

New Session began January 7,
2009 (ends June 3rd). See
the lobbyists gather!
Connecticut
Legislature
Transcript of Gov. Rell's speech to the General Assembly
Published on 1/7/2009
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Williams, Members of the Legislature
and guests: Welcome to the official opening of the 2009 regular session
of the Connecticut General Assembly.
The start of a new session, a new term in office, is always exciting.
It's a time of new opportunities. New experiences. New challenges.
It is a time for us to look forward, to await with eager anticipation
the issues, the debates, the activities and actions that will unfold in
the weeks and months ahead as we carry out the work of serving our
fellow citizens.
To those who return re-elected to office or are sworn in to a new
office, welcome back. The building has been – more or less – quiet
without you.
To those who are new members, a very warm welcome.
To the newly appointed committee chairs, ranking members, leaders: good
luck. You are certainly going to need it. We all will.
You will all need patience, understanding, wisdom, a strong but not
unyielding will and the support of your colleagues.
To our new Speaker of the House, my sincerest congratulations. I look
forward to working with you with mutual respect, consideration and
courtesy.
Later, as the celebrations of this festive day conclude, our real work
will begin as we govern at a time of great challenge.
Just last week we bid goodbye to 2008. It was a year that few of us
will ever forget, though we might like to, and one that historians,
economists and others will be writing and speaking about for
generations to come.
It was a time of great highs – the election of a new president, the
first African-American president elected in our nation's history. A
point of pride for all of us.
But it was also a time of almost unimaginable lows. A national fiscal
crisis, breathtaking in its scope. The collapse of Wall Street, record
home foreclosures, record business failures, record job losses and
record government bailouts.
Yes, 2008 is behind us, but the problems it ushered in will not go
quietly in this New Year.
We will not soon see an end to bankruptcies and foreclosures, to pink
slips or red ink.
Families in Connecticut and across the nation are rightly fearful and
angry. They want to know how and why this happened, and whose fault it
is.
They also want to know how they will ever be able to afford to retire
or put their child through college, given the steep declines in their
401k's and savings accounts. How will they afford to pay their bills if
they lose their job?
Unfortunately, other than unbridled greed by far too many on Wall
Street and almost criminally lax oversight by far too many in
Washington, there are no easy answers.
No easy answers, but lots of questions. Lots of concerns. These are the
worst financial times any of us can remember. Let's face it, it's scary.
But one concern people should not have is a state government they
cannot afford – which is what they have right now. And cities and towns
will need our attention as they also struggle with the fiscal pressures
of the economy.
The national economic storm has engulfed Connecticut and its
municipalities. It has washed up on shore a set of difficult challenges
and it has brought clarity to our mission of educating our children,
protecting our natural resources, providing for those in need, keeping
our people safe and making our state a place of unmatched opportunity.
Our mission may be a clear one. But the path we will take this session
to fulfill it will not be, for the obstacles and challenges and needs
we will face will be many. And our resources will be few – too few.
As families struggle to pay their monthly bills, so will we. As they
cut back on expenses and forego new purchases, so must we.
And we must do it at a time when, as is the paradox of government, more
and more families will be looking to us for help.
Our revenues are declining but the need for government services is
increasing. As jobs continue to be lost or wages cut or frozen, our
citizens will need our help for basic necessities: food and heating
assistance, unemployment assistance, child care, health care.
How we fulfill our responsibilities will overshadow all that we do this
session. It will guide our every decision. It will color everything.
Action will be taken this session, as it should be, on a host of
different issues – health care, criminal justice, transportation,
education and the environment, to name but a few.
The ideas, the proposals, the plans will be plentiful. The resources
needed to bring many of them to life will not be.
In recent good economic times, we made strategic and historic
investments in our state. We took advantage of a strong economy to
invest in education, in transportation, in healthy children and in the
technologies that will lead us into the future.
In these difficult economic times, we must now find strategic savings
and reductions throughout government.
Government must shrink because our taxpayers are seeing their personal
budgets shrink. The recession has landed hard on the doorsteps of many
of our citizens and they are looking to us for relief. They expect us
to work together to bring new approaches to the table – because that's
what leaders do.
And it is exactly what we have been doing over the last several months.
Late last spring it became apparent that our state budget for last
fiscal year was headed for red ink. I ordered a state hiring freeze, a
state purchasing freeze, sought reductions in state gasoline usage,
banned out of state travel and took other actions.
We averted the red ink and instead ended the year with a modest surplus.
In August, with the cost of gasoline and home heating oil rising past
$4 a gallon, we knew we needed to do something to help, long before the
first cold winds of autumn or winter blew.
I called you into special session and together we produced a package of
proposals aimed at providing energy and heating assistance for families
in need, as well as for the elderly, schools and non-profits. And we
paid outright for these proposals with the modest surplus we produced a
month earlier. And while prices have come down, regrettably, more and
more people still need our help.
In October and November I took a number of other actions, as the news
from Wall Street grew increasingly grim and as the silence of inaction
in Washington grew increasingly deafening.
I met with the leaders of our state's community banks and we put
together a targeted, $100 million loan program to help ease the credit
crunch for our state's employers.
We also issued funds for brownfield remediation and reallocated
Manufacturing Assistance Act funds, all in an effort to spur economic
development. I also sought changes to our foreclosure laws to better
protect homeowners and renters.
Last month I worked with our state's credit unions and we announced a
special, $25 million program to help students and their parents with
low-interest college loans. We wanted to help those families who were
struggling to pay tuition for this spring semester.
I have also made three rounds of rescissions and offered two deficit
mitigation plans. You passed one last month, and I thank you for your
leadership. I do hope you will pass the second plan next Wednesday.
Because of the actions I have already taken and you have already taken,
Connecticut is in far better shape than many other states.
Yes, in far better shape but still facing a new economic reality. But I
firmly believe that this time of great challenge is also a time of
great opportunity.
This is how I see the State of our State: Built on a firm foundation,
facing incredible challenges and yet poised, if we make the right
decisions in the session ahead, to take advantage of incredible
opportunities.
I know how easy it is for us to be overwhelmed by the incessant
drumbeat of bad economic news. It hangs about us like a tight-fitting
cloak.
I also know we must never lose sight of the fact that Connecticut
remains a place of great promise and extraordinary people.
Our quality of life is second to none. So too are our educational
opportunities. Our work force is skilled and our people are
industrious. Our hearts are generous to those in need and our natural
resources are bounteous.
We are a state whose rich history serves as but a template for a richer
future. We lead the nation, and sometimes the world, in so many areas:
No. 1 in per capita personal income
No. 5 in exports
No. 1 in Fortune 500 companies per million population
No. 7 in patent applications per capita
We are leading the bioscience revolution and we are home to
cutting-edge technologies and life-changing medical advances.
Stem cell research, aerospace, nanotechnology, fuel cells,
pharmaceutical research – all position Connecticut for the industries
and jobs of the 21st century.
I know times are tough, but I know that the people of Connecticut are
tougher. I know that we are a people of resolve – we will do whatever
it takes to not only weather this storm but to plant the seeds of a
bountiful recovery.
This will be a time of shared sacrifice. That which we would like to do
will be set aside for that which we must do.
We must take care of our most vulnerable and we must meet the core
mission of government of which I spoke earlier.
The sacrifices will not be easy or painless. The recommended two-year
budget I present to you next month will reflect that. The cuts that
must be made will be deep and they will affect every agency, every
program and every service provided by state government.
They will hurt. They hurt me to even offer them.
I have spent countless hours in the last few weeks poring over every
line item in our budget. I have lost countless hours of sleep worrying
about our families and their household budgets and worrying about our
state budget and the cuts we need to make.
But we do need to make cuts and we do need to prepare our state to make
the most of the economic recovery when it comes – and it will come.
For our goal, our charge as leaders is not to merely help Connecticut
survive these economic challenges but to help Connecticut thrive.
We must make the right choices now so that we may close tightly the
doorways of despair and open wide the windows of opportunity.
One of the main reasons Connecticut is in far better shape than many of
our neighboring states is because we have worked together over the last
few years to position ourselves to deal with the uncertainties of a
roller coaster economy.
We built up our budget reserves, we strengthened and diversified our
economy and we invested in our work force. And we did these things
together.
Now is the time for us to again act and to lead.
The problems we are facing are not permanent. And they are not ours
alone. Economies around the world are slowing down. But Connecticut is
our place to protect.
Together we will lead with a purpose to guide our state to better times.
I feel blessed to be Governor of this great state, but I also feel the
tremendous burdens of office during these anxious times.
But my burdens are set aside, replaced by an urgent sense of
protection, passion and purpose every time I look into the face of a
neighbor or into the eyes of a child and see their hopes and dreams for
the future.
The same is true when I learn of a family who is visiting a food bank
for the first time or when I talk to a proud, independent senior who is
embarrassed to ask for help in filling their oil tank.
And it's true when I see our brave troops off as they depart for
selfless, dangerous service in Iraq or Afghanistan.
You know, before I return to this Chamber to give my budget address
next month nearly 100 soldiers will begin their deployment, bringing to
more than 300 those from Connecticut serving overseas. Before the end
of the year, we are scheduled to see another 1,000 of our sons and
daughters deployed.
Sons and daughters we want to forever protect in our loving embrace.
Children and families and seniors we want to – we need to – see through
these difficult times.
As Governor, I promise to lead with integrity, energy and purpose. This
financial crisis is indeed our call to action.
These are the challenges we face:
Protect our families and their futures
Restore the prosperity built through the inspiration and ingenuity of
our founders
Eliminate the impediments to our progress
And our greatest challenge, to not let the nation's financial crisis
dampen our enthusiasm and optimism about the future of this great State
Connecticut is an incredible mosaic of people and places – a tapestry
of natural beauty, history, culture and character.
Now is the time to work together to protect this special place along
the long tidal river and to build the proud tomorrow of Connecticut's
future.
Thank you and God bless the State of Connecticut.
Rell at
crossroads with budget; Governor facing toughest task since
taking office
CT POST
By KEN DIXON, Staff writer
Article Last Updated: 12/21/2008 12:25:36 AM EST
HARTFORD -- By the time Gov. M. Jodi Rell finished her latest
deficit-reduction plan last week, she was enmeshed in budget numbers
and having trouble sleeping. It got to the point -- during
multi-hour
sessions with her staff from Office of Policy and Management -- that
she had to double check whether various spending cuts or revenue
shuffles were within the current $18 billion spending package, or part
of the two-year budget that begins July 1.
"It's a difficult task because, one, we're looking at the biennial
budget. But at the same time I'm doing a deficit-mitigation plan," Rell
said in an interview in her Capitol office, detailing the string of
three-and-four-day a week sessions.
"I can't tell you how many times we sit there and I'll look over at
somebody and I'll say 'are you asking about '09? Or are you talking '10
and '11?' " Rell said. "So we've tried to separate the two and if we're
doing mitigation today we're doing mitigation, not a whole host of
things."
While Connecticut's fiscal problems are no where near as bad as
neighboring New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island -- recessions
typically hit Connecticut later and linger longer -- the state's
growing deficits are creating the biggest challenges to lawmakers since
1991, when the personal income tax was adopted. The current
deficit is
a mere drop in the budget bucket, compared to the looming
multibillion-dollar deficit Rell will address when she proposes a
two-year budget to the General Assembly in early February for a cycle
that will take her into 2010, the year when she would run for
re-election.
Rell's budget-policy mantra is she's doing the same kind of belt
tightening that families across the state are facing in this economy,
only on a multibillion-dollar scale. She still wants to do it without
new taxes of layoffs among the 50,000-plus state employees, who have
lucrative health benefits that are contracted until 2017, under a 1997
agreement.
"While it's important that we can get a bottom line we can live with,
it's more important that we make the appropriate cuts and make the
adjustments that will best serve the people," Rell said of the
short-term challenge in the current deficit and the looming $2.6
billion shortfall in the spending package that starts July 1.
"Families are expecting state government to do the same thing," Rell
said. "They don't want me to sit there are go 'wow, we can't cut that.
My gosh, that's got to be off the table.' They want us to say that
nothing is sacred and everything is going to be on the table."
A couple days later, hours after the Quinnipiac University Poll pegged
Rell's statewide approval rating at a sky-high 68 percent, Rell
surprised lawmakers by ordering a second lame-duck special session of
the Legislature on Jan. 2, just five days before the next General
Assembly takes office. Rell's decision was the result of a
continued
erosion of state revenue and an estimated $338 million deficit reported
by Comptroller Nancy Wyman, a Democrat, on Dec. 1.
That's about twice the 1 percent of the budget that requires Rell to
draft a new deficit-reduction plan and present it to the General
Assembly within 30 days. The next session will come on the heels
of a
Nov. 24 special session, during which the General Assembly filled a
$288 million gap in the budget, including about $26.5 million in direct
spending cuts.
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said last week that
the sooner the current shortfall is addressed, the better.
"I'm ready to vote on her deficit-mitigation package tomorrow,"
McKinney said. "The reality is the longer we stay out to address the
deficit, the worse the problem gets and the bigger the problem gets.
The governor is the only one who has demonstrated the leadership to
deal with it."
McKinney said he wishes Rell had called for the special session to
occur even earlier, but state law requires the Legislature to receive a
10-day notice.
"I think she has shown tremendous leadership," McKinney said. "She is
facing an economic crisis and a budget deficit that no other governor
in the history our state has faced, including 1991 when the income tax
was adopted."
McKinney describes Rell's low-key style as right for the crisis.
"She has a very calm, leveled-headed, common sense approach at a time
of critical importance," McKinney said. "She has a steady hand on the
helm of state government and she's ready to make the tough decisions
that Democrats in the Legislature have not shown an ability to do."
Chris Healy, chairman of the Republican State Central Committee, said
the continued strong approval rating says a lot about Rell.
"The governor's numbers are indicative of the confidence people have in
her," Healy said in an interview. "People trust her to do the right
thing and that will help her negotiating the budget. What she's been
saying about the budget is what people want to hear."
Even majority-Democratic leaders, who will no doubt offer major changes
to Rell's budget during the winter and spring, have begrudging respect
for Rell, 62, who took over after the resignation of John G. Rowland on
July 1, 2004.
"There's no doubt it's a huge challenge," said outgoing Speaker of the
House James A. Amann, D-Milford.
"It's a very similar challenge to what we had in 1991, but less than
2002," he recalled the last times billion-dollar deficits confronted
lawmakers. "But that's what leadership is about. I think the main thing
everyone should be talking about now is how to create jobs."
Amann, whose exploration for a gubernatorial run in 2010 makes him the
governor's biggest political threat, criticizes Rell on some issues.
But he commended her for recently asking municipal leaders around the
state for lists of "shovel-ready" projects for possible federal funding
when President-elect Barack Obama moves into the White House next month.
"Losing sleep and panicking are not the way to go forward," Amann said.
"We have to think what can we do to change the fabric of our economy.
We can't wait for bailouts. We can't think that Obama is the messiah,
though I'm glad he's president."
Continued investments in health care and tax breaks to foster job
growth is paramount, said Amann, although Democratic leaders are
currently looking to possibly suspend tax exemptions in their own
attempt to create a balanced two-year budget.
"This isn't brain surgery," Amann said. "You can change things with
simple ideas."
The period before Rell's Feb. 4 budget presentation may make or break
the first term in which she was elected in her own right and will
certainly set the tone for a 2010 re-election effort. While she hasn't
announced whether she'll seek another four-year term, the governor has
formed an exploratory committee. Rell's had it relatively easy in
her
four years at the Governor's Residence in Hartford's North End, with
consecutive years of robust-to-modest surpluses and budget deals with
Democrats to support annual spending growth.
Now, she's trying to hold the line, at best, for the next biennium, in
attempt to save billions of dollars.
