The well-attended fall conference, held at the Cheshire Town Hall on November 17, was called to order by Jara Burnett. Enid Oresman served as moderator
and introduced a broad spectrum of speakers.

The first speaker, Bill Cibes, briefed us on the voters’ adoption of the Spending Cap constitutional amendment in 1992, as part of the
compromise that led to adoption of the state income tax.  He described its major features in considerable detail.

Peter Gioia, representing the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, expressed the view that the spending cap is working well, has helped  keep
state spending under control, and thus made it possible for the state to pump a considerable amount of money into the “rainy day” fund, which state
government needs as it copes with the current economic slump. He pointed out that over the next few years state government is unlikely to have large
enough surplus funds to bring the spending cap into play.

Ellen  Scalettar, representing Connecticut Voices for Children, was more critical of the spending cap. She said that the cap has led law makers to increase
bonding for programs that might better be funded by the state budget and has also led to more funding of “entitlements” for some businesses. She believes
that the cap has caused legislatures to give lower priority to social, health, and education programs resulting in serious underfunding and limiting the state’s
ability to use federal funds for such programs.

Republican State Senator Robert Genuario believes that the spending cap provides a powerful political tool that can be used by members of the
Appropriations Committee and other legislators to keep spending increases under control. He also believes that it gives the minority Republican
party members more influence on decision-making and makes bipartisan compromises more possible. He believes that there are countless
ways for legislators to get around the spending cap In the next session there are likely to be debates over the effect the cap has on the use of
federal funds for some programs and disagreement over the exemption of “distressed cities” from the cap.

Democratic State Representative Jack Thompson emphasized the number of state programs that are underfunded, such as those dealing with mental
retardation, the needs of children, and other human services programs. He views the spending cap as one important factor that makes it difficult to get
adequate funding for such programs.

The luncheon speaker, Alison Johnson, who works with the Connecticut Health Foundation, provided a detailed analysis of various proposals to change the
way the spending cap operates. One conclusion we drew from her talk is that this topic is a very complicated one; and some of the proposed exemptions
from the spending cap might not, in fact, accomplish the goals of their sponsors. If programs that are growing relatively slowly (such as special education) are
exempted from the spending cap, this will not necessarily make it possible to spend much more money on such programs. Removal of  rapidly growing
programs (such as Medicaid) from the spending cap would be more likely to make more funds available  Several highly technical changes in the way the
spending cap is calculated  might also make possible more funding. Johnson agreed with other speakers that in the short run the state is unlikely to have
surpluses large enough for the spending cap to take effect.

Contributed by Mac and Sarah Jewell of Fairfield League 

Fellow panelist, Carmine DiBattista, Chief of Connecticut's DEP Air Bureau, feels certain that by the year 2004, Connecticut regulations will embody SUV testing of emissions, which currently go untested, because toxins are carried in the air from neighboring states. DiBattista states, "My dream or goal is to have a regional emissions program where all vehicles will fall under some low emission vehicle program." Citing toxins in the air as the biggest challenge of the decade, DiBattista gave Connecticut high marks for meeting air quality public health standards regarding pollutants such as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen.

Panelist Dr. David Brown, Yale University lecturer, author and researcher of the effects of environmental toxins on human health, lists four area of public health concern: cancer, asthma, cardiovascular and child brain development.  In a survey involving kindergarten through grade 8 children, 9-14% of students tallied in every school suffered from asthma.  The presence of ozones and other biologicals in school buildings are thought to be a contributing factor.  Also of concern are diesel-powered school buses, which are currently excluded from emission regulations and are known to emit particles that attract harmful chemicals.  "Kids walk by school buses like this every day."

In his keynote address to the League, Joel Gordes, Principal of Environmental Energy Solutions, was optimistic about Connecticut's progress in reducing pollution.  He stressed the need for compromise between environmentalists and legislators and for active support by the public.  "We need to develop an energy ethic, and it's as near as your car,"Gordes said, citing idling cars and high speed driving that use more gas as culprits in polluting.  Ending on a humorous note, Gordes said, "It's not so bad to have an SUV; it's that you drive it."