Comments(9)

|

E-mail

|

Print

As state government’s rank-and-file employees consider the package of union concessions their negotiators reached with Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy, rumors are circulating the deal is somehow linked to the controversial SustiNet health reform proposal.

SustiNet as envisioned by its supporters would have established a state run insurance program – a so-called public option – in Connecticut. But Malloy, a Democrat, opposed major pieces of the proposal. The House of Representatives Friday passed a greatly watered down public option-less SustiNet bill which now heads to the Senate for approval.

Despite that fact, at least one e-mail is being circulated among state workers urging they vote down the concessions deal with Malloy in part because it is allegedly another way to establish SustiNet.

“Obviously this was some back door deal done months ago by the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) and the state without our knowledge,” reads the e-mail. “Get informed before you vote, as our union … has been lying to us that this is not SustiNet.”

Mark Ojakian, the deputy budget secretary who served as the governor’s lead negotiator with SEBAC, said today he is mystified by the allegations.

“It’s totally not true. I can’t get more definitive than that,” Ojakian said. While there are some changes to copays and incentives encouraging public employees take better care of themselves to cut future health costs, Ojakian said there are no changes in current insurance plans or benefits.

“This is not SustiNet, this has never been SustiNet and never will be,” Ojakian said.

Fair enough. But since Ojakian is part of an administraton which is apparently in cahoots with union negotiators, I turned to Keith Stover. Stover’s an insurance industry lobbyist and has been a vocal opponent of SustiNet. If anyone’s worried about SustiNet supporters sneaking something through, it’s Stover.

Stover said he too has followed the rumors about a link between the SEBAC concessions and SustiNet. He dismissed them as conspiracy theories, joking that after reading one of the e-mails he felt the need to wrap his head in foil to protect himself from strange voices.

“I don’t even know where that would come from … Sometimes when you’re trying to kill a deal you throw everything you can out there and see whether something sticks,” Stover said. “I’ve lost no sleep over that.”

For those of you who are interested, here is the full e-mail I received promoting the SEBAC/SustiNet connection…

———–

Fellow employees: Please vote NO on this offer! I have heard and seen the details. I would take a layoff before this lousy offer. We have a contract through 6/30/12. Retirement and medical changes are also not reasonable. We will not get the answers before we vote. Do not trust answers or opinions from the staff reps who are trying to get your union dues and keep their jobs. Their interests are way different than yours! Sal Luciano, president of Afscme, Council 4, also sits on the Board of Directors of SustiNet. It would appear that the Head Negotiator, Dan Livingston, is on the Board of Directors of CHART (Connecticut Health Advancement and Research Trust) of Connecticut. I’m not sure how the negotiations could have been considered to be “performed in good faith” and truly on the behalf of State Employees when at least two negotiators have what may be conflicts of interest directly tied to their Positions on Boards of Directors and their positions in negotiations for our State employees. (I do not know if these are legal conflicts of interest.)

http://wisdomovertime.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/sebac-2011-and-possible-conflicts-of-interest-of-union-negotiators/ <http://wisdomovertime.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/sebac-2011-and-possible-conflicts-of-interest-of-union-negotiators/>

House Bill 6305, Sustinet Bill, on House Calendar for 5/24/11.

Get informed before you make a decision, this is the “value health plan” that our union is pushing. There is not going to be any more Anthem or Oxford health plans. Section 5 of the bill gives the Sustinet Plan Authority the right to solicit bids and choose providers. Section 11: They have the right to “implement, modify and supplement the delivery system and payment reforms”. Also, “the bill directs the authority to strongly encourage the use of the patient-centered medical care by implementing primary care case management (PCCM) and patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) for Sustinet Plan members”. According to their Patient Centered Home Advisory Committee, as of March 9, 2011, there are only 82 PCMH’s in CT. Their own report states that “CT lags far behind neighboring states in the number of PCMH’s available to residents.”

Guess who else will be in the Sustinet Plan? Husky Part A and B, Husky Plus, and Charter Oak.

Also, this bill started in the legislature in February of this year. It clearly talks about the agreement between SEBAC and the state (Section 6 of the bill).

OBVIOUSLY, this was some back door deal done months ago by SEBAC and the state without our knowledge.

Get informed before you vote, as our union, CSEA, has been lying to us that this is not Sustinet.

And then VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who came up with the idea to get prescriptions saved by out-of-state (CVS) mail-order? This is taking business away from Connecticut pharmacies and may cost small pharmacies their business!