"When you're putting together a current-services budget, you have to go
by what the statute says," Rell said.
"So does that mean I'm going to end up reducing everything by $2
billion?" she asked. "The answer is probably no. It'll be under the
current services, it'll be those things that are flat funded at last
year's level. But there will be no new funding, no increase for
inflation and in some cases actual cutbacks or eliminations."
That means the best towns, cities and school boards may hope for, is
this year's level of state aid continuing for the next two years.
"Right now, right now, depending on how things continue to go, I'm
trying to flat fund, which means it will be last year's level of
education grants to cities and towns," Rell said. "I've told all the
mayors and first selectmen since April that I will be lucky if I can
keep last year's level and don't anticipate more money."
House Majority Leader Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, who will
become the next House speaker when he is officially voted into the post
on Jan. 7, said there hasn't been much communication with Rell since
the November special session.
"I'm sure she's putting together her new plan for the budget," Donovan
said last week. He was glad that Rell recently joined other governors
in Philadelphia to meet Obama.
"We're gathering information about infrastructure projects," Donovan
said, adding that he hopes to work together with Rell, rather than
oppose her directly.
"Good lines of communication have been established at this point," he
said. "I think she's working hard to put together the mitigation plan
and the February budget. It's hard."
Donovan also appreciates Rell's recent decision to contract an outside
attorney, with labor-management experience, to begin approaching state
unions for possible concessions and money-saving ideas.
" I'm just trying to make the right decisions with the least amount of
pain, and it's not easy," Rell said, adding that she's not sure what
the next two-year budget proposal will total. "I'm not focused on the
bottom line."
STATE
BUDGET DEFICIT
Rell Calls Legislature Into
Special Session On Deficit
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | The Hartford Courant
December 18, 2008
Gov. M. Jodi Rell is calling the state legislature into special session
on Jan. 2 to vote on her second "deficit-mitigation" plan.
Rell said the session is unavoidable as state tax revenue continues to
drop, pushing the deficit for the current fiscal year to an estimated
$356 million.
"Some will question why I am calling the legislature into session five
days before the next regular session is slated to begin," Rell said.
"The answer is as simple as it is stark: We cannot put off reality. We
cannot wait to take action. The legislature — the sitting legislature —
needs to take action."
"Every day, the economic news gets worse," she said. "One need only
scan the news in recent days. Layoffs at the Stanley Works. One-day
furloughs at Pratt & Whitney. Two community newspapers in trouble
and the Tribune Co. in bankruptcy court. Every day we sit and wait
makes the budget situation worse. Lawmakers must address the budget
deficit now. We literally cannot afford to wait."
Rell's plan does not include any tax increases or layoffs of state
employees. She will also not be tapping the state's $1.38 billion
"rainy day fund" for fiscal emergencies because that money will be
needed to close a projected $6 billion gap to maintain current services
during the next two years.
Rell is calling again for lawmakers to approve her plan to seize the
unclaimed deposits from bottles and cans that beer and soda
distributors now keep. Thirty percent of cans and bottles are not
redeemed, which means that the state could collect an estimated 500
million nickels — or $25 million a year. Rell is calling for an
additional $7.2 million in budget cuts. She cut $150 million in her
first round of cuts and $34 million in the second round.
Rell also wants to eliminate $35 million for heating aid for low-income
residents, which the legislature approved in August. That money, Rell
says, is no longer needed because Congress has provided extra funding
for this winter. Some legislators doubt that the General Assembly will
take any action the day after New Year's Day. The session would include
none of the legislators newly elected in November.
Conn. lawmakers approve extra heating
aid
DAY
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press Writer
Posted on Aug 23, 1:15 AM EDT
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Connecticut lawmakers early Saturday approved
additional heating aid for many state residents, schools and social
service agencies, and more help for people trying to cut their energy
costs this winter.
The Senate voted 33-0 in favor of the first of two bills, setting aside
part of an estimated $75 million state surplus for the Operation Fuel
heating assistance program and for heating help for certain elderly
residents, nonprofit organizations and schools.
It passed the House of Representatives on a 127-0 vote.
The $14 million allocation will let Operation Fuel offer emergency fuel
assistance to more families earning between 150 to 200 percent of the
federal poverty level, or a family of four earning $31,800 to $42,400
yearly.
For the first time, the charity also will be able to help families
earning up to 100 percent of the state's median income, or up to
$93,821 for a family of four.
The Senate approved a second bill on a 26-5 vote that provides more
funding for furnace and boiler repair and replacement programs. It also
sets up a new $35.5 million energy contingency account for future
needs, including special help for households that use electricity to
heat their homes.
The House approved it on a 118-4 vote shortly before 1 a.m. Saturday.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell is expected to sign the legislation, much of which
she proposed, into law.
"With home heating prices climbing through the roof, we must give the
hard-pressed consumers of Connecticut as much help as possible," she
said in a written statement. "Family budgets are already strained and
the cold weather will make for some very tough times for many people."
Republican senators tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill and earmark
the money in the contingency account for other initiatives, such as
funding to help the Meals on Wheels food program cover its fuel costs.
In the end, the legislation spends $44 million of the estimated $75
million budget surplus from the fiscal year that ended on June 30.
Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, said the
anticipated high fuel costs will cause great hardship for many
Connecticut families, especially those "living on the margins."
"When it gets bitterly cold outside, it will be a matter of life and
death for some people as to whether they can keep the heat on and avoid
freezing in their homes and apartments," Williams said. "We have
managed to rise to the occasion and do more for the people of this
state and do more for families that are struggling."
The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association predicts that
home heating oil costs will hit record levels this winter, with the
average cost to heat a home at $2,593, up from $1,962 last winter.
Families in cold-weather Northeast states will be hit even harder.
Rell has advised families to call the state's Infoline at 211 to learn
more about whether they qualify for any of the aid.
The first bill was not taken up for a vote until nearly 11 hours after
the General Assembly convened its latest special session. Lawmakers
spent much of the day negotiating behind the scenes with each other and
Rell's office about final details of the heating relief package.
There was a dispute about a provision that would have provided grants
to cities and towns to establish oil purchasing cooperatives. The
language was eventually stripped from the bill because some small oil
companies said they would be harmed.
Republican lawmakers, the minority party in the General Assembly, also
complained that some ideas they proposed were not included in the bill,
such as a cap on the wholesale price of gasoline taxed by the state and
help to families with past-due electric bills.
House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, also criticized
the bills for including what he called "an exhaustive, tedious,
time-consuming process" for doling out money to residents.
He said some applicants might not receive relief until March 2009.
"I think, ladies and gentlemen, there is a better way," Cafero said
during the House floor debate. "We're talking about emergency energy
relief."
Both House and Senate Republicans unsuccessfully attempted to open
another special session to cap the wholesale price of gas that is taxed
by the state. They have repeatedly argued that lawmakers need to help
consumers with all types of rising energy costs.
Energy help on the agenda
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 8/2/2008
It now seems that government, like
therapy, requires regular sessions.
The Connecticut General Assembly
will convene its fourth legislative session of the year on Aug. 22,
leaders and Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced Friday, to pass a package of
energy assistance proposals.
The proposals will include spending
millions from the current-year budget surplus into the Operation Fuel
heating assistance program, said Senate President Donald E. Williams
Jr., D-Brooklyn, and Rell, in separate statements. The agenda will also
include aid for home heating oil dealers struggling with business
costs, and some municipal grants.
”At the end of the day, we will be
standing with the people of Connecticut by expending the small state
surplus that we have on a package of programs designed to help the
neediest get through what promises to be a very difficult home-heating
oil season,” Williams said.
Rell Signs Ethics Reform Bill
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 6/18/2008
Hartford - Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed
an ethics reform bill today that would allow judges to reduce or revoke
the pensions of public employees or officials convicted of corruption.
Calling the bill "the crowning glory
of four years’ worth of hard work," Rell said the pension revocation
measure represents the final piece of a series of ethics reforms begun
after she took over for her predecessor, John G. Rowland, who resigned
amid a corruption scandal and later spent 10 months in federal prison.
"We’ve tinkered around the edges for
years with ethics reform," Rell said in a press conference on the north
steps of the Capitol. "This truly is major ethics reform."
The governor was flanked by mayors
from Manchester, Newington and Middletown, as well as legislative
leaders, including Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn,
and Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield.
Also on hand were the lawmakers who
finally hammered out a compromise on the bill for last week’s special
session, after years of unsuccessful efforts to win passage of the
pension revocation language: Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, and Rep.
Diana Urban, D-North Stonington, along with Rep. Christopher Caruso,
D-Bridgeport.
The bill also includes the
governor’s spouse as a public official in the state’s ethics code,
tightens gift restrictions for public officials, prohibits legislative
or executive chiefs of staff from soliciting campaign contributions,
and requires anyone witnessing the offer or acceptance of a bribe to
report it.
The pension revocation provisions
leave discretion in the hands of a sentencing judge, and would apply to
both state and municipal public employees, as well as elected officials.
Legislature
May Return
For A Special Session
By MARK
PAZNIOKAS | Courant Staff Writer
12:56 PM EDT,
May 7, 2008
The session is
not quite over, and the legislature already is making
plans to return for a special session.
Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Willliams Jr., D-Brooklyn, said
today that legislators will return in special session to reauthorize
the real-estate conveyance tax before the new fiscal year begins July
1. Without
legislative action, municipalities will lose millions of
dollars in revenue from the expiration of the conveyance tax.
Williams said
he would like to act on the measure before the regular
session ends at midnight tonight, but he said Republicans have
threatened to filibuster if the bill is debated.
The Senate's
priority today will be final legislative action on a mortgage-relief
bill for homeowners burdened by subprime mortages, he said.
Rell Unveils $18.5 Billion Budget; Plan
Spending Curbs Called For Amid Economic Slump
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 2/7/2008
Hartford — Gov. M. Jodi Rell's $18.5 billion spending plan for 2009,
unveiled Wednesday at the opening of the legislature's regular session,
was presented as a modest measure for uncertain economic times.
But the proposal would also cleave in two the Department of
Transportation, one of state government's largest and most complicated
agencies. The governor's budget staff said Rell had explicitly
rejected calls from the Democratic legislative majority to create a
short-term economic stimulus package.
But the governor boasted to lawmakers assembled in the hall of the
House Wednesday that her budget would do just that, and invited
legislators from both parties “to design a state stimulus package that
works.”
And while Rell renewed her proposal for a limit on local property-tax
increases, the governor's staff also attempted to assuage a skeptical
legislature by assuring that the tax cap could be easily superseded by
cities and towns that cannot — or will not — go along with its
restrictions. The 43-minute budget address was vintage Rell.
The governor warned of “realities and uncertainties” and gently
admonished lawmakers to keep their spending in line, while proposing
spending increases on issues that have dominated the news for months,
including hiring new state engineers to conduct bridge and highway
inspections, and improving information-sharing in the criminal justice
system.
“Keep in mind,” Rell told the legislators, “we cannot spend what we do
not have — and we cannot enact something that will result in budget
holes and tax increases next year or in the following years.”
All that was well and good, some legislators said. What was missing was
what former President George H.W. Bush once called “the vision thing.”
The return of Rell's tax-cap proposal was “playing around the edges” of
the state's perennial unhappiness with the level of property taxes,
said Rep. Tom Reynolds, D-Ledyard. Reynolds said the governor's plan
still failed to assist cities and towns with the rising costs of
providing services, and dodged the thornier challenge of realigning the
state's entire system of taxation and spending. The cap would
limit municipal property tax increases to 4 percent per year, beginning
in July 2009, with that limit shrinking to 3 percent by 2011. But the
law would allow municipalities to opt out of the limits entirely for
two-year periods, with a two-thirds vote of the local legislative body.
A referendum by voters could override that decision.
It would also allow exemptions to the cap, including when health care
costs rise by 8 percent or more, in the case of major emergencies, or
for one-time costs related to regionalization projects. The cap
is opposed by local lobbying groups like the Connecticut Conference of
Municipalities, and by lawmakers who think it ducks the underlying
problem.
Reynolds said he supported Rell's proposal to eliminate four state
mandates on cities and towns, but said that was no substitute for an
examination of the system of taxation and government expenses.
Sen. Andrew Maynard, D-Stonington, took issue with Rell's description
of budget responsibility.
“I'd rather have us decide what we're trying to accomplish and then
figure out how to get there,” Maynard said. “It always seems to me ...
that there's no vision for this state. We simply wait until bad things
happen and then sometimes throw not enough resources or an inordinate
amount of resources at it.”
•••••
Overall spending would rise 4.8 percent over the current fiscal year
under Rell's budget, said her budget chief, Robert L. Genuario, in one
of several briefings with reporters Wednesday afternoon. The state can
ill afford either significant spending increases or tax cuts, Genuario
said, especially in light of negative indicators pointing toward a
slowdown of the national economy.
The most recent omen came just this week, with an estimate by the
legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis that projected the
current year's surplus at about $160 million — or roughly $100 million
less than estimates offered just weeks ago. The entire surplus, when it
arrives, would be placed in the state's $1.4 billion “rainy day”
reserve fund, Genuario said.
The governor's proposal — which technically revises the existing
two-year, $36 billion state budget — is sustainable, Genuario said,
because its new expenses are offset by cuts.
Rell would also eliminate the $250 business entity fee, a tax adopted
during the state's last budget deficit crisis, and the estate tax on
the state's few remaining working farms. She would create a corporation
tax credit for so-called “green buildings”; and spend $1.7 million to
“mothball” the landmark buildings at Waterford's Seaside property,
which Rell has ordered the state to retain after years of trying to
sell it.
But some of the budget's reductions will almost surely set up a clash
with legislative appropriators. Among the cuts are $4.2 million
in non-entitlement social service programs that were funded just months
ago, when the legislature passed its current budget in May.
Genuario portrayed the cuts as relatively minor in the context of the
Department of Social Services budget. But he acknowledged that he
expected sharp questioning on the department's allocation of those
funds in budget briefings before the Appropriations Committee today,
including from legislators who have said they suspect the
administration has been slow to release a variety of social service
funding — from AIDS charities to soup kitchens to homeless shelters.
•••••
Rep. Denise Merrill, D-Mansfield, the co-chairwoman of the
Appropriations Committee, said she suspected some of the governor's
budget had been balanced by using funds intended to provide Medicaid
reimbursement increases for doctors and hospitals. The reimbursements
passed last spring but have taken months to be released to their
recipients, and payments will not be made retroactive to the beginning
of the fiscal year, Merrill said, leaving millions in leftover funds to
help pay for administration programs.
“They saved themselves quite a few million dollars by starting those
programs late,” Merrill said. “So we'll see what they've done with that
money, but you know it makes it difficult for us. Let's say it's $50
million. If they've used that money for other programs, we've got to go
back and find that $50 million somewhere else now.”
The problem could be most directly affecting small, nonprofit agencies,
Merrill said.
“That's disturbing, especially the small ones, because they rely on
that money,” she said. “And we could be shredding our local safety net
if we're actually doing that.”
Genuario, however, flatly denied that there had been any effort to
slow-play the release of budgeted funds for social service programs,
and cited both miscommunication among branches of government and a huge
workload at the Department of Social Services for the slow pace of
funding.
“If the allegation was that this was intentional, that's just
incorrect, and the facts don't support it,” Genuario said.
Rell also proposed renaming two state facilities after the two former
governors who died in the last year. The governor has asked the
University of Connecticut School of Law to rename its law library after
Republican Gov. Thomas J. Meskill, and Rell herself renamed the
Hartford Armory after Democratic Gov. William A. O'Neill.
Legislative
notes 2007 & 2008:
Special Session Jan.
22 resulted in
overhaul of some Criminal Justice laws in response to home
invasion.
BONDING SESSION OVER...click
here for text of bill that passed...
