Archive for December, 2009
December 31, 2009 at 11:38 am by Brian Lockhart
Yesterday, just in time for New Year’s Eve, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s office issued a bare bones press release about federal funding to update the state’s breathalyzers, used by police to help convinct drunk drivers.
Here’s the text:
Drunken driving, one of the deadliest and most senseless crimes, tragically claimed 111 lives on Connecticut roads in 2008. As part of the state’s ongoing efforts to keep intoxicated drivers off the road and save lives, Governor M. Jodi Rell today announced that the state is receiving federal funds to supply state and local police patrols with 120 more breathalyzers.
“Putting the brakes on drunken drivers before there are tragic consequences, before a family suffers a heartbreaking loss is a public safety priority,” Governor Rell said. “These resources will help law enforcement keep the motoring public safe and remove these dangerous drivers from our state and local roads.”
The breathalyzers will be purchased with $700,000 in federal funds that have been secured by the state Department of Transportation.
The DOT will distribute the breathalyzers to state and local law enforcement, colleges, universities and mobile blood alcohol testing stations over the next few months. The equipment will assist police with sobriety checkpoints and special DUI patrols around the state.
The units will be distributed to 12 state police barracks, 103 police departments and six mobile testing stations, which are used at sobriety checkpoints.
————
Rell’s release – obviously intended as a piece of feel good news during a slow holiday week – sparked questions in our newsroom like “Is their a shortage of breathalyzers in Connecticut?” and “Is something wrong with the existing equipment?”
I and our transportation reporter, Martin Cassidy, made a few phonecalls and the result was this interesting story by Martin in today’s Hearst newspapers:
The state will use $700,000 in federal money toward the purchase of $1 million worth of new stationary and portable blood-alcohol measuring devices, officials announced Wednesday, replacing equipment that is facing a legal challenge regarding the precision of its measurement.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced the funding from the National Highway Safety Administration on Wednesday. But the state in January 2009 already had signed a $975,000 contract to buy 150 Alcotest 9510 devices from Irving, Texas-based Draeger Safety Diagnostics, according to state documents.
“Putting the brakes on drunken drivers before there are tragic consequences, before a family suffers a heartbreaking loss, is a public safety priority,” Rell said in a statement.
Local police departments, including Stamford, Greenwich, Darien, New Canaan and Norwalk, are among the 103 municipal departments that will receive a new Alcotest 9510 unit, state Department of Transportation spokesman Kevin Nursick said.
The devices will also be distributed to 12 State Police barracks over the next several months, State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said, and will replace Intoxilyzer machines, some of which are 17 years old and nearing the end of their usefulness.
The new machines were selected by a committee of law enforcement officials and scientific experts, he said.
“The old machines are obsolete, and it is time to replace them to stay current with the times,” Vance said.
Shelton attorney James Ruane, who is challenging the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer 5000 devices, said the state’s decision to opt for a new vendor could signal doubts about whether the Intoxilyzer works properly, even if used correctly.
Ruane said he believes both the Intoxilyzer and another device, the Draeger Alcotest, don’t reliably test the level of alcohol in a person’s blood.
“My question is, why are we spending a million dollars on the new machines if the old machines are good, and if the old machines are good, why aren’t we still using them?” Ruane said.
Because the computerized analysis doesn’t account for physiological factors involved from driver to driver, including weight and lung capacity, which can influence the amount of alcohol molecules found in a breath sample, the devices often provide inaccurate readings, he said.
Ruane is appealing a November 2007 administrative decision by the state Department of Motor Vehicles to revoke the license of one of his clients. That case is being heard in state appeals court in New Britain.
“The machine takes everybody on the planet and uses a single calculation,” Ruane said. “Regardless of other indicators, like weight, or if your speech is slurred, the machine uses a ratio that will overstate or understate what is in your blood.”
Attempts to reach representatives of Draeger Safety Diagnostic Inc. and CMI Inc., the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer, were unsuccessful Wednesday.
Stamford Police Sgt. Andrew Gallagher, who coordinates drunken driving enforcement, defended the Intoxilyzer 5000’s precision, but said an upgrade is timely and will bring the department up to speed with newer technology.
“There is a plethora of scientific study that the Intoxilyzer works, but defense lawyers work to create doubt in people’s minds,” Gallagher said. “People like to see the result of a chemical test for the level of intoxication, but it is only part of the continuum of evidence, including a well-trained and -versed officer explaining their observations and other indicators of intoxication.”
Last year, New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled that Draeger’s Alcotest 7110 MK-III was scientifically reliable, despite several software problems needing correction.
Evan Levow, the Cherry Hill, N.J., defense attorney who unsuccessfully challenged the machine’s performance, said he believes while blood-alcohol measuring devices may be capable of accurate results, residents should be concerned that a machine be evaluated to ensure it is properly configured to do so.
“It’s possibly a very good machine but it has to be configured properly based on the computer code,” Levow said. “I don’t think the court’s decision was correct, and I think this is an issue the people of Connecticut should be concerned about, and I’m hopeful lawyers in Connecticut will challenge the reliability of these machines and pick up where we left off.”
