JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS

GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS PART 6 1688 - 2031

2009 F" 001688

3/16/09 GAE Testimony Submitted by Donna Marino 38 Ash Court Middletown, CT 06457

In Support of the Commission on Children & the Parent Trust Fund: OPPOSE GOVERNOR'S BILL 840

• Over the past JO years I have been involved with Parent Leadership Programs in Middletown which help parents become advocates and leaders for themselves their children, their families and their communities.

• These parent leadership training programs - Parent Leadership Training Institute (PLTI), Parents Supporting Educational Excellence (Parents SEE) and People Empowering People (PEP) -are currently funded through a collaboration of local grants, in-kind match and the Parent Trust Fund. PLTI and PSEE are family civic initiatives supported.by the Commission on Children.

• PLTI, PEP & Parents SEE have a proven track record for involving parents and keeping them involved.

• Remember parents are our children's first teachers and role models.

• The opportunity for parents and children to learn together has been shown to increase academic achievement as well as the social and behavioral skills of the children.

• What better way is there to promote family literacy and lifelong learning than by bringing 1 children and their parents together to share in the community learning process? All our parent leadership trainings offer intergenerational learning opportunities.

• The success of a parent has a direct correlation to the success of a child and to the entire family unit.

o The following success stories are representative of PLTI, PEP & Parent SEE graduates in Middletown and comparable in communities offering parent leadership training:

"Life Changing"- that is a quote used by the majority of our 150 PLTI, PEP and Parents SEE alumni when they talk about this program.

• Middletown parent leaders use the skills they learn in training to: o go back to work, o change careers, o finish high school, o go back to college, o become more involved in their children's school, and o become more involved in the community. • Our 137 PLTI graduates new skills have empowered them to further their education, change careers, become involved in civic and school organizations as well as being elected to public office. 001689

• 15 Alumni have become PTA officers, • One Alum was elected to the Cromwell Board of Education, • One alum has run for the East Hampton Board of Education • Three held Board of Education Extern positions, • 4 alums were legislative interns for the Commission on Children, • Alums have created a fatherhood initiative in Middletown • Alums are mentoring at-risk teens at our high school • One alum recently advocated and qualified for a new home through Habitat for Humanity • Two are pursuing a Child Development Associate (CDA), • Two have finishedthei r high school diplomas (one is a grandmother), • Two alum recently received their Bachelors degree and are now pursuing Master level degrees • Two alum are pursuing bachelor degrees in education and human resources • Five have held office's in the Middletown School Association (MSA) • Four alumni are/were CT Parent Power delegates, J • Three are members of the North End Action Team, • Five alumni have served on the School Readiness Council, • Two are on the Opportunity Knocks Early Childhood Health Initiative, • One serves on Middletown Mayor's Citizens Advisory Committee, • One graduate continues to advocate for the "Arts;" she received a grant from the Commission on Arts to produce a video on Diversity • Many graduates have testified before the state legislature • Graduates have raised funds for their schools • Four are Foster Parents, and • Over 50,000 volunteer hours have been logged by PLTI alumni from 2000 to 2008; at S10 per hour that would be $500,000 in Middlesex County alone • The Children's Leadership Training Institute (CLTI) Projects impact: "Going to College with Parents," "Building a Community," "Voting for Class Leaders," book discussions, role-play. Parent Feedback includes: "grasp onto a sensitivity and responsibility to others," "exposure and understanding of children fromdifferen t backgrounds" and positive outcomes from parent and child sharing classroom experiences on similar topics.

To Sum Up • PLTI, PEP and Parents SEE are currently funded through a collaboration of grants including the Parent Trust Fund.

• Parent Trust dollars help local communities leverage dollars from other organizations/foundations.

• Funding is needed from the Parent Trust Fund to continue to run these extremely successful programs.

I ask that you oppose the Governor's Bill 840 which recommends elimination of the Commission on Children and the Parent Trust Fund.

Thank you. 001690

March 16, 2009

To the Legislative Members of the GAE Cornmittee:

My name is Lisa Cheney and I am a resident of Waterbury. The following is my testimony about the effectiveness of the Parent Leadership Training Institute, a program sponsored by the Commission on Children. I offer this testimony in response to Governor's Bill 840, recommending elimination of the Commission and the Parent Trust Fund which provides funding to communities like mine for parent leadership training.

Two years ago my daughter, who was 14 at the time, developed severe sleeping disorder. Her lack of any substantial sleep severely inhibited her immune system so she was prone to every cold, flu and virus germ she came into contact with at school. By the time January came, she was no longer capable of going to school as she was chronically exhausted and sick. Instead of getting the support I thought her school would provide (the Waterbury Arts Magnet School), I was constantly threatened with her being held back because of excessive absences. This type of abuse at the hands of the school principal continued until the following year when I finally decided to take her out of the school system to home school.

Please understand that while I was fighting with the school over her lack of attendance, I was also seeking help from the medical community. I was keeping the school informed about the medical help she was receiving and supplying them with notes from her doctors.

Not until April, after she had been absent full time for over eight weeks, the school informed me that my daughter qualified under Section 504 to be tutored at home. She did not start with her tutors until May. There was only six weeks left to the school year and she was told she would have to complete all of the schoolwork she had missed plus any additional work inside of those six weeks in order to complete her grade. I was not happy with this as I felt the school was being unreasonable and not taking her unique situation into account. This problem led to many back and forth conversations between me, the tutors and the school.

Again, because of the school's inability to find an equitable solution and due to my own frustration, I decided to investigate exactly what the Section 504 law said. What I found out was interesting. The most important thing I discovered was that I should have been notified of her eligibility for tutoring after being absent for 3 weeks. I was not told about this until she was out of school for 2 months and to add insult to injury, I was being told she had to complete 5 months of school assignments in six weeks. I hope you can understand my frustration.

At this point, I tried to find someone, anyone who could help me advocate for my daughter. I tried calling the woman who was in charge of the Homebound Division (the agency who dispatched the tutors). When I informed her of my concern over not receiving tutors for my daughter in a timely fashion, she became angry and said, "How do I know your daughter wasn't truant?" Not exactly the kind of help the mother of a sick child needs. 001691

When I called to speak to the Superintendent of Schools, I was constantly referred to the person in charge of situations like mine. In over six months of repeated phone calls to the Superintendent's office, I never spoke to either the parent liaison or the Superintendent.

Finally I got angry. I decided to call the office of Civil Rights in Washington, DC. I spoke to one of their agents and was told that yes, it sounded like I had a case, the school had not acted - properly in addressing my daughter's situation and that I was entitled to file a grievance with the federal government against the school and the school district. They referred me to the regional office in Boston. I spoke to their contact and was forwarded the grievance form and told that once it was filed, the Civil Rights Commission would begin an investigation. I was told that if the school was found not to be in compliance with Section 504, it could potentially mean a suspension of any federal monies received by the school district. I did not file the grievance.

It's important to share my daughter's story with you so that you can understand why The Parent Leadership Training Institute is so important. You see, I am still very upset about how the people entrusted with the education and care of my child failed so miserably. Like many parents, I felt taking the legal route, in my case, by filing a grievance with the federal government, was the only way to get the system to work properly. I did not file the grievance though because I believe it is important to work with public officials to find an equitable solution to our problems.

However, I would not know how to do this effectively if it wasn't for PLTI. What I have learned in several months has given me the support, resources and contacts that I need to truly be an advocate for my daughter and others as well. So I guess the question you have to ask yourselves as you decide on the budget and what to cut and what to keep, is, does it make sound financial sense to allow parents to continue believing the courts are the only way to advocate for their children (or worse, have them disengage from the process entirely), or, do you provide money for quality training that will develop them as successful parent advocates with a plan and a voice?

I ask that you maintain funding for the Commission on Children and the Parent Trust Fund so that other parents and children can benefit as I have.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Cheney 100 Collins Street Waterbury, CT 06704 [email protected] 001692

Testimony to the Government Administration and Elections Committee on Governor's Bill No. 840, in support of continuing the Commission on Children

March 16, 2009

Betsy Morgan Director, Middlesex Coalition for Children Member, Early Childhood Education Cabinet, representing Senator Thomas Gaffey Middlesex 30 Gordon Place Middletown, CT 06457 Coalition For Children Betsy Morgan, Director 30 Gordon Place Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and members of the Committee: Middletown, CT 06457 860.346 1522 (phone) I am here to testify AGAINST the proposal in the Governor's Bill 840 to 860 344.5572 (fax: please call) eliminate the Commission on Children. emorqanOweslevan edu There are a lot of reasons why this is a REALLY BAD idea. Here are three: Board of Directors • The Commission brings more money to the table than it spends. • The Commission, more than any other state agency, moves the Hon. Sebastian Giuliano children's agenda forward. Connecticut desperately needs to do better Mayor, City of Middletown Honorary Chair by its children. Willard Mcftae, Chair • The Commission is uniquely skilled at bringing the nation's best LCSW research to bear on policy development in Connecticut. William S.Boyd Middletown Bd of Ed I want to focus on a different, equally important, reason for continuing to Terri DiPietro Middlesex Hospital fund the Commission. It is the service the Commission performs for those of Christine Fahey us in towns and cities around the state who are working to improve the lives School Readiness of children in our communities. Adrienne Maslin Middlesex Com College My organization, the Middlesex Coalition for Children, is one of a growing Dr.Michael J.Frechette number of local advocacy organizations for children around the state. We Superintendent of Schools Bettye Graham exist because too many of our children are in serious trouble. Here are just Cross St. AM E. Zion Church two facts about children in Middletown: Cathy Crimmins Lechowicz a) 1 in 5 (20 %) live in households where there is not always Wesleyan University enough nutritious food to eat Donna Marino b) 1 in 4 (25%) test at Basic or Below on the CMTs MPS Parent Coordinator The conditions in which a quarter of our children are growing up are simply Elizabeth Morgan Coalition Director not acceptable. We are working to ensure that our town, our state and our Robert Rosenbaum nation do right by them. PIMMS Donna Thompson At the level of state government, the Commission on Children has been our Upward Bound most important ally - by far. Perhaps because the Commission works for the Mary Pont Legislature, not the Executive, the Commission understands that real change Portland Youth Services Kevin Wilhelm - the internalized, durable change that counts - comes not from state offices Middlesex United Way but from the public. It comes from constituents, activists, grassroots organizations, local agencies, church groups, service clubs, even passionate 001693

Page 2

individuals. This kind of participation is not just a tenet of democratic theory; as legislators know, it is the foundation of effective policy and effective government.

The Commission on Children pays as much attention to what is happening in Connecticut's towns and cities as to what it happening at the Capitol. No other agency makes such a point of getting to know - and mentor — local leaders on children's issues. It has an eagle eye for promising local initiatives - Bridgeport's Child FIRST, for instance - which it brings to the attention of legislators and policy makers. It is the Commission to which local leaders turn to smooth the rough edges of their advocacy, and test their ideas against sophisticated policy analysis.

Children can't speak for themselves, and the children who most need help don't have parents who can hire lobbyists. They need organizations like mine and many others. And we need the Commission. We REALLY need it. If,the Commission goes, so will much of the best local work on behalf of struggling children and families.

Please resist the Governor's recommendation. Support the continuance of an agency that is absolutely central to the urgent work of improving the lives of Connecticut's children.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 001694

March 16, 2009 Dear Members of the GAE Committee: As a voting constituent and taxpayer from Bridgeport I would like to ask the Committee to:

• reinstate funding for Children's Trust Fund and through it, the Parent Trust Fund; • keep the Commission on Children as a dedicated arm of the legislature; and • oppose the jGovernor's Bill No. 840. In tough economic times, programs that teach advocacy and promote parental involvement are especially valuable. They are low cost investments but return a great deal for many years to come by positively impacting multiple generations as well as children's programs and policies. Last year, my wife and I completed the Parent Leadership Training Institute program and our children completed the Children's Leadership Training Institute program in Bridgeport! These family civic initiatives are both designed and supported by the Commission on Children on behalf of the General Assembly. Connecticut is the only state in the nation that publically funds family civic initiatives with a public- private funding partnership that leverages cash and in-kind funds through the Parent Trust Fund.

We use the training we received weekly if not daily. There are hundreds like us being trained each year in a dozen communities across this state. Once the training is done we

r are out there working in neighborhoods, schools and communities and really making a difference. The Children's Trust Fund and the Commission on Children do great work helping at risk children and promoting positive roles for children. Once children are shown that they are valued and can have a positive role in society you can change their path forever. Funding for prevention programs are important at all times but especially now when the budget is tight. Studies show that it is more cost effective to prevent problems with youth than to correct them in the future. It also sends a message to our youth and parents that they a valuable to us. Please oppose Governor's Bill 840. Thank you for your time. John Wilkins, Bridgeport Connecticut 001696

30 Bank Street PO Box 350 New Britain, CT 06050-0350 06051 for 30 Bank Street

(860)223-4400 Testimony of Stephen J. Humes, Chair . fax (860)223-4488 Public Utility Law Section Connecticut Bar Association

In Opposition to SB840 "AAC The Elimination Of The Office Of Consumer Counsel, The Office Of The Healthcare Advocate, The Office Of Ombudsman For Property Rights And Certain Legislative Commissions"

Government Administration and Elections Committee March 16, 2009

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and members of the Committee on Government Administration and Elections, the Public Utility Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association is comprised of approximately 102 members, who collectively have hundreds of years of experience in handling legal and regulatory matters for public utilities and energy, cable and telecommunications companies. The purpose of our testimony today is to urge you to oppose the.elimination of the Office of Consumer Counsel, as initially proposed in SB No. 840.

The Office of Consumer Counsel ("OCC") was established by this legislature as an independent body"... to act as the advocate for all consumer interests in all matters which may affect Connecticut consumers with respect to public service companies, electric suppliers and certified telecommunications providers!"1 The OCC represents the interests of consumers in virtually allforma! proceedings before the Department of Public Utility Control ("DPUC"). By statute, the OCC is authorized to appear in and participate in any regulatory or judicial proceedings, federal or state, in which the interests of Connecticut consumers in utility matters may be affected.2 The OCC may also appeal from any decision of the DPUC.3

The underlying intent of the legislative proposal to eliminate the OCC and other state commissions and offices was to cut expenses. Eliminating the OCC, however, does not directly save the taxpayers of this State any money. Like the DPUC, all the expenses of the OCC are assessed to and paid by the utilities and other companies regulated by the DPUC.4 Both the DPUC and the OCC are fully funded by those

General Statutes § 16-2a(a).

General Statutes § 16-2a(a).

General Statutes § 16-2a(a).

General Statutes § 16-2a(h); General Statutes § 16-49.

www.ctbar.org 001697 i

assessments made on those regulated companies.5 The proposal to eliminate the OCC is not supportable and will not save the taxpayers a single dime. For the following reasons, our members voted strongly in opposition.

It is indisputable that the function of the OCC in representing the consumers' interests in utility cases is a valuable one and SB840 did not propose to eliminate that function. Rather, SB840 would reassign the OCC duties to the Office of the Attorney General ("AG"), even though the Attorney General has publicly stated that his Office would not be able to duplicate those functions. First, the OCC is comprised of very experienced and highly trained utility specialists, many of whom have considerable utility and related accounting experience, which is not available in or necessarily compatible with the workings of the State's major law office run by the AG. Secondly, the AG is by law required to defend the actions of state agencies, including the DPUC.6 - In some recent significant cases, a court has ruled that the OCC, not the AG, should be representing the interests of the consumers.7 In part, this results from the AG's statutory duty to appear and represent the DPUC "in all suits and other civil proceedings

Furthermore, there are some public interest functions on behalf of consumers that the AG's office cannot or has not done, but the OCC has responsibly performed. For example: the OCC embraced Connecticut's participation in the settlement that created the forward capacity market within the New England electric market, saving Connecticut ratepayers hundreds of millions in what could have been assessed locally for the electric grid congestion here when the AG's office refused to embrace the settlement among New England participants in the market. Furthermore, the OCC has agreed to sign confidentiality agreements and participate in the DPUC's vetting of wholesale electric procurements by Connecticut Light & Power Co. and United Illuminating (thereby assuring that consumer interests are at the table screening bids before they are procured), whereas the AG's office has declined to sign confidentiality agreements and participate.

Finally, the OCC presents the opportunity in many DPUC proceedings and related court proceedings for the interests of the consumers to be vindicated by judicial decision or by settlement in ways that the DPUC just cannot do by itself, with or without the assistance of the AG.

General Statutes § 16-49.

General Statutes § 3-125.

For instance, in die recent federal court litigation brought by the OCC against AT&T and the DPUC concerning the issue as to whether AT&T's video service was a cable service as that term was defined by the federal Communications Act, the AG was denied intervenor status by the court inasmuch as the OCC was the party that by statute was authorized to represent the interests of Connecticut cable consumers. See Office of Consumer Counsel v. Southern New England Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Connecticut 3:06cvl 106 (JBA) (D. Conn.).

General Statutes § 3-125. 001698

Most of the lawyers who are members of the Public Utility Law Section are in private practice or are employed by companies who are regulated by the DPUC. Most of us have appeared in matters in which the OCC has opposed our clients or our employers. Nevertheless, we stand in near unanimity opposing the elimination of the OCC primarily for one reason: The Process. Without the OCC, the record in formal dockets would not be as fully developed and the parties, due to the fairly strict ex parte prohibitions that generally bar substantive discussions with DPUC commissioners and staff, would not be able to have meaningful discussions on ways to resolve or address complex issues that frequently require expedited consideration. The OCC has the unique ability to facilitate those discussions and to assist the DPUC, the consumers, and even the utilities from time to time, in helping to ensure that the process by which these often complex issues of law, regulation and policy can be susceptible to resolution.

Finally, we would like to point out that the OCC has also served the General Assembly as a resource by assisting the members of the Energy & Technology Committee as requested to ensure that the interests of consumers are also fully considered in legislative proposals.

For all of these reasons, the Public Utility Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association respectfully urges this Committee to reject the proposal to eliminate the Office of Consumer Counsel. 001699

Good morning . My name is Bonita Griffin. I am here to speak in iaW of Senate Bill 840.1 am a resident of New Haven and a graduate of Christian Community Action's PEP program and a member of Mothers for Justice. PEP stands for People Empowering People and I would like to testify on behalf of PEP and others programs such as Parent Leadership Training Institute.. Our communities need programs like this to help parents strengthen our parenting skills, to help people become more familiar with themselves to recognize our strengths and weaknesses. They taught me to advocate for my community through these programs. I have learned who my alderman are and how to contact state legislators. I have been given opportunities to speak face to face with my elected representative. I have become an active member of my community as a result of my participation in these programs. I don't think I would have the courage, nor the knowledge to be here before you, to inform you of the great importance this funding for these programs are. There are too many of us, that are umnformed, miseducated are the issues that hit home, especially in the poor neighborhoods. We must build up our communities and these programs which allow me and others like me to learn how to go about doing just that. You need our communities to maintain your seats and we need funds for these programs to teach the people that every vote counts. Thank you for your time. 001700

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

TESTIMONY PRESENTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT ADMINSTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Donna Buntaine Brewer, J.D., Chief, Public Health Hearing Office, Department of Public Health (860) 509- 7648

Raised Bill 1117,- An Act Establishing a Demonstration Project for an Office of Administrative Hearings

The Department of Public Health opposes Raised Bill 201.

This proposal would create a centralized Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to preside over "whistleblower" hearings and hearings for the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the Department of Children and Families, and the Department of Transportation. While the bill does not include the Department of Public Health, presumably, since it is characterized as a "demonstration project," the Department may be part of a "Phase 2."

As a part of this 'demonstration project' the bill would: • " Disassemble the adjudicative offices of the named agencies and consolidate former offices under new Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) • Create a new agency head, the Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator (ALA) • Require appropriations for additional ALAs and administrative support staff and the necessary equipment to perform their adjudicatory and administrative functions • Require the OAH to prepare an annual report, adopt regulations which will supersede any inconsistent agency regulations, policies or procedures, develop and implement a training program and, indexing decisions, among other things • Allow only 21 days, with a single 21 day extension, for an agency to respond to a proposed decision of the OAH The stated purpose is to, "separate[e] the adjudicatory function from the investigatory and prosecutorial functions of agencies in the executive department and to perform the impartial administration and conduct of hearings ..."

MAJOR CONCERNS WITH SB 1117 This provisions of this bill

• Amount to a major immediate fiscal impact to the State of Connecticut • Lack any data establishing the need or effectiveness of the proposed legislation • Create a variety of policy concerns (as outlined below)

Intended Purpose of Legislation Is Unfounded The premise of the bill would appear to be undermined by the fact that the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) already requires the separation of such functions, and claims of "unfairness" are addressed by the Courts on appeal. This bill, in fact, would result in agencies having no adequate opportunity to consider decisions before they become final, and cases being decided by hearing officers who lack the expertise of their agencies.

Subject Matter Expertise of Adjudicators Will Be Lost While initially the ALAs may have subject-matter expertise (since it is likely that they will consist of agency hearing officers who are transferred to the centralized office), over time, that expertise will become diluted and lost Newly hired ALAs will lack an understanding of an agency's procedures, expertise, and policies, and may well be impressed with spurious arguments made by respondents' attorneys. Additionally, subject matter expertise changes over time. Only hearing officers housed within an agency will have the ability to maintain current knowledge of ever-changing standards and internal policies and procedures. Indeed, on appeal, administrative agency decisions are given great deference by the courts because it is assumed that the agency has exercised subject matter expertise in rendering a decision This proposal would significantly weaken state agencies' ability to exercise that expertise and enforce their statutes and regulations. Instead of accomplishing the stated purpose of promoting the impartial administration and conduct of hearings', the proposed legislation would have the opposite effect of giving an unfair advantage to those who are subject to enforcement actions. Additionally, the complexity of cases would require a tremendous learning curve for any Chief ALA, and, the case volume may well require Deputy Chief ALAs to serve as heads of units within the office.

Telephone Device for the Deaf (860) 509-7191 410 Capitol Avenue - MS # P.O. Box 340308 Hartford, CT 06134 Affirmative Action/An Equal Opportunity Employer 001701

Agency Period of Review is Unrealistic The 21-day period of review, with a single 21-day extension, created under this bill is not enough time to accomplish the required task. To read an entire transcript (which could be voluminous), invite the parties to write briefs and present oral argument, and consider new issues raised by the briefs and arguments in this timeframe is simply not reasonable. If an agency fails to modify or reject a proposed decision within this time frame, the decision becomes final. As a practical matter, agencies would be unable to carefully consider the issues and evidence, and articulate agency policy in a decision, based on an agency's expertise - which the AT.A would lack.

Many Provisions of Proposal Are Vague and Confusing As Currently Drafted For example, the bill does not specify when an ALA will issue a proposed decision versus a finaldecision . The bill requires that cases be "dismissed" when they are resolved by a stipulation, settlement, or consent order. Under existing law, settlements do not require a "dismissal" of the underlying action; the settlement simply becomes a final order. Also, in amending §4-166 of the General Statutes, the bill deletes the ability of a member of an agency to preside over hearings, requiring instead that all hearings be presided over by the "head of [an] agency,",a member of a multimember agency, designated hearing officer, or an ALA. The bill changes existing law by permitting an ALA to order costs and sanctions, and eliminating a hearing officer's discretion to hear from persons who are not parties or interveners. It is often important to hear from the public, and this ability should not be eliminated. While the bill would permit an agency to exercise its expertise when reviewing a proposed decision, this ability is eroded by the fact that the agency lacks sufficient time under the proposal to do so, as discussed above. Finally, by eliminating a party's ability to request that final decisions makers review preliminary, procedural, or evidentiary rulings made by a hearing officer or a panel, Section 20 of the proposal eliminates a procedure that may result in efficiencies within the process.

Given the significant costs associated with this proposal, the lack of data establishing the need for this legislation, and the fact that this proposal would undermine the fairness and efficiency of the hearing processes as they presently exist, the Department of Public Health opposes this proposal and urges the Committee not to support SB 1117.

Thank you for your consideration of the Department's comments. 001702

RICHARD BLTJMENTHAL 55 Elm Street ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120

Office of The Attorney General State of Connecticut

TESTIMONY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARD BLUMENTHAL BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE MARCH 16, 2009

I appreciate the opportunity to support Senate Bill 1117, An Act Establishing a Demonstration Project for An Office of Administrative Hearings.

This legislation establishes an Office of Administrative Hearings that would provide hearing officers to hear and decide agency administrative matters. The Office would hear cases involving whistleblower retaliation.'human rights complaints, transportation matters and the Department of Children and Families. The hearing officers would be trained in the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act process and in the substantive law areas for the cases that would be assigned to them

An independent hearings office is hardly a new concept. The federal government and other states have created administrative law judges to impartially decide citizens' petitions for state rights, privileges or benefits for which state law provides an administrative hearing.

A streamlined, professional state agency hearing process would assist citizens by creating a more consistent application of state law. Such written, consistent hearing officer decisions would also offer guidance to judges who may hear an appeal of those decisions.

I urge the committee's favorable consideration of Senate Bill 1117. 001703

State of Connecticut COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Office of Public Hearings CHRO 21 Grand Street, Hartford, CT 06106 • (860) 541-3452 • Fax (860) 246-5301 www.state.ct.us/chro Toll Free in Connecticut (800) 477-5737 TDD (860) 541-3459 "Equality and Justice"

Jon P. FitzGerald Chief Human Rights Referee Office of Public Hearings Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities

March 16, 2009

Public Hearing before the Joint Committee on Government Administration and Elections

Raised Bill No. 1117: An Act Establishing a Demonstration Project for an Office of Administrative Hearings

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on Senate Bill 1117. An Act Establishing a Demonstration Project for an Office of Administrative Hearings.

This bill would consolidate in an impartial Office of Administrative Hearings the administrative hearings that are currently conducted by certain agencies. The bill would transfer the human rights referees to this office. While the establishment of such an office is a policy decision for the determination of the legislature and the Governor, the human rights referees do not oppose their inclusion in such an agency.

The administrative hearings at the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities are conducted by human rights referees, who issue final decisions that are not subject to review and approval by the Commission. The human rights referees have developed an expertise in the area of discrimination law. The Commission and the public will not lose the benefit of the human rights referees' expertise because the bill would require the chief administrative law adjudicator to assign the Commission's discrimination cases to those administrative law adjudicators who have the expertise in the area of discrimination law. In addition, the chief administrative law adjudicator is required to develop and implement a program for continuing education in procedural due process and substantive law that will ensure the expertise of the present and future administrative law adjudicators. See Section 3 (a) (2) and 3 (a) (8).

Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer 0017(4

30 Bank Street Vo Box 350 New Britain CT 06050-0350 06051 for 30 Bank Sheet

(860)223-4400 fax (860)223-4488 Testimony of Mary Alice Moore Leonhardt, Member of the Executive Committee, Connecticut Bar Association Administrative Law Section Senate Bill 1117, An Act Establishing a Demonstration Project For An Office of Administrative Hearings Committee on Government Administration and Elections March 16, 2009

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and members of the Government

Administration and Elections Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit wntten testimony on Senate Bill 1117, An Act Establishing a Demonstration Project for an

Office of Administrative Hearings.

My name is Mary Alice Moore Leonhardt. I am an attorney in private practice in

Hartford, where I practice in the area of administrative law and I primarily concentrate on representation of health care clients and transportation providers. A substantial part of my law practice has been devoted to representing, for almost twenty years, these types of clients before state agencies including the Department of Public Health, Office of Health

Care Access, Department of Children and Families, Department of Education,

Department of Social Services, Department of Transportation, Department of Motor

Vehicles and Department of Consumer Protection, in contested cases and appeals of state agency decisions. I have served as the chairperson of the Administrative Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA), which consists of attorneys in private practice who represent others before executive agencies, as well as attorneys employed by the

State of Connecticut.

www ctbar org 001705

The CBA, on behalf of the Administrative Law Section, supports this legislation which would bring the state of Connecticut current with the trend followed by the majority of states (including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon and

Maryland, among others) plus the District of Columbia, which have embraced the central hearing panel movement. Passage of this important bill will do so by enabling a demonstration project for establishing an impartial office of administrative hearings in the Executive Department. The mission of this hearings unit would be to provide the public, consumers, regulated individuals and businesses, with an impartial forum in which to secure a fair hearing to dispute and address agency action. On behalf of the

CBA, I wish to thank the committee for raising Senate Bill 1117 for a public hearing and

I respectfully request that the cornmittee act favorably on the bill.

The proposed hearings unit would consolidate into one office the contested cases conducted by the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the Department of

Children and Families and the Department of Transportation. Other agencies would have the option to utilize the services of these impartial hearing officers for hearings or mediation, but they would not be mandated to do so.

An office of administrative hearings would: (1) ensure impartial administration and conduct of hearings of contested cases; (2) ensure greater uniformity and consistency in the application of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act by state agencies; (3) facilitate and enhance public trust and confidence in the exercise of regulatory and disciplinary powers conferred upon agencies and boards; and achieve cost savings for the state.

2 001706

If Senate Bill 1117 is approved, administrative law adjudicators would hold hearings for the targeted agencies and render proposed or final decisions as provided by law. Those decisions that are currently recommended to an agency head for review and possible modification would continue, as under present law. Appeals of recommended and final decisions would, as under present law, be taken to Superior Court. Under the bill, the office of administrative hearings would be accountable to the Governor through the appointment of the chief administrative law adjudicator, and to the legislature through the budget and confirmation processes. The bill allows for recognition of collective bargaining units in the new agency. Hearing officers transferred to this new agency would retain their rights, class, status and opportunities to avoid any adverse impact.

An office of administrative hearings should be established because it would provide:

• Impartiality. Because hearing officers currently are employees of the agencies conducting the hearings, they are not always perceived as impartial, unbiased adjudicators of the issues before them. An agency promulgates regulations and rules of practice, investigates violations, prosecutes cases and decides those very cases. An agency has authority over hearing officers and outside-contracted hearing officers, possibly compromising the integrity and fairness of the hearing process. A centralized panel of administrative law adjudicators sitting in an impartial agency would provide fundamental fairness and due process; apply agency policy and regulations without being subjected to advancement or penalty by the agency for their cooperation or lack of cooperation; and enhance public trust and confidence in the process and in decisions rendered. Consequently, an office of administrative hearings would foster trust and confidence in state government.

• Efficiency. A central office of admimstrative law adjudicators would consolidate support services and systems within one agency, thereby generating efficiencies in time and cost savings. Flexibility in case assignments would predominate to ensure that appropriate administrative adjudicators would be assigned both to specific kinds of cases or particular agencies to apply the necessary expertise, and to meet the "feast or famine" fluctuating caseloads of the various agencies. Staff would easily be assigned where the need exists and cases would be handled in less time. Fewer administrative law adjudicators would be needed to hear more cases.

3 001707

Attorneys and members of the public would have a central location from which to obtain copies of the administrative law adjudicators' decisions, the procedural regulations established by the office of administrative hearings and the substantive regulations of the departments. It will eliminate a process that currently puts professionals, consumers, businesses and other parties through a prolonged hearing process

• Cost and Economies of Scale. The experience in other states which have pioneered the central hearings units demonstrates that a central independent hearings unit is inherently more cost-effective than independent hearing units sprinkled throughout a multitude of state agencies. This is achieved by economies of scale and flexibility in case assignment. For example, in Oregon, where the office of administrative hearings was established approximately 7 years ago, the savings were measurable:

o In 2000-01, its first fiscal year after implementation, Oregon's OAH reported the average number of OAH hours per referral was 8.55. By 2002-03, the number had been reduced by a striking 17% to 7.13 hours. Similarly, in 2001-01, the average cost of a referral was $322. In 2002-03, it was $285, a savings of 11%. The total cost savings to Oregon in 2002- 03 was $1.4 million.

o The average cost of Department of Transportation referrals dropped by 6%; the average cost per referral dropped by 9%; and in 2002-03, the Department saved $232,158.

o The average cost of Department of Human Services referrals (about 3000- 4000 annually) dropped by 23% in 2002-03; the average number of hours per referral dropped by 26%; and in 2002-03, the Department saved $371,600.

Other states have had-similar success in driving the costs down:

o In late 1994, Texas reported a savings of 70% in costs associated with agency hearings. In the second year of its operation of a centralized hearing unit, Maryland's office saved the state almost $828,000. Our near neighbor, New Jersey spent only $7.5 million on its administrative hearings after implementing its central hearings unit, as compared to the $20 million it would have spent on the hearings. Minnesota reported its hearing costs for public utility commission hearings dropped in two years from $400,000 to $234,000.

• Expertise. Administrative law adjudicators would be experienced in a uniform administrative law practice and process in accordance with rules of practice which would bring more uniformity to the agency hearing process. All present full-time agency hearing officers of the departments included in the bill would be

4 001708

transferred into the new hearing office and available for the suitable assignment of cases for their training and expertise. In other words, the same hearing officers would be available to bring their expertise to bear in the same types of cases as were previously assigned to them at their former agency. At the same time, opportunities to hear other types of cases and receive appropriate training, would stimulate and sharpen an administrative law adjudicator's intellect, encourage creative inquiry into novel issues, provide for peer consultation and attract the most qualified people to the administrative bench. The proposed legislation also provides for consistent training of the administrative law adjudicators in procedural and substantive law, ensuring competence and enhanced professionalism, particularly in those agencies that currently use contractual hearing officers.

• Uniformity and consistency. The administrative hearing and enforcement processes used by state agencies, except where governed by the UAPA, vary unnecessarily and often for no apparent reason. Uniformity can be achieved by adopting a single process under a central hearing office that can be varied in limited circumstances to address agency needs. A central hearing office could establish uniform hearing procedures.

Members of the committee should know that the Administrative Law Section has been working hard to build consensus on the bill. In the past several years, we have met with, among others, representatives of A & R/AFT, which represents attorney-hearing officers that would be affected by the legislation. As with similar experiences in our neighboring state of Massachusetts and other states such as Oregon and Michigan, the bill provides that the employment rights of employees transferred to the centra] office would be unaffected. Members of these bargaining units would retain their memberships as they transition over to the new office. We have discussed the bill with representatives of a number of other organizations and representatives from the agencies in the bill and we understand that many of the current hearing officers and their supervisors are supportive of this legislation.

Finally, after carefully reviewing Senate Bill 1117, the Administrative Law

Section suggests that changes to section 2 of the bill regarding the appointment of the

5 001709

Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator would be appropriate. I have attached the section's suggested substitute language to my testimony, and would be happy to discuss these suggestions or answer any questions you may have concerning the proposed substitute language.

The section appreciates your consideration and support of this important legislation that will establish an appropriate "wall of ethics" and ensure integrity in contested case proceedings in Connecticut. On behalf of the CBA and the Administrative

Law Section, I respectfully request that the Government Elections & Administration

Committee favorably report Senate Bill 1117.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on Senate Bill 1117. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

6 001710

Suggested substitute language for Senate Bill 1117 An Act Establishing a Demonstration Project for an Office of Administrative Hearings

Sec. 2 (NEW) {Effective July 1, 2009) (a) (1) The Governor shall nominate the Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator to serve a term expiring on March 1, 2009. Thereafter, the Governor shall nominate a Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator to serve for a four- year term or until a successor has qualified. To be eligible for nomination, the Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator shall have been admitted to the practice of law in this state for at least ten years and shall be knowledgeable on the subject of administrative law. The Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator shall take the oath of office provided in section 1-25 of the general statutes prior to commencing his or her duties, shall devote full time to the duties of the office of Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator and shall not engage in the private practice of law. The Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator shall be eligible for renomination.

(2) Each nomination made by the Governor to the General Assembly for Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator shall be referred, without debate, to the committee on the judiciary, which shall report thereon within thirty legislative days from the time of reference, but no later than seven legislative days before the adjourning of the General Assembly. Each appointment by the General Assembly of a Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator shall be by concurrent resolution. The action on the passage of each such resolution in the House of Representatives and in the Senate shall be by vote taken on the electrical roll-call device. No resolution shall contain the name of more than one nominee. The Governor shall, within five days after the Governor has notice that any nomination for a Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator made by the Governor has failed to be approved by the affirmative concurrent action of both houses of the General Assembly, make another nomination to such office.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4-19 of the general statutes, no vacancy in the position of Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator shall be filled by the Governor when the General Assembly is not in session unless, prior to such filling, the Governor submits the name of the proposed vacancy appointee to the committee on the judiciary. Within forty-five days, the committee on the judiciary may, upon the call of either chairperson, hold a special meeting for the purpose of approving or disapproving such proposed vacancy appointee by majority vote. The Governor shall not administer the oath of office to such proposed vacancy appointee until the committee has approved such proposed vacancy appointee. If the committee determines that it cannot complete its investigation and act on such proposed vacancy appointee within such forty-five-day period, the committee may extend such period by an additional fifteen days. The committee shall notify the Governor in writing of any such extension. Failure of the committee to act on such proposed vacancy appointee within such forty-five-day period or any fifteen-day extension period shall be deemed to be an approval.

7 001711

(b) The Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator may be removed during his or her term by the Governor for good cause shown.

(c) The Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator shall be exempt from the classified service.

(d) The Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator, administrative law adjudicators, assistants and other employees of the Office of Administrative Hearings shall be entitled to the fnnge benefits applicable to other state employees, shall be included under the provisions of' chapters 65 and 66 of the general statutes regarding disability and retirement of state employees, and shall receive full retirement credit for each year or portion thereof for which retirement benefits are paid for service as such Chief Administrative Law Adjudicator, administrative law adjudicator, assistant or other employee.

8 001712

Connecticut Department of Social Sen/ices

Making a Difference

Testimony before the Government Administration and Elections Committee

March 16,2009

In opposition to Section 29 of House Bill No. 1117, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR AN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Section 29 of this bill requires a study of the feasibility of transferring hearings currently conducted by the Department of Social Services (DSS) to the proposed Office of Administrative Hearings. While the Department appreciates the cautious approach the study of this issue represents, we would like to share our concerns, both legal and logistical, at the outset as follows and request the opportunity to be consulted in the course of the proposed feasibility analysis.

If the administrative hearing function within DSS were transferred to a proposed Office of Administrative,Hearings, the new agency would hear cases and render only proposed final decisions for the Commissioner's approval, modification or rejection because neither state nor federal law gives authority to this proposed agency to render final decisions for DSS concerning the Medicaid program. Consequently, the hearing record would need to be returned to DSS with the proposed decision so that the final decision could be made by the Commissioner. The Commissioner is.required to approve, modify or reject the proposed decision within 21 days, with the possibility of an additional 21-day extension. If the Commissioner does not act within 21 days, the proposed decision would become final. It is completely unclear as to how a final decision would be issued if the Commissioner rejects the proposed final decision. Where does this leave the client? Further, if the Commissioner found that additional evidence was necessary, the case would have to be sent back to the new Office of Administrative Hearings for the receipt and consideration of the additional evidence starting the process over again. The time frames contemplated are certainly lengthier than the current timeframes in the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), to the client's disadvantage.

DSS hearing requests for 2008 numbered 11,648. Of that number, 3,465 were related to the Medicaid program. Under federal law, DSS is the single state agency for the administration of the Medicaid program. As such, no other agency may have the authority to change or disapprove an administrative decision of DSS when it acts in its capacity as the single state agency. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has interpreted 42 CFR 431.10 to prohibit the outsourcing of Medicaid appeals. No agency may substitute its judgment for that of the Medicaid agency with respect to the applications of policies, rules and regulations issued by the Medicaid agency. 001713

While it may possibly be permissible for another agency to conduct a Medicaid hearing and issue a proposed final decision, the final decision must be that of DSS. Thus the thousands of proposed hearing decisions involving the Medicaid program would have to be substantively reviewed as outlined above. The bill would transfer DSS' 15 Hearing Officers to the newly created agency and make them administrative law judges. Currently DSS Hearing Officers are authorized to issue final agency decisions. There would be no staff at DSS to perform the final decision making function for the Commissioner. DSS would be required to hire new staff to conduct the review of records and proposed decisions issued by the new agency.

DSS uses one application so that a client may concurrently apply for multiple DSS programs. Thus SAGA, TFA and Food Stamp hearing requests are very often companion requests to Medicaid cases. To separate them would require an inefficient bifurcation of issues to the client's inconvenience.

Additionally, each hearing requested by a client of DSS is subject to strict confidentiality provisions under state and/or federal law, as would each record and decision related thereto. This bill does not adequately protect the confidentiality of the entire process, but only proposes that the Chief Administrative Law Judge would prepare edited versions of proposed and final decisions when disclosure of a person's identity or other information is barred by law. This does not assure confidentiality to the extent required for DSS clients and would be a significant administrative challenge in light of the volume of DSS hearings. The bill also requires that an agency issuing a final decision must immediately transmit the decision to the Office of Administrative Hearings. This provision appears to include all agencies whether or not otherwise under the Office, but does not address how a decision, which is confidential, and not a public record would be protected.

The Department's Office of Legal Counsel, Regulations and Administrative Hearings is well- equipped to handle the agency's hearings and does so to ensure fairness and impartiality to all clients in accordance with the UAPA. Consistently over the course of past years clients prevail in DSS hearings about one third of the time. Hearing Officers apply agency policy to cases with which they have had no involvement. A Hearing Officer is always impartial as to the facts. Agency final decisions may be appealed to Superior Court. The Department is not aware of a client ever appealing a DSS hearing decision based on bias on the part of a Hearing Officer. The UAPA supports agencies using their expertise to interpret and apply agency policy. DSS policy is vast, complex, detailed and often changing along with changes in state and federal law. DSS Hearing Officers typically draw upon their familiarity with agency policies and programs gained from their experience working directly with clients in a regional DSS office through eligibility and redetermination processes. The Hearing Officers are not attorneys and are not required to be under the UAPA. They conduct hearings with a high degree of professionalism and issue clear well-written decisions. They take very seriously the impartiality required of them and have a thorough understanding of DSS regulations, as well as applicable state and federal law.

The process contemplated by this bill is cumbersome, lengthy, hugely inefficient and duplicative. DSS strongly opposes this proposed legislation 001714

TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION & ELECTIONS COMMITTEE ' .March 16,2009_ 1

Robert L. Genuario Secretary Office of Policy and Management

Testimony Supporting

House No. 6372

An Act Concerning State Lands

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and distinguished members of the Government Adriiinistration and Elections Committee, thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony in support of Governor's Bill No. 6372 - An Act Concerning State Lands.

The purpose of the bill is to allow the state to more effectively and efficiently dispose of its surplus property, reduce the costs associated with mamtaining vacant surplus property and to formalize in statute certain existing procedures related to the purchase and sale of real estate.

Under the existing statute (CGS 4b-21), any agency that no longer has a need for state-owned real estate under its custody and control notifies OPM. Once notified, OPM solicits reuse proposals from other state agencies in order to detennine if the property can be reused or if it is surplus to state needs and can be disposed of through sale.

Currently, OPM typically receives notice that an agency intends to vacate property with little, if any, advance warning. This means that the building is typically vacated by the occupying agency, often requiring the state to hire an interim property manager during the period where OPM solicits reuse proposals from other state agencies. If no state reuse is found, the property is then offered for sale to the municipality. If the municipality is not interested, then it is offered for sale to the general public. The existing process is time consuming and inefficient.

Section 1(b) of the Governor's bill would now require agencies to notify OPM six (6) months in advance of their intent to vacate the property. With this 6 month notice, OPM can solicit reuse proposals from other state agencies and, when no feasible state reuse has been identified, offer the property for sale to the local municipality or general public. It is our intention to utilize this 6 month advance notice to do all of the necessary due diligence so that when the building is vacated, it is either turned over to another agency for reuse or sold. During this 6 month advance notification period, the state would also be able to carry out its obligations under CGS 4b-47 which allows the public to comment on the proposed sale of surplus real estate. 001715

This will ensure that state buildings are not left vacant for long periods of time while reuse proposals are solicited or the sales process is carried out.

The Governor's bill also expedites the time frame for agencies to submit reuse proposals to OPM; agencies will now have 30 days to submit such proposals; agencies currently have 90 days to submit such proposals. If, within the 30 days, DECD indicates that it wishes to use the -property for low/moderate income housing, the Governor's bill allows DECD_three_(3).months_to submit a final plan. Currently, DECD has six (6) months to submit such proposals. I believe that these expedited timelines are sufficient for an agency to determine whether or not they require the use of surplus state real estate.

To further expedite the disposition process, Section 2(a) of the bill proposes altering CGS 3-14b to reduce the time allotted to municipalities to determine their intent to purchase surplus real estate. Currently, municipalities are allotted 45 days; the bill would reduce the time frame to 30 days.

At this time, any state agency's request to purchase or sell real estate is submitted to OPM through the DPW. Section 1(a) of the bill would now formally require that such requests be submitted for OPM review and approval; in addition, any proposal to give or obtain an option in any real estate would also be submitted for OPM review and approval.

The Governor's bill also incorporates a separate DOT surplus property statute into the general surplus property statute and thereby consolidates all surplus property processes into one provision.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with testimony in support of this bill. 001716

TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE March 16, 2009

Robert L. Genuario — Secretary Office of Policy and Management

Testimony Supporting

,H. B. No. 6373

AN ACT CONCERNING THE REPEAL OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE STATUTES

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and distinguished members of the GAE committee, I am Robert Genuario and I am the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management. Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on , HB 6373 An Act Concerning the Repeal of Certain Obsolete Statutes.

This bill is essentially technical in nature in that it simply removes a number of unnecessary or irrelevant laws that remain on the books long after they have served whatever useful purpose they once had. This measure should, in a small way, provide for less confusion, less clutter, and less government. Governor Rell has said that we not only need a leaner government but a less intrusive one as well. While all of these obsolete laws may not necessarily cost the state's taxpayers money, we can certainly make do with fewer laws.

Layers of laws have come at the expense of clarity and focus of state government. The sheer volume and rate at which laws are added reflects government's preference to add another layer instead of removing what is no longer needed. Such laws are a visible symptom of the excess weighing government down. 001717

TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE March 16, 2009

Robert L. Genuario Secretary

- -- -Office of Policy and Management - -

Testimony Supporting

HB6374 AN ACT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF ACCOUNTABILITY

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and clistinguished members of the GAE corrvrnittee, I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony on support of House Bill 6374, An Act Concerning the Establishment of the Office of Accountability.

The Office of Accountability will be a new office within the Office of Policy and Management that will be responsible for detecting and preventing fraud, waste and abuse in the management of state personnel, the use and disposition of state property, the collection, disbursement and expenditure of state and federal funds and promoting efficiency in state government.

The new office will be overseen by the Chief Accountability Officer who will have the authority to audit state agencies.

In these difficult economic times, where all of us are required to do more with less, the new Office of Accountability will help state government fulfill its core missions in a manner that will meet the needs of state residents and restore the confidence of Connecticut taxpayers. 001718

Jiiaie of (ErmttEtitrui

SENATOR JOHN McKINNEY SENATE MINORITY LEADER

Suite 3400 2ga D|STR|CT Hartford: (860) 240-8800 Legislative Office Building Toll Free: 1 -800-842-1421 Hartford, Connecticut 06106-1591 Fax: (860) 240-8306

Testimony of Senate Minority Leader John McKinney before the Government Administration and Elections Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly

Re: Governor's Bill No. 6374, An Act Concerning the Establishment of the Office of Accountability

March 16, 2009

Chairmen Slossberg and Spallone, Ranking Members McLachlan and Hetherington, and members of the Government Adrrunistration and Elections Committee: thank you for the opportunity to offer written testimony in support of Governor's Bill No. 6374, An Act Concerning the EstabUshment of the Office of Accountability.

For the past six years, I have proposed the creation of a State Office of Inspector General to combat waste, fraud and inefficiency in government. Under my proposal/the Inspector General would have broad authority to conduct audits and investigations of all facets of state government; access directly all records and information of state agencies; subpoena information and documents; adrninister oaths when taking testimony; and receive and respond to complaints from agency employees, whose confidentiality would be protected. I am pleased that many of the provisions I have called for in my Inspector General proposals are included in the Governor's Office of Accountability.

Establishing such an office will make state government more efficient and more accountable. In fact, the federal government has inspectors general in all executive branch departments, and in most small agencies. In 2007 (the most recent year for which statistics are available), with a combined operating budget of approximately $2 billion, the 57 federal inspector general offices achieved - $11.4 billion in potential savings from audit recommendations and $5.1 billion from investigative recoveries. They handed down 6,800 indictments and crirriinal informations; made over 8,900 successful prosecutions; 4,300 suspensions or debarments; and processed nearly 310,000 hotline complaints. Certainly, the state of Connecticut, which is experiencing unprecedented budget deficits, would benefit from that kind of return on investment.

In my opinion, establishing the Office of Accountability is a necessary step toward elirnmating government waste and corruption and restoring the public's faith in state agencies and elected officials.

I do, however, believe the office should be further strengthened in the following ways: 1. Expand the office's scope of responsibility to include the use of state funds granted to municipalities; and

2. Shift the responsibility to hear state employee whistleblower complaints from the Attorney General's Office to the Office of Accountability.

