Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

State Senate Democrats this morning held a press conference to highlight their proposals for turning the lights on faster following major storms like August’s Irene and the October 29 nor’easter.

Their ideas – establishing utility performance standards and related penalties, improving tree maintenance and upgrading infrastructure – mirror the various concepts lawmakers have been floating all winter after it took Connecticut Light & Power so long to restore electricity after the August and October storms.

That now brings the total number of Democratic political entities vying for credit for improving storm response in Connecticut to three.

Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy has already submitted his own storm response legislation.

And House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, a congressional candidate in the 5th District, along with Rep. Vickie Nardello, D-Prospect, an energy committee chair, have pledged to pursue a variety of reforms.

Today’s press conference was hosted by Senate President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, and Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, Nardello’s energy cochair.

I asked Fonfara if the fact the Senate Democrats submitted a separate plan from Malloy’s, coupled with the absence of any House members at today’s press conference, was an indication of divisions over how to proceed. Capitol observers also know it is not uncommon for the Senate and House leaders of the energy committee to be at odds over major reform initiatives.

“There is absolutely no division. We’re in lockstep working with the governor on this. My cochair has spoken extensively on this. This is the Senate Democrats’ proposal. These are not issues that are controversial in the sense there is partisan separation between houses, between the administration and the legislature,” Fonfara said.

But some additional comments by Fonfara indicate before the legislative session is over we’ll see a debate among lawmakers over how tough the state should be on utility companies.

“I don’t think most people in this state are interested in penalizing the utilities for the sake of penalizing them,” Fonfara said.

Nardello and Donovan, for example, wanted to explore not only fining utilities for poor performance but tying executive pay to performance.

Fonfara said everything is on the table, but added, “The one thing you don’t want to do is to have such a chilling effect that you see a negative impact on who wants to work here in our state … For every action their will be a reaction.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

You may have heard/read recently about the battle between Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy’s administration and the state police union over whether lawmakers should comply with a 1998 law requiring Connecticut hire a minimum of 1,248 troopers.

There are 1,080 state cops on the payroll.

In January a judge sided with the union and said the 1,248 minimum is mandatory, not, as the Malloy administration argued, an unenforceable goal.

So last week the governor proposed scrapping that law and instead requiring the emergency services department to, every two years, prepare a staffing report for the legislature.

The union countered that before making any changes to the 1998 law the administration should engage an independent third party to evaluate the 1,248 figure and determine whether it is too high, too low or just right.

This staffing debate has been going on for a few months and during that time there was some talk of the state conducting an internal analysis. Turns out that’s been happening, although the details at this point are muddy.

State Police Colonel Danny Stebbins, deputy commissioner for the emergency services department, in an email to me wrote: The staffing study was done in house. There were three options given re staffing levels. Minimal, (no extras and hopefully staying in budget) Preferred, (meeting most goals of agency, providing better than basic services) Optimal (meeting requests and demands of municipalities, other police agencies and organizations)
The SP continue to endeavor to work within budget, and provide the necessary police services to ensure public safety and officer safety.
This is a challenge faced by law enforcement throughout Connecticut and around the country.
The results of our study is under review by the Commissioner.
Any release of the information will be made upon his approval.

I asked Stebbins if the study considered the 1,248 figure and how to get a copy of the report. He responded: The “study” that was recently completed did not include a report. It was more of a factual review of staffing … We will be re evaluating staffing on a continuous basis. The agency continues to adjust depending on the issues it faces and the mandates put on it. At this point the agency does not have the staff to meet all the requests. Priority is to the public safety/officer safety roles. The other roles with a lesser priority, school resource officers, some white collar task forces, training, research, and inspection functions are on hold or reduced.

State Trooper Andy Matthews, head of the police union, in an email said his members were not aware of the study nor were they invited to provide input: The union was not aware of the Colonel’s study and we were not invited to provide input in the process. Without prejudging the outcome of his ‘in house’ study, it would appear that an independent, impartial third party study would be more appropriate … It is obvious to us the issue is not what staffing level is necessary to ensure public safety and Trooper safety, but it is about ‘working within a budget.’ We would be interested in knowing what the Colonel considers to be ‘Minimal’ or ‘basic [police] services.’ … We recognize that our Senators and Representatives have been strong advocates for public safety and the State Police Union looks forward to the opportunity to speak with them to address our concerns.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy will be at Dichello Distributors in Orange Tuesday to push Sunday booze sales and other proposed changes to what critics argue are Connecticut’s archaic liquor laws.

