Political Capitol

In a mostly party line, 21 to 14 vote, the state Senate tonight passed a jobs bill funded by a temporary, two-year tax on controversial bonuses paid state residents working for companies that benefitted from federal bail-out funds.

The 8.97 percent tax on bonuses of $500,000 or more (it was originally bonuses of $1 million or more) paid this past winter and next will be used to suspend Connecticut’s business entity tax and help create a small business loan program.

“This is not about passing judgement,” Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, told his colleagues just prior to the vote. “This is all about helping 50,000 to 60,000 businesses in Connecticut … and doing it in a very simple, straightforward, logical way.”

But the legislation faces an uphill battle. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell in late March wrote legislative leaders she “would be forced to veto any such proposal” because of lingering questions about its constitutionality and how the tax might even be implemented.

“If the General Assembly approves one or more proposals, as well intended as they may be, which utilize revenue from such a tax surcharge and a court rules in opposition … then a significant financial hole will be created in the state budget,” Rell wrote.

Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal concluded the bonus tax would “likely withstand a court challenge.” But critics cite an opposing opinion from Carter Phillips, managing partner of the Washington-based Sidley Austin LLP law firm, which stated the tax would violate the U.S. constitution’s Attainder Clause preventing passage of legislation that punishes a group of individuals.

And although Williams said he has assurances the bill will be taken up by the House before the end of the session Wednesday, House Majority Leader Denise Merrill, D-Mansfield, expressed personal concerns with the legality of the tax.

Merrill, an attorney, said she has been discussing the proposal with attorneys in her office and there are differing opinions.

“I still have some questions in my mind,” said Merrill, who is far more enthusiastic about a different jobs bill she hopes will be voted on in the House this weekend that is aimed at luring more venture capital investment to Connecticut.

Asked about whether the Senate bill would be taken up by the House, Merrill said: “I’ve made no assurances to anyone it will pass. They’d like us to vote. There’s always a little bit of quid pro quo.”

Asked the same question, House Speaker Chris Donovan, D-Meriden, said “we’ve been generally supportive of it” but he has not gauged support within his caucus.

Senate Republicans tonight argued the bonus tax is punative because Democrats during the debate said it will be imposed regardless of whether a company has reimbursed the federal government.

They also argued it will drive high paid executives out of Connecticut and scare other businesses away.

“This bill sends out the wrong message at the wrong time,” Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich, said.

Sen. Dan Debicella, R-Shelton, asked Democrats “where is the section that is going to prohibit people from moving out of the state of Connecticut?”

Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook, argued that will not happen.

“This is not higher than any of our surrounding states as a tax rate and lower than most,” Daily said.

But two lower Fairfield County Democrats – Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk and Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford – joined Republicans in casting “no” votes. Since all 24 Democrats would need to support an override of Rell’s veto, Duff’s and McDonald’s opposition means the bonus tax is unlikely to become a reality.

That fact was noted by Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, who had agreed to limit the debate on the legislation to about two hours.

“It’s only a 2-hour waste of time rather than a 5 or 6-hour waste of time,” he told his colleagues.

McKinney said people have a right to be outraged about the bail out bonuses, but argued it was Congress that allowed them to happen in the first place and bad legislation should not be passed to try and make up for that mistake.

“It’s one thing to be outraged,” McKinney said. “It’s another thing to be stupid about it.”

Duff in an interview afterward said he continues to have questions about the constitutionality of the tax and also does not understand how the Department of Revenue Services will be able to implement it.

“A lot of the (bail out) money at this point is going to be paid back,” Duff added.

It was Duff who, as co-chairman of the Banks Committee, helped shine a bright spotlight on the bonuses paid out last year by failed insurer AIG, subpoenaing with Blumenthal residents of the state who worked for the firm and reportedly recieved bonuses.

But Duff said that issue and the bonus tax are “apples and oranges.”

Sen. Joan Hartley, D-Waterbury, who has a reputation, along with Duff and McDonald, for sometimes bucking party leaders on issues of taxation, voted in favor of the legislation.