I am Tier 2 and was supposed to get a 2.5% raise July 1, 2011 and then another lump sum in January, 2012. If this passes I will not get either. We have had zero & zero raises for the past two years. This offer is for 0-0-3-3-3 but the final 3 we may never see since it is after the no layoff guarantee ends. I would not be surprised if the state asked for concessions again in 4 years. Even if it does pass and we get the 3% raise eventually, it’s all a wash because we are going to be required to start paying 3% into our retirement anyway. So we will be even worse off then we are now.

ANYONE who plans on retiring by 7/1/2017 will be voting NO. Why jeopardize your existing Pension language including the COLA and your healthcare choices?

ANYONE in Tier2 & TIER 2a who PLANNED on retiring at 55 will be voting NO. Why jeopardize your existing Pension language regarding the EARLY RETIREMENT Penalty and other language including the COLA and your healthcare choices?

ANYONE in TIER 2 & TIER 2a who PLANNED on retiring at 60 or 62 and NOW will have to work the extra years will be voting NO. Why jeopardize your existing Pension language including the COLA and your healthcare choices?

The only thing we can bargain away and then get back later is jobs. Vote NO, healthcare and pension are LOST FOREVER once we give them up.

There is no reason to ratify this agreement. We have a contract through 2017! Do not be foolish. Furlough days would save money much quicker. We can do much better than this with Plan B, C or D. VOTE NO PLEASE

<http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3fhttp://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f>
lets see where we stand… vote NO. Show them we mean business. Do not toy with our future. Protect our current contract. It’s ours.

Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Briefly chatted tonight with House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, about some of the folks lining up to replace retiring GOP Chairman Chris Healy.

Cafero said he’s trying to stay out of it, but has been spreading the word about what he considers the role of the chairman.

“I don’t think the role is to be a talking head, with all due respect, or someone setting policy,” Cafero said. “Work on party building, grassroots, infrastructure, recruiting, fund raising, that kind of thing.”

Healy has been an often very quotable talking head and unafraid to issue statements, solicited and unsolicited, about lawmakers’ decisions in Hartford, particularly when they were Democrats.

But Cafero – who with Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield – represents their party in the halls of the capitol, said when a chairman talks policy there is a risk he or she dilutes the message.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Representatives from three key watchdog agencies – the Office of State Ethics, the Freedom of Information Commission and the Elections Enforcement Commission – gathered outside of the House of Representatives earlier this evening.

Ethics chief Carol Carson, FOIC head Colleen Murphy and Nancy Nicolescu with Elections huddled around Rep. Patricia Billie Miller, D-Stamford, a vice-chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

I didn’t have to be standing next to them to know the topic of the conversation – the pending merger of their three agencies, along with six smaller entities, into the controversial Office of Government Accountability. The watchdogs – along with good government groups like the non-profit Common Cause - are worried the move will strip Ethics, FOIC and Elections Enforcement of the independence and resources needed to keep an eye on elected officials in “Corrupticut.”

The merger, proposed by new Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy of Stamford, made it into the budget legislative Democrats approved earlier this month. But the nitty gritty details still need to be formalized in so-called budget implementer legislation. Word is the implementer creating the accountability office could be voted on later this evening, which explains why the watchdogs are trying to exert a bit of last minute face-to-face influence.

Some changes have, according to lawmakers in the know, been made, as outlined in the report our Hearst newspapers published this evening.

“We’ve gotten it to a different place,” Nicolescu said.

But even those alterations – such as allowing the nine entities being joined a greater say in the choice of a department director and in recommending which functions to merge – have raised eyebrows. Since the six smaller entities are composed of a hefty amount of gubernatorial appointees, critics argue the executive branch will still appear to have far too much influence over Ethics, FOIC and Elections.

“People who don’t have the same independence we do,” Murphy said. “They will outnumber us.”

And Rep. Russ Moren, D-Wethersfield, who as co-chairman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee has been involved in reviewing the merger proposal, said at this point after so many alterations he’s not even sure exactly how much money it’s going to save.

My reporter’s gut tells me had a Republican governor – say the recently retired M. Jodi Rell – proposed exactly the same changes, Democratic leaders would be holding press conferences to mock the Office of Government Accountability as a power grab and it would never have survived the session. When Rell, who helped implement several ethics reforms, sought in 2009 to eliminate a couple of what she considered duplicative agencies, like the Healthcare Advocate, Democrats went nuts.

But Malloy’s the first Democratic governor in over two decades and this is his first budget and, well, you know how it goes.