Malloy detailed his plans a month ago, a marked change from his previous passive support of Sunday sales.

As colleague Ken Dixon reported Friday, while the public backs Sunday sales, Malloy’s legislation has a lot of components, making the prospects of passage uncertain in this short three month session.

Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Over the weekend state House Speaker Christopher Donovan’s, D-Meriden congressional campaign issued an email to supporters of his bid for the 5th District seat.

The email stated the following (highlights are mine): ”Over the last few decades, politics in America has become too much about raising large sums of money from rich, connected insiders, and too little about knocking on our neighbor’s doors and calling our friends up and asking for their support. That’s why Chris led the successful fight to pass landmark campaign finance reform in Connecticut, and why he is fighting to do it in Congress as well. And it’s also why our campaign is about building a grassroots machine that can overcome the expected flood of corporate and special interest money into our race. Chris doesn’t have the same deep pockets and connections to millionaires that some of his opponents do – but he has you. And with your help, Chris outraised both of his Democratic opponents for the second consecutive quarter, and he did it on the strength of more than 1,800 donors with the lowest average donation in the race – just $66!”

Donovan’s campaign issued this message just a few days after our Hearst newspapers reported he has so far received at least $25,000 from lobbyists in Hartford – money he would be unable to accept were he running for his legislative seat under those same state finance laws mentioned above.

Is Donovan breaking any state or federal campaign finance rules? No. 

Has Donovan gotten donations from connected insiders who might hope to call in a favor or two while he’s still House Speaker, though reading that campaign email you’d never know it? Yes.

A page from one of Donovan’s campaign finance reports.

Republican Linda McMahon also persists in portraying herself as just folks. 

Today’s press release from her U.S. Senate campaign criticizing Democratic President Barack Obama’s budget twice used the term “professional politicians” as in…

1. The professional politicians have made a real mess of our economy.

And…

2. When families sit down to pay their bills each month, they know it’s just not smart to spend more than they are bringing in. Why can’t the professional politicians in Washington understand that?

Linda launched a self-financed $50 million campaign for Senate in September, 2009, resigned from her executive position with the family’s World Wrestling Entertainment company, earned the GOP nomination, lost the 2010 general election, spent the subsequent months testing the waters for a 2012 run, and launched that in September.

It’s accurate to say she’s not a professional congressman because she hasn’t made it to Washington D.C.

But professional politician? She’s spent over two years of her life and a major chunk of change pursuing public office. Linda, you’ve arrived.

Samples of McMahon’s 2010 campaign literature.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Check out this photo, prominently featured today on CNN’s website, from Thursday’s White House press conference on the $26 billion mortgage settlement deal.

That’s Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen on the far left wearing the orange-ish tie.

It’s refreshing to see the mug of a state politician other than Gov. Dannel Malloy on the national stage.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

For some it’s easy to look at Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy’s recent $22 million investment in a campaign to brand and market Connecticut to tourists as a waste of money in tough fiscal times.

But for those doubters I offer up the snowboarding squirrel…

The above is an advertisement for Massachusetts currently in rotation on our Hearst blogs, mine included.

Usually I don’t pay attention to the ads. That’s another department and reporters have no involvement, for obvious reasons, in selling advertising. But this caught my eye.

If our neighboring state considers it a worthwhile investment to spend money in our media market to lure Connecticut residents and their wallets across the border, it’s understandable Malloy feels pressure to get us back in the game.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

“I was shocked at some of the times there were so much applause,” Mary Loftus-Levine, head of the 41,000-member Connecticut Education Association, told a meeting of our Hearst editorial board a few minutes ago.

Loftus-Levine was responding to my question about whether CEA sees the Democrat-lead General Assembly as a breakwater against the wave of education reforms proposed yesterday by Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy on the first day of the legislative session.

I noted the association’s traditional Democratic allies – including House Speaker Chris Donovan, D-Meriden, whose congressional bid was endorsed by CEA - were clapping at Malloy’s comments, including his proposals for teacher tenure.

The governor wants to reform tenure, a form of job security earned after four years. Critics say tenure allows bad teachers to cling to their jobs no matter what. Proponents counter tenure prevents good teachers from being fired over politics, nepotism and other administrative chicanery. The governor’s plan would require teacher tenure to be re-earned every four years.

CEA’s not on board. Loftus-Levine handed out a plan she said her group is promoting this session to improve student achievement that proposes addressing tenure by speeding up the dismissal process.