October
30, 2007 Bonding Package #2 passes. First Bonding
Session Over; Veto promised; Governor calls for Special
Session to
approve education bonding. Will any Democrats show up for Special
Session on Education called for September 26, 2007? (Not many.)
...Joined
by Republican legislative leaders at a news conference in her
Capitol office, Rell said the bonding package is well-intentioned but
unaffordable and sends the wrong message to credit rating agencies and
groups hoping to receive the bonding funds. The amount
Connecticut pays for its debt has been steadily increasing,
she said, making it more difficult to cover other programs.
"We're on the wrong end of this seesaw and we have to get off," Rell
said...
Rell to veto
bonding package
DAY
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press Writer
Posted on Sep 21, 5:40 PM EDT
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday she will veto the
$3.2 billion dollar bonding bill approved by the General Assembly in
its special session late Thursday night.
Angry Democrats, who control the General Assembly, said Rell is putting
important state and local projects, such as new schools and sewage
treatment plants, in limbo. They hope the Republican governor will
change her mind and sign the legislation.
"The burden is on the governor," said Senate President Pro Tem Donald
E. Williams Jr. "It took us three months to get to where we were
yesterday. Three months of work and negotiations to put together a
tremendous bond package for the state of Connecticut."
Rell has not yet received the bill.
Joined by Republican legislative leaders at a news conference in her
Capitol office, Rell said the bonding package is well-intentioned but
unaffordable and sends the wrong message to credit rating agencies and
groups hoping to receive the bonding funds.
The amount Connecticut pays for its debt has been steadily increasing,
she said, making it more difficult to cover other programs.
"We're on the wrong end of this seesaw and we have to get off," Rell
said.
She is calling lawmakers back to the Capitol on Wednesday for a special
session to vote only on about $1.3 billion in local school construction
projects. But it's doubtful lawmakers will show up.
"I can't imagine that's possible," said Williams, D-Brooklyn.
Since lawmakers need at least 10 days notice by mail, there's a chance
that marshals or police officers may have to drive to their homes with
notices of the special session. Even though the governor can call the
legislature back into special session, it does not have to meet.
The bond package approved late Thursday authorizes spending over two
years for projects ranging from sewage treatment plants to $1 billion
worth of improvements over 10 years to the Connecticut State University
campuses.
Lawmakers also passed an additional $850 million in bonding for
transportation initiatives and $550 million for clean water projects,
for a total approximate package of $4.6 billion over two years.
The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities said many bond payments
for local school construction projects are already past due and the
"state should not continue to leave towns and cities holding the bag."
Williams said some municipalities will have to take out stop-gap loans
to ensure there's enough money to keep projects moving. The cities and
towns will then have to incur the expenses of those loans.
House Speaker James Amann, said Rell is turning her back on important
projects such as flood control and improvements to the U.S. Naval
Submarine Base to keep it off future federal closure lists.
Democrats said it's unfair to blame them for the state's bond debt
because former governors, not legislators, have borrowed huge sums of
money over the years for their preferred projects. Rell, as governor,
sets the agenda for the State Bond Commission, which ultimately doles
out the money.
"People need to understand that it is Gov. Rell and her predecessor
John Rowland that are responsible for current debt," said Amann,
D-Milford. "No bonding takes place without the governor's approval, yet
she continues to try to blame the legislature."
Amann predicted the veto will unite the House Democrats, who hold a
strong 107-43 vote majority. Williams, whose members have a 24-12
majority in the Senate, said Democrats may try to override the veto.
But Williams also predicted the legislature could ultimately revisit
the entire bond package in February, when the new regular session
convenes.
First Public Campaign Financing Authorized; Perillo Will Get More Than
$18,000 To Run In Special Election
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 9/13/2007
The first test of Connecticut's new public campaign financing system
began in earnest Wednesday, when the State Elections Enforcement
Commission authorized a grant to a candidate in the special legislative
election in Shelton.
Jason D. Perillo, a Republican, qualified for more than $18,000 in
public funding, the commission announced, in his quest to fill the seat
of the late Rep. Richard O. Belden, R-Shelton.
Perillo's Democratic opponent in the Oct. 9 special election, James
Orazietti, also intends to participate in the voluntary program, under
which candidates for legislative offices raise threshold amounts from
small donors in order to qualify for public grants to finance the bulk
of their campaign expenses.
Candidates in the special election for Belden's former seat had to
raise $3,750 to qualify for public funding of $18,750, according to the
announcement from the elections commission's executive director,
Jeffrey B. Garfield, and Beth A. Rotman, the director of the public
financing program.
To meet the threshold, the Perillo and Orazietti campaigns are required
to raise the $3,750 total in contributions of between $5 and $100, not
including in-kind contributions, loans or personal funds.
A candidate facing a high-spending opponent not participating in the
public financing program could qualify for more funding, the officials
said.
Belden was the longest-serving state legislator and unofficial dean of
the House of Representatives when he succumbed to a heart attack last
month. A veteran fiscal conservative, he was also an opponent of public
financing of political campaigns, which was first established in a
landmark 2005 vote of the legislature.
The public financing system, now applicable just to state lawmakers,
will apply to candidates for governor and other statewide offices
beginning in the 2010 electoral season.
Officials keeping tabs on town election
while preparing for first publicly financed state elections
By:Keith M. Phaneuf, Journal Inquirer
09/02/2007
With political primaries being held in one week, Connecticut's
politicians are focused on the 2007 municipal races.
But state elections watchdogs are facing double-duty this fall: Keeping
an eye on town contests while preparing for the first publicly financed
state elections in state history in 2008.
The State Elections Enforcement Commission has prepared a series of
"declaratory rulings" to guide publicly financed candidates on
everything from qualifying for campaign funds to accepting loans and to
using their own savings in the race.
"There's been a very heightened interest in how the commission is going
to implement this," Jeffrey B. Garfield, the commission's executive
director, said Friday, adding this isn't surprising. "I think it's fair
to say the legislature is watching this very closely.
The first election to feature public financing - in 2008 - involves
races for the General Assembly. In other words, state legislators
didn't just establish this system. Many of those same lawmakers also
will be the first in Connecticut to use it.
The legislature and Gov. M. Jodi Rell made national history in late
2005 when Connecticut became just the third state to authorize public
financing. Connecticut's system, which also greatly curtails the
ability of businesses and political action committees to funnel dollars
into campaigns, has been hailed as even more stringent than those in
Maine and Arizona - the other homes of public financing.
Also unlike those two states, Connecticut places the full burden of
confirming a candidate's eligibility to receive public dollars on the
State Elections Enforcement Commission, according to Beth Rotman, the
commission's director of public campaign financing. Maine and Arizona
place some of this responsibility on municipal election officials.
The commission is scheduled to consider a series of draft declaratory
rulings at its Sept. 12 meeting that clarify key questions about
qualifying for and using public dollars.
Garfield said the legislature did a good job outlining the basic rules
for the public financing system. But he added it is a natural
occurrence, even in new programs far less complicated than publicly
financed elections, to have questions develop afterward that must be
addressed.
For example, candidates for the state House of Representatives and the
Senate are eligible to receive public grants of $25,000 and $85,000,
respectively.
But first, they must qualify by raising "qualifying contributions"
involving small donations from private individuals - but not from
businesses or political action committees.
House candidates must raise $5,000, in contributions ranging from $5 to
$100 - and 150 of those donors must reside in the candidate's district
- to qualify for public money. Senate candidates must raise $15,000 in
amounts within the same range, from at least 300 local donors.
But what happens if a potential donor has two residences?
According to one draft ruling, that donor could contribute to more than
one House candidate or to more than one Senate candidate, and thereby
have a voice in who represents the district where each the donor's
homes is located. But if a potential donor has two residences in the
same district, he or she would be limited to one qualifying
contribution per race.
"There is no way to anticipate all of the questions that might arise"
when public financing was approved, Garfield said.
Other draft rulings that will go before the commission on Sept. 12 say
that:
* Candidates seeking public financing can't borrow more than $1,000 to
assist their campaigns in qualifying for funds.
* Candidates for Senate and House seats may use up to $2,000 and
$1,000, respectively, of their personal funds to help their campaigns
and still receive public money. But, those personal funds don't count
to the qualifying contribution totals that candidates must achieve to
secure public funds.
Public financing also will be available for Connecticut candidates for
governor or other constitutional offices, such as attorney general or
comptroller, in 2010 - the next election for those posts.
Special Session - Bonding -
September 19, 2007
The Long
Session began with Governor
Rell's Budget Address - link
here.
-----------------------
No Overrides At
Veto
Session
Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | Capitol Bureau Chief
July 24, 2007
The General Assembly finished its annual veto session in a matter of
minutes Monday, but lawmakers have a series of major issues left to
tackle.
Legislators did not attempt to override any of Gov. M. Jodi Rell's
vetoes, including her rejection of the use of marijuana for medical
purposes and her blocking of in-state tuition rates for illegal
immigrants at state universities. Both measures were controversial, and
neither passed both chambers by a veto-proof margin.
"Certainly the phone has not been ringing off the wall to attempt an
override on those issues," House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, said
Monday.
The legislature also took no action on the latest Sheff vs. O'Neill
school-desegregation settlement, despite initial thoughts that
lawmakers would approve the deal involving Hartford schools.
But top lawmakers like Amann and Sen. Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden,
questioned the settlement, which calls for the state to spend $112
million over the next five years for magnet, charter and
vocational-technical schools. Amann and Gaffey note that the Hartford
public schools are as segregated as they were a decade ago, and student
academic performance has not improved as much as had been expected.
With many legislators on vacation in August, the General Assembly is
not expected to return before September to vote on the annual bond
package of construction projects. The Democrats and Republican Rell
have not agreed on whether specific projects would be "earmarked" and
mentioned by name in the bond package. Rell has pushed for a system of
setting aside large pools of money for cities and towns, rather than
naming projects in the legislation.
Legislators did not vote Monday on contracting reform, a highly
controversial issue that prompted three vetoes by Rell in 2005 and
2006. Rell objected to the language in the previous bills, saying the
provisions would prevent nonprofit agencies from expanding their
offerings of state services.
Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat, said he
hopes that the contracting bill could be resolved at the same time as
the bond package.
Since legislators were told last week that there would be no votes
during the veto session, only sparse crowds gathered Monday in the
House of Representatives and the Senate. Only 10 senators were present
when the session was adjourned before 11 a.m.
`Golden Opportunity' Lost?
Democrats Reflect On A Missed Chance At Tax Reform As Budget Vote Looms
Hartford Courant
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | Capitol Bureau Chief
June 22, 2007
This was supposed to be the year things would be different.
After scoring huge election victories last November and
gaining the biggest state House majority since Watergate, Democrats
were champing at the bit to override the Republican governor and enact
a progressive income tax on the rich. They also planned to create the
state's first earned income tax credit for the working poor.
But the tentative two-year budget, which will be debated today at the
state Capitol, failed on those counts - and some Democrats are highly
disappointed.
"I'm not happy that we don't have a progressive income tax," said Rep.
Christopher Caruso, a Bridgeport Democrat. "I'm not happy that we don't
have an earned income tax credit. I came into this legislature with 107
Democrats. Unfortunately, we were not able to do it."
Caruso says Democrats squandered a golden opportunity that will not
come again.
"You're never going to do it next year because it's an election year,
so it will never happen," Caruso said Thursday. "When we're at the hour
of true leadership, everyone goes off with their own interests."
Caruso declined to criticize any lawmakers by name, saying instead that
the Democrats needed to stick together in order to enact new tax
policies over the threat of a veto.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed a progressive income tax with higher rates on
the rich, and the Democrats were unable to generate veto-proof margins
in either chamber. Some Democrats, particularly those in Fairfield
County, believed that residents in their communities would pay far more
in increased income taxes than the towns would receive back in
increased state aid.
House Speaker James Amann said the Democrats had a solid tax plan -
which has since been withdrawn as part of the budget compromise - that
would have cut taxes for the middle class and would have raised them
only on the richest five percent in the state. The budget as negotiated
provides huge funding for education, health care and other programs,
Amann said. He predicted that the measure would pass today with 135 to
140 votes in the 151-member chamber.
House Majority Leader Christopher Donovan, a Meriden Democrat, said the
Democratic caucus had done its best.
The caucus members "were actually very proud of the fact that they
passed the progressive income tax," Donovan said after the House
Democrats held a closed-door meeting on the budget. "They were very
disappointed they didn't have the support of the Republicans and the
governor."
Unlike Caruso, Rep. Timothy O'Brien of New Britain says the Democrats
should try again next year. He estimated that the earned income tax
credit would have provided $2 million to struggling New Britain
residents, and a doubling of the property tax credit - up from the
current maximum of $500 - would have brought another $8 million.
"I had great hopes for a lot of things in terms of property tax reform,
education funding and health care access that were not realized as much
as I had hoped," said O'Brien, who also declined to blame the
Democratic leadership. "What I'm thinking is we come back, we assess
what went wrong, and we work to do better next year."
The budget, which is currently about $16.1 billion, would increase by
8.89 percent in the first year and about 4 percent in the second year,
officials said.
One of the issues addressed in the budget involves a controversial
bail-out of the cash-strapped University of Connecticut Health Center
in Farmington. UConn's plan to build a $495 million replacement for
John Dempsey Hospital caused a firestorm of controversy this year among
hospitals in the area, including Hartford Hospital, Bristol Hospital
and St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center in Hartford. While agreeing
to patch a $20 million hole in the health center's current operating
budget, legislators put off committing to build a new hospital.
Instead, the matter was referred to a commission for study and will be
revisited next year.
Caruso wants an in-depth financial audit of the health center, noting
that the state bailed out the center about seven years ago with about
$20 million.
"The state is Big Daddy to UConn," Caruso said. "The attitude is they
can get away with it because they have Big Daddy, and Big Daddy has
deep pockets. We're just as bad because we're willing to open our
pockets. If they were told, `Sorry, guys, we're not going to put up
with this any more,' you'd see how fast they'd get in line."
Rep. Denise Merrill, the Democratic co-chairwoman of the budget-writing
committee, said UConn needs the money to fill the "academic gap" at the
medical and dental schools that are part of the health center complex.
While previous hospital surpluses had been used to fund the medical and
dental schools, officials say that the hospital cannot fill the gap on
a continuing basis.
Both the House and Senate intend to vote on the budget today on a
schedule that the leaders predict will be faster than the long,
drawn-out debates of the past. House Republican leader Lawrence Cafero
of Norwalk predicted that a large number of Republicans would support
the budget.
This
is what the Legislature accomplished (no budget yet [Tuesday, June
19, 2007]):
http://www.cga.ct.gov/olr/MPA2007/2007-r-0399.PDF
April
Fool's Day, 2007...
Democratic Angst; Taking
Over GOP Seats, They Battle For School Funds
March 31, 2007
By CHRISTOPHER
KEATING, Capitol Bureau Chief Be careful what you wish for.
When Democrats
swept up 107 seats in the state House of Representatives last year,
they captured eight previously Republican seats. The takeovers were
seen as part of a long-term trend of cutting heavily into GOP
strongholds. Democrats found themselves holding seats in affluent areas
like Glastonbury, Fairfield, Simsbury and Redding that once were
exclusively Republican terrain.
But some House
members got a rude awakening this week when a Democratic formula for
doling out state education money left those well-heeled,
now-Democratic-represented towns on the short end.
That is causing
Democratic angst - and, on some issues, defection. In the education
committee this week, Democrats representing Madison, Fairfield,
Stamford and Redding all voted against their party's plan that would
slash aid to their towns. Adding insult to injury, Republican Gov. M.
Jodi Rell's plan offers far more money to those towns.
And that has
brought smiles to GOP faces.
"Isn't it
ironic that these are the very people who ran against Republicans,
saying that because they would be in the majority party that they would
be able to bring home the bacon like it's never been brought home
before?" asked House Republican leader Lawrence Cafero of Norwalk.
