Political Capitol

I don’t have personalized desks. A photo or two, but nothing else. So it’s a bit unfair of me to draw conclusions from Sean Thakkar’s work space.

Thakkar is the information technology czar the state hired about one year and a half ago to overhaul how Connecticut’s 11 criminal justice agencies store and share data.

The information technology database project, which costs tens-of-millions of dollars, was deemed necessary following the 2007 home invasion/triple murder in Cheshire.

But there are concerns that the state budget crisis could delay/sideline the effort, as our newspapers reported over the weekend.

The legislature’s Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing today on the status of various Cheshire-related criminal justice reforms and Thakkar is expected to testify.

I interviewed Thakkar for the weekend story and, while trying to be optimisitic, he is worried about lawmakers’ commitment to moving ahead with the information technology initiative.

As we spoke last week in his office in Hartford, I couldn’t help but notice it is bare. There’s a desk, a dry erase board and a photo of his family – who have yet to relocate to Connecticut from California. It’s as if he’s got one foot out the door.

“If you asked me in my heart of hearts do I want to be here, the answer is ‘yes’,” Thakkar said when I raised the subject. “But if it becomes apparent to me it (the criminal justice database) is never going to happen, I have to consider other alternatives.”

The drama surrounding Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz’s efforts to run for Attorney General continued this evening with a very brief statement from the man she is hoping to replace – Richard Blumenthal.

Bysiewicz, after spending the past year exploring a run for Governor, earlier this week decided she instead wants Blumenthal’s  job now that he is running for U.S. Senate.

Then A Connecticut Law Blog questioned her credentials and the story caught fire.

Bysiewicz is confident she is OK to run but has reportedly sought Blumenthal’s legal opinion, which promoted this terse e-mail sent to reporters late this afternoon from the current Attorney General: “The Secretary of the State has contacted our office. We have received no formal request for an opinion. We cannot comment further.”

Bysiewicz is already dealing with criticism about her decision not to participate in the state’s public campaign finance program she has championed. She is also taking some heat over her refusal to pledge not to run for U.S. Senate in 2012, which would be smack in the middle of her first term as Attorney General.

She is hardly the only candidate to have stumbled upon announcing they were seeking higher office.

Lt. Governor Michael Fedele, a Stamford Republican, swore he had the endorsement of the retiring Gov. M. Jodi Rell to pursue her office, only he did not.

And Greenwich Republican Tom Foley was skewered by the media after he held a press conference announcing his gubernatorial bid and refused to explain why he wanted the job or what he would do if elected.

But so far I think Bysiewicz has had the roughest campaign launch.

Last night I had the pleasure of being invited on to “Face the State” to help interview former World Wrestling Entertainment head/current Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon.

As the taping approached, I struggled with the best questions to ask McMahon over the course of the 24 minute program.

When McMahon first entered the public arena one year ago as a nominee for the state Board of Education, some lawmakers raised concerns about the darker side of her business – the sexual and violent content of some WWE programs, questions of steroid useage in professional wrestling. But I never sensed that the Democratic-majority General Assembly, which overwhelmingly approved McMahon’s nomination, ever really seriously attempted to delve into those issues.

Most accepted McMahon as a successful business woman and had little to no interest in the product she and her family have been producing for the past three decades out of their offices in Stamford.

Now that McMahon is running for a high-profile Senate seat, her opponents – Republican and Democrat, some disgruntled former wrestlers and some sports journalists and wrestling bloggers – have been doing their best to raise questions about the WWE in voters’ minds.

And yet, as last night’s taping approached, I kept second-guessing some of the questions I planned to pose about WWE and thinking “does the audience really care or are they going to roll their eyes? Are they going to think ‘Wrestling? I remember Hulk Hogan. Blah blah. Steroids. Blah blah blah. Don’t watch it. Don’t care to. Why didn’t you ask Linda if she’s going to lower my taxes’?”

And trust me, there have been days when I’ve thought to myself “if I get one more e-mail from McMahon opponents complaining about that wrestling story line from seven years ago where a wrestler simulated sex with a corpse, I’m going to punch my computer monitor.”