“You think a teacher wants to hang out there for months and months and months and be on trial?” she said.

The tenure section of the CEA proposal - “Teacher Accountability and Dismissal” – gets about a third of a page of the 27-page document.

Sure the legislature can adopt Malloy’s proposal, Loftus-Levine said.

“But I’m not convinced that’s going to close the achievement gap,” she said, adding later when it comes to reforming education “the cheapest thing to do is go after teachers.”

She said she was offended by Malloy’s description in his speech of how teachers obtain tenure. He said: “To earn that tenure – that job security – in today’s system basically the only thing you have to do is show up for four years.”

Loftus-Levine said her staff has just begun to sift through the details of Malloy’s reforms but has already discovered something alarming. She claimed not only could teachers be stripped of their tenure and fired but lose their certification, their ability to teach elsewhere, as part of the same process.

“That’s like saying to a lawyer who passed the bar and goes to work for a firm and doesn’t fit in for whatever reasons that he loses his license to go to another firm,” Loftus-Levine said. “We cannot agree to that.”

Loftus-Levine did say that this morning the administration reached out to her to begin setting up meetings. At one point during the editorial board meeting her tone softened and she appeared more optimistic. 

“I am confident we will work out the tenure issue. I really am,” she said.

Which leads back to the start of thisblog post. How much help can CEA expect from the General Assembly and, in particular, Speaker/congressional candidate Donovan?

“We never believe an endorsement automatically generates a vote,” she said.

Loftus-Levine said she has begun encouraging CEA members “to share their personal stories with the entire General Assembly.”

“They’re very afraid of what somebody can do to them,” she said.

And she warned there are already reports that corporate interests looking to erode teachers’ rights see Connecticut as a new battle ground, particularly in an election year.

“There’s a lot of outside money – big money – and big people coming in,” she said, adding, “I have very serious concerns about the erosion of teachers’ rights.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

It’s being portrayed as an historic multi-state settlement, but the $25 billion deal Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen helped broker with the nation’s five largest mortgage services over foreclosure abuses and fraud doesn’t impress the grass roots Connecticut Citizen Action Group.

In a statement Tom Swan, CCAG’s executive director, called the settlement “a tiny drop in a big bucket” that amounts to $2,000 a piece for defrauded homeowners who lost the roofs over their heads.

“It is a paltry down payment toward full relief for homeowners,” Swan said.

Jepsen, a Democrat who recently marked his first year in office, has been building a reputation as a business-friendly negotiator rather than someone eager to head to court. Some viewed predecessor-turned-U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal as a suit-happy, job-killing populist, but those people didn’t get elected to Congress in 2010 so clearly that label didn’t stick.

Jepsen’s approach to the mortgage issue has been contrasted with that of Massachusetts’ AG Martha Coakley, who late last year split with her colleagues and decided it was time to drag the banks to court.

Jepsen at the time defended continuing with the talks, arguing legal action could take years and further postpone relief.

Swan in his statement noticeably credited OTHER AGs – including Coakley – for making a flawed settlement less so.

“The settlement announced today is stronger than it would have otherwise been because of grassroots groups and the courageous stance of Attorneys General from California, New York, Nevada, Delaware, and Massachusetts, who fought hard to bring more relief to homeowners and make sure that any settlement does not allow the banks to avoid accountability for fraudulent activity not yet investigated. Due to their work and the work of many allies, momentum is building toward broad-scale relief for homeowners,” Swan said.

In an email I asked Swan if CCGA intentionally left out Jepsen.

“We wanted to elevate the AGs who fought to make the agreement stronger and held out from settling for too little.  As a result of these AG’s efforts more homeowners will be helped and there will be greater accountability of wrongdoers,” Swan wrote back.

Sounds like somebody misses Dick Blumenthal.

UPDATE: Blumenthal has weighed in on the settlement.

“I thank the Attorneys General for their diligent, dedicated work in pursuing the wrongdoing so prevalent in the banking and mortgage industry. This milestone agreement, culminating an investigation that I helped to start and initially lead as Connecticut Attorney General, is a positive next step forward that must be followed by more to provide relief to struggling homeowners and establish standards for mortgage servicers to help remedy the foreclosure crisis and prevent unfair lending practices. I remain focused and absolutely determined to continue my own efforts in the Senate to hold both mortgage servicers and federal regulators accountable, and will continue my work on our detailed Judiciary Committee review of the nation’s leading mortgage servicers to help stop ongoing foreclosure abuses and fraudulent practices.”