Political Capitol

Legislative Democrats are suggesting that projected revenue losses of over $300,000,000 have triggered an option allowing Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell to seek additional concessions from employee unions, including reducing the state’s contribution to the retirement plan.

Rell’s Office of Policy and Management maintains she can’t because revenues have declined by $245,100,000 not the $328,126,000 estimate from Comptroller Nancy Wyman on which Democrats are relying.

Which number counts?

Some are arguing an 18-year-old document floating around the capitol press room Tuesday appears to support the Governor’s case.

In the December, 1991 memo to then-OPM Director William Cibes, Jr. and Comptroller Bill Curry, Jr., then-and-current-Attorney General Richard Blumenthal concluded that a Special Act passed that June required the Comptroller’s monthly financial statements include OPM’s revenue estimates, not those of the Comptroller.

“The act specifically changed the content of the cumulative monthly financial statements required to be issued by the Comptroller by removing from those statements the Comptroller’s estimates of revenues and expenditures to the end of the fiscal year and by requiring the Comptroller to include in his reports the revenue and expense estimates supplied him by OPM,” Blumenthal wrote.

Now, you’d think a Republican Governor would be eager to find a reason to re-open talks with the unions – even be the first to suggest it and look for legal loop holes.

On the other hand it’s easy for the Democrats to try and appear tough and publicly call on Rell to force the unions to give up more. The Democrats ultimately have to vote on a concessions package, but they’re not the ones who have to do the heavy lifting at the negotiating table and wage public relations battles with organized labor, a major Democratic-constituency.

The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States is taking advantage of the ongoing debate over Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s most recent proposal to cut the growing budget deficit.

The group on Friday announced it had sent a letter to Rell and the General Assembly’s Democratic leadership urging them to yet again consider lifting the Sunday ban on alcohol sales in Connecticut.

Apparently the renewed attack on our blue laws drew little to no press, because DISCUS, as they call themselves, sent another copy of the e-mail today. The full text of their letter is below.

DISCUS claims Sunday sales will raise about $8 million annually for Connecticut.

Rell’s office did not immediately return a request for comment, but Jeffrey Beckham, a spokesman for her budget office, said the Governor is not considering Sunday sales.

Responding to a proposal earlier this year from legislative Republicans to eliminate the blue laws, Rell told fellow Hearst reporter Ken Dixon: “People say ‘Let’s make it optional, allow liquor stores to make the determination whether they want to stay open or not.’ The trouble is the competition. Once you start going somewhere else for your Sunday liquor sales, do you go back to your regular package store Monday through Saturday? I’m not sure that’s the case.”

And over 100 package store owners rallied at the capitol in late February, at the beginning of the 2009 legislative session, in opposition to Sunday sales.

I’ve got to admit, when my wife and I cut down our Christmas tree at Jones Family Farms in Shelton Sunday, it was nice to take advantage of the one exemption to no-Sunday-sales and stop by their winery to buy a few bottles for the holidays.

But would we have visited a local package store otherwise were it legal on Sunday? Maybe not. The appeal was being able to purchase Jones’ locally produced wines, and anything else we would have likely stocked up on during the other six days of the week.

That’s one of the arguments against Sunday sales – It won’t lead to ADDITIONAL liquor consumption. It just means people who would buy booze on Friday or Saturday would be able to put off that purchase until Sunday. But DISCUS refutes that argument in the letter below:

——

Right now states across the country are struggling to make difficult budget decisions and, unfortunately, Connecticut is among them. Recently, the Governor suggested that only “deeply painful” spending cuts will help mitigate Connecticut’s budget crisis, calling such cuts “unquestionably necessary.” This announcement has come on the heels of Moody’s downgrading the outlook for Connecticut’s General Obligation bonds from “stable” to “negative.”

