for a new program to subsidize energy audits for customers.

- Appropriates $2 million for a winter weatherization program targeting low-income households in the Connecticut Energy Assistance Program.




Legislature Overrides Rell's Veto Of Minimum-Wage Increase
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, MARK PAZNIOKAS And JON LENDER | Courant Staff Writers
June 24, 2008

With one vote to spare in each chamber, the state legislature voted Monday to override Gov. M. Jodi Rell's veto and guarantee a 35-cent increase next year in the state's hourly minimum wage.

The unusual override marked a significant political defeat for Rell: It's only the second time that the Democrat-controlled legislature has overturned the Republican governor in the nearly four years since Rell took office. It also marked the first override on a major policy issue.

Lawmakers tangled over the minimum wage, with Democrats calling the small raise a matter of fundamental fairness for the state's lowest-paid workers. Republicans countered that the increase would backfire in tough economic times, arguing that small businesses would be forced to postpone hiring and reduce the hours for workers in restaurants and retail stores.

The razor-thin margin offered some high drama in the House of Representatives as lawmakers rushed to return from vacation to ensure that they had the necessary two-thirds vote.

Statement From Rell On Override Rep. Felipe Reinoso, a Bridgeport Democrat, flew back from his native Peru — where he lived for 19 years before moving to Connecticut — and landed Sunday night at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. He paid $1,250 for his ticket, and he said he intends to fly back next Sunday for another month in his native land.

"I'm very happy that I came, and I voted," Reinoso said after the debate. "I had e-mails requesting my presence."

Rep. Peter Panaroni, a Branford Democrat, was stuck in traffic on I-84 and missed the vote.

"He's on 84 with his dump truck because he was working today," said Rep. Bruce "Zeke" Zalaski of Southington, who was tallying votes for the House Democrats. "We asked the Capitol police to be sure he was able to park."

But Panaroni's vote was not needed. The measure passed 102-39 in the House and 25-9 in the Senate. Under the rules, the House needed 101 votes and the Senate needed 24.

About 65,000 of the state's 1.7 million workers — less than 4 percent of the workforce — are paid the minimum wage.

Minutes after the Senate vote finalized the measure, Rell issued a statement calling the votes "a seriously short-sighted decision that — even if well-intentioned — will have long-lasting negative consequences for employers and employees alike all over Connecticut."

"An increase in the minimum wage will bring an increase in the costs of goods and services, the loss of jobs and unrecognized costs to employers in the form of higher Social Security, unemployment tax and workers' compensation payments," Rell said.

The law will now increase the wage from the current $7.65 an hour to $8 on Jan. 1, 2009, and to $8.25 in 2010.

The override passed in the House with 101 Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Linda Marie "Penny" Bacchiochi of Somers.

Bacchiochi initially appeared to miss the vote, which followed a brief debate. She rushed to her desk before the tally was announced and asked to be counted in support.

In the final seconds before the electronic vote tally, Bacchiochi had hurried conversations with House Republican leader Lawrence Cafero and the Republicans' legislative chief of staff, George Gallo. She then rushed up the aisle to her desk, but was too late to push the green button and vote in favor of the override.

Bacchiochi then stood and asked to be recognized by House Speaker James Amann so that she could have her vote recorded in the affirmative. The speaker allowed her to vote, and the little green light lit up next to her name on the tally board as the 102nd vote.

"I work with people every day who actually earn minimum wage, so the argument that people who earn minimum wage aren't supporting themselves or a household is false," said Bacchiochi, owner of a property management firm in Stafford Springs.

"I manage low-income apartments. … I see what people living on minimum wage have to do to survive. Knowing that, and seeing that, it makes it almost impossible for me to vote not to raise the minimum wage."

She said she had been contacted by Rell's staff in recent weeks, although not by Rell herself, and had been asked to reconsider her support for the bill. But she said no one pressured her.

In the rushed conversations before the voting closed, Bacchiochi said she sought to make sure that her Republican colleagues "understood this was not an affront to them or to the governor, but something that I felt personally was the right thing to do."

The Senate originally passed the bill 25-11, with Republican Sens. Sam S.F. Caligiuri of Waterbury and Anthony Guglielmo of Stafford and all 23 Democrats in favor.

Although the House had more than enough Democratic members to reach the required two-thirds vote, the override in the Senate required at least one Republican vote because Democrats hold a 23-13 majority, and a two-thirds majority is 24.

