Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

There’s a rumor legislative Democrats will vote this week on another plan to take a bite out of the current, 2009-10 fiscal year’s deficit.

Following their appearance this morning in Stamford before the Business Council of Fairfield County I asked both House Speaker Chris Donovan, D-Meriden and Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn about the likelihood of convening tomorrow, Friday or even Saturday.

Williams did not give a definitive answer, but Donovan said he does not think there is enough time to notify members of the General Assembly.

UPDATE:

Christine Stuart at CT News Junkie has the down low on why Donovan wasn’t exactly enthusiastic this morning about voting on a deficit mitigation plan this week. Apparently the House and Senate don’t quite see eye-to-eye on how to deal with the situation. All those business men and women in Stamford would have loooovvved to know THAT this morning. Funny it didn’t come up… Was this why House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk was seated between Williams and Donovan?

Comments(3)

|

E-mail

|

Print

I’m working on a report of this morning’s hour long panel discussion among legislative leaders, hosted in Stamford by the Business Council of Fairfield County.

Just to give you a flavor of how the discussion went, here’s an early exchange between House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk and House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden.

Asked by moderator Joseph McGee if Connecticut has a bad business climate, Cafero immediately said “yes” citing pending legislation he considers anti-business, like a bill requiring paid sick days and a bill levying a windfall profits tax on energy companies.

Cafero then reminded the audience of the controversial comments uttered in New York about two weeks ago by United Technologies Corp. executives who publicly criticized Connecticut as a bad place to invest and said they found “anyplace outside of Connecticut” cheaper to do business.

“UTC said it best the other day,” Cafero said. “They said ‘anywhere but Connecticut’ because of the business-unfriendly environment we have created in state government.”

Asked to respond, Donovan said: “Well, listen to Larry. It’s pretty said. What’s the opposite of a cheerleader? A bad cheerleader.”

“A realist,” Cafero interrupted.

Donovan went on to site the state’s film and television production tax credit program and efforts to make Connecticut a leading home for stem cell research.

“We’ve done a lot,” he said. “We need to do more in terms of some of the real costs, which are health-care and energy.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

At 9:41 this morning the Democratic National Committee sent out a link to a headline in the Daily Caller portraying this week’s passage of health-care reform as a solid victory for Congressional Democrats.

“The health-care bill that hung around Democrats’ necks for the last several months – right up to the final vote Sunday when some vulnerable congressmen were convinced to support it – has suddenly become a weapon,” begins the story.

At 9:46 this morning I received my very next e-mail – a message from the national Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee linking to a blog in the Washington Post by Ezra Klein. Titled “Repeal Drive Loses Steam” it begins: “Republicans were using the word ‘repeal’ a lot in the hours after the House voted to pass the … bill. But as the hours turn to days, they’re talking about repeal less, qualifying it more, and even finding themselves mentioning things they like about the bill.”

And at 9:56 this morning the next e-mail I received was from Republican Rob Russo’s campaign against freshman U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, a Greenwich Democrat, urging constituents to contact Himes and respectfully “ask him  to explain why he ignored the will of the people.”

“I know that you are angry at their abuse of power and blatant disregard for the will of the people,” Russo writes. “This is not a confrontation, but your right as a American to question your Representative. Instead, he sided with interests of Nancy Pelosi and partisan politics … This fight is not over, but it will take all of us to take back our House.” 

So there you have it. Your three-e-mail snapshot of the current state of the health reform debate.

Comments(6)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Who is T.R. Rowe and why is his endorsement today of Republican Linda McMahon’s U.S. Senate candidacy important?

McMahon has come under fire over the past several months because of her family business, Stamford-based World Wrestling Entertainment.

Although WWE defends its current programming as PG-rated, it’s not hard to search the Internet and find plenty of previously released WWE-related content that would make even some adults wince (like a wrestler who happens to be McMahon’s son-in-law simulating sex with a corpse.)

And then as we and other newspapers and media outlets have reported there have been ongoing questions/controversies about steroids in professional wrestling, deaths in wrestling and WWE’s health and wellness policies.

McMahon and WWE have defended the company’s wellness policies and McMahon, while admitting the programming has occasionally pushed the envelope, argues it is soap opera and entertainment.