To that point, the hospitality industry is dismayed at the State Legislature’s reluctance thus far to consider one very positive means to generate revenue—millions of dollars that could help save harsh cuts to other thin program budgets. Despite the repeal of Prohibition 76 years ago, Connecticut continues to ban the sale of alcohol at private retail outlets on Sunday—a ban that costs the state millions each year in lost border sales and unrealized state sales tax revenues.

As Connecticut’s leaders debate various policy options to streamline spending, legislators should seriously consider adopting Sunday sales like 47 other states—including all of New England. By allowing Sunday sales, Connecticut stands to gain up to $8 million annually in added state tax revenues.

Right now, $16.7 million in immediate rescissions*** to 25 different line-items are in the Governor’s budget mitigation proposal. Allowing Sunday sales could reduce rescission cuts by nearly half with additional revenue accruing to the state over a full fiscal year. Policymakers would be irresponsible to cut funding from one single program before first enacting an inevitable revenue-raiser like Sunday alcohol sales. Such a policy will generate new revenue without hurting one single household.

The recent assertions by a few that opening on Sundays would only spread six days of sales over seven days is completely unfounded. It is an historical fact that states which allowed Sunday sales between 2002 and 2005 (12 states) showed an average 5-7 percent increase in tax revenues in 2006. Importantly, these states found zero negative social impact such as increased drunk driving or underage drinking. Further, according to its state treasurer’s office, Colorado, the most recent state to enact Sunday sales, saw its alcohol excise tax revenue collection increase by six percent over the previous year despite the toll of the recession.

Repealing the Sunday sales ban is also a move that Connecticut’s citizens overwhelmingly want to see made. Poll after poll has shown strong support for the change and many thousands of Connecticut residents have taken the time to send emails and postcards to legislators and the Governor’s office.

Nationwide, states have seen the positive effect of Sunday sales on consumers, small business owners and the state treasury. Anti-competitive sales bans, regardless of the industry, make no sense in today’s competitive economy. As a result state leaders across the country are striking them down for good.

Like President Roosevelt’s rollback of National Prohibition long ago, repealing the statewide Sunday alcohol sales ban is the right move for Connecticut and worthy of serious consideration by state leaders in upcoming budget mitigation discussions.

Thank you for your serious consideration.

Sincerely,

Jay Hibbard

Vice President, State Government Relations

*** Rell’s rescission package totals $337.1 million, but she only has the authority to implement around $16 million of those and needs legislative approval for a host of other proposed cuts.

UPDATE:

I asked Senate and House Democratic leaders to respond to DISCUS’ call.

Derek Slap, spokesman for the Senate Democrats, said Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, “has no objections to Sunday sales.”

Douglas Whiting, spokesman for House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, said “it continues to be discussed among caucus members, with no clear consensus either for or against. He expects the conversation to continue, but can’t predict at this time how it will conclude. He has not taken a position.”

Rob Simmons’ congressional campaign today announced an endorsement from long-time state Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich, who retired from the General Assembly at the start of the year after nine terms.

“It would be hard to find a person better qualified by background, intelligence and resume to serve in the U.S. Senate,” Nickerson told me.

How about fellow Greenwich Republican Linda McMahon, who with her husband founded Stamford-based World Wrestling Entertainment? (Nickerson’s legislative district included Stamford).

“If Mrs. McMahon were the nominee I’d be happy to support her,” Nickerson said, adding he does not know McMahon as well as Simmons. “I simply believe for the reasons I’ve given you that Rob is the candidate … with a stronger record to serve. Not to say Linda is unqualified. I know Linda and would be happy to support her if she’s the nominee … She certainly has the qualifications of having run a large business. I don’t feel those are as strong a set of qualifications as Rob’s.”

In recent weeks the Simmons campaign has sent out e-mails to reporters touting negative reports about the WWE and McMahon’s treatment of her employees, including this interview from the Miami Herald.

And Simmons’ Campaign Manager Jim Barnett recently alleged in our newspapers that McMahon has not done enough to prevent wrestlers from dying at an early age.

