Political Capitol

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.

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.

“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.”

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.”

Potential U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon today joined fellow Republicans at the national level in criticizing a recent decision by the White House regarding birth control that Catholic officials and other critics view as an attack on religious freedom.

McMahon’s statement, which you can read below, also attacks Democratic U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy, her possible rival in November’s general election to replace retiring “independent Democrat” U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Stamford.

Murphy defended the White House this past weekend on Face the State.

McMahon’s statement:

The idea that the federal government would mandate that religious institutions like colleges and hospitals put practicing Catholics in direct conflict with their beliefs is unconscionable. Through the First Amendment and the separation of church and state, the United States Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion.

But this isn’t just a debate about religion or reproductive rights. This is an all-out assault on the United States Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

President Obama swore to uphold these words when he took the oath of office. But now in his quest for a political victory on health care, this president is unapologetically trampling all over the First Amendment.

Unfortunately for Connecticut, Congressman Chris Murphy stands firmly with the President in this assault on the United States Constitution.

This may be politically inconvenient for both the President and Congressman Murphy, but shouldn’t the line in the sand be for all Americans’ freedoms and liberties?

Responding to a report we published in our Hearst newspapers, Mark Greenberg, Republican contender for the GOP’s 5th District Congressional nomination, called on Democrat Chris Donovan to return cash his own 5th District campaign accepted from lobbyists.

Donovan – a veteran state legislator and current House Speaker - has received at least $25,000 from lobbyists whose job it is to convince lawmakers like himself to raise, amend, pass and kill bills in Hartford. Some observers say it is closer to $40,000.

Although legislators can only accept maximum $100 campaign donations from lobbyists and nothing during the months the General Assembly is in session, there are no such restrictions in federal races.

Donovan is among a handful of sitting state lawmakers pursuing a congressional seat and is certainly the most powerful and has certainly enjoyed the most lobbyist financial support.

As we reported, Donovan has decided to voluntarily turn down the cash during the 2012 session, which began today and ends May 9. As you’ll read in our story, the move has been praised by some but others argue because of his position as Speaker he should have just said “no” from the start.

Greenberg also believes the latter and today called on Donovan to make up for what the Republican considers an ethical conflict: “He has found a backdoor way of continuing to shake down lobbyists for campaign contributions. If ever the line between the appearance of impropriety and actual impropriety was blurred, this is it. Do lobbyists ever give something without expecting something in return? Not if they want to stay in business. Donovan knows how to play the game but it’s a game where he wins and open, transparent government loses. The Speaker should return the lobbyists’ contributions immediately and pledge that he will not accept them in the future.”

Donovan’s campaign declined to comment.

(Not all Republicans are mad at Donovan. Some – like Rep. Livvy Floren, R-Greenwich - appeared to enjoy the “Donovan masks” government news site CT Capitol Report distributed today in Hartford to members of both parties to playfully mark the popular Speaker’s final session. I didn’t see any lobbyists holding them in front of their faces.)

Another Republican vying for the GOP’s 5th District nomination – one who appears to have a better shot than Greenberg – is state Sen. Andrew Roraback. Roraback is also critical of Donovan’s lobbyist ties but in a recent interview did not go as far as Greenberg.

Roraback agreed it is appropriate for sitting legislators running for Congress to turn down lobbyist donations once the legislature convenes and plans to do so. But Roraback stopped short of saying Donovan should never have accepted the cash prior to the 2012 session.

“It’s fair of the public to ask questions about connections between contributions made by lobbyists to individuals who run the show at the capitol,” Roraback said.

And he plans on taking that money once the General Assembly adjourns.

“I’ve been in the capitol for 18 years. I’ve made a lot of friends. And there are lobbyists who believe in me and would like to see the values I represent in Congress,” Roraback said.

Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, a legislator running for U.S. Senate, today declined to match Donovan’s and Roraback’s “no lobbyist cash during the session” vows.

“Frankly today I’m just focused on the start of the session,” Tong said.

Tucked into Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy’s package of budget adjustments is a proposal for a pilot program to install GPS tracking devices into some vehicles operated by employees of the Dept. of Children and Families.

The Connecticut Mirror and our Hearst newspapers reported on this idea a few months back.

Malloy’s budget estimates a savings of $232,346 from “reduced fuel and overtime costs” from the pilot GPS program.

State workers – already not happy about the existing system allowing the public to lodge complaints about their driving – are going to looooovvvvvvve this.

UPDATE:

Larry Dorman of Council 4 AFSCME, which represents DCF employees, said, “We absolutely have concerns about it.”

“I think it’s a distraction from the mission our workers are trying to carry out,” Dorman said. “It should not be used for disciplinary reasons and it would be helpful for the agency to talk to us about these kinds of ideas.”

When the legislature convenes tomorrow for the three-month 2012 session, members of the House of Representatives will be using the same old vote tally boards that have hung in their chamber for 30 years.

There was a minor controversy in late October when the state Bond Commission, chaired by Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy, voted to spend $800,000 on new equipment.

The expectation at the time was installation of the House’s new voting system would likely have to wait until after the 2012 session concludes May 9.

And anyone who’s visited the capitol in Hartford can clearly see the work has not begun.

Eric Connery with the Office of Legislative Management said at one point there was hope the installation could be performed right after tomorrow’s opening day with minimal disruption. But he said the contract still needs to be finalized.

“So it’s post-session installation and we’ll keep our fingers crossed,” Connery said. “There were a string of problems with it during the summer, but more recently it stabilized. So we’re just hoping to get another session out of it.”