That meant the vote of either Caligiuri or Guglielmo would decide the issue. State GOP Chairman Christopher Healy noted that both Republicans are running unopposed in this fall's election.

Both Republican senators said in interviews after the vote that they had met personally with Rell last Friday, at her request, and that she had politely offered what she said was new information about how the economy had worsened since the regular legislative session, when they supported increasing the minimum wage. But both based their support for the override at least partly on contact with constituents in their largely working-class districts.

"We had a very respectful conversation," Caligiuri said of his meeting with Rell. "This is a good-faith disagreement about whether this is the right way to help low-wage earners. The governor and others firmly believe that in this economic climate, a minimum wage increase will do more harm than good.

"I've done my research. I've looked at the data," Caligiuri said. "I've talked to businesspeople, and I just have not been able to reach that conclusion. I am convinced that it will not do any harm to business, but that it will help people — including many of my constituents."

Said Guglielmo: "I thought that when you have people who are working for minimum and they're paying over $4 a gallon for gas, and they're paying increased food prices, and they're paying increased fuel oil [prices], that this is a small tip of the hat toward them."

Guglielmo said Rell was "very gracious" Friday when she argued that "the situation has changed since we voted on it originally," but he said that "you could use that as an argument for why you should vote for [increasing the minimum wage] as well. ... It's also gotten worse for the people who are receiving minimum wage."





In advance of June 11th special session?
Gas Tax Increase To Be Postponed On July 1; Democrats Support Plan By Rell and GOP
Hartford Courant "Capitol Watchdog" blog
June 5, 2008 5:47 PM EDT

Cash-strapped motorists will get a break at the pump on July 1 because the legislature will block a planned increase in the state's gasoline tax, lawmakers said Thursday.

Prompted by a call earlier Thursday by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and a long-running call by legislative Republicans since late April, top Democratic leaders said they would vote to stop the scheduled increase in the gross receipts tax on the wholesale price of gasoline. As a result, an expected tax hike of three to four cents per gallon will not occur.

As gasoline prices have skyrocketed recently, Rell and lawmakers have come under increasing political pressure to do something. The General Assembly will hold a special session on Wednesday, but lawmakers had not originally been expected to discuss gasoline taxes.

Saying that a 28 percent hike in gasoline prices has cost the average two-car family nearly an extra $1,000 over the past year, Rell declared that the legislature needed to act during the special session. Only hours after Rell's statement, Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams and House Majority Leader Christopher Donovan, who is expected to become House Speaker next year, told reporters outside the Capitol press room that they will be taking action.

"We know that rising fuel prices not only affect the cost of gas, but essentially everything, including food and clothing,'' Williams said. "While we can't stop fuel prices from rising, we can prevent tax increases from further driving up the price.''

Senate Republican leader John McKinney of Southport and House GOP leader Lawrence Cafero of Norwalk have been pushing for the tax cut since April 28 - when they unveiled the Republican alternative budget. Despite being in the minority, they have said they intended to drive the debate on issues like the gas tax in the same way that they said they drove the budget debate last year. Democrats have scoffed at that notion.

"I caution my legislative colleagues not to stop at simply postponing the scheduled tax increase,'' McKinney said. "We need to do more, and we can. Republican legislators identified in April the savings needed to cover the gas tax relief. In fact, the spending cuts contained in the Republican alternative budget proposal would more than offset the cost of eliminating the scheduled increase in the gross receipts tax. It would also allow us to cap the tax once and for all, and prevent it from increasing every time the price of oil goes up."

In the mid-afternoon Thursday, Cafero issued a press release and a letter that pushed for the gasoline tax cut - hours before the 4 p.m. news conference by Democrats.

"It took some time, but the Democrats who insisted on doing nothing are hearing it every day from the people we all represent,'' Cafero said. "We said from the beginning that doing nothing in the face of a mounting fiscal crisis and disgust at the gas pump was unacceptable. People just don't understand why the Democratic leaders chose to stand pat.''

Democratic leaders have been ripping the Republicans and their alternative budget proposal for weeks. House Speaker James Amann sharply dismissed the plan, saying that the GOP is "selling horse meat.'' He recalled the case of a retail shop in his hometown of Milford that was shut down because it was selling horse meat. In the same way, he said, the Republican budget should be shut down.