State law currently creates a conflict of interest by having whistleblowers' charges handled by the Attorney General's office - the same office responsible for defending state agencies against whistleblower complaints. While I trust that the Attorney General has, to the best of his ability, instituted strong firewalls to protect whistleblowers, there is still an inherent perception problem. As long as whistleblower charges are handled by the same office responsible for defending state agencies against whistleblower complaints, people are going to be afraid to come forward when they have witnessed abuses of power. Conversely, the Office of Accountability could provide a place where state and municipal employees could safely and confidentially bring allegations about corrupt practices.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Governor Rell for including this important proposal in her biennial budget proposal. Bill No. 6374 has my full support and I will fight to see it enacted. I thank the cornmittee in advance for considering the additional measures I have proposed to make the office stronger. 001720

TRUST for Testimony in Opposition to Governor's Bill No. 6375 PUBLIC (LCO No. 3036) LAND Presented by Amy Blaymore Paterson, Project Manager The Trust for Public Land March 16, 2009

New England Regional Office To: Chair and Members of the Committee on Government Administration and Elections: 33 Union St fourth Floor On behalf of the Trust for Public Land, I would like to express strong opposition to llotRin MA 02108 Governor Rell's proposal to eliminate the Face of Connecticut Streering Committee and T 617-367-6200 the Council on Environmental Quality under Bill No. 6375. T 617-367-1616

Connccncur Office By way of introduction, The Trust of Public Land, a national non-profit organization, 101 Wlnnicv A\e works in partnership with landowners, community groups and national, state and local Snond t-loor agencies to protect land for public enjoyment. Our Connecticut office is located in New New [ |j\eu L.T 06510 Haven and over the past 15 years we have protected more than 6000 acres in over 60 T 203-777-7367 Connecticut communities. T 203-777-74S8

Maine Office The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) has served as the state's independent, 377 Fore- St watchdog agency for the environment for more than thirty years. CEQ provides Thud Tlooi oversight of our state environmental agencies, monitors environmental conditions, fields Ponland M[ 04I0I and investigates citizen complaints and concerns, and makes recommendations T 207-772-7424 concerning the status of Connecticut's overall environmental health - all on an annual I" 207-772-7420 budget of approximately $170,000. Simply put, this agency does more with less than most any other agency in the state. To merge CEQ with the Department of Norrhem New England Office Environmental Protection (DEP) would not only eliminate its function as an independent 3 Shipntjn I'Lhx oversight agency but it would also impose further work and responsibilities upon an Montpeliei \'l 05602 already underfunded and understaffed DEP. T S02-223-1373 r 302-223-0451 The Face of Connecticut Steering Committee serves a different although no less

New Hampshire Office important function as an independent oversight agency and should also be spared from 54 Portsmouth it elimination. Through program implementation and funding oversight, this committee Concord X1 H helps communities plan for responsible growth, land conservation, historic properties 03301 preservation and urban restoration. Moreover, during these challenging economic T 603-224-0103 F 603-224-0645 times, it is especially important to ensure that state programs and their funding sources are implemented and distributed in the most efficient manner possible. The Face of www tpl org Connecticut Steering Committee has proven to be an effective administrator, successfully bringing multiple state departments and interests to the table to determine the best strategies for smart growth in Connecticut

These committees play a crucial role in protecting Connecticut's environment, defining the character of its communities and ensuring the quality of life of its citizens. The Trust for Public Land respectfully urges the Committee to preserve the independent integrity and work of these invaluable committees.

Thank you foryour consideration 001721

Testimony of Thomas Sayers 29 Mihaliak Drive Tolland, CT

Government Administration and Elections Committee Hearing March 16, 2009

In opposition to HB 6375 merging CEQ into the PEP

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and members of the GAE Committee, it has come to my attention that in HB 6375 the Council on Invasive Species has been targeted for elimination in the proposed state budget for next year. Also, next year's funding for the newly created Invasive Plant Program, currently budgeted at $500,000, will be reduced to zero. These two proposals are seriously flawed and, if passed, would result in incalculable harm to our state's ecosystems and would necessitate the eventual spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars to mitigate the propagation of invasive plant species in our state. Let me explain.

I live in Tolland and have been active for many years doing citizen science projects as my way of helping to protect our environment and its inhabitants. I pay particular attention to bird species in our state that have been designated as threatened, endangered , or are species of special concern and attempt, when possible, to help document their population status through either direct observation, informal census measures, and/or photography.

What has become very striking to me over the last decade or so is the rapid expansion of invasive plant species in our state and the deleterious effects they are having on the biodiversity of our state's ecosystems, particularly those that are aquatic in nature. The expansion of invasive plants such as purple loosestrife, phragmites, barberry, spotted knapweed, milfoil and others have had a very negative impact on the ecosystems in many parts of our state. As they crowd out native plants, the species that require those native plants for food and/ or cover are forced into an ever-tightening circle of remaining native plants. This eventually begins to affect the survivability of those species.

One example of many is a globally threatened species called the saltmarsh sparrow. Connecticut has one of the highest densities of breeding saltmarsh 001722

sparrows in the world. As invasive phragmites continues to displace the native spartina grasses in our coastal marshes, the saltmarsh sparrow is becoming increasingly threatened.

In addition to the negative impact that invasives have on our native wildlife, the impact on agricultural activities and recreational activities in our state is also becoming very significant. Associated with that is the rising economic impact of trying to mitigate the expansion of invasives.

One example is Crystal Lake in the town of Ellington. Crystal Lake, which is approximately 230 acres in size, has been invaded by Eurasian milfoil which is increasingly taking over the lake. It has been estimated that the cost of removing the milfoil in a 20 acre section of the lake will be approximately $250,000 dollars. That is one corner of one lake in one town in the state of Connecticut. Think about it. Addressing this problem is not optional and the town of Ellington has begun efforts to do so.

Another example of the cost of invasive plant control is illustrated by a federal government estimate that the cost to remove phragmites from one acre of marshland is $3,300. And that's only one acre.

• One of the keys to addressing the problem of invasives is early detection. Once they gain a foothold,.the cost of mitigation rises exponentially over time. The other key to combating invasives is ongoing research into the most effective biological, chemical, and mechanical means of control.

The elimination of the Invasive Plants Council and the funding for the Invasive Plants Program would seriously hamper the early detection and control efforts that are currently underway to address the problem of invasives. These would be very shortsighted decisions whose initial savings to the state would be dwarfed by the enormous costs incurred in the future. The decision is basically to pay now or pay, pay, pay later. The problem is not going away and the stakes on so many fronts are much too high.

I urge you all to leave the Connecticut Invasive Plant Council intact and retain a reasonable amount of funding for the Connecticut Invasive Plants Program. 001723

CT TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

March 16, 2009

TO: Joint Committee on Government Administration and Elections

Senator Gayle Slossberg, co-chair Rep. James Spallone, co-chair

Testimony in Opposition to HB 6375

From Helen Higgins, Executive Director of the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation:

I ask your support to oppose elimination of the Face of Connecticut Steering Committee, as proposed in HB 6375.

The Connecticut Trust is Connecticut's non-profit statewide preservation organization, established by Special Act of the Connecticut General Assembly in 1975 (SA 93-75). It is committed to protecting and nourishing the vitality of significant buildings and landscapes through grants, loans, on-site technical preservation assistance, educational programs and publications.

HB 6375 would eliminate the newly created Face of Connecticut Steering Committee, created by the CT General Assembly in 2008. Last year 95 legislators co-sponsored the bill that created the Face of Connecticut Steering Committee.

I urge you to not eliminate the Steering Committee before it has had the chance to demonstrate its effectiveness, especially as a vehicle for distributing funds to projects that protect farmland and open space, invest in village centers and brownfields mitigation. In fact, HB 6660, being heard in the Environment Committee today, proposes bond funds that will authorize bonds of the state for state grant programs for the purpose of historic preservation, brownfields remediation and farmland and open space preservation, and to require the Face of Connecticut Steering .Committee to report on the goals and obstacles for such grant programs, create a grant program for mixed-use preservation, develop criteria for eligibility for smart growth funding and report on the status of various projects funded by the committee. Working Lands Alliance A Project of American Farmland Trust

To: GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION & ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Date Mar 16, 2009

RE: H B 6375 - AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Section 1- regarding termination of the following governmental entities (5) Face of Connecticut Steering Committee, established under section 22a-27s of the general statutes; (14) Connecticut Food Policy Council, established under section 22-456 of the general statutes;

Submitted by: Jiff Martin, Project Director, Working Lands Alliance

The following testimony is submitted on behalf of the Working Lands Alliance, a statewide coalition of over 600 individuals and 200 businesses and non-profits committed to increasing the state's commitment to farmland preservation.

Working Lands Alliance opposes the elimination of 1) Face of Connecticut Steering Committee and 2) Connecticut Food Policy Council

The Face of Connecticut Steering Committee is intended to provide a decision-making structure that will overcome the failure of state agencies to work together on investment priorities that will impact our state's long-term character. Established in 2008, all members of this body have not yet been appointed, nor has there been any funding commitment yet made to the accompanying Face of Connecticut Account (also established in 2008) However, a failure to move forward on this concept will only perpetuate the practice of state agencies making green and brown investments in, isolation of each other. Moreover, the premature termination of this body will undermine legislative proposals also moving forward this session that will rely on this Steering Committee to allocate bonding to farmland, brownfields, historic preservation, affordable housing, and open space

The CT Food Policy Council's greatest strength has been providing a forum for communication and information sharing between state agencies on programs that affect nutrition and agriculture Many of these programs derive partial funding through federal sources and demand creative collaboration across state and university entities in order to improve efficiency and increase coverage to Connecticut families and children. The Council has historically been funded at an annual rate of $25,000 In 2003-2004, the Council was able to leverage an additional $150,000 in Federal funds through the Community Food Projects Grant Program. With or without funding, elimination of this Council will preclude ever qualifying in the future for similar federal grant funds and will undermine a practical means to improving state food and agriculture programs to best serve state residents 001725

Government Administration and Elections Committee Testimony prepared by Dr. Alice Pritchard March 16, 2009

Good morning. My name is Alice Pritchard and I am the Executive Director of the Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF). CWEALF is a statewide non-profit organization dedicated to empowering women, girls and their families to achieve equal opportunities in their personal and professional lives. I am testifying today to raise concerns about HB 6375: An Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions.

For the past four years, through the Office for Workforce Competitiveness, I have served as consultant to the Allied Health Workforce Policy Board. I have also been an advocate for nearly two decades on workforce development for women and girls in the state.

The Connecticut Allied Health Workforce Policy Board (AHWPB) was established in Public Act 04-220 (An Act Concerning Allied Health Workforce Needs) to conduct research and planning activities related to the allied health workforce. Under HB 6375, the AHWPB is slated to be terminated in October 2009 at a time when attention to the allied health workforce is critical.

The Board began meeting in March 2005 and issued its first report to the legislature in February 2006. Throughout its tenure, the Board has met regularly to discuss current initiatives in allied health in the state, gaps in workforce data, issues related to educational programming, and recruitment and retention of the workforce, as well as researching and developing solutions to allied health workforce shortages. In addition, the Board has commissioned key studies of faculty shortages and clinical placement opportunities.

The experiences of key stakeholders and our commissioned research are highlighted in the Allied Health Workforce Policy Board's Annual Legislative Report. Copies of legislative report were sent to your office in early February and earlier reports are posted at www.cwealf.org.

The AHWPB has made great strides since its establishment in 2004 and should continue its work to monitor the workforce supply and demand for health care workers as well as best practices for promoting recruitment and retention of these workers. The volunteer board and regular participants provide critical information on the state's ability to train and employ the needed health care workforce. There is no other single entity facilitating these important conversations.

With your support, the Board can continue to play a key role in convening stakeholders who are conducting a variety of initiatives. We have learned a great deal over the last several years and with implementation of our legislative recommendations the state can impact health care workforce shortages. Now is not the time to terminate this effective Commission and I urge your removal of the Allied Health Workforce Policy Board from this legislation.

135 Broad Street Hartford, CT 06105 t 860 247.6090 f 860 524 0804 www cwealf.org 001726 j

I am also submitting testimony related to SB 839 An Act Concerning Mergers and Consolidations of Various State Agencies. In particular, I oppose the consolidation of the Office of the Child Advocate with the Attorney General's office and the consolidation of the Departments of Higher Education and Education.

The Office of the Child Advocate has been instrumental in protecting the rights of the children under the state's care. Whether it is the Department of Children and Families or Corrections, the Office of the Child Advocate has investigated complaints and offered recommended changes to better meet the needs of children and youth. Their continued staffing is vital to the ongoing monitoring of these services and agencies. Though they work collaboratively with the Attorney General's office, it is important that they continue to act independently as the Attorney General's office defends the state in these cases.

The consolidation of the Departments of Education and Higher Education is also ill-advised. These two state agencies have critical missions and important target populations. In fact, over time the State Department of Education's mission has stretched from the education of children in pre-school to adults in high school completion programs. The Department of Higher Education must guide the growth of our state's higher education system. These institutions will play a significant role in the education of adults seeking a place in our state's workforce. Again, though they work collaboratively and should continue to do so, it is critical that they maintain their independence and focus. I urge your rejection of these consolidations.

I thank you for your time and am always available to answer any questions or provide additional information. Testimony

Before The

Government Administration and Elections Committee

Public Hearing March 16, 2009 Regarding HB-6375

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and distiquished members of the committee, thank you for your time to hear my testimony. My name is Roger Stolting and I currently hold several licenses in this state within the purview of 3 occupational licensing boards, and am a past contractor member of the Plumbing, Piping & Work Examining Board. I am opposed to the termination of these boards as listed in Section 1. (57), (58) & (61).

Having served on an occupational licensing board for approximately 8 years I have witnessed first hand the importance and need of the board structure to provide advise and assistance in adopting regulations pertaining to practices, set standards, provide bench marks for experience and required training to qualify an applicant to sit for examination. We also provide advice and assistance in determining where limited licensing is required. Several of the other duties we provide include licensing application review for special circumstances, licensing examination review (ever changing codes and product introductions), provide continuing education content requirements and review provider's instructional contents, watch industry and co-ordinate it's effects licenses, provide a forum where a license holder can be heard by his peers if needed.

With all the emphasis on higher technology and the training that goes along with it, I find it wrong to terminate these boards. This will only lead to the watering down of our industry standards, add a larger work load to paid staff (which has already been over burdened for years). What this will lead to is less licensing enforcement, less accountability & substandard workmanship. In the end we will all pay a greater price than we think we may save.

I currently am working as a Manufacturers' Representative and see first hand the difference in abilities where licensing is well administered with feedback from industry professionals (licensing boards).

Please leave these boards intact and if anything provide them with more resources so we can make our homes safer and more efficient.

Thank you, Roger Stolting 001728

MarkR Berkowitz 106 Bainton Road West Hartford, CT 06117

March 16, 2009 c

Government Administration and Elections Committee Room 2200, Legislative Office Building Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Government Administration and Elections Committee:

I'm writing in response to Governor's Bill No. 6375, an act concerning review and termination of certain boards and commissions. I'm a member of the Mobile Manufactured Home Advisory Council (MMHAC) established under section 21-84a of the general statutes and serve as one of the Community Owner representatives. The Council was established under the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP).

The MMHAC is comprised of volunteer representatives from the Real Estate Commission, Mobile Home Community Owners, Community Tenants, Manufactured Housing Industry Representatives, Town Planners, Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, Banking Industry and an Attomey-At- Law Representative who specializes in mobile/manufactured home matters.

I appreciate the efforts of the Governor and the Legislature to review certain boards and commissions to determine if cost savings can be achieved in this difficult economic climate. However, the elimination of the Council will not save the State of Connecticut any funds. Moreover, its elimination may ultimately cost the State money where MMHAC could have stepped in to deal with prevailing issues before legislative remedies are sought.

The Council has worked closely with the Department of Consumer Protection to ensure that the State of Connecticut continues to provide affordable housing to its residents. In addition, the Council acts as a forum to educate industry representatives to ensure that resident rights are promoted.

It's my sincere hope that the Mobile Manufactured Home Advisory Council will continue to exist to do the good work that it was originally set up for and can continue to promote affordable housing for Connecticut citizens. Thank you.

Sincerely, Mark R. Berkowitz Director of Operations Ossen MHC Holdings, LLC 001729

ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS Master License No. CT 103805 Master License No. MA A-11725 March 16,2009

House Bill 6375 Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions

My name is John E. Taylor Jr. I'm and resident of Faimington, CT, Business owner in Southington, CT and Licensed Electrician for 34 years.

Over the past 34 years I have seen the electrical trade change in many ways most of this change has been over the last 10 years with new technology. As these new technology come in to the work place it take yearly training and review of codes and standards to operate in our work environment.

•gg^^l One of the Electrical Licensing Board functions thought relegation is to keep all electrical license holders current on yearly training on code, state of CT laws and best business practices. The Board makes sure that license holder are installing up to the current codes and operating ethically in the electrical industry. As new technology come into the work place Q^) Photovoltaic's (Solar) they are charged with regulating the standards in which the installation and proper licensing is followed. They are the industry group that hold hearings for violators of the codes and state laws regarding the electrical trade and again serve as a fc^-fe safe guard to the public. They serve as one of the watch dog in the electrical industry and public safety for the consumer of the state of Connecticut

With the economic times we all face daily we see unlicensed people installing work without regards to the publics interest which this board investigates and stops these violators.

These individuals who serve on this board are voluntary with great sacrifice of their business and personal time. In my opinion without this board in would put a great burden on the DCP and at a much higher cost then the operation of a voluntary board.

I also feel that the elimination of this board would put our industry years behind and put the public at unnecessary risk and cost the hard working license workers who pay a fee for the State to regulate our industry at a disadvantage with the people and companies looking to take advantage of the current economic times by short cuts in the state consumer and labor laws.

Therefore I "ask that you vote against House Bill 6375.

Thank you

E. Taylofjr License # 103805

215 Captain Lewis Drive • Southington, CT 06489 • (860) 621-9657 • Fax (860) 621-2456 Website: eesc-ct.com An Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer 001730

Testimony

Before The

Government Administration and Elections Committee

Public Hearing March 16, 2009 Regarding HB-6375

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and distiquished members of the committee, thank you for your time to hear my testimony. My name is Roger Stolting and I currently hold several licenses in this state within the purview of 3 occupational licensing boards, and am a past contractor member of the Plumbing, Piping & Work Examining Board. I am opposed to the termination of these boards as listed in Section 1. (57), (58) & (61).

Having served on an occupational licensing board for approximately 8 years I have witnessed first hand the importance and need of the board structure to provide advise and assistance in adopting regulations pertaining to practices, set standards, provide bench marks for experience and required training to qualify an applicant to sit for examination. We also provide advice and assistance in determining where limited licensing is required. Several of the other duties we provide include licensing application review for special circumstances, licensing examination review (ever changing codes and product introductions), provide continuing education content requirements and review provider's instructional contents, watch industry and co-ordinate it's effects licenses, provide a forum where a license holder can be heard by his peers if needed.

With all the emphasis on higher technology and the training that goes along with it, I find it wrong to terminate these boards. This will only lead to the watering down of our industry standards, add a larger work load to paid staff (which has already been over burdened for years). What this will lead to is less licensing enforcement, less accountability & substandard workmanship. In the end we will all pay a greater price than we think we may save.

I currently am working as a Manufacturers' Representative and see first hand the difference in abilities where licensing is well administered with feedback from industry professionals (licensing boards).

Please leave these boards intact and if anything provide them with more resources so we can make our homes safer and more efficient.

Thank you, Roger Stolting 001731

March 12, 2009

K. Lisa Venn 33 Granby Farms Granby, CT 06035

Dear State Representative Floren:

As a certified Sign Language Interpreter working for the State of Connecticut Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired (CDHI), I am strongly encouraging you to vote NO to the Governor's HB 6375 Section 2 (e) #6, where it states that the Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired (CDHI) is to be terminated July 1, 2014. Listed below are quick bulleted reasons I believe the Commission on the Deaf should not be terminated. This list is a quick reference; it is by no means an exhaustive list:

• Closing CDHI will cause more undo financial burden for.the State agencies (DCF, DDS.DMHAS, DOC, etc) to comply with federal mandated laws (stated below) than it would cost to keep the Commission a functioning entity within the Executive Branch. CDHI's competitors charge substantially more money than the current rates at CDHI. • CDHI enables the State of CT to be in compliance with federal mandated laws such as; Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, (IDEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB). • Closing CDHI will no longer provide the State of CT with a governing agency to oversee the statutory law (CGS Section 46a-33a) of all interpreters being registered in the State and working with proper certification. • Closing CDHI will directly effect and negatively impact the quality of life for all persons who are Deaf and Hearing Impaired as well as the community at large due to the limited access to services such as interpreting, counseling and advocacy. • Most referrals are done through CDHI such as; medical, legal, education, businesses and corporations.

Thank you for taking the time to read this e-mail during this busy time. If you feel that you need further information or specifics regarding this e-mail, please feel free to contact me at: [email protected] or 860^653-7932.

If I cannot be at the LOB in person on March 16, 2009, it is solely because I am out interpreting for the State of CT, along with 20-30 of my colleagues providing interpreting services for Deaf AND Hearing persons all over the State. Thank you for taking this matter seriously.

K. Lisa Venn CDHI Interpreter TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE March 16, 2009

Robert L. Genuario ------. Secretary- - - -

Office of Policy and Management

Testimony Supporting

H. B. No. 6375 An Act Concerning Review And Termination Of Certain Boards And Conirnissions

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and distinguished members of the GAE committee, I am Robert Genuario, Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management and I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony in support of House Bill 6375, An Act Concerning Review And Termination Of Certain Boards And Commissions.

Governor Rell has proposed to consolidate and eliminate a number of state commissions and agencies. Many of these entities are advisory in nature; many are duplicative of other state functions. Additionally, there are agencies that provide similar functions as these boards and commissions. Such agencies will be able to' handle the matters currently undertaken by the boards and cornrnissions being eliminated.

Since the introduction of this bill, additional review of the entities named in the bill leads me to recommend that some be removed from section 1 and allowed to continue in existence. These include: the Family Support Council; the Board of Governors, Hartford Hospital Corporation; the Commission for Child Support Guidelines; the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission; the Invasive Species Council; the Tree Protection Examining Board; the Forest Practices Advisory Council; and the Corrvmission on Uniform Legislation. 001733

3 Tlie Ajcluifccis

56 i.raor S'rett Hartford. CT :.blv,b Tel (SfcO) 2i2-ro~ F.L\ (860) 2i2-2~22

Robert B. Hurd, A1A Architect

March 16,2009 The Hon. Gayle S. Slossberg, 14* Senate District - Co-Chair The Hon. James F. Spallone, 36"1 Assembly District - Co-Chair March 15,2009 Members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee Connecticut General Assembly

Hartford, CT 06106

Re: HB 6375 AAC Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions

Dear Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and Committee Members:

I write today in opposition to certain provisions of the above referenced legislation. Section 1, subsections 54, 60 and 62 will eliminate (sunset) the Architectural Licensing Board, the State Board of Landscape Architects and State Board of Examiners for Professional engineers and Land Surveyors, effective this October. The legislation purports to "eliminate unnecessary and obsolete boards and commissions."

As a volunteer member of Connecticut's Architectural Licensing Board (ALB), I find the statement of purpose particularly onerous. The ALB and the other professional licensing boards provide our experience and expertise to the staff of the Department of Consumer Protection. As required by the licensing law, these boards handle matters such as eligibility for architectural licensing examinations, examination of applicants for a license, appeals of examination grades, reciprocal licensing and professional ethics and conduct

Along with our predecessors, we have performed these functions for more than half a century without cost to the taxpayers. Previous sunset reviews have found our efforts to be both necessary and essential to the health, safety and welfare of the public which we serve. I urge you to amend the proposed legislation to allow these licensing boards to continue their service to the taxpayers of Connecticut for the foreseeable future.

Thank you,

Robert B. Hurd, ALA - Architect Member, Connecticut Architectural Licensing Board

THE Integrity THE Ability THE Experience 001734

^ Mental# Health N

of Connecticut, Inc.

Good Morning, Chairman Slossberg and Representative Spallone and members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. My name is Domenique Thornton, I am the General Counsel for the Mental Health Association of CT, Inc., (MHAC), a one hundred (100) year old private non-profit dedicated to service, education and advocacy for people with mental health disabilities. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak in opposition to S.B. 839 An Act Concerning Mergers and Consolidations of Various State Agencies that provides for the consolidation the Office of the Child Advocate with the Attorney General's Office. I would also like to oppose H.B. 6375 An Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commission eliminating the Commission for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired. The Mental Health Association of Connecticut, Inc. (MHAC) provides residential services for people who have severe and prolonged mental illness. A majority of the people we serve have had mental health disabilities since birth. Early intervention can reduce some of the ill effects of mental illness. The Office of the Child Advocate adds an important independent voice to protect children. What could be a more important function of state government? The Child Care Advocate must independently investigate state agencies that deal with children and alert the legislature and the public when the agencies are not providing the care that Connecticut expects. They would have a conflict of interest with the Attorney General's Office if the office were to be included within that office because the Attorney General represents the agencies that they must investigate. 001735

Other people MHAC serves are the Deaf and Hearing Impaired who are frequently also developmentally disabled as well, due to premature birth. The MHAC Robinson House, named after the renowned and beloved teacher of the Deaf, Luther D. Robinson, MD, a pioneer in the development of mental health services, is a 24-hour a day program, a licensed group home. MHAC also sponsors a supervised apartment program. The rehabilitative model is based on a rehabilitative model where staff assists clients in developing and pursuing their individual goals. Rehabilitative services assist clients in learning and performing daily living skills and in creating and enhancing their community networks. But, Robinson House only serves 8 clients. These watchdog agencies within state government that are dedicated to children and the one that supports the Deaf to ensure that they receive the special attention they deserve, the Office of Child Advocate and the Commission for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired, should be maintained. These two offices educate, empower and advocate for people who cannot speak for themselves. To eliminate, impair or reduce these offices would be a serious mistake and a bad policy decision for Connecticut. Protection of children and people with disabilities such as the Deaf and Hearing Impaired are important state functions. We cannot depend only on an educated and active citizenry to support these functions. Every other state in the United States and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico recognizes the necessity of a separate commission for the Deaf because their issues are so unique. The state of Connecticut should not abrogate its responsibility to persons who have such special and unique needs. Connecticut has a responsibility to provide the leadership and support for its young and for people with multiple disabilities. It should not relinquish those responsibilities because of a temporary budgetary crisis because its citizenry is educated and compassionate. Connecticut should keep the Office of Child Advocate and the Commission for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired because it is a vital part of the mission of government. Thank you. 001736

Testimony Maryjane Fay President All Phase Heating and Cooling Contractors, LLC Moodus, CT, 06469 860-873-9680

RE: HB-6375, An Act Concerning the Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment in opposition to HB-6375. An Act Concerning the Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions, which would eliminate-the occupational licensing boards. I am very much opposed to the State doing away with the boards.

Consumer Protection does not have the staff or resources to keep contactors with shady practices in line. One of the only real tools the State has to police our industry is this heating board which no contractor ever wants to have to come before. The heating board is a very good means of protecting the public safety. Diiring these difficult times unscrupulous contractors will be cutting corners to shave the price down on bids and now more than ever we need this board to police and discipline contractors doing substandard work. Without this board, shady contractors will run amuck and public safety will be comprised.

I strongly support the state trade boards and I appreciate and sleep better at night knowing they are protecting and serving the state of CT.

Please reject the provisions in HB-6375 which would eliminate the occupational licensing boards.

Thank you. 001737

There is no testimony for pages 1737. The next page is 1738. 001738

I JSL Children's Fund of Connecticut, Inc. Ml Child Health and Development Institute of Connecticut, Inc.

March 16, 2009

TESTIMONY REGARDING H. B. No. 6375 AN ACT CONCERNING CFC & CHOI BOARD OF DIRECTORS REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND Barbara McGrath - Cbair ofCFC COMMISSIONS; AND S.B. No. 839 AN ACT CONCERNING MERGERS AND Asst. Director, CT Urban Legal Initiative, Inc. UConn School of Law CONSOLIDATIONS OF VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES

Fred Volkmar - Chair of CHDI Director, Yale Child Study Ctr. Submitted to: The Government Administration and Elections Committee Judith C Meyers - President & CEO Children's Fund and CHDI By: Judith Meyers, Ph.D. - President and CEO, Child Health and Development Keith Stevenson - CFC Treasurer Institute of Connecticut (CHDI) and the Children's Fund of Connecticut Retired Executive, Aetna

Peter Eio CHDI Treasurer Retired President, LEGO Systems Inc. Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, and other members of the Ann Taylor- CHDI/CFC Secretary Government Administration and Elections Committee, as President of the Children's Gen. Counsel & Dir. of Gov. Relations, CT Children's Medical Center Fund of Connecticut and its subsidiary, the Child Health and Development Institute of Michael Apkon Vice President & Executive Director Connecticut (CHDI), I am writing to you on behalf of the Children's Fund Public Yale-New Haven Children's Hospital Policy Committee, a standing committee of our Board of Directors to ask that you Fernando Betancourt Consultant, Latino and reject the Governor's recommendations regarding termination of the Commission on Puerto Rican Affairs Commission

George Coleman Children, the Consolidation of the Children's Trust Fund within the Department of Deputy Commissioner State Dept. of Education Children and Families, the Consolidation of the Office of the Child Advocate within Paul H. Dworkin the Office of the Attorney General, and the conversion of the Governor's own Early Chair of Pediatrics, CT Children's Medical Center Care and Education Cabinet to an advisory council within the Department of Fernando Ferrer Di rector/Surgeon-in-C hief Education. Dept of Pediatric Urology, CCMC

Brian Forsyth The mission of the Children's Fund and CHDI is to promote primary and Professor, Yale Dept of Pediatrics preventive health and mental health care for all children in Connecticut, with a Martin Gavin particular focus on the underserved. Our Board Members include key state leaders in President & CEO, CT Children's Medical Center Kevin Kelly health care and members of the academic and business community who are President & CEO, Medical Risk Management committed to improving health and mental health outcomes for children in Robert KUlian, Jr. Connecticut. We work to develop and promote comprehensive, effective community- Probate Judge

Susan Whetstone based health and mental health care systems through identifying, supporting, and Chief Administrative Officer, University of Connecticut Health Center disseminating evidence-based programs to address health and mental health needs of children. We have invested significant dollars and organizational resources over the past ten years to work in close collaboration with state agencies and communities

(OVER)

270 Farmington Avenue, Suite 367, Farmington, CT 06032 tel: 860 679-1519 fax: 860 679-1521 001739 [

to address the health and mental health needs of underserved children in Connecticut. We have had close -connections-with all the entities-I-have meritioned-and-t have had-the privilege of-servirig-ori-the Governor's Cabinet for ECE as a legislative designee. We believe that much progress has been made in addressing the healthy development of children so that they are ready to succeed when they enter school and throughout their school years and beyond. We are very concerned that the dissolution of so many key state entities that are solely dedicated to children's issues will leave our state's youngest citizens with no voice to champion their causes. The Children's Trust Fund, Commission on Children, Early Childhood Education Cabinet, and Office of the Child Advocate all provide unique and vital services and advocacy on behalf of Connecticut's children We understand that the current fiscal crisis demands optimal efficiency in government and in no way do we underestimate the enormity of the challenge being faced by the legislature as you work to balance the state's budget. However, plans to dissolve the aforementioned agencies will either demand creation of new structures to perform their functions, which could actually be more costly to the state and be less effective, or will shift their work into organizations that already face enormous workloads, thereby compromising attention to children's issues. Each of these organizations was created by either the legislature or the Executive Branch for a clear purpose. Those purposes have not gone away. Planning, policy development, preventing child abuse, promoting school readiness, providing oversight for the state's most vulnerable children - those needs persist and in difficult economic times, these needs will be on the increase. Undoing what has been built may provide some short term savings but they are minimal in light of the long term consequences. We understand there may be a need to scale back, but totally dismantling the infrastructure for each of these entities will set back years of reform. Connecticut has been seen as a leader on children's issues. Should the Governor's budget recommendations prevail, we are likely to move to the back of the pack. The Children's Fund and CHDI will continue to devote our resources to work to address children's health and mental needs. We are prepared to continue to work in public/private partnerships with state agencies and are prepared to be helpful in any way we can. Please feel free to call on us as an independent entity for objective information, policy analysis, or other technical assistance that we might provide. We hope that this Committee will do its part in ensuring that Connecticut does not fail its youngest citizens, who are the state's future. Together we can assure the healthy growth and development of Connecticut's children.

Thank you. Judith Meyers, Ph.D. 860 679-1519 [email protected] 001740

Testimony

Before The

Government Administration and Elections Committee

Public Hearing March 16, 2009 Regarding HB-6375

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and distiquished members of the committee, thank you for your time to hear my testimony. My name is Roger Stolting and I currently hold several licenses in this state within the purview of 3 occupational licensing boards, and am a past contractor member of the Plumbing, Piping & Work Examining Board. I am opposed to the termination of these boards as listed in Section 1. (57), (58) & (61).

Having served on an occupational licensing board for approximately 8 years I have witnessed first hand the importance and need of the board structure to provide advise and assistance in adopting regulations pertaining to practices, set standards, provide bench marks for experience and required training to qualify an applicant to sit for examination. We also provide advice and assistance in deterrmning where limited licensing is required. Several of the other duties we provide include licensing application review for special circumstances, licensing exarnination review (ever changing codes and product introductions), provide continuing education content requirements and review provider's instructional contents, watch industry and co-ordinate it's effects licenses, provide a forum where a license holder can be heard by his peers if needed.

With all the emphasis on higher technology and the training that goes along with it, I find it wrong to terminate these boards. This will only lead to the watering down of our industry standards, add a larger work load to paid staff (which has already been over burdened for years). What this will lead to is less licensing enforcement, less accountability & substandard workmanship. In the end we will all pay a greater price than we think we may save.

I currently am working as a Manufacturers' Representative and see first hand the difference in abilities where licensing is well administered with feedback from industry professionals (licensing boards).

Please leave these boards intact and if anything provide them with more resources so we can make our homes safer and more efficient.

Thank you, Roger Stolting 001741

March 12, 2009

K. Lisa Venn 33 Granby Farms Granby, CT 06035

Dear State Representative Aresimowicz:

As a certified Sign Language Interpreter working for the State of Connecticut Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired (CDHI), I am strongly encouraging you to vote NO to the_Govemor's HB 6375 Section 2 (e) #6, where it states that the Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired (CDHI) is to be terminated July 1, 2014. Listed below are quick bulleted reasons I believe the Commission on the Deaf should not be terminated. This list is a quick reference; it is by no means an exhaustive list:

• Closing CDHI will cause more undo financial burden for the State agencies (DCF, DDS.DMHAS, DOC, etc) to comply with federal mandated laws (stated below) than it would cost to keep the Commission a functioning entity within the Executive Branch. CDHI's competitors charge substantially more money than the current rates at CDHI. • CDHI enables the State of CT to be in compliance with federal mandated laws such as; Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, (IDEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB). • Closing CDHI will no longer provide the State of CT with a governing agency to oversee the statutory law (CGS Section 46a-33a) of all interpreters being registered in the State and working with proper certification. • Closing CDHI will directly effect and negatively impact the quality of life for all persons who are Deaf and Hearing Impaired as well as the community at large due to the limited access to services such as interpreting, counseling and advocacy. • Most referrals are done through CDHI such as; medical, legal, education, businesses and corporations.

Thank you for taking the time to read this e-mail during this busy time. If you feel that you need further information or specifics regarding this e-mail, please feel free to contact me at: [email protected] or 860^653-7932.

If I cannot be at the LOB in person on March 16, 2009, it is solely because I am out interpreting for the State of CT, along with 20-30 of my colleagues providing interpreting services for Deaf AND Hearing persons all over the State. Thank you for taking this matter seriously.

K. Lisa Venn CDHI Interpreter 001742

^Audubon CONNECTICUT 185 East Flat Hill Road Southbury, CT 06488 Tel: 203-264-5098 Fax: 203-264-6332 vvww.audubon.org

TESTIMONY OF AUDUBON CONNECTICUT SANDY BRESLIN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

MARCH 16, 2009

Audubon Connecticut, a part of the National Audubon Society with more than 10,000 members statewide, works to protect birds, other wildlife and their habitats using education, science and conservation, and legislative advocacy for the benefit ofpeople and the earth's biological diversity. Through our network of community-based nature centers, protected wildlife sanctuaries, and local volunteer Chapters, we seek to connect people with nature and inspire the next generation of conservationists.

IN OPPOSITION TO H.B. No. 6375 AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

Chairman Slossberg, Chairman Spallone and members of the GAE Corrimittee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today. Audubon Connecticut strongly opposes H.B. 6375, AACReview and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions Section 1 (42) that seeks to eliminate the Connecticut Invasive Plants Council.

Invasive species, including invasive plants, are second only to development in the threat they pose to Connecticut's native habitat. Forty-two percent (42%) of threatened and endangered species in the U.S. have suffered declines due to competition from normative invaders. The economic costs incurred because of normative species reach billions of dollars in this country each year.

Established in 2003, the Connecticut Invasive Plants Council has made substantial progress in identifying and listing plants that are invasive or potentially invasive, and the General Assembly has acted promptly to ban these plants, but there is still much more to be done. The Council brings together agency experts, academic researchers, nursery industry representatives and nonprofit land conservation organizations in a joint effort to address this threat to our state's natural landscape and wildlife.

The habitat destruction wrought by invasive plant species is of great concern to all conservation agencies and organizations that own and manage open space lands. Organizations such as Audubon spend countless hours of staff and volunteer time working to eradicate invasive plant species from our properties, at the same time many of these species are still being sold at the local nursery. Without the ongoing dialogue afforded by the Invasive Plants Council, stakeholders will be forced to fall back into the adversarial stance that existed prior to creation of the Council. 001743

Recent research conducted by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station - itself a member of the Invasive Plants Council - provides yet another reason to support prompt action to reduce invasive plants species, in particular Japanese barberry. This tough, thorny shrub is widespread through many of our forests where it quickly comes to dominate the understory crowding out native plants and shrubs that provide food and shelter for numerous species of wildlife.

Accordmg to the researchers at the Agricultural Experiment Station, however, there is one species of animal that flourishes in thick patches of barberry: the white-footed mouse, the host species for the black-legged tick that carries Lyme Disease (J. Ward, personal communication). In light of this information, developing public policy and on- the-ground management strategies to reduce the incidence and prevalence of Japanese barberry is no longer just a habitat or wildlife issue; it is a public health issue as well. Successfully combating this alien invader could help to reduce the incidence and prevalence of Lyme Disease in Connecticut.

We urge the Committee to reject H.B. 63 75 Section 1 (42) and allow the Invasive Plants Council to continue its work. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter today. 001744

NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS

Ptttten ^xati\Bxiiaab of (Earpsnters axxb joiners ai ^mertca

CARPENTERS LOCAL 210 P O BOX 668 TELEPHONE 427 STILLSON ROAD (203) 334-4300 FAIRFIELD, CT 06824-0668 FAX (203) 334-4700

GLENN MARSHALL. PRESIDENT LOCAL UNION 2 IO

TESTIMONY OF GLENN MARSHALL BEFORE THE GAE COMMITTEE, MARCH 16, 2009, CONCERNING GOVERNOR'S BILL 6375. AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Cochairs Slossberg and Spallone, members of the committee, my name is Glenn Marshall. I am the President of Carpenter's Local Union 210 and District Manager for the Connecticut Carpenters, and I am here today to a portion of the Governor's Bill 6375. An Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions, which includes a subsection that would eliminate the Advisory Board of the Employee Misclassification Task Force.

Last year, the General Assembly overwhelmingly voted in favor of Public Act 08-156, An Act Concerning Employee Misclassification. Attached for your information is a copy of the public act, which not only created a joint enforcement commission of various state agencies impacted by employee misclassification and the underground economy, but also created an advisory board representing labor and management.

Connecticut is not the first state to create an employee misclassification task force. Many other states have created a similar task force to address the growing problem of contractors who misclassify their employees as independent contractors to avoid paying state and federal income taxes, worker's compensation insurance, as well as other taxes, such as medicare, unemployment and social security.

The bill creating the task force and the advisory board had no fiscal impact. It was supported by both labor and management. The task force and advisory board have met only once so far. Thus, it seems a little premature to eliminate an advisory board appointed late last year, had only one meeting, costs the state nothing but focuses on a problem that costs the state of Connecticut hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue each year.

Attached is a preliminary summary table of a study performed by University of Connecticut labor economist, Dr. William Alpert, which conservatively estimates that the state of Connecticut lost on the order of magnitude a minimum of $180.305.037 in state income tax alone in 2008. If you add that number to the losses of federal income tax, unemployment, medicare and social security taxes, as well as workers' compensation premiums—resulting frommisclassification—th e total annual cost in Connecticut in 2008 alone is well over $1 billion dollars. Professor Alpert's final report isn't available yet, but I will be sure to share it with the committee members once it is.

0^3^109 001745

The problem of employee misclassification and the underground economy is not unique to construction, but the problem is more rampant in our industry because of the high cost of workers' compensation and the transient nature of the workforce—many of the workers and companies are from out of state. The advisory board represents Connecticut leaders in labor and management who can update the agencies on industry trends and patterns.

I have also attached several articles from The Stamford Advocate. The Hartford Business Journal and Workcomp Central which detail specific examples of how the problem occurs in the Connecticut construction industry. In addition, I have attached a press release from the Connecticut Department of Labor outlining the results of their efforts to address the issue in the construction industry using the stop work order. The Connecticut stop-work order law passed in 2007 was modeled after a similar law enacted in Florida. According to the Department of Workers' Compensation in Florida, it issued 2,639 stop work orders in fiscalyea r 05-06, assessing $58,783,652, resulting in $30,454,250 in additional workers' compensation insurance premium to be generated and caused 12,366 new employees to be covered by workers' compensation insurance.

So, I strongly urge the committee to delete this small subsection from the Governor's bill regarding the Advisory Board of the Employee Misclassification Task Force. This task force and advisory board has the strong support of both labor and management. At a time when the state is in dire financial straights, it doesn't make much sense to eliminate a board that costs the state nothing and whose long-term efforts could be a boon to Connecticut's coffers, Connecticut's businesses and Connecticut's workers.

Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions. 0017461 AN ACT CONCERNING EMPLOYEE MISCLASSIFICATION. Page 1 of 2

Substitute Senate Bill No. 454

Public Act No. 08-156

AN ACT CONCERNING EMPLOYEE MISCLASSIFICATION.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2008) (a) There is established a joint enforcement commission on employee misclassification. The commission shall consist of the Labor Commissioner, the Commissioner of Revenue Services, the chairperson of the Workers' Compensation Commission, the Attorney General and the Chief State's Attorney, or their designees.

(b) The joint enforcement commission on employee misclassification shall meet not less than four times each year. The task force shall review the problem of employee misclassification by employers for the purposes of avoiding their obligations under state and federal labor, employment and tax laws. The commission shall coordinate the civil prosecution of violations of state and federal laws as a result of employee misclassification and shall report any suspected violation of state criminal statutes to the Chief State's Attorney or the State's Attorney serving the district in which the violation is alleged to have occurred.

(c) On or before February 1, 2010, and annually thereafter, the commission shall report, in accordance with section ll-4a of the general statutes, to the Governor and the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to labor. The report shall summarize the commission's actions for the preceding calendar year and include any recommendatiohs for administrative or legislative action.

Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2008) There is established the Employee Misclassification Advisory Board to advise the joint enforcement commission on employee misclassification established pursuant to section 1 of this act on misclassification in the construction industry in this state. The advisory board shall consist of members representing management and labor in the construction industry and shall be appointed as follows: One member representing labor and one member representing management, appointed by the Governor; one member representing labor, appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives; one member representing management, appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives; one member representing management, appointed by the president pro tempore of the Senate and one member representing labor, appointed by the minority leader of the Senate. All appointments shall be made by August 1, 2008. The terms of members shall be coterminous

http://vvvw.cga.ct.gov/20O8/ACT/PA/2008PA-0O156-R00SB-00454-PA.hta 7/2/2008 001747

AN ACT CONCERNING EMPLOYEE MISCLASSIFICATION. Page 2 of 2

with the terms of the appointing authority for each member and any vacancy shall be filled by the appointing authority. Members of the advisory board shall serve without compensation but shall, within available funds, be reimbursed for expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties.

Approved June 12, 2008

/

http://www.cga.rt.gov/2008/ACT/PA/2008PA-00156-R00SB-00454-PA.htm 7/2/2008 PRELIMINARY (NOT FOR CIRCULATION) ESTIMATES OF LOSSES TO CT TAXPAYERS OF WORKER MISCLASSIFICATION

i I ESTIMATED TOTAL REVENUE LOSSES IN CT DUE TO EMPLOYEE MISCLASSIFICATION 2008 NO UNDER GROUND ECONOMY WITH UNDERGROUND ECONOMY

LOW $1,136,082,455 $1,673,615,132 MODER $2,709,029,187 $4,016,676,316 HIGH $5,283,757,193 $7,921,778,290

ESTIMATED FEDERAL INCOME TAX LOSSES IN CT DUE TO EMPLOYEE MISCLASSIFICATI ON 2008 NO UNDER GROUND ECONOMY WITH UNDERGROUND ECONOMY

LOW $622,585,793 $813,252,693 MODER $1,494,205,904 $1,951,806,462 HIGH $2,946,906,089 $3,849,396,078

ESTIMATED PAYROOL (UI AND SOCIAL SECURITY) TAX LOSSES IN CT DUE TO EMPLOYEE MISCLASSIFICATION 2008 NO UNDER GROUND ECONOMY WITH UNDERGROUND ECONOMY

LOW $122,994,553 $235,523,454 • MODER $295,186,926 $565,256,290 HIGH $582,174,216 $1,114,811,016

ESTIMATED MEDICARE TAX LOSSES IN CT DUE TO EMPLOYEE MISCLASSIF ICATION 2008 NO UNDER GROUND ECONOMY WITH UNDERGROUND ECONOMY

LOW $5,228,846 $6,830,180 MODER $12,549,231 $16,392,432 HIGH $24,749,871 $32,329,519

ESTIMATED CONNECTICUT INCOME TAX REVENUE LOSSES DUE TO EMPLOYEE MISCLASSIFICATION 2008 NO UNDER GROUND ECONOMY WITH UNDERGROUND ECONOMY o ©

LOW $18035,037 $235,523,454 > MODER $432,732,088 $565,256,290 - HIGH $853,443,840 $1,114,811,016 00 PRELIMINARY (NOT FOR CIRCULATION) ESTIMATES OF LOSSES TO CT TAXPAYERS OF WORKER MISCLASSIFICATION

ESTIMATED CONNECTICUT WORKERS COMPENSATION PREMIUM LOSSES DUE TO EMPLOYEE MISCLASSIFICATION 2008 NO UNDER GROUND ECONOMY WITH UNDERGROUND ECONOMY

LOW $204,968,226 $382,485,351 MODER $474,355,038 $917,964,842 HIGH $876,483,177 $1,810,430,660

o o J-1

10 001750

The Advocate: Stop-work orders issued on 2 condo developments Page 1 of 2

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/sCT-sa-worksites7mar05,0,390017.story Stop-work orders issued on 2 condo developments

By Monica Potts StaffWriter

March 5,2008

STAMFORD - The state Department of Labor issued stop-work orders Monday for the sites of two condominium projects on the East Side, a state official said.

Gary Pesche, director of the Wage and Workplace Standards division, said investigators determined that subcontractors may have failed to obtain workers' compensation coverage or misrepresented the number of workers and the nature of their employment to obtain lower premiums on workers' compensation insurance policies.

The sites of Eastside Commons at 838-860 E. Main St. and Glen View House at 11 Glenbrook Road nearby were developed by Seth Weinstein of Hannah Real Estate Investors LLC and his partners Ray and Paxton Kinol, owners of Stillwater Investment Management.

The Zoning Board approved the projects in 2006, and construction began last year. Thomason-Stevens LLC of Florida is the general contractor for the sites, which are to include retail space, a bank and condominiums.

Three companies named in the orders, posted on a fence, are Avel Contractors, National Carpentry and Ruffino Carpentry. Stamford addresses were given for each of the three companies, though National Carpentry is based in Tennessee, Pesche said.

"We've been chasing them all over the state," he said of National Carpentry. "Some companies become more familiar to us than others."

Failing to meet workers' compensation standards is a Class D felony, subjecting violators to five years in prison or a $5,000 fine. A measure that took effect in October modifies the law to allow the state to stop-work on sites that fail to do so or fail to cooperate with an investigation, and fine them for each day they don't comply.

Pesche said companies sometimes misrepresent the number of workers or label them "independent contractors" rather than include them on the payroll, so they can get lower premiums on workers' compensation insurance policies. 001751

The Advocate: Stop-work orders issued on 2 condo developments Page 2 of 2

The new law may curb the practice of hiring day laborers, many of whom may be in the country illegally and less likely to report work site problems, without paying them fair wages or insuring them, he said.

"We cannot check whether they have legal status, but we can check whether they're working without workers' comp," he said. "We're trying to help the law-abiding employers in the state of Connecticut.''

A representative of Thornason-Stevens said he had not heard of the orders and had no comment

Workers were on the site yesterday and appeared to be working. It was unclear how many workers were affected by the stop-work order or whether the contractors took steps to resolve the matter. The stop- work orders still were posted on the fence yesterday. The companies have 10 days after the date of issuance to respond.

Weinstein said yesterday he did not know about the stop-work orders and could not comment on the subcontractor issue.

"These are wonderful projects for the community. We're very excited about them in terms of the quality of design, quality of construction, and the contribution to the East Side community," he said. "I would be personally very disappointed if, in fact, there was a problem."