It’s pretty tough stuff, although I find it amusing that WWE has been a corporate citizen for years and only now do some, including Simmons, seem to be concerned about wrestlers’ health care.

I was curious if Nickerson, a pro-business Republican who also represented Stamford in the legislature, would also take a shot at the hometown company now that he has allied himself with Simmons or dismiss the criticism of the WWE.

Nickerson did neither.

“Is it my experience that in political campaigns the personal business, even family background, of a candidate comes under a spotlight and is part of the debate? It is my experience that does in fact happen,” Nickerson said. “Should it be a factor? I leave that up to the voters.”

Our coverage last week of a decision by state lawmakers to bring back an early release program for prison inmates drew a reaction from Dr. William Petit Jr.

Petit’s wife and daughters were murdered during a home invasion in Cheshire in July, 2007.

Two parolees were charged with the crimes and, as a result, lawmakers in January, 2008 passed legislation overhauling various aspects of Connecticut’s criminal justice system. This included abolishing 30 day re-entry furloughs for inmates nearing their release date.

But as a result of the budget crisis, those furloughs are back and now 45 days long in an effort to cut down on prison costs. The Department of Corrections began granting furloughs Nov. 9 and as of today 60 offenders have been allowed to participate.

I got a tip earlier this week that Petit voiced his concern about the furloughs to Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell on her Facebook page.

I was not able to find Petit’s post, but his spokesman passed it along to me via e-mail. Here’s what they sent:

—-

Please re-think the decision to parole prisoners early. It is a poor way to balance the budget. My family paid with their lives with a poor decision made by Mr. Farr and his panel by not reading pre-sentencing transcripts. The safety of the public and police officers must come first.
William A. Petit, Jr. MD

As  a PS see Jeff Jacoby’s article in Wednesday’s Boston Globe
Last 2 paragraphs:

It doesn’t take a seer to know that when criminals are released early, more crime follows. In 2002, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, summarizing data from the largest recidivism study ever conducted in the United States, reported that more than 67 percent of former inmates released from state prison are rearrested for at least one serious new crime within three years. Between 1994 and 1997, criminals paroled in just 15 states racked up 744,000 new arrest charges. “Over 100,000 were new charges for a violent crime,” the bureau noted, “including 2,900 new homicides, 2,400 new kidnappings, 2,400 rapes, 3,200 other sexual assaults, 21,200 robberies, 54,600 assaults, and nearly 13,900 other violent crimes.”

Other than in cases of manifest injustice, when a judge and jury say a criminal belongs behind bars, clemency should be all but unthinkable. Governors have no business gambling with the lives and safety of their constituents. Huckabee “laughed out loud’’ when a prosecutor warned him that early release can be fatal. And now he calls his critics disgusting?

On July 14 Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell wrote her commissioners and agency heads asking them for lists of saleable assets to help raise revenue during the state budget crisis.

Those lists were due July 27 but it was only yesterday that Rell announced the first round of properties to go on the market.

The Governor did not include 14 residences purchased years ago by the state for the long-dormant – many would say dead – effort to build the Super 7 Expressway between Norwalk and Danbury.

A story I wrote over the summer about the state Department of Transportation’s suggestion the homes be sold prompted opponents and proponents of Super 7 to revive the public relations battle over the project’s future.

Rell spokesman Rich Harris today said it is possible the Super 7 homes could wind up in another asset sale.

“The state’s going through the process right now of having (all assets) appraised and making sure there aren’t any incumbrances to putting them on the list,” Harris said. “These are the properties ready for the first round right now. There will be other lists in the future. But I don’t know the specific status of any particular properties.”.

Here’s the story on this topic that we ran Aug. 30.