Before the Democratic leaders announced their plan Thursday afternoon, Cafero said, "Calling a special session to raise real estate taxes when people are losing their homes, and then allowing the gas tax to go up again July 1, is the clearest example of being out of touch with what Connecticut needs right now.''


GOP: Early Reading Funding Loss Risks Jobs
Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | Capitol Bureau Chief
May 22, 2008

If the legislature fails to restore $20 million in state funding for early reading programs, 316 employees could lose their jobs in 16 cities and towns on July 1, Republican legislators said Wednesday.  The early reading money fell out of the $18.7 billion budget under the "do-nothing" plan favored by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the Democrats who control the legislature.  But Republicans said that the money could be restored if the legislature adopts their alternative budget proposal during a special session before the state's fiscal year ends June 30.

Meanwhile, Rell announced that the projected deficit for the next fiscal year has grown to as much as $150 million. The legislature's nonpartisan fiscal office said the deficit for the current fiscal year could be as high as $80 million.

The money for early reading programs was earmarked for 16 low-performing school districts. Losses would be $3.2 million in Hartford, $2.5 million in Waterbury, $2.3 million in New Haven and $1 million in Norwalk. House GOP leader Lawrence Cafero, who lives in Norwalk, said the cut would mean the loss of 13 positions in his town, including literacy coaches and a secretary.

Each town would lose different positions, ranging from tutors to full-time teachers, officials said.

"The reality of the do-nothing budget is setting in," Cafero said. "We believe there is still time to do something."

But House Speaker James Amann rejected Cafero's idea, which he has dubbed the "do something dumb" budget proposal. Republicans, he said, need to drop the idea of reopening the budget because Rell and the Democrats have decided to make no changes in the second year of the two-year budget approved last year.

"I think the message is throw away the stick," Amann said. "The horse is dead. Stop beating it. Let's move on. We've got a budget. It gets a little silly that they're still trying to push a budget that no one is going to support. We've got a budget in place."

Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams agreed, saying, "Once again, legislative Republicans are out of step with their own governor. Their so-called budget is a fantasy — built on false promises — and that's why Gov. Rell doesn't even support it."

The General Assembly is expected to return to the Capitol by mid-June to vote to extend the local portion of the state's real estate conveyance tax, which could generate as much as $40 million for cities and towns. Mayors and first selectmen — represented by lobbyists for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities — have pushed hard for the extension because the increase in the tax is scheduled to expire June 30. If the legislature does nothing, the municipalities would not receive the money in the next fiscal year.

Although Republicans are hoping to debate their budget alternative in the June special session, Amann said, he is working to keep the agenda as narrow as possible and focus only on the conveyance tax. He said he has received about "two dozen" requests for action during the session, but the Democrats, who control the legislature, can limit the agenda.

Rell is trying to reduce the current deficit by imposing an out-of-state travel ban and other belt-tightening measures.

"We are seeing fall-offs in collections of a wide range of taxes and fees — everything from income taxes and real estate conveyance taxes to the cigarette and insurance company taxes, " Rell said. "All of these reflect the softening national economy. We continue to position our state to do well when the economy picks up again, as it inevitably will. In the meantime, however, we must make sure that our spending is controlled."

It will succeed this year (2009) so figure out a way to pay the extra money on each little bottle (???) and put each little bottle through the clunky machine...well, since people are unemployed anyway, they have nothing better to do!  Or, as the Legislators may be thinking, no one will bother to redeem the deposit and thus, this will become a "slush fund" for them!
Water bottle deposit bill to fall short
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Brian Lockhart
Article Launched: 04/26/2008 01:00:00 AM EDT

HARTFORD - The General Assembly appears poised to pass legislation expanding recycling within the state - just not the so-called bottle bill that would place nickel deposits on water bottles.  The co-chairmen of the legislature's Environment Committee yesterday said it is likely a proposal to expand curbside recycling will instead be approved before the session ends May 7.

For several years, lawmakers have sought to expand the state's bottle redemption program for beer and soda to water, juices, flavored teas and energy drinks.  Proponents came close last year, but could not overcome intense lobbying by beverage companies and supermarkets that did not want to handle the additional waste.  This year, the proposal was tailored to cover only water bottles.

But the bill does not have support in the House of Representatives, state Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, an Environmental Committee co-chairman, said yesterday.  Meyer said Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, asked him to gauge House leaders' thoughts on the bottle bill before the Senate considered whether to vote on it.

"So I went down and talked to House leaders and they indicated to me there was no signal that the House would ever take it up," Meyer said.

