"SHORT SESSION" (February 6 to May 7 2008) over;  at right, a sure-fire way to stop speeders!  Emil Frankel pinch hits at DOT - news.

Connecticut Legislature

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the governor's staff also attempted to assuage a skeptical legislature by assuring that the tax cap could be easily superseded by cities and towns that cannot — or will not — go along with its restrictions.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)
     

    Oct 12, 7:38 PM EDT
    R