"I just find it
ironic that these freshmen Democrats are at odds with their own party
and in favor of the Republican governor," Cafero said. "They've got a
lot of 'splaining to do when they get home. Each one of these people
socked it to our people and made promises."
But House
Speaker James Amann rejected Cafero's statements, saying that it is
still early in the legislative session and that he will work to find
equity in allocating money to towns throughout the state.
The Milford
Democrat said that his own town was on the short end of the formula,
too.
"Milford gets
pretty shortchanged in this. I've survived to become speaker, and these
folks will survive, too," Amann said. "How much bacon has Larry
[Cafero] brought home? Larry Cafero survived, and he's been doing
nothing but bringing home bacon bits."
Under the
education committee's formula - which generally awards more money to
the poorest school districts - Milford's increase over the current year
would be less than $300,000. Hartford would receive an extra $11.2
million.
Democratic
legislators on the education committee were flabbergasted this week to
see that their towns would receive far less money from the Democratic
plan than from Rell's - based on different assumptions in the formulas.
The Democratic caucus at the state Capitol complex was described as
raucous, and it even led to an unusual shouting match, lawmakers said.
The issue rests
on the numbers. For example, Rell's plan would give a 55 percent
increase in cost-sharing dollars to Fairfield, but the Democratic plan
gives only 3 percent. Stamford would get an 88 percent boost under
Rell's plan, 3 percent under the Democrats'.
The numbers
prompted Rep. Deborah Heinrich, a second-term Democrat who beat a
long-term Republican three years ago in Madison, to vote against the
plan in the committee and then call a press conference with her fellow
lawmakers from the upscale towns.
"The chairs of
the education committee went into a room and said, `We know better,'
and gave us the bill a half an hour before the vote and refused to
change it," Heinrich said. "There was no input from the education
committee. There were people who voted for it who were voting against
the interest of their town. The chairs, and rightly so, said it's a
work in progress."
Like Heinrich,
Democratic Rep. Kim Fawcett of Fairfield arrived at the Capitol after
defeating a Republican incumbent. She, too, was stunned when the bill
was handed out in the caucus.
"The outcome is
so dramatically different from what we were expecting from our own
caucus," said Fawcett. "I'm still hopeful there will be adjustments.
The new people - the Democrats that replaced Republicans - really care."
Fawcett joined
fellow freshman Jason Bartlett, who represents Redding, Bethel and
Danbury, in voting against the bill that eventually passed by a 20-12
vote - with six Republicans and six Democrats against it.
But the
committee's co-chairman, Sen. Thomas Gaffey of Meriden, said that the
committee is legally bound to earmark more state money for the poorest
districts.
"Madison,
Redding, Wilton - these are very, very wealthy towns," Gaffey said. "In
any formula, those towns aren't going to receive anywhere near [the
amount for large cities]. As I told Rep. Heinrich and Rep. Bartlett,
you have to look at the total package. Some legislators never think
their town is wealthy."
When told about
Cafero's comments - that Democrats were favoring the governor's plan
over their own party's and would face political problems for failing to
bring home the bacon - Gaffey burst out laughing.
"That's funny,"
Gaffey said. "Like everything else in those districts, that is rich!"
Rell
Sworn In
By
RINKER BUCK, The Hartford Courant
4:12
PM EST, January 3, 2007
In
a day that proved long on tradition, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell was
inaugurated to begin her first full elected term as the state's chief
executive.
Rell's progression to her first elected term followed her successful
leadership of the state through the embarrassment and uncertainty of
the final years of the scandal-ridden Rowland administration. Rell
initially assumed the office in July 2004 following the resignation of
Rowland, who faced impeachment proceedings in the legislature. But by
the conservative nature of the day's events, and of Rell's brief
inaugural speech, she and her staff seemed to be signaling that
Connecticut residents can expect a continuation of the formula that has
propelled her to high popularity ratings and a huge victory at the
polls in November.
Dispensing with fanfare or risky oratory, Rell seems determined to
present herself to voters exactly as she is: a steady hand who has
restored credibility and fiscal health to government by a sensible,
no-nonsense approach.
Rell was sworn in on a blue-carpeted stage in the atrium of the
Legislative Office Building in Hartford by U.S. District Court Judge
Alan H. Nevas. In her 8-minute address, Rell avoided any specifics on
the issues facing the state -- health care, how to spend the budget
surplus, the crisis in the care over abused children -- and to hew
instead to truisms about government that committed her to few new
directions for the legislative year.
"In many ways, as we begin a new year …we are at a crossroads in
Connecticut," Rell said in her brief inaugural speech. "A crossroads of
needed economic, social, cultural and educational change."
Rell went on to thank her husband Lou for convincing her to run for the
legislature back in the 1980s, while the couple was driving across the
Tappan Zee Bridge outside New York.
Rell's 2 p.m. inaugural followed a somewhat livelier morning in the
Capitol, during which both houses of the legislature were filled with
family and friends as members of the Senate and House were sworn in.
Legislators and their parents held babies up in the air for pictures
and silenced noisy toddlers as the leaders of both houses introduced
guests, accepted flags that had been flown by Connecticut guard units
in Iraq and recognized freshman legislators who were reporting for work
the first time.
By 11 a.m. outside the General Assembly chamber on the Capitol's ornate
second floor, a festive air prevailed as children too restless to
listen to the speeches inside raced about, jumping off the marble
stairs and playing tag as their parents explained why they enjoy making
opening day of the legislature a family event.
"We've done opening day here every two years because it's so much fun
to see a sister who's accomplished so much over the years," said Nicole
Klarides-Ditria, 38, whose sister, Republican Themis Klarides, 41,
represents the 114th District in Derby. Klarides is now House deputy
minority leader. Her godson, Cade Klarides-Ditria, a kindergartner at
St. Mary's-St. Michael's School in Derby, raced around the foyer as the
legislators met inside.
"Our grandparents came to Connecticut from Greece, and my father and
his two brothers always ran grocery stores," Klarides-Ditria said. "It
was my sister's passion to be involved in the business and finance of
what the family did that led her to go to law school and then enter
politics."
The children, stepchildren and nephews of a freshman Democratic
legislator, Beth Bye of West Hartford, also stepped outside to the
foyer as the speeches went on inside.
"I helped my Mom on the campaign this fall, mostly making
get-out-the-vote phone calls and handing out literature," said Caroline
Bye, 12, a student at King Philip Middle School in West Hartford. "It
was fun to work for her but very nerve-wracking, because I didn't know
whether she would win. So being here today is the final part where we
get to see her in action and actually in her legislator's seat."
Caroline said that her mother has warned her about the long hours she
may face this year, especially late in the session when the legislature
remains open until well after midnight several days a week.
"I really wonder how that's going to work out for my Mom because she is
not a night person at all," Bye said.
The inaugural parade just before Rell's swearing in was made up largely
of a few high school bands, including that from Rell's hometown of
Brookfield, military color guards and the Governor's Foot Guards and
the Governor's Horse Guards. The parade route through Bushnell Park and
down Capitol Avenue was sparsely attended by spectators, many of whom
were the parents of children performing in the bands.
"My daughter and her band practiced all through the Christmas holiday
just to be ready to march in the inaugural," said Diane Moreau of East
Hartford, who daughter Sarah played the cymbals for the East Hartford
High Marching Band.
"And of course we were just all so excited to be here today," Moreau
said. "I love Jodi Rell because she's just so down to earth and an
honest human being."
Rell
Dismisses 7 Key Officials;
Further Changes Expected To Come
Hartford
Courant
By CHRISTOPHER
KEATING, Capitol Bureau Chief
December 22,
2006
In the most
sweeping changes yet in her administration, Gov. M. Jodi
Rell is replacing seven key commissioners as she charts a new course
for the next four years.
The changes,
which include the commissioners of the two most prominent
social service agencies, are the most significant since Rell ousted
top-level leaders from the administration of former Gov. John G.
Rowland after she took office as governor in July 2004.
Now, after
winning a huge re-election victory by 28 percentage points,
Rell is cleaning house in a long-awaited reshuffling of her management
team. Six of the seven commissioners let go on Thursday had been
appointed by Rowland. More changes are coming among deputy
commissioners, but those were not announced Thursday.
Since Rell had
sought the resignations of about 60 top appointees soon
after winning re-election, the state Capitol has been abuzz with
speculation over which managers would be changed. Rell's office
declined to give detailed reasons for the specific changes Thursday,
other than saying that it was time for a change. No announcements were
made on replacements for the ousted commissioners.
"A new term in
office brings new beginnings, new ideas, and a renewed
passion to serve," Rell said in a statement. "The next four years will
be filled with a great many challenges. I now turn my attention to
assembling a new leadership team to work with me as we meet our
challenges and chart a new course."
Those being
replaced include Patricia Wilson-Coker, who oversaw an
annual budget of $4.6 billion and more than 2,000 employees at the
Department of Social Services. Wilson-Coker ranked among the state's
highest-paid commissioners at $157,880 annually - even higher than
Rell's salary of $150,000.
Wilson-Coker's
departure was not a surprise to the union members in the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council
4, who had called for her resignation in October after nearly 700
workers gave her a vote of no-confidence. Union members said the
department was woefully understaffed and morale had fallen to an
all-time low.
"The
Connecticut Department of Social Services is in a crisis," union
President Belinda May said at the time. "The people who are suffering
the most are the neediest children, the elderly and disabled, and the
poorest families in our state. We need a commissioner who will fight
for these people, not against them."
Although
Wilson-Coker ran the largest agency of the commissioners
replaced Thursday, Rell also accepted the resignations of Darlene
Dunbar of the long-troubled Department of Children and Families, and
former University of Connecticut basketball player James Abromaitis of
the Department of Economic and Community Development. Abromaitis, who
was originally named by Rowland to replace Peter Ellef as DECD
commissioner in 1997, had been routinely criticized by Democrats during
the recent election campaign. Ellef is now serving a federal prison
sentence after pleading guilty to corruption charges in the scandal
that also sent Rowland to prison.
Abromaitis, who
was paid nearly $140,000 a year, was grim-faced as he
sat alone in the governor's office suite Monday while awaiting a
meeting with Rell.
Others being
replaced are Edwin Rodriguez at the Department of Consumer
Protection; Jennifer Aniskovich at the Commission on Arts and Tourism;
Susan Cogswell at the Department of Insurance; and William Ramirez at
the Department of Motor Vehicles. Both Cogswell and Ramirez have
accepted positions as deputies in their agencies. Insiders at the
Capitol had frequently mentioned Wilson-Coker, Abromaitis and
Aniskovich as those most likely to leave their posts.
Aniskovich had
been controversial ever since being nominated by Rowland
to the arts commission in December 2003 because her husband was the
deputy Senate minority leader at the time of her appointment.
Cogswell was
involved in several recent controversies. During the
recent election, Democratic nominee John DeStefano called for firing
Cogswell because of her approval of a controversial health insurance
plan by Aetna. The plan included a maximum annual benefit of $1,000 for
health care coverage, which DeStefano termed "fraudulent." Cogswell was
also involved in controversy when she initially allowed insurance
companies to demand that shoreline homeowners install storm shutters in
order to get homeowner's insurance. After an outcry along the
shoreline, Cogswell changed course and issued new rules for insurers
that allowed alternatives to the expensive shutters.
Most recently,
Ramirez's agency, the DMV, was criticized over its
licensing of school bus drivers. The issue erupted after a West
Hartford man died after he was struck by a school bus driven by a
convicted felon.
Several of the
ousted commissioners were involved in the extended
scandal that began about a year ago when M. Lisa Moody, Rell's chief of
staff, handed out invitations to a fundraiser for Rell on state time.
Cogswell and Abromaitis were each fined $500 for giving their
subordinates invitations to the Dec. 7, 2005, event at the Marco Polo
restaurant in East Hartford.
Of the seven
commissioners, Ramirez is the only one Rell had appointed.
Legislators,
lobbyists and staff members said some high-profile
Republicans have been mentioned as possible replacements, and some have
already undergone background checks by the state police - normally the
last step before an announcement. Among those being mentioned for
possible appointments are outgoing House Republican leader Robert M.
Ward and outgoing Sen. Catherine W. Cook, who ran for state comptroller
in the fall with Rell's support.
Rell's new
chief spokesman, Christopher Cooper, declined to confirm
which Republicans might be considered for the top jobs.
Senate
President Pro Tem Donald Williams, the highest-ranking senator,
said he was not surprised by Thursday's developments.
"I recommended
2½ years ago that the governor put her own stamp
on her administration," Williams, D-Brooklyn, said. "I didn't have any
direct problems in my dealings with [Abromaitis]. But even in the
business community, I've heard many folks say change needs to come to
the department." The department has been criticized for not helping
businesses enough, and for failing to spur better job growth in recent
years.
In a speech
only last week to the Metro Hartford Alliance, Rell
referred to Abromaitis several times, prompting confusion among some
business executives in the audience over whether the long-running
speculation about Abromaitis' imminent departure was correct.
At the
Department of Children and Families, Dunbar had one of the
toughest jobs in state government as her agency dealt daily with
troubled children.
"We're hoping
this is an opportunity for the governor to appoint
somebody who will have more understanding of the front-line staff and
what they've gone through in the past few years," said Sandy Dearborn,
president of AFSCME Local 2663, which represents DCF workers. "We
haven't been listened to very well in the past couple of years."
Rowland Selective In Talking To Media
February 21, 2006
By JESSE LEAVENWORTH, Courant Staff Writer
Since his release from federal prison Feb. 10, former Gov. John Rowland
has been talking about faith, the "humbling experience" of
incarceration and a new direction in life.
On Feb. 14, in his first one-on-one interview shortly after his
release, Rowland told The Associated Press that he was open to God's
plan for him. The story described Rowland as "subdued and
introspective."
On Monday, Rowland had the same chastened tone in two television
interviews. Talking to WVIT-TV reporter Tom Monaghan, Rowland repeated
some of the same comments from the AP interview about the importance of
family, faith and friends.
In an off-camera interview with a WTIC-TV (Tribune's Channel 61)
reporter Monday, Rowland "again acknowledged his wrongdoing and
acknowledged his arrogance and said he wasn't that way anymore,"
station news director Paul Lewis said. "He certainly came off humbled."
Besides the AP and the TV stations, Rowland has shared his post-prison
outlook with longtime friend and radio broadcaster Brad Davis and with
his hometown newspaper, the Waterbury Republican. The former governor,
however, has not responded to requests for interviews from some other
media.
Rowland told a Courant reporter who called seeking an interview Monday
that he was not interested in talking to any other media. Kirk Varner,
news director at WTNH-TV Channel 8, said the station has made a
standing offer to do an unedited interview with Rowland "in case he
felt we would somehow twist his words." But Mark Davis, the station's
chief political correspondent, said he was not surprised Rowland has
not responded.
"It's perfectly understandable," Davis said. "I wasn't invited to
witness his resignation speech. He was never very happy with my
coverage. We were the first ones to call him a liar on the air ...
"I certainly hold no animosity with John Rowland," Mark Davis said. "I
certainly understand why he would want to do interviews with his
friends and people who would give him favorable coverage."
Monaghan could not be reached Monday, but WVIT news director Sheila
Trauernicht said he got the interview with Rowland not because of any
favoritism, but because of Monaghan's reputation.
"In the 40 years that Tom Monaghan has been covering news in the state,
he has always been fair - in every story he's covered," Trauernicht
said. "And the people of the state know that and the newsmakers of the
state know that. That's how Tom got the interview - plain and simple."
Rowland was convicted in December 2004 of taking $107,000 in gifts and
services from businessmen who won hundreds of millions of dollars in
contracts and tax breaks from his administration. He was sentenced to a
year and one day and reported to prison on April 1, 2005. Federal
prisoners typically serve 80 percent of their sentences after being
credited for good behavior.