But then folks like state Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich, step up to endorse McMahon’s candidacy, stating: “Unlike anyone else in this race, she has built a business from the ground up, she understands how to balance a budget and meet a payroll and, most importantly, she knows what it takes to create jobs and put people back to work.”

Voters should care about the WWE – its history, its product, how the McMahon family has treated its employees, prior investigations of the family, business and professional wrestling industry – because that company is the sole reason McMahon is in this race. She built her resume while at the helm of WWE and earned the millions she is willing to spend on a self-funded campaign.

Her opponents – former Republican Congressman Rob Simmons and Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal – have lengthy records as public servants that will help voters understand the kind of Senator each would be and the policies they support.

McMahon has the WWE.

Some, including McMahon’s campaign, dismiss critics who want to dredge up programming decisions or investigations from several years past, arguing the U.S. Senate race is about the here and now.

And yet McMahon, as she did on “Face the State” Thursday night, is more than willing when asked how she can relate to the average voter to recall the 1970s when she and husband Vince were struggling to get their business off of the ground and raise their family.

You can’t have it both ways. If a 30-year-old story about humble beginnings is part of McMahon’s campaign narrative, so should be those seven, eight, nine and ten-year-old days when WWE programs were rated TV-14, not the current PG, and often pushed the envelope.

Yes, McMahon understands how to meet a payroll. But the question isn’t “does Connecticut want to send a savvy business woman to Congress?” The question is “is McMahon the kind of savvy business woman Connecticut wants to send to Congress?”

There are several important issues at hand in this Senate race, but voters should delve into the history of the WWE, the good, the bad and the ugly, consider all the sides and then make an educated decision about McMahon’s candidacy and qualifications.

And it’s the job of reporters including myself to continue asking those questions about her family’s business, even if we’re uncertain how many people care.

State House Democrats today announced the creation of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Municipal Opportunites and Regional Efficiencies – or MORE,  as in “doing more with less.”

The will identify opportunities for more regional collaboration designed to create efficiencies and save money for Connecticut’s cities and towns, which are wrestling with budget crises and facing a loss of aid from the equally cash-strapped state.

I hate to fall into the cynical reporter stereotype every time lawmakers put together another committee or commission or task force and produce yet another report that leads to nothing, but having written about a similar push for regionalism one year ago, it’s difficult not be a little skeptical about this MORE initiative. But who knows? Maybe I’ll be surprised during the 2010 legislative session.

Here’s my story from February 1, 2009 about some of the reasons regionalism has not worked in Connecticut.