Former U.S. Congressman Rob Simmons, who is vying with McMahon for their party’s nomination to challenge anticipated Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal, is convinced he can use the WWE to his advantage. His campaign this week launched a new video on Youtube entitled “Really Sick” highlighting WWE’s “violent and sexually degrading content.”

But this afternoon the McMahon camp released an endorsement from state Rep. T. R. Rowe, R-Trumbull

Some of you who are not from Rowe’s district are saying “so what?”

Rowe is a strict Catholic and social conservative. When McMahon first entered the public arena as a nominee for the state Board of Education in early 2009, Rowe was one of the very, very few legislators and even fewer Republicans who voted against her in part because of her affiliation with WWE. In other words, just the sort of Republican you think would be receptive to the Simmons’ campaign’s attacks on McMahon and the WWE.

I spoke to Rowe this afternoon about the endorsement, which also comes as a vocal McMahon/WWE critic, California-based author/blogger Irv Muchnick, is garnering publicity for visiting Connecticut to promote his book on the 2007 murder/suicide case involving WWE wrestler Chris Benoit.

“There were two Republicans who voted against her (for state school board) and I was one of them,” Rowe said. “My ego’s not that big that I think people care much about where I stand, but I think your instincts are probably right. And it wasn’t an endorsement I came to lightly by any means. I was troubled at the time about a lot of the background issues and, frankly, I still am.”

But, Rowe continued, “Republicans have a chance to win this seat and Linda’s the best, most viable candidate. And on the social issues she’s open-minded and in Connecticut sometimes that’s all you can ask for.”

Rowe is quoted in the McMahon camp’s press release as recognizing the two have different opinions over abortion but crediting McMahon’s “support for banning partial birth abortion and requiring that minors notify parents before obtaining an abortion.”

In the release Rowe also states McMahon “will do what is necessary to get her message out” and “her successful business background is a strong asset and will serve Connecticut and the nation well.”

Simmons may still be able to convince social, family values conservatives disturbed by the WWE brand that he is the better candidate, but Rowe is proof that McMahon can win them over despite any wrestling baggage.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

On February 18 the legislature’s Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee approved a $90 million incentive package to bring Starwood Hotels and Resorts to Stamford.

The tax credits, sales tax exemptions and loans were offered Starwood by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and her Department of Economic and Community Development.

The Finance Committee’s bipartisan vote allowed the deal to move ahead unless the full General Assembly within 30 days moved to squelch it.

Those thirty days have come and gone without a peep from the full legislature.

Here’s the story on the Finance Committee vote that we ran last month:

By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer
HARTFORD — The Legislature’s Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee on Wednesday gave the green light to a $90 million incentive package offered by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s administration to lure Starwood Hotels and Resorts to Stamford.
The bipartisan vote, which followed an informational hearing on the project by Starwood executives and the state Department of Economic and Community Development, allows the deal to go forward unless the full General Assembly, within 30 days, moves to squelch it.
Finance Committee Co-chairman Rep. Cameron Staples, D-New Haven, and DECD Commissioner Joan McDonald said they do not anticipate that happening.
“If they don’t (act), it’s approved,” Staples said. “I’ve not heard any sentiment that they will.”
McDonald agreed.
“We’re confident this is a very great deal for Connecticut … at a time when we spend too much time talking about jobs that are shed,” McDonald said.
Starwood, which operates 982 hotels worldwide, announced in November it would move its headquarters and 800 jobs in 2012 from White Plains, N.Y. to Stamford. The locations are 15 miles apart.
In return the state is offering a $9.5 million loan, as much as $75 million worth of tax credits over a 10-year period, and $5 million in sales tax exemptions on building materials.
“The beauty of the tax credit program is each year, a company has to earn it,” McDonald told the committee. “We’re not committing the money up front.”
Starwood said 500 of the 813 employees live in New York, but it suggested some may decide to relocate to Connecticut.
State Sen. Gary LeBeau, D-East Hartford, who recently abandoned a bid for governor and chairs the Commerce Committee, was one of several legislators who asked the DECD for more details on whether a handful of large companies lured to Connecticut by similar incentive packages have resulted in the requisite job growth.
LeBeau said the Starwood deal is “not inexpensive. On the other hand, a great company, probably good for the state “| I tend to favor it.”
Members of the 50-plus person Finance Committee walked in and out of Wednesday’s hearing, and ultimately only 20 remained to cast the unanimous voice vote for the project.
Some asked Starwood officials to cite their reasons for choosing Connecticut over New York and whether those included differences in tax rates.
Seth Ruzi, Starwood vice president and general counsel, confirmed that income taxes were one factor among several.
“It really was a case of Connecticut coming in and winning us over on this,” Ruzi said, noting the company looked at other areas, including Atlanta.
“This is an example where tax credits and tax policy can make a difference in job creation,” said Sen. Antonietta “Toni” Boucher, R-Wilton.
Some lawmakers from southeastern Connecticut, while expressing their approval of Starwood, lamented the company was not heading to their area, particularly after Pfizer Pharmaceuticals announced it was closing its New London complex and moving to Groton.
Rep. Ted Moukawsher, a Democrat who represents New London and Groton, said Connecticut is in constant competition to offer tax breaks to retain companies such as Starwood.
“Are we then in 15 or 10 years asked to compete again? That’s what concerns me,” Moukawsher said. “I wish I was reading this was in New London. … But I think this is a great thing.”
McDonald said that when the 49 other states stop offering companies incentives to locate there, Connecticut can abandon its program.
Starwood was also asked about hiring local contractors for the project and said the company will do its best.
Sitting in the audience was James Lohr, of Darien, deputy director for the Fairfield-based New England Carpenters Labor Management Program. Lohr said he hoped to meet with Starwood.
“We just want to make sure local construction workers are being hired,” he said. “That’s not always the case in Stamford.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

State Senate Democrats have for weeks been pushing a job creation bill funded by a tax on bonuses paid Connecticut residents who work for federally-bailed-out companies. Many of these folks live in our neck of the woods – lower Fairfield County.

But, as Hearst Connecticut Newspapers reported a few weeks back, the Democrats never obtained a formal legal opinion on the controversial move, which Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, the legislature’s Republican minority and some Democrats have worried is illegal.

So the Senate Dems posed the question to Attorney General (and U.S. Senate candidate) Richard Blumenthal and today he announced it is “likely constitutional.” That’s better than unconstitutional, but not as good as constitutional. (A Democratic argues Blumenthal HAD TO describe it as such because he can only predict what would happen if the bill is passed and challenged.)

Derek Slap, spokesman for the Senate Democrats, said Blumenthal’s opinion should put any concerns to rest.

“It lays out a pretty solid case,” Slap said. “We expect for the Republicans to now fully support” the job creation bill.

Republicans have generally come out in favor of the ideas in the bill but not for the bonus tax to fund them.

“It shows it’s a fair and sensible plan,” Slap said.

But GOP Chairman Chris Healy, who I bumped into at the capitol, joked Blumenthal has come up with a new legal term with the use of “likely constitutional” and clearly dodged taking a stand on the matter.

“Is he kidding?” Healy said.

Here’s the story we carried in February questioning the legality of the bonuses:

2/16/10
Dems’ plan for bonus surcharge: Is it legal?

