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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———————-

By Brian Lockhart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Wright Tech Closed

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

Then the budget crisis hit.

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

The language urged the governor to keep the school open.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Board of Ed’s Role

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

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

Their skepticism appears warranted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He did not suggest the board convene.

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

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

Mixed Messages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It never was.

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

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

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

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

A Belated Vote

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

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

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

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

McDonald said he never received anything from Taylor.

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

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

The resolution, unanimously adopted, outraged Stamford lawmakers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Griebel Reacts to Ambassador Foley’s Remarks at Gubernatorial Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just thought lawmakers considering this in Hartford ought to know.

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

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

A bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Shapiro, D-Stamford, giving the state greater powers to investigate mergers of fuel companies and allegations of fuel price gouging passed the House of Representatives this afternoon with a mostly party line vote of 106 to 36.

It now heads to the Senate, which has until the final day of the session – May 5 – to vote.

You can read the full details of the legislation – “An Act Concerning Competition in the Motor Fuel Industry” – here. And at the bottom of this blog I’ve posted a story Transportation Reporter Martin Cassidy filed in mid-March when the bill made it out of the General Law Committee. Shapiro is a committee co-chairman.

House Republicans – particularly Rep. Penny Bacchiochi, a ranking Republican on General Law – today spent some time peppering Shapiro with questions about the legislation, portraying it as unnecessary and anti-business.

“This helps small and medium-sized Connecticut businesses,” Shapiro said afterward. “If it didn’t I wouldn’t have proposed it.”

Bacchiochi said she liked the price gouging section but took issue with the bill’s granting greater authority to the Attorney General when it comes to obtaining information about mergers and penalizing those entities that fail to cooperate for unfair trade practices.

Bacchiochi described that section of the bill as a solution looking for a problem.

One prominent Democrat – Rep. Jeff Berger, D-Waterbury, co-chairman of the legislature’s Commerce Committee – agreed with Bacchiochi’s concerns and voted “no.”

“The reporting component to the Attorney General I thought was somewhat aggressive,” Berger said.

But two lower Fairfield County Republicans – Rep. Fred Camillo, R-Greenwich and Rep. Tony Hwang, R-Bridgeport – broke ranks with their caucus and voted for the bill. Considering the high cost of gas along the so-called Gold Coast, Camillo and Hwang were surprised more Fairfield County Republicans did not follow suit.

“Coming from Fairfield County where we pay the highest (gas) prices … anything that can attack something that could make it higher in cost for us is something we all should be fighting for,” Camillo said.

Camillo said he understands his party’s concerns that Connecticut lawmakers enact too many anti-business policies.

“This wasn’t one of them,” Camillo said.

Hwang agreed.

“I think it’s a balance between what we do as a government to not over-regulate (and) a role to ensure consumers have an opportunity to make sure fairness is in play,” Hwang said. “I believe it does send a message (that) practices not in the best interest of fair play and consumers may not be business as usual.”

Rep. Livvy Floren, R-Greenwich, who voted against Shapiro’s bill, said “I loved the gouging part of it. The rest of it was just bureaucracy at its worst. Level upon level upon level of Attorney General’s reasons for suing people.”

Here’s Marty’s story from March with more details on the legislation:

Bill to regulate gas prices
By Martin B. Cassidy
STAFF WRITER
A bill before the state legislature that would empower the state to monitor the gasoline industry, and prevent fuel price gouging following natural disasters, cleared its first hurdle Wednesday.
Members of the state General Assembly’s General Law Committee approved the bill by a vote of 19-0; it will next go to the legislature’s Judicial Committee for consideration.
Under the legislation, sponsored by State Rep. Jim Shapiro, D-Stamford, a co-chairman of the Law Committee, fuel companies would be required to provide information on mergers and acquisitions to federal antitrust investigators and to the state Attorney General.
Companies with large enough market share, as determined by the federal government’s Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, would be subject to subpoenas from the Office of the State Attorney General for documentation on whether the company is using its weight to engage in tactics to stifle competition, such as undercutting single-station operators and smaller firms.
“Companies will certainly be allowed to grow by acquisition, providing that a business is acting fairly and not restraining trade,” Shapiro said.
Shapiro said he drafted the legislation as concerns about a wave of consolidations and mergers of larger oil companies have grown in recent years, an issue he learned about as he pushed for several bills to ban zone pricing, a policy in which oil companies and distributors charge gas stations in some locations more for fuel, based on location alone.
“The key thing here is giving the attorney general the tools he needs to investigate potential antitrust and anti-competitive behavior in the retail pricing and selling in gasoline,” said State Rep. William Tong, who represents Stamford and New Canaan and is a member of the law committee. “We’re committed to ensuring the gas prices we pay in Stamford and New Canaan and elsewhere we represent are fair and competitive.”
Zone pricing has a dramatic effect on Fairfield County drivers, where motorists have at times paid 50 to 75 cents more for a gallon of gasoline than drivers elsewhere in the state.
Companies looking to claim a larger market share in Connecticut may have cause for concern about language in the bill which might allow the attorney general greater leeway to probe corporate growth, especially if he or she chooses to target growth not driven by buying up other companies, said Steve Guveyan, executive director of the Connecticut Petroleum Council, which represents major oil companies, terminals, and producers in Connecticut including Exxon-Mobil Corp.
“What if a company wants to build its market share and increases in size by 5 or 6 percent based on just competitiveness?” Guveyan said. “Most companies want to grow, and it appears this law might impede the growth of companies down the road.”
The law also includes a mathematical definition by which the state attorney general would identify gas station owners who are price-gouge drivers in the wake of hurricanes or other disasters to fatten their profit margins.
By using the difference between a station’s price and the wholesale terminal price before and after a crisis, a wide upward departure in profit margin would indicate possible profiteering, Shapiro said.
“In the past, gas dealers have had trouble knowing what constitutes an emergency and what the definition of gouging is,” Shapiro said. “So the current provisions against gouging have been tough to enforce. This new anti-gouging provision clarifies the rules to provide consumers and businesses information to act accordingly when there is problems.”
After gasoline prices spiked in the state after hurricanes Katrina and Rita more than five years ago, State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal investigated whether gasoline and home-heating dealers might be illegally raising prices on false claims the hikes were in proportion to market pressures.
Peter Beutel, an energy analyst for New Canaan-based Cameron-Hanover, which provides market reports for energy traders, said the legislature appeared to be acting preemptively to regulate what it sees as a possible problem in the market.
Beutel said consolidation of local gasoline stations into local networks is not a commonly viewed as a potential cause of higher gas prices. Higher prices are more commonly perceived as a side effect of various causes, including speculative investors buying oil futures, production by OPEC nations, and larger multi-national oil companies, he said.
“I suppose the state has good reasons for doing this, but in the 11 years I’ve been in Connecticut, I’ve not heard this as something that sticks in people’s craw,” Beutel said. “Hopefully they are heading off price increases we will never see.”