Copyright © 2008, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.cx)m/news/Iocal/scn-<;a-wnTk<5it«

sue subcontractor for wage abuse - The Advocate Page 1 of2

Ihe ADVOCATE

are looking into the labor practices of National Day laborers sue Carpentry Contractors, which has an office at 2761 subcontractor for wage abuse High Ridge Road. In March, it was among the subcontractors the state investigated for tailing to obtain workers' compensation coverage for By Elizabeth Kim employees. Gary Pechie, director of wage and Staff Writer workplace standards for the labor department said at the time, "We've been chasing them all over the Posted. 01/18/2009 09 27 13 PM EST state." STAMFORD - For Walter Guerrero, a 23-year-old 'immigrant from Honduras, the first sign that Citing an ongoing investigation, Pechie, through a something was wrong was when he saw how much spokesman, declined to comment cash he was paid for the hours last spring he spent lifting wooden beams at a construction site at A telephone message left at National Carpentry Glenbrook Road and East Main Street Contractors was not returned. It amounted to $10 an hour, and he was told by the Plaintiffs identified the work site as Glenbrook Road head of the subcontracting company. John Kirk, that and East Main Street, which is consistent with his hourly wage was $13, Guerrero said through an Glenview House, a recently completed mixed- interpreter. income rental apartment complex. The supervisor said it was for a check-cashing Seth Weinstein, a principal owner of the fee," Guerrero said of the smaller amount development, said he didnt know the subcontractor. Payments for his work were sporadic, Guerrero During its investigation of National Carpentry and said, and stopped altogether in mid-June. Other two other subcontractors in March, the Department workers at the site told him that Kirk "may sometimes of Labor put a stop order on two of Weinstein's delay his payments, but he always pays you." But apartment projects. after two weeks without pay, he left the job site. "We hire a general contractor," Weinstein said. "We Now, Guerrero is one of 34 workers suing National expect our general contractor to follow all rules and Carpentry Contractors for allegedly cheating them regulations and we have no relationship with the out of more than $250,000 in wages. Guerrero is subcontractor. We would not be in favor of having owed more than $7,000, according to the lawsuit any subcontractor work on our jobs who doesnt scrupulously follow the letter and spirit of the law." Although cases of wage theft involving day laborers are common statewide, the case against National Guerrero said he and three co-workers sought help Carpentry Contractors is the largest to come through after seeing a flier about the city's day laborer legal Stamford's Day Laborer Wage Clinic, said Peter clinic. After he quit the construction site, he spent a Goselin, the attorney representing the plaintiffs. month looking for work, Guerrero said. He had no money for food and had to rely on friends, he said. The state attorney general and Department of Labor He later found a job working at a butcher shop for

Advertisement

v A bright idea in online advertising. Printerstitial ads by Format Dynamics. FormatDynamics0

Print Powered By [611 Forma tPynamics )

http://www.stamfordadvocate.corn/ci_l 1486630?JADIL>=Search-www.stamfordadvocate.c... 1/26/2009 001753

sue subcontractor for wage abuse - The Advocate Page 2 of2

The ADVOCATE

$6 an hour. There, he injured his hand on a meat slicer, he said.

Four other plaintiffs interviewed spoke on the condition that their names not be used. Although most day laborers are reluctant to disclose their names, Guerrero did not hesitate.

"It's really important for people out there in similar situations to know what is happening," he said. "We have to give them the opportunity to know that there are places where they can come for help." - Staff Writer Elizabeth Kim can be reached at elizabeth. [email protected] or 964-2265.

Advertisement

A bright idea in online advertising. PrinterStitial ads by Format Dynamics. FormatDynamics'

Print Powered By (63 |FormatDynamics')

http://www.stamfordadvocate.corn/ci 11486630?L\DIE)=Search-www.stamfordadvocate.c... 1/26/2009 001754

Monday with disorderly con• duct can ... ^nve, Norwalk; Miguel DOd, mo- Contractor : the • Continued from Page A7 prisoned five years, or both, Contractor loth- The agency uncovered the for violating wage payments. dshe incidents during an investiga• For defrauding immigrant mher tion prompted by a civil law• workers, he could be fined up due to be suit filed in December. The to $100 or imprisoned up to a state issued an arrest warrant year, or both, for each count arraigned in early January and police A message left for Kirk at arrested Kirk on Feb. 12. the National Carpentry office Day laborers say "LeCar Pechie said labor investi• at 2761 High Ridge Road was sit is one gators obtained sworn affida• not returned. wages weren't paid n kind of vits from 20 of the 34 plaintiffs, Seth Weinstein, principal more to• who claimed Kirk stopped owner of Eastside Commons By Elizabeth Km / STAFF WRITER re transit paying them for work done and Glenview House, has said o a wider STAMFORD — A subcon• last summer, leaving some he doesn't know the subcon• tractor charged with cheat• without wages for more than tractor. Martin B. ing day laborers out of tens four weeks. "We hire a general con• inched at of thousands of dollars in un• The workers cited in the tractor," Weinstein said last •ni.com or paid wages will be arraigned investigation were paid $12 to month. "We e&pect our gen• Thursday in state Superior $22 an hour and are owed more eral contractor to follow all Court in Stamford. than $55,000, Pechie said. rules and regulations and we John Kirk, head of National It is not the first time Kirk have no relationship with the Carpentry Contractors, was has been in trouble with the subcontractor." charged this month with vio• law. In June, he was charged Pechie said the case reflects that dis- lating state wage payment re• with illegal use of a fake fire•a trend of companies crossing s and de- quirements and-20 counts of arm, second-degree threaten• state lines after getting caught lg's third defrauding alien workers of ing and disorderly conduct He for illegal work practices. As wages; both misdemeanors. pleaded not guilty. The case is a result, labor authorities na• Kirk's company was hired to Drmation awaiting disposition. tionwide are sharing informa• work on two East Side housing irtments In March, the state Depart• tion, he said. developments. East Side Com• Ml Ron- ment of Labor investigated the "I get press releases from mons and Glenview House. Cross's company for a possible failure the Massachusetts attorney icy ser- to obtain workers' compensa• general every day. I just talked "He's the poster child of how tion coverage for employees. to New York and New Jersey," not to do business in the state of -m Potts The Tennesee-based com• Pechie said. "We're stepping Connecticut" said Gary Pechie, wnica. pany was on the state's radar up our enforcement effort to director of the state labor de• 1266. for some time, Pechie said. make it a level playing field for partment's-Wage and Work• Kirk was the target of a labor everybody." place Standards Division. investigation in Massachu• — Staff Writer Elizabeth See CONTRACTOR, Page A9 setts. Kim can be reached at eliza- pport If found guilty, Kirk could [email protected] or 964- amhi be fined up to $5,000 or im• 2265 mut- snot nce- Bonds 001755

A12 — The Advocate, Sunday, March 1,2009 •

The ADVOCATE Publisher: Michelle R. McAbee Managing Editor John Breunlg Established in 1829 9 Riverbend Drive S.. Building 9A Stamford. CT 06907 Editorial Page Editor: Thomas Mellana

Editorial Erisuring contractors go by rules t will be for the courts to de• levels of filters into the process cide whemerasubrontractor The Issue- that cover the backs of folks at Ioperating in Stamford cheat• the top when dealings on the ed 20 day laborers out of more Property owner shouldgroun d get dirty. than $55,000 in back wages. have some responsibilityIt allows the athlete to claim John Kirk, head of National regarding accused firm.ignoranc e when it's discovered Carpentry Contractors, de-, his sneakers are made by chil• nies the criminal charges that dren in sweat shops. It lets inves• have been brought against him, Side housing developments, tors turn a blind eye to returns though at the outset, the case East Side Commons and Glen• that are corning in a lot quicker against his company appears a view House. If he is guilty of the and a lot larger than they should strong one. crimes of which he is accused, be. It allows for a collapse in the "He's the poster child of how should the owner of the hous• financial system that nobody not to do business in the state of ing developments bear part of seems to fully understand. Connecticut," says Gary Pechie, the blame? And it's not how it should be. director of the state Labor De• The principal owner, Seth Mr. Weinstein would not have partment's Wage and Workplace Weinstein, says no. had to become a master detec• Standards Division. "We hire a general contrac• tive to check out what allegedly, Mr. Kirk and his company tor (Florida-based Thomason- was going on in his name. have already been fined in Mas• Stevens, LLC)," Mr. Weinstein "I had a picket line set up (at) sachusetts for violating that said last month. "We expect our that job when it first opened," state's Independent Contractor/ general contractor to follow all says Ted Duarte, a union orga• Misclassification Law. rules and regulations and we nizer at the New England Re• Mr. Kirk faces potential fines have no relationship with the gional Council of Carpenters. and jail time here. But itneeds to subcontractor." "I was trying to bring to light he pointed out that if he is in fact In all due respect, Mr. Wein• (Kirk's) reputation." guilty, he still would not be the stein, we disagree. An owner of In all corners of society, we pay only one "to blame" for wrong a development property should tremendous lip service to the done to the laborers, even if he know what's occurring there. value of "taking responsibility'' were the only one legally cul• After alL he could gain finan• for one's own life. Most often it's pable. And that matter is part cially from potential illegal directed at those at the bottom of a larger discussion about li• building practices in this case. of the ladder. But we need to re• ability versus responsibility in We as a society have become alize that responsibility should our larger society. very good at making the busi• rise along with one's station in Question: Mr. Kirk's company ness of doing business very life, not diminish as the person was hired to work on two East complicated, which inserts all gets higher up the ladder. 001756

Page 1 of 3

Hartford Business.com

HAMMERS DOWN State Nails 60 Builders DOL halts work at construction sites over workers' compensation violations

By Jason Millman [email protected] Today State officials have issued stop work orders against more than 60 subcontractors at 30 construction sites across Connecticut in recent months in a bid to crack down on those that sidestep paying required workers' compensation premiums and taxes.

Inspections by the state Department of Labor have turned up W T about 300 workers who lacked workers' comp coverage because they were either being paid in cash or misclassified as independent contractors. Kia Murrell, assistant counsel, CBIA About half of the subcontractors cited were based in Connecticut and half were from other states, some as distant as Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.

The crackdown follows the enactment last year of a law that gives labor department officials the authority to issue stop work orders when they identify violations. The legislation was backed by construction and business trade groups in an effort to protect contractors who play by the rules from those who may be underbidding them because they pay workers in cash to cut costs.

Since the law went into effect, a team of 30 investigators have been visiting construction sites across the state. Tips about possible violations have come in from labor unions, contractors and competing firms, said Gary Pechie, director of the DOL's Wage and Workplace Standards Division.

Once a company is shut down, it must provide documentation to Pechie's division proving it has taken steps to secure compliance. A company faces a $1,000 fine for each day it operates on the site where it was issued a work stoppage order. "In most cases,

ttp-J/www .hartfordbusiness.com/news6393.htmI 8/25/2008 001757 Page 2 of 3

"^mpanies scramble and they're back on the site the next day after they get their / /Ks in a row," Pechie said. t / an on-site investigation conducted July 25, labor officials discovered that 24 /employees of Champagne Drywall, a subcontractor based in Agawam, Mass., lacked /' proper insurance for their workers on Killingly Commons, a retail plaza project in Killingly.

Officials for Champagne Drywall were not available for comment at press time. But Konover Construction, the general contractor for the Killingly job, issued the following statement:

"To the best of Konover Construction's knowledge, the subcontractors cooperated with the DOL and were promptly permitted to return to the project after any issues were resolved."

Konover was not the subject of the inquiry by the DOL. "Konover Construction strictly adheres to all DOL rules and guidelines and subcontractors who work on our projects are equally obligated to comply," the company said.

In other cases, subcontractors who were caught abandoned the job site, said Kia Murrell, assistant counsel for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, which helped draft the 2007 law.

"It's cheaper for them to bid on a job because they're not paying insurance," Murrell said. "If they get caught, they move on."

On March 19, DOL inspectors found that 30 workers at a construction site in East Haven . lacked proper workers' comp.insurance. They were employed by CGM Construction, which listed its address as an apartment in Hamden. Efforts to reach company officials were unsuccessful. Its listed phone number had been disconnected.

More Enforcement Powers

The intent of Connecticut's nearly 100-year-old workers' compensation law is to provide wage replacement and medical benefits for employees injured, disabled or killed while performing their jobs.

When contractors fail to pay workers' comp premiums, the benefits for uninsured workers injured or killed are paid for by the state's Second Injury Fund, which is funded through assessments of all Connecticut employers.

ittp://www.hartfordbusiness.corWnews6393.html 8/25/2008 001758 Hartford Business Page 3 of3

The rub for companies paying workers' comp premiums is that they ultimately subsidize companies that don't play by the rules.

Before the 2007 law was enacted, the power of state officials was limited. If a company was not in compliance with workers' compensation guidelines, its sole remedy was to request an arrest warrant against the general contractor on the job site. "No arrests were ever made, and we weren't able to get out to the degree we thought we should," Pechi said. "With this law, it seems we can take some immediate action and make some impact."

Don Schubert, the director of regulatory affairs for the Connecticut Construction Industries Association, said steady enforcement of workers' comp regulations is a "critical factor" in allowing companies to stay competitive. "The construction industry thinks it's great Gary Pechie and his department are putting this legislation to good use," Schubert said. "It keeps a level playing field."

Murrell of the CBIA said she consulted with construction companies as the CBIA helped draft the legislation.

Next, Restaurants And Hotels

In its bid to crack down on employers that don't obtain workers' compensation coverage for their workers, the state targeted construction companies because the industry pays some of the highest workers' compensation premiums due to obvious work-related dangers.

Construction accounted for the most fatal work injuries of any industry sector in 2006, according to U.S. Department of Labor statistics. Construction laborers had the fourth highest number of nonfatal injuries in the same^year, 488 per 10,000 workers.

As construction season slows down, Pechie said his division will begin to set its sights on other industries, notably restaurants and hotels. Already, the division has received tips about violations in those sectors. "We found a hotel using all independent contractors," Pechie said. "How can you run a hotel with no employees?"

©2007 Hartford Business Journal Designed and Maintained by ForeSrte

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news6393.html 8/25/2008 001759 isaic; iviouuay, ivicucu y, txruy y.w.Jj mvi Subject: Stop Work Orders in CT

workcompcentral® bnpronng Worter? Conperrsnan Through Ne»; lod Eduattm Return to : Workers Yanked from Job Site in Misclassification Crackdown Connecticut - Workers Yanked from Job Site in Misclassification Crackdown: EAST [03/09/09] The Connecticut Division of Wage and Workplace Standards pulled 11 workers off of a Stamford, Conn., construction site last week after an electrical power box exploded and injured two others.

Division Director Gary Pechie said Friday his inspectors were on site at a refurbishing project at a downtown YMCA building when the box exploded last Tuesday.

They were conducting a routine check of JV Construction and Drywall as part of the division's sweep of Connecticut construction sites to verify workers' compensation coverage.

"Our people had to run out of the building because of the smoke," Pechie said. "It was ironic, because we were there checking to make sure they had coverage."

Pechie said the electricians suffered second-degree burns. One has been released from a local hospital and the other is expected to be released soon. Both workers were covered by workers' compensation for the project, which involves converting the old YMCA Into a 99-room hotel.

But Pechie said inspectors ordered 11 other workers for JV Construction and Drywall off the site because they were identified as independent contractors.

The division is reviewing whether they meet the definition under a misclassification law passed last year that also created a statewide task force on the problem.

The agency fined the subcontractor $5,100 in August after removing 17' misclassified workers from another job site in Stamford.

Pechie said his agency now is focusing on the construction industry. He said the state's building slump is prompting more companies to improperly classify workers so that they can skirt workers' compensation and unemployment tax laws and submit lower bids.

During the past 12 months, the Connecticut Department of Labor has taken action in about 200 misclassification cases, Pechie said.

Companies can be fined between $900 and $1,200 per worker. Investigators also have the power to stop work on noncompliant job sites.

Pechie said he is borrowing staff from other parts of the Labor Department to make a major sweep of the state's construction industry.

"We're gearing up for the construction season. We see with the economy where comers are being cut We're going to hit the ground running on this," he said. "The owners and the general contractors are going to the bottom-line price. The way they get the bottom-line price is by misclassifying workers."

Juan Velez, owner of JV Construction and Drywall, told The Stamford Advocate last week he has submitted paperwork to resolve his latest troubles with the agency.

"It was a slight mistake," Velez was quoted as saying. "I think it is all straightened out."

http://u^.mg2.raail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.rand=365sjrn6il3t0b 3/10/2009 001760

89-22-88 ll:S4a Pg: 8 ODD /Sbd bt)11 ivitzl^BA RELEASE Communications Office

Commissioner

"Stop Work" Legislation Puts Brakes On Employers Trying To Avoid State Laws

RELEASE: IMMEDIATE

WETHERSFIELD, Aug. 13 - Following compliance checks at construction sites throughout the state, the Connecticut Department of Labor has issued "stop work orders" to 60 companies this year for failing to comply with workers' compensation requirements.

The agency has been able to carry out these enforcement actions as a result of Public Act 07- 89, a bill that was signed into law by Governor Rell in June of 2007. Known as "An Act Concerning Penalties for Concealing Employment or Other Information Related to Workers' Compensation Premiums," the legislation applies to businesses operating in Connecticut and gives the Labor Department's Wage and Workplace Standards Division the authority to stop work at any site until a company is in compliance with certain workplace regulations.

"During our first year working with this legislation, we have found it to be an effective tool in leveling the playing field in the construction industry," said Gary K. Pechie, Director of the agency's Wage and Workplace Standards. "Our site inspections have revealed cases where employers are misclassifying employees and identifying them as independent contractors so that they are not provided workers' compensation coverage. In other instances, we have found that employers are under-reporting the number of employees by paying wages in cash and not keeping accurate records."

According to Pechie, violations are discovered through routine inspections when agents from the Labor Department interview workers at job sites to determine whom they work for, and if wages are being paid in cash. Using mobile technology, wage investigators can quickly determine if the company has workers' compensation coverage in Connecticut and if there is adequate coverage for the workers. Investigators also determine if the company is properly registered with the Secretary of State's office.

"By failing to provide worker's compensation coverage, ignoring income taxes, unemployment taxes, and other protections, these employers place a drain on our state's economy," Pechie noted "When a company complies with these laws, it helps every employer by reducing workers' compensation premiums and lessens the burden on our state since we avoid using the Second Injury Fund to protect those employees.

— more —

200 Folly Brook Boulevard, Wethersfield.CT 06109-1114 • Ph: 860.263.6535 • Fx: 860.263.6536 • An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer www.ctdol.state.ct.us A Partner in CTWMKS 001761 B9-22-B8 11:54a Pg: 9 tax iron : tsb\3 zt»J bb41

-2-

"This law has allowed us to identify other potential violations that are referred to other jurisdictions, such as Homeland Security, Revenue Services. Internal Revenue Services and OSHA," Pechie said. "The legislation is effective in helping the Labor Department improve working conditions on construction sites, and helps to ensure that employers who violate state laws do not have an unfair advantage over others."

According to Pechie, investigations have shown that the majority of companies ordered to stop work have been out-of-state companies from as far away as Arizona and Georgia. Job sites have included condominium projects, hotels and retail plazas.

"Fortunately, many employers in this state do comply with our state laws," Pechie added. "But any time a company is in violation, their actions create an unfair economic advantage to those employers who do follow the rules. We are fortunate to have this new legislation to help combat an issue that has caused concerns throughout the country."

###

Media Contact: Nancy Steffens {860)263-6535 8/13/08 001762 tax iron : BbO ^bJ bi>ll 09-22-88 11:51a Pg: 2

Press_Release

Company Name Address City State P&R Painting 5278 Industry Lane Frederick Md Perez Painting 338 Grand Avenue New Haven CT Raven Home Improvement 138 Chestnut Street W. Orange NJ FM Home Improvement 144 N. Clinton Street E. Orange NJ Fernando Cardoso 12Plyar Place Waterbury CT Wall Tek Systems 194 Christian Lane Berlin CT Deb's Cleaning Service 14 Foster Street Webster MA A.C.E. Wall Systems P.O. Box 724 Agawan MA Champagne Drywall 36 Russo Circle Agawan MA Commercial Contracting 21 E. Middle Turnpike Manchester CT Wall Tek Systems 194 Christian Circle Berlin CT MAK Contracting Inc. 11ndustrial Park Drive, Unit 1 Pelham NH ZD Stucco 150 Carol! Street New Britain CT F&M Home Improvement 144 North Clinton Street East Orange NJ Suarez Construction 65WWoosterStreet#2 Danbury CT Scinto, Robert Inc. One Corporate Drive, suite 100 Shelton CT Torres Drywall 350 Main Street Branford CT Ledezema, Luis 7 Grove Street Clinton CT Derek Auto, LLC 1610 North Broad Street Meriden CT Big Timber Construction 2001 East Lohman Avenue, Suite 110-258 Las Cruces NM Floras Framing P.O. Box 2026 Suwanee GA Velasquez Contructors Corporatioi 1338 Shelby Road Madison VA Miguel Palencia Carpentry 29 Elm Croft Road Stamford CT National Carpentry 2761 High Ridge Road Stamford CT Rufino Carpentry 3365 Hope Street Stamford CT Avel Construction 319 Greenwich Avenue Stamford CT National Carpentry 2761 High Ridge Road Stamford CT Worldwide Construction 2785 Jackson Liberty Drive Boguechitto MS Pineda, Mario Diaz Drywall 162 MadisoryStreet Passaic NJ Agustjn, Mario 426 Darrow Avenue Plainfield NJ LG Drywall 28 King Street Bridgeport CT Rivera, Victor 333 New Market Road Dunellen NJ MCC Painting 1661 Main Street Dunellen NJ Snead, David Drywall 1730 State Street Hamden CT Crown Painting 1123 Rubber Avenue Naugatuck CT Global Coatings LLC 100 New Britain Avenue Hartford CT Advantage Roofing and Siding 3041 Weikel Street Philadelphia PA Rufino Carpentry 3365 Hope Street Stamford CT Avel Construction 319 Greenwich Avenue Stamford CT Campos Brothers Construction 6 Harriet Street Norwaik CT CGM Construction 16 Hubbard Place, Apt 2A Hamden CT Broward Business Group 402 Main street East Haven CT JAC Wall Systems 118 Gail Street Meriden CT Cuba General Construction 184 Redmond Street New Brunswick NJ A&A Landscaping & Home Improv13 Holiday Circle Somerset MA TM Builders 1031 Route32, Unite Uncasville CT Northeast Security dba Safe Home 169 Rubber Avenue Naugatuck CT Big Timber Contracting 2001 E. Lohman, Suite 110-258 Las Cruces NM Ramirez Construction 8910 Casa Lake Drive Charlotte NC PC Construction 96 Linwood Plaza, Unit 378 Fort Lee NJ

Page 1 001763 tax iron '- HbM Z63 8541 09-22-88 11:52a 3 Pg:

Press_Release

AJA Drywall Services 70 Chestnut Avenue, Floor 2 Waterbury CT AC Wall Covering 67 Martin Street East Providence Rl KJR Construction 700 Boulevard East Apt 4-B Weahawken NJ Gybs Siding Corporation 375 Pacific Street Long Branch NJ C&A Construction 60 Steiner Avenue Neptune NJ Martins Taping 7 Carter Street Apt 2 Lowell MA Family Drywall 306 Brittania Street Meriden CT J & DC Construction 46 Harry Circle Waterbury CT Southern Colorado Framing 1615 Rushmore Drive Colorado Springs CO All State Interiors 1195 Route 208 Monroe NY Cosenza Construction 603 Old Tilton Road Pleasantville NJ

Page 2 001764 Fax from : 86B 263 6541 89-22-88 11:52a ?g: 4

Press_Release 1

Worksite Address Worksite City General Contractor Date Served 11 Glenbrook Road Stamford 6/19/2008 11 Glenbrook Road Stamford Whiting Thomas 6/19/2008 11 Glenbrook Road Stamford Thomason & Stevens LLC 6/19/2008 11 Glenbrook Road Stamford Whiting Thomas 6/19/2008 311 Old Gate Lane Milford 7/23/2008 Killingly Commons Killingly Konover Construction 7/25/2008 Killingly Commons Killingly Konover Construction 7/25/2008 Killingly Commons Killingly Konover Construction 7/25/2008 Killingly Commons Killingly Konover Construction 7/25/2008 Kjllingly Commons Killingly Konover Construction 7/25/2008 Hamden Mart Hamden Konover Construction 7/28/2008 Hilton Milford Briad 7/28/2008 Killingly Commons Killingly Konover Construction 7/25/2008 Woodland Hills Trumbull Contracting Advisors Group 8/1/2008 169 Monroe Turnpike Monroe Claris Construction 8/1/2008 Corporate Drive Trumbull Scinto Inc. 8/1/2008 Hilton Gardens Groton 12/7/2007 Hilton Gardens Groton 12/7/2007 same 1/3/2008 6 Hendel Drive Mystic Newfield Construction 1/30/2008 6 Hendel Drive Mystic 1/30/2008 Hilton Gardens Manchester 10/23/2007 Glenview House Stamford Thomason & Stevens LLC 3/3/2008 Glenview House Stamford Thomason & Stevens LLC 3/3/2008 838-860 East Main Street Stamford Thomas & Stevens LLC 3/3/2008 Glenview House Stamford Thomason & Stevens LLC 3/3/2008 838-860 E. Main Street Stamford 3/3/2008 142-144 East Avenue Norwalk RMS Construction 7/1/2008 Avalon Bay Condos Shelton Avalon Bay, Shelton 7/14/2008 Avalon Bay Condos Shelton Avalon Bay, Shelton 7/14/2008 Avalon Bay Condos Shelton Avalon Bay, Shelton 7/14/2008 Avalon Bay Condos Shelton Avalon Bay, Shelton 7/14/2008 Avalon Bay Condos Shelton Avalon Bay. Shelton 7/14/2008 Avalon Bay Condos Shelton Avalon Bay, Shelton 7/14/2008 137 Wyllys Avenue Hartford Haynes Construction 7/17/2008 137 Wyllys Avenue Hartford Haynes Construction 7/17/2008 137 Wyllys Avenue Hartford Haynes Construction 7/18/2008 295 Old Gate Lane Milford Briad 7/23/2008 Glenview House Stamford 3/3/2008 838-860 E. Main Street Stamford 3/3/2008 11 Glenview Avenue Stamford 3/6/2008 120 Woodward Avenue East Haven DTC Engineers & Constructors 3/19/2008 Same 4/9/2008 1157 Chapel Street; Colony H< New Haven Enterprise Builders 4/9/2008 Colony Hotel; Chapel Street New Haven Enterprise Contractors 4/9/2008 400 New Britain Avenue Plainville Brandon Construction 4/17/2008 Scotland Road Scotland TM Builders 4/21/2008 169 Rubber Avenue Naugatuck 5/19/2008 38 Hope Street Niantjc Charles Hall Construction 5/30/2008 38 Hope Street Niantic Charles Hall Construction 5/30/2008 38 Hope Street Niantjc Charles Hall Construction 5/3072008

Page 3 001765 iron : UbtJ bbll 69-22-08 11:53a Pg: 5

Press_Release t

6 Hendel Drive Mystic Newfield Construction 5/30/2008 6 Hendel Drive Mystic Commercial Painting Inc. 5/30/2008 Town Brook Commons Brookfield 6/2/2008 Hilton Gardens Milford Briad 6/9/2008 Hilton Gardens Milford Briad 6/9/2008 Hilton Gardens Milford Briad 6/9/2008 200 Corporate Drive . Windsor Par Development 6/1672008 181 East Main Street Wallingford 181 East Main Street Wallingford Core Construction 6/16/2008 11 Glenbrook Road Stamford Thomason & Stevens 6/19/2008 Hampton Inn Norwich Pra Development 6/18/2008

Page 4 001766 "'orkers' Comp - Bureau of Compliance Page i 012

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES Alex Sink Chtcfl inanchl Officer oniorida

FLOPS HOME CONTACT US SEARCH BY SUBJECT EN ESPANOl SEARCH FVOFS

Workers' Compensation Home Division of Workers' Compensation About Us Bureau of Compliance Assessment Rates

Benefit Delivery Process Bureau Chief

Centralized Performance System o Andrew Sabolic

Chapter 440. Florida Statutes Core Functions Contact Us o Investigate employers to determine cavil compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes o Enforce civil compliance when violations of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes are discovered Databases o Refer suspected violations of other agency laws (State and Federal) to proper agency o process exemption applications in 12 offices throughout the state Directory o Maintain exemption database in CCAS (on-line Compliance database) o Maintain imaged exemption applications and make available to public via public records request Distnct Offices o Process workers' compensation coverage data received from leasing companies o Maintain proof of coverage (POC) database for Flonda EDI o Efficiently respond to inquiries with reliable information about Bureau and other agency processes Frequently Asked Questions

History of Workers' Comp Contact Information

Informational Memoranda Bureau Chief (850)413-1600 Publications and Manuals Lee Pease, Investigation Manager (850)413-1904, Lee Pease@fldfs com Related Links

Rules & Forms William Domey. Investigation Manager (850) 413-1825, William Domey@ftdfs com Safety Tasha Carter, Senior Management (850) 413-1878, [email protected] Statistics Analyst II

What's New Terry Birch. Operations Analyst I (850)413-1815, Terry 8irch@fldfs com

Speaker Requests Debra Skinner-Belyeu, (850)413-1867, Debra.Skinner- Belyeu@fldfs com Mailing Address: Bureau of Compliance 200 East Gaines St Tallahassee. FL 32399-4228

Central Office mailing addres Bureau of Compliance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4228

Distnct Office locations Go to the Compliance Geld office map

Florida Statutory References

° Section 440.03, Stipulates that every employer and employee as defined in 440.02 is bound by the statutes o Coverage Procedures: subsections 440 04,440 05, 440 055,440 06. 440.075,440.077,440.09, 440.091.440 092 ° Section 440.185, Requires insurers to file proof of coverage and related documents with the division ° Enforcement Procedures: subsections 440 103,440.104,440105,440 107,440.40 o Section 440.10, Requires subject employers to insure their liability

hfrn-/7unuw flHfV: rnm/wr/nranni'zarton/hnp filml 001767

V \ \ IL DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (Division)

1. Referrals between the Division of Insurance Fraud (DDT) and other Agencies

The Division of Workers' Compensation and the Division of Insurance Frand continue to closely cooperate in " carrying out our respextivesratntc^ duties. The Division of Workers' Oimpensarion enforces adnunLstralrve compliance with the workers' compensation law, pursuant to s. 440.107, F.S., while the Division of Insurance \ Frand enforces the criminal provisions of the workers' compensation law, pursuant to s. 440.105, F.S. Our jointly \ developed referral program facilitates the efficient referral of cases between the divisions and allows each division to determine if an investigation will be initiated based upon a referral Referrals are made to each division within 24 hours of a suspected violation of the law, and are considered a priority to be acted upon immediately.

The Bureau of Compliance and Division of insurance Fraud made the following referrals during the period of July 1,200S through June 30,2006:

• The Division of Workers' Compensation referred 127 employers to the Division of Insurance Fraud fin- possible criminal investigation.

• The Division of Workers' Compensation received 62 referrals from the Division of Insurance Fraud for administrative investigations.

In addition to internal referral activities between the Division of Insurance Frand and the Division of Workers' Compensation, the Division has established a referral program with the Department of Business and Professional Regulations (DBPR). If an employer is suspected of failing to secure workers' compensation coverage during a DBPR investigation, the employer is referred to the Division of Workers' Compensation for further investigation. I£ during a Division investigation, an employer is suspected of working without a required state license, the Division will refer the employer to DBPR for further investigation.

The Division also works closely with many local building and permitting agencies. These relationships mutually benefit the Division and die local agencies. The local agencies assist the Division in identifying employers who may not have workers' compensation insurance, while the Division refers unlicensed employers and employers who violate local ordinances to the local agencies.

The Division recognizes the inmortance of cooperating with other state and local enforcement agencies and will continue tofacilitat e these partnerships. The rwtaer^hips help maximize the Division's resources as well as enhance employer compliance with the various state and local statutory requirements.

2. Enforcement Activities and Workers' Compensation Exemptions

Stop Work Orders and Sweep Operations

During the period of July 1,2005 through June 30,2006, the Division issued 2,693 stop work orders; assessed $58,783,652 in penalties; caused $30,454,250 in additional workers' compensation insurance premium to be generated; and caused 12,366 new employees to be covered by workers' conn?ensation msurance.

In April 2006, the Bureau of Compliance (Bureau) conducted a three-day workers' compensation compliance sweep in the following areas: St Augustine (St Johns County); Palm Coast (Flagler County) and Ft Myers (Collier, Lee and Charlotte Counties). General contractors, drywall contractors, and drywall subcenbactors were the primary focus of the sweep. During the sweep, the investigators contacted the following number of employers to determine if workers' compensation coverage was in effect

6 Bill HB#6375 sect. 2 (3) #6 To tegislators overseeing Bill #HB 6375 Sect 2 (e) #6 I am the Director of Deaf out Reach Services at FSW in Bridgeport and I was shocked to see this Bill being presented for the following reasons: CDHI works along with FSW to provide emergency on call services to hospitals and CDHI also provides on call for DCF investigations. There is an interpreting shortage not only in CT but across the nation and we need to maintain a sufficient level of interpreters to cover Federal"and state mandates. If you close CDHI, a large number of interpreters will leave the state to find work somewhere else, leaving our state with such depleted numbers that Court Systems, DCF, DHMAS, school systems, etc will be unable to carry out their statutorily-mandated responsibilities to provide equal access to the deaf and hearing impaired. There are Federal mandates as well as several state laws that require CDHI to provide interpreting services, as well as to oversee the licensing of interpreters to make sure that interpreters are certified to do the appropriate interpreting services. Who is going to oversee the qualifications of interpreters?? Closing CDHI will leave such a vacuum that it would take years to recover, if at all. More importantly, this_bill will open the state to liability to lawsuits against all entities that violate Federal and state mandates, not to mention basic Human Rights to access. I urge you to vote NO on bill #HB6375 sect. 2 (e)#6.. Thank you, Rachel Spillane Di rector Deaf out Reach Services FSW

Page 1 I am writing to you on behalf of the Board of Directors and the membership of the Connecticut Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (CRID), which is Connecticut's nonprofit professional association of sign language and oral interpreters/transliterators for the Deaf.

CRID understands that the Governor's HB 6375 Section 2 (e) #6 looks to terminate the Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired (CDHI) by July 1,2014, unless it re-establishes itself.

CRID wholeheartedly supports CDHI's efforts to advocate, strengthen, and implement state policies affecting Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals and their relationship to the public, industry, health care, and educational opportunities.

For 35 years CDHI has had a strong and unwavering interest in serving the over 298,000 Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals in Connecticut in community education and support. CDHI staff offers orientation seminars on deafness and deaf culture in which emergency/safety personnel, businesses, schools, and other interested parties have benefited from such presentations. CDHI staff have also served on Advisory Boards regarding a variety of issues including, but not limited to, early childhood intervention, mental health, education, workplace accessibility, multiculturalism and Deaf/Blind. In addition, CDHI employs certified sign language interpreters to provide communication access.

This past year CDHI joined with CRID, the Office of Protection and Advocacy (OPA), the Connecticut Hospital Association (CHA), and many other entities to ensure communication access for Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals in hospitals. This "task force" has also recognized the need for more technically qualified professional interpreters in all aspects of our society and has established a number of areas in which we will be working closely together in an effort to collaboratively alleviate the critical shortage of interpreters.

We reiterate that we unreservedly support CDHI's efforts to continue to provide services to enhance the quality of community involvement and communication access for Connecticut's Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals.

Sincerely,

Tammy Boutin, CI and CT

CRID President 001770

Testimony of Frank DaCato, Training Coordinator

United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 777 Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee Re; Bill #6375 ACT CONCEMNG REVIEW & TEMSNATION off CERTAIN BOARDS and COMMISSIONS

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, members off the Government Administration and Elections Committee. I would first like to thank yon for taking the time to listen to me today. My name is Frank DaCato, I am the training Coordinator for Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 777 and I am also a member of the State Apprenticeship Council and State Plumbing Board. I am here to speak to yon today regarding the importance of keeping ail the occupational licensing boards intact. These sis boards were established to help-protect Connecticut's consumers by recommending adoption of regulations to the Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Protection, hearing complains from consumers, imposing fines on contractors who cheat the public and referring violations to the State's Attorney's Office. They also review applications for state licenses. Each board has between eight and 12 members who voluntary meet sis times per year. The only compensation that some board members get is mileage. There are others who will not even take that. The boards are made up of professionals from each of their fields such as licensed contractors and licensed journeypersons, and along with the public members these volunteers will spend hours of their time to listen and try and resolve issues brought before them. In the case of the Electrical and Plumbing boards they will even work on their own time to develop curriculum for continuing education units for licensed electricians and plumbers to make sure that are up to date on the latest materials, joining methods, codes and OSHA regulations as well as EPA and public health codes and other issues that concern our industries. They also make sure that our licensed contractors have all the correct information on regulations such as licensing, taxes, insurance and apprentice hiring. Without these boards, who in the Department of Consumer Protection will have the expertise to listen to complaints fairly, not just for the consumer but also for the contractor who may be in the right? Who has the knowledge to develop the curriculum every two years for i 00177-1

the plunnbing trade and every year for the electrical trade? Without these voluntary board members would the Department of Consumer Protection then have to hire and pay consultants to do what the board members do for gas money? I do not want to take up to much of your time so I will close by saying; for years I attended'plnmbing board meeting as an observer. Last year I was asked if I would be interested in serving on the board but in order to do this I would have to down grade my personal license category from a P-l, which I worked very hard to get, to a P-2. There was no hesitation, with the help of Mr. Richard Hurlbut from the Department off Consumer Protection I was able to shelve my P-l and was re issued a P-2 which enabled me to be sworn to the board on Thursday June 19tb 2008.1 am very proud to be able to serve the State off Connecticut and my fellow citizens in the state and with your help hope that I will be able to continue for a long time. Once again thank you and I will be happy to try and answer any questions you may have now or you may also contact me by phone at-203-686-0700 or e-mail at fdacato(5),flocal777.com. I will help in anyway I can.

Respectfully Submitted; Monday March 16th, 2009 Frank J. DaCato, Training Coordinator Connecticut Tree Protective Association, Inc. 58 Old Post Road, PO Box 356, Northford, Connecticut 06472-0356 Telephone (203) 484-2512 or (888) 919-2872 (in-state) • www.CTPA.org We Advance the Care of Connecticut's Trees

March 16, 2009

The Members of the Government Administrations and Elections Committee Room 2200, Legislative Office Building Hartford, CT 06106

Organized August 16,1922 Dear Co-Chairs Senator Gayle Slossberg and Representative James Field Spallone, President Ranking Members Senator Michael A. McClachlan and Representative John W. DONALD PARROTT Hetherington, and all the Members of the Government Administrations and Elections 501 Pepper Street Committee: Monroe, CT 06468

Vice-President ' We write on behalf of our membership and on behalf of the licensed arborists in CHRIS DONNELLY Connecticut. We wish to state our view that the Tree Protection Examining Board, 58 Old Post Road established by statute to advise the Commissioner of DEP with regards to the arborist Northford, CT 06472 license, should remain. In effect, we write in opposition to the provision within Bill Secretary-Treasurer Number 6375 that this Board be disbanded. DOUGLAS WILLIAMS 59 Delaware Road The Connecticut Tree Protective Association is an educational association dedicated to Easton, CT 06612 advancing the care of trees in Connecticut. In existence for 87 years, we currently have

Executive Secretary 791 members. About two-thirds of the approximately 900 licensed arborists in RITA SMITH Connecticut are members of CTPA. As such, we feel that we have a solid grasp on 58 Old Post Road those issues of importance to arborists in the state. Northford, CT 06472 The Tree Protection Examining Board, in fulfilling its duties, has two main Directors responsibilities. After an oral examination, it recommends to the Commissioner of DEP KENNETH P PLACKO those candidates it finds are qualified to be.arborists. Also, through its role in the 725 Old Post Road examination process, the Board establishes the standards for arboriculture in the state. Fairfield, CT 06824 The Board is a largely volunteer group, consisting of two licensed, practicing arborists, DOUGLAS PISTAWKA three members of the public at large and the plant pathologist and the forester from the 632 Watertown Road CT Agricultural Experiment Station. Other than the time of the two CAES scientists, Middlebury.CT 06762 the only cost to the state are incidental travel expenses for Board members, generally

MARYJANE T ARSENAULT less than $500 per year. 172 Roxbury Road From this investment, the state gains a model of public and private partnership. It is New Britain, CT 06053 widely recognized that Connecticut has a strong arborist licensing program and that the CHARLES N ISELIN, JR standards for tree care in Connecticut are among the highest in the country. When an 94 Cedar Lake Road individual earns his or her arborist license in Connecticut, the achievement is often one Chester, CT 06412 of profound professional fulfillment. BOB BOCIEK Not only does this shared sense of accomplishment invest the profession in our state 295 Gilman Street with a deep spirit of pride, it also yields tangible benefits for the citizens of Bridgeport, CT 06605 Connecticut. Certainly, those who pay for the professional services get healthier and R BRUCE VILLWOCK safer trees. There is also a spill-over effect. Because the importance of quality in tree 14 Stowe Street care is so widely recognized in the state, the standards set by the Tree Protection Middlefield, CT 06455 Examining Board also have influence over the type of tree work done by municipalities

DR SHARON M DOUGLAS and utilities. Hence, those trees that each of us see, virtually on a daily basis, are also PO Box 1106 healthier and safer as a result of the efforts of the Tree Protection Examining Board. New Haven, CT 06504 This is a very large benefit from a relatively small investment on the part of the state. JANE HARRIS Further, it must be stated that the largely voluntary efforts of the professional and public 161 Ridgewood Road Middletown, CT 06457

ALLAN FENNER 53 Prospect Street Hartford, CT 06057 001773

Board members help DEP greatly as that agency fulfills its responsibilities regarding the arborist license Without the Board, DEP would have to take on additional testing burdens and would have to find new ways to access expertise in tree care. If the Board were to be eliminated, it is hard to imagine how the work of the Board would be done otherwise, much less done as effectively or efficiently. We realize, of course, that these are difficult times for our economy and that funding shortfalls and difficult problems require innovative solutions. We understand the Governor's desire to propose solutions in these tough times. However, we feel that, upon closer examination, the Tree Protection Examining Board will more than show itself to be a beneficial, cost-effective and much-needed governmental entity - a model of professional and governmental cooperation - and one well worth keeping. Respectfully yours,

Donald T. Parrott, President Signing for the CTPA Board of Directors 001774 Connecticut Tree Protective Association, Inc. 58 Old Post Road, PO Box 356, Northford, Connecticut 06472-0356 Telephone (203) 484-2512 or (888) 919-2872 (in-state) • www.CTPA.org We Advance the Care of Connecticut's Trees

Note on the Historic Role of the Tree Protection Examining Board

For many years men have traveled about the State and in various places obtained work for the alleged improvement of Orgwu?ed August 16, 1922 orchard and shade trees, such as pruning, spraying, bracing, Pieudent filling cavities, or applying fertilizers. In some cases good DONALD PARROTT 501 Pepper Streel service was rendered and the owners were satisfied, in others Monroe. CT 06468 no benefit resulted. Occasionally trees were positively injured vltr-Presuleiil by the treatment, because the so-called "tree doctors " did not CHRIS DONNELLY 58 Old Pom Road know their business. Finally, this condition existed, tree work Northford. CT 06472 was being done by well-trained, intelligent and conscientious Set i etui \-Ti ea mik-i men; by poorly trained but reliable men and worst of all, by DOUGLAS WILLIAMS 59 Delaware Road unscrupulous men who were usually, though not always, poorly Easion. CT 06612 trained. The unsatisfactory work of the unreliable men had a £u'< ii/ivf Secretin\ tendency to bring the whole business into disrepute Some of RITA SMITH 58 Old Posi Road them were at work here one day, but the next they would be Northford. CT 06472 gone, perhaps forever, only to be followed by a new crop Even Dircuoi v though such men guaranteed their work, the owner could obtain KENNETH P PLACKO 725 Old Posl Road no redress because the men could not be found. Fairfield. CT 06824 From the "First Report of the Tree Protection Examining Board" DOUGLAS PISTAWKA W. E. Britton, Chairman, June 30, 1921 632 Waiertown Road Middlebury CT 06762 While our view of gender and its place in the workforce has clearly evolved MARYJANET ARSENAULT over the years, basic human nature has changed little. Poorly trained and 172 Roxbury Road New Britain. CT 06053 unscrupulous individuals are still out there, looking to take advantage of the public trust, and it is still necessary that government and right-minded people CHARLES N ISELIN. JR take action against these individuals. This is particularly true where 94 Cedar Lake Ro.ul Chester CT064I2 professional activities are involved. When the actions of unreliable individuals have the ability to "bring the whole business into disrepute", it is especially BOB BOCIEK important that members of a profession step forward to defend and protect that 295 Gilman Streel Bridgeport. CT 06605 profession against those whose actions would call the profession into question in the public's mind and whose actions would cause harm to the public's R BRUCE VILLWOCK interest at large. 14 Stowe Slreol Middlefield. CT 06455 For ninety years, the Tree Protection Examining Board has championed the DR SHARONM DOUGLAS cause of the proper practice of arboriculture in the State of Connecticut. The PO Box 1106 beneficiaries have not just been the licensed arborists, who have had their New Haven CT 06504 standards upheld, or the clients of arborists, who have had their trees better JANE HARRIS cared for. but the citizens of the state as a whole, who as a group have enjoyed 161 Ridgewixid Road the presence of healthier, safer trees within the landscape of our daily lives. Middletown CT 06457

ALLAN FEN.MER Submitted on behalf of the Connecticut Tree Protective Association 53 Prospeu Slreet Hanlord. CT 06057 001775

FISHERIES ADVISORY COUNCIL - A group of dedicated citizens fromal l regions of the state working together for fish and fishing in Connecticut.

March 16, 2009

GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Testimony of Dr. Vincent P. Ringrose, Chairman, FISHERIES ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Re: R4TSED RTT.F. FTRrt375

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, and members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee:

The Fisheries Advisory Council (FAC) represents 31 organizations working together on behalf of fish and fishing in the State of Connecticut. The FAC also serves as an advisory council to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). We would like to address two issues included inHB6375.

The firstissu e is the termination of the Connecticut Delegation to the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission, effective October 1, 2009. The Delegation is one part of a larger whole - the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Compact - created by the state legislatures of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire, and with the consent of the United States Congress. The Commission is charged with, among other things, the power to affect stocking programs, management procedures and research in each member state, and to promulgate regulations governing Atlantic salmon fishingi n the mainstem of the Connecticut River. It is essential the state of Connecticut play an integral role these decisions by continued participation in the Commission. Our greatest concern, however, is the potential loss of the wonderful salmon in the schools program, 5,500 students strong, sponsored by the Connecticut River Salmon Association with the assistance of DEP. These salmon eggs are provided to the program from the federal hatchery in Vermont, operated specifically for the CRASC program.

The second issue is the elimination of the Invasive Plant Council. The council has begun a necessary program to eliminate the non-native plants that have begun to choke our waterways and ponds. Homegrown recreation is going to be more important than ever in this economic climate, and our fishing and boating opportunities must be maintained.

Thank you. 0017761

Connecticut Preservation Action The Voice of Historic Preservation at the Assembly since 1980

Government Administration and Elections Cornmittee Public Hearing Monday, March 16,2009

Testimony of Anita L. Mielert, President of Connecticut Preservation Action

In Opposition to Governor's Bill 6375 and specifically the elimination of the Face of Connecticut Steering Committee

Senator Slossberg, Rep. Spallone and members of the GAE committee, I am Anita Mielert, president of CT Preservation Action, CT Advisor to the National Trust of Historic Preservation's Board of Advisors, and a former First Selectman of the Town of Simsbury.

Last summer I was appointed to the Face of Connecticut Steering Committee, representing local preservation organizations through my work with the Simsbury Main Street Partnership. Prior to that, I worked as an individual with the coalition that was formed because of the Community Investment Act, a coalition of historic preservation, affordable housing, farmland preservation, and open space protection.

The Community Investment Act has far exceeded the hopes for this measure when it was enacted in 2005. The coalition that has resulted fromthes e four interest areas has been silo-busting. We are meeting regularly, working together, forging partnerships and joint ventures. And the actual investment in our communities has been transformational.

Pursuant to actions taken in last year's legislative session, brownfields remediation was added to the Face legislation as a partner. This legislation last year had 97 co-sponsors. The CIA coalition has been growing up and moving into a new, more mature force which can carry out Smart Growth initiatives in every corner of the state, leveraging state funds and combining our priorities into a greater vision for development.

We have not yet even met as a committee. We have not cost the state any money.

Nor are we likely to: I have personally served on two other state commissions in the past (the CT Historical Commission and the CT Innovations Review Panel), and neither one cost the state any funds, but rather they called on citizen input before public policy was formed, input which usually has come fromon-the-groun d experience.

Far from"unnecessar y and obsolete," the Face of Connecticut Steering Committee is visionary and holds potential for innovation that the State cannot afford to throw away.

Anita Mielert, Pres., 57 East Weatogue Street, Simsbury, CT 06070 • (860) 658-1190 Kathy Matter, VP; John W. Shannahan, Treas.; Linda Feczko, Sec. 7 001777

Testimony of Susan Zimmerman Monday March 16, 2009 Before the Government Administration and Elections Committee

Rep Slossberg, Senator Spallone and Members of the Government Adrninistration and Elections Committee:

I am writing today to urge you to remove the Family Support Council from H. B. 6375 An Act Concerning Review and Terrriination of Certain Boards and Commissions. The Family Support Council established under section 17a-219c of the General Statutes is an agency with which I have great familiarity having served as its staff support from 2000- 2004. The Council first established in 1995 is an interagency and family collaboration model, which has been successfully used by other advisory boards throughout the state. Through the monthly Council meetings agencies and families have shared information about service delivery and identified service gaps. Further, the Council has sponsored successful conversations with families and legislators.