By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer
A few days before the start of the 2010 legislative session, Derek Slap, spokesman for state Senate Democrats, circulated to the caucus a $20 million proposal to assist small businesses that would be funded by a two-year surcharge on certain executive bonuses.
Slap wrote in the accompanying e-mail that Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, and Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, “feel it is important to begin session week with some specific proposals to jump-start job growth.”
But two weeks after Williams and Looney announced their jobs agenda, it is uncertain whether they have the legal authority to impose the bonus surcharge, how it would work or even if Democrats have enough votes to pass it.
Hoping to tap into outrage over the latest round of bonuses paid to Connecticut residents employed by banks and insurers that received federal bailouts, Williams and Looney said during a Feb. 1 news conference that they wanted to place a 2.47 percent surcharge on bonuses of $1 million or more.
They would apply the surcharge retroactively to bonuses awarded this winter and next year, using the as-yet-unspecified revenues for a small-business loan fund.
But some key votes, such as Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, have questioned the legality of the move.
“I’m very much in favor of creating a revolving loan fund,” McDonald said. “I think the notion of a surcharge presents some unique legal issues that are not yet resolved.”
Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook, co-chairwoman of the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, said Monday, “We’re quite sure that we can” impose the surcharge.
But a Freedom of Information request submitted by Hearst Connecticut Newspapers to Senate Democrats did not yield any formal legal documents from staff attorneys authorizing Senate leaders to move forward.
“There’s no kind of formal opinion,” Slap said, but he said the matter has been thoroughly researched and discussed by counsel.
Based on the documents obtained through FOI, Senate Democrats’ staff began discussing the surcharge in earnest Jan. 27, sharing news reports and blog items about similar debates in Congress and in England and France.
One e-mail refers to a “final outline” for a bonus surcharge proposal that was floated during Connecticut’s 2009 legislative session.
Staff also reviewed a 17-page report titled “Retroactive Taxation of Executive Bonuses,” issued in March 2009 by the Congressional Research Service.
It appeared the 2010 effort was in jeopardy when, on Jan. 28, Senate Democrats’ legal counsel reviewed an item from The Plum Line political blog. The blog reported that Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University and one-time adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, viewed a similar effort in Congress as an illegal “attempt to punish an identifiable set of individuals who are the subject of understandable outrage.”
“That’s a show-stopper,” Joel Rudikoff, an attorney for Williams and Looney, wrote in an e-mail. “What a buzz kill.”
But just a few minutes later, another state Senate Democrat attorney, Natalie Wagner, referred Rudikoff to another post on The Plum Line quoting a contrary opinion from Yale constitutional professor Jack Balkin.
“While Harvard may be concerned, a Yale law professor seems to think it’s okay,” she wrote.
Asked to comment on why Senate Democrats chose to side with Balkin, Daily said there “could be 200 (opinions) back and forth.
“There hasn’t been a final decision made on implementation,” Daily said. “We’ll be having public hearings. We’ll get more information that way.”
In a January 29 e-mail, Wagner wrote that if the question of constitutionality is raised at the Feb. 1 news conference, “a response … should generally be that this issue has been researched by constitutional scholars, congressional researchers and our staff over the last year and we believe that the proposal we are putting forward meets the Constitutional parameters suggested by those efforts.”
Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, co-chairman of the Legislature’s Banks Committee, has other concerns. Duff on Jan. 31 e-mailed Slap wondering how lawmakers would identify bonus recipients for the surcharge.
“As far as I know, bonuses are categorized under ‘wages and tips’ on a W-2 form. It is treated as ordinary income,” Duff wrote.
Duff said he has not received an answer.
Christopher Uzpen, a tax and estate-planning attorney in Greenwich for Withers Worldwide, said the Legislature may be able to impose an additional withholding requirement on firms with executives living in Connecticut.
“Administratively, while difficult, that’s probably how I guess they would do it,” Uzpen said. “They impose the withholding obligation on the employer.”
Asked whether he thought the idea passed constitutional muster, Uzpen said: “My gut reaction is any time you’re choosing to go after a particular group, it’s a little bit questionable. … This is, I’d guess, just political grandstanding on behalf of the Democrats.”
Rudikoff identified “an interesting complication” in a Feb. 2 e-mail, noting Bank of America “announced they’re going to spread bonuses earned last year over three years, and pay in some cases 95 percent of them in stock and not cash.”
Despite state Republican leaders in the General Assembly expressing outrage last year over bonus payments, some GOP lawmakers said they oppose the surcharge.
“Rather than getting serious about cutting out-of-control government spending, the Democrats are trying to be demagogues by attacking Fairfield County residents,” said state Sen. Dan Debicella, R-Shelton, who is challenging freshman U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn. “Raising taxes on financial services professionals will just cause them to move out of state, hurting the middle class, who will have to make up the lost taxes.”
But Daily argues that even with the surcharge, Connecticut’s tax rates will remain competitive with those of neighboring states.
“There was concern that it would make some people set up shop out of state, so this is being crafted to be not higher than any other state,” Daily said.
State Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich, said bonuses are the wrong target.
“They should not be punishing those who are paying the bills for Connecticut residents, no matter how angry they are about the financial market meltdown,” Frantz said. “I also think it shows a certain amount of a lack of understanding of how this problem was created. There’s a lot of blame to be passed around.”
Senate Democrats will need to win over their counterparts in the House of Representatives.
Rep. Christopher Perone, D-Norwalk, a Finance Committee vice-chairman who is also helping draft a job creation proposal for his caucus, said, “Even if the surcharge is legal — I have some qualms about it — I just think it would be a hard sell down in Fairfield County.”
Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s office would not comment on the surcharge proposal, but Senate Democrats would likely not have the numbers to override a veto.
All 24 Democrats would have to vote for an override, and Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, said while backing aid for small businesses she is against the surcharge.
“To single out particular people for additional taxes based on where they work doesn’t necessarily make a lot of sense,” Slossberg said. “Everyone is struggling.”