On Saturday morning, Rowland sat down with Brad Davis for about an hour
on WDRC-AM. Rowland talked about how he had come to realize his
frailties and his strengths, Davis said in a phone interview Monday.
"He just thinks that he has been pointed in a new direction," Davis
said.
Rowland's wife Patty, a regular on Davis' show, told him that the
governor would like to speak on the air, Davis said. Asked if John
Rowland was picking "friendly territory" for interviews, Davis said no.
"He is going to people who he thinks handled it fairly through his
entire ordeal," Davis said. "Nothing wrong with that."
"People outside the worlds of media and politics may not realize to
what extent this dance between politicians and reporters is all about
relationships," Duby McDowell, a former political reporter in the state
and now principal with New York-based Global Strategy Group, wrote in
an e-mail to The Courant Monday. "Everyone in the Capitol press corps
has a pretty good idea of who a particular governor likes, who he or
she pretends to like, and who they can't stand. With Gov. Rowland, if
he really didn't like you, you weren't invited to the Capitol press
Christmas party at The Residence.
"Right now, [Rowland] is doing what any good politician does when they
want to roll out a proposal that's controversial, or trying to dig
their way out of a problem," McDowell wrote. "Just as [Vice President
Dick] Cheney did by talking to Fox about the hunting incident, Rowland
is hand-picking reporters from the various media outlets - daily
newspapers, TV and radio - that he can assume will be kind."
It's far from Wonderland at the Capitol
By Ken Dixon, CT POST
Article created: 10/30/2005 05:15:32 AM
The
state Capitol is one of those places where there's a major distinction
between misinformation and lies, which settle down together like the
lion and the lamb, or at least the elephant and the donkey.
It's also the land of unintended
consequences, where soccer moms are morphed into lawbreakers because
they're still using hand-held cell phones nearly a month after the new
law. Yet the truly dangerous speeders bully their ways with impunity on
state highways because there aren't enough troopers to go around.
The legislative bunch is
great for writing laws that are unenforceable or end up costing us big
time in the long run. Who can forget the brainstorm that led lawmakers
to approve a one-license-plate-per-car regulation?
Why? It saved a few hundred thousand
dollars. So what if the State Police couldn't identify vehicles and it
eventually cost several million dollars to restore the second
license? That
crosswalk-raging Superior Court judge who pulled the windshield wiper
off the Cayenne in Greenwich last month? Sounds like a good start in
the battle to take back the streets. I mean, a Porsche SUV? What's the
oxymoronic point?
The only time police seem to care
about the law that requires vehicles to stop for pedestrians in
crosswalks is after a self-important driver squishes someone. Honk if
you even know the existence of a Connecticut law requiring mandatory
yielding for pedestrians in crosswalks. Speaking
of street fights and car wrecks, the Capitol's a place where, somehow,
the House of Representatives wasted several hours last week debating
so-called clean-contracting legislation and minority Republicans were
able to portray themselves as the friends of the hundreds of non-profit
agencies, a traditional Democratic constituency.
Everyone with a pulse knew at least
two things. The Democratic majority was going to win one for the
state-employee unions and the bill was going to get squashed by Gov. M.
Jodi Rell like an Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus
elephant sitting on a bag of peanuts. Why was this charade played out
at the cost to taxpayers of $10,000 a day in a special legislative
session that, so far, has no end in sight?
Majority leaders in the House and
Senate, it seems, still can't — or won't — get on the same page and
compromise with Rell.
This may be fine for them when it
comes to protecting their turf and somehow, again, killing
campaign-finance reform, which was the sole agenda item when Rell
originally called the session. Democratic
majorities don't really want to give up their money machines, so
they've concocted competing bills in the past, then walked away from
the wreckage saying they did all they could. So far, the same result
seems all too feasible when Democrats take off their Halloween costumes
this week. At one of the several points when action in the House froze
for a half-hour at a time the other night, House Democrats feverishly
researched a Republican amendment aimed at keeping income-tax returns
private. A little communication, like a phone call about 20 yards
across the hall of the House, and Democrats would have found out that
the Republicans had no plans to actually call the amendment.
It's part of an inside-baseball
battle over keeping more than a million tax returns from the prying
eyes of a legislative committee, its staff and anyone to whom they
could eventually leak juicy tidbits that are only hinted at in the
annual ethics filings of state officials that are currently public.
Consider the news conference last
week in which Republican senators and representatives congregated to
complain that if given a chance, Democrats would release the
information. Here were
20 high-profile GOP leaders talking about the sanctity of their privacy
and even yours, to a dozen reporters.
"But we WANT to look at your tax
returns," one reporter finally chimed in, ending the newser.
Indeed, the contract-reform bill was
perfectly summed up by the erudite Sen. Bill Nickerson, R-Greenwich.
"You assume an Alice in Wonderland
life, something that's not true," Nickerson said. "It says, 'Wink wink,
we don't want privatization.'" The bill was a veritable Wonderland,
"Where night is day and day is night and up is down and black is
white," Nickerson rhymed.
The legislation that the House
finally approved in a mediocre 85-51 vote with 15 representatives
missing, was as if there were two separate proposals. There was the one
Republicans warned would increase costs on already struggling
nonprofits and the one Democrats said was needed to provide
accountability for the state funds that these agencies use to help
people battle drug problems and do other work that the state doesn't
want to do.
The best thing proponents of
contract reform can hope for now is that after Rell's veto, she calls
in the nonprofits, unions and politicians — the lions and lambs and
elephants and donkeys — to hammer out some kind of compromise.
There'll be time to do this because
there's no end in sight for this oh-so UNspecial legislative session.
Link to House Journal for one-day special session: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/jnl/H/2005HJL01011-R00SS2-JNL.htm
Link to the Senate Journal for same one-day special session:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/jnl/S/2005SJL01011-R00SS2-JNL.htm
Campaign
Reform Edges Ahead; Details Unresolved
By MARK PAZNIOKAS,
Courant Staff Writer
September 22, 2005
A bipartisan
legislative working group
endorsed a sweeping overhaul of Connecticut's campaign finance laws
Wednesday, but it left the most contentious details to a reluctant Gov.
M. Jodi Rell and legislative leaders to resolve.
The
Republican governor and Democratic legislative leaders have been adept
at avoiding blame for the failure of campaign reform - never quite
killing varied proposals, yet refusing to engage in face-to-face
negotiations evidently necessary for passage.
So
far, Rell and legislative leaders have refused to
call a special session on campaign finance reform without a bipartisan
consensus on a finished piece of legislation, something the working
group could not accomplish without the governor or legislative
leadership.
The
12-member working group ended its two-month review by agreeing on a
broad framework for a voluntary system of publicly financing state
campaigns and restricting contributions from lobbyists, state
contractors and political action committees.
Seven of the eight
Democratic members immediately signed a letter asking Rell to call the
General Assembly into special for campaign finance reform, a step their
own leaders have refused to take.
Advocates from Common Cause,
the Connecticut Citizen Action Group and State Elections Enforcement
Commission all said a special session is crucial to keep alive an issue
that otherwise will die from inertia.
"It has to happen in '05,
or it doesn't happen at all," said Andy Sauer, the executive director
of Connecticut Common Cause. "There is no next year."
Rell and
leaders of the General Assembly's Democratic majority all agreed at the
outset of the 2005 session, which ended in June, that sweeping reforms
were necessary to restore public confidence in government after the
corruption scandal that forced Republican Gov. John G. Rowland from
office. A Democratic state senator, Ernest E. Newton II of Bridgeport,
also recently resigned and pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe and
misusing campaign funds.
But the session ended in bizarre
fashion with the House and Senate passing similar campaign finance
bills on the last day, too late to reconcile the measures. The votes
allowed legislators to go on record in favor of reform without fear of
having to live with it.
Rell convened the working group in July,
promising to call a special session if the group could resolve
differences between the House and Senate bills, which included an
implementation timetable and the extent of restrictions on
contributions from special interests.
Wednesday the working
group unanimously recommended public financing of legislative races in
2008 and statewide races in 2010. The grants would vary by office:
State House: $8,000 for primaries;
$25,000 for general election.
State Senate: $50,000, primaries; $150,000, general
elections.
Statewide offices other than governor: $375,000, primaries;
$750,000 general election.
Governor: $1.25 million, primaries; $3 million, general
election.
To
qualify, candidates would have to demonstrate a degree of public
support by raising certain amounts, relying on small contributions. The
qualifying levels would range from $5,000 for the House to $250,000 for
governor.
In a series of partisan votes, however, the group
could not agree on the timing and extent of restricting or banning
contributions from lobbyists, state contractors and political action
committees. Republicans want immediate restrictions on those sources,
while Democrats said the fund-raising rules should not change until
after the 2006 election.
Rell proposed a compromise weeks ago,
suggesting that restrictions be imposed beginning Dec. 1, 2005, on
political action committees that now can make unlimited contributions.
Lobbyist contributions would be banned as of the same date.
Contributions from state contractors and corporations would be banned,
effective June 30, 2006.
Democrats
countered Wednesday with a proposal to ban lobbyist and contractor
contributions immediately and phase in other restrictions in 2006
Decision Puts Issue Of Eminent
Domain Back In States' Hands; Legislatures are free to pass laws
narrowing right to take property
By KATE MORAN
Day Staff Writer, New London
Published on 6/24/2005
The
Institute for Justice had bold
aspirations for the Kelo v. New London case.
Before
the Supreme Court agreed to
hear the case, the Institute had been battling in state courts from
Ohio
to Connecticut to prevent governments from using their eminent domain
powers
to promote economic development. Kelo gave its attorneys the chance to
secure a broad federal ruling that would restrain the ability of
government
to take private property.
Such
a ruling would have upset 50
years of precedent, however, and the court declined Thursday to impose
the sort of straitjacket the Institute was seeking. But the decision
still
does not cripple conservative property-rights watchdogs such as the
Institute
for Justice and the Pacific Legal Foundation, for whom a Supreme Court
victory was the ultimate prize.
It
simply sends their fight back to
the states.
Although
the Supreme Court said Thursday
that governments can use their condemnation power to foster private
development,
state courts can invoke their own constitutions to narrow the scope of
eminent domain, as the Michigan Supreme Court did this spring. State
legislatures
can also modify their laws to strengthen the rights of property owners.
“We
emphasize that nothing in our
opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its
exercise
of the takings power,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the
majority.
“Indeed, many states already impose public use requirements that are
stricter
than the federal baseline.”
Utah
became the first state to do
this when Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed Senate Bill No. 184 into law
this
March. The law forbids redevelopment agencies from using eminent domain
for projects such as sports arenas, and it places a one-year moratorium
on blight condemnations to give the legislature time to decide how
badly
a property has to deteriorate before the government has the right to
seize
it.
State
Sen. Curtis Bramble, the Republican
who introduced the legislation, said support gelled after the city of
Ogden
tried to take three houses that were standing in the way of a Wal-Mart.
“Property
rights are the rights to
own, possess and enjoy property, and they are what sets America apart
from
most other countries,” Bramble said. “The government power to take
property
needs to be very limited in scope. I can't think of a circumstance
where
you should seize one person's private property and turn around and give
to another private interest for development. To me, that's just
untenable.”
Bramble
said the bill encountered
some resistance from mayors who believed development would stymie
without
the tool of eminent domain. However, he said the Utah League of Cities
and Towns, while never endorsing the legislation, decided not to oppose
it.
“There
were some mayors who were quite
exercised and rather aggressive in their opposition, but there were
also
many mayors and city councilors who saw how abuses of eminent domain
were
out of control,” Bramble said.
In
Connecticut, House Minority Leader
Robert Ward, R-North Branford, has waged a lonesome battle in the
legislature
to rein in Connecticut's eminent domain laws.
Ward
proposed a ban on taking residential
property for private development except in the case of blight, but his
bill died without a vote. But the Republican leader saw an invitation
in
the court's majority opinion for states to revisit and reform their own
laws, and said he would redouble those efforts when the legislature
convenes
again next year.
“What
I ran into this year ... was
a statement that we shouldn't take any action until after the court
reviews
it,” Ward said. “I argued that we should provide our citizens with
rights
whether or not the Supreme Court was prepared to. But now that we know
the Supreme Court will not give private homeowners this level of
protection,
the legislature should.”
While
no state other than Utah has
imposed a wholesale ban on using eminent domain for private
development,
some states have found ways to shore up the rights of property owners
without
depriving government of a powerful tool for promoting growth.
The
Virginia legislature passed a
law this year that helps property owners push for higher compensation
when
their land is taken by eminent domain. If a jury awards an owner at
least
30 percent more than the price offered by a development authority, the
owner is entitled under the new law to recoup appraisal fees for his
property
and the cost of bringing up to three expert witnesses to court.
In
Missouri, a Republican state representative
introduced a bill this spring that would have allowed property owners
to
hire his own appraisers when the government tried to take their land
through
eminent domain. If the owner and the government could not agree on a
price,
the bill, which died in committee, would have introduced a panel of
three
disinterested commissioners, including a county assessor, to set a
dollar
value.
Steve
Hobbs, the legislator who introduced
the bill, said by cell phone from the fields of his 600-acre farm that
he understood the need to balance business development with the rights
of owners to reap the value of their land.
“In
state of Missouri, we've had some
tremendous abuses by municipalities who make blight definitions that
are
just terrible,” Hobbs said. “We've had areas in Kansas City that were
declared
blighted 15 years before any development was done on that property. Can
you imagine what that does to the property values in those areas? I'm a
big fan of economic development, but we have to protect people's
rights.”
Timothy
Hollister, a land-use attorney
with the Hartford firm Shipman and Goodwin who organized a forum on
Kelo
this winter, said the case put property rights in the national
spotlight
even if it did not result in a victory for the homeowners.
“Regardless
of how the case has now
come out, its legacy has already been to start a national debate about
the fairness of eminent domain” Hollister said Thursday. “The Supreme
Court
was interpreting the federal Constitution, but every state is still
allowed
to be more protective of property rights. If Kelo had risen in
Michigan,
it would have come out the other way.”
Rossi quits
after ruling: Judge rejects GOP challenge
By Jerry Cornfield, Everett, WA Herald
Writer
Published: Tuesday, June 7, 2005
WENATCHEE
- Republican Dino Rossi
ended his quest for governor Monday hours after a judge rejected his
contest
of the election because it lacked proof that Gov. Christine Gregoire
won
as a result of illegal votes and bureaucratic blunders.
"I
don't make this decision lightly,
and I don't make it with bitterness or a hard feeling," Rossi said in
declaring
he would not appeal the decision of Chelan County Superior Court Judge
John Bridges.
The
judge, in a ruling that took nearly
an hour to read, spoke with certitude that the sum of the sloppiness
described
in a two-week trial failed to meet legal standards required for tossing
out an election result.
"Unless
an election is clearly invalid,
when the people have spoken their verdict should not be disturbed by
the
courts," he said. "There is no evidence in this record that Ms.
Gregoire
received any illegal votes."
Bridges
repelled each and every allegation
made by Republican Party attorneys in the trial. He said there was no
evidence
to "suggest fraud or intentional misconduct," changing of ballots,
stuffing
of ballot boxes or efforts to "manipulate" the election.
Democratic
attorneys embraced following
the decision.
"I
think it is pretty much a legal
home run on all fronts," Demo- cratic attorney Kevin Hamilton said
immediately
after the decision. "There was no fraud. He said it repeatedly. It's
going
to be very difficult to overcome."
Rossi
alluded to the difficulty as
the reason for his announcement.
"With
today's decision and because
of the political makeup of the Washington state Supreme Court, which
makes
it almost impossible to overturn this ruling, I'm ending the election
contest,"
he said.