By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer
Want to buy a home along a never-built expressway?
The state Department of Transportation has informed the governor about the benefits of selling off 14 residences purchased years ago by the state for the expansion of the old Route 7 connecting Norwalk and
Danbury.
On July 14, Gov. M. Jodi Rell wrote her commissioners and agency heads asking them for lists of saleable assets to help raise revenue during Connecticut’s budget crisis.
Those lists were due July 27, but her office was not releasing the details last week, saying it was still awaiting information.
But the DOT, at The Advocate’s request, supplied a copy of a letter Commissioner Joseph Marie sent to Rell outlining properties identified by his department.
Marie said the DOT’s Excess Property Inventory Unit identified 2,840 potential parcels divided among 87 municipalities.
“The majority of the parcels identified are uneconomic remnants that remain from properties acquired for transportation projects and only have value to an abutting property owner,” Marie wrote.
But Marie said the state has valuable land holdings for two dormant expressway projects: Route 6, which was intended to provide quicker passage through Andover, Bolton and Coventry; and Route 7.
In total, the DOT controls more than 890 acres of vacant land in the right of way for the Route 7 expressway, or Super 7, with an estimated value of $80 million to $150 million, Marie wrote Rell.
The General Assembly in 1993 amended state statutes specifically restricting the sale of any Route 7-related properties. But that requirement was lifted during the recently concluded legislative session with the help of state Sen. Antonietta “Toni” Boucher, R-Wilton, a vocal opponent of the expressway.
Marie did not specifically advise selling the vacant land. But he told Rell that 14 improved parcels — properties with homes in Wilton, Ridgefield, Redding and Danbury — have been “a liability to the department” and are valued at $6.6 million.
The state acquired the Super 7 properties decades ago to build a four- to six-lane expressway from Norwalk to Danbury.
Long-standing opposition from environmentalists and smaller towns along the route has all but eliminated prospects for Super 7‘s completion, and the DOT is widening the existing Route 7.
Over the years, the DOT has rented the 14 homes to tenants, resulting in a modest income.
According to DOT data, the monthly rent ranges from around $1,158 for a ranch-style house at 29 Fire Hill Road in Ridgefield, built in 1950, to $3,000 for the colonial at 11 West Stars Plain Road in Danbury, built before 1967.
But Marie told Rell the lengthy amount of time it takes the state to arrange lease agreements and obtain tenants can result in vacancies, which lead to vagrancy and vandalism.
He also said the Route 7 expressway is not included in any of the DOT’s major initiatives planned through 2025, and were it to proceed, the environmental permitting process might require a change in the initial plan’s right of way.
“The release of these 14 properties does not further jeopardize the future of a Route 7 Expressway, as state ownership is incomplete, and the location of the corridor has not been finalized,” Marie wrote. “However, it would relieve the state of continual maintenance and liability and allow department personnel, which have been significantly reduced due to the retirement incentive plan, to focus on primary responsibilities that support active transportation projects.”
Rell has not expressed any enthusiasm for completing Super 7.
When state Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, in December urged the governor to apply for stimulus funds for the project, her spokesman, Christopher Cooper, said it was not going to happen.
“The governor is still in the process of putting together the list of shovel-ready projects, and the criteria, we understand … is shovel-ready means that all permits and approvals have been finalized, that all local, state and federal requirements have been met, and that there be a final design for the project,” Cooper said at the time. “Super 7 does not meet any of those requirements right now. In addition, there isn’t community consensus that the project should be built.”
Told of Marie’s letter to Rell, Duff, who is a real estate agent, said now is not the time to sell the houses.
“It just doesn’t make any sense to sell in a low market,” Duff said.
He also took issue with Marie’s saying Super 7 is not part of any transportation plans for the next 15 years.
“That’s a disagreement the commissioner and I have,” Duff said. “I think if the governor were to get behind Super 7 … it would be a different story.”

Below you’ll find links to a mailing state House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, sent out last week to Republican loyalists (state and local party leaders and state and town committee members) seeking their support for his ongoing exploration of a gubernatorial candidacy in 2010.