I mentioned that thought to Rep. Bob Godfrey, D-Danbury, who does share concerns about the watchdogs losing their independence. But Godfrey noted, “We have a higher comfort level with a Governor Malloy than we ever did with Rell.” It’s what future Republican governors might do with any additional control over the watchdogs that Godfrey’s worried about.

I caught up with Miller after her conversation with the watchdogs. She said there are some good arguments about the merger and the governor having too much authority, but gave no indication she planned to oppose changes already authorized in the new budget.

“At this point we’re going to have to play it out and see what happens,” Miller said.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Here’s the quote that has caused so much consternation at the capitol over the last 24 hours:

“An inmate may earn risk reduction credit for adherence to the inmate’s offender accountability plan and for participation in eligible programs or activities, good conduct and obedience to institutional rules as designated by the commissioner.”

That language was included in a so-called budget implementer – legislation enacting the new state budget – passed last night by the House of Representatives.

Democrats and Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy’s administration argue the purpose is simple – establish in Connecticut a policy whereby inmates can cut time off their sentences by participating in programs that will help prevent them from committing future crimes and returning to jail.

Republicans insist that, as written, the bill allows inmates to reduce the length of their sentences just for being on good behavior AND also applies to some of the most dangerous criminals.

That debate began last evening and continued into today, as frustrated Republicans sought to slow down the passage of unrelated bills in the House and make their case to the press. At 7:45 p.m. House Speaker Chris Donovan, D-Meriden, Judiciary Committee Chairman Gerald Fox, D-Stamford and Corrections Commissioner Leo Arnone convened a press conference to try and settle the matter.

Democrats conceded that language could be tightened to exclude six categories of offenders convicted of murder, capitol felony, felony murder, arson murder, aggravated sexual assault in the first degree and home invasion.

But they claimed that in no way, shape or form does the bill release inmates sooner for being good boys and girls.

“It’s not ‘lay around and here’s some good time for ya’,” Arnone said. “What this is about is program participation … We’re not opening the doors and kicking people out. We’re making people work and get involved in programs to reduce recidivism.” He added later, “We’re probably talking per inmate less than ten percent of a sentence” and that being good is a requisite to keep the earned points.

Although Arnone acknowledged the program could allow the state to close a unspecified prison, saving an estimated $12 million to $14 million annually, he and Donovan argued that keeping folks on the straight and narrow is their main motivation.

“We’ve heard complaints of people getting out of prison and just dropped on Main Street,” Donovan said. “This is good policy. Forty five states across the country have similar programs and Connecticut’s is among the most strict.”

And Fox denied that by wrapping the reform into a budget implementer rather than voting on it as a distict bill, there was any intention to avoid a lengthy debate.

“It’s certainly something that would be debated,” Fox said. “I didn’t think it would take an inordinate amount of time to discuss.”

Asked about whether there perhaps were grey areas in the language of the legislation that needed fixing, Arnone said, “There’s certainly no grey area in what the Department of Correction is looking at.”

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, subsequently convened his own press conference, arguing that what takes precedence is the language of the bill, not how Arnone interprets it.

“The bill itself says ‘for good behavior’,” Cafero said.

“God forbid, this commissioner could move to Miami or get hit by a bus” and his replacement could read the legislation completely differently, Cafero said. “That may be what he (Arnone) thinks it’s going to be but not what the law says.”

Cafero also provided a list of over two-dozen additional crimes Republicans believe should render inmates ineligible for risk reduction credits.

Arnone acknowledged some inmates convicted of violent crimes will be eligible for the credits – and that’s how it should be.

“Don’t you think the people who are violent are the ones you want to target for this program so you can reduce their violent behavior,” Arnone said.

But Cafero argued not everyone deserves a trade off and some inmates, if truly reformed, should be willing to participate in programs regardless of whether they see their sentences reduced.

“He’s only going to take it if we give him five months off? I don’t buy it,” Cafero said.

An interesting side note. One reporter told Arnone that prisoners have complained about long waiting lists for various programs. Won’t those just increase once the credits are offered?

Arnone said his department has been offering overtime to counselors who run programs at night or on weekends. He said the dividends more than pay for the extra pay.

“There really isn’t that much of a backup at all,” Arnone said. “If there’s a week, it’s a lot.”

So what happens now? Democrats want to amend the credits to exclude those aforementioned six categories of offender. They may be able to do that in the Senate without triggering rules that would require a re-vote in the House. But either way, this debate is likely to continue.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

State Reps. William Tong, D-Stamford and Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield, are, respectively, the first and second Asian Americans elected to the General Assembly.

Hwang mentioned to me today during a conversation at the capitol how often he is mistaken for Tong, particularly now that the latter has entered the race for the 2012 Democratic U.S. Senate nomination.