"I
continue to believe that mounting
this election challenge and shining the light on the various problems
in
our election system was the right thing to do," Rossi added.
Gregoire
watched Rossi's statement
on television before heading to Tacoma to speak at a commencement
ceremony
and on to the airport where she was flying to Boston to attend her
daughter's
law school graduation.
"She's
very pleased," Gregoire spokeswoman
Althea Cawley-Murphree said. "This will let us all move on and start
dealing
with the issues of importance to the state."
Rossi's
announcement came one day
shy of five months since he and seven registered voters, including Paul
Elvig of Everett, filed the contest petition.
Rossi
had spent $6 million trying
to win the office Nov. 2 then endured three counts of the 2.8 million
ballots
cast in the election. Rossi lead after the first count by 261 votes.
The
closeness triggered an automatic recount, and Rossi led again, by 42
votes.
Gregoire won the third and final tally, a hand count, by 129 votes.
In
filing the contest petition Jan.
7, Rossi said he wanted to clear away the cloud of uncertainty on who
won.
On Monday, he said that what was missing in Bridges' ruling was "who
got
the most legal votes."
Rossi
said he also took the legal
tact to "get to a new vote so we can have a legitimately elected
governor"
and to "clean up" the election system, especially in King County.
"It
doesn't look like we will be achieving
those goals today," he said.
Earlier
in the day, Elvig said he
was not surprised by the judge's decision and wouldn't push Rossi to
appeal.
"I
believe it was a lawsuit that had
to be filed," he said. "I'm not surprised by the outcome. Obviously
you're
asking a judge to do something very extraordinary."
In
the trial, no one disputed illegal
votes were cast by felons, in the name of dead people or by people
voting
more than once. Also hundreds of absentee and provisional ballots were
improperly counted.
Using
numbers from both Republican
and Democratic attorneys, Bridges concluded there were 1,678 illegal
votes
cast. But unless Republicans linked those votes with a candidate, so
they
could be subtracted from that candidate's vote total, Bridges could not
nullify the election.
"This
election may not be set aside
because the number of illegal or invalid votes exceeds the margin of
victory,
because the election contest statute requires that the petitioners must
show it changed the election result," Bridges said.
In
the trial, Republicans offered
a mathematical means of apportioning the ballots known as proportional
deduction. Had Bridges used it, they said, Rossi would have won.
Bridges
didn't use it, even going
so far as to call it flawed and not "consistent with generally accepted
scientific standards." Moreover, he said, if he did apply it to all the
felons, Gregoire still would have emerged the winner.
Bridges
said for a judge to "pick
a number" and apply the proportional deduction method in this case
"would
constitute the ultimate act of judicial egotism and judicial activism
which
neither the voters for Mr. Rossi or Miss Gregoire should condone."
When
Bridges took the bench at 9 a.m.,
a nervous silence overcame the Chelan County auditorium that had been
the
courtroom for the two-week trial.
Reading
comments written on sheets
of yellow paper, he expressed frustration with widespread deficiencies
in the running of elections and rebuked King County for numerous
problems,
blaming it in part on officials not taking responsibility.
He
said he couldn't repair the troubles
of that county or the state from the bench.
"This
court is not in the position
to fix the deficiencies in the election process," Bridges said.
"However,
the voters are in a position to demand of their legislative and
executive
bodies that remedial measures be taken immediately."
Snohomish
County Auditor Bob Terwilliger
took Bridges' words to heart.
"All
of us learned from this experience,"
he said. "All of us are reviewing our internal controls so we can track
every ballot that comes through the door."
Published: Tuesday, May 17, 2005
County weighs mail-only
vote; It would cost less, but some on council want polls kept
By Jerry Cornfield, Everett Herald
(WA)
EVERETT
- Snohomish County could save
more than $1 million next year if it mothballs its touch-screen
machines
and conducts elections entirely by mail ballot.
But
four Snohomish County Councilmen
say they're not ready to end the tradition of voting at the polls,
despite
the projected savings and passage of a new state law encouraging
conversion
to vote-by-mail elections.
"We're
not interested," Council Chairman
Gary Nelson said Monday. Council Members John Koster, Jeff Sax
and
Dave Gossett each said they are unwilling to revamp the process
now.
Councilman Kirke Sievers was unavailable for comment.
"I'm
old school," Koster said. "People
should go to the polls to vote unless they can't be there."
The
issue is emerging as a result
of two new state laws. One allows counties to switch to mail ballot
elections
on a vote of the county council. The other requires counties
using
electronic voting machines to equip them with devices that provide a
paper
record for voters to review before transmitting their choices. The law
takes effect Jan. 1, 2006.
Snohomish
County has 1,000 machines
and would need to spend as much as $1.5 million to buy enough devices
for
them.
Those
machines are serving a decreasing
percentage of voters at the county's 149 polling places. In November,
39
percent of voters went to the polls and the rest voted by mail. By
2008,
it is predicted that 80 percent of county voters will cast ballots by
mail.
Early next month, county Auditor Bob Terwilliger and election manager
Caroline
Diepenbrock will deliver a report to the County Council comparing the
costs
of all-mail ballot elections versus buying the verifiable paper audit
trail
devices.
"We
are going to make a presentation.
There are monetary and policy issues with both," Terwilliger
said.
He said the final report should offer council members different
scenarios
that might involve buying fewer devices.
"It
isn't just up or down on this,"
Terwilliger said. Initial numbers in the report show the cost
would
be $1.31 for each of the county's 359,200 registered voters if
elections
were conducted by mail only. If the county buys the equipment for
the touch-screen machines, the cost of an election will be $11.66 per
poll
voter plus $1.34 per absentee voter. Those are based on 142,464 poll
voters
and 216,836 absentee voters -the totals in the November election.
Diepenbrock
said the report accounts
for a variety of charges and savings, including higher bills for
postage
and envelopes with mail-ballot elections and savings from not opening
poll
places and hiring fewer election day workers. The biggest
difference
is the devices; each one costs about $1,000 and the county will want at
least 1,500 to ensure there is adequate backup if there are breakdowns.
Gossett
said he is looking forward
to the report.
"We
need to know all the consequences
and what might result from switching to all-mail ballots," he said.
"It's
good to have the option, but I'm not prepared to do it."
Sax
said it was simpler years ago.
"Maybe we should go back to the Dark Ages with paper and marker," he
said.
Governor M.
Jodi Rell delivers "State of the State" address and calls for end to
partisanship.
Read
details of bi-partisan revisions for Citizen's Ethics and
Government
Integrity Commission promoted by Governor Rell...
Governor Rowland
agrees to a plea bargain the day before Christmas 2004 on on count of
tax
evasion (didn't pay tax on gifts received - i.e. hot tub)
INDICTMENTS
ANNOUNCED IN FEDERAL COURT THURSDAY, SEPT. 24, 2004.
Select
Committee of Inquiry: created at Special Session. Deadline
extended
to last day of Session (May 5)...and then, on May 5th at 10:20pm, to
June
30...
GOVERNOR RESIGNS,
JUNE 21, 2004;
Director
Of FOI Panel To Step Down
March 18, 2005
Associated Press
The
state Freedom of Information Commission
will lose its executive director at the end of the year. Mitchell
W. Pearlman, who has been director since the commission was formed
three
decades ago, says he is retiring to make way for a new generation of
leadership.
Pearlman
is general counsel to the
commission and oversees a $1.6 million budget and 15 full-time
employees.
He has also become an internationally recognized expert on open
government.
He says he wants his successor to be Colleen M. Murphy, the
commission's
managing director and associate general counsel. The five-member
commission
will decide on his replacement.
Pearlman
plans to continue consulting
on open government issues throughout the world.
`The Public
Is Ready For Change'
February 3, 2005
By MARK PAZNIOKAS, Courant Staff
Writer
Gov.
M. Jodi Rell made a tightly scripted,
highly anticipated appearance before a legislative committee Wednesday
to urge passage of ethics and campaign finance reforms.
Connecticut
governors rarely appear
before legislative committees, but Rell's testimony was calculated to
generate
momentum for what she hopes will be the signal achievement of her first
year as chief executive.
Rell,
who became governor in July
after an impeachment inquiry and federal corruption investigation
forced
the resignation of John G. Rowland, told lawmakers they must embrace
reform
in 2005.
"I
can tell you the public is ready
for change. The public is demanding that we give them confidence again
in their state government," Rell said. "You never thought you would be
responsible for that, but you truly are."
The
Republican governor and the Democratic
legislature agree on the broad goal of getting special-interest money
out
of Connecticut politics. Their approaches are different, and both sides
maneuvered for advantage Wednesday.
Rell
has proposed a half-dozen bills,
including a ban on campaign contributions from state contractors and
lobbyists,
lower limits on other contributions, restrictions on political action
committees,
new state contracting rules and a restructured ethics commission.
Democratic
legislative leaders favor
the public financing of campaigns as the only sure way to limit the
influence
of special interests. Rell is opposed to public financing, though in
remarks
to reporters she signaled a willingness to compromise.
"My
position hasn't changed," she
said, "but I've also been around this building long enough to know that
you never know how a bill's packaged and whether it includes other
provisions
that I may support - whether the language is changed to, perhaps, say
something
like a pilot program."
New
Jersey is experimenting with a
pilot program involving the public financing of campaigns in a limited
number of legislative districts, a Rell spokesman said.
Her
testimony before the government
administration and elections committee Wednesday made for less than
engaging
political theater.
Rell
closely followed a prepared text.
Unlike other witnesses to testify at legislative hearings, she left
without
taking questions from committee members, who listened politely as Rell
read a statement for nearly 20 minutes.
"I
have to say with some disappointment
that we would have loved the opportunity to be able to question you
personally,"
the committee's co-chairman, Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport,
told
Rell.
Rell
did not respond.
Her
refusal to field questions derailed
plans by at least one committee member, Rep. David D. McCluskey, D-West
Hartford, to grill Rell about what he calls her newfound advocacy for
reform
after 9½ years as the lieutenant to a corrupt governor.
"Apparently,
the governor has been
cryogenically frozen for the last 10 years, because all of a sudden
these
are new initiatives," said McCluskey, who says the Republican governor
is recycling many Democratic proposals.
McCluskey
said he resented Rell's
call during her State of the State address Jan. 5 for the legislature
to
pass her reform package in 30 days. "I'm frustrated," McCluskey said.
"I
don't want her to capitalize on this."
Other
longtime proponents of campaign
finance reform were more sanguine, including Caruso and his
co-chairman,
Sen. Donald DeFronzo, D-New Britain, as well as good-government
activists.
"Any
time the state's highest elected
official talks about the need for comprehensive campaign finance
reform,
we're all on board with that," said Andy Sauer of Common Cause. "We
realize
her plan is different from our plan, but she's always kept an open
mind.
And she's always asked us to keep an open mind."
Rowland
vetoed a campaign finance
reform bill in 2001.
A
cornerstone of Rell's proposal is
a ban on campaign contributions from state contractors and lobbyists,
which
she says would end the state's "pay to play" system of contracting.
But
Senate President Pro Tem Donald
Williams, D-Brooklyn, said Rell's approach was open to legal challenge.
New Jersey was forced to drop its ban on campaign contributions from
contractors
under pressure from the Federal Highway Administration, which
threatened
to withhold federal highway funds.
Federal
officials said a gubernatorial
executive order implementing the New Jersey ban could disqualify low
bidders
from federal road work.
"I
think it's potentially a huge problem,"
Williams said.
Rich
Harris, a spokesman for Rell,
said the New Jersey rule banned donors from bidding.
"The
governor's proposal is the inverse.
If you have a state contract, you can't give" to candidates, he said.
Williams
said then if that is true,
then Rell's proposal would allow contractors to give until they get a
contract.
"How
does that end pay to play?" he
asked.
(Link below not to LWV of Weston
site)
Saturday January
28, 2005 Stamford ADVOCATE:
Ethics reform gets mixed
response at hearing
By Tobin A.
Coleman
HARTFORD --
State officials yesterday testified on proposals aimed at tightening
state
and municipal ethics standards in the wake of the scandal that drove
former
Gov. John Rowland from office.
The Government
Administration and Elections Committee held hearings on reforms
proposed
by Democrats that include establishing a system of public campaign
financing
and imposing state ethics standards for public officials in cities and
towns.
"The
people of Connecticut are watching," said Lt. Gov. Kevin Sullivan, a
Democrat.
"They want to know there will be real consequences for public officials
or public employees who breach their duty of faithful public service."
The Democrats
bills are similar to one by Gov. M. Jodi Rell. Rell's proposals will be
aired Monday, and she is expected to testify before the committee
Wednesday.
Ranking Republican
committee member, state Rep. Livvy Floren of Greenwich, said some of
the
suggestions brought out at yesterday's hearing deserve a closer look.
One
was the suggestion from state Comptroller Nancy Wyman that protections
for an innocent spouse or dependents be built into a bill that would
strip
the pension of any public employee found guilty of a crime related to
abusing
his or her public service.
Floren also
wants to take a look at a public campaign funding model used in
Nebraska
that Sullivan raised. The Nebraska law has politicians agree in advance
to limits on their campaign spending raised from private sources. If
the
limits are broken, then public money is released to an opponent's
campaign
to level the playing field.
"It's something
I want to study," Floren said. "It sounds like a very rational
approach.
I'm very concerned because I don't like diverting tax money to
politicians."
She worked on
a bill last year that would have required cities and towns to adopt the
state ethics code or their own code. Compromises were worked out and
the
bill seemed ripe for passage this year.
But yesterday
committee members seemed surprised when they heard from local officials
that people in their communities have balked at filing financial
disclosure
information and many who serve on volunteer boards and commissions
would
not do so if the disclosures were required.
"As volunteers
that's something they just didn't want to do," said Elaine Sarsynski,
first
selectwoman of Suffield who recently had asked about disclosure at a
large
meeting with volunteer officials. "It was a matter of privacy."
State Sen. Judith
Freedman, R-Westport, the ranking Republican senator on the committee,
said she didn't understand why municipal officials would be so
resistant.
"I don't know
what people are afraid of when they think of this," Freedman said while
questioning Sarsynski. "If this is just the general disclosure of
source
of income, what's the big deal?"
Floren said:
"I can see we still have problems with municipal ethics codes and
lobbyists.
It seems a lot of the things we ironed out last year aren't as
wrinkle-free
as we thought."
Secretary of
the State Susan Bysiewicz testified that later this year she will ask
the
committee to consider increasing disclosure of campaign finance reports
at the city and town level.
Hugh Macgill,
chairman of the state Ethics Commission, testified against a bill that
would revamp his commission and introduce trial referees -- mostly
retired
state judges -- into deciding ethics complaints. The commission is
functioning
well, he said, despite reports surrounding the contested firing of
executive
director Alan Plofsky during the impeachment hearings and Ethics
Commission
complaints surrounding Rowland last summer.
"The idea that
the commission is a train wreck is simply not the fact," Macgill said.
But Senate President
Pro Tem Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, who proposed the Ethics Commission
reorganization bill, said the commission must be reorganized because it
demands too much of its volunteer members. They often must act as judge
and jury while handling personnel matters and other responsibilities.
"I believe we
ask far too much of people who are essentially volunteers," Williams
said.
Rell's proposed
ethics reform package, to be debated Monday, is similar in many
respects
but does not contain a public campaign financing provision, a
cornerstone
of the Democrats' proposal.
Rell has asked
the Legislature to vote on a package of ethics bills before Feb. 9,
when
she proposes her budget.
Follow these
bills...
ETHICS
BILLS PROPOSED BY GOVERNOR:
REF. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS (1/26/05)
- S.B. No. 939 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.;
REP. WARD, 86th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING CODES OF ETHICS', to implement
the Governor's budget recommendations.
