Political Capitol

Rep. T.R. Rowe, a socially conservative Republican from Trumbull, has found a creative way to again try and change the state’s abortion laws to require parental notification when minors are involved.

Rowe has attached an amendment requiring parental notification to a bill allowing students to opt out of dissecting an animal in class if a parent/guardian provides written authorization to school administrators.

The dissection bill is currently scheduled to come up for a vote in the House of Representatives this afternoon/evening.

Rowe has been fighting this battle unsuccessfully for a few sessions now. He said he was promised five minutes to talk about the abortion issue if/when the dissection legislation comes up.

UPDATE: Rowe got his five minutes and passionately argued for an opportunity sometime in the future for legislators to debate why minors need permission from parents/a guardian for a variety of other things but not for an abortion.

“I just wish we could have an open and honest, non-five-minute debate one day before session ends and for some reason we refuse to have it,” Rowe told his colleagues. “I would very much appreciate if going forward someone who has more juice than me can give me a public hearing on this issue. It’s very important we protect minors who are going to make such an extraordinary decision that will effect them the rest of their lives.”

In response to the fatal Klean Energy power plant explosion in Middletown in February, the legislature’s Energy Committee, including vice-chairman Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, crafted a bill to improve safety at such facilities.

But as of 48 hours before the session ends Wednesday at midnight, a last minute Senate amendment that critics like the Connecticut Business and Industry Association say will drastically alter the state’s workers’ compensation laws was jeopardizing smooth passage of the high profile safety legislation.

“I think the bill was supported universally. It was designed to address an important situation,” Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said. “(The amendment) initially appears to shape up as a pretty controversial battle.”

According to CBIA lobbyist Bonnie Stewart, since the 1988 collapse of L’Ambiance Plaza, a 16-story residential project being built in Bridgeport, the state has required the general contractor at a construction site to provide insurance for all workers, including those employed by subcontractors.

Under that 22-year-old system, workers are eligible for workmans’ compensation but that is their “exclusive remedy” and they cannot file lawsuits for on-the-job injuries.

Stewart said CBIA’s understanding is the amendment, if passed, would open the door for lawsuits not just going forward, but retroactively. She argued the amendment is being pushed by trial lawyers, mucks around with what she claims is a generally successful workers’ compensation process and warrants public hearings before a handful of legislative committees, including Labor, Insurance and Judiciary.

“This is definitely a sneak attack,” Stewart said. “And it’s too bad. If the other (power plant safety) bill is needed I don’t think people should be playing games with that.”

Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, co-chairman of the Energy Committee, offered the amendment. Fonfara said the way he understands the situation the 1988 law severely limits the ability to seek redress for on-site injuries and the amendment is cleaning-up a 22-year-old error.

“That was not the intent of the law when first passed,” Fonfara said.

But the amendment so far does not have the support of Tong or of Fonfara’s House co-chairman on the Energy Committee, Rep. Vicki Nardello, D-Prospect, both of whom said they were just learning about the measure tonight.

“I would think we’d like that bill to come down (to the House) clean,” Nardello said.

Tong said: “We want to get a power plant safety bill done that doesn’t get bogged down with distractions.”

Sen. Ed Meyer, D-Guilford caused a bit of a ruckus over the weekend when he sought to interrupt a perceived Republican filibuster by walking around the Senate chamber, talking to his wife on his cell phone.

CT News Junkie captured the details of Meyer’s protest, including how it was up to acting-Senate moderator Bob Duff, D-Norwalk to gavel his colleague out-of-order.

I was reminded of a story I wrote last June at the end of the 2009 session about Meyer’s ongoing frustration with the filibuster. He at the time asked the Office of Legislative Research (OLR) to look into if and how other state legislatures limit debate.

OLR, in a July, 2009 report that can be read here, concluded Connecticut’s General Assembly is one of only 15 states that do not “prospectively limit debate.” There’s more, so give it a read. It’s actually kind of interesting.

Meyer last year seemed intent on proposing legislation to limit debate. I asked him this afternoon what became of that effort, because he clearly feels as strongly now about the subject as he did then.

“I thought it would be viewed as punitive and vindictive,” Meyer said.

He is still hoping to work something out for future legislative sessions.