“It was a very difficult vote,” Hartley said afterward. “I’m very concerned about the distinction it puts on the state of Connecticut.”

In an interview afterward, Williams acknowledged the fact that the bill faces a gubernatorial veto and he does not have enough Democratic support in the Senate to save it.

Asked why he felt the need to have tonight’s debate and vote, Williams said: “It’s an important priority to help small businesses and an important statement to say we need to find a way to pay for it.”

Here’s my report from March when Blumenthal issued his legal opinion:

And here’s our report from last week on Blumenthal’s legal opinion:

HARTFORD — State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on Tuesday said a bill to tax executive bonuses paid to Connecticut residents, many of whom reside in lower Fairfield County, is “likely constitutional.”

But the legal opinion is unlikely to settle the controversy surrounding the legislation, which would pay for Democratic proposals to suspend the business entity tax and help create a small business loan program.

On Feb. 1, Senate Democrats, responding to populist outrage over the latest round of bonuses paid to residents employed by banks and insurers that received federal bailouts, called for an 8.97 percent tax on bonuses of $1 million or more paid this past winter and next.

But some have continually questioned the legality of targeting certain executives for a special tax and of making it retroactive.

A state Freedom of Information request submitted by Hearst Connecticut Newspapers to Senate Democrats yielded some limited research but no formal legal documents from staff attorneys on the matter.

Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said Tuesday he sought an opinion from Blumenthal earlier this month to put the matter to rest.

“Any time we’ve heard folks, particularly Republicans, who are opposed to it talk about the bill … they’ve said, `Oh, we hate the bonuses too, but it seems like we just can’t do this because it’s unconstitutional,’ ” Williams said. “So I’m very gratified by the attorney general’s opinion. … I’m hoping the constitutional argument was sincere and now we have bipartisan support as opposed to having the issue as merely a smokescreen.”

Blumenthal’s opinion said the tax would “likely withstand a court challenge because states generally have broad latitude to impose taxes and the tax has a stated purpose: replace revenue lost by a two-year suspension of the business entity tax for small businesses.”

He also said the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld retroactive taxation.

But Republicans, including Gov. M. Jodi Rell, and even some Democrats indicated Tuesday the attorney general has not alleviated their concerns.

“Gov. Rell finds the opinion intriguing and is curious as to the legal definition of `likely constitutional,’ ” Rell spokesman Donna Tommelleo said.

A Democratic spokesman countered the phrasing was necessary because it can only predict the outcome of a legal challenge were the bill to become law.

State Sen. Len Fasano, R-North Haven, who has testified in favor of some of the other concepts within the Senate Democrats’ jobs bill, said of Blumenthal’s opinion, “That’s not going to sway me.”

Fasano and Tommelleo pointed to an opposing March 19 opinion from Carter Phillips, managing partner of the Washington-based Sidley Austin LLP law firm, which is being circulated by bank lobbyists and other bonus tax opponents.

Phillips, after reviewing the legislation’s genesis and the bill itself, concluded it would violate the U.S. Constitution’s Attainder Clause preventing passage of legislation that punishes a group of individuals.

Phillips points to “the populist and retributive language used to present and justify” the jobs legislation, such as a quote from Williams describing the tax as “a surcharge on the huge bonuses of the fat cats on Wall Street.”

But Blumenthal addressed this issue in his opinion, stating there must be an “overwhelming ” clear legislative intent to punish.”

“To the extent the legislative record highlights the General Assembly’s desire to close the budget deficit and to promote small business and job growth, these facts should weigh against a finding of any improper motive in passing the tax,” he wrote.

Of greater concern to the bill’s passage is the fact five Senate Democrats have so far declined to join their 19 colleagues in co-sponsoring the legislation.

Were Rell to veto the bill, all 24 Senate Democrats would have to support an override.

One of them, state Sen. Joan Hartley, D-Waterbury, during a brief interview Tuesday, said that while she, too, is troubled by the “obnoxious behavior” of bailed-out companies that awarded big bonuses, she has reservations that Connecticut would be the only state to impose the special tax.

State Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, has previously said she opposes the tax, and state Sens. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, and Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, have also expressed concerns.