- S.B. No. 940 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.;
REP. WARD, 86th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE CITIZENS' ETHICS AND
GOVERNMENT
INTEGRITY COMMISSION', to implement the Governor's budget
recommendations.
- S.B. No. 941 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.;
REP. WARD, 86th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR STATE
CONTRACTING',
to implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
- S.B. No. 942 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.;
REP. WARD, 86th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING A STATE CONTRACTING STANDARDS
BOARD', to implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
- S.B. No. 943 SEN. DELUCA, 32nd DIST.;
REP. WARD, 86th DIST. 'AN ACT CONCERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE', to
implement
the Governor's budget recommendations.
Oct 12, 7:38
PM EDT
Rell seeks
overhaul of State Ethics Commission
By SUSAN HAIGH,
Associated Press Writer
HARTFORD, Conn.
(AP) -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced a plan Tuesday to restructure the
State
Ethics Commission in the wake of questions about the commissions' own
ethics.
Her proposal
would divide the agency and its staff into three sections.
One group would
concentrate on the enforcement of state ethics laws; another would
offer
ethics advice to state and public officials; and the third would deal
with
the release of public information.
Currently,
the same people who give advice to officials and state employees also
conduct
ethics investigations and enforce the ethics code.
"My vision
is simple," said Rell, a Republican, in a written statement. "I want an
environment where people are comfortable seeking the opinion of the
Ethics
Commission when they need it, and I want a commission that enforces the
law when people do violate the ethics code."
The governor
said her ideas and others will be submitted to a bipartisan working
group
that will be charged with drafting legislation. Hugh Macgill, the
commission's new chairman, said he could not comment on Rell's proposal
because he had not seen the details. He said the commission is
continuing
its work, enforcing the state's ethics laws amid discussion about the
panel's
future.
"I don't know
of any institution that cannot be improved and I hope that whatever
discussions
are generated by the governor's proposal and any others that are put
forward
is as free from partisanship as the existing commission has been," he
said.
The commission
has come under fire for its decision last month to fire Executive
Director
Alan Plofsky, a critic of former Gov. John G. Rowland. Some members,
both
past and present, also have been criticized for not being tough enough
on Rowland, who was under scrutiny for accepting gifts from employees,
state contractors and others while in office.
Last week,
Lt. Gov. Kevin Sullivan, a Democrat, and Connecticut Common Cause
called
for a legislative investigation into the commission's actions.
Sullivan has
said the nine-member commission should be replaced with new people, and
Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, has
suggested
replacing the commission with a three-judge panel as a way to restore
public
confidence.
Under Rell's
plan, the commission would include seven members. Two would be
appointed
by the governor and one appointed by each leader of the four
legislative
caucuses. The chief justice of the state Supreme Court would appoint
the
seventh member. No more than three members could be affiliated
with
one political party and no more than three members could be lawyers.
"It should
be a cross-section of the citizens of the state and not be loaded up
with
attorneys," said Rachel Rubin, Rell's special ethics counsel.
While he likes
some aspects of Rell's proposal, Williams said he disagrees with her
plan
to continue having politicians appoint commission members.
"I think that's
a fundamental flaw. The basic structure remains unchanged," said
Williams,
who also believes Rell's idea of dividing the work of the commission
would
create more bureaucracy.
Rell has asked
legislative leaders to participate in a new task force that will help
craft
the legislative needed to reform the commission. Williams said he has
not
decided whether to participate. Rell's proposal also calls for
separating
the general counsel and executive director positions. Plofsky held both
jobs. The plan would require the commission to hire its executive
director
for renewable five-year terms.
The commission
fired Plofsky last month after an investigation concluded that he had
cheated
on work hours and told a subordinate to lie in response to a federal
subpoena
regarding Rowland and to destroy an audio tape of a commission
meeting.
He also was accused of directing the release of a potentially
privileged
letter from the attorney general to a newspaper. That letter criticized
the commission's decision to suspend Plofsky earlier this year after he
publicly accused Rowland of being a liar.
Plofsky denies
the allegations and he is appealing his termination to an independent
arbitration
panel within the Office of Policy and Management.
Rell: Ethics
Panel `An Embarrassment' - Democrats Call For Overhaul After New Tape
Revelations
September
18, 2004
By JON LENDER,
Courant Staff Writer
Attempts by
the State Ethics Commission to evade its public-disclosure duty under
the
freedom of information law drew strong criticism from Gov. M. Jodi Rell
Friday and a call from the state's Democratic chairman for a "major
overhaul
of that misguided agency."
"I think they're
an embarrassment to themselves and to the state of Connecticut," Rell
said.
"Today's revelation
that the State Ethics Commission sought to circumvent FOI laws adds one
more reason for a long-overdue overhaul of that misguided agency,"
state
Democratic Party Chairman George Jepsen said.
Both were referring
to a Courant story Friday that revealed the contents of a tape-recorded
February teleconference in which ethics panel members - unaware that
they
were being recorded by a commission clerk - talked openly of how to use
the state FOI law to keep information from the public.
"Are we sure
that no one else is in on this public meeting?" commission Chairwoman
Rosemary
Giuliano asked at one point on the tape. As fellow members laughed,
Giuliano
wondered if TV viewers "will hear my voice on Channel 3 tonight."
She was unavailable
for comment Friday night.
The tape formed
the basis for one of four findings of misconduct that the ethics
commission
cited Sept. 10 in its decision to fire Alan Plofsky, its executive
director
for 16 years. Commission members claimed that Plofsky ordered a clerk
at
his agency to destroy the potentially embarrassing tape - a charge he
denies.
Plofsky held
the tape for months, then handed it to a state personnel administrator
who questioned him Sept. 2 in an investigation of several
"whistleblower"
charges made against him by his three staff attorneys. The Courant
requested
a copy of the tape, and received it this week.
The fact that
commission members fired Plofsky over his alleged order to destroy a
public
record made Jepsen question their motives, since the record in question
was a tape of several of those same members plotting ways to block the
prompt release of public information.
The tape "provides
fresh insight into the ride-roughshod-over-process mindset of
commission
members that was clearly in play in the recent sacking of Alan
Plofsky,"
Jepsen said.
Jepsen went
further than criticizing the ethics commission. He also goaded Rell,
who
said when she took office July 1 that she would make ethics in
government
her top priority after the ethical lapses of her scandal-plagued
predecessor,
John G. Rowland.
"Talk is not
enough; it is time for Gov. Rell to act," Jepsen said. "What more
information
does Gov. Rell need? For months the necessity of a full housecleaning
has
been obvious. On her first day in office, Gov. Rell should have, and
could
have, appointed a new, conflict-free commission member to fill the ...
seat currently and improperly held by Chairwoman Giuliano."
Giuliano, one
of three Rowland appointees to the ethics panel, has remained on the
board
even though her term expired more than two years ago because Rowland
did
not appoint a replacement and Rell has not, either, up to now.
The "conflict"
to which Jepsen referred is the fact that the three Rowland-appointed
members
of the board - Giuliano, Christopher Smith and Richard Vitarelli - had
contributed money to Rowland's campaign efforts.
He called them
"active Rowland partisans" and said because of their presence, "we'll
never
know" whether the decision to fire Plofksy was based on the merits, or
was a "railroading" in retribution for Plofsky's pursuit of ethical
violations
by the ex-governor.
Some in politics
disagree, pointing out that two members appointed by Democrats
participated
in the 6-0 vote to fire Plofsky, who has vowed legal appeals for
reinstatement.
Rell spokesman
Dennis Schain responded to Jepsen by saying that Rell has selected
people
to appoint to the commission as replacements for not only the
long-overdue
Giuliano, but also Rowland appointees Vitarelli and Smith -whose terms
expire Sept. 30. The prospective replacements are undergoing background
checks, Schain said.
But Jepsen
said Rell's action was belated. "The day she took office on July 1 it
was
clear that the ethics commission was in a state of collapse. It's only
gotten worse," he said. "She could have acted then and in doing so
could
have avoided a lot of the travesties."
"Gov. Rell
... continues to believe that the problems of the ethics commission
must
be resolved in a fast, fair and open manner without political
grandstanding,
gamesmanship or pettiness by anyone," Schain said.
Meanwhile,
Lt. Gov. Kevin B. Sullivan, a Democrat, followed through this week on
his
vow to seek a legislative investigation of the ethics commission,
writing
in a letter to the General Assembly committee that oversees the ethics
agency that he had "grave concerns."
He said events
this summer add up to "what now seems an inevitable process" toward
firing
Plofsky, no matter what. "His termination in public session [on Sept.
10],
following a bathroom break, can at best be described as a drumhead
court
martial," Sullivan wrote. He also cited the influential roles of the
three
Rowland appointees.
"At a time
when this is supposed to be a new day for ethical conduct in
government,
all of this casts significant doubt on our efforts to do better,"
Sullivan
said. He talked of possible "legislative correction" of the setup at
the
agency, consistent with Jepsen's talk of a "major overhaul."
Sullivan asked
that the legislative investigation should focus on "the manner in which
the ethics commission conducted its several inquiries into allegations
against Mr. Plofsky" and the origin and motivation for the allegations.
State Rep.
James O'Rourke, D-Cromwell, co-chairman of the legislative committee
that
oversees the ethics agency, said Friday night he was unsure whether his
panel would hold hearings, but he did want some answers. He said his
committee
was planning to write a letter asking questions, and could follow up
with
further inquiries.
"It looks to
me like the Rowland scandal was a very stressful time for the ethics
commission
and members of its staff," O'Rourke said. "It seems to have ruined the
relationships they had with each other, and that's a great concern."
This story
includes a report from the Associated Press.
Sunday, September 5, 2004 Hartford Courant:
A Blueprint For Restoring
Integrity In State Government
By M. JODI RELL
On
July 1, I stood on the north steps
of the state Capitol and took the oath of office to become
Connecticut's
87th governor.
That
day, I made a pledge to restore
faith, trust and integrity to our state government. Those were not just
words on a piece of paper. I made that promise because it is what is in
my heart.
I
want Connecticut to be the national
model of integrity in government. I want our contracting procedures to
be the most bulletproof in the country. My goal is for other states to
point to Connecticut and say, "That's the way we should be doing it."
Even
the most aggressive and far-reaching
policies, however, cannot always prevent the worst of human behaviors.
But we can put systems in place, with appropriate checks and balances
and
internal oversight, to ensure integrity in the way the state conducts
its
business.
That
is why six weeks ago I established
the Governor's Task Force on Contracting Reform. I charged the task
force
with reviewing and recommending improvements in the procedures used by
state government to purchase goods and services.
The
task force members put in long
hours reviewing documents and state statutes and listening to
testimony.
Last week, I received their report, which contains 133 recommendations.
Each of the recommendations has a common goal: to ensure that one
dollar
in value is received for every dollar we spend of the taxpayers' money
- and that each and every dollar the state spends is done with scrutiny
and with accountability.
The
state spends hundreds of millions
of dollars each year on goods and services. The scope of state
purchasing
includes the awarding of contracts for construction, leases, personal
services,
property management and equipment.
The
problem is that state purchasing
procedures are inconsistent, the training of personnel varies by state
agency and not all selection processes are conducted in the open. We
have
dozens of state agencies - and if two are conducting business the exact
same way, it's probably by accident.
It
is easy to see how these aspects
of the state's contracting system are vulnerable to abuse or confusion,
and that inevitably leads to inefficiency. Changes must be made to
recast
the system so that it builds in integrity from the start, rather than
backing
into integrity only when we find a problem.
I
see these changes being implemented
in four basic steps:
Uniform
standards. We need
a system in which any act that is out of the norm stands out like a
sore
thumb. That requires a process that is the same for everyone who does
business
with the state, and the same for every state agency - with no
exceptions.
That includes all state agencies, all quasi-public agencies and all of
Connecticut's public institutions of higher education. Uniform
standards
will immediately send up procedural red flags if rules are bent or
broken.
Transparency.
When business
is conducted out in the open, it is difficult to engage in deceit.
Right
now, state business is not uniformly conducted in the open. Again, even
one exception violates the integrity of the system. It's like a boat -
even one small hole can cause a significant leak. Without full
disclosure,
the public cannot have full confidence in the way the state awards
contracts.
I support all of the recommendations that shine more light on the
contracting
process.
Education.
The overwhelming
majority of Connecticut state employees are dedicated and honest
individuals
who work hard and take great professional pride in their work. But the
problems encountered by state employees, public officials and those
seeking
to do business with the state have often resulted from their lack of
awareness
of ethical rules that apply to the government workplace. I was shocked
to learn that no standardized ethics training is provided. We can
eliminate
confusion and misinformation by helping our employees acquire knowledge
of ethics rules and penalties, and we should immediately provide and
require
this training for all appropriate staff.
Penalties.
I am convinced
that the vast majority of state employees are honest and hardworking.
One
reason Connecticut's whistle-blower statute is so effective is that
most
people do not want their reputation, or the reputation of their agency,
damaged by the dishonesty of a colleague.
But
no matter what kind of system
we create, there will probably be a few people who will try to break
it.
We must stiffen the penalties for those who violate the public trust.
The
civil penalties are too low and the consequences are not severe enough
for failure to ensure compliance with contracting procedures. The
penalties
must be beefed up to cause anyone involved in a state transaction -
from
either the public or the private sector - to rethink any effort to
manipulate
the system. Similarly, we must to continue to encourage whistle-blowing
at all phases of the contracting process.
Implementing
these steps will dramatically
change the state contracting system and place a premium on ethics. We
can
take a huge step in the right direction with standards, transparency,
education
and penalties. We all want to be proud of our state. Reform in these
four
basic areas will help ensure the highest possible standards in our
contracting
process and restore pride in our government.
I
can assure the people of Connecticut
that this will not be a government report that sits on a shelf
gathering
dust. On the contrary, it is a blueprint for action. Enacting the
proposed
task force reforms into law will result in:
No
more free meals or gifts.
No
special treatment.
No
exceptions.
A
freeze on contracts when improprieties
are found.
Restrictions
on business relationships
between state officials and contractors.
Disclosure
of campaign contributions
by contractors - even to PACs and party committees.
A
new and uniform state procurement
and contracting statute.
A
system based on integrity and accountability,
where the rules are clear - and clearly understood.
Connecticut's
reputation is too dear
to me - too dear to all of us - to allow corruption, malfeasance or
abuse
to germinate under the soiled cover of an outdated process. Our efforts
will promote efficiency, restore integrity and give taxpayers
confidence
that their dollars are being spent wisely and well - no matter who sits
in the seats of power.
Special
interests - including those
who have benefited from the system - will try to water down these
reforms.
We cannot afford to compromise on ethics. If you agree, I urge you to
send
a letter or e-mail to your legislator and send me a copy. Tell them
that
this is a priority for you, just as it is for me.
By
working together, we can have
a model system in place by the close of the next legislative session.
Don't
let anyone persuade you that this will be another layer of bureaucracy,
or that it will do more harm than good. The harm to our great state's
reputation
has already been done.
On
this Labor Day weekend, as we
take time out for a hard-earned and well-deserved holiday, let us
consider
how America has become the most productive nation on Earth. We did it
by
playing by the rules and by doing the right thing. Connecticut, the
Constitution
State, has always been guided by good leadership and good laws. When it
comes to our broken contracting process, now is the time for both.
Rell Hikes Ethics Budget;
Allows Hires For Expanded Workload
August 13, 2004
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING, Hartford
Courant Capitol Bureau Chief
Gov.
M. Jodi Rell, who took office
pledging to make ethics her top priority, has boosted the State Ethics
Commission's budget by about $200,000 - roughly 20 percent - allowing
the
agency to hire two more employees and upgrade its computers.
"It
is not enough simply to talk
about ethics reform," Rell said Thursday. "These funds will provide the
ethics commission with the tangible tools it needs to do its job
properly."