With the support of federal fimding, the Council developed in 2000 a Family Support Network (FSN). FSN has been an essential support for families who have a child with a disability. FSN connects parents with education and social service supports using a peer- to-peer model. The outcome for families is improved through this low cost service and eliminating it would increase the burden on social service agencies.

Families are best served when knowledgeable parents share information and the Family Support Council has demonstrated its success in achieving this mission.

I also urge you to consider removing the Commission on Children from this bill. The work of the Conimission is well known and I do not need to repeat it here. Families benefit from this work and its elimination would be a loss to the community of families including those raising children with disabilities.

I realize that members of this Committee are faced with difficult choices. I can only repeat that the Family Support Council is an effective, low cost way to support families when they have a child with a disability.

Susan Zimmerman 74 Fullertown Road Hanover, CT 06350 860-822-6767 001778

Testimony

March 16, 2009

Connecticut Chapter of the

National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials

HB 6375 AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Honorable GAE Committee Members,

I submit this testimony on behalf of the Connecticut Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (Conn-NAHRO). Conn-NAHRO represents over 100 local housing authorities within the State of Connecticut.

The proposed bill includes eliminating the Housing Sustainability Committee. This Committee was the first step in the State's effort to preserve the long neglected 17,000 units of state financed housing. Unlike housing developed by the federal government, these housing developments receive no operating subsidies and no predictable funding for meeting long term capital needs. In 2006 the capital needed to preserve and protect the investment was conservatively placed at $500 million. The original $10 million allocated in 2008 was viewed as an initial step in meeting emergency needs. However, the funding was later raided to fund the Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program to in an effort avoid substantial rent increases to our most vulnerable residents.

The enacting legislation recognized the diversity in the housing portfolio to allow for the fair distribution of any such funds. The makeup of the committee takes into account the size of housing authorities, the interests of those who own and manage the developments, and equally important, the residents that rely on such housing opportunities.

Affordable housing is directly linked to the stabilization of our communities and to State's job market. Eliminating the Housing Sustainability Committee and Fund will effectively abandon the State of Connecticut's commitment to preserving and protecting low and moderate rental apartments As President of Conn-NAHRO, I urge you to keep the Housing Sustainability Committee and Fund in place.

Sincerely,

Scott C Bertrand

President, Conn-NAHRO 001779

... Governmental Adm & Elections Committee of the ConnecticutyLegislature on HB 6375

My name is Andrew Daniels. I am housing consultant that works in New England and nationally with housing providers and governmental entities on housing policy and programs. This includes policy work for the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. I was one of the authors of the Final Report of the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing (NCSDPH) as well as several case studies, whose recommendations resulted in the HOPE VI Program, a program which has provided funding in Connecticut to redevelop federal public housing in Stamford, New Haven and Hartford.

I come before the Committee today to speak against the demise of the Housing Sustainability Fund as would occur if HB 6375 is passed as written. The Committee is identified at line 88 (item 41) of the Bill for removal from Connecticut General Statutes.

Not only is the Fund neither a Commission nor Board, but it does not receive any regular annual appropriation, nor therefore does its demise create any cost savings under the stated purpose of the Bill, consolidation of Commissions and Boards. Its inclusion is a convenient addition to a gubernatorial shopping list by those with greater interest in control of an issue and lack of accountability rather than results. In demising the fund, the Governor removes an advisory committee with a mandate to look at the issues of preservation of Connecticut state-aided affordable housing programs and leave the issue in a limbo of bureaucratic discretion.

The Fund requires activities of an Advisory Committee consisting of individuals appointed by legislative leadership and the public housing industry and was intended by the statute that created it a little less than two years ago to take the lead at looking a substantial liability to the State of Connecticut, the underfunding of modernization needs for the over 17,400 units of state-aided housing paid for by the citizens of Connecticut and the potential consequences of disinvestment in an asset whose replacement value not including the cost of land is greater than $3.3b or an average construction cost of $190k per unit based on use prevailing wage rates. As a point of comparison, last year CHFA's Board of Commissioners approved 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects with an average cost of new construction over $300k per unit.

These affordable housing units have been funded through an array of programs that have been in place since the 1950s and which have created a portfolio of housing that is diverse and widely distributed across the State. Attachment A to this testimony is a list of state-aided units that can be found within the communities represented by the member of the GAE Committee. Attachment B is summary of the affordable unit

Testimony on HB 6375 1 March 16, 2009 001780

inventory maintained by the Department of Economic & Community Development (DECD) for each community represented by members of the GAE Committee and the change in percentage if the state-aided units were to be lost to the inventory for that specific community.

These units received grants funded with state bonds for their construction but do not receive any operating subsidy, nor does the legislature" appropriate any predictable source of modernization funding. When modernization funding is provided, it is often in the form of a legislative set-aside dedicated to a specific property in a specific community, which means that modernization funding is only available on an ad hoc basis and not based on documented needs relative to the entire portfolio nor in consideration of the impact of not funding specific units relative to local community demographics.

While this may seem like a mouthful of marbles it is an important public policy issue as access to governmental affordable housing programs is intimately tied to federal and state fair housing law as well as the Connecticut State Constitution. Given the number of households that fall under one or another of the definitions of protected classes, public polices that result in selective investment or selective disinvestment in government aided housing can result in unintended consequences from a civil rights law perspective.

There is a legal theory that is well established and called De Facto demolition, which in plan language means the intuitional abandonment of governmental housing that results in constructive demolition - the units are allowed to fall into such a level of disrepair as to mean that renovation is no longer economically viable when compared to new construction. There is no choice but for the units to be demolished even though a timely intervention of funds would have prevented the loss of economic viability resulting in no need to deprogram and demolish. It was a concern about De Facto Demolition which was one of the major justifications for the HOPE VI Program. If HUD and Congress were not to step up, it was anticipated that the legal services community would force the issue through the courts on a property by property basis using the case law around De Facto Demolition and that the federal government would be making the investments by court order.

This is the legal theory behind the Father Panik law suit and court order that has required one-for-one replacement of the units demolished at the former Father Panik, which was one of the largest public housing developments in Bridgeport and which is still an open issue for the City of Bridgeport and the Bridgeport Housing Authority.

Now there are State bureaucracies that would claim that they have a firm grasp of the problem and are in control of the issue.

I think that if this Committee held hearings today that they would find that these assertions did not contain adequate cloth to cover the claims no matter how they are

Testimony on HB 6375 2 March 16, 2009 001781

fashioned and that some simple questions would quickly uncover the nakedness of these assertions.

DECD which maintains statutory control of the programs has handed over their oversight responsibilities to CHFA as a consequence of the legislation that took $80m of cash from CHFA as a part of a swap for the equivalent value in the unretired bonds used to financing the state-aided housing portfolio. DECD has no data on this portfolio's physical conditions.

CHFA would claim that they have a sound analysis of the unfunded capital needs of the 17,400 units and they do have a number which changes and shifts depending upon the definitions or the way the question are asked. Their largest number includes the cost of redevelopment of New Britain's Corbin and Pinnacle Heights, which is now estimated at $90m based on loan application being reviewed at this very moment. The two developments are of the largest in the portfolio and combined are about 5% of the units. Thing is that the $90m would only bring back 301 units of the current 844 at an average cost of $299k. If the redevelopment cost estimates for the New Britain properties or others identified as redevelopment are removed, the CHFA estimate drops to roughly $200m

The funny thing is the CHFA's own requirements for a capital needs assessment (see Attachment C) were not met through the data collection techniques used by CHFA to arrive at an estimate of conventional modernization needs.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a very large portfolio of state-aided units of the roughly the same construction quality and age. The Massachusetts portfolio receives an operating subsidy and has had a much higher per unit history of appropriation for modernization. Nevertheless, the Massachusetts Department of Housing & Community Development (DHCD) estimates that current modernization levels are roughly 22% of the replacement value of the portfolio. For the Connecticut portfolio that means roughly $ 726m or almost four time the CHFA estimate. Even if the use of the 22% as a proxy for the lack of a true and current portfolio needs assessment is an overstatement, the CHFA estimate has to be at least half the true need and more likely on 1/3 of true need.

The data collection techniques used by CHFA do not meet national real estate industry standards for capital assessments, and most importantly CHFA,would not, by its own standards, underwrite any form of multifamily loan on these assets using the data they have collected.

Oh and by the way, the housing professionals that run the entities that own these 17,400 units, which are public housing agencies, community based non-profits and a small group of for profit owners, would to a clear majority claim that CHFA understates the modernization needs of their housing stock.

Testimony on HB 6375 3 March 16, 2009 001782 i

As a closing note, I would point out that if one were more interested in harming the Governor, in being partisan, demising the Sustainability Fund at the request of the Governor would provide solid documentation of an intentional disinterest in the analysis and planning required to arrive at a portfolio preservation strategy. In short, it would provide legal advocates with an easy ability to document "institutional neglect" given that a mechanism to-address the needs of the portfolio had been created and then was done away with.

The fact remains that 17,400 state-aided housing units exist and are in communities for which every member of this Committee has constituents. The units were funded in such a way that they need a large infusion of capital investment and that "bill" is coming due. Both the current administration and the legislature should want to get out in front of these issues or the issues will come up in another forum, most likely through the courts, and put the State into the awkward position of solving the problem under the leadership a court appointed receiver.

Testimony on HB 6375 4 March 16, 2009 001783

Testimony HB 6375 March 16, 2009 Governmental Administration and Election Committee

My name is Neil Griffin. I am the Executive Director of the Glastonbury Housing Authority and an Executive Board Member for the Connecticut Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (Conn-NAHRO).

I come before the committee today to speak about HB 6375's proposed elimination of the Housing Sustainability Fund, found at line 88, item 41 of the bill. The Housing Sustainability Fund was the first step at preserving the over 17,400 state funded low and moderate income rental homes. I say homes because these are people's homes and not just a "unit" or piece of rental inventory.

The population served by this housing portfolio, in Glastonbury as in other communities, is largely below 25% of median income. The average rent is below S400 per month and the properties receive no subsidy. While in comparison Glastonbury's assisted living property which serves the same income group, has a monthly rent of $989 which includes a monthly rental subsidy of $614. The bottom line is that the State funded properties can not continue to provide affordable rents to the population it serves and be able to fund these extensive capital needs.

I do not see how the elimination of the Housing Sustainability Fund could be seen as a reasonable measure that would help mitigate the State's deficit. Simply not budgeting any money for the fund during this extraordinarily difficult budgeting session could accomplish the same and still preserve an integral part of the preservation effort for our state funded low and moderate income housing, the Housing Sustainability Fund.

I urge you to leave the Housing Sustainability fund in place and in effect continue your support towards preserving our low and moderate income housing in Connecticut. 001784 BP

Connecticut Fund (or the Environment

Testimony of Connecticut Fund for the Environment Before the Committee on Government Administration and Elections In Opposition, in part, to Governor's Bill No. 6375, AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Submitted by Eric Annes, Legal Fellow March 16, 2009 Connecticut Fund for the Environment ("CFE"), with a total membership of approximately 6,000 Connecticut members, uses law and science to defend Connecticut's air, land and water.

CFE strongly opposes the elimination of the Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") as contemplated in Governor's Bill 6375. CEQ has a skeleton staff of two yet does an enormous amount of beneficial work within the Department of Environmental Protection (an already overburdened and underfunded department). The council independently monitors environmental indicators in its annual report, hears and responds to citizen complaints and identifies areas where the agency can operate better and more effectively do its job. By making sure DEP does its job effectively, CEQ helps prevent the state from wasting money on ineffective agencies. Thus, the budgetary savings from ehminating the CEQ is ephemeral at best and likely counterproductive. Balancing the budget at the cost of effective government is unwise.

Connecticut Fund for the Environment 205 Whitney Avenue, 1st Floor • New Haven. Connecticut 06511 (203) 787-0646 • wwv.cfenv.org TESTIMONY OF DAVID J. WASKOWICZ CHAIRMAN, FIRE PROTECTION SPRINKLER SYSTEMS WORK EXAMINING BOARD BEFORE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

HOUSE BILL NO. 6375

MARCH 16, 2009

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, my name is David Waskowicz. I am a licensed sprinkler fitter m the state of Connecticut and the Chairman of the Fire Protection Sprinkler Systems Work Examining Board for the state of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection

I would like to take this opportunity to ask that you seriously consider keeping the Fire Protection Board as an active tool in the toolbox of the Department of Consumer Protection and not eliminating it as well as the five other occupational licensing boards. This is part of the proposal included in House Bill No. 6375. Those other boards that should also not be eliminated are Heating and Cooling, Electrical, Elevator, Plumbing and Flat Glass. Each and every occupational board that I have mentioned involves the safety and protection of the public and the consumer as well as providing a service.

The board that I chair is comprised of nine members. I and another are journeyman sprinkler fitters, two are sprinkler contractors, one is from the state fire marshals office, one is a local fire marshal and three of the members represent the public. As you can see the make up of the board is diverse and has knowledge of the fire protection field and input from the public members. When there is a hearing or a complaint who better to serve the public than the board that the legislators that came before you had the insight to put in place.

Under these difficult financial times the state is looking at anything to try and trim the deficit. I would like to point out that the boards are made up of volunteers who are only compensated for gas expense when we meet every other month. There is some clerical expense incurred by the department but it is far outweighed by the service that the board provides to the public.

In closing, I ask that you take a serious look at maintaining the occupational licensing boards. The nine members of the Fire Protection Board can look at the issue before them and with several different views and perspectives

Thank you for your time and consideration of.House Bill No. 6375.

David J. Waskowicz INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS SEAN W. DALY 2 NORTH PLAINS INDUSTRIAL ROAD WALLINGFORD. CT 06492 REPRESENTATIVE 203-265-9267 FAX 203-265-9312

Testimony on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Before the GAE Committee March 16, 2009

Good afternoon Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, and members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, my name is Roger Johnson, and I am here on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) to testify in opposition to the proposal within the Governor's budget to eliminate the Electrical Work Examining Board (the Board), which can be found in bill 6375 AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

The IBEW feels the Board is an integral piece of the process when it comes to enforcement and oversight of electrical licensing and certification laws. The Board is comprised of those in the industry who are considered experts in the field and therefore most qualified to be the decision makers when it comes to discipline of the workers.

If the Board were to be wiped out completely, it would leave all responsibility in the hands of the Department of Consumer Protection. The IBEW feels this is of great concern. On the,one hand, the Department may not have enough staff to handle the increased workload it would acquire, which we feel would jeopardize the effectiveness of the enforcement process. Secondly, as was previously mentioned, members of the Board are those who are the most knowledgeable about the nature of the industry, and are most qualified to determine when an individual is deserving of punishment.

The IBEW feels this is most importantly an issue of safety and quality. If the Boards are eliminated, we could not feel confident that occupational licensing laws would be enforced in a strict manner. If the Examining Boards are acknowledged and included in the disciplinary process, we can feel confident offenders will receive suitable penalties, and the quality and security of our industry will remain in tact. 001787_

Testimony of:

Matthew F. Capece Representative of the General President United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America 8 Mountain St. Derby, CT before the

Government Aclmimstration and Elections Committee Gayle S. Slossberg, Co-Chair James Field Spallone, Co-chair

March 16,2009

Re: FIB 6375 An act concerning review and termination of certain boards Opposition to §1(3) termination of the Employee Misclassification Advisory Board

The growing problem of employee misclassification, or payroll fraud, in the construction industry is a priority concern of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. A majority of states are increasing enforcement activity, especially in these times of budget deficits, to increase revenues. We therefore respectfully opposed the elimination of the Employee Misclassification Advisory Board.

Payroll fraudcome s in two forms. First, construction employers misclassify workers as independent contractors when they are truly employees. Second, employees are paid "off the books," by either check or cash, and the payments are not reported as required by federal and state law.

In a competitive industry like ours, it is not difficult to see why it has become alarming. Construction employers who violate the law gain an unfair bidding advantage over law abiding competitors by unlawfully evading employment taxes, overtime pay and workers compensation premiums. That creates an uneven playing field where honest employers have difficulty competing for jobs. Also, it is not isolated to small remodeling projects. We see fraud in many types of construction-large and small, commercial and residential, public and private.

We recognize that contractors who violate the law to gain a competitive advantage not only harm industry standards-they also harm the greater community. Local, state and federal governments are cheated out of tax revenue. Insurance companies loose workers compensation premiums and pass along their losses to other employers. Workers are exploited and lose important legal protections that have been the law of the land for close to a hundred years.

1 001788

We are not alone in recognizing the problem of payroll fraud. Recent studies done in Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts and Minnesota have found that 14 to 24 percent of construction employers misclassify their workers.1 A 1984 IRS study says 19.8 percent of construction workers are misclassified. According to an Illinois study, fraud in the construction industry costs the state $54.6 million in state income taxes, unemployment taxes and workers compensation premiums.2 In Pennsylvania, payroll fraud costs the state $200 million a year in unemployment taxes and $81 million in workers compensation premiums.3 Ohio says that the illegal practice costs their state $890 million in lost unemployment taxes, state and local income taxes and workers compensation premiums.4 You should note that these studies offer conservative estimates, because they do not quantify off-the books payments—paying workers unreported compensation.5 Other studies, though, have done that. A California study of workers compensation premiums identified $100 billion dollars of underreporting-that would include misclassification, off the books payments - and putting workers in cheaper-cost classification codes:6 A recent study by the Fiscal Policy Institute found that 50,000 of New York City's 200,000 construction workers are misclassified or paid off the books, costing up to $557 million in lost state and federal taxes and health-care cost shifting in 2008. Clearly, we are not dealing with a small problem.

1 The Social & Economic Cost of Employee Misclassification in Construction, Construction Policy Research Center, Labor & Worklife Program, Harvard Law School & Harvard School of Public Health, by Bemhard and Herrick, p.. 1 (December 2004) (Massachusetts Study), The Social & Economic Cost of Employee Misclassification in the Maine Construction Industry, Construction Policy Research Center, Labor & Worklife Program, Harvard Law School & Harvard School of Public Health, by Bemhard and Herrick, pp. 1-2 (April 2005) (Maine Study), The Cost of Worker Misclassification in New York State, Cornell Univ., ILR School, by Donahue, p. 2 QTebruary 2007), Economic Costs of Employee Misclassification in the State of Illinois, Dep. Of Economics, Univ. Missouri-Kansas City, by Kelsay, Sturgeon and Pinkham, pp. 4, 5 and 15(December 2006) (Illinois Study) and Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors, Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota, pp 15 and 18 (November 2007). 2 Illinois Study, p. 6-8. 3 Testimony of Patrick T. Beaty, Deputy Secretary for Unemployment Compensation Programs, Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, before the House of Representatives Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Labor Relations Committee on HB 2400, The Employee Misclassification Prevention Act, p. 3 (April 23,2008), Testimony of Timothy L. Wisecarver.and Bruce Decker, Pennsylvania Compensation Rating Bureau, Summary of Testimony before the House of Representatives Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Labor Relations Committee on HB 2400, The Employee Misclassification Prevention Act, p. 3 (April 23, 2008). 4 Report of the Ohio Attorney General on the Economic Impact of Misclassified Workers for State and Local Governments in Ohio, pp. 18 and 22 (February 18,2009). 3 Massachusetts Study, p. 1, Maine Study, p. 1, Illinois Study, p. 2. 6 Up to One Fifth of California Payroll Not Reported, WorkCompCentraL by Jim Sams (April 30, 2007), Fraud in Workers' Compensation Payroll Reporting: How Much Employer Fraud Exists and How are Honest Employers Impacted: Report for the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation, by Frank Neuhauser and Colleen Donovan, University of California, Berkeley (August 2007), pp. 1-3 and 7-8. 1 Building Up New York, Tearing Down Job Quality: Taxpayer Impact of Worsening Employment Practices in New York City's Construction Industry, Fiscal Policy Institute (New York City Construction) (December 2007), pp. 1 and 20-22.

2 001789

The problem of payroll fraud has been recognized in Connecticut. Last year, the Governor signed into law a bill that established an enforcement task force of state agencies. Attached to the task force is an advisory board of employee and employer representatives. The advisory board is invited to meet with the task force members to share information on market and other conditions as well as unlawful schemes in order to assist the task force's efforts.

We understand that the Governor is terminating boards to improve the budget. Tercrnnating the misclassification advisory board may accomplish the opposite. The advisory board adds no cost. It meets with task force members, and the advisory board members are not compensated. In addition, their advice to the task force can lead to better voluntary compliance with state tax laws, and give the task force information that can improve law enforcement methods.

We respectfully request the Committee to amend HB 6375 by striking §1(3) in order to preserve the Employee Misclassification Advisory Board.

Respectfully submitted,

Matthew F. Capece Representative of the General President United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America 001790

GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION & ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

PUBLIC HEARING - MONDAY, MARCH 16,2009 - 9:30 A.M. ROOM 2B

Bill No. HB6375 Sec. 1 - Subsection (55) (56) (57) (58) and (61)

Testimony by: Hubert J. Barnes, Business Manager, UA Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 777

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, and members of the committee, my name is Hubert Barnes, Business Manager for Local 777, Plumbers and Pipefitters and a journeyperson member of the Plumbing and Piping Work Board. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion on HB 6375.

As a concerned citizen, a business person, and member of the Board, I believe we would be doing an injustice to every consumer those people in your districts who hire plumbers, pipefitters, sprinkler- fitters, electricians, or elevator installers to work on their homes, their offices, their stores, their apartment buildings, or their manufacturing facilities, if these Occupational Licensing Boards were eliminated.

My main objection to the bill is the terniination of the licensing boards listed in sections 55, 56, 57, 58, and 61, effective October 1,2009, "unless they are re-established according to Section 2c-10 of the general statutes." It is obvious that the intent of this bill is to just eliminate these boards, along with many others listed, in an effort to save the state money. However, the licensing boards for the trades are strictly volunteer and the members of these boards only get reimbursed for mileage. I cannot speak for the rest of the Plumbing Board but if all it takes to keep the Board is to give up the mileage then so be it. All the Boards that HB 6375 will effect are members that care about their profession and their State. The monetary reward is not the reason we serve and the savings realized by the elimination of these boards would be minimal..

As a licensed tradesperson, I served a five-year apprenticeship in Connecticut and was grateful to have a licensing board of professional people who set the standards and established the amount and type of experience and training required to qualify an applicant for an examination for a license. At least I knew that when I got my license, it was worth the piece of paper it was written on, and I knew that I had been trained under the highest of standards.

The boards are comprised of both union and non-union joumeypersons and contractors who have expertise and follow the trends in the industry. They know if new materials are introduced in the trade and new methods and techniques are needed for installation and use of these new materials, or if more advanced methods and techniques, which are more energy efficient or enhance safety, become available. The boards also set the parameters for the courses offered for continuing education required by statute and determine the specific area of a trade for which limited licenses will be issued and the areas for which no license will be required. The boards also have "public members".

I was also.an Occupational Licensing Inspector for the Department of Consumer Protection for over six years and have first-handexperienc e on the value of the Occupational Licensing Boards. 001791

The Governor's budget proposes an increase the licensing fees. That's fine, but to take away the Occupational Boards would take away the State's vital volunteer expertise in the specific trades. This action would be detrimental to training and licensing of qualified plumbers and pipefitters and other trades' people and in turn, be detrimental to the safety of the consumer and the citizens of this state.

The budget deficit is a problem and I realize that, but elimination of these boards will have no positive effect on the deficit. My suggestion to help cut the deficit in the area of occupational licensing is to hire more inspectors to catch the unlicensed-unqualified plumbers, pipefitters, electricians, sprinklerfitters and elevator installers and let the legitimate licensed contractors and journeypersons do their work. Enforcement of the licensing laws cannot be properly accomplished with just four inspectors. Better policing of the trades will put the violators out of business. Legitimate licensed contractors pay income taxes, unemployment compensation and workers' compensation. The licensing law violators usually don't, but they will pay the fines when and if they get caught.

I believe I have taken up enough of your precious time and I want to thank you for your service to the citizens of Connecticut.

If you have any questions I would be glad to try and answer them. Luisa Soboleski 234 Beechwood Drive, Southington, CT 06489

Good Morning, Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, and distinguished members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. My name is Luisa Soboleski from Southington and I am the chairperson of the Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired. I am here today to testify in opposition to HB 6375, an Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions

The Connecticut Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired (CDHI) has been in operation for almost 35 years. The Commission was the first Commission on the Deaf established nationally and serves as the model for others, even today. CDHI currently provides critical services to the community such as advocacy, counseling and. certified sign language interpreting services. CDHI also monitors the statewide registry (State Statute Sec. 46a-33a) of Connecticut working sign language interpreters insuring that only "qualified" interpreters are active in the community.

There is a nationwide shortage of certified and qualified sign language interpreters. Connecticut is fortunate to have secured the talents of the 45 part-time interpreters. Interpreting services are reimbursable and the reimbursements are paid to the 45 interpreters for their work. The interpreting service is, for the most part, self supporting. Regarding the CDHI Interpreting Department: Last Year 2008 • CDHI provided coverage for 16,600 interpreting assignments; or approximately 66,400 hours of interpreting - this is a modest and rough estimate of service provided - these hours are split among the 45 part-time interpreters. • Seventy-Five Percent of those 16,600 assignments: 11,620 interpreting assignments were connected to services provided to State of Connecticut agencies and/or pertained to State of Connecticut related business

As you are aware, Federal and State Laws [American with Disability Act (ADA), mandate that the rights of citizens, including those with disabilities, be protected. CDHI has historically been the resource accessed by State of Connecticut agencies in their efforts to meet their legal obligations to provide equal access to goods and services provided by the State. CDHI has responded whenever logistically possible in this matter; especially when public health and welfare are affected. Much of the CDHI business to the State can be considered "short notice" work. The State of Connecticut Judicial Department, Department of Children and Families, State Police, Department of Corrections are examples of "short notice" requesting agencies; DCF and state police for crisis events and Judicial for court related business.

Let's take a snapshot of a typical week just, Last week 907 total hours of interpreting were provided • 11 cases before the courts, 70.5 hours of interpreting • Four (4) of which dealt with foreclosure mediations. • 16 active DCF cases CDHI provided 64 hours of interpreting • 18 CVH/Corrections interpreting assignments equaling 48 hours of time • 30 employment appointments totaling 101 hours of interpreting. • 114 college classes interpreted for a total of 380 hours.

Let me take just a minute to share a personal account. As a Deaf individual, I truly know the importance of this agency. I grew up in a different time, when our legal, rights were limited.., I went through school without interpreters, facing barriers and frustrations every day. I was fortunate to have caring, supportive Deaf parents so at home I was provided with the communication access that was lacking in my school day. I persevered through high school, college, and graduate school so that I could become a teacher and help future generations of Deaf students. But I am the exception; there are many more Deaf people who could not reach their goals, held back not by lack of ability, but lack of opportunity. My own children are also Deaf and have grown up in a time when their basic rights to communication access and equal opportunity are protected by state and federal laws. Qualified CDHI interpreters played a critical role in their education in the Southington Public School system, giving them access to the same curriculum as their hearing peers. This is just one example of how CDHI protects the rights of the Deaf citizens of Connecticut. The elimination of CDHI would be a drastic step backward, putting back up the barriers that we worked so hard to remove for our children and future generations to come. All in all, CDHI is a small State of Connecticut agency making an enormous impact! Agency statistics document its importance. CDHI interpreting services cannot be duplicated by any other State or private agency. Elimination of CDHI will negatively impact the Deaf citizens of Connecticut as well as severely disrupt statewide operations at the State Judicial Department, Department of Children and Families, Department of Corrections, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, the State College and Community College system, State Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and so on and so on. It would be difficult to name an agency that CDHI has not assisted. Upon review, you will agree elimination' makes little sense.

Thank you for your time. 001796

Connecticut Council of Organizations Serving the Deaf

#1* March 16, 2009

Tnorning Honorable Government Administration and Elections Committee:

My name is Susan V. Pedersen. As President of Connecticut Council of Organizations Serving the Deaf (CCOSD), it is urgent for me to be here about Bill 6375, and to testify against closing or terminating the Commission on Deaf and Hearing Impaired (CDHI).

Let me relate how CCOSD implemented the formation of CDHI. The CCOSD first was established on December 1,1969 in West Hartford, and was chartered under the laws of the State of Connecticut as a non-profit organization in 1971. The CCOSD was the first state-level coalition-type organization of the deaf in this country, and it is the only one in the country nowadays. CCOSD made a passage of an Interpreter Law in June 1973.

In the 1970's, the deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing citizens did not feel comfortable to depend on their family members, church clergies, hearing adults of deaf parents or staff at American School for the Deaf because they were able to communicate in sign language. These wanted to make their personal decisions confidentially and independently so they asked CCOSD to do something about this issue. CCOSD later got the CDHI established as one of the state agencies on May 31,1974. Since that year CCOSD serves on the CDHI Board as ex-offico.

Since 1974 CDHI is the primary service provider that consumers still depend when they face personal hardship or communication barriers out in the society. Besides interpreting, counseling and advocacy, CDHI does more than extraordinary miles of doing their jobs such as training or consulting the public and family members who seek information about deafness and related issues. The deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing persons have confidence in the CDHI professional expertise.

On behalf of CCOSD consisting more than 20 organizations, I am pleading you for continue the service of Commission on Deaf and Hearing Impaired. Please do not ever think of terminating our only state agency that understands and provides appropriate services to deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing citizens/ tax payers and other service providers that need it. Thank you. MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS

• American School for the Deaf • American School for the Deaf Alumni Association • • American School for the Deaf - Sign Language Program • Association of Late Deafened Adults - CT Chapter • • NCCC - Collegiate Education for the Deaf & Hard of Hearing Program • Commission on Deaf and Hearing Impaired • • Connecticut Association of the Deaf • Connecticut Deaf Senior Citizens • Deaf-Blind Association of Connecticut • • Deaf Women of Connecticut • Family Service Woodfield • Gallaudet University Alumni Association - CT Chapter • • Greater Bridgeport Association of the Deaf • Hartford Club of the Deaf • Independence Unlimited, Inc • • International Catholic Deaf Association #34 • Sign Language Instructor's Pool • St. Francis DeSale Catholic Club • • Sound Off Theatre • Spnnt Relay Service/Converse Communication Corporation • 001797

Chris Donnelly 58 Old Post Road Northford, CT 06472 Re: Governor's Bill #6375 I would like to go on record as stating my opposition to the termination of the Tree Protection Examining Board, the Connecticut Forest Practices Advisory Board and the Invasive Plant Council, as is called for, in Governor's Bill # 6375 - An Act Concerning the Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions. I know each of these bodies to be important, active and useful entities within state government. I believe that the tenriination of these bodies would hamper the work of the state with regards to those issues for which each of these bodies were individually established. I also believe that, with particular reference to the Tree Protection Examining Board, that the elimination of this body would cause direct harm to the professional group that depends upon the existence of this body. Let me take each one of these bodies one at a time: The Tree Protection Examining Board was established by the General Assembly in 1919 and will be 90 years old on July 1. This Board has been and continues to be a prime example of an industry and a profession cooperating with government for the public good. The Tree Protection Examining Board has two main functions. Through a testing process, it recommends candidates who axe qualified for the arborist license to DEP for licensing. It also works with DEP to establish the standards for what is deemed proper tree care - arboriculture - in the state. That "second function is critical. Arboriculture is a rapidly growing and rapidly changing field nationally and within the State of Connecticut. Over the past decade, the number of licensed arborists in Connecticut has increased by around 80% - from around 500 to about 900 individuals. This increase in numbers is due in large part to the importance that the public - the citizens of the State of Connecticut - place on proper tree care. At the same time, while the number of arborists has increased, the profession of arboriculture has also not stood still. There have been major advances - in the approach taken to the use of pesticides as well as to the materials used in treating trees for pest problems; in the techniques used to climb, prune and improve trees, both above and below ground; and in the approach taken to safety among the industry generally. In all of these areas, including that of safety, the Tree Protection Examining Board has been that body which has allowed the licensing entity, FJEP, to stay current with practices in the field. With specific reference to safety, the tree care industry has made enormous strides over the years, creating voluntary standards for safe practices. These standards are incorporated in an American National Standards Institute document (ANSI Z-133.1). Throughthe efforts of the Tree Protection Examining Board, candidates for the arborist license, who would then have supervisory responsibility over tree work, are now required demonstrate knowledge of this standard and of safe tree care practices. Without the efforts of the Tree Protection Exarrurdng Board, it is very likely that this incorporation of safety into the licensing standards would never have occurred, or certainly would not have occurred in a timely fashion. I suppose it might be suggested that safety and currency in a licensing exam are a luxury, if this Board actually cost the State a large sum of money. In fact, the expenses associated with the body are minimal. To my understanding, they range in vicinity of $500 a year total, for incidental expenses such as travel. Otherwise, the public and professional members of the Board are volunteering their time to the State. 001798

The Forest Practices Advisory Board is a very similar body, established by the State Legislature in 1991 for very similar purposes regarding the State's woodlands, especially those woodlands in private ownership. Essentially, it was perceived that those woodlands are a vulnerable component of the State's landscape and that efforts needed to be made to protect those woodlands and their owners from the activities of those who are unscrupulous, ignorant or both. This board is another example of a public-private partnership that has been very active over its history, and that continues to be active today. This board has worked hard to oversee the establishment of the certification process for those who conduct such forest practices as writing forest management plans and harvesting timber. It has also made recommendations as to the proper standards regarding field forestry activities, such as the correct ways to harvest; and was instrumental in establishing a code of ethical standards for those who are certified as a forest practitioner. Again, it is difficult to see how these standards and recommendations would have been achieved, much less accepted by the larger forestry community, if they had been left to arise through the internal processes of a governmental agency. The dialogue, among state agency personnel, field practitioners, and interested members of the public, is crucial, to the Forest Practices Advisory Board being successful, but, much more importantly, to the State of Connecticut being successful in what it has sought to achieve with regards to forest practices. The Invasive Plant Council was founded in 2003 to deal with what many perceive as one of our most significant environmental problems - that of invasive, non-native plants displacing native vegetation across the countryside. Six years ago, the Invasive Plant Council was given a bold mission, and it has made many notable strides towards accomplishing that mission. Six years ago, the topic of invasive plants was a highly polarized one, in which there was more energy devoted to blame than to solutions. The State was in great need of a coordinated effort with regards to invasive plants that would engage the many disparate parties concerned this issue. Through the Council, this has happened. That the State has valued the success of the Invasive Plant Council thus far is demonstrated best by the General Assembly's support, in the 2007 session, through PA 07-822, for an annual budget to fund the work championed by the Council. The General Assembly would not have voted to provide this funding if it did not find the work of the Council important or if it were not satisfied with the efforts or direction the Council was taking. However, in many ways, the work of this Council is just beginning - it might be said that, despite its notable successes, the Council has barely had time to get its feet on the ground. The most important work of this group is clearly ahead of it, and it needs the time to continue to make progress towards its important goals. In sum, the commonality among these boards is that they are each a successful collaboration among industry, professionals, the public and state government. In a participatory democracy, successes such as these should be heralded as government at its finest. These are each very active, progressive and accomplished bodies that continue to do good for the state, for extremely low-cost, and that should be honored, and not terminated, for their efforts.

Sincerely,

Chris Donnelly 001799 Connecticut Tree Protective Association, Inc. 58 Old Post Road, PO Box 356, Northford, Connecticut 06472-0356 Telephone (203) 484-2512 or (888) 919-2872 (in-state) • www.CTPA.org We Advance the Care of Connecticut's Trees

Governor's Bill #6375 - Testimony of Rita Smith

Members of the Government Administrations and Elections Committee: Organized August 16,1922

President I am Rita Smith, Executive Secretary of the Connecticut Tree DONALD PARROTT Protective Association. I am here today to deliver a written 501 Pepper Street Monroe, CT 06468 letter from the Association regarding Bill #6375. The Association is opposed to the termination of the Tree Protection Vice-President CHRIS DONNELLY Examining Board, as would occur through the passage of this 58 Old Post Road bill in its current form. As I give this letter over to you, I would Northford, CT 06472 • also like to add a few comments in support of the Association's Secretary-Treasurer DOUGLAS WILLIAMS position. 59 Delaware Road Easton, CT 06612 The Connecticut Tree Protective Association is an educational Executive Secretary RITA SMITH association dedicated to advancing the care of Connecticut's 58 Old Post Road trees. We currently have 791 members, of whom nearly 600 are Northford, CT 06472 licensed arborists - or, about 2/3's of the licensed arborists in Directors the state. KENNETH P PLACKO 725 Old Post Road Fairfield, CT 06824 Connecticut has a licensing process for arborists that is the DOUGLAS PISTAWKA model for the rest of the country. This is so largely because of 632 Watertown Road Middlebury, CT 06762 the role that the Tree Protection Examining Board plays. The Board meets four times a year to test each candidate for the MARY JANE T ARSENAULT 172 Roxbury Road arborist license. Not only does the Board recommend those New Britain, CT 06053 candidates who are qualified for licensing, it also advises DEP,,

CHARLES N. ISELIN, JR the body that issues the license, on standards for testing - on 94 Cedar Lake Road what a prospective arborist needs to know. Chester, CT 06412

BOB BOCIEK 295 Gilman Street If I could give a quick example of that last point. Tree work is Bridgeport, CT 06605 often cited as one of the 3 most dangerous professions in the

R. BRUCE VILLWOCK country - right up there with offshore fisheries and forest 14 Stowe Street logging. Men and women do tree work because they love the Middlefield, CT 06455 work, and they love trees. In turn, we as an association and a DR. SHARON M DOUGLAS profession have worked hard to reduce the risks for those P.O. Box 1106 New Haven, CT 06504 engaged in tree care. In the world of tree care, arborists are the

JANE HARRIS supervisors of the work, as well as the individuals who diagnose 161 Ridgewood Road Middletown, CT 06457

ALLAN FENNER 53 Prospect Street Hartford, CT 06057 001800

tree problems and recommend solutions. So, the arborist's role in safety in tree care is critical.

Almost entirely through industry effort, standards have been established for safety in arboricultural tree work. These are voluntary industry standards, promoted by the arborist profession, not government regulations. Yet, these standards are so highly respected that OSHA is in the process of adopting them.

However, it may be years before OSHA adopts these standards. Regardless, these voluntary industry standards for safety in arboriculture are now a part of the testing process for the arborist license in Connecticut. Today, as a part of the licensing process, the men and women who would supervise tree care in Connecticut - those going for their arborist license - need to demonstrate to the Tree Protection Examining Board that they understand and are committed to safe working practices in the tree work that they would supervise.

This all has come about because of the job being done by a partnership that includes the profession, members of the general public and state government. This partnership is the Tree Protection Examining Board. Not only that, the Board does its job for virtually no cost to the state - perhaps $500 a year in incidental expenses. The public and professional members of the Board volunteer their time.

Because of the Tree Protection Examining Board, not only are trees healthier and safer in Connecticut and tree care practices in the state more modern and up-to- date, but tree workers themselves are safer. This is a successful partnership. We respectfully ask that it not be eliminated.

Thank you.

Sincerely.

Rita Smith Executive Secretary Connecticut Tree Protective Association PO Box 356 Northford, CT 06472 001801

Daigle, Ben

From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:10 PM To: Daigle, Ben Cc: [email protected] Subject: Testimony by Patti Wilson, President, Connecticut Association of the Deaf; Governor's Bill # 6375 - Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions

March 16, 2008 Honorable Gayle S. Slossberg and James F. Spallone, Co-Chairs and Members, Goverment Administration and Election Committee:

Good Mornng, I am Patti Wilson, President of the Connecticut Association of the Deaf. I am here today to express our appreciation for the services provided by the Commission for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired (CDHI). This state funded agency provides many ireplaceable services that allow approximately 300,000 deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind citzens who use American Sign Language (ASL) to function in today's complex society.

These critical services listed below involve working with judical system, police, local, state and federal agencies, schools, universities, hospitals and employers:

1. Coordination and provision of American Sign Language Interpreters

2. Deaf Sensitivity and Awareness Training to state and federal agencies, hospitals, universities, city health departments, etc. to help ensure access for deaf consumers

3. Coordinate services between state agencies for deaf consumers 4. Train local first responders to assist with deaf consumers in emergencies and disasters 5 Assist deaf consumers who have been denied SSDI or other benefits

6. Crisis intervention regarding any life situations that a deaf person cannot cope with due to language/communication barriers 7. Personal counseling in ASL

8. Coordinate Career Express services for deaf job seekers 9. Assist employers and deaf employees with job-related issues 10. Locate shelter for deaf homeless

11. Train 3rd year medical students at UCONN School of Medicine on appropriate use of interpreters -

12. Work with the National Association of the Deaf on deaf issues and telecommunications barriers

These essential services for this low-incidence population enable the state of Connecticut to comply with various federal and state mandates, especially in the areas of communication access and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, please do not terminate the Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired. Thank you

l 001802

Testimony of Kendall F. Wiggin, Chairman Commission for Educational Technology

Concerning House Bill No. 6375 AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS March 16, 2009

The Commission for Educational Technology was created by P.A. 00-187 based on recommendations to Governor Rowland on November 26, 1999 by then Lt. Governor Rell following her three-month study on computer readiness in Connecticut's schools and libraries. The Commission has a very far reaching charge. The Commission and its advisory committees have overseen the development of the Connecticut Education Network, administered by the Department of Information Technology; of iCONN, Connecticut's Research Engine and digital library, administered by the Connecticut State Library, and on-line learning administered through the CT Distance Learning Consortium; secured millions of dollars in savings through the federal E-Rate program; the development; fostered a disaster recovery program for colleges and universities in the state; and negotiated and funded online multimedia science materials for Connecticut's middle school students.

Significantly, the Commission continues to serve as the forum and coordinating point for educational technology initiatives, bringing together state agencies, schools, higher education and the business community. It provides a clear voice in state technology planning and policy for K-12, colleges and universities, and public libraries throughout our state.

The work of the Commission impacts all of Connecticut's public schools, libraries and academic institutions in the State.

While it is hard to put firm numbers on the services available through the CEN and other Commission initiatives, some examples are: • E-Rate bring the state over $5 million a year for the Education Network • iCONN represents a cost avoidance for local schools, libraries, and colleges of $32 million a year • Internet Access through the CEN represents a cost avoidance of between $15- 75,000 per school district • CEN funding of online science materials represents a statewide cost avoidance for school districts of over $2 million annually • 300 income families have received computers, Internet Access, and training

The members of the Commission serve without additional compensation.

For a few years the Commission had funding for an Executive Director (as authorized in the enabling act), however, there has been no funding to support the Commission for the 001803

past 7 years. The Department of Education generously provides part of one of their employee's time to serve as Executive Director, and the Department of Information Technology has funded a position to develop content for the network.

The Commission has a very large charge and I believe, despite funding challenges, has achieved much. And admittedly, given the resources, could (and should) do more.

So what if the Commission went away? The Commission recently asked itself that question. I think the better question is what opportunities would be lost if the Commission went away? Looking specifically at the Commission's legislative mandate, who would:

• Be the principal educational technology policy advisor for state government;

• Develop, oversee and direct the attainment of state-wide technology goals including:

o Connecting all institutions of higher education, libraries, public elementary and secondary schools, regional educational service centers and other parties through a state-wide high speed, flexible network that will allow for video, voice and data transmission; o Wiring all school classrooms and connecting them to the Internet and to the state-wide high speed network through wired, wireless, or any other digital transmission technology providing high speed connectivity, o Providing access for all public schools, public libraries and libraries at institutions of higher education to a core set of on-line full text resources and to the ability to purchase collaboratively for other collections in order to maximize buying power; o Ensuring, in cooperation with the State Board of Education, competency in computing skills by the sixth grade for all students; o Ensuring competency in specific computing skills and the integration of technology into the curriculum for all public school teachers; o Ensuring that institutions of higher education offer a wide range of course and degree programs via the Internet and through other synchronous and asynchronous methods;

• Coordinate the activities of all state agencies, educational institutions and other parties involved in the creation and management of a reliable and secure network that will offer connectivity and allow for the transmission of video, voice and data transmission to every library, school, regional educational service center and institution of higher education;

• Be the liaison between the Governor and the General Assembly and local, state and federal organizations and entities with respect to educational technology matters; • Develop and maintain a long-range plan and make related recommendations for the coordination of educational technology;

• Measure the availability and usage of Internet access sites available to the public, including, but not limited to, those maintained by state and local government agencies, libraries, schools, institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, businesses and other organizations and recommend strategies for reducing the disparities in Internet accessibility and usage across the state and among all potential users;

• Establish methods and procedures to ensure the maximum involvement of members of the public, educators, librarians, representatives of higher education, the legislature and local officials in educational technology matters and organize, as necessary, advisory boards consisting of individuals with expertise in a particular discipline significant to the work of the commission;

• Oversee the preparation and submission of a state-wide application to the federal Universal Service Fund to enhance connectivity to the Connecticut Education Network, maximize participation and grant attainment rates, and reduce overly burdensome aaministrative requirements which discourage local involvement?

There is also an important role for the Commission as millions of dollars come into the state from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for Educational Technology and Broadband network development.

At a time when both education and technology are critical to the economic future of Connecticut, it is so very important that the principal state Commission responsible for the promotion and coordination of Connecticut's educational technology efforts be continued, especially since it operates at no added cost to the State. We urge you not to support the elimination of the Commission for Educational Technology. 001805

Statement of Bob Heffeman Executive Director Connecticut Green Industries Coalition before the Government Administration & Elections Committee / Connecticut General Assembly

Opposing the Provisions of HB 6375 That Would Eliminate the Connecticut Invasive Plants Council

March 16, 2009

We ask the Committee's support for continuing the Connecticut Invasive Plants Council, which the Administration proposes for elimination.

The Connecticut Invasive Plants Council should NOT be abolished as proposed in the Governor's budget The Council costs the state nothing — it has no budget and no staff.

The Council was created by statute. The. pine members donate their time and resources—a lot of it.

These high-ranking nine leaders are working hard to find consensus for a strategy and future plan to control the invasive plants problem that affects virtually every town in the state. These leaders come from industry, the environment, UConn, and relevant state agencies. 001806

CONNECTICUT-ISRAEL EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Members of the Government Administration and Election Committee, my name is Sandra Elias, and I am the Executive Director of CONNDC, a volunteer position. I speak today on behalf of Steven Sohn, Governor Rell's Designee as Chairperson of the Connecticut-Israel Exchange Commission (CONNIX) as well as at the request of Robert J. Fishman, Executive Director of the Jewish Federation Association of Connecticut (JFACT). Mr. Fishman is out of town at a family wedding and was unable to attend. I respectfully urge the committee to reject HB 6375, which seeks to terminate certain commissions. CONNLX's mission is to promote economic, cultural and educational exchange between the State of Connecticut and the State of Israel. From its inception in 1993, CONNIX has been a resource for Connecticut businesses exploring Israel and the Mid-East region. In addition to aiding companies in marketing their products to Israel, CONNLX has also provided Connecticut companies with new sourcing requests from Israel. Israel has superb research and academic centers that generate sophisticated and innovative solutions in the areas of hi-tech, biotech, pharmaceutical, aerospace, 'green' technology and stem cell research and development. CONNLX, through its connections with a variety of Israeli governmental and business sources, solicits and receives information on joint venture projects and then researches and identifies Connecticut companies to bid on or pursue specific business projects. During its existence, CONNLX has facilitated and/or assisted in many deals between Connecticut and Israeli companies which has brought hundreds of thousands of dollars to Connecticut business. These include Transwitch (Shelton) The Bodine Corporation (Bridgeport) Rome Fastener (Milford), Algonquin Parts (South Norwalk) just to name a few. At this time we are working with Israel's Economic Minister of North America, who met the Governor in her office in January. He is bringing a group of Israeli Homeland Security technology companies to New York. CONNLX is in the process of arranging for Connecticut companies to meet with their Israeli counterparts for possible joint ventures. These benefits come to the-State of Connecticut without cost, as there has been no state funding for CONNLX for more than five years. CONNLX has continued to work diligently to encourage economic, cultural, and educational connections between Connecticut and Israel. Accordingly, we urge you to reject HB 6375. Thank you. 0018Q7

GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 16,2009

HB6375 AAC Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and members of the committee my name is Cameron Champlin and I represent the United Association of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Local Union 777. We are opposed to the termination of the occupational Licensing Boards which have been in existence for over forty years. These boards are included in Section 1 (3), (39), (55), (56), (57), (58), and (61).When these boards were created the goal was to protect the general public from people who lacked the proper training and ability to perform certain tasks in the course of construction of every type of building in this state. The personnel on these boards were selected to ensure a fair representation of contractors and journeymen as well as public members. I have served on the Heating, Piping, Cooling and Sheet Metal Board for over twenty years. Our board was originally comprised of three contractors, three journeymen and three members of the public. Since that time a Sheet Metal License has been instituted and three more members have been appointed to the board.

In the past we have handled complaints from members of the public concerning faulty workmanship, contracts that were not honored for reasons ranging from non completion to just collecting an initial payment and never returning to perform the work. In many of these cases without the knowledge that the board members possess there would be no way of deciding if there was in fact an installation that wasn't installed according to industry standards. We also decide if a person that has not completed an apprenticeship in the State of Connecticut but has worked at the trade in another state or in a facility where a license is not required has acquired enough knowledge to be allowed to take a license exam. In many cases we listen to complaints from people who were never registered as apprentices and yet their employer had them performing tasks that did require either a licensed person or a registered apprentice.

These boards are an asset to the State of Connecticut, its citizens and the Department of Consumer Protection. The members receive no payment for their service other than a mileage reimbursement which is whatever the rate the state sets for this.