Cities, towns wary that shared services would lead to losses
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer
HARTFORD — Norwalk and New Canaan considered merging health departments in 2006 to recoup an estimated $84,000 annually in additional state funding.
But that was not enough to overcome concerns among members of Norwalk’s Common Council that they would be sacrificing local control of health services.
The merger died.
Democratic legislators in Hartford launched a new push last week to encourage the state’s 169 cities and towns to consolidate more services, ideally shrinking local government and reducing local property taxes during the economic crisis.
But several current and former officials in lower Fairfield County said so-called regionalization is far easier said than done.
“You have a bunch of towns that are hard-wired to oppose consolidation for fear it will lead to consolidation of things they don’t want,” said Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat. “This fear — if we start doing anything voluntarily it will lead to something else — has been enough to stifle cooperative efforts.”
Unlike many states, Connecticut abolished county governments — structures that typically encourage or require municipal cooperation. Instead, Connecticut has 15 bodies that are councils of governments — groups of local elected officials who meet regularly.  And it has regional planning agencies whose members are appointed by elected officials or municipal planning commissions.
In Fairfield County, the Southwestern Regional Planning Agency was created in 1962. Much of its work is focused on addressing regional transportation issues, though SWRPA has purchasing pools for sand and salt, as well as for diesel fuels and gasoline.
Some state lawmakers and other proponents of regionalization want SWRPA and its fellow planning agencies transformed into councils of government to foster better cooperation.
“With no disrespect to the regional planning agencies, their focus is much narrower than a council of governments’ would be,” said James Finley, head of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.
Councils of government also are considered more accountable to voters because local elected officials play a more direct role, Finley said.
Malloy and former Westport First Selectwoman Diane Farrell have unsuccessfully encouraged neighboring towns to agree to turn SWRPA into a council of governments.
“I felt it would give us strength in terms of our relationship with Hartford,” Farrell said. “It went nowhere. There was a general suspicion about the loss of individual identity.”
Greenwich First Selectman Peter Tesei, a Republican, said he has no problem working with neighbors or seeking advice on how they handle issues in their towns.
But he said he is satisfied with SWRPA and does not see the need for a council of governments.
“I think the decisions that are made best are done at the local level by individuals who understand the needs of a particular community,” Tesei said.
Norwalk Finance Director Thomas Hamilton, who worked for Stamford in the past, said the reluctance is not just at the executive level.
“You have departments — managers and other people in charge — who may not want to give up their control over certain operations,” he said.
Finley acknowledged the problem is common throughout New England.
“We’re a Yankee ‘go it alone’ heritage,” Finley said, noting that the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities is a relatively young organization, having been founded in 1966. Similar groups nationwide formed in the late 1800s.
Farrell said state lawmakers must offer credible incentives to encourage regionalization, particularly during tough financial times.
Legislative Democrats last week proposed sharing portions of the state sales tax with cities and towns that partner. But with the state facing a budget deficit in the billions of dollars, they could not promise how much money might be available or when it would be provided.
“It’s too ambiguous,” Farrell said. “I’d be surprised if anybody jumped on the bandwagon.”
On the other hand, state legislators expressed reluctance to pass any laws requiring regionalization, which Malloy agreed would not be welcomed in Connecticut.
“I don’t think anyone’s going to agree to be forced into doing anything,” he said.
But municipalities in lower Fairfield County work together on some issues.
For example, Norwalk and Stamford are part of a statewide consortium of 15 communities that purchase prescription drug coverage and life insurance.
But Democratic lawmakers are suggesting more ambitious endeavors, such as regionalized collective bargaining with municipal unions to better control labor costs.
“That sounds to me like a pretty daunting undertaking,” Hamilton said. “One community might be interested in keeping wages as low as possible, and another might be interested in taking on retiree health insurance.”
He said it would make more sense to instead have a regional government that provides regional services.
Democratic legislators last week also suggested municipalities forge no-compete agreements on economic development. But Joseph McGee, vice president of public policy for the Business Council of Fairfield County, said that was unnecessary.
“What does it mean? If you’re an economic development official in Norwalk, you can never talk to a company in Stamford? That’s not realistic,” McGee said. “You want some competition. You want one town pushing another.”
McGee said the state would be better served by being more conservative about providing tax breaks and other incentives for businesses that relocate from one town to another.
“That is absolutely wacko,” he said. “The only way those become palatable is if the company is legitimately going to move out of state. You have to figure out if that is ‘the game of bluff’ or real.”
But municipalities have recognized the benefits of regionalization in emergency services.
Norwalk Fire Chief Denis McCarthy and many neighbors have established a joint HAZMAT team that none could afford individually.
But McCarthy pointed to failures. Soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, emergency responders and chief elected officials met to discuss creating a single communications system and dispatch center.
“Once you do that, you’re just moving pieces around on a single radio frequency, and you can mix and match resources very easily,” McCarthy said.
It never moved forward.
McCarthy also has explored building a new fire station to serve Norwalk’s Cranbury neighborhood as well as areas of Westport and Wilton.
But at a time when some municipal officials might begin to recognize the financial savings of a shared fire station, their budgets are stretched too thin to finance the project.
“When times are good, no one has the compelling reason to discuss any type of regionalization,” McCarthy said. “When times are bad . . . there’s no money to do it.”

Today Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who for nearly one year has been seriously considering a run for Governor and enjoying high poll numbers, decided to instead go for Attorney General now that 20-year-incumbent Richard Blumenthal wants to be elected to the U.S. Senate.