Duff, who has questioned how the state would be able to identify bonus recipients, said he had not seen Blumenthal’s opinion but read Phillips’.

“If it were passed ” I would imagine it would be challenged immediately,” Duff said of the bonus tax. “Any time you go to court, you’re unsure how the verdict’s going to go. If you’re counting on the revenue for budget purposes, then it’s certainly a question mark.”

The fifth holdout, Sen. Andrew Maynard, D-Stonington, said that although he is “not wild about” the bonus tax, he is supportive of the job bill’s intent.

Told of Blumenthal’s “likely constitutional” phrasing Maynard joked, “Well, then I’m likely to support it.”

For the past few sessions the legislature’s Banks Committee co-chairs – Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk and Rep. Ryan Barry, D-Manchester – have tried unsuccessfully to pass legislation regulating Connecticut’s Greenwich-centric hedge fund industry.

Duff and Barry have continually argued that with Congress unable to get its act together on financial reform, it’s up to Connecticut lawmakers to set an example.

But with five days left in the 2010 session – and Banks Committee Chairman Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut hoping for a big victory before his looming retirement – it appears the federal government might actually be preparing to reform Wall Street.

So where does that leave Duff’s and Barry’s 2010 bill, which is awaiting debate in the House and Senate?

Barry said he has been in touch with Dodd’s staff to get a better understanding of how the proposed federal legislation deals with hedge funds.

“I’m still sizing things up down in D.C.,” Barry said. “If I bring the bill out it’s going to be for a good reason.”

Barry and Rep. John Stripp, R-Weston, the ranking Republican on the Connecticut General Assembly’s Banks Committee, said they understand the federal bill targets hedge funds of $100 million or more, while their proposal does not draw any limits.

Stripp said the question before Connecticut legislators is whether they feel they need to regulate the smaller hedge funds.

“Why pay a lot of attention to the crumbs when the big guys caused all the trouble? – That’s the issue we’re struggling with right now,” Stripp said. “We’re sort of leaning toward not (voting on) because we’re getting a strong feeling the federal bill will do what we hoped all along.”

Stripp noted the Duff/Barry bill, which if passed would not go into effect until Dec. 31, is written to go away should Congress and the White House enact similar reform prior to that date.

If the bill is brought out for debate it will likely be a talker because, despite Stripp’s involvement, most Republican legislators are not fans of the proposal, fearing by becoming the only state to regulate Connecticut will scare the industry away.

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, already told me he has problems with wasting time on the proposal when there are so many bigger fish – the state budget deficit being one – to deal with before midnight next Wednesday.

Stripp said although the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the recent Goldman Sachs scandal have, he believes, convinced some of his GOP colleagues to support the bill, it remains a tough sell.

It’s too late to help J.M. Wright Technical School in Stamford, but a bill inspired in part by last year’s controversial decision to (temporarily?) shutter that beleaguered facility passed out of the state Senate tonight in a 33 to zero vote.

It now heads to the House, which has until the session ends May 5 to pass it on to the Governor to sign or to veto.

Spearheaded by Sen. Tom Gaffey, D-Meriden, co-chairman of the Education Committee, the legislation gives a big boost to Connecticut’s Vocational-Technical Schools. It addresses budget issues, bus maintenance concerns and adds members to the state Ed Board who have interest/experience in trades/tech schools to better advocate for the system. For all the details, read the bill here.

“The state Board of Education needs to pay far more attention to the vo-tech system,” Gaffey told his fellow Senators before the vote.

Even Republican Senators who had some issues with the fiscal requirements of the legislation ultimately voted “yes.”

The bill also requires the state Board of Education before it closes or suspends operations at a vo-tech school to hold a public hearing in the impacted city/town and a formal vote. Essentially, they must face the community where they live rather than force interested members of the public to truck up to Hartford in the middle of the day to attend a board meeting. You know, operate like your normal, local Board of Education.

As state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, recalled for his colleagues this evening, the shuttering of Wright Tech – education officials are hoping to renovate and re-open the school at some point in the future – was messy and mostly done behind closed doors.