Co-chairman state Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, did not go that far but called the bill a "moving target."

Meyer said the news this week that James Amann, D-Milford, will not return as House speaker could affect the future of the measure.

"I think there's a feeling that we're going to get a new speaker who may not have the alliances the current speaker has and we are going to have a better shot at passing a bill next session," Meyer said.

Amann's spokesman, Larry Perosino, said if there were enough support for the bottle bill among the House's rank-and-file members, the speaker would allow it to come up for a vote.  But Amann confirmed that he opposes the bill.  He said he believes expanding the bottle redemption program would place an unfair financial burden on supermarkets during a poor economy.

Amann said he plans to support what he considers to be a better proposal, also backed by Meyer and Roy - the so-called single-stream recycling bill.  Single-stream recycling makes it easier for residents to recycle household items, allowing them to place everything in one bin for curbside pick-up rather than separating various materials.

The proposed legislation would establish single-stream pilot programs in a few municipalities.

"Why would you go with this pilot program and then do the bottle bill at the same time?" Amann said.

That opinion is shared by spokesmen for Greenwich-based Nestle Waters North America, who say the firm loses money in Maine's expanded bottle redemption program.  Because its bottles are distributed differently than beer or soda, the redemption process is more complicated for the company, Nestle said.

"A nickel on a bottle is very likely to get that into the recycling stream," Nestle spokesman Brian Flaherty said. "However, the proposal will bring it into a beer and soda system that just doesn't work for our product."

Flaherty said the bottle bill for years has "stifled" talk of single-stream recycling efforts at the Capitol. Companies like his are doing their part by reducing the amount of plastic in their bottles, he said.

"You take a bottle of Poland Spring or Nestle Pure Life. We have the lightest half-liter on the market in the U.S. today," Flaherty said. "It's a 30 percent reduction in plastic."

But Meyer said water bottle companies are misleading lawmakers when they claim passing the single-stream recycling bill is an alternative to the bottle bill.  Single-stream programs deal with waste generated at home. he said.

"The problem we have with water bottles and other bottles is that they are spread all over Connecticut's landscape," Meyer said. "We find them in schoolyards, parks, on streets. Single-stream recycling won't stop that litter."

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, the ranking Republican on the Environmental Committee, said, "I think you can do both."

"I have supported the expansion of the bottle bill because I think it has proven to be an important recycling measure and an important anti-litter measure," McKinney said. "It doesn't make sense to not capture such a large percentage of the bottle market - waters, juices or teas."
P & D    B I L L S   T O    W A T C H  -   2 0 0 8

AN ACT CONCERNING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ZONES
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/TOB/H/2008HB-05634-R00-HB.htm

AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW OF PROJECTS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE BY REGIONAL PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/TOB/H/2008HB-05673-R00-HB.htm

AN ACT CONCERNING AN EMERGENCY RELIEF PLAN FOR CONNECTICUT FAMILIES FOR HOUSING COSTS.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=2&which_year=2008

INCREASING PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES TO MUNICIPALITIES.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5286&which_year=2008&SUBMIT1.x=11&SUBMIT1.y=12

AN ACT INCREASING THE STATE GRANT IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5290&which_year=2008&SUBMIT1.x=14&SUBMIT1.y=9&SUBMIT1=Normal

AN ACT CONCERNING PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR PROPERTY OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/TOB/H/2008HB-05293-R00-HB.htm

Fiscal 'patches' last year could make for tricky state 2008 budget process
By Keith M. Phaneuf, Journal Inquirer
02/04/2008

In Part One of a three-part legislative preview, the Journal Inquirer reviews key fiscal issues facing state lawmakers when the 2008 General Assembly session begins Wednesday.

HARTFORD - In theory, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and majority Democratic legislators should have a much easier time crafting the next state budget than they did last year.   With the state and the national economies slumping, neither side is talking about major tax hikes. And because both proposed and won major spending initiatives in 2007 - for Rell it involved education grants; for Democrats, health care programs - the chief goal in 2008 might be maintaining what's in place.

But there's a problem: Lawmakers cut corners to make possible their $17.6 billion budget - complete with its 8.6 percent spending increase - without one major tax hike.  And that could cost them in the upcoming budget year.  First, both sides dramatically increased expectations for tax revenue, forecasts that may not hold up if the economy worsens.  They also budgeted little or nothing in several key areas in crafting the preliminary $18.4 billion budget for 2008-09 last June. Before the final plan is completed this spring, officials know many of those fiscal "goose eggs" must be replaced with hard numbers.