And for those of you who are interested in such things, here is your “Senator Ed Meyer Filibuster Flashback!!!” for the day:

Lawmakers don’t want limits on their speech

By Brian Lockhart
STAFF WRITER
It was about 6:15 p.m. Wednesday, the final night of the 2009 legislative session, and state Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, was fuming.
The Republican minority was running out the clock debating a prescription drug bill — the latest salvo in the GOP’s plan to wield the filibuster to kill legislation and express a general frustration with the way the Democrat-majority ran the session.
But Meyer was also upset with his caucus leadership for refusing to use available parliamentary procedures — setting time limits for a debate or abruptly ending a debate by calling a vote — to bring the “tyranny of the minority” to a halt and move business along.
In a brief interview outside the state Senate chamber, Senate President Donald Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, said he has heard more lawmakers contemplating trying to force votes or “call the question” this session than during any other time since his election in 1993.
But Williams said he had no intention of cutting the Republicans off.
“I would just say it’s been the tradition to this point,” Williams said.
But Meyer is hoping to force a conversation about the issue later this year. He has asked the state Office of Legislative research to study whether other states’ legislatures have found acceptable means of limiting the length of debates.
“I am very concerned that the Democratic Party, which has been voted the majority party by a very large number — at least two to one — is allowing itself to be thwarted,” Meyer said in an interview late last week. “The majority party, elected by the people in large numbers, is allowing this tyranny of the minority to continue.”
Having served in the 1970s as a member of the New York legislature, Meyer can bring a different perspective to how things are run at the Connecticut capitol. But other legislators past and present from both parties do not appear eager to find ways to limit the amount of time a bill can be discussed in the General Assembly.
“Certainly, we could change the rules if we like,” said House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden. “But it’s been the tradition in the House and Senate to have debate go on. People were concerned about the abuse of it this year, (but) you’d like to be as collegial as possible. We’re not New York. We’re Connecticut. People can talk.”
Gary Rose, chairman of Sacred Heart University’s Department of Government and Politics, said, “It’s really endemic in our political culture at the legislature to allow for minority points of view to the extent possible.”
Rose recalled when former House Speaker Irving Stolberg, D-New Haven, became more aggressive with the minority party in the late 1980s, he was ousted in a bipartisan coup.
“They really felt he was becoming tyrannical,” Rose said. “The impression was Stolberg was simply not being fair.”
State Sen. Dan Debicella, R-Shelton, said the minority’s job is “to keep the majority honest.”
“By asking questions, we can shed a light on what’s in these very often dense and detailed bills,” Debicella said. “Talking about a bill for two hours — that’s about the normal amount of time — is reasonable to flesh out the issue.”
Debicella said Connecticut legislators cannot conduct true filibusters and must stick to the issue at hand.
“You can’t just (talk) about any old thing or read from a phone book,” he said.
Democrats said that the Republicans on several occasions this session had run out of things to say but kept pointlessly talking.
At one point on Wednesday night, Debicella and state Sen. Andrew Roraback, R-Goshen, were posing questions to each other about a Republican amendment, and a majority of the 36 senators, including Republicans, were either not listening or not in the room.
One senator’s young son even played at his desk, while his father stood nearby in conversation. Other lawmakers typed on laptops or checked their BlackBerries.
Republicans this session admitted to using debate to either try to force the Democrats to table a bill or to delay votes on other legislation in the queue.
House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, said that Democrats, in failing to craft a two-year budget, left “a big void in time” during the session to try to pass pet projects and anti-business legislation.
“We were not going to let that happen,” he said.
The quickest way for the Democrats to end a debate would be for one member to “call the question,” a nondebatable procedure allowing the majority to take action on a bill.
But they are loath to do it.
“Oh, Lord, no. That’s disrespectful,” said retired House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford. Amann said the debate is a tool not only to try to change, kill or stall bills, but to allow party leaders to work out compromises behind the scenes.
“It’s a time to say, ‘You want this bill, give us this bill,’ ” Amann said.
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said the only time he recalled a fellow legislator trying to call the question was during West Hartford Democrat Kevin Sullivan’s years as Senate president in the late 1990s or early 2000s.
And Sullivan, McKinney recalled, immediately put a stop to the effort.
“I’m sure that is true,” Sullivan said. “I cannot exactly capture the moment, but it represents what I would have done.”
Sullivan said that if any legislative leader dared to try to end debate, it would set a bad precedent for future conduct and likely encourage longer filibusters.
“And today’s calling of someone else’s question is tomorrow’s calling of your question,” Sullivan said, noting that Democrats, when in the minority, were equally guilty of being long-winded.
“The place would deteriorate,” Sullivan said. “You’d get less done. It’s the nuclear bomb of debates.”

Talk about your mixed messages.