“We got most of our information not from the administration but our local newspaper,” McDonald said. “No hearing. No vote. No input … I do not know of one public education system that would ever close a school without having a vote, without standing before parents.”

And, if you’ve got the time and patience and interest, here’s a report Hearst Connecticut Newspapers ran earlier this year attempting to explain just what happened with Wright Tech and why greater transparency isn’t such a bad idea:

———————-

By Brian Lockhart

As students and faculty at J.M. Wright Technical High School in Stamford
were awaiting word on classes resuming, state officials were playing a
bureaucratic game of “hot potato” behind the scenes over how to close the
school and who should be accountable.

That debate, revealed in 2009 e-mails obtained through a Freedom of
Information Act request from Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s budget office,
the state Department of Education and the Connecticut Board of Education,
has raised additional questions about whether regulations were broken when
the education commissioner suspended operations at Wright Tech a month
before the Aug. 27 opening day.

Some say how the school was closed could be the key to ensuring it is
reopened.

“I think the Stamford delegation’s contention this was tantamount to an
illegal closure has a lot of merit,” said Sen. Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden,
co-chairman of the Legislature’s education committee.

The topic is likely to be discussed Monday at the Capitol during Gaffey’s
previously scheduled informational forum about challenges facing
Connecticut’s vocational and technical schools.

Wright Tech supporters say they hope state Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal will review the new information. Blumenthal’s office recently
launched an ongoing review of the Wright Tech closure at the request of
legislative leaders and Stamford lawmakers.

Sen. Andrew McDonald and Rep. Gerald Fox, both D-Stamford, said they believe
that if Blumenthal determines a school board vote was required, it will
force the state to fast-track a reopening during tough fiscal times.

“It can force the state Department of Education to reopen the school in
2011,” Fox said.

Though the state has formed a committee to plan for a revitalized Wright
Tech with a new curriculum, there is no guarantee funding will be available.

“We’re still in a very difficult budget situation — one that everyone
agrees will persist for several years,” said Jeffrey Beckham, spokesman for
Rell’s budget office.

McDonald said the general public should be concerned with what he believes
was a cowardly process to close a school.

Even if Blumenthal finds the school board did follow the law, McDonald said
the Legislature should clarify the rules governing school closures.

“People need to understand what happened in Stamford to know it could happen
in their communities as well,” he said.

Why Wright Tech Closed

Wright Tech, built on donated city land to educate 700 students, struggled
with declining enrollment for several years. State officials sought to
bolster the school’s prospects with promised renovations, potential
partnerships with Norwalk Community College and a principal hired in 2008.

Then the budget crisis hit.

At its Dec. 3, 2008, meeting in Hartford, the state school board, responding
to a request from the Rell administration for suggested budget cuts,
reluctantly adopted a resolution that included suspending operations at
Wright Tech.

The language urged the governor to keep the school open.

The resolution stated suspending operations at Wright Tech was “the least
harmful option” but would “deprive students in the Stamford area of a
promising alternative high school model that has been received with
considerable enthusiasm in the Stamford community.”

Rell initially did not accept the idea. Her initial 2009-10/2010-11 budget
proposal from February 2009 instead created a new statewide middle college
system by merging technical high schools such as Wright Tech with
neighboring state community colleges, including Norwalk Community College.

When that went nowhere with the Democratic-majority General Assembly, the
governor called for the shuttering of Wright Tech in late May.

As the budget stalemate dragged on through the summer, legislative Democrats
pledged to fund Wright Tech even as teachers fearing closure began
transferring to other schools.

With the school year looming and no budget deal in sight, school board
Chairman Allan Taylor told Hearst Newspapers on July 28, “It doesn’t look at
all likely they will be going to school at Wright.”

The following day, Education Commissioner Mark McQuillan formally announced
a two-year suspension of operations “to establish a viable, long-term plan
that will enable (us) to once again serve the needs of the greater Stamford
region.”

The Board of Ed’s Role

For months, Stamford’s bipartisan legislative delegation attempted several
maneuvers to force the state to keep Wright Tech open.