Further complicating matters is that growing pressure to end fuel and real estate taxes could cut into revenue on both the state and the local levels.

"The good news is that Connecticut is well-poised to cope with an economic downturn," Rell said this week. "Our economy is much more diverse than during the devastating recession of 1989-92, when we lost 10 percent of the state's jobs.

"What we need are smart taxing and spending decisions," the governor added. "It is vital that we write our budget with prudence and finesse. The actions we take in the coming days will have consequences far down the road."

Rell's budget director, Robert L. Genuario, said the administration is determined to safeguard the historic investments made over the past year in education and health care.  That means lawmakers must be especially cautious elsewhere.

A modest surplus

Both Rell's budget office and the legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis project a modest surplus of about $260 million for the current fiscal year.  That's a far cry from 12 months ago, when state officials were hailing a mid-year surplus of more than $500 million. The state ended the 2006-07 fiscal year in June with a record-setting cushion of more than $1 billion.  Besides the economic slowdown, this year's smaller surplus forecast stems from a decision Rell and legislative leaders reached last June.

Both she and Democrats initially recommended income tax hikes, noting that long-term spending forecasts showed a need for more state revenue by 2009 or 2010.  Though their plans differed in terms of the rates and the income groups they targeted, both would have raised upward of $300 million in additional revenue.  Rell came under pressure from fellow Republicans to scrap her income tax hike as the surplus grew.

Democrats had their own problems. A proposal to boost taxes on the wealthy while lowering them for the middle class won majority support, but not by the two-thirds margin needed to override a Rell veto. 
Ultimately, both sides agreed to scrap their tax hikes even though the budget included a huge spending increase, arguing that the tax system could be counted on to perform better - at least for one or two more years.  But counting on more revenue from taxes wasn't the only move needed to make the last budget possible.

Plugging fiscal potholes

Democrats and Rell built some questionable assumptions into their preliminary budget for the 2008-09 year, which starts July 1.  Both sides already are conceding that more dollars have to be found in several areas before a spending plan is adopted this spring. Some problem areas are:

* Nursing homes. Connecticut spends more than $1.3 billion annually on its 240 nursing homes, providing about two-thirds of their funding through Medicaid. Lawmakers and Rell included no increase for nursing homes in the preliminary budget. Yet Senate Democrats have called for increases in mandatory minimum staffing levels.

* Prisons and criminal justice. Correction Department costs in the current budget are running about $25 million in the red as Connecticut tries to manage an inmate population of more than 19,000 in a system designed to hold closer to 17,000.

Rell has acknowledged the state needs at least another 100 beds for offenders with mental illnesses and addiction problems.  Lawmakers agreed in special session last month to add five full-time professionals, including one psychiatrist, to the state parole board, and want to add parole and probation officers to better monitor inmates released into the community.

* Nonprofit social service providers. Like nursing homes, private nonprofit social service agencies are slated to receive no increase under the preliminary budget. These agencies, which provide the bulk of services to state clients - at about half the pay of state employees - will be relied on more heavily as the state tries to control its prison population by treating more nonviolent offenders outside prison.

But many nonprofit agencies, suffering from what they say is nearly two decades of state underfunding, are freezing or reducing program slots as they struggle to fill staff positions and deal with a 27 percent turnover rate.

* Health care. After a historic investment in expanded health care, state officials might be hard-pressed in 2008 just to maintain the ground gained over the past 12 months.
Analysts' reports warn that costs tied to Medicaid and related programs to assist the poor and needy will grow much faster than expected.

Rell's budget office has cautioned that Medicaid-related programs could cost $139 million above the spending growth already anticipated in the preliminary 2008-09 budget.

"Health care is still a hot issue," House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, said, adding that lawmakers still are searching for ways to help more people who lack adequate access to health care. "There's no way we're going to take a step backward."

Tax cuts on the table

Further complicating matters is that legislators are talking about tax cuts to help taxpayers and businesses as the economy slumps.  In the past week lawmakers have floated ideas for helping residents deal with rising costs for home heating, health care, and property taxes. They also announced proposals to help small- and mid-sized businesses in an effort to spur job growth.

"Low- and middle-income Connecticut residents are facing steep increases in the price of life's essentials, without significant increases in wages," said Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, whose caucus was the first to propose a relief plan.