I understand circumstances change and there are a lot of factors that go into one’s decision to change jobs, let alone political offices requiring a campaign for office that may or may not be successful.

But Bysiewicz’s decision begs the question, if her heart was really set on Attorney General, why even show an interest in Governor? If Blumenthal decided to seek re-election, would she have decided to go with Door Number 2 and spend the next four years half-heartedly showing up for work at the capitol, wrestling with the state budget while fantasizing she was Attorney General instead? Knowing what we do now, you can’t help but wonder.

Then during today’s press conference announcing her decision, Bysiewicz declined to answer a question being floated by another Democrat who wants to be Attorney General – former Stamford state Senator George Jepsen.

Jepsen yesterday sent out an e-mail implying Bysiewicz views the office as a stepping stone to run for U.S. Senate in 2012 – halfway through her term should she succeed Blumenthal. He pledged if elected he would not enter that race and sent out a similar statement today.

Bysiewicz declined to make that same pledge to Mark Davis of WTNH 8.

If her heart is now set on serving as Attorney General, why not match Jepsen’s promise?

State Sen. Andrew McDonald’s (D-Stamford) name has been mentioned a few times over the past week as a contender for the Attorney General’s office now that longtime incumbent Richard Blumenthal is running for U.S. Senate.

I did not take the rumor seriously because McDonald’s friend/political ally George Jepsen following Blumenthal’s announcement last Wednesday made it clear HE wants the job.

Jepsen for 12 years represented Stamford in the state Senate until he ran unsuccessfully in 2002 for Lieutenant Governor. McDonald, with Jepsen’s backing, ran for Jepsen’s Senate spot and won.

But McDonald’s name keeps popping up as someone eyeing Blumenthal’s office so I gave the guy a call.

“I’ve been talking to a lot of folks and a lot of people have encouraged me to think about it,” McDonald said. “I’m listening to colleagues and constituents and advisers. The number of changes that have taken place over the last couple of days have really turned Connecticut politics upside down and I think a lot of people are waiting to see where the dust settles.”

Is Jepsen’s interest in running for Attorney General a factor?

“George is an old and personal friend of mine and it would certainly weigh on my analysis. It would not be an insignificant factor, but also not an exclusive one,” McDonald said.

Democratic Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz is expected to announce tomorrow that she will run for Attorney General. Bysiewicz for months has been exploring a run for Governor.

Some have speculated that if Bysiewicz wants the nomination to succeed Blumenthal, she’s got it and every one else would be smart to back off.

“I think that’s overstating the case,” McDonald said. “She would have to go out and earn the endorsement of the party and ultimately then the nomination of the party just like anybody else. She has the advantage of starting out with heightened name recognition and an exploratory committee that’s well-primed. But I don’t think anything in the convention of either the Democratic or Republican Party this year is a foregone conclusion. I think it’s going to be a turbulent political cycle.”

Hartford Courant columnist Rick Green has a post on his blog, CT Confidential, about the letters then-Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy and Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, both Democrats, penned on behalf of Linda McMahon early last year when she was nominated to the state Board of Education.

Now, of course, McMahon, a Republican, is running hard for retiring Democratic U.S. Senator Chris Dodd’s seat.

I wrote about the letters back in November. I have a feel they’re going to keep popping up, particularly if Bysiewicz is nominated to run for Attorney General and Malloy winds up the party’s candidate for Governor.

Both are exploring gubernatorial bids but rumor has it Bysiewicz on Wednesday will switch her focus to the AG’s race.

Sorry. For a minute I mixed up the musical chairs of Connecticut politics with the turmoil regarding NBC’s late night line up.

Anyway, it looks like Bysiewicz is going to announce her move tomorrow. Here are the details sent by her exploratory committee.

Who:          Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz

What:         Announces Plans for 2010 Election

When:        Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 11:00 a.m.

Where:       Middletown City Hall, Council Chambers

Contact:      Tanya Meck @ (860) 550-1362

Paid for by Friends of Susan 2010, Inc.

Ted Doolittle, Treasurer