When those failed, lawmakers, skeptical the Rell administration and
education officials truly intended to relaunch Wright Tech in two years,
turned their attention to trying to guarantee it would happen.

Their skepticism appears warranted.

A July 24 e-mail between staff in Rell’s budget office states, “If Wright
Tech is not truly closed, the state will lose a potentially lucrative
opportunity to market the property to a private developer.”

After McQuillan’s July 29 announcement, McDonald questioned why the decision
to shutter Wright Tech had not been put to a vote before the state Board of
Education.

Taylor at the time argued a vote was unnecessary because the budget
resolution the board passed in December 2008 authorized McQuillan to
implement suggested budget cuts.

McDonald argues that is not a reasonable interpretation of what the board
did, saying the resolution as worded opposes a closure.

“In my opinion, (McQuillan) acted without legal authority to close the
school, and he failed to obtain the necessary approvals before taking his
unilateral action,” McDonald said.

The board was offered at least one additional chance to meet and reconsider
Wright Tech’s future by McQuillan, who, according to e-mails from spring
2009, was preparing to again pitch the school’s closure to the Rell
administration.

In an internal April 13 memo updating school board members on the budget
process and the need to find additional cuts, McQuillan said he was
organizing a meeting with Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, of Stamford, “to revisit
our reasons for proposing to close J.M. Wright.”

“The State Department of Education will opt again to close J.M. Wright High
School,” McQuillan wrote. “Given the last response to such a recommendation
from the governor’s office I want to be sure that from the board’s
perspective making this recommendation again is a sensible and realistic
step.”

McQuillan asked whether members should meet to discuss the issues, “or are
you comfortable letting the process I’ve established be sufficient?”

Taylor wrote back that the memo “will seem too sketchy. “¦ I think most
members will want more information about what’s in the set of proposals.”

He did not suggest the board convene.

Subsequent e-mails confirm McQuillan scheduled an April 20 meeting with
Fedele, but there is no evidence the full school board gathered before that
date to affirm Wright Tech’s closure.

The topic, according to meeting minutes, did not come up at the board’s next
regular meeting May 6, a few weeks before Rell’s announcement the school
would close.

Mixed Messages

In July 2009, pressure was mounting on state officials to announce whether
Wright Tech would reopen Aug. 27.

“We have to make that decision in the next week,” Robert Genuario, Rell’s
budget director, told Hearst Newspapers July 18. “Just as a matter of
fundamental fairness, if the state’s going to go down this road, parents and
teachers and others affected are entitled to some notice.”

E-mails indicate Taylor sought to clarify the school board’s role. He argued
the board never formally voted to close Wright Tech and was concerned about
leaving that impression.

According to a July 12 e-mail from Taylor to fellow board members, on July
10, McQuillan’s office “received an urgent request from Secretary Genuario
to confirm in writing the Board’s position regarding Wright Tech.”

With McQuillan away, Deputy Education Commissioner George Coleman and Taylor
drafted a letter they felt reflected the spirit of the school board’s
December 2008 resolution: “This correspondence confirms the recommendation
of the Connecticut State Board of Education that the J.M. Wright Technical
School “¦ not be funded.”

A later e-mail from Taylor suggests that was not enough for Genuario and the
Rell administration.

“I guess the statement we sent over the week before was too cursory or
they’re trying to assure themselves against a political backlash or
something,” Taylor wrote.

Work began on a formal two-page letter from Taylor and McQuillan, but Taylor
did not want a joint letter to state the Board of Education closed Wright
Tech because no vote was held.

“I think any discussion of a conclusion to shut by the state board raises a
significant Freedom of Information Act issue, since the board has not taken
that public vote. I would certainly need to poll the board,” Taylor wrote.

In another e-mail, Taylor insisted: “We haven’t decided to close the school.
We just decided that if the budget required, the school should be closed. I
didn’t want to suggest that we had taken the next step (as) a board.”

Kathleen Guay, from Rell’s budget office, outlined Taylor’s concerns in an
e-mail to Genuario and added she also understood that if Taylor convened a
board meeting to decide whether to close Wright Tech, “there is a
possibility that he would not get a majority of the votes.”