Former Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy’s gubernatorial campaign over the weekend announced Malloy had qualified to participate in Connecticut’s new public campaign financing program.

Fellow Democrat Ned Lamont, the Greenwich businessman/millionaire who is also seeking the gubernatorial nomination but opted NOT to participate in public financing, issued what I found to be an amusing reaction to Malloy’s news.

“I congratulate Dan for achieving the goal that he’s been working towards for more than a year. I’m a strong supporter of removing special interest money from the electoral process, which is why my campaign is not accepting donations from state contractors or lobbyists,” Lamont said.

Okay so far. But then Lamont went on to state: “And as governor, I’ll work with the legislature to continue strengthening the Citizens’ Election Program.”

It could be argued the best thing Lamont could do to strengthen the program would have been to participate in it as he seeks the governor’s office…

I ran Lamont’s statement past Tom Swan, executive director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group. Swan is not only a strong supporter of public financing but managed Lamont’s upstart, self-funded campaign for U.S. Senate in 2006.

“We think it’s really great Dan qualified for public financing. It’s a testament to the program and we congratulate him. While we disagree with Ned’s decision to opt out, we’re happy to hear his commitment to protect and strengthen the program in the future,” Swan said.

Fine, fine. Swan didn’t want to take a shot at Lamont. But c’mon. Wouldn’t it have been more meaningful for Lamont to have signed up with the Citizens’ Election Program?

“There are things he could have done to send stronger messages,” Swan said. “But when he says that (he will strengthen the program if elected governor) I do believe him.”

The state House of Representatives just gave final passage to legislation intended to bolster Connecticut’s vocational technical schools.

Portions of the bill were inspired in part by last year’s controversial closing of J.M. Wright Technical School in Stamford.

The House vote was 146 to zero. The Senate passed the legislation by a 33 to zero vote Thursday. It now heads to Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell for final approval.

Rep. Carlo Leone, D-Stamford, highlighted sections of the legislation requiring a more open process for closing a school or suspending operations at a school.

If signed by Rell the state Board of Education will now, before closing or suspending operations at a vo-tech school, be forced to hold a public hearing in the impacted city/town and a formal vote. As I’ve stated before, the decision to shutter J.M. Wright (education officials argue it was a temporary move during the budget crisis and hope to re-open the facility with a re-tooled curriculum in the future) was messy and mostly done behind-closed doors.

“These are things that should not have to be in statute,” Leone told his colleagues.

Rep. John Hetherington, R-New Canaan, said the legislation is good for Connecticut’s economy and vo-tech students are an important part of the state’s work force.

“It recognizes that going forward we have to have a diverse economy, we have to have a lot of opportunities,” Hetherington told the House. “These are real jobs that are going to be produced.”

UPDATE: Rell’s office in an e-mail declined to say whether she intends to sign or veto the legislation:

“The Governor hasn’t seen the final language yet – the bill has yet to reach her desk. Once it does, she’ll thoroughly review and research it and make her decision.”

Part of me wonders if the Governor will find reasons to reject the legislation because the bill is pretty much a message to her administration and state school officials that the Wright Tech closure was poorly handled.

Sen. Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden, co-chairman of the legislature’s Education Committee, said he doubts the Governor will try to kill the bill.

“A bill approved unanimously by both houses – the chances of her vetoing that bill are nil,” Gaffey said.

Over the weekend the General Assembly passed a controversial proposal that would place a two-year tax on bonuses paid to executives in Connecticut who work for financial service companies that recieved a federal bail-out. The money would then be used to fund small business initiatives.

The Senate passed the measure Friday and you can read the full story on that here.

The House followed suit Saturday.

Critics have questioned the legality of the measure and have said it sends a bad message to the business community.

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, while supportive of helping small businesses, has said she will veto the bill over concerns about its legality.

Former Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, was up at the capitol today so I asked him what he would do were he sitting in Rell’s chair. Lower Fairfield County is ground zero for the state’s financial services industry.

“If I was governor I’d sit down with folks (to) understand the implications to retention or attraction of financial services,” Malloy said. “If it’s good for jobs I’d sign it. If bad for jobs, I’d veto it.”

Another report pointed out questions surrounding the legality of the tax, to which Malloy responded there is nothing that gets done at the capitol that does not face potential legal action.

I pointed out the legislature’s Democratic leadership does not believe the tax will damage Connecticut’s business climate.

“If I was the governor of the state of Connecticut I’d do my own independent analysis of that,” Malloy said.

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.