Earth Day was last week and Connecticut’s favorite “independent Democrat” U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Stamford is working to salvage a tri-partisan climate/energy bill down in Washington D.C.

No time like the present to find out where some of the individuals vying to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd stand on climate change/global warming.

Here’s a hint. Whatever your personal belief, there’s a candidate for you…

Connecticut buys into global warming, but some Senate candidates do not

Brian Lockhart, Staff Writer

One might assume that, regardless of party, the candidates vying to replace Democratic U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd believe global warming presents a real threat, and human actions are at least partially to blame.

While the topic may be debated at the national level, Connecticut and its lawmakers, both state and federal, Republicans and Democrats, have been at the forefront of combating climate change.

“It’s hard to argue that our climate isn’t changing,” said state Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, ranking Republican on the Legislature’s Environment Committee. “The evidence is overwhelming that the things we have done as humans through pollution … have done significant damage to our climate.”

And Quinnipiac University has never considered a poll on the topic in Connecticut because, polling director Douglas Schwartz said, “I haven’t seen it become an issue.”

But Hearst Connecticut Newspapers recently asked several of the candidates for Dodd’s seat where they stand on the issue, receiving mixed responses.

Of the three major Republicans who want to replace Dodd, only former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons was willing to side with the science supporting global warming — although he offered an olive branch to nonbelievers.

“Rob Simmons believes the preponderance of evidence suggests that global warming is occurring and human beings are contributing to it,” campaign manager Jim Barnett said. “He also understands there are skeptics and believes we should continue reviewing the science. He believes we must take a balanced approach which errs on the side of caution and protecting the environment which can be done in a way that improves our economy and creates jobs, rather than killing jobs.”

Republican Linda McMahon, the former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO who is self-financing an aggressive first-time bid for public office, is on the fence but agrees there is a need to “wean ourselves off foreign oil and reduce our carbon footprint.”

“Linda believes that clearly there is conflicting science on both sides of this issue,” McMahon spokesman Ed Patru said. “But we can all agree that we have to continue to develop new and cleaner sources of energy for a number of reasons. First, fossil fuels are a finite resource; second, dependence on foreign oil creates national security vulnerabilities; third, there is tremendous economic potential in the next generation of energy development.”

Peter Schiff, an economist and author, in a statement called climate change and global warming “more fiction than fact.”

“A large body of climate change data was recently called into question and I think scientists have to reprove that climate change exists and negatively impacts our environment,” Schiff said. “Without new data and new proof, it’s just another way for those in Washington to justify more government spending and less freedom.”

Neither of the Democrats in the race, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and businessman Merrick Alpert, expressed any doubt that global warming is a threat.

“Human activity is adversely impacting our environment. Cars and factories are spewing carbon into the atmosphere, causing global climate change. Industrial farming is sapping the riches from the soil and fouling waterways. Diverse industrial activity is dirtying our air,” Alpert said. “We need to confront such environmental challenges, not deny them.”

And Blumenthal not only called climate change “a serious concern supported by scientific evidence,” but he also noted his office’s efforts to fight polluters and enforce lax federal enforcement of environmental policies.

Global warming skeptics are in the minority in Connecticut state government, judging by recent bipartisan policies supported by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell; her predecessor, Republican John G. Rowland; the Democratic majority Legislature; and the state Department of Environmental Protection,

The state has a Governor’s Steering Committee on Climate Change and an official “climate change website” boasting 17 related initiatives, and it became one of the nation’s first to adopt a “cap and trade” program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“I moved to Connecticut in 2003 from Pennsylvania to work on global warming because it was really the only state in the country doing anything about it,” said Roger Smith, campaign director for Clean Water Action. “I heard Linda McMahon talk about `We don’t really know what’s causing global warming.’ To me, it’s disappointing. In Connecticut, global warming has not been a partisan issue.”

State Rep. Bill Hamzy, R-Terryville, a member of the Energy and Technology Committee, said he accepts climate change but does not believe human actions have played a role.

“But it’s safe to say the Legislature and governor certainly do,” Hamzy said.

Hamzy said he would like to see a poll on the issue in Connecticut; he said he believes there are plenty of skeptics in the state.

Although the topic may arise during the U.S. Senate race, Hamzy said he does not believe it will ultimately register with voters in 2010.

“It’s taxes, the economy, jobs,” Hamzy said.