“(But) if the board references are stricken from the letter, the letter will
place the state Department of Education in the decision seat regarding the
Wright Tech closure. I believe this would be misleading,” Guay wrote.

On July 24, Genuario shared the draft letter with Rell’s chief of staff, M.
Lisa Moody, who replied in an e-mail: “Can you please call me? We do not
want this draft letter sent.”

It never was.

McQuillan explained what happened in an early August e-mail to a fellow
board member.

“There was a back and forth with (Rell’s budget office) supposedly talking
for the governor’s office — read Lisa — that was going nowhere,” Taylor
wrote. “We got the word out through my talk with the reporter “¦ and from
Mark’s statement.”

Fox said the e-mail exchange proves the board never had a formal “up or down
vote” authorizing McQuillan to move forward with suspending operations at
Wright Tech.

“I think this proves we had a right to be concerned,” Fox said.

A Belated Vote

After McDonald wrote Taylor and McQuillan in mid-August asking whether an
official vote was ever taken by the board to shutter Wright Tech, Taylor
began crafting a response.

Ronald Harris, a Department of Education attorney, concluded in one e-mail:
“The commissioner, consistent with the knowledge of the state board,
exercised discretion regarding staffing, management and expenditures based
on the budgetary crisis.”

And in a draft letter to McDonald, Taylor added McQuillan consulted with him
before announcing the closure in July and asked whether a board meeting was
necessary.

“I advised that I thought that no meeting would be needed or wanted because
the policy had been sent in December and I was aware of no inclination on
the board to change that policy,” Taylor wrote, adding he consulted with the
vice chairman as well.

McDonald said he never received anything from Taylor.

Taylor, at the school board’s regular meeting Nov. 4, decided to add to the
agenda a resolution supporting McQuillan’s decision to close Wright Tech
after the fact.

It read: “Whereas questions have been raised as to the appropriateness of or
authorization for the commissioner’s determination in July, 2009 to suspend
operations at J.M. Wright for a minimum of two years “¦ the state Board of
Education approves and ratifies the action of the commissioner.”

The resolution, unanimously adopted, outraged Stamford lawmakers.

McDonald said he believes it was a clear admission the board knew it had not
followed the proper procedures in closing Wright Tech and was trying to
make the issue go away.

“How do you unscramble an egg and put it back in the shell?” he said.

Taylor said last week that he continues to believe the school board did not
need to hold a formal vote on Wright Tech’s closure.

“But it was just easier to take the vote (in November) than have people
devoting hours to figuring that question out,” he said.

School board member Beverly Bobroske, an ardent supporter of technical
schools, said she is optimistic about Wright Tech’s future and believes too
much is being made of the closure process.

“I thought we did it the right way,” said Bobroske, who questioned the need
for passing Taylor’s November resolution. “I think they’re making a mountain
out of a molehill. It wasn’t anything done in secret.”

But lawmakers argue Wright’s closure was dangerously precedent-setting.

“You’re a Board of Education. What’s the next school you’re going to do this
to?” Gaffey said. “You do this in a very clouded process, to put it kindly.
“¦ The members of this board should be called on the carpet.”

McDonald said the last-minute addition of Taylor’s resolution to the Nov. 4
agenda was another slap in the face of the public.

“For a school closing, there should have been an announcement that it was
being considered. There should have been a public hearing, preferably in
Stamford, where members of the board would have had to face parents,
community leaders, elected officials,” he said. “If you can’t look at the
people in their eyes and cast your vote with them watching you, then you
probably shouldn’t cast the vote at all.”

I’ve covered Robert Genuario in his capacity as state budget director, a Republican state Senator from Norwalk and as a zoning attorney appearing before that city’s land use agencies.

And I cannot recall ever witnessing the mild-mannered Genuario storming out of anything.

But according to a press release issued by state unions, Genuario is, behind closed doors, one angry guy. Apparently he and other members of the Governor’s staff “stormed out” of a planned meeting with labor leaders yesterday on an early retirement proposal.