Perhaps if legislators don’t switch their votes back and forth from “yes” to “no” in jest or confusion they’ll extend the life of the tally equipment. Here’s our report from 2007 when a couple of GOP legislators found themselves mocked in video footage for their apparent indecisiveness…

———-

By Brian Lockhart Staff Writer

The term flip-flopper is often used against politicians accused of saying one thing then later reversing their position.

But many Connecticut residents may not know, that when their representatives in the General Assembly vote on bills, they are able to change their votes as often as they can in the minutes before it is recorded.

“You could switch it 19 times, ” said House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk.

State legislators cast votes by pushing buttons at their desks that correspond to large electronic tally boards hanging above the House and Senate floors. A “no” vote is represented by a red light blinking next to the politician’s name. A green light indicates “yes.”.

But sometimes a vote is held open for a few minutes before the voting system is locked and tallies are counted. The voting equipment allows state representatives and senators to alter their votes during that time.

This results in scenarios like the May 3 action by the House of Representatives on a constitutional amendment that would have allowed 17-year-olds to vote in state primaries. When the voting began, a few Republicans, including Cafero, hit their green light, then their red light a few minutes later.

And in the case of state Rep. John Ryan, R-Darien, the vote light by his name alternated several times, finally settling on “no.”

The Connecticut Young Democrats have circulated video footage of the May voting, criticizing Cafero and Ryan as flip-floppers on what the group’s members considered an important bill.

But a few Democrats, including state Rep. Carlo Leone of Stamford appeared equally indecisive, reversing their votes from “no” to “yes” in the same time frame.

“This happens periodically, ” said Christopher Barnes, a longtime political observer and former director of the University of Connecticut’s Center for Survey Research and Analysis. “There have been times when they hold the vote for a long time because senator-so-and-so is in the bathroom. . . . It’s been used most controversially in the past for arm-twisting.

“You’ll see swarms of key staffers going to people with their light in the wrong direction, saying ‘what the hell?’ ”

Ryan did not return a telephone call seeking comment. Cafero said his changed vote exemplifies why legislators need a few minutes to reconsider – because they sometimes accidentally push the wrong button.

“I voted ‘yes, ‘ wanting to vote ‘no.’ Somebody said, ‘Larry, you voted yes.’ I said ‘Oh my, God, ‘ I went back and voted ‘no, ‘ ” Cafero said. “Nobody twisted my arm.”

But, Cafero said, there is nothing wrong with legislators changing their views on a bill and revoting.

“What’s wrong with two minutes to reflect on what you’ve just done?” Cafero said.

Gary Rose, professor of politics at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, said the practice is not uncommon among state assemblies and he does not have a problem with allowing a few minutes to reverse votes.

“A lot of lobbyists do approach lawmakers during that period, but it does allow for citizen input and the input of people who represent large and sometimes small organizations, ” Rose said. “I think in the end it does result in a little more deliberation, which is a good thing.”

But Susan Kniep, president of the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations Inc., said she was unaware of the practice. She said allowing legislators the opportunity to switch their initial vote is wrong.

“I would have assumed when they vote it’s set in stone, ” Kniep said. “One would think before our legislators vote on any item they have thought about that issue independently, weighed the pros and cons and have come to the table to vote their conscience.”

According to House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, who presides over House votes, it becomes more complicated during the hustle and bustle of the session, when daily agendas are long and 151 state representatives are milling about.

Amann said there is no limit on how long he can keep a vote open, “but you don’t want to overdo it.” He said he frequently consults the tally board to see whether individuals he knows are present have voted and, if not, tries to determine why from other legislators.

“They’ll tell me right away ‘Slow it down a little, let’s find them’ (or) ‘So and so went home or are skipping a vote because they’re in the middle of a meeting, ‘ ” Amann said.

The speaker said colleagues sometimes hit the wrong vote button and need to correct the mistake. Others, he said, change votes because they learn something new about a bill or realize colleagues they trust voted differently.

“There’s thousands of issues that come through the legislature every year. Not everyone sits on every committee. Even as speaker of the house, I’ll say ‘What bill is this?’ ” Amann said.

Leone said in the time between voting “no” then “yes” for the constitutional amendment May 3, he spoke to a sponsor of the legislation, who allayed some of his concerns about letting 17-year-olds vote in state primaries.

“Some votes are not clear-cut, ” Leone said. “It’s nice to have that little extra opportunity to talk to someone before you make that final decision. Sometimes your gut reaction is a good one, sometimes it’s not.”

And sometimes, he said, vote switches are part of the political gamesmanship surrounding controversial bills.

“We ask a guy ‘Can you go from red to green for us? We need one for the team, ‘ ” Amann said. “The Republicans counter and one guy goes to a ‘no.’ That’s politics. It’s a chess game.”

State Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, also has served in the House and said vote switches are more common there because of the number of members. There are 36 state senators.

“I don’t think it’s a real issue, ” Duff said. “We don’t have a gray button. It’s only green or red. And sometimes we’re not sure.”

Despite his criticism of Cafero’s and Ryan’s changing their votes last week, Lon Seidman, co-president of the Connecticut Young Democrats, said he would not alter the process.

Neither would Phil Sherwood, legislative director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group.

“I think there’s many reasons why legislators switch votes. Some might be noble, some might not be so noble. If things like this happen and it works in our favor, it’s beautiful. If it works against you, it’s an ugly thing, ” Sherwood said. “But we should be concerned the concentration of power at the capitol doesn’t fall into too few hands.”