Comments(5)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Here are the questions the Department of Public Utility Control, at the request of Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, sent the two utilities in response to concerns about how long it took to return power to households in lower Fairfield County.

Rell is also urging utility customers to contact the DPUC at 1-800-382-4586 or fill out a comment form on the DPUC’s web site at ct.gov/DPUC. She has also asked that public hearings be scheduled in Fairfield County.

———————
Docket No. 10-03-08

Investigation of the Service Response and Communications
of The Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P)
and The United Illuminating Company (UI)
following the Outages from the Severe Weather
over the Period of March 12 through March 14, 2010

Interrogatories numbered EL-1 through EL-12 are directed to The Connecticut Light and Power Company and The United Illuminating Company (individually, the Company).

EL-1. Provide a high-level summary of the Company’s management of the storm that occurred during the period March 12 through March 14, 2010 (the Storm), beginning with the approach of the storm on March 10, 2010 and continuing through March 22, 2010. Include at least the following:

Ø A timeline and describe the steps the Company took to prepare for the Storm, including when efforts were made to solicit assistance from contractors and mutual assistance from other utilities;
Ø Identify any factors unique to the recent storm that hindered service restoration efforts;
Ø Any factors which constrained resource deployment during restoration efforts; and

Ø Descriptions how the Company tracked, prioritized and repaired outages during and after the Storm period.

EL-2. State the name of the weather forecasting service that the Company relies upon for determining lineworker staffing needs. Provide a copy of the forecast for each day March 8 through March 14, 2010.

EL-3. Provide an hourly accounting of the number of line crews and other personnel assigned to storm restoration duties (including “make safe” assignments), beginning midnight March 11, 2010, through March 22, 2010. Provide this data differentiated by the smallest possible geographical level of detail. Include both the Company’s own personnel, contractors, and line crews obtained through mutual assistance from other utilities. Additionally, state the maximum current number of Company field staff available for service restoration, differentiated by job function.

EL-4. For each hour beginning midnight March 11, 2010, through March 22, 2010 identify the number of customers believed to be without service, total and by town.

EL-5. Provide copies of all system status reports issued during the period from midnight of March 11, 2010 through March 22, 2010, including damage assessments.

EL-6. Provide all company policies that pertain to lineworker working hours and overtime during storm restoration activities. Have the policies changed over the last five years? Explain the reasons for any changes.

EL-7. Did the Company limit overtime or other compensation to its field staff during or after the Storm period? If so, explain the factors that led to that decision, and when that decision was made.

EL-8. Provide a copy of the Company’s Emergency Preparedness Plan, and any other policies and plans in place to address widespread service outages, such as those caused by the recent storm. If those plans/policies were filed with the Department within the last 24 months, indicate the date of such filing along with the associated DPUC docket number, if applicable.

EL-9. Explain how the Company establishes and maintains communications with municipal officials during major storm periods. Has the Company received complaints from municipal officials regarding its communications during and after the period of the Storm? State the nature of the complaints, and identify the municipalities involved. Assess how well restoration efforts among affected utilities and municipalities were coordinated, and how such coordination may be improved in the future.

EL-10. Does the Company have a policy for performing a post-event review after a major system event such as the Storm? If so, explain and provide any such policies. When will the Company complete a post-event review on its performance during the Storm? To date, what have been the lessons learned from the Company’s experience during the Storm?