“Governor’s Agents Storm Out After Failing to Produce Analysis of Impact to Services, Costs to Pension Plan of Latest Retirement Incentive,” read the union press release.

Wow. I bet members of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee wish they’d been aware of Genuario’s penchant to fly off the handle earlier this week when they approved his nomination to the bench by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

Sounds like the Judicial Branch needs to do some budget tweaking to prepare for all of those wooden gavels this tyrant-of-a-man is bound to be breaking after he’s sworn in …

Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell was in Fairfield this morning so I took the opportunity to ask her if she has a message for state union leaders.
The unions so far have balked at agreeing to more concessions and talks over Rell’s Plan B – another early retirement offering – fell apart yesterday.
Some have questioned why the retiring Rell is not using her popularity and bully pulpit to publicly pressure state workers to return to the table.
I thought she might be fired up this morning and ready to take a few swings at organized labor, but that was not the case.
“It would be easy to stand up, slam your fist on the table,” Rell said.
“We got together last year in a very professional manner,” Rell said, referring to the 2009 talks that resulted in the unions accepting $700 million in concessions in return for a guarantee of no lay offs for two years. “There’s a week left to go in the session. (Early retirement) is one item. If you don’t like to do this perhaps you can come back and say ‘we’d like to help in other ways’.”

Something tells me the unions are biding their time and are banking on Rell being replaced by a labor-friendly Democrat they help elect this November.

Greenwich Republican Tom Foley introduced a nice helping of red partisan meat to today’s 10-person gubernatorial debate in Bridgeport, arguing the budget crisis “was created by a Democrat-dominated legislature.”

After some of the Democrats present defended their party and argued Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell – and before her Republican John Rowland – wield plenty of power at the capitol, Foley responded: “Sounds like I touched a raw nerve.”

And then he went right back after the Democrats, arguing their veto-proof majority in the legislature has created an “unhealthy situation” and “thank God we’ve had a Republican governor to keep it from getting worse than it has.”

Former Republican U.S. Congressman Larry DeNardis sought to position himself above the fray, telling the audience “I detect here a lot of finger-pointing.”

But Republican Oz Griebel, who during the campaign has been portraying himself as the kind of guy who can work with everybody in Hartford to get things done, actually issued a press release a little while ago denouncing Foley. Now if only he’d been this bold during the debate so we’d have had live, Republican-on-Republican action…:

Griebel Reacts to Ambassador Foley’s Remarks at Gubernatorial Forum

 West Hartford, CT – Oz Griebel, candidate for the GOP nomination for governor, today released the following statement in response to Greenwich millionaire Tom Foley’s comments at this morning’s forum in Bridgeport.

 “At this morning’s forum, Ambassador Foley continued placing blame on others.  While we all agree that we can and must do better, we certainly aren’t going to solve anything by saying Hartford is broken and broke.”

 “As a former teacher and lifelong coach, I know leadership is about guiding teams to desired outcomes, not pointing fingers.  Instead, our state needs a CEO who has a proven track record of identifying solutions and solving tough problems at the nexus of business and public policy in Connecticut.  In my campaign and as governor, I am committed to and will be focused on working with our Republican leadership to find meaningful solutions.”

Fellow Hearst reporter Ken Dixon was the moderator at this morning’s crowded gubernatorial debate in Bridgeport, which featured ten out of the dozen candidates vying to replace retiring Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

Dixon began his duties by noting that the field will be considerably altered when the Democratic and Republican parties hold their nominating conventions in late May.

“I, like you, am looking forward to the conventions … when half of these people will disappear,” Dixon said.

Nothing like a good dose of reality to kick-off a two-hour debate among some clear front-runners and others who know they don’t have a chance but keep plugging along any way.

10 candidates for governor are currently debating in Bridgeport. All of them – 6 Republicans and 4 Democrats – are condemning securitization (or borrowing against future revenues) to balance the budget.

Just thought lawmakers considering this in Hartford ought to know.

Even Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele thinks it’s a bad idea, distinguishing himself from his boss, retiring Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

“If securitization was put on the table, I’d say ‘no’,” Fedele said.