The board that I serve on meets every other month as most other boards do. You can see that these boards are not a big expense to the state. For these reasons we urge you to delete these sections fromth e bill.

If further information is needed you may contact me at (860) 287-0020 or email [email protected]. Thank you for considering my testimony while contemplating your decision on this very important matter. 001808T

Government Administration & Elections Committee Public Hearing - Monday, March 16,2009 - Room 2B

Re: HB 6375 - AAC Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions

Testimony submitted by: Joyce A. Wojtas, Mechanical Contractors Association of CT Position: Opposed to Sec. 1, subsections (3) (55) (56) (57) (58) (61)

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, and members of the committee. My name is Joyce Wojtas and I and the lobbyist for the Mechanical Contractors Association of Connecticut (MCAC) and Local 777.

The MCAC would like to go on record in opposition to the elimination of the Plumbing and Piping Work Board and the Heating, Piping, Cooling and Sheet Metal Work Board established under section 20-330 of the CT General Statutes and echo the remarks of Hubert Barnes of Local 777. We also oppose elimination of the electrical work, fireprotectio n sprinkler systems and elevator installation boards along with the newly created Employee Misclassification Advisory Board.

The statement of purpose in this bill states: "TO IMPLEMENT THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS AND ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY OR OBSOLETE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS".

That is a pretty harsh statement about volunteers— who are experts in their field who take the time and make the effort to do what is right to protect the citizens of this state when it comes to the training and retraining of people in the licensed trades. .

These occupational licensing boards, for the most part, were established in 1967. So, most of the boards have been in existence for almost 50 years. Along comes a budget deficit and out the window goes the oversight of the entire occupational licensing division at the Department of Consumer Protection, even though any savings realized by this "roll of the dice" about who goes and who stays will be minimal at best.

This bill effectively eliminates these boards "effective from passage" and officially terminates them on October 1,2009 "unless reestablished according to section 2c-10 of the CT Sunset Law." We all know that there will be no timet o "re-establish these boards", so if this bill passes, these boards will be gone.

The preamble to the Sunset Law states "The General Assembly further finds that there is a need for periodic comprehensive review of certain entities and programs, and for the termination or modification of those which do not significantly benefit the public health, safety, or welfare".

The experienced, volunteer Plumbing & Piping Work Board, Heating, Piping, Cooling & Sheet Metal Work Board, Fire Protection Sprinkler Systems Board, Electrical Work Board and Elevator Installation Board all help significantly in benefiting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this State. I don't think there is any other state that does not have some type of oversight and participation by the licensed trades. Their expertise is invaluable and vital to help prevent activity that can endanger lives.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Contact: Joyce A. Wojtas [email protected] 860-280-4623 001809

HB 6375 An Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions

This bill, which I support in principal, includes one feature that I oppose. This bill would include placing the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners into the Depart of Public Safety. I oppose this portion of the bill.

Placing the Examiners into the DPC would eliminate the autonomy of a "civilian" review board by placing control and oversight with the very agency which has the power to revoke pistol permits in the first place. This will save no money and make it unlikely the average person will get a fair and impartial hearing.

I am President of the Rockville Fish and Game Club which has 830 members and the club opposed this portion of HB 6375.

Thank you for your consideration.

Steven Peterson 117 BrookviewDr. Vernon, CT 06066

860/512-0386 001810

30 Bank Street PO Box 350 Connecticut New Britain, CT 06050-0350 06051 for 30 Bank Street

Bar Association (860)223-4400 fax (860)223-4488

Testimony of Suzanne Brown Walsh on behalf of the Connecticut Bar Association

OPPOSING HB 6375. Section 1(29) and the Termination of the Connecticut Commission on Uniform Legislation

Government Administration and Elections Committee March 16, 2009

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to OPPOSE Section 1(29) of HB 6375 and to OPPOSE the termination of the Connecticut Commission on Uniform Legislation.

My name is Suzanne Brown Walsh. I am a Principal of Cummings & Lockwood in West Hartford, am currently Chair of the Connecticut Bar Association's Estates & Probate Section, and am one of Connecticut's eight Commissioners on Uniform Laws. On behalf of the Connecticut Bar Association, I respectfully request that the Government Administration and Elections Committee maintain the Connecticut Uniform Law Commission.

For both historic and practical reasons, the abolishment of the Connecticut Commission on Uniform Legislation would be a great loss not only to the state of Connecticut, but also to the Uniform Law Commission.

The Uniform Law Commission (ULC, also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws), founded in 1892, promotes national uniformity in such fundamental areas as commercial law, family law, the law of probate and estates, the law of business organizations, and health law. Through the ULC, Connecticut participates with all of the other states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the important work of the ULC. Terminating Connecticut's participation in this work, while it may seem fiscally necessary, in fact would decrease state funds, and is simply imprudent.

Connecticut joined the ULC in 1893, and since that time has adopted more than 80 uniform or model acts promulgated by the ULC, including the Uniform Commercial Code, the Uniform Partnership Act, the Uniform Principal and Income Act, the Uniform Prudent Investor Act, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act,

www.ctbar.org 001811

the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.

I have attached a list of Connecticut enactments for illustration. For a very modest investment - the state dues for FY 2010 are approximately $31,800 - Connecticut gets much in return.

The benefits are financial, as well as intangible. One act on the list, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, brings millions of federal dollars to Connecticut each year that otherwise would not be available to Connecticut. In my practice area, trusts and estates, look at how many of our Connecticut laws are uniform: Prudent Investor, Principal and Income, Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities, Transfers to Minors (UTMA), Prudent Management of Institutional Funds (UPMIFA), Durable Power of Attorney, International Wills, Testamentary Additions to Trusts and the Transfer on Death Security Registration Act.

The General Assembly is considering eight uniform acts in this session, alone: Uniform Arbitration Act; Uniform Debt-Management Services Act; Revised Anatomical Gifts Act; Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act (to address Hurricane Katrina type emergencies); Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (SB 576); Amendments to the Uniform Principal and Income Act; Uniform Unsworn Foreign Declarations Act; and Amendments to UCIOA - the condominium act. In addition, the three "Pet Trust" bills (such as SB 650) raised by several legislators were reconciled and improved by incorporating and using the pet trust provisions of the Uniform Trust Code. The Rules Committee of the Superior Court is also considering the Uniform Rules Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information and the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act.

If Connecticut were to abolish the CCUL, the Uniform Law Commission would lose the many positive contributions to its work made by Connecticut's commissioners, and Connecticut would lose its influence over development of uniform national laws, putting it at a comparative disadvantage to other states.

Every year, the Connecticut commissioners donate extraordinary amounts of their valuable time in service of the uniform law process. Connecticut plays a key role within ULC through the tireless efforts of its uniform law commissioners.

• Commissioner David Biklen chaired the drafting committee on the Uniform . Real Property Electronic Recording Act, which was just enacted in Connecticut last year. Mr. Biklen also served on the drafting committee to revise the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act and the drafting committee on the Relocation of Children Act.

2 001812

• Commissioner William R. Breetz chaired the drafting committee to revise the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. Mr. Breetz is also a member of the Joint Editorial Board for Uniform Real Property Acts.

• Commissioner Barry, Hawkins chaired the drafting committee on the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, already enacted in Connecticut. Mr. Hawkins also serves on the ULC's Scope and Program Committee, and is currently a member of the new drafting committee on Uniform Military Services and Overseas Civilian Absentee Voters Act.

• Commissioner John Langbein is a member of the Joint Editorial Board for Uniform Trust and Estate Acts, and is a member of the drafting committee on Uniform Statutory Trust Entity Act.

• Commissioner Neal Ossen is a member of the drafting committees on Insurable Interests Relating to Trusts Act and Certificate of Title for Boats Act, as well as a member of the ULC Legislative Council.

• Commissioner Francis Pavetti was chair of the drafting committee to revise the Uniform Arbitration Act, and is currently serving as chair of the drafting committee to revise the Model State Administrative Procedures Act.

I presently chair the study committee on Mental Health Advance Directives, am a member of the Drafting Committee on Insurable Interests in Trusts, and am a member of the Enactment Committee on the Uniform Trust Code. I have also recently served on the Drafting Committees for the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act and the Amendments to the Uniform Principal and Income Act.

All of the members of the CCUL have devoted countless hours, unpaid, to not only better the laws of Connecticut, but also throughout the nation.

All fifty states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are members of the ULC. If the Connecticut Commission on Uniform Legislation is abolished, Connecticut would be the only state to discontinue its participation in the uniform law process. We urgently ask that the CCUL be allowed to continue serving Connecticut.

Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the great work of the Uniform Law Conference and the Connecticut commission.

3 LIST OF UNIFORM AND MODEL ACTS 1 ENACTED IN CONNECTICUT: (as of 2-9-09)

1 Acknowledgment (1939)(1942): Enacted 1943 2. Amendments to Acknowledgment (1949)(1955)(1960): Enacted 1961 3. Aircraft Financial Responsibility (1954): Enacted 1959 4. Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment (1971): Enacted 19 5. Anatomical Gift (1968): Enacted 1969 6. Revised Anatomical Gift (1987): Enacted 1988 7. Anti-Gambling (1952): Enacted 19 8. Arbitration (1956): Enacted 19 9. Athlete Agents (2000): Enacted 2004 10. Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, Act to Secure (1936): Enacted 1937 11. Bills of Lading (1909): Enacted 1911 12. Certification of Questions of Law (1967): Enacted 1985 13. Certification of Questions of Law (1995): Enacted 1999 14. Child Custody Jurisdiction (1968): Enacted 1978 15. Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement (1997): Enacted 1999 16. Commercial Code (1951): Enacted 1959^ 17. Amendments to Commercial Code (1957)(1962): Enacted 1963 18. Amendments to Commercial Code (1966): Enacted 1967 19. Revised UCC Article 1 (2001): Enacted 2005 20. UCC Article 2A (1987)(1990): Enacted 2002 21. Revised UCC Articles 3 and 4 (1990): Enacted 1991 22. UCC Article 4A (1989): Enacted 1990 23. Revised UCC Articles (1995): Enacted 1996 24. Revised UCC Article 6 (Repeal) (1989): Enacted 1993 25. Revised UCC Article 7 (2003): Enacted 2004 26. Amendments to UCC Article 8 (1977): Enacted 1979 27. Revised UCC Article 8 (1994): Enacted 1997 28. Amendments to UCC Article 9 (1972): Enacted 1976 29. Revised UCC Article 9 (1999): Enacted 2001 30. Common Interest Ownership (1982): Enacted 1983 31. Revised Common Interest Ownership (1994): Enacted 1995 32. Consumer Leases (2001): Enacted 2002 33. Controlled Substances (1970): Enacted 1972 34. Criminal Extradition (1936): Enacted 1957 35. Division of Income for Tax Purposes (1957): Enacted 19 36. Dormant Mineral Interests (1986): Enacted 1987 37: Durable Power of Attorney (1979)- Enacted 19

1 The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws drafted each of these uniform and model acts.

4 38. Duties to Disabled Persons (1972): Enacted 1973 39. Electronic Transactions (1999). Enacted 2002 40. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (1964): Enacted 1973 41. Federal Tax Lien Registration (1966): Enacted 1967 42. Foreign Money Claims (1987) Enacted 1989 43. Foreign Money Judgments Recognition (1962). Enacted 1988 44. Fraudulent Transfer (1984): Enacted 1991 45. Gifts to Minors (1956): Enacted 1957 46. Revised Gifts to Minors (1965): Enacted 1967 47. International Wills (1977): Enacted 1987 48. Interstate Arbitration of Death Taxes (1943): Enacted 1947 49. Interstate Compromise of Death Taxes (1943): Enacted 1947 50. Interstate Family Support (1992)(1996): Enacted 1997 51. Amendments to Interstate Family Support (2001): Enacted 2007 52. Judicial Notice of Foreign Law (1936): Enacted 1943 53. Land Sales Practices (1,966): Enacted 1969 54. Limited Partnership (1916): Enacted 1961 55. Revised Limited Partnership (1976): Enacted 1979 56. Machine Gun (1932): Enacted 1935 57. Management of Institutional Funds (1972): Enacted 1973 58. Military Justice, Code of (1961): Enacted 1967 59. Minor Student Capacity to Borrow (1969): Enacted 1973 60. Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title and Anti-Theft (1955): Enacted 1957 61. Narcotic Drug (1932): Enacted 1935 62. Amendments to Narcotic Drug (1942)(1952)(1958): Enacted 1959 63. Negotiable Instruments Law (1896): Enacted 1897 64. Partnership (1914): Enacted 1961 65. Revised Partnership (1994): Enacted 1995 66. Photographic Copies of Business and Public Records as Evidence (1949)' Enacted 1961 67. Principal and Income (1931): Enacted 1939 68. Amendments to Principal and Income (1958): Enacted 1959 69. Revised Principal and Income (1997): Enacted 1999 70. Premarital Agreement (1983): Enacted 1995 71. Proof of Statutes (1920): Enacted 1947 72. Prudent Investor (1994): Enacted 1997 73. Prudent Management of Institutional Funds (2006): Enacted 2007 74. Real Property Electronic Recording (2004)(2005): Enacted 2008 75. Reciprocal Enforcement of Support (1950): Enacted 1951 76. Amendments to Reciprocal Enforcement of Support (1952): Enacted 1953 77. Amendments to Reciprocal Enforcement of Support (1958): Enacted 1961 78. Recognition of Acknowledgments (1968): Enacted 1969 79. Residential Landlord and Tenant (1972): Enacted 1975 80. Sales (1906): Enacted 1907 81. Securities (1956)(1958): Enacted 1977 82. Simultaneous Death (1940): Enacted 1943 83. State Administrative Procedure (1946)(1961): Enacted 1971 001815

84 Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (1986): Enacted 1989 85. Amendments to Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (1990): Enacted 1991 86. Stock Transfer (1909): Enacted 1917 87. Testamentary Additions to Trusts (1960): Enacted 1961 88. Revised Testamentary Additions to Trusts (1991): Enacted 1994 89. TOD Security Registration Act (1989). Enacted 1997 90. Trade Secrets (1979)- Enacted 1983 91. Transboundary Pollution Reciprocal Access Act (1982). Enacted 1992 92. Transfer of Dependents (1935): Enacted 1933 93. Transfers to Minors (1983): Enacted 1995 94. Trust Receipts (1933): Enacted 1937 95. 'Voting by New Residents in Presidential Elections (1962): Enacted 1963 - 96. Warehouse Receipts (1906): Enacted 1907 >

6

\ 001816

Dr. Patricia W. Walker 97 Yutaka Trail Shelton, a 06484

February 16, 2009

The Honorable Gayle Slossberg Co-chair-Government Administration and Elections Committee Connecticut General Assembly

Dear Senator Slossberg:

As a member of the Citizen's Advisory Council on Housing Matters, I am surprised and saddened by the Governor's Bill H.B. 6375-An Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions which proposes to eliminate the Citizen's Advisory Council for Housing Matters and other boards and commissions as a cost-saving initiative for the next biennial budget. In the state of Connecticut affordable housing is one of the greatest challenges we face. At a time when we also face the greatest housing crisis of our generation, it would seem to me that this also a time when it is imperative to ensure the rights of the citizens of Connecticut to decent and fair housing. One need not look further than recent headlines to understand that tenants and homeowners alike have suffered as a result of housing foreclosures. Tenants who have paid their rent consistently and on time have found themselves facing foreclosure procedures with little more than a week's notice by bank that have taken over the property and does not want to be bothered with tenants. It is also a continuous struggle to enforce building codes that ensure safe and healthy living conditions for families due to inadequate numbers of housing code enforcement personnel and other challenges. It is also a challenge to educate law enforcement officers to understand housing law and their responsibilities when it comes to the protection of tenants' rights. Finally, it is imperative that when people find themselves in housing court that they are treated with respect and dignity, and that the facilities, the personnel, and the procedures that are required to utilize reflect this right to dignity and respect regardless of whether they are a tenant or landlord, whether they are rich or poor, and whether or not English is their native language.

The Citizen's Advisory Council on Housing Matters has been an effective advocate for both tenants and landlords and an effective monitor of housing court processes and procedures giving valuable feedback to judicial administrators and to the General Assembly (through its biennial reports). There is little cost to this committee other than the value placed upon the time and energy of committee members, court personnel and other interested parties who attend and participate in the meetings. Not only will the elimination of this committee not provide any savings to the state budget, it will greatly impair the participation of concerned citizens in the judicial administrative process and leave us without a voice in ensuring that housing courts remain accessible andresponsive to the citizens they are created to serve. I am therefore asking you as a member of the leadership of the Government Administration and Elections committee to oppose H.B. 6375 by endorsing the continuation of the Citizen's Advisory Council on Housing Matters and re-affirming the General Assembly's commitment to its goals. Thank you very much for your consideration. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Patricia W Walker, Ed.D. 001817

March 13, 2009

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Dear Members of the Legislature's Government Administration and Elections Committee: Robert A. Jones President My name is Robert A. Jones and I am the retired chief of the Department of Environmental Richard G. Bell, Esq. Vice President Protection Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife (now the Bureau of Natural Resources). I am also the President of the Connecticut River Salmon Association (CRSA), a citizen organization dedicated to Gerald A. Feinberg, Esq Treasurer the restoration of Atlantic salmon to the Connecticut River.

James J. Carroll, Jr. It is my understanding that HB 6375 contains a provision that disallows the participation of Secretary the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon

Peter H Basta Commission (CRASC). CRASC is an interstate compact created by legislation by each of the states Dorset, VT of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire. The states were joined by the United Rudolph Besier States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service and in 1983 the compact Old Lyme, CT was ratified by the United States Congress. The Compact Commission consists of the chief fisheries David Egan, Esq. official of each of the Connecticut River states, along with their counterparts in the federal services, President Ementus Guilford, CT and a knowledgeable citizen appointed by the governors of the participating states. I am honored to have been appointed to this voluntary citizen position. James T. Glista Enfield. CT The mission of CRASC is to restore Atlantic salmon and other migratory fish to the Connecticut River. Connecticut has been a major supporter of CRASC since its creation. The Robert B. Hoffman West Hartford, CT removal of one of the states from participation will cause the compact to be ineffective and, given

Elaine Holcomb Connecticut's key location on the river, the removal of DEP may place the entire compact in Oquossoc, ME jeopardy. It is noteworthy that costs to the states are minimal. The Commission meets for one day

William Hoyt two times a year and fisheries staff members involved in the program do not generate any additional North Haven, CT costs to the state above their regular salary. As a volunteer citizen member of the Commission I

John E. Kinnear receive no state funds for my participation. Enfield, CT A very serious aspect of the lack of Connecticut's involvement in CRASC is the potential Edward C. Meyer loss of a program managed by our organization. Each school year CRSA, in cooperation with DEP Past President New Fairfield, CT and CRASC, provides salmon eggs to 77 schools throughout the state to hatch and rear to juveniles and then to release in tributaries to the Connecticut River in this state. This program is one of the Dr. Vincent P Ringrose, Jr Kensington, CT most popular science exercises in our state's schools and provides environmental education for some 5000 students each year. It is not clear whether this program can be continued if Connecticut DEP is Edward H. Ruestow West Hartford, CT no longer a participant in CRASC.

Robert B Wolter Please consider the removal of this provision from HB 6375 so that this important program Little Compton, Rl can continue.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Jones President

76 Deming Street • South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 860-644-0159 Fax 860-644-5538 • [email protected] 001818

MERIDEN EXECUTIVE PARK 530 PRESTON AVENUE February 23, 2009 SECOND FLOOR POST OFFICE BOX 183 MERIDEN, CONNECTICUT 06450-0183 TELEPHONE: (203)235-1651 TELECOPIER: (203) 235-9600 www BROWNWEISH.COM Gayle Slossberg Government Administrations and Elections Committee Room 2200, Legislative Office Building Hartford, CT 06106

Re: Governor's bill 6375: Review and termination of certain boards' and commissions

Dear Gayle;

I write to you regarding this bill and request this letter be included in its legislative history. This bill abolishes the Connecticut Citizens Advisory Committee on Housing Matters ("CACHM") (lines 21-22)

,1 have been a member of the CACHM for many years since Governor Weiker appointed me. The CACHM is an entirely voluntary board which has:

No paid staff No premises No budget

Yet the CACHM is active and performs well. It develops forms.' It develops guidebooks. It interviews judges who express an interest in being assigned to housing matters.

In short, the CACHM costs nothing and contributed to the State of Connecticut. It should not be abolished.

HPL/hbm

PUVOHKMIHI.M llttGov Admin and Elect Coinnuilee Leiler 2009-02-17 doc 001819

Legal Assistance Resource Center • of Connecticut, Inc. • 44 Capitol Avenue, Suite 301 • Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 278-5688 x203 • FAX (860) 278-2957 • [email protected] H.B. 6375 - Termination of state boards and programs Government Administration and Elections Committee public hearing - March 16, 2009 Testimony of Raphael L. Podolsky

Recommended Committee action: REJECTION OF THE BILL

This bill proposes the termination of 62 state boards and programs. I do not purport to be familiar with most of them, but Lean say with certainty that the wholesale termination of boards and programs, without individual study and evaluation, is not a good idea and will deprive the state of important resources, much of which come at no cost whatsoever to the state. A sunset system makes sense only if done in conjunction with thoughtful sunset reviews of each agency, which ought to be conducted by the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee. In the absence of such review, all boards and programs scheduled for sunset this year should be renewed. Even if some of those boards are dormant, there is no harm that will come to the state as a result of renewal. At such time as the General Assembly is prepared to conduct a serious review, then such reviews should take place on a case-by-case basis.

There are, however, three boards and one program with which I am familiar, and I would like to address them specifically. All four should be retained.

(1) Citizens Advisory Council for Housing Matters (C.G.S. 47a-71a - lines 21-22): This board reviews the operations of the state's housing courts and provides advice and critique to the Chief Court Administrator, the Chief State's Attorney, and to a lesser exlent to the Governor and the General Assembly. It is not only volunteer but uses no agency personnel for staffing purposes and thus imposes no costs on the state. Members, who represent a mixture of landlord, tenant, and other interests in housing, are neither compensated nor reimbursed. The board was created in 1978 when the first housing court was created as an integral part of the Housing Court Act and has operated continuously ever since. It was an early advocate for simplified forms and successfully pressed for their use in the housing courts long before the Judicial Branch recognized their value throughout the judicial system. It submits extensive reports biennially and has done so since 1981. Its 2009 report is posted at www.ct.gov/ecd/lib/ecd/housing reports/cac-2009 final. It has also produced a detailed booklet on housing issues in the small claims courts which is used by the Judicial Branch to train small claims magistrates and, working with the Chief State's Attorney's Office, has helped draft guidelines for housing prosecutors and a training manual on housing law for police officers. I strongly believe that its on-going input has made for a better and more user-friendly housing court system.1

(2) Child Support Guidelines Commission (C.G.S. 46b-215a - lines 106-107): This board revises the Child Support Guidelines every four years. Atty. Lucy Potter of Greater

I have been a member of this board as a representative of tenants since its inception and am presently its chairperson. Hartford Legal Aid has been a member of the Commission for many years. Members of the Commission are not paid. The guidelines issued by the Commission are used both in ordinary family cases in the courts and, more important, for setting child support orders in the Title IV-D system, through which the state collects millions of dollars of child support both for custodial parents and for itself (as reimbursement for state TFA welfare benefits). The existence of the Commission and the quadrennial revisions of the Guidelines are mandated by federal law; and the termination of the Commission would put millions of dollars of federal matching funds at risk. As a practical matter, I do not believe that this board can be terminated without severe financial repercussions.

(3) Mobile Manufactured Home Advisory Council (C.G.S. 21-84a - lines 45-46): This very active advisory board, which meets every two months, was created in the early 1980s at the time that the mobile home park statutes were revised to provide greater protections for mobile home park residents and to promote the treatment of mobile home parks as housing (i.e., real property) rather than as "trailer parks." It also serves as a mechanism by which policy issues related to mobile home parks can be discussed and negotiated by park owners and park residents (four park owners and four park residents are among the members of the board). It has been very successful in working out disputes between those interests and has allowed both park owners and park residents to come to the General Assembly together on mobile home park issues that would previously have been contentious. Members are not compensated.

(4) State-Assisted Housing Sustainability Fund (C.G.S. 8-37yy - lines 88-89): This Fund, along with a related advisory .council, was created in 2007 as part of an effort to begin the process of revitalizing the 17,000 units of housing in the state-assisted portfolio, most of which are owned and operated by housing authorities and many of which are in severe need of deferred maintenance and substantial rehabilitation. The two largest parts of the portfolio are family public housing (known as State Moderate Rental Housing) and senior/disabled public housing (known as State Elderly Housing). Unlike federal public housing, in which the federal government provides operating subsidies, there are no operating subsidies in the state public housing system, resulting in years of underfunding and deferred maintenance. The Fund was seeded in 2007 with $10 million from the state surplus but can receive money from other sources. The existing budget crisis has blocked the growth of the Fund, but it remains an appropriate structure for targeting future funds for preservation of the state-assisted portfolio. It should not be abolished. 001821

CONNECTICUT LEGAL SERVICES

A PRIVATE NONPROFIT CORPORATION jr.'.".""'! 211 STATE STREET BRIDGEPORT. CT 06604 TELEPHONE (203) 336-3851 FAX (203) 333-4976 E-MAIL BRIDGEP0RT@C0NNLEGALSERVICES ORG

NADINE NEVINS RICHARD L. TENENBAUM REGIONAL DIRECTORS Testimony of Richard L. Tenenbaum MARK R MOORE Connecticut Legal Services PATRICIA LUGO MAUREEN O'CONNOR Government Administration and Elections Committee LORRAINE C ROBLYER ELLEN ROSENTHAL March 16,2009 MARIA A. VARONE CATHERINE WILLIAMS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Opposition to H.B. 6375. Section 1, Subsection 8

PATRICIA N BLAIR Termination of the Citizens Advisory Council for Housing Matters VOLUNTEER A TTORNEY

MARY E GREY-FOX NILDA PLANAS I have been a member of the Citizens Advisory Council for Housing WANDA E. SERRANO Matters for many years. The Citizens Advisory Council for Housing Matters LEGAL ASSISTANTS was created by Conn. Gen. Stat. §47a-71a and consists of 36 members, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 62 WASHINGTON STREET representing the three regions having Housing Sessions of the Superior Court, MIDDLETOWN. CT 06457 (860) 3440447 Hartford and New Britain, New Haven and Waterbury and Bridgeport and Stamford-Norwalk, as well as a balance-of-state contingent. Members are AARON BAYER BOARD CHAIR representative of tenants, landlords, and others concerned with housing and

STEVEN D EPPLER-EPSTEIN reflect a balance of the interests of tenants and landlords. A number of EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Advisory Council members have become judges.

LAW OFFICES I believe that the Advisory Council is one of the most remarkable 21 1 STATE STREET BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604 bodies in state government. Meeting quarterly, at no cost to the taxpayer, it

16 MAIN STREET has managed over the years to consistently obtain consensus between the NEW BRITAIN. CT 06051 three segments of its membership and Judicial Branch and Housing 153 WILLIAMS STREET Prosecutor staff on matters involving the delivery of services by the Housing NEW LONDON, CT 06320 Courts to landlord, tenant and government consumers. Despite significant 20 SUMMER STREET STAMFORD. CT 06901 differences in needs and views on issues, Council participants have

85 CENTRAL AVENUE recognized the need for smooth functioning housing courts, accessible to the WATERBURY. CT 06702 public, transparent in its operations and responsive to its users. I believe that 872 MAIN STREET we have consistently succeeded and should be allowed to continue. WILUMANTIC. CT 06226

SATELLITE OFFICES The Citizens Advisory Council for Housing Matters files a biennial

5 COLONY STREET report with the General Assembly before every session. This January's report MERIDEN, CT 06451 is available online at http://www.ct.gov/ecd/lib/ecd/housine reports/cac- 62 WASHINGTON STREET 2009 fmal.pdf. The reports have detailed a long list of accomplishments, MIDDLETOWN. CT 06457 some of which took several years. The Advisory Council's work, as 98 SOUTH MAIN STREET SOUTH NORWALK. CT 06854 described in Chapter 834 of the General Statutes, the court's authorizing law,

564 PROSPECT STREET has contributed to making the Housing Sessions about as consumer-friendly TORRINGTON, CT 06790 and open to participation by parties unrepresented by legal counsel as a court 155 WEST MAIN STREET could be. I consider the law one of the state's great achievements in policy• ROCKVILLE. CT 06066 making in recent years.

The Council has been involved in matters ranging from input on standards for the appointment of housing court staff to comment on the 001822

2

suitability of court locations to the creation of court pleading forms. Below are some of the many areas in which in which the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Council have contributed to producing high quality housing courts for the benefit of the people of Connecticut.

• Making available to litigants copies of nearly all written opinions of Housing Court judges. All decisions are compiled by the Judicial Branch and distributed to the state law libraries, and nearly all are made available to users around the world on the large legal research databases. This was not formerly routine for individual trial court opinions. Because of their availability, unrepresented housing court parties without access to Westlaw or Lexis, can use a printed decision index available in libraries and have access to the all Connecticut housing law decisions, and the trial courts decisions are cited around the nation.

• Small Claims magistrates who hear housing matters, such as suits for unpaid rent or security deposit refunds, have access to a legal reference document describing the law prepared by Advisory Council participants, for use when they are being asked to interpret and citing relevant legal authority.

• The Criminal Justice Division has trained local police in responding to calls for assistance with housing-related criminal matters. The Advisory Council has submitted to the Division a draft of a proposed training manual for local police officers which the Division will be reviewing, and the Division has completed a prosecutor's manual that the Advisory Council played an important role in drafting.

• Routinely, over 90% of housing cases in the six Housing Courts and the non-Housing Courts are settled without trial in medication by court staff. This fact undoubtedly results in enormous economic savings to the Judicial Branch and the litigants.

• The Housing Courts have been computerized, and summary process dockets are available on the Judicial Branch website. The Advisory Council was actively involved in pressing for computerization to all court sites.

• Summary process cases are scheduled in a manner that ensures that trials are scheduled immediately or within a week after mediation has been unsuccessful.

• Court staff vacancies have been filled to maintain efficient operation.

• Information booklets in English and Spanish and pro se (unrepresented by legal counsel) court forms are available at the court and online, so that parties can adequately put their positions before the court.

• Spanish-speaking interpreters are generally available to court users.

• Housing Court telephone numbers have been moved in AT&T telephone directories to a location where they can be better found by court users. • The Advisory Council commented on and suggested amendment to the courts' policy regarding authorizing entrance to courthouses of individuals carrying cell phones that contain cameras, and the policy has been changed.

These items range from minor, yet useful to highly meaningful to users of the courts, the staff and to the State. Each of the Citizens Advisory Council's biennial reports lists and tracks dozens of recommendations to the General Assembly, the Chief Court Administrator and staff, and the Chief State's Attorney/ Review of the reports over the years would show a consistent pattern of progress in accessibility and transparency in the Housing Session. What is most remarkable is that throughout-the history of the Advisory Council, first chaired by former Representative, now Judge, Douglas Mintz, the Council functioned by consensus. Landlord and tenant representatives, government and general housing representatives, even staff and non-member observers who are welcome to participate in discussion agreed to Council recommendations. There could be no better testament to a balanced approach mindful of the needs of the court's users and respectful on the courts institutional needs.

This could not have been accomplished without the active support and collaboration of the Chief Court Administrators, Chief State's Attorneys and their staffs, which whom the Council has worked. All Council members are volunteers who take no compensation from the State for of their own time and travel.

At a time when transparency and accountability, agency efficiency and responsiveness are being most highly valued, it seems to me to be a great mistake for the Governor to be recommending and the General Assembly to be terminating a board that has helped so many Connecticut citizens. Rather, I suggest that other divisions of the Superior Court would benefit greatly by having similar citizens advisory councils assisting them in their tasks.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Richard Tenenbaum Director of the Housing Task Force Connecticut Legal Services 211 State Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 Tel: (203) 336-3851, ext. 112 001824

CONNECTICUT MANUFACTURED HOMEOWNERS ALLIANCE A voice for mobile home park residents in Connecticut P.O. Box 744 Colchester, CT 06415

March 16, 2009

To: Members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee From: Deborah Nericcio Wolf, President, Connecticut Manufactured Homeowner's Alliance Re: H.B. 6375 -- Mobile Manufactured Home Advisory Council

On behalf of the residents of mobile manufactured home parks in Connecticut, I urge you to preserve the Mobile Manufactured Home Advisory Council, a state advisory board that has been a great help to residents of mobile home parks in Connecticut. H.B. 6375 nines 45 to 46) proposes to eliminate the Council.

The Connecticut Manufactured Homeowners Alliance was created in 1991 to advocate for the interests of residents of mobile manufactured home parks throughout Connecticut. I myself live in Westchester Village in Colchester. Most mobile home park residents own their own home but rent the lot on which the home sits. Each one of us is thus at the same time both a homeowner and a renter.' We have fought long and hard for laws that will protect our investment in our homes and our rights as renters in mobile home parks.

The Advisory Council has done many, many things. Before the creation of the Mobile Manufactured Home Advisory Council, there was no place where park owners and park residents could get together and discuss issues. This often led to conflicts, which sometimes surfaced at the General Assembly. The Advisory Council has provided us -- both park residents and park owners — with a place to meet and discuss these issues, along with representatives from other agencies. The meetings are held at the Department of Consumer Protection, which regulates mobile home parks. The Advisory Council has discussed such issues as the inspection of mobile homes at the time they are sold, who is responsible for the removal of underground oil tanks, how to deal with the,closing of mobile home parks, what new financing mechanisms can be created, and what the eviction and zoning laws should say about mobile home parks. The Council also helped the Department of Consumer Protection write a mobile home park section for its website that would be user-friendly for park residents. The Council was very involved with preventing the residents of the 240-unit Ryder Mobile Home Park in Milford from losing their homes when the park owner wanted to close the park and was involved in the drafting of legislation that protects park residents when a park is closed. The residents and park owners on the Council have worked together to try to make town zoning regulations more receptive to mobile home parks. They have also worked through the Advisory Council with CHFA on programs to help individuals buy mobile homes and to help park residents buy mobile home parks.

We think that the Mobile Manufactured Home Advisory Council is very helpful both to the participants and to the Department of Consumer Protection itself, and we hope very much that your committee will not allow the Council to be abolished. Thank you very much. 001825

Government Administration & Election Committee The Honorable Gayle Slossberg, Co-Chair The Honorable James Field Spallone, Co-Chair

Dear Senator Gayle Slossberg and Representative James Field Spallone

I am most concerned about HB 6375 involving one of those commissions and agencies; Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired (CDHI). This bill will double the state costs which would burden on the taxpayers because of a possibly severe lawsuit if not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As you are aware there is a shortage of interpreters for Deaf and hard of hearing community. This is ongoing serious substantial issue. There is a major need to establish four year college for.training for new interpreters although there is an existing program at Northwestern Community Ct College, now becoming in decline during the years of Governor Rowland and Governor Rell. Both former and current governors fail to notice this growing crisis among deaf and hard of hearing CT community. A majority of deaf and hard of hearing CT students from K to college ages is attending the public school system where there is a sorry state of support services including monitoring system.

In fact, there is another troubling situation like lack of availability interpreters. However, some schools, hospitals, employers, agencies, state courts, businesses and nonprofit organizations are desperate to search for "qualified" interpreter. In a sad reality, some Board of Education Districts had persuaded some deaf and hard of hearing students to forgo their educational goals but accept with whatever the schools could offer with the limitations to the best for time being.

I hope you will seriously consider the impact HB 6375 would have on our economy. Please withdraw your support of H.B. 6375. -

Sincerely yours, Isl Cassandra Boryslawskyj 39 Clark Hill Rd East Hampton, CT 06424 00182J5

AFRICAN-AMERICAN AFFAIRS COMMISSION STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1591 (860) 240-8555 FAX (860) 240-8444

Testimony before the General Administration and Elections Committee

Monday, March 16,2009

9:30 PM in Room 2B of the LOB

My name is Kristen Clark, a Commissioner of the State of Connecticut African American Affairs Commission.

I am here on behalf of more than 328,000 African- Americans to testifyo n Governor's Bill No. 6375 - An Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions.

Our state and our nation are experiencing an unprecedented economic downturn. I would however respectfully caution this and other governmental bodies to refrain from destroying safeguards to access and the democratic process in your.attempts to balance the State Budget.

State Boards and Commissions serve a vital and unduplicated role in government. They are the mechanism by which legislators and ultimately the Governor become informed about a wide variety of complex issues. Many boards and commissions help establish standards and guidelines to ensure equity for state residents; particularly poor, elderly, and underserved populations. 001827

In the words of Frederick Douglass: Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is in an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.

African-Arnericans represent approximately 9.4 percent of the State's population. We are a proud and industrious community, yet African Americans are at the top of the list of the least desirable socio-economic indices. The health status of the African American community is worse than any other racial or ethnic minority in the state.

In 2006, the African American infant mortality rate of 12.9 per 1,000 live births was more than 300% higher than infant mortality of whites statewide.1 In Connecticut African Americans despite being 9.4 percent of the population are 30.2 % of the dialysis population.2 And are at higher risk for the chronic diseases of diabetes, stroke, cancer, cardiovascular disease. Health disparities in this community persist Nearly 45% of all newly infected people with HTV are African American.3

To that end the African-American Affairs Commission works with many organizations to positively impact these challenges. The AAAC initiated a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Department of Public Health that marked the first of its kind to formalize communication between the two agencies for the purpose of improving health outcomes in the African American community. As a result of that alliance, the AAAC plays a vital role in establishing protocols for outreach and standards for culturally competent service delivery to communities of color. Most recently the AAAC serves on the Commission on Health Equity (CHE) to help eradicate health disparities for all residents of the State.

The newly instituted Results Based Accountability system will help us to better report quantifiable change.

1 The Social State of Connecticut 2008. November 20, 2008 Edition. P. 23-24 2 The Connecticut State Conference of NAACP Branches Health Committee - " A Health Status Report on African Americans in Connecticut". Health Coverage and.Utilization. Available from htro://research.yale.edu/datairritiative/r^ 3 Connecticut Department of Public Health. "HIV/AIDS Surveillance Program" Estimating the number of people infected with HTV in 2006. Available from htm:/Mww.cLgov/dph/ub/dpWaids_and_^ 001828

The African-American Affairs Commission does not duplicate services. We provide a vital contribution and combination of expertise, information and community input. The AAAC is the State's sole touchstone for the African-American community and those seeking knowledge about Connecticut African-Americans.

Today I ask you to consider the well-being and rightso f Connecticut's most marginalized citizens. This must be our collective mandate. Within even the least among us, the greatest untapped potential can be found.

Perhaps Marion Wright- Edelman - Founder of the Children's Defense Fund said it best, 'Tf we rJiink we have ours and don't owe any time or money or effort to help those left behind, then we are a part of the problem rather than the solution to the fraying social fabric that threatens all Americans."

So again I ask that you not let it be said, that you, the members of the Connecticut State Legislature, or our State's Governor, denied justice, enforced poverty and let ignorance prevail, or that any organized to oppress, rob, and or degrade our state's most vulnerable residents. 001829 L„L:.__.

^ Region^ Wats?Authority

South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority 90 Sargent Dnve, New Haven, Connecticut 06511-5966 203 562.4020 http://www.rwater.com

Testimony to the Government Administration and Elections Committee

Raked Bill 6375. An Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions

March 16, 2009

The South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority is a non-profit, public corporation and political subdivision of the State. Within the 20 member towns of our water district, we own and operate a public water system, which includes 18 reservoirs, 4 surface water treatment plants and 7 ground water treatment plants. We serve over 427,000 water consumers approximately 53 million gallons of water per day and provide fire protection throughout our service area. The source of this water is a system of watershed and aquifer areas that cover about 120 square miles within 24 municipalities. Over 27,000 acres of these watershed and aquifer areas are protected as open space as a result of the Authority's efforts while an additional 900 acres are protected with a conservation easement.

The Regional Water Authority certainly understands the dire economic times Connecticut faces and the need for the General Assembly and the Governor to make tough decisions in trying to balance the State's budget for the next few years. We would, however, respectfully request that the Government Administration and Elections Committee retain a council and a committee which have been included for termination in HB6375.

First is the proposed elimination of the Connecticut Siting Council listed on line 257 of HB6375. Given the choice, everyone wants a scenic environment everywhere. Yet, everyone also needs and wants such things as a dependable supply of electricity and to be able to use their cell phones across the state. More than 30 years ago, the legislature made the tough decision to establish the Connecticut Siting Council as a result of the inability of state environmental protection, public utility control and local agencies to resolve the issues resulting from state-wide infrastructure requirements dealing with evolving technology and energy needs of the state's residents. In spite of this challenging responsibility, and although the Siting Council has occasionally hit a few bumps in the road, it has been successful in balancing the necessary developmental needs of the State's residents with the need to protect Connecticut's scenic, historic and recreational values. Additionally, it is our understanding that existing State Statutes provide that the expenses of the Council are covered by assessments and its fee structure.

Over the years, the regulation of water resources has faced similar obstacles. Water resource management in the state is currently handled by four state agencies with often conflicting legislative mandates. The Regional Water Authority believes if there was a similar overarching authority for water resources to the Connecticut Siting Council, many of the problems in water resources could be resolved. We understand that, according to HB6375, the Connecticut Siting Council would not be terminated until July 1, 2013. However, we hope the State will be able to reverse any action that may be taken this year to eliminate the Siting Council long before 2013. 001830

Second is the proposed termination on lines 14 and 15 of the Face of Connecticut Steering Committee effective October 1, 2009. The Face of Connecticut Steering Committee was created during the 2008 session to fill existing gaps with new programs necessary to preserve our state's character as well as to manage and distribute funds for multi-purpose projects of special significance. Because funding for any programs beyond the existing programs was not available, there was limited ability for the Steering Committee to begin its work. However, now is the time for the Steering Committee to work together with members of the Face of Connecticut Coalition to provide the structure needed for its success. In that way, once additional funding is available, allocation of funding for those multi-purpose projects of special significance will be possible. To eliminate the Steering Committee now, when it is all volunteered time and no expense to the state, would be short signed.

Even during troubling economic times - and perhaps even more so during these times -- owners of undeveloped land will be trying to sell their land as a way to make up for lost income or savings. When banks begin funding again, developers will be purchasing. Connecticut must make sure it positions itself now to ensure that Connecticut is the place that businesses want to grow and people want to live by continuing its commitment toward preservation of the Connecticut's open space and watershed lands as they become available.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments on Raised Bill 6375 and for your consideration of our recommendations.

Please contact Carlene Kulisch, Kulisch Consulting LLC, at 203-415-2359 or kulischconsulting(5)sbcglobal.net for further discussion about RWA's comments on Raised Bill 6660.

Member Towns: Ansoma, Beacon Falls, Bethany, Branford, Cheshire, Derby, East Haven, Guilford, Hamden, Killingworth, Madison, Milford, New Haven, North Branford, North Haven, Orange, Prospect, Seymour, West Haven and Woodbndge March 11,2009

Government Administration and Elections Committee Connecticut General Assembly Hartford, CT 06106

RE: Governor's Bill No. 6375 An Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions

Dear Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the State Board of Landscape Architects, I respectfully request that you take whatever action is appropriate to retain the Board. We certainly appreciate the fiscal condition that our state is facing and commend the General Assembly and the Governor for taking measures to reduce expenditures wherever possible. However, the Board of Landscape Architects is a volunteer board whose members are only reimbursed for mileage to attend quarterly meetings. That cost is estimated to be less than $1,000 annually. When we last met, the board voted to forego our mileage reimbursement if it meant that the board could continue to serve the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) and the residents of Connecticut.

The Board of Landscape Architects has been consistently conscious of operating costs and has sought avenues to be more efficient. Toward that end, we have streamlined the application process for new licensees and for those professionals seeking reciprocity. The current process implemented several years ago allowed our board administrator to focus his attention to his duties for other boards and commissions that he serves. We have taken advantage of electronic communication and have reduced the number of meetings from 12 to four per year. By our participation in a national credentials review p and a centralized examination administration process, we have further reduced the time and costs of administration. Despite these efforts, the board still has a role in protecting the health and safety of the public that cannot be delegated to DCP staff, who do not have the training or professional expertise to make judgments on the qualifications of licensees, particularly those whose education and experience may be questionable and in instances where consumer complaints need to be evaluated. In short, the Board of Landscape Architects contributes significantly more to the protection of the consumer than the cost it will take to keep the board in existence and does not in any way adversely affect the ability of a licensee to conduct business in Connecticut.

For these reasons, we believe the Board of Landscape Architects should be retained. Very truly yours,

State Board of Landscape Architects W. Phillips Barlow ASLA 1 001832

• - • ; • -, j

The Architects

56 Arbor Sireet Hanford. CT 06106 TJI (S60) m-ro- FILX (360) 'i?-?-''

Robert B. Hurd, AIA Architect

March 16,2009

The Hon. Gayle S. Slossberg, 14th Senate District - Co-Chair The Hon. James F. Spallone, 36111 Assembly District - Co-Chair March 15,2009 Members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee Connecticut General Assembly

Hartford, CT 06106

Re: HB 6375 AAC Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions

Dear Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and Committee Members:

I write today in opposition to certain provisions of the above referencedlegislation . Section 1, subsections 54,60 and 62 will eliminate (sunset) the Architectural Licensing Board, the State Board of Landscape Architects and State Board of Examiners for Professional engineers and Land Surveyors, effective this October. The legislation purports to "eliminate unnecessary and obsolete boards and commissions."

As a volunteer member of Connecticut's Architectural Licensing Board (ALB), I find the statement of purpose particularly onerous. The ALB and the other professional licensing boards provide our experience and expertise to the staff of the Department of Consumer Protection. As required by the licensing law, these boards handle matters such as eligibility for architectural licensing examinations, examination of applicants for a license, appeals of examination grades, reciprocal licensing and professional ethics and conduct

Along with our predecessors, we have performed these functions for more than half a century without cost to the taxpayers. Previous sunset reviews have found our efforts to be both necessary and essentia] to the health, safety and welfare of the public which we serve. I urge you to amend the proposed legislation to allow these licensing boards to continue their service to the taxpayers of Connecticut for the foreseeable future.

Thank you,

THE INTEGRITY THE ABILITY. THE EXPERIENCE 001833

CONNECTICUT VOICES FOR CHILDREN

Testimony Regarding Sections of Governor's S.B. 839 and S.B. 840, and Section 43 of H.B. 6375. Concerning the Office of the Child Advocate and the Office of the Healthcare Advocate Jamey Bell, J.D. and Sharon Langer, J.D. M.Ed. Government Administration and Elections Committee March 16, 2009

Good mnming Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, and members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. For the record, Jamey Bell is the Executive Director of Connecticut Voices for Children, whose mission is to promote the well-being of all Connecticut's young people and their families by advocating for strategic public investments and wide public policies. Before last fall Ms. Bell was a legal aid lawyer for 26 years, advocating to improve the child welfare and health care systems for Connecticut's residents. Sharon Langer is a Senior Policy Fellow at Connecticut Voices, specializing in health care programs and access, and prior to that she was a long-time legal services lawyer concentrating in health law.

I. Connecticut Voices for Children strongly opposes the proposed changes to the Office of the Child Advocate contained in S.B. 839 and Section 43 of H.B. 6375. It is imperative that the autonomy of and funding for the Office of the Child Advocate be maintained. The Governor's proposal to change the Child Advocate's statutory mandate to one "Child Advocate" position located within the Office of the Attorney General would fatally impair the state's independent oversight, investigation and policy advocacy capabilities on behalf of its endangered children. The Child Advocate's combination of investigation, monitoring, and policy analysis and advocacy is unique, and could not be replaced by any existing governmental or non• profit organisations.

Particularly troublesome are the elimination of the requirements that the Child Advocate review both systems, facilities and procedures, and individual citizen complaints. These powers are unduplicated in the state, and are critically important to the children who rely on independendy monitored and accountable systems for their protection. It is likewise incomprehensible that the bill proposes to eliminate the requirement that the Child Advocate report to the General Assembly and the Governor annually. Without such regular and independent reporting on the systems impacting children's lives, policy-makers will lose a crucial source of information necessary to inform their work. Finally, the elimination of the requirement that the Governor select the Child Advocate from a list of candidates, prepared by the Advisory Committee, instead allowing the Governor to select any person of the Governor's choosing, would fundamentally undermine the independence of the Child Advocate's office, and could have no articulable countervailing benefit.

CT Voices for Children regularly collaborates with the Child Advocate on initiatives to improve children's lives, including, most recendy, working to stabilize children's educational placements while in out of home care, and advocating to make both the judicial and health care systems more comprehensive and responsive to children's developmental needs. The Child Advocate's hybrid

33 Whitney Avenue • New Haven, CT 06510 • Phone 203-498-4240 • Fax 203-498-4242 I Web Site ww.ctkidskiik.org 53 Oak Street, Suite 15 • Hartford, CT 06106 • Phone 360-548-1661 • Fax 860-548-1783 | E-maiL [email protected] 001834

ability to be the outsider with an insider's access to information, facilities and policy makers makes their work and policy recommendations, and their value-add in collaborative work, as strategic, realistic and effective as possible. Particularly during a time when, because of the pervasive economic crisis; underlying social and finanrial supports for families may be in flux or imperiled, we urge you to maintain the Office of the Child Advocate as an independent oversight and monitoring arm, to help ensure that the systems which affect children's lives are appropriate, accountable and cost-effective.