"Families are having a hard time making ends meet. It is imperative we work together in a bipartisan manner to help families right now," he added.

Another levy that may draw attention in 2008 is the state's wholesale tax on fuel sales: the petroleum products gross receipts tax.  The levy, which adds some 17 cents per gallon to the price of gasoline in Connecticut - over and above the state's flat 25-cent tax - brings in close to $300 million a year. The state has since 2003 been diverting more than $100 million of that revenue every year away from its intended purpose - transportation - to support other government programs.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, this week told the Connecticut Council of Small Towns that if the state better controlled spending, it wouldn't need to divert those funds.  And be prepared: The gross receipts tax is slated to increase July 1, for the fourth consecutive year.



Lawmakers OK Home Invasion Law 
DAY 
Published on 1/23/2008 

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) _ The General Assembly early Wednesday approved legislation intended to toughen laws against home invasions and improve how the judicial system handles prisoners on parole.  The bill, which is the first legislative action in response to a deadly home invasion in Cheshire last July, now heads to Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who has said she will sign it.

The Senate voted 36-0 to approve the measure and was followed at about 2:30 a.m. Wednesday by the House of Representatives, which passed the bill on a vote of 126-12.

The arrest of two paroled burglars who were charged in the killings of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters, Hayley and Michaela, prompted debate about how to make state law stronger and improve Connecticut's parole system. The bill is a compromise between Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who convened a task force to study the issue, and Democrats who control the General Assembly.

"The people in my district have had it. They're done." Sen. Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden, said during Senate debate. "When you don't feel safe in your home what else do you have?"

The legislation would establish a new crime of home invasion and increases the penalty for burglary of a home at night by making it a first-degree burglary instead of second-degree.  Anyone who is convicted of second-degree burglary or home invasion would not be eligible for parole until after serving at least 85 percent of the sentence under terms of the legislation.

The bill would require global positioning system monitoring of an additional 300 parolees. It also would require the criminal justice system to develop a comprehensive information technology system to improve information sharing among state agencies, board, commissions, local police departments and other law enforcement officials.

Legislative leaders agreed to Rell's demand that they drop a provision requiring prosecutors to prove a suspect knew a home was occupied to charge that suspect with home invasion.

"These changes are just the beginning of a much-needed, top-to-bottom reform of our entire criminal justice system," Rell said in a statement Tuesday night.

Other changes will be taken up in the General Assembly when its annual session begins next month, she said.  The Senate defeated an amendment, supported by the governor, that would have kept offenders convicted of three violent crimes in prison for at least 30 years.  Sen. Andrew McDonald, the Senate chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said lawmakers acted to achieve a compromise and Cooper said Rell is satisfied with the legislation.

Many of the Republican governor's reform ideas were similar to proposals put forward by the majority Democrats, such as creating a full-time Board of Pardons and Paroles and retooling the state's persistent felony offender law.  But Rell and the Democratic leaders differed on how to handle persistent offenders.

The so-called "three-strikes" amendment called for a Superior Court review of a third-time offender's sentence after 30 years or after the inmate is eligible for release, whichever is later.

"We don't want people going into corrections on the installment plan and being cycled out and committing these horrible crimes," said Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield.

Democrats, acknowledged that the Republican proposal was a tempting law-and-order issue, but argued that judges need flexibility went imposing sentences on violent criminals.

"I urge you not to take that discretion away," said Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford.



ACLU questions prison overcrowding 
New London DAY
Posted on Dec 7, 6:06 AM EST

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union is raising questions about what it calls potentially dangerous and inhumane conditions from prison overcrowding in Connecticut.

The civil liberties organization is asking Connecticut prison officials for a response to complaints about conditions.

The ACLU letter to state Correction Commissioner Theresa C. Lantz warns about alleged unconstitutional treatment of prison inmates.  Gov. M. Jodi Rell says she has directed the commissioner to look into the charges and take any corrective action that is necessary.

The governor has repeatedly said she doesnt believe the state currently needs to expand its prison system.
Lawmakers vote to call special session on criminal justice reform
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Brian Lockhart
Published December 6 2007

HARTFORD - The General Assembly voted yesterday to open 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:
  1. 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."
  2. DEADLINES;
  3. Ethics changes mixed in with gifts of State Land;
  4. Opening day procedural move...
  5. Associated Press pitch on the new Session...(starts this coming Wednesday);
  6. Office of Legislative Research (OLR)
  7. Legislative Commissioners' Office (LCO)
  8. Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA)
  9. 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


WiFi bill died...a quick death.
Rep. Drew of Fairfield...An Act Concerning Wireless Internet Access:  http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/TOB/H/2007HB-06502-R00-HB.htm

At the end of the Long Session, what happened?  Remember the issues that were supposed to be most important this Session?