Nursick said the replacement was motivated by a need to replace aging units for police across the state, and the announcement during the holidays helped reinforce the message that drunken driving entails the risk of arrest.
“Law enforcement is not complaining about them, but their sentiment is that the older models need to be replaced because they have reached the end of their service life,” Nursick said. “Law enforcement will continue to have the vital tools to keep drunks off the road.”
December 31, 2009 at 10:34 am by Brian Lockhart
I promised a few weeks ago more details on whether state lawmakers will allow the sale of wine in Connecticut supermarkets to help boost revenues.
Here’s the story that ran in today’s Hearst newspapers.
The story touches on the division among state wineries over the proposal.
Want further proof? Read the following e-mail sent out in reaction to my piece by Keith Bishop, wine maker for Bishop’s Orchards in Guilford.
Mr. Bishop spent several minutes on the phone with me last night explaining his concerns about allowing grocery stores to market wine. While some claim this would be a boost for Connecticut wineries, Bishop believes it will be a losing battle with cheaper big name wines for shelf space and could also cut into visits tourists make to vineyards on the state’s wine trail.
In his e-mail, sent to the Governor and Department of Agriculture, Bishop complains my article mis-identified Gary Crump, co-owner of Priam Vineyards in Colchester and a supporter of selling wines in supermarkets, as President of the Connecticut Farm Wine Development Council.
Not only is that how Crump identified his role to me, but it’s a title he uses on his vineyard website.
The full text of Bishop’s e-mail is below and here’s a link for more info on the Connecticut Farm Wine Development Council.
I hope Bishop and Crump can settle their differences. Guys, I’ve tasted your product and you both make great local wines. Isn’t that what counts?
Dear Governor & Commissioners:
Gary Crump ONCE AGAIN purported himself as President of the CT Wine Development Council. Would the Dept of Ag PLEASE rectify this and get a correction published to this article?
There is no president, and the Ag Commissioner is the Chairman and a DOA staff person is Vice-Chair. So the comments by Gary are personal, and sound like they are official.
This is a repeated pattern by Gary, and the DOA staff are aware of previous violations.
I look forward to a reply with the action taken.
Keith
December 31, 2009 at 10:12 am by Brian Lockhart
… your state is one of the first BBC radio chooses to visit as it begins reporting on November’s mid-term elections.
Just got off the phone with a BBC reporter who is planning a visit to Connecticut in the coming days to report on U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd’s re-election battle as well as other Congressional races.
December 28, 2009 at 6:41 pm by Brian Lockhart
In response to Governor M. Jodi Rell’s decision to veto legislation postponing changes to the estate or so-called death tax, state Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, charged her with protecting “millionaire heiresses.”
The changes, passed earlier this year, would have been delayed so that the state does not stand to lose additional revenue during the ongoing budget crisis.
“It is disgraceful that in this time of economic crisis the governor is more interested in protecting multimillionaires than solving the budget deficit,” Williams said in a statement. “She wants the budget axe to fall on Medicaid patients and middle class home owners in order to preserve her tax break for millionaire heiresses. This is not a responsible solution.”
First, a suggestion. I think “million-heiresses” rolls off of the tongue so I would recommend legislative Democrats adopt this term in the future should they ever again be tempted to refer to “millionaire heiresses.”
More importantly it is always fun to point out in these situations that Senate Democrats have the numbers to over ride Rell’s vetoes if they were able to get all their members on the same page.
In this case Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, voted “no” against the death tax delay last week.
I eagerly await the press release from Williams publicly urging his fellow Democrat to stop standing up for those million-heiresses in lower Fairfield County…
December 23, 2009 at 11:48 pm by Brian Lockhart
On Monday, during the latest special session at the capitol to deal with the budget crisis, some staffers were grumbling about a proposal in the deficit mitigation bill that transfers the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners from the Department of Public Safety to the Department of Administrative Services and eliminates the one BFPE staffer.
And right there I just lost some of you. You’re wondering what the heck the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners does, what a Department of Administrative Services does, and who cares if one goes into the other?
The firearms board is the group residents turn to when their gun license has been denied or revoked. And it has come under fire – no pun intended – in recent years for being too darn slow in scheduling hearings (18 to 24 months in some cases). Lawsuits have been filed challenging the fairness of keeping folks with a permit appeal hanging for so long.
The complaint I heard in the capitol’s halls Monday, before the Democratic-majority General Assembly voted in favor of the deficit mitigation bill, was that moving that process to DAS is just going to make things worse.
So I reached out today to DAS and they are not particularly thrilled about this development. Here’s what Donna Micklus, a DAS spokesman, told me in an e-mail:
“Moving the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners under DAS was completely unanticipated by our agency since we weren’t party to any of the discussions, and we haven’t as yet had the chance to fully assess the impact.”
“However, since the move was ostensibly done to save the state $38,710, we have concerns whether any savings will be achieved. There is actually only $28,500 in BFPE’s account and most of that will have to go to pay the laid off employee’s salary for 4 to 6 weeks as required by law, paying her for vacation time if she leaves state service and to physically move the BFPE operations to DAS.”