II. Connecticut Voices strongly opposes S.B. 840. and Section 43 of H.B. 6375, eliminating the Office of the Healthcare Advocate. The Office of Healthcare Advocate is among the top few of the most effective and important public offices, and this is wholly due to the office' independence, depth of expertise and analysis, strategic thinking, dedication, and hard work. The Office of the Healthcare Advocate, as it has evolved currendy, is unique.' The Office is a premier resource for health and insurance program information across the private and public spectrum, with deep and practical knowledge of laws, rights, procedures, policy and how these interact and play out on the ground. It is a consistent and responsible collaborative partner in all efforts to improve health care programs and access across the state, with an eye toward efficiency, comprehensive coverage, systemic improvement and quality. Connecticut Voices relies on the Office of the Healthcare Advocate to lead in ensuring that health care systems affecting our mutual constituencies are as integrated, comprehensive, consumer-friendly, accountable and efficient as possible.

It is also an organization that has one of the most effective advocacy arms that we have ever seen. It is commonplace for The Office of Healthcare Advocate to receive profuse praise from everyone who seeks assistance fromi t We have personally had individuals whom we have referred

(there thank us for what they characterize as "life-saving" advice and help.

In short, the Office of the HealthCare Advocate, and its leader, Kevin Lembo, get the job done. The Office maintains a broad and deep knowledge of the issues, includes the right staff, publicizes and follows through on the availability of the service, and delivers. We respectfully request that you oppose the elimination of the Office of the Healthcare Advocate.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. 00183^

Testimony

Before The

Government Administration and Elections Committee

Public Hearing March 16, 2009 Regarding HB-6375

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and distiquished members of the committee, thank you for your time to hear my testimony. My name is Roger Stolting and I currently hold several licenses in this state within the purview of 3 occupational licensing boards, and am a past contractor member of the Plumbing, Piping & Work Examining Board. I am opposed to the termination of these boards as listed in Section 1. (57), (58) & (61).

Having served on an occupational licensing board for approximately 8 years I have witnessed first hand the importance and need of the board structure to provide advise and assistance in adopting regulations pertaining to practices, set standards, provide bench marks for experience and required training to qualify an applicant to sit for examination. We also provide advice and assistance in determining where limited licensing is required. Several of the other duties we provide include licensing application review for special circumstances, licensing examination review (ever changing codes and product introductions), provide continuing education content requirements and review provider's instructional contents, watch industry and co-ordinate it's effects licenses, provide a forum where a license holder can be heard by his peers if needed.

With all the emphasis on higher technology and the training that goes along with it, I find it wrong to terminate these boards. This will only lead to the watering down of our industry standards, add a larger work load to paid staff (which has already been over burdened for years). What this will lead to is less licensing enforcement, less accountability & substandard workmanship. In the end we will all pay a greater price than we think we may save.

I currently am working as a Manufacturers' Representative and see first hand the difference in abilities where licensing is well administered with feedback from industry professionals (licensing boards).

Please leave these boards intact and if anything provide them with more resources so we can make our homes safer and more efficient.

Thank you, Roger Stolting 0018?36

MarkR Berkowitz 106 Bainton Road West Hartford, CT 06117

March 16, 2009

Government Administration and Elections Committee Room 2200, Legislative Office Building Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Government Administration and Elections Committee:

I'm writing in response to Governor's Bill No. 6375, an act concerning review and termination of certain boards and commissions. I'm a member of the Mobile Manufactured Home Advisory Council (MMHAC) established under section 21-84a of the general statutes and serve as one of the Community Owner representatives. The Council was established under the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP).

The MMHAC is comprised of volunteer representatives from the Real Estate Commission, Mobile Home Community Owners, Community Tenants, Manufactured Housing Industry Representatives, Town Planners, Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, Banking Industry and an Attomey-At- Law Representative who specializes in mobile/manufactured home matters.

I appreciate the efforts of the Governor and the Legislature to review certain boards and commissions to determine if cost savings can be achieved in this difficult economic climate. However, the elirnination of the Council will not save the State of Connecticut any funds. Moreover, its elimination may ultimately cost the State money where MMHAC could have stepped in to deal with prevailing issues before legislative remedies are sought.

The Council has worked closely with the Department of Consumer Protection to ensure that the State of Connecticut continues to provide affordable housing to its residents. In addition, the Council acts as a forum to educate industry representatives to ensure that resident rights are promoted.

It's my sincere hope that the Mobile Manufactured Home Advisory Council will continue to exist to do the good work that it was originally set up for and can continue to promote affordable housing for Connecticut citizens. Thank you.

Sincerely, Mark R. Berkowitz Director of Operations Ossen MHC Holdings, LLC 001837

ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS Master License No. CT 103805 Master License No. MA A-11725 March 16,2009

House Bill 6375 Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions

My name is John E. Taylor Jr. I'm and resident of Farmington, CT, Business owner in Southington, CT and Licensed Electrician for 34 years.

Over the past 34 years I have seen the electrical trade change in many ways most of this change has been over the last 10 years with new technology. As these new technology come in to the work place it take yearly training and review of codes and standards to operate in our work environment. JO .^^^ One of the Electrical Licensing Board functions thought relegation is to keep all electrical license holders current on yearly training on code, state of CT laws and best business practices. The Board makes sure that license holder are installing up to the current codes and <£=4 operating ethically in the electrical industry. As new technology come into the work place like Photovoltaic's (Solar) they are charged with regulating the standards in which the *g=5 installation and proper licensing is followed. They are the industry group that hold hearings for violators of the codes and state laws regarding the electrical trade and again serve as a safe guard to the public. They serve as one of the watch dog in the electrical industry and public safety for the consumer of the state of Connecticut.

With the economic times we all face daily we see unlicensed people installing work without regards to the publics interest which this board investigates and stops these violators.

These individuals who serve on this board are voluntary with great sacrifice of their business and personal time. In my opinion without this board in would put a great burden on the DCP and at a much higher cost then the operation of a voluntary board.

I also feel that the elimination of this board would put our industry years behind and put the public at unnecessary risk and cost the hard working license workers who pay a fee for the State to regulate our industry at a disadvantage with the people and companies looking to take advantage of the current economic times by short cuts in the state consumer and labor laws.

Therefore I ask that you vote against House Bill 6375.

Thank you

i E. Taylor Jr License # 103805

215 Captain Lewis Drive • Southington, CT 06489 • (860) 621-9657 • Fax (860) 621-2456 Website: eesc-ct.com An Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer 001838

Connecticut Alarm & Systems Integrators Association

TESTIMONY ROBERT MCVEIGH CONNECTICUT ALARM & SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS ASSOCIATION (CASIA) BEFORE THE GAE COMMITTEE MARCH 16,2009

The Connecticut Alarm & Systems Integrators Association (CASIA) opposes HB-6375, which will ehminate the Electrical Examining Board which plays a vital role in overseeing and enforcing laws affecting electrical licenses.

Although the state Department of Consumer Protection does a tremendous job with the resources it has, the department lacks the resources, staff and expertise needed to strongly enforce the state's licensing laws.

Fortunately, the Electrical Examining Board, made up of volunteers from industry and the public, share their expertise in reviewing cases that come before them to enforce the laws. They also weigh in on limited licenses and determine whether such licenses are in the best interest of consumers and public safety. In addition, the board reviews and approves continuing education curriculum and providers to ensure that programs meet the needs of contractors and license holders in updating them on relevant changes in building codes, the National Electrical Code, OSHA, and other laws and regulations.

Contractors that do not abide by the regulations that govern their trade and who create potentially unsafe work environments should be punished. Those of us who have worked hard to promote the professionalism of the industry through licensure and continuing education support efforts to enhance enforcement by strengthening rather than eliminating the occupational licensing boards. This is also in the best interest of consumers.

CASIA therefore urges rejection of HB-6375. Thank you.

CASIA / Connecticut Alarm & Systems Integrators Association, established, in 1974, is a statewide trade association formerly known as the Connecticut Burglar and Fire Alarm Association / CBFAA. Dedicated to protecting lives and property through the responsible use of electronic security, fire and supervisory alarm systems, digital technologies have enabled member companies to offer enhanced services through integrated network systems. 001839

March 16, 2009

Government Administrations and Elections Committee Room 2200, Legislative Office Building Hartford, CT 06106

RE: Testimony of Joseph Brian Bonner in Opposition of HB-6375

Chairman and Members of the Committee,

My name is Joseph Brian Bonner. I reside at 774 Old Colchester Road, Uncasville, CT. I am a licensed El electrical contractor in the State of Connecticut. I own BONNER ELECTRIC, INC. of Uncasville, which employs 30 electricians and support staff, and I am a member of the Board of Directors for the Independent Electrical Contractors of New England. I am opposed to HB- j6375 as currently written.

Though there are several important public safety committees and boards that this legislation eliminates, my primary opposition to this bill is the elimination of the State Electrical Work Examining Board. This Board provides essential oversight of the electrical industry to maintain the safety of the citizens, consumers and properties of our state. Elimination of this Board and or transferring the responsibilities of this Board to another entity would be a grave injustice to the Connecticut electrical contracting industry, setting our industry back twenty or thirty years of progress.

Please consider the negative impact to public safety that this bill will have and I ask that you oppose this bill as currently written. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Joseph Brian Bonner 774 Old Colchester Road Uncasville, CT 06382 CTE1 - 181768 001840

CharterOak STATE COLLEGE

Degrees Without Boundaries

Government Administrations and Elections Committee

Testimony by Ed KJonoski Executive Director, Board for State Academic Awards President, Charter Oak State College

Monday, March 16,2009

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and members of the Government Administrations and Elections Committee.

I am Ed Klonoski, Executive Director of the Board for State Academic Awards and President of Charter Oak\State College, and I wish provide written testimony concerning HB 6375: AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

Specifically, I write to express my support for the Commission for Educational Technology (CET). The CET was created in 1999 by then Lt. Governor Rell, and I have been part of its work in all the years that followed.

I represent Charter Oak State College and the Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium. Charter Oak State College is Connecticut's online public college. For the past 36 years, Charter Oak has served adult students finishing their associate's and bachelor's degrees. Our focus has always been degree completion for working adults, and this focus makes us a part of the solution for incumbent worker education. Over the past ten years, we have added a robust catalog of distance learning courses—198 at last count—to our original offerings of testing for credit, portfolio credits, and a flexible transfer credit policy.

For the past 11 years, the Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium (CTDLC) has been providing eLeaming Services to Connecticut's higher education institutions, its K-12 and Adult Education providers, and to various state agencies. Those services center on technology hosting—providing the servers, IT staff, and help desk personnel for the Learning Management Systems that DL providers require—online student services including tutoring; and online high school and adult education programs.

As these descriptions suggest, both the College and the CTDLC make extensive use of the key services created and overseen by the CET. The College relies on the Connecticut Education Network (CEN) and iConn, the State's virtual library, as critical components of its online education efforts. The CTDLC delivers all of its technical services using bandwidth provided by 001841

the CEN. Like the rest of both public and private higher education, the CEN is one of the key utilities required to deliver 21st century higher education, and iConn is a collaborative, cost saving approach to research.

But the CET is more than its successful programs. It is the incubator for innovation in technology mediated education. The CET supported the CTLDC when it was creating its plans for a virtual high school offering online coursework to all the high school students in the state. It was the CEN staff that provided the resources to write the state's eRate applications each year. Most critically in these challenging economic times, it was the CET that provided the vision, the collaborative spirit, and agency energy that produced the reduced rates for our network bandwidth," saving higher education and the state significant dollars.

I believe that the CET is a no cost, high value commission that supports the work of the College and the CTDLC. The reality is that the responsibilities it shoulders continue, so it will need to be re-created in some form in order to provide multi-agency oversight to key projects. For example, Executive Order 19 requires that some sort of external group provide oversight and advice regarding the CEN, a role currently provided by the CET.

This Committee and the General Assembly are faced with many difficult decisions this session, but this particular decision is not difficult. The CET has provided real value and has the potential to provide more, plus it does not cost the state money (beyond donated time from its members). I urge you to continue the Commission for Educational Technology. 001842

TESTIMONY BRIAN PHLNNEY CT PLUMBING, HEATING & COOLING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION & ELECTIONS COMMITTEE MARCH 16, 2009

The Connecticut Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors Association (CT-PHCC) opposes HB-6375, An Act Eliminating Certain Boards and Commissions.

As professionals in the skilled trades, we oppose this bill, which will eliminate the Plumbing, & Piping Work Examining Board which has played a critical role in vigorously enforcing the state's occupational licensing laws.

While the state has taken several steps to enhance occupational licensing enforcement, we need to continue to support the role of the licensing board which has helped deter contractors from operating in Connecticut without the proper licenses and apprenticeship registrations.

Allowing unlicensed contractors to operate m Connecticut hurts our entire industry by exposing workers and consumers to potentially unsafe situations. Employees, who should have been given credit for hours on the job, are unfairly penalized by unscrupulous contractors who fail to register apprentices. This has to end.

Unfortunately. HB-6375 would eliminate the board that is in the best position to provide strong enforcement of the state's licensing laws. The state Department of Consumer Protection does not have the time or resources to ensure the continued enforcement of these laws.

Moreover, because the boards are comprised of union and open shop contractors in addition to members of the public, they provide a balanced mechanism for addressing enforcement issues in a consistent manner. Allowing these diverse interests to address enforcement issues with one voice has been important to advancmg the professionalism of our industry.

The board also plays a critical role in reviewing requests for new limited licenses, which requires the expertise of people working in the industry to ensure that the scope and requirements of the license are designed to protect the safety of the state's consumers. In addition, the board sets forth the requirements for continuing education, which has proven beneficial in ensuring that all license holders understand changes in building codes, technologies, safety laws and other regulations affecting the industry. Without the work of these volunteer board members, the state would have to incur considerable expense in developing the expertise necessary to make sound decisions affecting the plumbing industry.

CT-PHCC is a not-for-profit trade association that represents the professional plumbing, heating and cooling contractors in the state of Connecticut CT-PHCC and its members are committed to protecting the health and safety of the public. Contractors who belong to the association have demonstrated reliability and trustworthiness and are licensed by the state of Connecticut. 001843

I E C Independent Electrical Contractors of New England, Inc.

TO The Honorable Gail Slossberg and Rep. Jamie Spallone

Members of the Government Administration & Elections Committee

FROM. Lisa Hutner, Executive Director

DATE: March 16, 2009 RE: HB -6375, AN ACT CONCERNING THE REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

The Independent Electrical Contractors of New England (IEC-NE) strongly OPPOSES provisions in HB-6375, which would eliminate the Electrical Examining Board, an occupational licensing board which oversees electrical contractors.

The Electrical Examining Board has been a powerful tool in providing strong, consistent enforcement of the state's electrical licensing and apprenticeship laws. Unlicensed contractors and workers performing work requiring a license or registration should be and have been punished as a result of the efforts of the Electrical Examining Board. .

Unfortunately, far too many contractors do not maintain the proper licenses, creating public safety concerns. In addition, individuals who have worked as apprentices but whose employers failed to properly register them, are unable to pursue licensing without repeating their apprenticeship hours. These laws must be vigorously enforced to protect consumers and employees. Having strong occupational licensing boards sends an important signal to unscrupulous contractors that the state's licensing laws can be and will be enforced.

Strong enforcement of the state's licensing and apprenticeship laws relative to electrical work is clearly a life safety issue. Shoddy work done by unlicensed contractors can result in faulty electrical wires and improper grounding of wires which could cause fires that could destroy homes and take lives. By ensuring that individuals performing electrical work are held to high standards, the electrical examining board helps maintain the highest possible level of safety and training for our industry.

The occupational licensing boards, which are comprised of both union and non-union electrical contractors as well as the general public, also provide an important mechanism for ensuring the consistent and fair enforcement of the state's licensing laws. Because the board provides balanced representation of the industry, license holders respect its decisions.

The boards also play a critical role in developing and approving continuing education curriculum to enhance the professionalism and integrity of the electrical industry. This is certainly an important function because electrical accidents have the highest fatality rate of all industrial

1800 Silas Deane Highway, Rear Building, Rocky Hill, CT 06067 (860) 563-4953 Fax (860) 563-5453 Toll Free (866) GO EC NE 345 West Street, Ludlow, MA 01056 email hsa@iecne org www lecne org 001844

accidents. Relevant continuing education is the only way to ensure that all license holders receive training on changes in building codes, laws and regulations and technology which may impact customer safety.

While we recognize that this measure was proposed in order to achieve cost savings, we are puzzled as to what savings v/ould actually be realized. Board members are volunteers, who freely donate their time, as a service to their industry. The state Department of Consumer Protection simply doesn't have the inspectors or agents needed to strongly enforce our licensing laws and to provide the enforcement presence necessary to provide a deterrent to unlicensed contractors and employees

We therefore urge you to oppose elimination of the Electrical Examining Board. Thank you.

1800 Silas Deane Highway, Rear Building, Rocky Hill, CT 06067 (860) 563-4953 Fax (860) 563-5453 Toll Free (866) GO EC NE 345 West Street, Ludlow, MA 01056 email, [email protected] www.iecne org 001845

Connecticut Water Works Association Working for Quality Water

Testimony Elizabeth Gara Connecticut Water Works Association (CWWA) Before the Government Administration & Elections Committee March 16, 2009

RE: HB-6375, An Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions

The Connecticut Water Works Association (CWWA) opposes Section 1(42) of HB- $375, which would eliminate the Invasive Plants Council.

Every year, the introduction of harmful, non-native species into the U.S. has been increasing. Collectively, these nuisance species make tremendous impacts to different things valued by many Americans. Ultimately, the cost of invasive species (terrestrial and aquatic) in the United States amounts to more than SI 37 billion each year.

Invasive non-native plants are a concern to the state's water companies because they can grow rapidly, are very prolific and can create permanent and serious problems for the public water supplies that are very costly to mitigate. For example, certain species clog intake valves that impede the flow of water. Other species displace native plants that are important to source water protection efforts.

The Invasive Plants Council has been instrumental in developing and implementing enforcement tools to help eradicate invasive plants. This has been very helpful to the source water protection efforts of Connecticut's public water suppliers. We therefore respectfully request that you delete the provision from the bill which would eliminate the council.

The Connecticut Water Works Association, Inc. (CWWA) is an association of private, municipal and regional public water supply utilities serving more than 500,000 customers, or population of about 2'A million people, located throughout Connecticut.

25 Capitol Avenue • Hartford, CT 06106 • Tel. 860-547-0566 • www.cwwa.org 001846

STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION 231 Capitol Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 757-2270 Fax (860) 757-2215

Testimony of Stephen N. Ment Government Administration and Elections Committee March 16,2009

House Bill 6375, An Act Concerning Review And Termination Of Certain Boards And Commissions

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of the

Judicial Branch in opposition to the proposed elimination of the Comrnission for Child

Support Guidelines found at lines 106-107 of House Bill 6375, An Act Concerning Review and Termination of Certain Boards and Commissions. Federal law requires each state to adopt guidelines - and to review them every four years - setting the criteria for the establishment and modification of child support orders. In Connecticut, this work is conducted by the Commission for Child Support

Guidelines, a body of eleven that includes state agency staff and representatives of various constituent groups. Members are not paid for their participation.

Elimination of the Comrnission does not make sense because it has no fiscal impact on the state of Connecticut and because, if abolished, the State would need to create a new process or mechanism to review the guidelines in order to be compliant with federal law.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony. 001847

Testimony before the Governmental Administration & Elections Committee of the Connecticut Legislature on HB 6375

My name is Andrew Daniels. I am housing consultant that works in New England and nationally with housing providers and governmental entities on housing policy and programs. This includes policy work for the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. I was one of the authors of the Final Report of the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing (NCSDPH) as well as several case studies, whose recommendations resulted in the HOPE VI Program, a program which has provided funding in Connecticut to redevelop federal public housing in Stamford, New Haven and Hartford.

I come before the Committee today to speak against the demise of the Housing Sustainability Fund as would occur if HB 6375 is passed as written. The Committee is identified at line 88 (item 41) of the Bill for removal from Connecticut General Statutes.

Not only is the Fund neither a Commission nor Board, but it does not receive any regular annual appropriation, nor therefore does its demise create any cost savings under the stated purpose of the Bill, consolidation of Commissions and Boards. Its inclusion is a convenient addition to a gubernatorial shopping list by those with greater interest in control of an issue and lack of accountability rather than results. In demising the fund, the Governor removes an advisory committee with a mandate to look at the issues of preservation of Connecticut state-aided affordable housing programs and leave the issue in a limbo of bureaucratic discretion.

The Fund requires activities of an Advisory Committee consisting of individuals appointed by legislative leadership and the public housing industry and was intended by the statute that created it a little less than two years ago to take the lead at looking a < substantial liability to the State of Connecticut, the underfunding of modernization needs for the over 17,400 units of state-aided housing paid for by the citizens of Connecticut and the potential consequences of disinvestment in an asset whose replacement value not including the cost of land is greater than $3.3b or an average construction cost of $190k per unit based on use prevailing wage rates. As a point of comparison, last year CHFA's Board of Commissioners approved 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects with an average cost of new construction over $300k per unit.

These affordable housing units have been funded through an array of programs that have been in place since the 1950s and which have created a portfolio of housing that is diverse and widely distributed across the State. Attachment A to this testimony is a list of state-aided units that can be found within the communities represented by the member of the GAE Committee. Attachment B is summary of the affordable unit

Testimony on HB 6375 1 March 16, 2009 001848

inventory maintained by the Department of Economic & Community Development (DECD) for each community represented by members of the GAE Committee and the change in percentage if the state-aided units were to be lost to the inventory for that specific community.

These units received grants funded with state bonds for their construction but do not receive any operating subsidy, nor does the legislature appropriate any predictable source of modernization funding. When modernization funding is provided, it is often in the form of a legislative set-aside dedicated to a specific property in a specific community, which means that modernization funding is only available on an ad hoc basis and not based on documented needs relative to the entire portfolio nor in consideration of the impact of not funding specific units relative to local community demographics.

While this may seem like a mouthful of marbles it is an important public policy issue as access to governmental affordable housing programs is intimately tied to federal and state fair housing law as well as the Connecticut State Constitution. Given the number of households that fall under one or another of the definitions of protected classes, public polices that result in selective investment or selective disinvestment in government aided housing can result in unintended consequences from a civil rights law perspective.

There is a legal theory that is well established and called De Facto demolition, which in plan language means the intuitional abandonment of governmental housing that results in constructive demolition - the units are allowed to fall into such a level of disrepair as to mean that renovation is no longer economically viable when compared to new construction/ There is no choice but for the units to be demolished even though a timely intervention of funds would have prevented the loss of economic viability resulting in no need to deprogram and demolish. It was a concern about De Facto Demolition which was one of the major justifications for the HOPE VI Program. If HUD and Congress were not to step up, it was anticipated that the legal services community would force the issue through the courts on a property by property basis using the case law around De Facto Demolition and that the federal government would be making the investments by court order.

This is the legal theory behind the Father Panik law suit and court order that has required one-for-one replacement of the units demolished at the former Father Panik, which was one of the largest public housing developments in Bridgeport and which is still an open issue for the City of Bridgeport and the Bridgeport Housing Authority.

Now there are State bureaucracies that would claim that they have a firm grasp of the problemand are in control of the issue.

I think that if this Committee held hearings today that they would find that these assertions did not contain adequate cloth to cover the claims no matter how they are

Testimony on HB 6375 2 March 16, 2009 r 001849

fashioned and that some simple questions would quickly uncover the nakedness of these assertions.

DECD which maintains statutory control of the programs has handed over their oversight responsibilities to CHFA as a consequence of the legislation that took $80m of cash from CHFA as a part of a swap for the equivalent value in the unretired bonds used to financing the state-aided housing portfolio. DECD has no data on this portfolio's physical conditions.

CHFA would claim that they have a sound analysis of the unfunded capital needs of the 17,400 units and they do have a number which changes and shifts depending upon the definitions or the way the question are asked. Their largest number includes the cost of redevelopment of New Britain's Corbin and Pinnacle Heights, which is now estimated at $90m based on loan application being reviewed at this very moment. The two developments are of the largest in the portfolio and combined are about 5% of the units. Thing is that the $90m would only bring back 301 units of the current 844 at an average cost of $299k. If the redevelopment cost estimates for the New Britain properties or others identified as redevelopment are removed, the CHFA estimate drops to roughly $200m

The funny thing is the CHFA's own requirements for a capital needs assessment (see Attachment C) were not met through the data collection techniques used by CHFA to arrive at an estimate of conventional modernization needs.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a very large portfolio of state-aided units of the roughly the same construction quality and age. The Massachusetts portfolio receives an operating subsidy and has had a much higher per unit history of appropriation for modernization. Nevertheless, the Massachusetts Department of Housing & Community Development (DHCD) estimates that current modernization levels are roughly 22%, of the replacement value of the portfolio. For the Connecticut portfolio that means roughly $ 726m or almost four time the CHFA estimate. Even if the use of the 22% as a proxy for the lack of a true and current portfolio needs assessment is an overstatement, the CHFA estimate has to be at least half the true need and more likely on 1/3 of true need.

The data collection techniques used by CHFA do not meet national real estate industry standards for capital assessments, and most importantly CHFA would not, by its own standards, underwrite any form of multifamily loan on these assets using the data they have collected.

Oh and by the way, the housing professionals that run the entities that own these 17,400 units, which are public housing agencies, community based non-profits and a small group of for profit owners, would to a clear majority claim that CHFA understates the modernization needs of their housing stock.

Testimony on HB 6375 3 March 16, 2009 001850

As a closing note, I would point out that if one were more interested in harming the Governor, in being partisan, demising the Sustainability Fund at the request of the Governor would provide solid documentation of an intentional disinterest in the analysis and planning required to arrive ata portfolio preservation strategy. In short, it would provide legal advocates with an easy ability to document "institutional neglect" given that a mechanism to address the needs of the portfolio had been created and then was done away with.

The fact remains that 17,400 state-aided housing units exist and are in communities for which every member of this Committee has constituents. The units were funded in such a way that they need a large infusion of capital investment and that "bill" is coming due. Both the current administration and the legislature should want to get out in front of these issues or the issues will come up in another forum, most likely through the courts, and put the State into the awkward position of solving the problem under the leadership a court appointed receiver.

Testimony on HB 6375 4 March 16, 2009 Attachment A 1 State Housing Projects in Communities Represented by Members of the GAE Committee (by owner type, PHA, NP or FP>

i

CIIFA Census State 5lato Typo Municipality Spontor Project tljmefi) Preject Addrut Progress • Pro| Number Program Occup Date f at Unlit Blda QBR 1BR 2BR 1BR 4BR SOU County PMSANjme Tract 109th Congrats Sonata Houio Its South Monloweso 11 HA Branford Branford Housing Authority , Parkelde VIII 1 Street 85005D E-87 Elderly /02/1974 50 4 38 12 NEW HAVEN New Haven - Merfden 1844 00 3 12 102

/11 HA Branford Branford Housing Authority Parkslde VIII II 3 Brock Island Road B6002D E-1SI Elderly 12 /1985 40 3 30 10 NEW HAVEN New Haven - Merfden 184400 3 12 102

1 HA Bridgeport Bridgeport Housing Authority Forest Green Home* 725 Paasndes Avenue 9700SD E-20S Elderly 12/1511995 24 24 FAIRFIELD Bridgeport 73100 4 22 125

/1 HA Oanbury Oanbury Housing AiAhority Crosby Manor o4WeslWoosurStel 850240 E-77 Elderly 2 /1975 50 12 40 10 FAIRFIELD Danbury 210800 5 24 110

HA Oanbury Danbury Housing Authonty Glen Apartmenta 67 Rocky Glen Road 350220 E2 EUsrty 07/01/1962 SO 12 24 26 FAIRFIELD Danbury 210500 5 24 110

11 HA Danbury Danbury Housing Authonty Glen Apartments 25 Memorial Drive S5023D E IS Elderly 02/15/1987 so 40 10 FAIRFIELD Danbury 210500 5 24 110

/1 HA Danbury D8nbury Housing Authonty Coal Pit Hill eaCoatpilHMRd S5020D MR-41 Mod Ronlal 2 /1953 114 57 83 31 FAIRFIELD Danbury 210400 5 24 110

HA Danbury Danbury Housing Authority Fllrfleld Ridge 1-aOFaitoU Ridge Rd 850250 MR 22 • . Mod Rental 71111950 49 28 49 FAIRFIELD Danbury 2104 00 5 24 110

1 I1A Danbury Danbury Housing Authority Mill Ridge -137 Mffl Ridge Road 65025Z MR22A Mod Rental 2/IS/I9S1 115 58 64 31 FAIRFIELD Danbury 210700 5 24 138

4 HA Danbury Danbury Housing Authority Mill Ridge Est (•16 Mill Ridge Drive 8502ID MR-57 Mod Rental /2/1957 12 12 FAIRFIELD Danbury 2107 00 5 24 138 CTirJ-HoM- Mod Rental HA Danbury Danbury Housing Authority Fairfield Ridge Rehab 8M7 Fairfield Ridge Rd 8S026D 038 Sec 8 Rehab 25 IS 7 FAIRFIELD Oanbury 2104 00 5 24 110

5 1 HA Deep River Deep River Housing Authority Kirttand Commons 60 Main Street 77007D E204 Elderly /10/1993 26 26 MIDDLESEX Southern Middlesex Cty 620100 2 33 36

HA Eseex Westford Management Co Essex Court 16 Main Street 850510 E 164 Elderly 06/9111985 36 to 29 8 MIDDLESEX Southern Mkfdtesai Cty 630100 33 38

HA Fairfield Faetield Housing Authonty PlneTree Aple 15 Pine Tree Lena S50S2O E23 Elderly 09729/1907 20 6 12 8 FAIRFIELD Bridgeport 81000 28 127

tS 5 HA Fairfield Fmrflold Housing Authority PlnoTree Apia Pine Tree Lane 85053D ' E56 Elderly D87DI/1973 18 8 10 FAIRFIELD Bridgeport 61000 28 127 Elderly Section HA Fairfield Falrflold Housing Authority Trefoil Court 20 Treloll Court 85054D E-I37L S 10/14/1981 30 • 9 22 8 FAIRFIELD Bridgeport 61000 4 26 127

1 HA Greenwich The Manor at Byram II, (nc McKenney Terr It 73-77 Vmd Drive B9008D E-166 Elderly 10/1671968 51 19 32 FAIRFIELO Stamford - Norwalk 10500 4 36 150

4 HA Greenwich Greenwich Housing Authority Adams Garden Apts 96BorlollRoad - 850590 MR 32 Mod Rental 10/1/1949 10 9 2 60 IS FAIRFIELD Stamford - Norwalk 10101 , 38 149

1 HA Greenwich Greenvnch Housing Authority Armstrong Court 5 Armstrong Court 8506OD MR 9 Mod Rental 6729/19S1 144 8 12 108 24 FAIRFIELD Slumlord Norwalk 105 00 4 38 150 Manor at Byram UMcKlnney 111 11/1 HA Greenwich The Manor at Byram 1 tnc Terrace 1 70 West Putnam Street B90O7D MR Mod Rental (1988 21 S 2 13 6 FAIRFIELO Stamford Norwalk 106 00 4 36 ISI

4 HA Guillord Guilford Housing Authonty Boston Terrace (Boston Terrace 85069D E 160 Elderly 05101/1985 40 12 30 10 NEW HAVEN New Haven - Menden 1901 00 3 12 96

HA Gulllord Guilford Housing Authonty Gulllord Court 32 Guilford Court 650670 ESS Elderly 09730/1971 30 8 20 10 NEW HAVEN New Haven • Menden 190100 3 12 98

HA Guilford Gulllord Housing Authority Gulllord Court Ext 32 Guild d Court 650680 E-90 Elderly IOAT!/tg7S 20 2 12 8 NEW HAVEN New Haven - Merufen 1901 00 3 12 9B 101-500 Alberta Jagoe 5 3 HA Millord Millord Housing Authority Alberta Jagoe Commons Court 911350 E-193 Elder ly 01/01/1991 40 40 NEW HAVEN Mtlord Ansonto- Seymour 1503 00 14 its

HA Miltord MiUord Housing Authority C McKoon Village 45-56 Jepson Drive 85I0ID ES Elderly 09/01/1969 25 6 17 6 NEW HAVEN Milord Ansonia- Seyrnour 150100 3 14 119

-111 3 HA Millord Millord Housing Authonty C McKeen Village 101 Jepson Dr 8S102D E-68 Elderly OS/28/1974 40 8 24 16 NEW HAVEN MiUord Ansonia- Seymour 1501 00 14 119 ©

5 HA Millord Mitford Housing Authority DeMaio Gardens 24 90 OeMaro Orrve 85I03D E 153 Elderly 03115/1983 30 30 NEW HAVEN Millord Ansonia- Seymour 150300 3 14 IIS

1 HA Naugaluck Naugaluck Housing Authority Robert E HuttCong 560 MIMHe Avenue 94063D C-ll Congregate 10/25/1993 36 38 NEW HAVEN Watarbury 3454 00 j IS 13

11 3 HA Naugaluck Naugaluck Housing Authority Oak Terrace S3 Conrad Street 8S107D E-12 Elderly 07/01/1964 SO 30 14 NEW HAVEN Wateroury 3454 00 15 70

GAE Legislative Testimony. Attachment A March 16. 2009 1 z State Housing Projects in Communities Represented by Members of the GAE Committee (by owner type, PHA, NP or FP>

CHFA Ctnsits Slats Stito Typt Municipality Sponsor ProlBct Namifi) Pts|cct Uditis Proems t Pro| Number Program Occup Date oof Units Bldg 0BR •BR• !BR 3BR 4BR SBR County PMSA Kama Tiacl 109th Congress Senate House

HA Naugatuck Naugatuck Housing Authority Oak Terrace Ell 53 Conrad Street 8SI0SD E-30 Elderly 0710871987 40 8 30 IO NEW HAVEN Waterbury 3454 00 3 IS 70

HA Naugatuck Naugatuck Housmg Aulhonty Oak Terrace Ext 53 Conrad Street S5109D E-71 • Elderly ' 01/10/1972 24 4 16 8 NEW HAVEN Waterbury 3454 00 3 15 70

HA Naugatuck Naugotuck Housing Aulhonty Oak Terrace Ext 53 Conrad Street 85110D E-98 Elderly 05/28/1975 40 a 34 8 NEW HAVEN Waterbury 3454 00 3 15 70

HA Naugatuck Naugatuck Housmg Aulhonty Oak Terrace Ext 53 Conrad Street 85II1D E-143 Elderly 01101/1981 40 7 36 4 NEW HAVEN Watnrbury 3454 00 3 15 70

HA Naugatuck Naugatuck Housing Aulhonty Lewis Circle 1 5 Lewis Circle 85106D MR-81 Mod Rental 9/13/1958 32 9 16 18 HEW HAVEN Waterbury 345300 3 17 70

1 HA Now Canaan Now Canaan Housing Aulhonty Mill Apis 57 Millport Avenuo 851160 MR 37 Mod Rental 1/1/1050 16 8 8 8 FAIRFIELD Stamford • Norwafk 151O0 , 26 143

HA Newington Newuigton Housmg Authority Cedar Village 3l2-3l8Cedar Steel S5125D E-154 Elderly 11101/1081 40 30 10 HARTFORD Hartford 494000 1 0 27

HA Newington Newington Housmg Authority Kelleher Park 241 West Kill Road 85I21D E-104 Elderly 03/17/1978 40 28 12 HARTFORD Hartford 494600 1 9 27

HA Newington Newington Housmg Authority New Meadow Village 1 MO Street ExL 880470 E-IS3 Elderly 12/29/1987 26 19 7 HARTFORD Hartford 4944 00 , 0 27

HA North Branford North Branford Housing Aulhonty Hillside Terrace 187-A Branford Rd 851310 E-53 Etdorly 03/01/1971 30 20 to NEW HAVEN New Haven • Meriden 186100 3 12 66

HA North Branford North Branford Housmg Authority Hillside Terrace Ext 167 Branford Road 851320 E-121/188 EUerty 08/01/1083 39 24 6 NEW HAVEN New Haven - Meriden 186100 3 12 88

HA Norwalk Norwalk Housmg Authority School St 16 16 School Street 950940 AH 15 AOordablo Hsg 6/30/1995 34 20 14 FAIRFIELD Stamford Norwalk 434 00 4 25 140 Ludlow (Commons)Squaro 1 4 HA Norwalk Norwalk Housing Authority Congrogato 1 Rogers Square 96083D C-26 Congrogato 12729/1995 44 44 FAIRFIELD Slamlord • Norwalk 44200 25 137

HA Norwalk Norwalk Housing Authority Ludlow Village 1 Emerson Street 8SI35D E-II6 Elderly 05721/1978 30 22 8 FAIRFIELD Stamford Norwalk 44200 a 25 t37 Mod Rental 4 HA Norwalk Norwalk Housing Authority Colonial Village 164 West Cedar 85136D MR-27 Sec 8 Rehab 671/1951 200 4B . 152 48 FAIRFIELD Slamlord • Norwalk 43200 25 140

3 HA Orange Town of Orange Sllverbrook Estates 100 Red Cedar Road 95101D C25 Congregate 10/1/1994 45 45 NEW HAVEN New Haven - Meriden 157100 14 117

HA Southington Southington Housmg Authority DICaprlo Forgione Terrace 408 Main Street 8516B0 E 84 Elderly 11/24/1974 40 24 16 HARTFORD Hartford 430 1 00 18 61

HA Southington Southington Housmg Aulhonty Gen Pulaski Terrace 6 Carter Lano 851670 E33 Elderly 04/10/1968 40 10 24 18 HARTFORD Hartford 4304 00 IS 81

HA Southington Southington Housing Aulhonty Lincoln Lewis Terrace 43 Academy Street 851710 E-168 Elderly 06717/1985 40 32 8 HARTFORD Hartford 430100 18 81

HA Southington Southington Housing Authority Zdunczyk Terrace 500 Pleasant Street 85I69D E 122 EUerty 11/2271978 40 28 12 HARTFORD Hartford 4306 01 16 81

HA Southington Southington Housing Authority Zdunczyk Terrace Ext 500 Pleasant Street 85I70D E148 Elderly 07/01/1980 20 15 5 HARTFORD Hartford 4306 01 18 61

HA Stamford Stamford Housing Authority Wormscr Congregate 28 Vine Streot 001I6D C-10 Congregate 8/29/1989 40 40 FAIRFIELD Stamford Norwalk 207 00 4 36 144

HA Stamford Slamlord Housing Authority Edward Cioactk Homes 186 Greenwich Avenue 85I80D E 13 Elderly 10701/1965 so 28 22 FAIRFIELD Slamlord Norwalk 27300 27 145

HA Stamford Stamford Housing Authority Lawn Hill Terrace 22 238 Custard Street S5I70D MR-68 Mod Rental 12/30/1960 208 30 104 102 FAIRFIELD Slamlord Norwalk 218 02 27 148

4 HA Stamford Stamford Housing Aulhonty Oak Park 51 163 Dale Steel 85I77D MR 6 Mod Rental 5/20/1949 188 27 14 136 14 4 FAIRFIELD Slamlord Norwalk 22000 27 148

4 HA Stamford Slamlord Housmg Authority Vldal Court 42 74A Merrell Avenuo 851780 MR 55 Mod Rental 12/1/1956 216 144 72 FAIRFIELD Slamlord' Norwalk 214 00 27 145 HA West Hartford West Hartford Housing Aulhonty Elm Grove 11 Grove Steel B52I6D E 118 EUcrry 4127/1979 40 30 10 HARTFORD Hartford 496200 , 5 20

AugustanafBishop Curtis NP Bethel Diocese ol Bridgeport Homes 101 Simoon Rd B50060 C7 Congregate 7/16/1985 44 1 44 FAIRFIELD Danbury 200200 5 24 107

GAE Leglsltatlve Testimony. Altachmenl A March 16, 2009 State Housing Projects in Communities Represented by Members of the GAE Committee (by owner type, PHA, NP or FP>

CHFA Census suit SUtt llaiiH f Typa Municipality Sponsor Protect (f) Pio|tcl Address Progress a Pro| Number Program Occup Dire of Units Bldg asp. IBP. !BR IBFt 4BR son County PMSANjmt Tied lOBth Congress Scnata House

5 NP Branford Branford Intertaith Coafilion , Ivy Street Apts 146-190 North Ivy Street 91009D AH-17 ARordabte Hsg /1/1991 29 3 10 16 NEW HAVEN New Haven • Menden 184700 3 12 102

NP 4 Bridgeport Helms Housing, Inc Helms Housing 66 Hope Steel 920020 AH-23 Affordable Hsg 09/01/1891 12 12 FAIRFIELD Bridgeport 70200 23 129 TochniCc-op Inc Development NP Bridgeport Foundation Presidential Village 61-67 Park Street^ 920ISD AH 1 Affordablo Hsg 2/2871992 22 4 IB FAIRFIELD Bridgeport 738 00 4 23 128

/5 NP Bridgeport Regional Networkof Programs Inc Prospect House 392 Prospect Street 93-0947 Homeless Hsg 4 /1995 12 1 32 FAIRFIELD Bridgeport 70800 4 23 130

NP 4 Bridgeport HaO Neighborhood House, Inc Read Street 170 Read Street 770010 9349-01 Homeless Hsg 03/15/1994 8 8 FAIRFIELO Bridgeport • 74400 23 124. Calhollc Charities ol haitiok) SL Joseph'e Residence for NP Bridgeport 4 County INACTIVE Mother & Children 98 Cethermo Street 015 HH 1 Homeless Hsg 06728/1990 4 1 FAIRFIELD Bridgeport 718 00 23 12S

NP 4 Bridgeport Nuestra Casa del Pueblo. Inc Santa Fe Cooperative, tnc 60-92 Color ado Avenue 930140 015-LEC 1 tirruled Equity 01/20/1992 12 4 8 2 FAIRFIELD Bridgeport 70900 23 130

NP Danbury - Amos Houso, Inc Amos House 34 Rocky Glen Road 034 HH 1 Homeless Hsg 9/1/1989 19 1 FAIRFIELO Oanbury 210500 5 24 110 CT26 H045- Mod Kenlal NP Danbury Danbury Housmg Authority LP Mill Rldge/Falrfleld Ridge IB 20 Mil Ridge Drive 85023D 017 Sec 8 Rehab 10 IB 14 FAIRFIELD Danbury 2107 00 5 24 118

NP Hill House. Inc 4 Greenwich Hill House 10 Rtversido Avenue 990120 94-004-8 Congregate 120/1998 38 1 18 FAIRFIELO Stamford • Norwalk 11200 36 150 Town Hall Annex LP do MRD-901. NP Greenwich Greenwich HA Town Hall Annex 27 Havemeyer Place 8SOS1D MRD Section 8 11/1/1984 28 1 6 21 1 FAIRFIELD Stamford - Norwalk 10600 4 38 ISO

NP New Britain CHFA Security Manor 470 Buma Street 851120 e-3 EUerty 08/0111862 SO 7 22 28 HARTFORD Hartford 4168 00 5 6 26 94-669-657 NP Now Britain Arch Si Associates ArchSt aka Hart St Gardens 437 Arch Street 72 HOME 9/1/1996 20 1 12 8 HARTFORD Hartford 415700 6 24

NP , Now Britain Fnendshrp Service Center, Inc 089-HH-l Friendship Service Center 241 249 Arch Steet Homeless Hsg 7/1/1992 15 HARTFORD Hartford 4171 00 5 6 24

NP New Bnlaln Beaver Street Coop Beaver St Cooperative 48 Beavor Street 95067D 0894.EC-7 Limited Equity 7/12/1993 19 8 13 HARTFORD Hartford 415900 5 6 24

NP New Britain South Main Street Coop Willow Brook Estatee Condos 5 5 472 So Main Street 9S054D 089 LEC 16 Limited Equity 7/31/1991 10 HARTFORD Hartford 4155 00 5 6 24

NP Now Britain CHFA Corbin Heights 1 Ext 344 Governor Street 851130 MR-I2S12A Mod Rental 6/16/1950 296 63 8 240 46 HARTFORD Hartford 418700 5 8 21

NP New Britain CHFA Pinnacle Heights 34 Manmac Road 85114D MR-45 Mod Rental 318/1954 448 72 2B 301 42 76 1 HARTFORD Hartford 4165 00 6 21

too NP New Britain CHFA Pinnacle Heights Ext 34 Manmac Road S5115D MR-64 Mod Rental 1/171059 13 IS 82 HARTFORD Hartford 418500 5 6 23

NP Norwalk Norwalk Mutual Housing, Inc Arch St 4 6 AH It Affordable Hsg 4 4 Arch Street S9036D 12/20/1990 8 8 FAIRFIELO Slamlord Norwalk 437 00 25 137

NP Norwalk The Marvin The Old Marvin 60 Gregory Boulevard 93404 99 4 970540 Congregate 3/15/1997 50 50 FAIRFIELD Stamford • Norwalk 44200 25 137

NP Norwalk NEON. Inc Park View South 100R South Main Street 103-HH 1 Homeless Hsg 1071/1992 25 1 FAIRFIELD Stamford. NorwaTx 44100 4 25 140

NP Stamford Mow Neighborhood Inc The Atlantic 221 Atlantic Stool E-210 Elderry 9S084O 28 1 28 FAIRFIELD Slamlord - NorwaDt 20100 4 27 145 Mutual Housmg Assoc ol NP Stamford Parkslde Gables 295 West Mam Steel 92077D 135 MHA 1 Mutual Hsg 1/15/1992 4 Southwest CT 69 19 31 17 FAIRFIELD Stamford Norwafk 21500 27 145

NP Wed Hartford Brace Dale Assc Brace Date Cooperative 01 93 Brace Road 912640 155 LEC 1 Limited Equity 11/29/1990 4 2 2 HARTFORD rtortlord 497600 5 18 Flagg Road Coopoiolhro Assoc NP 5 Weel Hartford Inc Flagg Road 30 Flagg Road 95I36D 93413 Limited Equity 12/13/1995 10 6 4 HARTFORD Hartford 4974 00 5 20

P Bridgeport 210 Washington Ave Assoc Renaissance Plaza 210 Washington Avenue 930030 P405 Prime 04/15/1992 81 1 53 28 FAIRFIELD Bridgeport 70600 4 23 130

P Danbury Nolan Enterprises The Godfrey 317 Mam Steel S5027D MRD78L MRD Section 8 7/22/1988 9 1 9 FAIRFIELD Danbury 210100 5 24 110

GAE Legisltatlve Testimony Attachment A March 16, 2009 " State Housing Projects in Communities Represented by Members of the GAE Committee (by owner type, PHA, NP or FP)

CHFA Census Slate Slate Type Municipality Sponsor Project Hame(s) Pro|eel Address Progress a Pro| Number Program Occup Date 1 ol Units Bldg OBR 1811 26R 3BR 4BR SBR County PMSA Name Tract 109th Congress Senate House Mod Rental P Now Britain The Crowninshield MgmlCorp Washington School 370 High Street 911610 MRD-101 Davolopers 573071965 SO 1 5 43 2 HARTFORD Harltord 416000 5 6 26 MKD Section P New Britain Related Management Co Talcott Gardens 135 West Street 851I6D MRD-976L oTFHAIrrs 172011964 84 4 55 23 2 HARTFORD Hartford 416200 5 6 24

P Norwalk Richmond Group River Commons 15 School Street 9441743 Prime 11/1/1994 34 1 16 18 FAIRFIELO Stamford • Norwalk 43400 4 25 140

4.615 677 1 077 1.106 1.647 62S 92 5

o o I-1 i-n

GAE Legisltative Testimony Attachment A March 16. 2009 4 001856

Attachment B Consequence of Loss of State-aided units on Affordable Housing Appeals List

Adjusted Deed Total 2000 Census Governmentally CHFA State-aided ' Percent for TOWNS Restricted Assisted Percent Units Assisted Units Mortgages units loss of State- Units Units ' aided units Bridgeport 54367 8587 886 11 9484 17 44% 171 17.13% Danbury 28519 2463 278 195 2936 10.29% 514 8.49% New Britain 31164 4290 1165 3 5458 17.51% 1038 14.18% Norwalk 33753 3012 245 561 3818 11.31% 425 10.05% Stamford 47317 5288 284 1229 6801 14 37% 777 12.73% West Haven 22336 2244 399 0 2643 11.83% 0 11.83% 1 1 ' i Berlin 6955 407 81 6 494 7.10% 0 7 10% Bethel 6653 218 54 62 334 5.02% 44 4 36% Branford 13342 255 179 0 434 3 25% 90 2.58% Chester 1613 26 7 0 33 2.05% 0 2.05% Deep River 1910 30 17 0 47 2.46% 26 1.10% Durham 2349 34 9 0 43 1.83% 0 1.83% East Haven 11698 521 310 0 831 7.10% 0 7 10% Essex 2977 37 5 0 42 1.41% 36 0 20% Fairfield 21029 276 28 110 414 • 1.97% 68 1 65% Greenwich 24511 1173 3 54 1230 5 02% 362 3 54% Guilford 8724 169 31 0 200 2 29% 90 1.26% Haddam 2822 23 13 0 36 1.28% 0 1.28% Killingsworth 2283 0 4 5 9 0.39% 0 0.39% Milford 21962 1015 226 107 1348 6.14% 135 5.52% Naugatuck 12341 805 324 0 1129 9.15% 262 7.03% New Canaan 7141 145 2 31 178 2.49% 16 2.27% Newington 12264 488 411 36 935 7.62% 106 6 76% North Branford 5246 66 62 0 128 2.44% 60 1.30% Orange 4870 45 9 0 54 1.11% 45 0.18% Sherman 1606 0 1 0 1 0.06% 0 0.06% Southington 15557 650 291 51 992 6.38% 180 5 22% West Hartford 25332 1228 341 230 1799 7.10% 54 6 89% Wilton 6113 89 5 69 163 2.67% 0 2.67%

Testimony on HB 6375 March 16, 2009 Attachment C 001859

Appendix 10 - CAPITAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) Report, if rehabilitation work is involved - a physical assessment conducted by licensed professionals in their respective fields of all building components not to be replaced during the renovation. CNA requirements include the following:

1. The qualifications of the professionals who prepare the report. The CNA consultant(s) must be Connecticut-licensed Architects and/or Engineers. The CNA report must include the author's observations and assessments based upon physical observations of the building exterior and interior, including mechanical and accessible spaces, attics, roofs, crawl spaces, etc. Any spaces not accessed shall be noted in the report. 2. The report must include a narrative description of the development, including the evaluator's overall assessment of the property condition. The narrative shall include property location, age, physical attributes, number of units inspected and the physical condition of the units inspected. The assessment shall address the presence, or suspected presence, of environmental hazards, such as asbestos, lead paint or mold. 3. Photographs supporting the findings in the report, including site and building characteristics that accurately reflect the existing conditions present, and shall further examine and analyze: a. The site, including general topography, ground water drainage, bituminous / concrete pavement, bituminous / concrete walks and curbs, site amenities, water, storm, sanitary sewer, gas and electric services. b. The structural system, both for substructures and super-structure, including exterior wall systems, doors and windows, roofing system and drainage. c. Common area and unit interiors, including existing finishes (carpet, vinyl wall covering, paint, VCT, ceramic tile, etc.) appliances, cabinets, toilet fixtures, exhaust fans, range hoods, etc. 4. Building mechanical systems including HVAC systems, plumbing and domestic hot water, fire protection systems, electrical lighting and power systems, communication and security systems, etc. 5. Any components which are non-compliant for ADA, Section 504 or the Fair Housing Guidelines. The report shall include a copy of an ADA design conformance consultant's certification that the specific development complies with all of the ADA and 504 regulations. If the ADA consultant is unable to certify compliance, the report shall include recommendations to the Owner for achieving compliance. 6. The report shall include an interview with on-site property management and maintenance personnel to gain knowledge of past repairs, pending repairs and chronic physical deficiencies. The consultant shall obtain and include a 5-year history of the Owner's capital repair expenditures for the development. 7 The estimated costs associated with delineated needs, including a budget and an in-depth scope of work for the work proposed. This budget shall include expenditures and costs for all property improvements that may affect the project's future marketability. Improvements may include adding central air to the development, community room additions, etc. 8. The report shall include a spreadsheet that outlines, by line item, the costs of proposed improvements expensed in year one, with a life-cycle replacement budget reflecting appropriate line item costs expensed over the proposed mortgage term. The spreadsheet shall show all costs in today's dollars, with an appropriate rate of inflation for costs expended over the I ife-cycle term. 9. In the case of a complete gutting of buildings, a structural needs assessment report (to adhere to the latest applicable codes) by a structural engineer and architectural need-assessment report (to maintain functional and aesthetic integrity of such component) by an architect. The reports shall include the age, the material, the condition and life expectancy for such component.