OUR SUMMARY...things we were watching out for that we were happy to see included in Omnibus Senate Bill 1500...




P.E.G. BILL...some interesting parts below - otherwise go to OLR links

BRAVE NEW WORLD?  OR "1984" REDUX?
Substitute House Bill No. 7182
Public Act No. 07-253
AN ACT CONCERNING CERTIFIED COMPETITIVE VIDEO SERVICE: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/ACT/PA/2007PA-00253-R00HB-07182-PA.htm

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.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------

  1. BONDING;
  2. QUESTION:  DID THE LEGISLATURE TURN INTO A PUMPKIN WEDNESDAY?  ANSWER:  YES, IT DID.  
  3. QUESTION:  DO THEY HAVE A BUDGET?  ANSWER:  NOT YET.
  4. WHEN WILL THERE BE ONE?  WHEN A SPECIAL SESSION IS CALLED AND ENACTS ONE GOVERNOR RELL CAN SIGN.
  5. WHO ANNOUNCES OR CALLS THE SESSION? IT DEPENDS.
  6. WHO SETS THE WORDING OF THE 'CALL' (LEGAL NOTICE) AND 
  7. WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED AT THE SPECIAL SESSION?   SEE ANSWER TO #4,
  8. 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.”
Resubdivision - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/ACT/PA/2007PA-00102-R00HB-07040-PA.htm
Mutual Aid - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/ACT/PA/2007PA-00056-R00HB-07024-PA.htm
Animal Control - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/ACT/PA/2007PA-00105-R00HB-07194-PA.htm
E-9-1-1 - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/ACT/PA/2007PA-00106-R00HB-07270-PA.htm
Harbor Point (Stamford) - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/ACT/SA/2007SA-00006-R00HB-07384-SA.htm
LNG - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/ACT/PA/2007PA-00094-R00SB-01017-PA.htm
AIR QUALITY IN STATE BUILDINGS - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/ACT/PA/2007PA-00124-R00SB-01051-PA.htm
DUCK RACE BILL - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/ACT/PA/2007PA-00036-R00SB-01071-PA.htm

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.

Carrot for regional cooperation: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/TOB/H/2007HB-07402-R00-HB.htm
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."




Appropriations Committee Sub-Committee assignments: http://www.cga.ct.gov/app/APP.asp

The budget bills - implementing the Governor's proposals...in the House.

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






Ban on cell phones for drivers a failure
Editorial from CT Post
Updated: 07/24/2009 04:58:54 PM EDT

This is a law that has failed.

Regardless of good intentions, the statewide ban on operating hand-held cell phones while driving is not achieving its goals. A glance at passing vehicles on the highways or local streets shows people flagrantly ignoring the statute, blabbing away on their phones while speeding merrily along.

The problem has been framed in some quarters as one of enforcement. The fines issued by police are not steep enough, people say. If drivers felt serious pain from a ticket, they might think twice about driving and talking.

In truth, the law is flawed to its core.

Connecticut is one of only five states to ban the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. The effect of such a law, though, is to tacitly endorse the use of hands-free devices to converse at 65 mph.

Research on these matters is clear -- driving while using a hands-free device is just as dangerous as with a regular cell phone. It is not the act of dialing or holding the phone that poses the greatest danger -- though that's not to be underestimated -- it's the distraction of carrying on a conversation with a person not in your immediate presence. It represents a cognitive leap over talking to someone in the passenger seat, and poses a serious threat.

Analysts have found that talking on the phone while driving is as dangerous as driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08. We have laws against drunken driving; we should also prohibit distracted driving.

It's not just phones, of course -- handheld computers, music players and other gadgets are becoming ubiquitous among drivers. Each one of them poses serious dangers.

This is not a matter of personal liberty, or the state taking away your rights. If an action is proven to bring great risk to others on the road, as operating a cell phone surely does, the government has a responsibility to step in.

It won't happen soon. The state continues to wait on a budget agreement and won't be taking up major new initiatives until the next session. But it should be high on their to-do list.

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!