The timing of the mailing is interesting – it hit mail boxes during a busy week for Republicans who want to replace outgoing Governor M. Jodi Rell. Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, a Stamford Republican, last Wednesday kicked off his campaign for the GOP gubernatorial nomination and on Thursday Greenwich’s Tom Foley followed suit.

It’s pretty clear Cafero wanted to remind Republicans that he has promised his own announcement before the end of the year. Click below for the details.

21291 Cafero NO10

20007 Cafero TriFold-FINAL

21291 Cafero Letter

Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele of Stamford announced his candidacy for the GOP nomination for Governor on Wednesday and his campaign today sent out a list of endorsements from 22 government, community and business leaders.

(I’ll note at this point that God was not on that list, although during Fedele’s campaign rally in Stamford, a priest urged supporters over the next few months to pray “Lord, let Mike win.”)

Fedele’s endorsements got me thinking about a brief conversation I had Tuesday with Republican Jack Orchulli, a former fashion executive from Fairfield County who got trounced by Democratic U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd in 2004.

Orchulli was at the Yerwood Center Wednesday to cheer Fedele on but declined to endorse him.

“I haven’t decided on who to support at this point,” Orchulli said.

While Fedele might appear the presumptive nominee because of his status as outgoing Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s second-in-command, I suspect many Republicans are like Orchulli – they’re going to hold-off on issuing endorsements this early because other prominent GOP loyalists are also considering a run for Governor.

Here’s the list Fedele issued:

Stamford Mayor Michael Pavia
Greenwich First Selectman Peter Tesei
New Canaan First Selectman Jeb Walker
Middletown Mayor Sebastian Giuliano
Enfield Mayor Scott Kaupin
New Milford Mayor Patricia Murphy
East Lyme First Selectman Paul Formica
Glastonbury Town Council Chair Susan Karp
Newtown First Selectman Patricia Llodra
Farmington Town Council Chair Michael Clark
Wethersfield Mayor Donna Hemmann
Vernon Mayor Jason McCoy
Guilford First Selectman Joseph Mazza
Woodbury First Selectman Jerry Stomski
Durham First Selectman Laura Francis
Old Saybrook First Selectman Michael Pace
Mr. Larry Auriana, Co-Founder of the Kaufmann Fund
Mr. Giovanni Tomasi, President of RSL Fiber Optic Systems
Mr. Lee Rizzuto, Vice President of Conair Corporation
Mr. Cal Calderella, Old Saybrook Republican Town Committee Chair
Mr. Malcolm Pray, Founder of Pray Automotive
Mr. Ken Wilson, Guilford Republican Town Committee Member

Newspapers do not have unlimited pages, which means stories often need to be cut by editors.

That was the case with the article I wrote today on the return of early release furloughs for prisoners.

The cuts included some quotes from two Republican state Senators:

Sen. Sam Caligiuri, R-Waterbury, whose district includes the town of Cheshire, location of the 2007 home invasion/triple homicide that resulted in the decision to do away with the furloughs.

Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, ranking Republican on the legislature’s Judiciary Committee.

Each made some thought-provoking statements in interviews which I thought wrapped up the story nicely. Unfortunately editors often cut from the bottom when trying to wrestle a very long piece into a small space, and neither Senator’s comments saw print.

I wanted to post the quotes that would have made it into the article because they add to the debate. Here we go…

-Caligiuri said he wants to keep an open mind.

-”What I worry about is people start trying to justify decisions like this on the merits when in reality it’s just being driven by budgetary concerns,” Caligiuri said. “That’s where I get worried because we start running the risk of making bad decisions we can regret later.”

-Kissel believes furloughs can be beneficial to keeping prisoners from returning to jail.

-”The alternative for some of these inmates is to just have them serve out their time and the doors are opened up and they walk out and there’s no support services, no follow-up, nothing,” Kissel said.

-Kissel said he believes the Department of Correction understands that public safety is of paramount importance.

-”I think everyone in corrections … will be under very strict scrutiny,” Kissel said. “People have not forgotten the Cheshire tragedies.”