1 of 1 001860 ghla Greater Hartford Legal Aid

Government Administrations and Elections Committee March 16, 2009 Testimony submitted by Lucy Potter, Attorney Greater Hartford Legal Aid

I am an attorney at Greater Hartford Legal Aid. I have represented low income Hartford area clients for over twenty years in child support and public assistance matters. I have also served on the past four Child Support Guideline Commissions. I am writing to express concern about Pill. Number 6376, particularly as it might impact low income families who are owed child support and low income people generally. If the bill is passed, child support debt and the obligation to repay public assistance should be exempted from its requirements.

The bill requires that interest of 1% per month be assessed against all debts owing to any state agency. The bill also requires DAS to establish a centralized database listing all those who owe such debt, and to seek recovery through intercepting state tax refunds. In addition the bill would require denial of all state permits, licenses or registration to anyone listed on this database.

This broad language would,make all recipients and parents of recipients of public assistance ineligible for any type of state license including automobile registration, drivers' licenses and occupational license. This would of course thwart the ability to pay child support, repay state debts or support a family.

The bill applies to "all unpaid debts owed" to each agency. This would presumably include all public assistance paid. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stats. § 17b-93, Connecticut has a claim against all beneficiaries of assistance against any property they come into possession of. And parents of beneficiaries are "liable to repay ... the full amount of any such aid paid" to their children. While DAS does collect about $20 million per year from former public assistance recipients and their parents, the vast majority of this debt goes uncollected. People do not have the means to repay it. This should not be surprising in that those who qualify for public assistance must demonstrate that they are destitute.

If this bill were to apply to public assistance debt, hundreds of thousands of low income people, including all former TFA recipients would be barred from driving or obtaining other types of licensure that might be fundamental to maintaining a livelihood.

Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Inc.

999 Asylum Avenue, 3Fl Hartford, CT 0610S-246S • Tel-860. S41. 5000 • Fax-860 541 S050 • TTY-860. S41.3069 • wvy-w.ghla.org 001861

As applied to child support, the.bill would not only hobble low income child support obligors, but would also make the struggling families who are owed child support get in line behind the state.

As you are probably aware, when a family receives Temporary Family Assistance, they assign, to the state, the right to the child support that they are owed for the time they receive TFA. This assignment remains in place when the family leaves assistance and supports itself without public assistance. And Connecticut has an extensive system in place to collect child support through income attachment and other means including the Department of Revenue tax intercept.

Federal and state law now prioritizes the family's claim to child support. Connecticut does not add on interest charges when late child support payment is overdue. Charging interest for overdue child support owing to the state would create an additional charge competing with the family's claim.

I urge you to delete child support and the claim for repayment of public assistance from this bill. TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE March 16, 2009

Robert L. Genuario .— . — . .- — —Secretary— - -

Office of Policy and Management

Testimony Supporting

H. B. No. 6376 AN ACT CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF DEBTS OWED TO THE STATE

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and distinguished members of the GAE committee, I am Robert Genuario, Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management and I appreciate the opporhmity to offer testimony in support of House Bill 6376^ An Act Concerning The Collection of Debts Owed to the State.

We also seek your support for HB 6376, which is a revenue-generating concept that provides a more efficient and effective way to collect unpaid state debts. The bill tracks existing practice by allowing each state agency a reasonable time to collect its own debts using standard demand letters. However, if these initial efforts at collection fail, the bill requires the agencies to input information about the debts into a centralized database that will not only enable us to identify the full value of all debts owed to the state, but will also greatly improve collection efforts. ,

First, HB 6376 facilitates state debt collection by expanding upon a successful program that is already in effect to collect unpaid child support and certain state agency debt.. Currently, the Department of Adrrunistrative Services bundles electronic files received from other agencies, that contain information about unpaid child support, unemployment compensation overpayments, and other agency debts. These files are formatted and sent to the Department of Revenue" Services, which intercepts any state income tax refunds owed to the individual debtors. This State Tax Intercept process (authorized pursuant to § 12-742) yielded over $8.2 million in unpaid child support payments and state debt recovery last fiscal year. HB 6376 seeks to expand on this successful program 001863

and increase collections by requiring all unpaid state agency debt to go through the State Tax Intercept process.

HB 6376 also facilitates collections by requiring that individuals who owe money to the state satisfy their debts before the state grants them any permit, license or other state-issued registration. Now is the time for the state to get smarter and tougher about coUecting the unpaid fees, fines and other debts owed to our state agencies, and HB 6376 establishes a practical and workable mechanism to accomplish those goals. Legal Assistance Resource Center • of Connecticut Inc. • 44 Capitol Avenue, Suite 301 • Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 278-5688 x203 • FAX (860) 278-2957 • [email protected]

. H.B. 6376 -- Collection of state debts Government Administration and Elections Committee public hearing - March 16, 2009 Testimony of Raphael L. Podolsky

Recommended Committee action: REJECTION OF THE BILL

This bill requires every state agency to make "best efforts" to collect "any and all" unpaid debts owed to the agency. It also imposes interest at the rate of 1% per month from the date that the debt became payable, and it prohibits agencies from issuing a license, registration, or permit to anyone whose debt to the state is more than 60 days past due. In effect, this means that no such person could drive a car or work at a licensed trade.

While it may be reasonable to encourage state agencies to collect debts aggressively, this bill fails to recognize the diverse circumstances of people who owe debts to the state; and the sanctions proposed constitute an overkill that will cause great harm to many indigent debtors and will be counterproductive to the state. We are particularly concerned about its applicability to child support obligors, former recipients of benefits from state welfare programs and state humane institutions, and legally liable members of their families. In regard to these groups of people, it is directly contrary to other state policies, interferes with existing structures for debt collection, and will be destructive of families.

For example, Connecticut has an extensive system for collecting child support in accordance with federal law. That system is built around the concept that, when a non• custodial parent owes money to the custodial parent for child support and to the state for welfare or other assistance provided to the custodial parent and the children, any money collected should first go to the custodial parent and the children and only a surplus remaining should be used to reimburse the state. Indeed, the state has developed a Fatherhood Initiative for the purpose of encouraging fathers to participate in their children's lives, in part as a way of also getting them to pay child support. The program includes a mechanism for partial arrearage forgiveness for participating fathers. That program is directly contrary to the underlying principle of this bill.

The child support system also recognizes that repayment is necessarily based upon ability to pay. We do not imprison people for debt in Connecticut, and a non-custodial parent cannot be jailed for contempt unless there is reason to believe that he has access to funds to pay and willfully refuses to make payment. Under this bill, such a person, although totally indigent, could not get a driver's license and could not work at any job that requires a state registration or license. Not only would that reduce collections to both the family and the state but it would force such debtors into "under the table" work with potential serious adverse consequences to themselves and others (e.g., a person who drives a car without a license will not have insurance).

This bill should not be adopted. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Office of The Attorney General State of Connecticut

TESTIMONY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARD BLUMENTHAL BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE MARCH 16,2009

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on Senate Bill 839, An Act Concerning Mergers and Consolidations of Various State Agencies and Senate Bill 840, An Act Concerning the eliminations of the Office of Consumer Counsel, the Office of Healthcare Advocate, the Office of Ombudsman for Property Rights and Certain Legislative Commissions.

I urge the committee's rejection of proposals to eliminate the Offices of Consumer Counsel, the Healthcare Advocate and the Child Advocate. These agencies provide critical services onbehalf of consumers, patients and children. If budget concerns are driving the proposal, it is doubly unfounded and futile, OCC and the OHA are not funded by the state general fund budget and therefore the proposed elimination of these agencies cannot meaningfully reduce the budget deficit.

I also urge rejection of the proposed across the board elimination of legislative commissions that provide critical input on public policy impacts concerning women, children and minorities — the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, along with the African- American Affairs Commission, the Asian Pacific Americans Commission, the Commission on Aging, the Commission on Children and the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women. They provide critical information and perspective as to real life effects on their communities. The General Assembly makes better policy decisions because of them.

I urge the committee to continue funding these commissions to ensure that our state policies are responsible and responsive.

Senate Bill 839 and the Governor's proposed budget consolidate the Office of the Child Advocate into the Office of the Attorney General, transferring all its functions but only 1 of the 10 employees. The Office of the Child Advocate has been a strong independent policy voice and effective watchdog. If anything, it should be strengthened with more resources - adding to its investigators and child welfare specialist. My office and the Child Advocate have been partners and allies in critical investigations, imposing oversight and scrutiny.

Senate Bill 840 and the Governor's proposed budget also transfer all the statutory responsibilities of the Office of Consumer Counsel to my office. They fail to provide any resources, not to mention the 17 funded positions in the OCC or the funding for experts knowledgeable in utility industry finances and ratemaking. The work cannot be done without the 001866 i _

resources - skilled, experienced professionals who are essential to hold utilities accountable to consumers. Our offices work together, often on the same side of utility battles, but with distinct missions and mandates. Eliminating an independent OCC would be a great gift to utilities, and a profound disservice to ratepayers, who already are charged the highest electricity rates in the continental United States.

Finally and irresponsibly, Senate Bill 840 proposes to eliminate the Healthcare Advocate - which has assisted more than 2,000 individuals annually. These individuals are ill-served by their health insurer and unable to vindicate their rights. Our offices are allies and partners in this critical cause of enforcing patient rights and making the system responsive. With our help, many of these individuals successfully receive life-saving medical treatment prescribed by their health care provider.

The Office of Healthcare Advocate has also worked closely and collaboratively with my office jointly investigating unfair insurance practices new measures to protect consumers, including laws prohibiting insurers from unreasonably rescinding health insurance coverage after consumers file health insurance claims. We successfully advocated legislation to ensure proper coverage for necessary mental health services for children without requiring lengthy hospital stays.

While our offices have worked together on many issues, my office lacks sufficient resources to provide the additional advocacy work of the Healthcare Advocate. Eliminating that agency will deny thousands of citizens critical assistance in obtaining vital health care services.

Thank you. 0011867 tt

< Q$g£!? " ~^LAfiBP'i^ Wlra to MaftaWIPrimary ftntrnlor.'

Testimony in Support of the Comrnission on Children March 16,2009

Good morning Senator Slossberg and Representative Spallone and members of the committee:

RE: Senate Bill 840 and HB 6375

My name is Amy McLean Sails and I am the Project Coordinator of the Lead Action for Medicaid Primary Prevention or the LAMPP Program and the Executive Director of the Connecticut Citizen Research Group. I am writing to appeal to the legislature to spare the Commission on Children (COC). While there are budget issues that would suggest that everything must be cut and pared down and that we must do "more with less", the dissolution of the COC would not be the way to do it. The COC has worked on the lead poisoning issue from the beginning.. They were part of the "Get the Lead Out Coalition" which spawned the LAMPP project back in the early 1990's. LAMPP has since received two rounds of HUD funding to the tune of over 12.6 million dollars and has remediated lead paint in over 1,135 housing units to date. The support and advocacy of the Commission on Children has also been critical in raising the issue of health effects and educational effects of lead poisoning on children. Often the good work done by the organizations on the front lines goes unnoticed and unfunded if there is not help from seasoned veterans of the legislative system to help less sophisticated groups - get their message across to policy makers. The COC has been able to assist by sponsoring forums for legislators to help children's issues be understood and appropriately acted upon. While lead poisoning is important, it is only one of the many issues that affect children. Because of these issues, the Commission on Children is not expendable. On the contrary, it is valuable, necessary and without it Connecticut will be a much "poorer" state.

Please consider this before you make this very important decision. Thank you, Amy McLean Sails MSW (860)478-9125

LAMPP works in the following communities: Ansonia, Bridgeport, Danbury, Enfield, Hartford, Manchester, Meriden, New Britain, New Haven, Norwalk, Stamford, Torrington, Waterbury West Haven LAMPP Project, Connecticut Children's Medical Center 282 Washington St., Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 610-4241 001868

165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106-1658

SB 839 AAC Mergers and Consolidations of Various State Agencies

HB 6376 AAC the Collection of Debts Owed to the State

Government Administration & Elections Committee March 16, 2009

The Department of Administrative Services (DAS) supports SB 839 and HB 6376. We thank the Governor for subletting these proposals and for having the foresight to pursue these important initiatives.

SB 839 - AAC Mergers and Consolidations of Various State Agencies

Among other things, Senate Bill 839 proposes to merge four boards and commissions into DAS: The State Properties Review Board (§7); the State Insurance and Risk Management Board (§ 9); the Office of the Claims Commissioner (§§ 10 & 11); and the State Marshal Commission (§ 29). DAS has experience and a successful record managing a diverse array of programs and responsibilities to support state government needs, and we are confident that we will be able to seamlessly merge the duties of these boards and commissions into DAS while maintaining exceptional service.

Indeed, many of the responsibilities undertaken by these boards and commissions overlap with functions that are already performed by DAS. For example, the State Insurance and Risk Management Board is responsible for risk management and the procurement of insurance for the State of Connecticut. DAS is already in charge of statewide procurement, statewide workers' compensation, and the state fleet of vehicles. DAS has existing expertise purchasing and administering contracts for a host of insurance products for state and federally-funded local housing authorities; DAS adrninisters statewide risk management and loss control programs for workers' compensation; and DAS already handles all claim activity and has significant interaction with insurers on matters relating to the state's passenger vehicles and light

An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer 001869

duty trucks. There are certainly savings and operational efficiencies that will be achieved by merging these agencies into DAS.

HB 6376 - AAC the Collection of Debts Owed to the State

DAS also strongly supports HB 6376, which provides a more efficient and effective way to collect unpaid state debts. In general, individual agencies are currently responsible for coUecting the fees, fines and other unpaid debts owed to their agencies. HB 6376 requires DAS to establish a Centralized Database to collect information about all unpaid agency debt, and requires DAS to work with the Department of Revenue Services to collect these debts through the State Tax Intercept Program. DAS believes that we can establish this database using existing staff and with very little cost, which will be far outweighed by the additional revenue recovered using this centralized system.

Briefly by way of background, C.G.S. § 12-742 authorizes the Department of Revenue Services to withhold the payment of any state income tax refund owed to a person or entity who owes certain debts to the state. This process - known as the State Tax Intercept process - is currently administered through a partnership between DAS and DRS: DAS receives electronic files from agencies that have outstanding debts; DAS bundles the files and ensures that they are in the proper electronic format to interface with DRS; and DAS sends a file to DRS on a monthly basis. If DRS matches debtors in the file with those who are owed a state income tax refund, then DRS offsets the refund up to the amount owed, DRS sends the offset money to DAS, DAS separates the money by agency and sends the recovered money to each agency on a weekly basis. This is an established process that has proven successful over the years - recovering approximately $8.2 million last fiscal year.

DAS currently uses the State Tax Intercept process to help the following agencies recover debt: .DSS (for unpaid Child Support obligations); DOL (for unemployment compensation overpayments); Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental Loan Authority (CHESLA) and Connecticut Student Loan Foundation (CSLF); and certain debts owed to the Connecticut State Universities.

Under HB 6376, agencies would still be required to continue attempts to collect their own debts. However, while these agency collection efforts are continuing, the agencies would be required to enter information about the outstanding debts into the Centralized Database. These debts,would then be sent to DRS to see if recoveries could be achieved through the State Tax Intercept process. Expanding an established and successful program such as the State Tax Intercept process and utilizing a centralized database to consolidate these outstanding amounts owed to the state makes sense and clearly will add to collection recoveries. Opposed to SB 839 & HB 6375

BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS

The Board was established to provide a means of appeal for citizens whose pistol permit has been denied or revoked.

The Board is comprised of seven members appointed by the Governor to serve during her term and until their successors are appointed and qualify. The members are appointed from nominees of the Commissioner of Public Safety, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, The Connecticut State Rifle and Revolver Association, Inc. and Ye Connecticut Gun Guild, Inc. Two members of the public are appointed with at least one member of the Board shall be a lawyer licensed to practice in Connecticut, who shall act as Chairman of the Board during the hearing of appeals.

Could the Board truly be objective if they are not free to pass their concerns to their peers rather than their Superiors? Could they make a fair decision? Could it be a fair vote? Could they make decisions? Are we ready for more court cases, more court expenses? This is mostly a volunteer group trying to be objective.

I am opposed to Betting this group do their job without concern of reprimand, to act freely and fairly. I think that we should allow all the nominees to have a vote.

We can not allow, this group to be under the control of the DPS or to be totally eliminated.

Randy Bieler 1068 Peck lane Cheshire, CT Testimony of Jennifer Carroll Monday March 16, 2009 Before the Government Administration and Elections Committee Commenting on:

H. B. No. 6375 AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

S. B. No. 839 AN ACT CONCERNING MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATIONS OF VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES.

S. B. No. 840 AN ACT CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL, THE OFFICE OF THE HEALTHCARE ADVOCATE, THE OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONS

Good morning, Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and esteemed members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to give testimony today. My name is Jennifer Carroll. I am a parent of a child with multiple disabilities and the Statewide Coordinator of the Connecticut Family Support Network.

JELB. No. 6375 would eliminate the Connecticut Family Support Council (CTFSC) as an unnecessary and obsolete entity. Over the past 15 years the CTFSC has successfully advocated for families raising children with disabilities and special health care needs. The council members are families, family advocates and state agency representatives - all working collaboratively to improve access to and quality of policy and programs that serve these families, the Council has become a major state resource to state lawmakers, families and many state agencies that are otherwise at a loss to determine how best to support families. The Family Support Council has steadily improved the knowledge and understanding among lawmakers of what families raising children with disabilities and complex medical conditions are experiencing. We have identified shortcomings in state systems, the insurance industry and health care services. We have also developed dynamic remedies for many of those solutions. The CTFSC also created the Connecticut Family Support Network (CTFSN), which provides direct 1:1 support to families in the regions and communities where they live. The CTFSN hosts workshops and training for families, provides parent support groups across the state, shares information to hundreds of families weekly via email listserves and works directly with families on important issues including special education, healthcare financing, community involvement, summer activities and development critical advocacy skills. The work of the CTFSC is unparalleled in Connecticut and IT IS FREE! There is no cost to the state of Connecticut for the work of this council. Every member is a volunteer. I urge you to pull the CTFSC out of H.B. No. 6375 and allow the council to continue the crucial work providing a magnitude of difference for families. 001872

Also in H.B. No. 6375 the Commission on Children would be eliminated. The Commission is a member of the Family Support Council and has been a very active and dedicated resource for the work we do. There is no other resource like the Commission on Children in the state. Their ability to conduct rapid and thorough research keeps all of Connecticut informed about the circumstances of children and families as well as cutting edge solutions to problems families face. The Commission on Children has provided significant resources on bullying, obesity, violence and health care when those issues were only starting to be recognized for the problems they represent in children's lives. Just last week the Commission sponsored an event on President Obama's stimulus package that identified enormous opportunities for funding to the state of N . Connecticut. I do appreciate that we are in very difficult economic times, but these are the times that children are most at risk, especially children with disabilities or complex medical conditions. Losing the Commission on Children would not represent a savings in the budget. It would represent a loss of a critical resource and a connection to a great many other resources we can not do without at this time. I urge you to preserve the Commission on Children.

Next I would like to turn your attention to S. B. No. 839 and S. B. No. 840, specifically in the proposal to eliminate the Offices of the Child Advocate and the Health Care Advocate. Both of those agencies have, been dedicated partners with the Family Support Council. In addition to the work they have done for individual families in need of assistance, like the Commission on Children their staff have been remarkably helpful to our members in carrying out our mission. They provide up-to-date information about state and federal policy and help us tremendously translating information directly to families. The Family Support Network regional coordinators are reporting record numbers of calls for assistance in dealing with health insurance claims or unresponsive state services. At the March meeting of the Family Support Council I expressed the fear that if the Health Care Advocate or Child Advocate were to be eliminated, I would not have anyone to call to help families with their challenging issues in financingthei r children's healthcare and related ability to access appropriate programs. It is crucial that these agencies remain viable and independent to ensure their ability to maintain objectivity and freedom to examine complaints when children are not served as they should be. Furthermore, these two agencies]'do their work with a great deal of expertise, not only in the fields of child welfare, juvenile justice and health care and but also in the laws, ethics and standards that drive those fields anil in the investigational techniques required to get fair and accurate accounting of the facts. Children with disabilities or complex medical conditions are at great risk for neglect from caregivers, healthcare providers and public systems. Most people intend to be helpful but we find over and over again that they either just do not understand children with special health care needs or they are at a loss themselves for lack of resources to offer. I urge you to preserve the Office of the Child Advocate and the Health Care Advocate.

Thank you for your attention to these crucial issues. I appreciate the challenges that legislators are facing this year, but I promise you that the Family Support Council, the Commission on Children, the Office of the Child Advocate and the Office of the Health Care Advocate are all agencies that cost the state little or nothing at all, and represent significant resources and even savings for the state of Connecticut. 001873

Testimony of Mona Tremblay, Parent of twin sons with a diagnosis of autism, CT Family Support Network Northeast Regional Coordinator, Family-to-Family Health Information Specialist-NE and Regional Medical Home Initiative Coordinator-NE

Monday, March 16,2009

Government Administrations and Elections Committee

Commenting on:

S.B. No. 839 AN ACT CONCERNING MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATIONS OF VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES

S.B. No. 840 AN ACT CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL, THE OFFICE OF THE HEALTHCARE ADVOCATE, THE OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FOR PROPERTY RIGHRS, AND CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONS

H.B. No. 6375 AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Good morning Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, and esteemed members of the Government Administrations and Elections Committee. Thank you for taking public testimony today, on several proposed bills which will negatively impact families like mine, and those I attempt to support.

I am in my 8tb year of professional child and family advocacy; specifically on behalf of children with disabilities and/or special health care needs, and their families. Having nearly 30 years of experience working in the field of developmental disabilities, as well as "living the life," with my twin sons, both diagnosed with autism, I am nothing if passionate about the population of children and families I speak for today. Like the "Hair Club for Men," commercial, I am not just a CEO, but I'm also a customer!

The bills before you, if passed, will either enable or disable CT's most vulnerable and disempowered constituent families. Your charge is enormously serious and your deliberations so incredibly important to real children and real families, living with "larger than life," unthinkable challenges. In an economy which presents a struggle for the "typical, average American family," try to imagine coupling the dire economic state of affairs, with tending to the unrelenting needs of children who require an inordinate amount of special care and constant attention. In a, day by day, oftentimes hour by hour, continuum of phone calls, necessary medical appointments, therapies, insurance disparities, educational insufficiencies, and a litany of social injustices, these children and families dealing with life-long special health care needs and disabilities, need help and hope in navigating a frightening world of service delivery; and that's on a good day.

My personal, biggest frustration comes when a family contacts me, needing specialized programs or services that don't exist. Where are these families to turn? You see; I have been there. In truth, it is only because of a once "innovative", DDS Home and Community-Based Waiver, that I am in a position to work outside the home and support my sons, in our home, within our community. Prior to that, I could barely get through the day, let alone provide important testimony to the CT Legislature. Now I have time to "pay it forward," by carefully and respectfully listening to the 001874

personal stories of parents who are all but broken, and who have no idea where tobegi n in locating appropriate programs and services for their children.

For nearly the past decade, The CT Family Support Council (slated for termination in H.B. No. 6375) and a parent staff of statewide Network Coordinators, have worked tirelessly to take these concerns from the kitchen table to the policy table. Most of us take calls daily; oftentimes in the evening or on weekends, to accommodate parents' overburdened schedules. We advise; often based on experience, we share what we know to be true, we inform parents about available programs, and most importantly; we listen. We take our charge incredibly seriously, and thankfully, we are not alone in' our crusade. We come together monthly, partnering with all the critical agencies and commissions responsible for meeting the needs of our specially challenged families. We work as a team as we try to unravel current barriers for families. We are sensitive to individual needs as well as disturbing gaps or trends, and I am happy to report: the partnership works.

We are undeniably stronger and more successful every year because of our collaboration with key professional partners which include The Commission on Children (also in jeopardy with the passage of the same bill, as well as S.B. No. 840). This faithful and long-standing partner at the advocacy and policy table, provides us with legal expertise, uncompromising diligence, creative problem solving, and years of collective experience in advocating for all children. The Office of the Healthcare Advocate (S.B. No. 840), and The Office of the Child Advocate (S.B. No. 839) have contributed incalculable policy expertise, heartfelt partnership, critical advice and support, a passion for justice, ,and a tenacity of spirit and collaboration, that I propose, is unparalleled in the majority of similar "agents of change," in this country. Each of these entities slated for elimination is responsive to a fault, and collectively, we brainstorm ideas; often thinking "outside the box." We will not waver in our determination; always searching for answers that will be responsive to meet the growing needs of literally hundreds of families, one family at a time.

So having said all of this, how will you proceed in these difficult deliberations in the days and weeks ahead? If I have done my job well, you will know and understand that all of the aforementioned entities slated for elimination, are anything but dispensable. Do we provide functions and services that are obsolete? Hardly. • Do we recognize the indomitable challenges you face, in balancing an impossible State Budget? Completely.

Thank you for this time and attention on one of many long days during this busy legislative session. May you, your families, and loved ones, experience good health always, and may your policy decisions and voting privileges concerning those not as fortunate, reflect the compassion, decency, and integrity that placed you in the honorable seats from which govern. May God bless you all.

Mona Tremblay

20W Woodstock Ave.

Putnam, CT 06260

(860)928-6514

[email protected] 001875

Legal Assistance Resource Center of Connecticut Inc. • 44 Capitol Avenue, Suite 301 • Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 278-5688 x203 • FAX (860) 278-2957 • [email protected]

S.B. 839. S.B. 840. and H.B. 6373 - Termination of specialized state resource and advocacy offices Government Administration and Elections Committee public hearing - March 16, 2009 Testimony of Raphael L. Podolsky

Recommended Committee action: REJECTION OF THE BILLS

S.B. 839 abolishes the Office of Child Advocate and converts it to a position within the Attorney General's Office. It also abolishes the Children's Trust Fund and the Children's Trust Fund Council and moves the Trust Fund into the Department of Children and Families (DCF). S.B. 840 abolishes the Office of Consumer Counsel and turns its functions over to the Attorney General. It also abolishes all legislative commissions, including the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, the Commission on Children, the Commission on Aging, the Office of the Health Care Advocate, the African-American Affairs Commission, the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, and the Asian Pacific American Affairs Commission. H.B. 6373 abolishes the Law Revision Commission.

We urge that you retain all of these offices, which perform functions that are not performed by any other agency and which operate with a degree of independence that is critical to their success. I mention as examples five of them with which I have worked over the years.

(a) Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC): The OCC was created in 1975 precisely because the DPUC could not adequately function as both the regulator of the utility companies and the advocate for consumers. What the OCC does is very different from providing consumer assistance. Its real role is to be a consumer voice in rate and other regulatory proceedings - proceedings which are highly complex and which require an extensive investment of time and expertise to respond to the technical, budget, and accounting issues at the heart of rate regulation. The Attorney General cannot substitute for the this role.

(b) Office of Child Advocate (OCA): The Attorney General is similarly not a substitute for an independent advocate on behalf of children. The Attorney General is inherently conflicted, since he must also represent DCF. OCA's reviews are independent of DCF, and OCA provides independent critiques of that agency. It is the separation of OCA from existing offices that has made its success possible.

(c) Children's Trust Fund (CTF): DCF's primary role is to investigate child neglect and abuse and to enforce the laws regarding neglect and abuse. The Children's Trust Fund, in contrast, is required to focus on services that will prevent neglect and abuse. Folding the Trust Fund into DCF will confuse the functions and result in less effective programming.

(continued on reverse side ) 0018715

(d) Permanent Cornmission on the Status of Women (PCSW): All of the specialized legislative commissions provide analysis and advocacy for particular constituencies or subject areas that have resulted in state policy changes with major lasting impacts on the people in Connecticut. The PCSW, as the oldest of those commissions (it was formed in 1973) has.a long track record of successfully highlighting the interests of women and generating changes in state legislation and policy that have contributed to improvements in their lives.

(e) Law Revision Commission (LRC): It is almost an insult that the abolition of the Law Revision Commission is buried in .H.B. 6373, concerning the repeal of "obsolete" statutes. There is nothing obsolete about the LRC, which has played a critical role in the drafting of complex legislation that requires more time than either the legislature or the Legislative Commissioner's Office can devote during a legislative session. The defunding of its staff in 2002 has prevented it from playing the role that it had played since 1974, but it has continued to function at a lower level and at no cost to the state. Without LRC staffing, the General Assembly has lost the ability to adapt national "uniform" laws to the needs and situations of Connecticut. That, however, is a reason for keeping the Commission, not.for abolishing it. The LRC continues to function with limited staff help from LCO, and we hope that the day will come when separate staffing will be restored. 001877

Testimony of Karen Zrenda, CT FAMILY SUPPORT COUNCIL 5 Dogwood Dr, Old Lyme, CT 06371 (860) 271-3808 Monday March 16, 2009 Government Administration and Elections Committee

Commenting on

H. B. No. 6375 AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

S. B. No. 839 AN ACT CONCERNING MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATIONS OF VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES.

S. B. No. 840 AN ACT CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL, THE OFFICE OF THE HEALTHCARE ADVOCATE, THE OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONS

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and esteemed members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to give testimony today the very important proposed bills named above. My name is Karen Zrenda and I am a governor- appointed parent member and co-chair of the Connecticut Family Support Council.

H.B. No. 6375 would eliminate the Connecticut Family Support Council as an unnecessary and obsolete entity. I disagree Over the years without the benefit of a budget allocation since its inception, the Council has become a major state resource to state lawmakers, families raising children with disabilities and many state agencies that struggle to determine how best to support families. The Family Support Council has steadily improved the knowledge and understanding among lawmakers of what families raising children with disabilities and complex medical conditions are experiencing. The FSC has partnered with state agencies and the legislature to identify gaps in services and have proposed and advocated for solutions. For example, several years ago members of the FSC applied for and were granted federal grant funds to create a network across the state to provide information, support and education to Connecticut families caring for a child with special health care needs. This network still exists today and operates six regional networks across the state - assisting hundreds of families to access and navigate across systems including health care, education, and communities. The Family Support Council is made up of family members of children with special health care needs and disabilities and state agencies and is an unparalleled resource in our state, not only to families but to the state agencies. I urge you to preserve the Family Support Council as a necessary and far from obsolete state entity.

S. B. 840, the Commission on Children would be eliminated. Please do not support this. The Commission is a member of the Family Support Council and has been a very active and dedicated resource for the work we do For example, last year they sponsored a phenomenal forum here at the LOB on bullying - drawing over 250 people. Most recently, they sponsored the forum on the Federal Stimulus Package and its possible affects on issues directly related to children and families. There is no other resource like the Commission on Children in this state. Their ability to conduct rapid and thorough research keeps Connecticut's citizens and it government informed about the circumstances of children and families as well as cutting edge solutions to problems families face. The Commission on Children has provided significant resources on poverty, obesity, violence and health care when those issues were only starting to be recognized for the problems they represent in children's lives. I do appreciate that we are in very difficult economic times, but these are the times that children are most at risk, especially children with disabilities or complex medical conditions. Losing the Commission on Children would represent a loss of a critical resources and CT's ability to access a great many other resources we can not do without at this time. I urge you to preserve the Commission on Children. 001878

S. B. No. 839 and S. B. No. 840 eliminate the Offices of the Child Advocate and the Health Care Advocate. Both of those agencies have been dedicated partners with the Family Support Council. In addition to the work they have done for individual families in need of assistance, like the Commission on Children their staff have been remarkably helpful to our members in carrying out our mission. They provide up-to-date information about state and federal policy and help us tremendously translating information directly to families. At our most recent meeting of the Family Support Council, a Network coordinator expressed the fear that if the Health Care Advocate of Child Advocate were to be eliminated, she would not have anyone to call for help with these families. It is crucial that these agencies remain viable and available to families, that they remain independent to ensure their ability to maintain objectivity and freedom to examine complaints when children are not served as they should be. Furthermore, these two agencies do their work with a great deal of expertise, not only in the fields of child welfare, juvenile justice and health care and but also in the laws, ethics and standards that drive those fields and in the investigational techniques required to get fair and accurate accounting of the facts. Children with disabilities or complex medical conditions are at great risk for neglect from public systems. Families of children with disabilities and chronic health care needs have extraordinary challenges in obtaining the health care and services and providers needed for their children. Their hope often comes in the way of having a place to turn when the systems fail them time and time again. Those places - in Connecticut - are usually the Office of the Health Care Advocate or the Office of the Child Advocate. Families are not turned away; they listen, they advocate and get the responses that no other agency can do for us.

I work in a children's hospital that deals with the most complex situations, staff and families both know intimately of these two state entities because of the success families have experienced in maximizing insurance benefits and the expertise and professionalism-we encounter when dealing with the Child Advocate's office and the Health Care Advocates office. Eliminating these organizations will result in more children living in institutions, more children going without their needed medications and therapies, more children placed in foster care; more families resorting to bankruptcy and divorce to get what their children need. This would be a huge step backwards in our state. Please preserve these two vital resources as well as their independence to advocate for children and families.

I certainly appreciate the grave challenge before you but I believe you'll find the Family Support Council - which has no budget allocation, the Commission on Chijdren, the Office of the Child Advocate and the Office of the Health Care Advocate are all agencies that cost the state little and represent significant resources and in the big picture, savings for the state of Connecticut. Thank you for your time and attention. Connecticut Chapter L44SIERRA 645 Farmington Ave. Hartford, Connecticut 06105 WB. CLUB www, con necticut. sierraelub. org FOUNDED 1892

Government Administration and Elections Committee ' "' March 16,2009 Testimony of Martin Mador In Opposition to SB 839 An Act Concerning Mergers And Consolidations Of Various State Agencies HB 6375 An Act Concerning Review And Terrnination Of Certain Boards And Cornmissions

I am Martin Mador, 130 Highland Ave., Hamden, CT 06518. I am the Legislative and Political Chair of the Connecticut Sierra Club, and am here today representing our 10,000 Connecticut members concerned about the health of our environment, our economic prosperity, and our quality of life. I possess a Master's of Environmental Management degree from Yale.

"In crisis there is opportunity''. The Governor is a firmbelieve r in this maxim. We know this because we see her taking the opportunity to dismantle every single watchdog office in state government. These are the people who keep a careful eye on the state agencies, at a cost of only a few dollars. Over the years, they have been extraordinarily successful in improving the quality of state government, and in keeping it honest. Sierra objects to the effort to disable the office which concerns environmental issues: the Council on Environmental Quality.

We suggest maintaining this perspective: When we emerge from the financial crisis now facing us, where to we want to be? What parts of government do we want to see still standing?

This appeared in the Dot column in the Courant today: Due to the fiscal and energy crisis, the light at the end of the tunnel has been extinguished. Sorry for the inconvenience. I submit we're not that desperate. The watchdog agencies provide part of that iUurnination. Their absence would not be an inconvenience; it would be a tragedy for the people of Connecticut. Please leave their lights burning.

The CEQ has lived in tandem with the DEP for several decades. It has provided an invaluable service in bringing environmental issues to light, and in researching numerous comprehensive reports. It does this with minimal staff and resources, a volunteer Council, and a current budget of only $170,000. Cornmissioner McCarthy, in testimony to the Appropriations Committee last month, praised the CEQ, and urged its continued existence as an office independent from DEP. Section 13 of SB 839 would, for all purposes, destroy the effectiveness of the office by placing it wholly within the agency it monitors, and deprive it of staff.

Section 1 of HB 6375 would terminate the Face of Connecticut Steering Committee. Sierra considers the Face of CT an important element in our efforts to preserve open space and farmland and make land use decisions which are environmentally favored. Maintaining the Committee, even in lean economic times, is a priority. 001880 L

Testimony of Lisa Sheppard, Fairfield, CT Monday March 16, 2009

( Before the Government Administration and Elections Committee Commenting on:

,S. B. No. 839 AN ACT CONCERNING MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATIONS OF VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES.

S. B. No. 840 AN ACT CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL, THE OFFICE OF THE HEALTHCARE ADVOCATE, THE OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONS

H. B. No. 6375 AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

Good morning, Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and esteemed members of the - Government Administration and Elections Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to give testimony today on some very'important proposed bills. My name is Lisa Sheppard and I represent the Connecticut Family Support Network and am part of the CT Family Support Council, I cover and work with families who have children w/ Special Health Care Needs in all of Fairfield County. I am also the parent of a child with a special health care needs. His name is Blake, and he is 11 years old and he has life threatening conditions, autism and seizures. He is my hero and why I do the work that I do today.

H.B. No. 6375 would eliminate the Connecticut Family Support Council as an unnecessary and obsolete entity. I am here to tell you that the Family Support Council is anything but unnecessary or obsolete. The Council has become a major state resource to state lawmakers, families and many state agencies that are otherwise at a loss to determine how best to support families. Since it's inception it is the only state entity with every agency at the table and it is completely non-funded and bipartisan. The Family Support Council has steadily improved the knowledge and understanding among lawmakers of what families raising children with disabilities and complex medical conditions are experiencing. We have identified shortcomings in state systems, the insurance industry and health care services. We have also developed dynamic remedies for many of those solutions. For example, Council members collaborated to establish a coordinated network across the state to provide information, support and education to Connecticut families caring for a child with special health care needs. Today that network, the Family Support Network, employs six coordinators in six regions around our state serving hundreds of families each year as well as supporting and guiding the case work of the Departments of Children and Families, Developmental Services, Public Health and Social Services. I am one of those coordinators and I service the South West Region of our state. I urge you to preserve the Family Support Council as a necessary state entity that services both family and state.

Also in H.B. No. 6375 the Commission on Children would be eliminated. The Commission is a member of the Family Support Council and has been a very active and dedicated resource for the work we do. There is no other resource like the Commission on Children in the state. Their ability to conduct rapid and thorough research keeps all of Connecticut informed about the circumstances of children and families as well as cutting edge solutions to problems families face. The Commission on Children has provided significant resources on bullying, obesity, violence and health care when those issues were only starting to be recognized for the problems they represent in children's lives. Losing the Commission on Children would not represent a savings in the budget. It would represent a loss of a critical resource and a connection to a great many other resources we can not do without at this time. I urge you to preserve the Commission on Children.

Next I would like to turn your attention to S. B. No. 839 and S. B. No. 840, specifically in the proposal to eliminate the Offices of the Child Advocate and the Health Care Advocate. Both of those agencies have been dedicated partners with the Family Support Council. In addition to the work they have done for individual families in need of assistance, like the Commission on Children their staff have been remarkably helpful to our members in carrying out our mission. They provide up-to-date information about state and federal policy and help us tremendously translating information directly to families. The Family Support Network regional coordinators are reporting record numbers of calls for assistance in dealing with health insurance claims or unresponsive state services. At the March meeting of the Family Support Council a Network coordinator expressed the fear that if the Health Care Advocate of Child Advocate were to be eliminated, she would not have anyone to call for help with these families. It is crucial that these agencies remain viable and most importantly independent to ensure their ability to maintain objectivity and freedom to examine complaints when children are not served as they should be. Furthermore, these two agencies do their work with a great deal of expertise, not only in the fields of child welfare, juvenile justice and health care and but also in the laws, ethics and standards that drive those fields and in the investigational techniques required to get fair and accurate accounting of the facts. Children with disabilities or complex medical conditions are at great risk for neglect from caregivers and public systems. Most people intend to be helpful but we find over and over again that they either just do not understand children with special health care needs or they are at a loss themselves for lack of resources to offer. Subsequently, families find themselves in dire circumstances and only the independent Advocates have the access and authority to bring people together to work out solutions. I urge you to preserve the Office of the Child Advocate and the Health Care Advocate.

For the families I work with including my own little guy it takes a team approach to solving the complicated issues that these families face on a day-to-day basis. Which is why it is so important to keep intact these agencies and commissions. I would urge you to come and meet with the Family Support Council and use these very knowledgeable and talented people to keep you informed on the challenges that your families are going through and ask the questions you need to get answers to before you have to make these hard decisions in the upcoming weeks. In this very challenging time you need to know that when a family gets the devastating diagnosis of a life long disability for their child they go into a financial recession the likes that you have never seen. What we are facing in today's economy is a way of life for families with children who have medical needs...there is no stimulus package for them. When my son was diagnosed I lost my entire life savings caring for his needs and our lives changed forever. I rely on the various agencies, committees and councils I have spoken about today to help me navigate Connecticut's very complicated systems. And, I utilize each to help parents work together for the benefit of their children. And, I choose to work in this field because I didn't want new families who have children with disabilities to go through what I did.

I thank you for your time and attention. I certainly appreciate the grave challenge before you but I promise you that the Family Support Council, the Commission on Children, the Office of the Child Advocate and the Office of the Health Care Advocate are all agencies that cost the state little and represent significant resources and even savings for the state of Connecticut. 001882

(i nnmi National Alliance on Mental Illness

Testimony before the Joint Committee on Government Administration and Elections Opposing SB 839 an&SB 840 March 16, 2009

Good afternoon Senator Slossberg and Representative Spallone. My name is Alicia Woodsby and I am the Public Policy Director for the Connecticut chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI-CT). I am here today to testify in opposition to SB 839, An Act Concerning Mergers and Consolidations of Various State Agencies, and SB 840, An Act Concerning the Elimination of the Office of Consumer Counsel, the Office of the Healthcare Advocate, Office of the Ombudsman for Property Rights and Certain Legislative Commissions. We oppose these two bills because they would eliminate two state offices that offer critical protection to children, youth and adults that are essential to the mental health community. As the Director of Public Policy for NAMI-CT, I know just how critical independent advocates can be for individuals.and families struggling to navigate and obtain services from the mental health system in Connecticut.

We oppose SB 839 because it guts and all but eliminates the Office of the Child Advocate, saving only Jeanne Milstein and transferring her position to the Attorney General's Office. Among many other vital charges, the Child Advocate is there to represent families and children who experience steep challenges to accessing services in the children's mental health system. Whenever there are serious problems for children in CT, whether related to out-patient or in-patient settings, residential treatment settings, or transitioning from the DCF system to the adult mental health system, the Child Advocate is there to help ensure that the system provides families with the health, welfare and .stability they need as they navigate the children's mental health system. NAMI-CT has worked closely with the Child Advocate in recent years on legislation to improve the transition of young adults with mental illness from the children's to the adult's systems of care. We also rely on the Child Advocate to investigate incidents of abuse related to the children's mental health system. No other non-partisan entity in the state performs these functions. If the Child Advocate were pared down to only one employee, it would be impossible to offer the same necessary services to families in Connecticut. If SB 839 passes, the Child Fatality Review Board could not be sustained and in all likelihood, children's deaths in CT would go uninvestigated as scarce resources will be used elsewhere.

The Child Advocate's Office has been at the forefront of exposing problems with the use of restraints and seclusion on children as well as instances of children being pepper sprayed, both at Riverview, the state's psychiatric hospital for children. The Child Advocate has also investigated serious problems at residential treatment centers for children and the CT Juvenile Training School. I urge you to consider the vital services and protections that the Child Advocate offers this state, and consider the consequences that eliminating this office would have on children and families in need.

NAMI-CT 241 Main Street, 5th Floor, Hartford, CT 06106 PHONE: 860-882-0236 FAX: 860-882-0240 www.namict.org 00188k

Similarly, we oppose SB 840 because it would eliminate the Office of the Healthcare Advocate. The Healthcare Advocate provides protection to many residents of Connecticut who are often left powerless as they attempt to access and navigate our healthcare insurance systems. NAMI-CT worked closely with the Healthcare Advocate to see that the Charter Oak Health Plan adheres to all of the state's consumer protection mandates, and ensure that the plan is consistent with our state's mental health parity law. When NAMI-CT receives calls from families who have exhausted typical channels of remedy and are still urgently trying to get care or treatment or assistance for their family members, we'most often refer them to the Office of the Healthcare Advocate which most often results in positive outcomes. There is no other organization that offers this level of advocacy and protection for CT residents looking to access health care services

Both the Office of the. Child Advocate and the Office of the Healthcare Advocate offer unique and much needed services to CT residents. We urge you not to eliminate their offices so that they can continue offering protection to those who need it most.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. 001884 1 . health •

1 703 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 06511 Phone (203) 562-1636 • Fax (203) 562-1637 • www.cthealthpolicy.org '

March 16, 2009

TESTIMONY GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE Re: SB 840 and HB 6375 Ellen Andrews, PhD Executive Director

Thank you for the opportunity to voice our strong opposition to SB 840 and HB 6375, bills that would eliminate Connecticut's Office of Healthcare Advocate (UHA) and its Advisory Committee. As a member of the OHA's Advisory Committee since its inception, I can testify that the office has grown to fill a critical role in protecting Connecticut consumers desperate to access the health care they need. The loss of this office would be devastating to consumers and to responsible oversight of state government

OHA's caseload has increased every year and, given the current economic climate, that need is expected to accelerate. Despite increasing demand, a small but dedicated staff ably meets the need returning over $5 million last year to Connecticut consumers in treatment and services denied by insurers. This office is a bargain for the state, returning $5.07 to consumers for every dollar spent As the Executive Director of a community organization that provides outreach and assistance to struggling health care consumers, we rely heavily on OHA to advocate for our complex clients.

In addition to individual casework, OHA has been able to secure critical changes to policies that served as barriers to consumers getting needed health care. These include a statutory definition of medical necessity, a law protecting consumers from unfair health insurance rescissions, cancellations or limitations of individual policies, and national advocacy to ensure mental health parity for, every American while protecting the rights of Connecticut consumers.

As to the initiative to eliminate OHA's Advisory Committee along with dozens of other citizen advisory councils, this is exceptionally imprudent in these difficult economic times. Like the other members of this committee, and the other statutory councils I serve on, I serve as a volunteer. These commissions and committees provide state policymakers with access to expertise and knowledge that would be difficult or impossible to purchase. On a daily basis, the work of these committees is improving the health and welfare of all Connecticut residents through better policy, feedback from the "real world", and improved oversight Rather than excluding the gift of valuable time and knowledge by state residents, the state should be celebrating it I urge you to continue and expand the practice of leveraging the rich resources of our state's citizens through these commissions.

I urge you to reject both SB 840 and HB 6375 to ensure that OHA continues its growth and success in meeting the needs of Connecticut's struggling health care consumers. Thank you for your time and your commitment to excellence in public service. 001885

C 13' IA Connecticut Business & Industry Association

TESTIMONY OF PETER M. GIOIA VICE PRESIDENT & ECONOMIST CONNECTICUT BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE MARCH 16,2009 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT

Good day. My name is Peter M. Gioia. I am the economist for the Connecticut Business

and Industry Association (CBIA). CBIA represents about 10,000 firms, which employ

approximately 700,000 women and men in Connecucut. Our membership includes firms of all

sizes and types, thevast majority of which are small businesses with fewer than 50 people

CBIA wishes to comment upon the following bills which help implement H. B. No. 6365

AN ACT CONCERNING THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENMUM ENDING JUNE 30,

2011, AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS THEREFOR. They are:

1. S.B. No. 839 AN ACT CONCERNING MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATIONS OF VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES.