“It is also our understanding that BFPE has a large backload of cases they are scheduled to hear and are involved in litigation for failure to provide Due Process to gun owners. This heightens our concern that the duties of BFPE staff are being assigned to an agency that has no knowledge or experience in the work they do. This is a heavy administrative burden; the duties performed by BFPE staff have no relevance to DAS core functions.”
I put in a call to Robert Cook, director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen. Cook said he was trying to understand exactly what the legislature did on Monday, but said on the face of it “this just causes more administrative chaos.”
“The (BFPE) employee is the only one there to process these appeals,” Cook said. “Loss of the employee is just going to make it go from 18 to 24 months to 24 to 36 months.”
House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, whose caucus raised several concerns about the Democrats’ deficit mitigation bill, said he had not been aware of the concerns with the changes to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.
This is what happens, Cafero said, when the majority party is not serious about addressing the budget crisis and instead comes up with piecemeal solutions.
“You’re forced to do these cuts. So what happens? Friday you have this Board of Firearms Examiners and Monday it’s gone and Joe in the Department of Administrative Services is told ‘Hey Joe, make room, you’re the new firearms guy’ and he doesn’t know what the heck he’s doing. This is the way we’re running government, with no forethought or studying whatsoever,” Cafero said. “Then they make these cuts and people complain. It’s just the worst. And you’re going to see more of these things.”
UPDATE: It is December 28 and Rell today vetoed the deficit mitigation bill in part because of the issues outlined above.
“Many of the so-called ’savings’ to be achieved in the bill are simply unworkable,” the Governor wrote in her veto message. “Department of Administrative Services does not have staff on board that provide services that are similar to what the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners will require. DAS, for instance, currently has no law enforcement authority, it does not issue any permits or licenses and does not conduct administrative hearings. In order for DAS to properly support the work of the board, therefore, DAS will need to hire additional staff for which no funding is provided. The projected savings associated with this provision are clearly overstated.”
December 22, 2009 at 4:42 pm by Brian Lockhart
A few weeks ago our Hearst newspapers carried a report outlining how lawmakers during the recent budget battle quietly agreed to bring back re-entry furloughs for offenders to cut costs in the Department of Corrections.
The furloughs – essentially an early release program – were done away with as part of a package of criminal justice reforms passed in January, 2008 following the home invasion and triple homicide in Cheshire.
Two parolees were charged with the Cheshire incident and that resulted in closer scrutiny of the state’s criminal justice system, including the then 30-day furloughs, which lacked proper supervision.
The furloughs, which DOC wardens began authorizing again in early November, are now 45 days long. Parole officers have been charged with keeping tabs on the inmates and trying to help them re-enter society in those final weeks before their official release.
The Hartford Courant today ran an excellent piece on another component of the 2008 criminal justice reforms that was never implemented – creating a residential treatment facility for sex offenders.
In a related topic, anyone interested in reading about the challenges the state faces in providing more re-entry housing for offenders of all types should take a look at this year-old report, which was also mandated by the criminal justice reforms.
December 21, 2009 at 7:47 pm by Brian Lockhart
Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, has not ruled out a run for governor now that incumbent Republican M. Jodi Rell has decided to not seek re-election in 2010.
And he plans to make his decision known in the new year.
“My decision is a personal one and the holidays give me the most time … to make the decision I need to make,” McKinney told me tonight.
I asked him if House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero’s, R-Norwalk announcement earlier in the day that he would not join the gubernatorial race is a factor.
“I think I could spin it any way,” McKinney said. “The larger the field the better your chances are (of splitting the vote in a primary) or the smaller the field the better because I get more attention.”
McKinney continued: “At the end of the day I think more good candidates running on the Republican side, talking about our issues, is a positive for the party.”
December 21, 2009 at 7:37 pm by Brian Lockhart
State Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk and Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, caste interesting votes during today’s special session of the General Assembly to deal with the deficit.
The two lawmakers have their share of wealthy constituents – their districts meet in the town of Darien – and, at election time, would characterize themselves as fiscal conservatives.
But this evening McDonald voted “yes” on his party’s deficit mitigation plan and “no” for a proposal delaying by two years a new law applying the so-called “death tax” to estates worth $3.5 million, up from the current $2 million threshold.
Duff, on the other hand, opposed the deficit mitigation plan but voted for holding off on the changes to the estate tax.
“The original (Democratic) budget was premised on a package of revenues and adjustments for millionaires,” McDonald said, referring to the estate tax change and an accompanying increase in income taxes. “This was an important component of the overall package. It was important to my constituents then and remains important today. One of the worst things you can do in tax policy is having large changes on a monthly basis.”
McDonald said although the deficit mitigation plan is not perfect he could live with it, particularly because it restored some additional educational aid to Stamford that Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell recommended eliminating. This blog post from June outlined the details of that school aid – or, what critics would argue, the bribe to ensure McDonald’s support of the Democrats’ income tax hike.
Duff said he voted against the deficit mitigation plan because it did not go far enough in cutting spending.
He said he considers the reversal of the changes to the estate tax a necessary sacrifice during tough times.
“We’re all making sacrifices,” Duff said. “Delaying this seemed to be the most reasonable (proposal).”
|
|