EL-11. Describe any incidents of employee injuries associated with service restoration efforts during the period March 11, 2010, through March 22, 2010.

EL-12. Describe the current state of the Company electric system in the areas affected by the Storm, including and temporary measures taken that must be corrected later. By what date does the Company its facilities will be restored to pre-storm operating condition.

Interrogatories numbered CSU-1 through CSU-11 are directed to the Companies.

CSU-1. Identify all measures enacted in the Company’s call center(s) to respond to the numerous outages.

CSU-2. Provide the following Company hourly call center metrics at your main call center, for the period March 11, 2010 through March 22, 2010:

i. total number of staff available to take calls;
ii. the total number of calls received;
iii. total number of those calls handled via IVR;
iv. total number of those calls handled by a live representative;
v. number of abandoned calls;
vi. number of customers who received a busy signal;
vii. average speed of answer statistics, and other tracked call metrics which you believe are relevant to the subject outage.

CSU-3. Reference the Company’s response to Interrogatory CSU-2. Provide this same information for any other call centers that were established by the Company exclusively to handle calls from state, municipal and/or public safety entities.

CSU-4. Comment on the Company’s success in meeting call center responsiveness goals.

CSU-5. Identify the hours of operation of the customer call center (where live representatives are available) for each day between March 11, and March 22, 2010. Provide the same information for the seven calendar days leading up to March 11, 2010.

CSU-6. Provide copies of any documents that were prepared to date by the Company related to any customer complaints and inquiries that were received by the Company by telephone, e-mail, fax or United States Postal Service.

CSU-7. How many outage-related hits were received at the “Storm Center” section of your webpage? If available, provide a breakdown of those hits for each of these categories:

· Outage Map <http://www.cl-p.com/stormcenter/outagemap.aspx> ;
· Are You Ready? <http://www.cl-p.com/stormcenter/stormtips.aspx> ;
· Storm FAQs <http://www.cl-p.com/faq/category.aspx?name=storm> ; and
· Before and After a Storm <http://www.cl-p.com/stormcenter/beforeandafterstorm.aspx> and Historic Storm Response <http://www.cl-p.com/stormcenter/stormresponse.aspx> .

Separately explain if any enhancements were made to the Company’s web page at any time between March 11, 2010 and the present related to storm response. If applicable, provide details behind the changes and the rationale for making those changes.

CSU-8. How many storm response-related complaints has the Company received? How many storm-related inquiries has the Company received? For each category, provide a breakdown by town and by residential, business and government classes.

CSU-9. Provide an exhibit identifying payroll expenses for the period March 11, 2010, through March 22, 2010. Compare these results with the similar period in 2009.

CSU-10. Provide an exhibit depicting damage to Company plant in terms of associated loss and replacement costs, by town.

CSU-11. Provide copies of any materials or specific verbal instructions that were given to call center staff to assist them with answering questions and complaints about the subject outage, including when power would be restored.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

The state Office of Policy and Management today announced that, because of a potential incident of attempted identity theft related to the recently concluded furnace rebate program, identity theft protection is being offered residents who signed up to participate in the initiative prior to May, 2009.

OPM Director Robert Genuario of Norwalk explained that late last week Hartford police notified his agency that officers had launched an identity theft investigation of a temporary employee who handled furnace rebate applications from May, 2008 through May, 2009.

“They indicated to us they had reliable information that the identity theft origin was information on one of our applications,” Genuario said.

Applications require Social Security Numbers and birthdates.

“These are still certainly allegations. But it is certainly possible many more persons are affected,” Genuario said.

Genuario said to be on the safe side OPM will, through a private company, offer two years worth of free identity theft protection to residents whose applications might have been handled by the temporory employee in question while she was on the job at the capitol.

OPM will be mailing out letters to those individuals, but Genuario said residents with questions/concerns can also contact his agency at 1-866-940-4676, from 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. this week and 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. next week.

Genuario noted the temporary worker had passed a background check.

Seven temporary employees were hired to help OPM process the furnace rebate data.

Asked if OPM will shy away from contracting temporary help in the future, Genuario said “we shouldn’t paint folks who work for temp agencies with one brush.”