“My gosh, we don’t look alike,” Hwang said. “It’s not a bad thing. I applaud his initiative. It’s a tremendous source of pride for Asian Americans. But man…”

So here we go.

Hwang

Tong

Get ‘em straight. No more excuses.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Since it was first launched three years ago, a website allowing the public to comment on the driving habits of state workers has generated nearly 2,000 complaints.

How have those been handled? Check out our report. Let’s just say that hardly anyone fesses up to bad driving, there’s no shortage of creative excuses and complainants are sometimes really lousy at recalling details like the color of a car or appearance of the driver.

Oh, and here’s a little background music while you’re reading…

Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

State Rep. Chris Perone, D-Norwalk, is one of the more quiet members of the General Assembly. I don’t mean that as an insult or a slap at how he represents his constituents. But he’s not an attention hound who’s always getting up to make a speech during a debate or firing off press release after press release.

That being said, Perone feels so strongly the recent passage of an Internet sales tax was a bad move that he is calling for its repeal.

The so-called Amazon tax is intended to capture what the state argues are revenues that should already be paid on online purchases but are not. Seattle-based Amazon.com is a prime offender and has been targeted by several states and is in the midst of a legal battle with New York over Internet taxation.

Although the Department of Revenue Services recently acknowledged that it is unlikely the tax will be imposed any time soon, news broke yesterday that Overstock.com was severing some of its activities in Connecticut over the legislation.

Perone is out today with a lengthy statement urging his colleagues to reconsider the Internet tax which you can read below.

And for more details on the complexities of collecting Internet taxes, read our report from March.

UPDATE: Rep. Patricia Widlitz, D-Guilford, a chairman of the legislature’s Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, had a five word response when I told her about Perone’s request: “No way. We’re in it.”

—————-

REP. PERONE: STATE MUST RECONSIDER NEW “INTERNET TAXES”

Only Democrat To Vote Against Internet Taxes

State Representative Chris Perone (D-Norwalk) believes the state should reconsider pending legislation that would impose taxes on online sales. Perone, who serves as Deputy Majority Leader and is the former Vice Chair of the legislature’s Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, was the only Democrat to vote against the bill (HB 6624) in a Finance Committee vote earlier this year.

The bill which passed 38 to 14 in committee would require retailers—even if they have no physical presence in Connecticut—to collect state sales tax if they make retail sales in the state.

“I voted against this tax because under the interstate commerce clause, attempts to collect sales tax are unconstitutional without Congressional approval.” Perone said. “This is a complex issue and I believe there should be, if online sales were to be taxed, a simplified streamlined approach of tax collection at the federal level. I don’t believe that it is in the best interest of Connecticut to impose this tax unless all 50 states require online retailers to charge sales tax.”

Overstock.com and some smaller online retailers announced earlier this week that they are leaving the Connecticut market for online advertising, because of the proposed internet tax.

Amazon and Overstock.com have refused to do business with “affiliates” in states, like Colorado and Illinois, which have passed similar legislation. Perone noted that states which have passed such bills have not seen any real economic benefit to date and some states, including New York, have been dragged into lengthy court battles with online retailers.

“I believe this tax puts jobs in jeopardy,” said Perone. “We have already had one very large online retailer and many smaller ones end their relationships with our state’s businesses and more will follow if we force them to collect sales tax.”

According to the nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis an “internet tax” would only generate about $9.4 million in revenue—a miniscule amount in Connecticut’s $19 billion annual budget. The bill will make its way to the full State House of Representatives for a vote in the coming weeks.

Perone has long been a champion at the statehouse for making it easier for businesses to invest and create jobs in the state. Last year, Perone sponsored sweeping economic development legislation to jump-start job creation, while laying a foundation for long-term economic growth. Incentives for entrepreneurship and innovation, infrastructure, and education are all contained in the bill.

He also serves as Vice Chairman of the Communications, Financial Services and Interstate Commerce Committee of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Comments(3)

|

E-mail

|

Print

During a press briefing this morning on Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy’s concessions deal with state unions, I asked his advisor, Roy Occhiogrosso, what he would say to those taxpayers who still think public employees have a pretty sweet deal.

“This governor does not believe that lowering people’s standard of living is a public policy goal we should be pursuing,” Occhiogrosso said.

He said Malloy wanted to bring state worker benefits more in line with those of their counterparts in the federal government. Ochiogrosso added later, “The Governor didn’t approach these negotiations by saying ‘I think the average private sector person has lost this much and therefore that’s how much the average state employee should lose’.”