Rell
was responding to a request
from the commission's executive director, Alan Plofsky, for help
meeting
an expanded workload. One reason for the extra work: On her first day
in
office, Rell ordered all state employees involved in the awarding of
state
contracts to file statements of their financial interests with the
commission
to prevent conflicts of interest.
State
contracts have come under intense
scrutiny as part of a federal criminal investigation that started
during
the administration of former Gov. John G. Rowland. Rowland's former
deputy
chief of staff, Lawrence Alibozek, pleaded guilty last year to criminal
charges in what federal prosecutors called a conspiracy to steer state
contracts. The FBI has been investigating contracts awarded to Tomasso
Brothers Inc., a New Britain-based contractor that built a juvenile
prison
in Middletown, among other projects. Rowland resigned, effective July
1,
in the midst of an impeachment inquiry into his own ethics lapses.
While
in office, Rowland's administration
often clashed with Plofsky, coming under scrutiny as far back as 1997
during
a controversy when Rowland received upgraded concert tickets at a
Hartford
music venue.
By
contrast, Rell has reached out
to the commission at the start of her administration.
Only
two weeks after Rell took office,
Plofsky sent her a congratulatory letter that also sought additional
money.
"Given
the commission's unprecedented
work levels, particularly in the area of investigations and
prosecutions,
and given your mandate for increased ethics training and disclosure, we
believe implementation of this budget is absolutely essential," Plofsky
wrote to Rell.
But
Senate Republican leader Louis
DeLuca questioned whether the commission needed more workers, saying
that
some employees leave early and are often unavailable during work hours.
"He
claims he's overloaded," DeLuca
said, but "not everyone there works a full day. They're not meant to be
part-time. I probably would not agree that Mr. Plofsky is overworked."
The
salaries of the two new employees
will be determined later by the commission. Up to $22,000 will be set
aside
to improve the agency's electronic filing system for lobbyists, who
must
file reports with the commission.
The
money will be transferred among
existing accounts in the state's $14.3 billion annual budget, and the
amounts
are small enough that the moves do not require approval by the full
legislature.
Compared to massive agencies with thousands of employees, such as the
Department
of Transportation, the ethics commission ranks among the state's
smallest
agencies.
Official In Tribal Ruling
Resigns
August 14, 2004
By RICK GREEN, Courant Staff Writer
A
top Interior Department official
responsible for granting federal recognition to the Kent-based
Schaghticoke
Tribal Nation has abruptly resigned.
But
the pending Sept. 10 departure
of Aurene Martin is unrelated to any recognition decisions or other
problems
at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, spokesman Dan Dubray said.
"I
don't think there is anything
at all to that," DuBray said. Martin, who was in charge of recognition
decisions, was on vacation Friday. The department would not release her
resignation letter.
On
Friday, a website that closely
follows tribal issues, Indianz.com, described the departure of Martin
and
other aides as a possible housecleaning of employees not loyal to BIA
Director
David Anderson.
Dubray
said this was false. The Indianz.com
report "names me as someone who was pushed out," said Dubray, who was
recently
promoted to a new communications job. "That makes it absurd on its
face."
BIA
critics in Connecticut were uncertain
what the change might mean, particularly because Anderson has had
nothing
to do with recognition issues. After taking over the BIA job this year,
Anderson said he would recuse himself from recognition decisions
because
of his close relationship with the gambling industry.
Martin's
ruling that granted recognition
to the Schaghticokes reversed a preliminary BIA ruling. The tribe's
foes
in Connecticut say there is no explanation for the reversal and that
the
bureau ignored its own rules when it recognized the tribe. The state
and
the town of Kent are appealing the decision before a federal board.
Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal
said there was "zero chance" that Martin's departure was unrelated to
the
decision to recognize the Schaghticokes. "The top tier management has
deserted
the ship, virtually on the eve of the election," Blumenthal said. "I'm
tempted to say that the BIA is now truly dysfunctional and in total
chaos.
The question is who is in charge."
Connecticut tribe denied
recognition, casino hopes dashed
Monday, June 14, 2004 New Haven
REGISTER
By
LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press
Writer, 4:29 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Golden Hill
Paugussetts' plans for a Connecticut casino and thousands of acres of
land
claims were dealt a major setback Monday, as the Bureau of Indian
Affairs
rejected their bid for federal recognition for a second time.
The
Paugussetts have been struggling
to gain recognition since 1982. They were rejected by the BIA in 1996,
but got a second chance when the Interior Board of Indian Appeals
reviewed
the decision and sent it back to the BIA for reconsideration, launching
a second full review of the petition.
"The
Golden Hill Paugussett have
failed at every step in the process - despite numerous opportunities -
to prove its case," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
said.
"The group does not descend from a historical Indian tribe, it has not
continuously existed as a distinct community, and it has not
continuously
exercised political authority or influence over its members."
In
order to become recognized a tribe
must satisfy seven criteria, proving it has been active as a community
and a political unit, and that the members descended directly from a
historical
Indian tribe. The Paugussetts are recognized by the state and
have
about 330 members and reservation land in Trumbull and Colchester.
Messages
seeking comment were left Monday with Paugussett Chief Quiet Hawk.
In
the past 15 years the Paugussetts
filed claims on more than 700,000 acres of land, setting off a flurry
of
legal challenges. And in 1993, then-tribal leader Moonface Bear, also
known
as Kenneth Piper, was the central figure in 10-week armed standoff
between
state police and the tribe, for selling untaxed cigarettes on its
Colchester
reservation.
The
land claims, which stretched
from Middletown to Wilton, and from Greenwich through lower Westchester
County in New York, were dropped as the BIA process continued, but
could
have been revived if they received federal recognition. Chief
Quiet
Hawk has said the tribe spent "a few million dollars" on the
recognition
bid. The group has received backing from wealthy New York investor
Thomas
C. Wilmot Sr., chairman of the board of shopping mall developer
Wilmorite
Inc.
State
lawmakers and members of Congress
have been openly opposed to the Paugussetts' bid, and last week
suggested
that this decision would be a test of the BIA's credibility. The
agency is under fire for its last two decisions granting recognition to
Connecticut tribes. And both cases
have been appealed by the state
to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals. In both instances, the BIA
issued
preliminary determinations against recognition, and then later approved
the tribes in the final decision.
The
BIA issued its first preliminary
ruling against the Paugussetts in May 1995, made a final negative
ruling
in September 1996. The tribe appealed to the IBIA, which referred the
case
back to the BIA. Michael J. Anderson, deputy assistant secretary for
Indian
affairs at the time, ruled the application deserved a new review. Then
in January 2003, the BIA issued a preliminary ruling against the new
petition.
Chief
Quiet Hawk said last week that
he hoped the group has done enough research to address the gap in the
documentation
of the group's political and social existence during the 1800s and
early
1900s. Tribes seek federal recognition to establish their
sovereignty
and receive federal
funding for education, housing and
health care. It also is the first step toward opening a gaming facility.
The
decision leaves Connecticut with
four federally recognized tribes. The Mashantucket Pequots and
the
Mohegans, both in eastern Connecticut, operate two of the most
successful
casinos in the world. The Eastern Pequots, also based in eastern
Connecticut,
received recognition in June
2002, and the Schaghticokes were
granted recognition in late January.
Indians Say Recognition Hijacked
May 3, 2004
By RICK GREEN,
Courant Staff Writer
A rival band
of Indians is charging that the federal recognition of the Schaghticoke
Tribal Nation was hijacked by outside investors and high-priced
lobbyists
intent on winning a lucrative gambling franchise for their own benefit.
"The
recognition
process is no longer seeking to right a wrong - the exploitation of
Native
Americans on this continent by the early settlers. It is now about
a
multibillion-dollar industry called gambling," say members of the
Coggswell
family in documents filed recently with the U.S. Department of the
Interior.
The
Coggswells are Schaghticokes whose lineage dates to the origins of the
tribe in western and southern Connecticut.
In their appeal
challenging the Bureau of Indian Affairs' ruling on the Kent-based
Schaghticokes,
the Coggswells argue that the process "has provided another way for
non-Indians
who are predominately businessmen [and] women to capitalize and control
a benefit that was initially intended for Indians." Schaghticoke
Tribal Nation leaders did not return calls requesting comment.
This relationship
among investors, lobbyists and Indian tribes, frequently shrouded in
secrecy,
has attracted the attention of Congress and Interior
Department
investigators. On Wednesday, the House Committee on Government Reform
will
examine the BIA decisions to recognize the Schaghticokes and another
Connecticut
tribe, the
Eastern Pequots. Meanwhile, the Interior Department's inspector general
is continuing a probe into the Schaghticoke ruling and a controversial
BIA memorandum that outlined a strategy for skirting rules in order to
grant the tribe recognition.
The state of
Connecticut,
fearing more casinos, has appealed the Eastern Pequot ruling. The
state's
appeal of the Schaghticoke decision is expected to be filed Wednesday,
the same day as the Washington hearing. The Schaghticoke Tribal
Nation
has sought federal recognition for decades. But since the mid-1990s -
when
Subway Restaurants founder Fred DeLuca and a secretive partnership in
Middletown
called the Eastlander Group started backing the tribe - questions have
multiplied about the investors' influence over the tribe and how they
stand
to gain from a casino the tribe hopes to build.
DeLuca and Eastlander's
Davide Pugliares and Joseph Mazzotta did not respond to requests for
comment.
Pugliares and Mazzotta were partners with Joseph D. Mazzotta and others
in a Hartford bar during the 1990s. Police are still investigating the
execution-style slaying of Joseph D. Mazzotta a year ago, but have
found
no link between the investment in the tribe and his death.
Federal regulations
require detailed disclosure about financial relationships between
tribes
and investors once a casino project is proposed, but not before a tribe
is
recognized.
Increasingly, however, investors are approaching tribes and offering
millions
of dollars in return for what could amount to a coveted gambling
license,
because federally recognized tribes may run casinos in states that
allow
gambling.
Thomas Wilmot,
a New York real estate and shopping center developer who is backing the
Golden Hill Paugussetts, said it costs about $1 million a year or more
to finance a tribe seeking federal recognition. "We got into this
and we were hopeful that we would be able to make some money," Wilmot
said.
But, he added, in the eight years he has been involved with the
Paugussetts
- who hope to receive a recognition decision in June - "a camaraderie"
with the tribe also has evolved.
Spending $1
million a year to help a tribe win recognition could be considered a
bargain.
A license to open a casino in Illinois recently went for more than $500
million. An
Indian casino
located near an urban area is a guaranteed moneymaker; a single slot
machine
in a casino with thousands of them can earn well over $300 a day in
profit.
"It is just
out of hand," said Truman Coggswell, who is not a member of the
Schaghticoke
Tribal Nation but has been designated by the BIA as an "unenrolled
tribal
community member" descending from the historic tribe. "Any
benefit
that there is should go to the Indians," Coggswell said. "It appears
that
it is the gambling interests that are the ones at the forefront pushing
these tribes into the arena."
Mark Van Norman,
executive director of the National Indian Gaming Association and a
member
of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, said linking
recognition
and casinos
was "a misnomer." Many of these tribes have been working for decades
for
recognition, he said. The real problem is the time the government takes
to review
and act on
recognition petitions from tribes. "It is a little bit of a red
herring,"
Van Norman said. "What really needs to happen is that some resources
need
to be put in the process" to make it move more quickly.
But with Congress
now probing the relationship between high-priced lobbyists and wealthy
casino-owning tribes, it is the shadowy world of gambling investors
that
is getting
new attention
- not the BIA's need for more resources. "The entire financial
relationship
between any investors and groups during the recognition process, all
that
has to be
disclosed,"
said Wayne Smith, a former top BIA official who will testify before the
House Committee on Government Reform Wednesday, along with leaders of
the
Schaghticokes and the Eastern Pequots, administration officials, state
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, casino critic Jeff Benedict and
others.
Smith was ousted
from the BIA last year because of his connection to an associate who
allegedly
attempted to extort money from Indian tribes. Smith contends he was
forced out
by the White House for refusing to reverse decisions against tribal
gambling.
A Lakota Sioux, Smith now works as a consultant for tribes seeking to
open
casinos.
"Once you have
a potential for a casino, you have the potential for a tremendous
amount
of money," Smith said. "These lobbyists [working for tribes],
they
are all tied to the Bush administration. They aren't people who said,
`I
want to help American Indians.'" Federal recognition is based on
whether a tribe meets seven detailed criteria intended to prove that it
has existed as a distinct and continuous community since its first
contact
with outsiders. Critics, however, say an increasing reliance on
lawyers,
lobbyists and
political insiders has tainted the process.
The Schaghticokes,
who acknowledge they have poured millions of dollars into their
recognition
petition, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbyists,
including
self-described Republican "influence peddler" Paul Manafort. Manafort,
a Connecticut native who has built a career out of providing access to
Washington power brokers, could not be reached for comment.
The Eastern
Pequots, meanwhile, are backed by Southport golf course developer David
Rosow and Florida industrialist and yachtsman William Koch. That tribe
spent
nearly
$500,000 to hire its own Republican insider, Ron Kaufman, to shepherd
its
case through the federal bureaucracy. Kaufman has close ties to the
White
House, but little background in Indian issues. Rosow and Kaufman
did not return calls requesting comment. Through a spokesman, Koch
declined
to comment.
Prosecutors To Appeal Decision
On Rowland Attorney
12:23 PM EDT,September 2, 2004
Associated Press
Federal
prosecutors investigating
corruption in former Gov. John G. Rowland's administration have
indicated
they'll appeal a recent court ruling blocking them from subpoenaing
Rowland's
one-time legal adviser.
The
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
last week upheld Rowland's argument that his conversations with Anne
George
are protected by attorney-client privilege.
Prosecutors
this week asked the court
to give them more time to file for a rehearing. A three-judge panel
handed
Rowland his victory last week. Prosecutors are expected to seek a
rehearing
before five judges.
George
was legal counsel from 2000
to 2003, a time when Rowland accepted gifts from state contractors. Her
testimony could provide insight into the inner workings of the Rowland
administration.
The
outcome of the case could have
national implications for the relationship between government officials
and their attorneys. Other courts have held that privilege issues are
outweighed
by criminal grand jury investigations.
Neither
attorney Ross Garber, who
argued the case for Rowland, nor the U.S. Attorney's office, has
commented
on the matter because it's under seal.
Appeals Court: Lawyer Won't
Have To Appear Before Grand Jury
10:08 AM EDT,August 31, 2004
Associated Press
A top legal adviser to former Gov.
John G. Rowland cannot be forced to testify against him before a grand
jury, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
Anne
George, who served as legal counsel
for the governor's office from 2000 to 2003, had been subpoenaed to
testify
before a grand jury investigating contract steering in the Rowland
administration.
Rowland, citing attorney-client privilege, had argued that George
cannot
be forced to testify. George was Rowland's top legal adviser at a
time when he accepted thousands of dollars in cigars and champagne from
a state contractor. During her tenure, officials negotiated many of the
deals now being scrutinized in the contract-steering probe. Rowland,
who
resigned July 1, is a subject of that investigation.
The
decision was handed down last
week, the court clerk's office said. The case is sealed.
Ross
Garber, who argued the matter
but has since left the governor's office, declined comment Tuesday. The
governor's office also declined to comment. A message was left for
George's
attorney. It's now up to federal prosecutors to decide whether to
appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court has never
addressed
whether government attorneys can be forced to testify.
The
landmark case to date was decided
in 1999, when a federal appeals court ruled that Clinton counsel Bruce
Lindsey had to testify before the Monica Lewinsky grand jury.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's
office had no comment on the case. Prosecutors rarely subpoena
the
attorneys of their criminal subjects. Doing so requires approval from
the
highest levels at the Justice Department in Washington. Forcing
government
attorneys to testify against their bosses is even more uncommon.