2. S.B. No. 840 AN ACT CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL, THE OFFICE OF THE HEALTHCARE ADVOCATE, THE OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONS.

3. S.B. No. 1117 (RAISED) AN ACT ESTABLISHING A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR AN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS.

4. S.B. No. 1118 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY.

5. H.B. No. 6372 AN ACT CONCERNING STATE LANDS.

350 Church Street • Hartford, CT 06103-1126 • Pho^e: 860-244-1900 « Fax: 860-278-8562 • Web: cbia. 10,000 businesses working for a competitive Connecticut 001886

6. H.B. No. 6373 AN ACT CONCERNING THE REPEAL OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE STATUTES.

7. H.B. No. 6374 AN ACT CONCERNING THE ESTABUSHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF ACCOUNTABILITY.

8. H.B. No. 6375 AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

9. HB. No. 6376 AN ACT CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF DEBTS OWED TO THE STATE.

CBIA supports the call in the Governor's recommended budget to create a smaller more effective

and efficient state budget concentrating on providing core services in these difficult economic

times without further tax increases. CBIA realizes that the General Assembly will wish to make

changes on programs and priorities in the budget. CBIA urges a bipartisan effort working with

the Governor to create an adjusted budget. Given recent reports from OFA we recognize even

that budget may be out of balance. We urge the committee to work with other committees to

explore more areas to cut given possible April revenue shortfalls.

Connecticut's ability to manage its state budget will continue to have a direct effect on our

economy. The more effective and efficient that government is, the better our business climate

will be. In addition, Connecticut will be better able to compete with other states to grow and

retain existing businesses as well as bring new companies into our state.

Policies that help and not hinder the recovering economy are essential to solving our

state's long-term budget problems. Only a strong economy can provide the jobs people need and

the revenues necessary to underwrite essential state services now and m the future.

Therefore, making Connecticut government more efficient isn't just a desired goal-it's essential to building and sustaining a healthy economy and an improved quality of life. That economy is in crisis today. The state has lost 38,300 jobs from January 2008 to January 2009

2 001887 ,

and is expected to lose at least 40,000 more by mid 2010 even with a Federal stimulus package But, it could be worse. In 1989 policy makers did not adjust the budget to the times and instead raised taxes which contributed to 160,000 job losses during that terrible recession.

Unfortunately, increasing unemployment has already lead to business taxes being < increased by over $500 million for calendar 2009 through the unemployment trust fund solvency tax rate increase. The impact on business is equivalent to an 80% surcharge being imposed on the corporate income tax.

The Governor's budget makes tough, even painful, decisions now. It resizes government for a STRUCTURALLY changed Connecticut economy. The Wall Street financial services meltdown directly impacts our state. Services associated with the markets are severely damaged and permanently changed. It is anticipated that Wall Street related financial services compensation will decline 45% in 2009 compared to 2008. With these changes evaporates a substantial amount of personal income and other tax revenue the state has relied upon. That is gone. It is not coming back in this budget cycle or likely for years beyond.

The Governor's budget recognizes this sea change. It is a hopeful budget -hoping that by tnmming services that are not the.most essential, not passing on tax burdens to municipalities, and not raising taxes that the overall economy will mend itself by fiscal 2012. At that time short term funds such as the Rainy Day Fund and Federal stimulus will be exhausted but the $19 billion plus in state spending in 2012 will still be there. The economy therefore must be growing and we need an adjusted state budget base or we will have fiscal crisis for the next biennium

In particular, CBIA believes the following areas of the budget addressed by these bills have merit: • Creating an office of accountability to better monitor program activities and outcomes

3 001888

• Eliminating or consolidating many functions in areas of lesser priority in the budget,

including eliminating duplication of services, rather than across the board cuts as well as

commissions, agencies and programs whereby service may still be rendered by

consolidation or merger

• Selling any excess lands that are not priority pieces for the state

• Repealing obsolete statutes

• Making stronger efforts to collect debts owed to the state

CBIA does have concerns that we have large and growing unfunded liabilities in the state budget and that this budget does not recommend solid steps towards dealing with these. Given that even this budget is in a deficiency situation on a GAAP accounting basis and that future years' federal funding is at riskwit h Washington's growing budget problems, these liabilities risk significant revenue additions and or severe cuts to existing programs.

CBIA urges the legislature to seek areas to further streamline its budget as states like

Washington and Iowa have done. Certainly, areas such as long-term care, incarceration and state employee and retiree health care and benefits are growing well in advance of inflation, personal income, and overall state spending. In addition there are services now provided by state workers in social services areas that may be more cost-effectively provided by non-profit agencies. We urge the committee members to work with others to fully explore these areas. As the state likely faces additional shortfalls (as estimated by OF A), these are prime areas to consider for additional cost savings.

While controlling state spending is a substantial and difficult task, we hope the committee and the General Assembly will make the necessary difficult decisions that will provide an improved fiscal climate for our state while fully protecting our fragile economy.

4 0Q1889

CBIA trusts that the General Assembly will see to it that the budget is used as a tool to help create future economic growth that will lead to higher personal income and ensuring greater budget flexibility in future years.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.

5 001890

COMMISSION OFFICERS Connecticut Genera/ Assembly HONORARY MEMBERS Susan O Storey, Chair Connie Dice Tanya Meek, Vice Clxur Patricia T. Hendel Adnenne Faror Houel, Secntaiy Patncia Rus*o Elizabeth Donohue, Titasrirrr Permanent Commission on the Status of Women LEGISLATIVE MEMBERS COMMISSIONERS Ihe State s leading force tor women's equality Senator Andrew J. McDonald Yvonne R. Davis Senator John A. Kissel Barbara DcBjpnste Representative Michael P Lawlor Carne Gallagher Representative Arthur J. O'Neill Melanie O'Brien jean L. Rexford EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Denise Rodosevich Teresa C Younger Cindy R. Slane Pamcia E M. Whitcombe Cecilia J. Woods

Testimony of Teresa Younger, Executive Director Permanent Commission on the Status of Women Before the Government Administration and Elections Committee Monday, March 16, 2009

Re: S.B. No. 839 An Act Concerning Mergers And Consolidations Of Various State Agencies; S.B. No. 840 An Act Concerning The Elimination Of The Office Of Consumer Counsel, The Office Of The Healthcare Advocate, The Office Of Ombudsman For Property Rights And Certain Legislative Commissions; H.B. No. 6374 An Act Concerning The Establishment Of The Office Of Accountability;

Good morning Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. I am Teresa Younger, Executive Director of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women and it is an honor to testify before you in support of our agency and against the Governor's recommendation to eliminate the PCSW, Commissions like it, and several other entities that impact the lives of women and their families. We understand, as well as anyone, the challenging times the State is facing, the ever growing need to review the government effectiveness and efficiencies.

It is not lost to us that at a time when the PCSW is being recommended for elimination on the State level that on a Federal level, President Obama only last week signed an executive order to establish a Council for Women and Girls. The purpose of the Council stated: "Over the past generation, our society has made tremendous progress in eradicating barners to women's success. A record number of women are attending college and graduate school. Women make up a growing share of our workforce, and more women are corporate executives and business owners than ever before, helping boost the U.S. economy and foster U.S. competitiveness around the world. Today, women are serving at the highest levels of all branches of our Government.. .Despite this progress, certain inequalities continue to persist... .The purpose of this order is to establish a coordinated Federal response to issues that particularly impact the lives of women and girls and to ensure that Federal programs and policies address and take into account the distinctive concerns of women and girls, including women of color and those with disabilities." The purpose of the order is what the state of Connecticut has been committed to for thirty-six years in its support of the PCSW, equality for women.

PCSW has been bringing the voices of women to the State Capitol for many years, and through all of that time, we've been at the forefront of continuing progress for women in our state. PCSW is the only nonpartisan comprehensive state institution that evaluates laws and policies for their impact on the lives of women. Our job is to provide information, analysis, and assistance to the General Assembly, State agencies, state leaders and the public on all matters concerning women. We represent a small 001891

Testimony of Teresa Younger, PCSW p.2 Before the Government Administration and Elections Committee March 16,2009

investment that produces a sizeable^and valuable return. Because of the work of the PCSW, our state government has been better equipped to address the needs of working parents, victims of sexual harassment, women with health care concerns such as breast cancer and osteoporosis, women business owners, parents seeking child support, women leaving welfare for work, childcare workers, and women entering nontraditional occupations. Because of the work of the PCSW our state has been recognized as a national leader on the issues of women's economic security, health and safety and gender discnminanon, battles still faced by women today.

Our budget, post recent rescissions, is just over one million dollars, which is about 77 cents for each of Connecticut's 1,399,625 women over the age of 18. This doesn't even include the next generation of women who will work, pay taxes, raise families or vote in Connecticut. Some would argue, I would argue, that this is a worthy investment of "the people's money." The PCSW changes with the needs of it's community.

Our statutory mandate requires us, among other duties, to ".. .serve as a liaison between government and private interest groups concerned with services for women..." [C.G.S. 46a-4(b)], and we often think of ourselves as a gateway for the concerns of different populations of women across the state We have over the years convened a variety of groups in order to bring issues to state government; the PCSW currently convenes the Connecticut Women's Health Campaign, a statewide coalition of experts and advocates working together to improve health care for women and girls; the Young Women's Leadership Program, which highlights the concerns of women ages 18-35 years; and the Women In the Trades FLxcbange, to increase opportunities for women in the skilled trades and technical careers. Additionally, we also go to where the women are and last year held three public hearings that gave voice to women throughout the state by highlighting their concerns under the topic of financial security.

Our budget represents the type of State spending that saves money in the long run. For example, over the past ten years, the PCSW has provided Sexual Harassment Awareness and Prevention Training to nearly 10,000 state employees in agencies such as the Banking Department, Connecticut State University System Central Office, the Department of Revenue Services, the Department of Correction, the Office of the Attorney General and Legislative Management. No fee is charged to these agencies. Without the training services provided by the PCSW, state agencies would have to pay between $400-$600 for a two-hour sexual harassment training session required by law for all supervisors.

Prevention is the key to State savings and many of our responsibilities are on-going because change takes time. For example, we continue to work with the Department of Correction (DOC) to reduce sexual harassment against employees. In an ongoing agreement with the DOC, the PCSW has retained former superior court judge Beverly Hodgson, to serve as Sexual Harassment Consultant to monitor all investigations and resolutions of sexual harassment and retaliation claims, and to assist the Department in improving its policies and procedures.

In these ever changing times we have moved forward and highlighted difficult issues such as the problem of human trafficking. As the convening agency of the Trafficking in Persons Council, we have worked with Senator Stillmah and the Council members issuing reports, and proposing legislation that provides victims services and enhances training and services for victims. PCSW was and is the State leader on this issue and brings together a level of expertise that should be left with this agency The issues around trafficking are not )ust about the prosecution of offenders but also include services for the victims, supports for communities and training for law enforcement and community providers. PCSW has been able to provide an umbrella to link all these groups together and would be opposed to transferring the Trafficking in Persons Council to the Chief State's Attorney's Office Testimony of Teresa Younger, PCSW p.3 Before the Government Administration and Elections Committee March 16,2009

We continue to work closely with the Office of Workforce Competitiveness (OWC) on the Career Ladders Advisory'Council. Joindy we oversaw the allocation of funds for pilot projects to enhance education and career opportunities for workers in the childcare, healthcare and technology fields. We addressed the issues of building the ladders to move our residents to higher levels of self-sufficiency. The comprehensive work of the OWC is critical to moving the State forward and building on the need for higher wage jobs.

We are a resource to the public through the information and referral service we provide. We respond to neady 500 calls per year from individuals seeking information about state laws and services, and in 2008, staff and Commissioners spoke at nearly 100 events sponsored by groups ranging from the AAUW Statewide, to the Hartford Business Journal, to the UCONN School of Social Work, to Women and Gids Fund of New Haven. We sent out over 6,000 publications and our website was visited almost 65,000 times during the year.

We work diligently to promote women in leadership roles. In fact, last year a record number of women, 102, ran for elected office. We were pleased to see this increase and continue to promote women in a vanety of roles. However, it should be noted that women make up 51% of the total population and a litde over 30% of the General Assembly. But having women in the General Assembly is not the only place where leadership is needed. We maintain a "Talent Bank" of women interested in serving on State boards and commissions. In 2008, there were over 400 women listed in our Talent Bank. We are truly pleased that the talent bank is now completely searchable electronically by appointing authorities.

In order to provide you with accurate research and analysis we released several publications last year and among them was Getting to a Better Tomorrow: Economic and Financial Security. The gathering of this information gives a greater understanding of the women we represent, the challenges they face and the policy initiatives we need to move us all forward. As a continuation of our commitment to providing original research, next month we will be releasing the Elder Economic Standard Index, in conjunction with the Commission on Aging. This report will highlight the cost of living in Connecticut for those citizens over 65 years of age.

PCSW represents the concerns of women in the State's administration of programs and services, many of which have been slated for elimination or would remove our voice and the concerns of women from being heard. Our work in these areas fulfill the commission's statutory mandates to: (1) serve as a liaison between government and private interest groups concerned with services for women, (2) oversee coordination and assess programs and practices in all State agencies as they affect women, and; (3) make recommendations for the removal of such injustices it may find to exist. These groups include:

• Career Ladder Advisory Committee: PCSW and the Office of Workforce Competitiveness convene this committee. The purpose of this committee is to create new and enhance existing career ladder programs in occupations with a projected workforce shortage.

• Child Day Care Council: PCSW is a statutory member. The purpose of this council is to make recommendations to the Departments of Public Health and Social Services on the planning and development of child daycare services.

• Commission for Child Support Guidelines: PCSW is a statutory member. The purpose of this commission is to review child support guidelines every four years. Testimony of Teresa Younger, PCSW p.4 Before the Government Administration and Elections Committee March 16,2009

» Commission on Health Equity: PCSW is a statutory member. The purpose of this commission is - to eliminate disparities in health status based on race, ethnicity, and linguistic ability and to improve the quality of health for all of the state's residents.

• Commission on the Standardization of the Collection of Evidence in Sexual Assault Investigation: PCSW is a statutory member. The purpose of this commission is to design a sexual assault evidence collection kit and provide it to healthcare facilities.

• HealthPirst Connecticut Authority: PCSW is a member participant. The purpose of this authonty is to examine and evaluate policy alternatives for providing quality, affordable and sustainable healthcare for all individuals residing in this state, including, but not limited to, a state-wide single payer healthcare system and employer-sponsored health plans.

• Statewide Primary Care Access Authority: PCSW is a member participant. The purpose of this authonty is to examine alternative ways to provide primary care, finance insurance coverage, contain healthcare costs, and improve healthcare quality.

• Trafficking in Persons Council: PCSW is a statutory member and convenes and staffs. The purpose of this council is to identify cntena for providing services to trafficking victims, and develop recommendations to strengthen State and local efforts to prevent trafficking, protect and assist victims of trafficking.

Who knows where the women and their families of Connecticut would be without the PCSW? For over thirty-five years we have been the state's leading force for women's equality. We have been there through so much; legislation prohibiting sex discrimination in credit transactions; laws enacted to protect pregnant workers; legislation defining and prohibiting sexual harassment; the first family and medical leave protections in the country; legislation requiring insurance programs to provide coverage for a minimum of 48 hours following a mastectomy; legislation requiring health insurance plans to cover a rninimum of 48 hours' hospital stay for normal childbirth and 96 hours for Caesarian sections; laws improving the education and compensation of early childhood education professionals; development of Care4Kids programs; establishment of the HUSKY programs; and the list goes on.

At the PCSW, we are working not just for today but for the next generation so they can grow up in a world where full social, political, and economic equality is possible for everyone. We bring you the analysis, the information, the voices, and the testimonials that assist you in your efforts to build that world. Our budget represents a small investment to achieve an important and valuable goal. Now more than ever the women and families of Connecticut need the leadership we provide and our voice on the policies that affect their lives.

Thank you. 001894

March 15, 2009

John W. Kyser 710 Middle Turnpike West Manchester CT. 06040 (860)647-1181

I am a Veteran of the United States Navy. I served as an Aviation Electronics technician as well as a member of the Base Security augmentation force at Naval Air Station, Lemoore, CA. ,

My background and history as it pertains to my testimony is that, I was employed at Colt's Manufacturing Co. as a Research and Development Test Coordinator. In this position I was responsible for auditing currant firearm designs as well as testing and evaluating new designs and/or materials. Due to the required field testing involved in this position I was a Certified Range Officer at Fort Devans Ma, and coordinator of the Colt's indoor 30 yard test range. Currently I hold NRA certification as a Range Safety Officer as well as instructor for the following disciplines. (Home Firearm Safety, Basic Pistol Safety, Personal Protection In The Home, Basic Rifle Safety, and Basic Shotgun Safety

My Purpose here is to state my objection to the Following bills: SB 839 AN ACT CONCERNING MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATION OF VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES. HB 6375 AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. As they pertain to placing the BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS into the Department of Public Safety and removing 100% of its funding.

This will eliminate the autonomy and purpose of a "civilian" review board, by placing control and oversight of the board with the very agency which has the power to revoke pistol permits in the first place. This will save no money and make it unlikely the average person will get a fair and impartial hearing.

The main purpose for a civilian review board is to have a system of checks and balances to protect THE PEOPLES rights from over zealous, biased, individuals with their own personal agendas. It is a place where the people can turn to state their case without fear of being intimidated or strong-armed into giving up their rights when a mistake or minor error in judgment is made. The Board is also in place to help individuals who are denied a permit by the people with the authority to approve or deny pistol permits based on the authorities personal beliefs and ideals, instead of the law, the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut The DPS, the agency empowered to deny, revoke or suspend pistol permits may not be inclined to realize when or if they overstep their bounds and impair the RIGHTS of The PEOPLE. If the BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS is placed under the control of the Department of Public Safety it will create a CONFLICT OF INTEREST and it will be like putting the Wolf in charge of the hen house. This would be a great travesty for the law abiding citizens of the state of Connecticut CONNECTICUT FOOD POLICY COUNCIL State of 'Connecticut DeparfrnentofAgricdture

Statement of Linda Drake, Chair of the CT Food Policy Council, before the Government Adminsitration and Elections Committee March 16. 2009

I am here today to urge you to deny the recommendation of Senate Bill 840 and House Bill 6375 to eliminate the existence of the CT Food Policy Council. The Council was established by the Legislature in 1997 and charged with advising both the Governor and the General Assembly on issues of food security in our state and on legislation that may affect the state's overall food system.

Food policy addresses concerns such as: farmland preservation, urban agriculture, emergency food supplies, markets for local food, nutrition education, food safety, child nutrition, food assistance programs and inner- city supermarkets. Food policy links economic development, land use planning, environmental protection and preservation, farming, national security, health, economic and urban issues.

Our work is about good government. The Connecticut Food Policy Council provides a unique opportunity for representatives of state agencies and private organizations to discuss issues and to develop policies and government actions that influence the availability, accessibility, affordability, quality and safety of our food supply.

The Council is formally housed within the State Department of Agriculture. Members include Commissioners or designees from the state departments of Agriculture, Administrative Services, Education, Social Services, Transportation, and Public Health, as well as representatives from agriculture, anti-hunger programs, the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System and the retail and wholesale food industry.

We work across departmental boundaries to identify ways we can collaborate, breaking down bureaucratic barriers to accomplish the goal of food security for all Connecticut residents. There is no one easy answer to the issues of food security — improving it is a multi-stakeholder process, with implications across many industry sectors. It takes insight, involvement and a willingness to look at solutions in a new light.

Connecticut was the first state in the nation to create a Food Policy Council to "develop, coordinate and implement a food system policy." More than 30 other states have followed our example in creating food policy councils.

The Council has a strong record of accomplishments over the past 12 years and has done its work with minimal state funding. The new Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, in outlining his proposals for federal action called for establishing state food policy councils across the country.

While we recognize that in a time of fiscal austerity the state may not be able to fund the Council, we believe that it would be a serious error to eliminate its existence as proposed by the Governor in.Senate Bill 840 and ^ House Bill 6375. We urge you to keep the Council in existence. Some of its work can continue on a voluntary basis and with the interest of this new Secretary of Agriculture we may find that federal funding will be available to the states for food policy councils. Food is essential for life We take it for granted, and we shouldn't. Connecticut needs to stay committed to addressing food security issues. My submitted testimony includes more detail and examples of accomplishments of the CT Food Policy Council.

Linda T Drake, Chairman, CT Food Policy Council Linda drakefgiuconn.edu 860-486-1783 Dept. of Nutritional Sciences, 3624 Horsebarn Rd Extension,University of CT, Storrs, CT 06269-4017 CONNECTICUT FOOD POUCY COUNCIL State of Ccmectkut DepmLvTemofAgriadturs

WORK OF THE CONNECTICUT FOOD POLICY COUNCIL -1997 TO 2009

Connecticut was the first to establish a state Food Policy Council. Since then more than 30 other states have followed our example. Connecticut's work has achieved national recognition. In 2006, the National Conference of State Legislators brought legislators fromthroughou t the Northeast to Connecticut to see the work of the CT Food Policy Council in action.

The Council has always done its work with minimal state funding, at the level of $25,000 annually over the past few years.

In 2006 Home Plate: Putting Local Food on the Menu, our conference for food service managers, chefs, restaurants, farmers, and dietitians from the public and private sectors identified significant issues about producing and marketing local foods in Connecticut. This has led to a major statewide initiative oh meat processing.

Plans to link eligibility for state assistance programs have resulted in more people getting food, more efficiently. Collaborations forged through the Food Policy Council have helped shorten the application for Food Stamps and improved linkages to the School Lunch and Breakfast programs.

The farmland preservation program has been re-energized. The state's goal to preserve 130,000 acres of farmland had lost momentum with no farmland preserved at all during 1999. The Council's Save the Land Conference resulted in the creation of the Working Lands Alliance. Today the state is moving more direcdy to preserve prime farmland.

Changes to bid processes have increased opportunities for local food wholesalers. Due to their involvement with the Food Policy Council, the University of Connecticut addressed an issue that was preventing Connecticut food wholesalers from bidding on University contracts — a "sole source" policy that gave all of the University's food supply business to one vendor. Eliminating this requirement helps locally-owned businesses compete for University food supply contracts.

Improved access to food for seniors, urban, and low-income residents. Interdepartmental collaboration has resulted in several projects designed to improve access to food for Connecticut residents. The Department of Agriculture and Department of Social Services have expanded the Food Stamp program to include coupons for use by senior citizens at Farm Markets. The Food Policy Council also co-sponsored a public hearing, Barriers to Food Access in Connecticut, in March 2000 with State Rep. Bamaby Horton and the Hartford Advisory Commission on Food Policy. The hearing focused on a long-standing food problem in Connecticut, the lack of full-size, affordably priced supermarkets in or near low-income communities and the related issues of transportation. 001897

• The Council collaborated with the Department of Transportation to produce the Connecticut Farm Map in 2002 a road-map guide to local produce. This very popular map that helps consumers and farm businesses was revised and reissued in 2005. • In collaboration with the Department of Education, we produced What's Cooking in Connecticut Schools, with ideas for communities to help improve nutrition and physical fitness for Connecticut's children.

• The Council has produced substantive reports on Food Security in Connecticut, Agricultural Directions in CT and Community Food Security in CT, with a raiiking of each of our 169 Towns.

• The Council's Nutrition Education Summit brought together leaders in the field of food and nutrition education to seek ways to enhance collaboration and work more effectively to address nutritional concerns of our families and kids. As a result of that conference, we created a new website for nutrition educators.

• The Council's Food Safety conference addressed the issue of consumer confidence that the food we are purchasing is safe to eat. This is a key ingredient in a secure food system. A result of the conference was the Council's recommendations to: increase the production and consumption of locally-produced food; examine the issue of labeling genetically-modified foods; coordinate and standardize food safety regulations; and further examine the consumer's role in food safety.

More information is available at the website of the Connecticut Food Policy Council www.foodpc.state.ct.us ^

Linda T. Drake, M.S. Nutritionist and Program Director Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) 3624 Horsebam Rd. Extension Dept. of Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut Storrs,CT 06269-4017

Phone: 860-486-1783 FAX: 860-486-3674 EMAIL: Linda.Drake(2),uconn.edu 0018^8

Testimony of Joan O'Brien-Law 151 Flagler Avenue, Stratford, CT Monday March 16, 2009 Government Administration and Elections Committee

H. B. No. 6175 AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. S.B. No. 840 AN ACT CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL, THE OFFICE OF THE HEALTHCARE ADVOCATE, THE OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONS.

Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and esteemed members of the Government Aclministration and Elections Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on very important proposed bills. My name is Joan O'Brien-Law and I am a parent of a young adult with special needs and a Gov. appointed parent member of the Connecticut Family Support Council.

It is very upsetting to learn that H.B. No. 6375 would eliminate the Connecticut Family Support Council as an unnecessary and obsolete entity. The Family Support Council is anything but unnecessary or obsolete. For over 19 years I have navigated the systems of service delivery that provide services and support to families with special needs, it has never been an easy task. Over the years, the Family Support Council has steadily unproved the knowledge and understanding among lawmakers of what families raising children with disabilities and complex medical conditions are experiencing. The Council along with its state agency and private provider partners has identified barriers in state systems, the insurance industry and health care services and developed plans for many solutions and suggestions for improvement in service delivery. Often providing recommendations that if fully implemented would maximize state resources. For example, Council members collaborated in pursuing federal grants to establish a coordinated network across the state to provide information, support and education to Connecticut families caring for a child with special health care needs. Today that network, the Family Support Network, employs six coordinators in six regions around our state serving hundreds of families each year as well as supporting and guiding the case work of the Departments of Children and Families, Developmental Services, Public Health and Social Services.

In S.B. No. 840 the Commission on Children would be eliminated. The Commission is an active member of the Family Support Council and has been a very active and dedicated resource for the work we do. The Commission on Children is a one of the most unique entities in the state. Their ability to conduct rapid and thorough research keeps all of Connecticut informed about the circumstances of children and families as well as cutting edge solutions to problems families face. The Commission on Children has provided significant resources on bullying, obesity, violence and health care when those issues were only starting to be recognized for the problems they represent in children's lives. In addition, the Commission on Children has provided counsel and guidance to the Family Support Council in areas that are outside of our most volunteer base, areas of expertise. These would otherwise be unavailable to the Family Support Council. Most importantly, just last week the Commission sponsored an event on President Obama's stimulus package that identified enormous opportunities for funding to the state of Connecticut. I can not imagine what other agency could bring together such a dynamic group of presenters in such a rapid fashion that would allow the state to benefit form the current stimulus package in the most efficient way. I can appreciate that we are in very difficult economic times, but these are the .times that children are most at risk, especially children with disabilities or complex medical conditions. Losing the Commission on Children would not represent a savings in the budget. It would represent a loss of a critical resource and a connection to a great many other resources we can not do without at this time. I implore you to preserve the Commission on Children.

Thank you for your time and attention and I ask that you remember this most vulnerable population as you face your deliberations. TO: Members, Joint Committee on Government Administration and Elections FROM: Sheila B. Amdur, 132 Lawler Rd., West Hartford, CT 06117 RE: Bill No. 839 and Bill 840 DATE: March 16, 2009

I am testifying today "as a citizen of the state of Connecticut. T have worked as a mental health professional and for the last ten years, as a volunteer advocate for children and adults with serious mental illnesses and their families. I have had the privilege of working with extraordinary and dedicated staff who have made a difference in the lives of countless young and older citizens of this state on whose behalf they have worked. As legislators, you have had the privilege of relying on these same staff of legislative Commissions, which serve as your research arms, your staff support on complex societal problems, and as a counterbalance to the bureaucracy which often veers off its stated purposes.

I am asking that you do not follow the Governor's recommendations of ehrninating the Commission on Aging, the Cornrnission on Children, the Office of the Health Care Advocate, and gutting and essentially ehrninating the Office of the Child Advocate. These are the commissions and offices I have worked with most closely through the years. They carry no political banner, no partisan agenda, but only stand to serve all of our citizens, especially the most vulnerable, with limited resources, but with more passion and dedication than can be found in any state agency.

One has to question why the Governor would wipe out the work that these commissions and offices perform. It is true that they are sometimes at odds with the Administration (and frankly it really does not matter who the Governor is), but in my memory, no other Administration has asked you to ehminate their work. I understand fully the financial circumstances the State faces. And I stand ready to my part and pay higher taxes to meet these circumstances. But I am not willing, and I hope you are not willing, to eliminate the protections and the advocacy that these offices and commissions have provided us. Please reverse the Governor's recommendations. ooislgg

AFRICAN-AMERICAN AFFAIRS COMMISSION STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1591 (860) 240-8555 FAX (860) 240-8444

Testimony before the Government Administration and Elections Committee

Monday, March 16, 2009

9:30 AM in Room 2B of the LOB

Good morning/afternoon, Chairpersons and members of the General Elections

and Administration Committee. My name is Glenn Cassis the Executive Director

of the African-American Affairs Commission (AAAC) a non-partisan state agency.

This Commission represents a voice for the African-American community and

accomplishes its mission primarily through research, policy analysis, advocacy

and outreach. I am speaking in opposition to

House Bill (HB) - 6375 An act concerning review and termination of. certain

Boards and Commissions

and

.Senate Bill (SB) - 840 An act concerning the elimination of the office of

consumer counsel, the office of healthcare advocate, the office of ombudsman

for property rights and certain legislative Commissions

1 001901

We recognize the harsh times this state is facing, the economic uncertainty and difficulty in balancing a state budget with limited resources, yet we also realize that disparities in educational achievement, access to affordable health care, housing, economic opportunities, environmental justice persist and are prevalent particularly in the African-American community. Education has remained a top priority for this Commission for many reasons. Firstly the Commission realizes that there continue to be sharp differences in student academic achievement between African-Americans and non-minority groups. Efforts have been made but have not been successful in closing the achievement gap in any significant way. Results from the Connecticut Mastery Tests and the Connecticut Academic

Performance Tests continue to show African-Americans falling below the state average in Math, Reading and Writing. More importantly we realize that there is a strong correlation between lack of education and juvenile delinquency. Education opens up opportunities for youth if not setting them along career paths at least instilling the discipline they need to become mature adults, unfortunately the statistics show a disturbing trend. School expulsion rates are 4 times higher for

African-Americans than their white counterparts. African-American males make up roughly 30 percent of the juvenile justice population and there are more

African-American males incarcerated in Connecticut jails both in juvenile and adult facilities.1 The issue of education is just not another problem facing the

African-American community but rather a fundamental civil rights issue that must be dealt with urgently.

Overall in terms of the economy the unemployment rates for all racial/ethnic groups has worsened but for African-Americans joblessness has consistently surpassed the state average for at least the last three years. In 2008 the unemployment rate in our state was 5.7 percent, whereas the rate for African-

Americans was 12.8 percent.2 This is just a snapshot of the conditions facing this population segment. We wish that we did not need any legislation for various

1 Connecticut State Department of Education, Bureau of Educational Equity, Expulsion and Suspension Rates 2 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, State Unemployment Rates

2 001902

groups in our state and indeed but until certain trends are reversed these

Commissions must remain in their original form.

This Commission serves in a myriad of ways to address these socio-economic disparities. While there are other equally important state agencies, coalitions, advocacy groups and partners etc. involved in advocacy that benefit the African-

Americans this Commission has a special and trusting bond with the community it serves. Firstly we serve as a watchdog agency by monitoring, influencing and shaping policy that impacts African-Americans across the state. Secondly we serve in the unique role of being a bridge between the legislature and the community by presenting issues from diverse group of constituents to the state legislature. Thirdly we serve as a vital resource for residents searching for information on matters pertaining to employment, housing, predatory lending etc.

The Commission researches, collects and directs the public to the appropriate sources for assistance.

Much has been accomplished since the creation of this Commission, with obviously more challenges ahead. While we recognize that there is no such thing as a perfect organization we respect and understand that there need to be processes in place to assess the effectiveness and usefulness of any organization. To this end the AAAC as the other Commissions have is working with the Appropriations Sub-Committee on its Results Based Accountability

(RBA) model. This model seeks to enhance the strengths of all the Commissions.

It identifies opportunities that must be seized and shortcomings if any that must be addressed. This model allows us to strengthen our mission and obligation to the African-American community for even better outcomes. We have embraced it fully. In view of this any action to eliminate, consolidate or etc. is counter productive.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

3 0019C[3^;

Testimony of Robyn Trowbridge, Meriden, Connecticut Monday March 16, 2009 Government Administration and Elections Committee

Commenting on:

H. B. No. 6375 AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

S. B. No. 839 AN ACT CONCERNING MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATIONS OF VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES.

S. B. No. 840 AN ACT CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL, THE OFFICE OF THE HEALTHCARE ADVOCATE, THE OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONS

Dear Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee,

I am addressing you at this time with regard to House bill numbers 840.839 and §375. As an appointed parent member of the family support council I find myself gravely concerned over the current recommendation to eliminate the Family Support Council, the Office of the Child Advocate, Office of the Healthcare Advocate and the Commission on Children.

I have had the profound professional privilege of serving on the Family Support Council for many years; and within that capacity, as a partner with representatives from the Office of the Child Advocate and the Commission on Children. We are proud of the unified efforts of this collaborative and find it impossible to imagine that families of children with disabilities and special healthcare needs can be even marginally safeguarded without the continued advocacy of these working bodies.

Clearly, over the course of Connecticut's history, such entities have been created as a result of significant unmet need and devastating outcomes experienced by our families and most vulnerable citizens. And while the current fiscal challenges require us to make difficult decisions, it is now more critical then ever that the State preserves and protects the basic interests of our kids. In current time, and for the foreseeable future, families are facing a depth of crisis that has not been seen in decades and our children need us to stand strong with and for them as they cannot, by the sheer nature of who they are, do it on their own.

The Family Support Council, working in large part as a coordinating body toward creating and sustaining partnerships across State agencies, has assisted in advocating for vital legislation on behalf of families in need, served to establish a meaningful and operational service network that supports hundreds of families annually through direct support efforts and works to forward the significant efforts of numerous State agency partners. These achievements persist despite the Family Support Council having no funding. These efforts must continue for Connecticut's families' needs to be met. 001904

With regard to the continued existence of the Office of the Child Advocate, Office of the Healthcare Advocate, and the Commission on Children, I cannot underscore enough the impact that these entities have on families each and everyday. We know that many Connecticut families are struggling and that unfortunately is likely to continue. However, every family reached by these offices, hundreds of them, are living in what all of us would agree are the most desperate of circumstances. Gravely ill children, many with profound lifelong disabilities, often without economic advantages or an independent ability to meaningfully and effectively navigate a far too complex system that promises in the most fundamental of ways to assist in accessing what is so basic to us all. Eliminating these agencies, which not only promise possibility but deliver true outcome is both tragic and unacceptable.

The accomplishments and contributions of these Commissions are well documented and highly measurable. The costs attached to such far reaching positive impact for the most vulnerable among us is so minimal and we know that the qualitative consequence will be devastating if we try to convince ourselves that services such as these can be adequately provided by large existing state agencies. We know this will be inadequate, ineffective, and ultimately will devastate families. We already see countless negative outcomes for families from an overburdened system that simply can't respond. We cannot move in a direction as a State where we dismantle supports for families. We must continue to put the needs of families and kids before all else as this is our future.

Robyn Trowbridge Meriden 001905

GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION & ELECTIONS 2009 ATTENDANCE

Committee Meeting J Public Hearing - Subject Matter: i^**^, €rc.

Date: sja*!*^ Time V-30*w* Room: 28 ( ^Capital

Presiding Chairmen: Sen. Gayle Slossberg / Rep. James F. Spallone y

Vice Chairmen: Sen. Edward Meyer Rep. Joe Aresimowicz y

Ranking Members: Sen. Michael McLachlan / Rep. John Hetherington y

Committee Members Present: Rep. Thomas Drew y Rep. Andrew Fleischmann y Rep. Liwy Floren Rep. Auden Grogins y Rep. David Labriola y Rep. Mike Lawlor Rep. Patricia Miller Rep. Tim O'Brien y Rep. Peggy Reeves y -

Staff: (at V-^fV-^, ^1 P'M 001906 Government Administration and Elections Committee - Agenda Page 1 of 4

Government Administration and Elections Committee

PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA

Monday, March 23, 2009

9:30 AM in Room 2B of the LOB

I. BILLS SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING

1. H.J. No. 1 (COMM) RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE PROFOUND REGRET OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE HISTORY OF WRONGS INFLICTED UPON BLACK CITIZENS BY MEANS OF SLAVERY, EXPLOITATION AND LEGALIZED RACIAL SEGREGATION, AND CALLING ON ALL CITIZENS TO TAKE PART IN ACTS OF RACIAL RECONCILIATION. (GAE)

2. H.J. No. 99 (COMM) RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES OF THE COURTS.

3. H.J. No. 113 (COMM) RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE LENGTH OF TERM FOR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

4. H.J. No. 114 (COMM) RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

5. H.B. No. 5015 (COMM) AN ACT INCREASING THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. (GAE)

6. H.B. No. 5113 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING SURETY BONDS IN CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS. (GAE)

7. H.B. No. 5168 (COMM) AN ACT ESTABLISHING MISSING PERSONS DAY. (GAE)

8. H.B. No. 5214 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING POSTING LEGAL NOTICES ON THE WEB SITE OF A MUNICIPALITY. (GAE)

9. H.B. No. 5370 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING PUBLIC PROJECTS AND THE STATE FLOWER. (GAE)

10. H.B. No. 5373 (COMM) AN ACT EXPANDING CERTAIN REVERSE AUCTION AUTHORITY TO THE PURCHASE OF SERVICES BY TOWNS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND STATE AGENCIES. (GAE)

11. H.B. No. 5376 (COMM) AN ACT REQUIRING THE PERFORMANCE OF A COST- BENEFIT ANALYSIS PRIOR TO THE SALE OF SURPLUS STATE PROPERTY. (GAE)

12. H.B. No. 5380 (COMM) AN ACT ESTABLISHING A SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FUNDS. (GAE) http://cga.ct.gov/2009/GAEdata/pha/2009PHA00323-R000930GAE-PHA.htm 5/19/2009 001907 Government Administration and Elections Committee - Agenda - Page 2 of4

13. H.B. No. 5385 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING DESIGNATION OF THE BALLROOM POLKA AS THE OFFICIAL STATE POLKA. (GAE)

14. H.B. No. 5824 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF PERSONAL SERVICE AND PURCHASE OF SERVICE CONTRACTS. (GAE)

15. H.B. No. 5949 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING THE COUNTRY OF MANUFACTURE FOR FLAGS DISPLAYED ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS. (GAE)

16. H.B. No. 5957 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING THE USE OF PORTABLE SCANNERS TO COPY PUBLIC RECORDS. (GAE)

17. H.B. No. 5965 (COMM) AN ACT ESTABLISHING THOMAS PAINE DAY. (GAE)

18. H.B. No. 6689 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE STATE CODE OF ETHICS.

19. H.B. No. 6690 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING MUNICIPAL LOBBYING.

20. H.B. No. 6691 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING FALSE STATEMENTS TO CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

21. H.B. No. 6692 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT TOWN CLERKS.

22. H.B. No. 6693 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION.

23. H.B. No. 6694 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE STATE CODE OF ETHICS FOR LOBBYISTS.

24. H.B. No. 6695 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN PARCELS OF STATE LAND.

25. H.B. No. 6696 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING MUNICIPAL ETHICS.

26. S.J. No. 71 (COMM) RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE.

27. S.B. No. 14 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING THE ACQUISITION OF ABANDONED CEMETERIES BY MUNICIPALITIES. (GAE)

28. S.B. No. 327 (COMM) AN ACT ESTABLISHING A STATE SAVINGS PLAN FOR RECENT COLLEGE GRADUATES WHO WORK IN CONNECTICUT. (GAE)

29. S.B. No. 336 (COMM) AN ACT AMENDING THE PROCESS FOR THE SALE OF LAND OBTAINED BY THE STATE FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES INCLUDING THE PROPERTY BY THOSE ABUTTING ROUTE 6. (GAE)

http://cga.ct.gov/2009/GAEdata/pha/2009PHA00323-R000930GAE-PHA.htm 5/19/2009 001908

Government Administration and Elections Committee - Agenda Page 3 of 4

30. S.B. No. 337 (COMM) AN ACT ESTABLISHING FIBROMYALGIA AWARENESS DAY. (GAE)

31. S.B. No. 605 (COMM) AN ACT ESTABLISHING HONOR OUR HEROES DAY. (GAE)

32. S.B. No. 606 (COMM) AN ACT ESTABLISHING CHIARI MALFORMATION AWARENESS"MONTH."(GAE)~

' 33. S.B. No. 609 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUDITING OF STATE AGENCIES. (GAE)

34. S.B. No. 912 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

35. S.B. No. 1144 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULES AND TELECOMMUTING OPTIONS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES.

36. S.B. No. 1145 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING REPAIRS, ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO STATE BUILDINGS.

37. S.B. No. 1146 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

38. S.B. No. 1147 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.

39. S.B. No. 1148 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY.

40. S.B. No. 1149 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE REDUCTION OF CERTAIN DUPLICATE REPORTS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

41. S.B. No. 1150 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING REVISIONS TO THE UNIFORM REAL PROPERTY ELECTRONIC RECORDING ACT.

42. S.B. No. 1151 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS WITHIN STATE AGENCIES.

43. S.B. No. 1152 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN REPORTS AND THE DEFINITION OF INVASION OF PERSONAL PRIVACY UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

44. S.B. No. 1153 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE CAPITOL AREA DISTRICT HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEM.

45. S.B. No. 1154 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING REFERRAL OF CONTESTED CASES AND SETTLEMENTS TO THE CHIEF HUMAN RIGHTS REFEREE.

46. S.B. No. 1155 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN CONSULTANT http://cga.ct.gov/2009/GAEdata/pha/2009PHA00323-R000930GAE-PHA.htm 5/19/2009 001909

Government Adrninistration and Elections Cornrnittee - Agenda Page 4 of 4

SELECTIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.

47. S.B. No. 1156 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE STATE DANCE.

http://cga.ct.gov/2009/GAEdata/pha/2009PHA00323-R000930GAE-PHA.htm 5/19/2009 1 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMEN: Senator Slossberg Representative Spallone

VICE CHAIRMEN: Representative Aresimowicz

MEMBERS PRESENT: SENATORS: McLachlan

REPRESENTATIVES: Drew, Hetherington. Fleischmann, Grogins, Labriola, Miller, O'Brien, Reeves

REP. SPALLONE: Good morning, everyone. I'm James Spallone,. House Chairman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. We have a public hearing today, Monday, March 23, 2009. I hereby convene the hearing, but I'm immediately recessing it so that our staff and members can continue preparations. We will probably start again in approximately ten minutes or so. Thank you.

(Recess.)

REP. SPALLONE: I'm reconvening the public hearing of the Government Administrations -- Government Administration and Elections Committee for Monday, March 23, 2009. We have 47 bills on the agenda this morning, but I believe that we have a manageable number of people signed up to testify. Please remember when you testify today that we have a timer going, and that the bell, it's like a kitchen timer, will go off after you've been speaking for three minutes-. And T respectfully ask that when that bell goes off and you've reached your three minutes that you take 30 seconds or so to summarize the remainder of your testimony. If the members have 001911 2 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

questions, they'll follow-up and allow you to elaborate on some of the points you made.

I'd also suggest that, especially if you're comfortable with public speaking, that instead of reading your testimony, of which we have copies here or on our laptop computers, that you make the main points that you want us to review in the written testimony and add anything else, .maybe comment about other testimony you've heard. It's just a suggestion to have as effective a public hearing as possible.

I'd also like to mention that we're getting down toward the end of committee deadlines in the building, and not all the members will certainly be here, for the whole meeting. You'll see that sometimes the dais won't be that full, but people watch this on CTN, the members can watch it on CTN, or they can watch it on CTN throughout the week, because it might be rebroadcast. It often is. So people will catch up, and I just want you to know that your testimony is very important and will be taken into consideration.

And that's about it today. I guess one last thing I'd mention, and this is for members and also just as a point of interest for those who follow the committee, that we're trying to have -- we put all the testimony by bill number online, and if members really need a packet, they can ask our- clerk, but otherwise can follow along on their computer, and that's a way for us.to preserve paper and resources in this time of fiscal austerity and environmental awareness.

Madam Chair, welcome. Do you have any comments? Okay. So let's get started. 3 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Starting with our public sign-up sheet, first speaker this morning is Sandy Brunelli. Good morning.

SANDY BRUNELLI: (Inaudible) and distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Sandy Brunelli, and I work at the Department of Environmental Protection. This morning, I have some very important testimony, and it happens to be from one of my coworkers who wasn't able to make it today, so if you would allow me to, I'd like to read her testimony into the record. Thank you.

This is the testimony of Donna Seresin. She is a --she lives in Hamden, Connecticut, and she is a chapter delegate of our union and a chapter officer at CSEA/SEIU Local 2001. She's a sanitary engineer and she's worked at the Department of Environmental Protection for 23 years. And this is her:

She says, "I am providing written testimony today in favor of Senate Bill 1144, An Act Concerning Flexible Work Schedules and Telecommuting Options For the State Employees. The State of Connecticut currently has a policy concerning telecommuting for its employees, but only a tiny fraction of the state's nearly 60,000 state employees are currently participating in the program. Just recently, I received authorization and began telecommuting. Once again, one day per year. I had telecommuted for several years back in the late 1980s until it was eliminated as an option.

Last year, I supported this bill and DEP brought the idea of telecommuting to DEP through a series of information meetings sponsored by Telecommute Connecticut. I've 4 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

always been a producer of high volume of work. I am a proponent of telecommuting because more work can be done at home because there are fewer distractions. Since my work entails many large, technical reports, I need uninterrupted chunks of time to get work done. When I am at the DEP building in Hartford, I am in a big room with nearly 80 plus people and only one cubicle wall between me and my coworker. Since we are servicing the public, there are many conversations going on at the same time. This makes uninterrupted time to review engineering plans and reports extremely difficult.

Last summer, I became a team leader working for a group, the Lean Team, that is making our government run more efficiently. I am very passionate about making the government run more efficiently, especially through these tough economic times. We need to save money for the State in any manner we can. I believe telecommuting can save the State money, so supporting this bill is very important to me. I am also hoping that enough people will start telecommuting so that we can get cars off the road at peak commuting times, which will lower pollution. As a taxpayer, I am dedicated to DEP, as a DEP employee. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much for your testimony. I had one quick question, and that was I was conferring at the very beginning with my co-chair and I wanted to know, the individual whose testimony you're reading, which division is she in?

SANDY BRUNELLI: She's in the Water Bureau at DEP. She works on storm water enforcement.

REP. SPALLONE: Very good. Thank you. Any 5 ' March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

questions for our first speaker? If not, thank you for your testimony. We appreciate it. Thank your coworker as well.

SANDY BRUNELLI: I will. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Next speaker this morning is Paul Comer.1 Is Paul here? Paul Comer? Madeline Cameron. Good morning.

MADELINE CAMERON: Good morning. Madam Chair and Mr. Chairman and the members of the Committee, my name is Madeline Cameron and I live in New Britain and I'm here to support Bill Number .337, and I also urge the Committee to please designate September 12, 2009, as Fragile X Awareness Day:

When I was younger, my older brother wasn't able to do certain things that I was able to do such as ride my bike, play with friends and do different things. For"a time, I couldn't understand why he was acting the way he was, why he couldn't ride his bike. But anyway, back in the 1980s, early 1990s, nobody understood what Fragile X was. It wasn't until I had gotten checked when I got much older, when I was in high school, that I understood what it was. Even though they gave a bunch of numbers, and to be honest with you, I didn't understand what some of those numbers were.

But in any event, when I had gone to Dr. Greenstein at CCMC, he basically had advised me that there was a 50/50 chance of when I were to have children that they could have Fragile X. Then some time later, I wasn't sure'if I ever wanted to have children, then I finally met my husband several years later and I got pregnant. At first, we didn't know what 6 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

we were having because of the ultrasound. She had her legs together, so we had no idea. I was afraid that it was going to be a boy, because it's more prominent in the boys, because also my uncle has, and he's since passed away.

So anyway, when we finally had my daughter, they told us it was a girl, and at first I was relieved, because, you know, like oh, it's not a boy. I don't have to worry about the whole Fragile X. But I figured I'd have her checked anyway. So she was two months old, we had her checked. And it wasn't for any particular reason. It wasn't because she was doing something she wasn't supposed to. It's just we wanted to do that for our own peace of mind, to be educated and to have her be educated when she got older.

She does have Fragile X, and she's currently working with Birth to Three, which they're a wonderful program, and she's thriving and she's a beautiful little girl and she's very active and likes to run around and likes to make us laugh. She likes to laugh with her little sister, because I also -- I have two children. My second daughter, she doesn't have Fragile X, which we were relieved that it actually passed, it just stops at my younger one -- I'm sorry, my older one. But anyway, I just feel that it's an important thing for people to have knowledge of Fragile X.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions, comments from the members? If not, thanks again for coming today.

MADELINE CAMERON: Thank you. 7 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. The next speaker is Lenore Marema.

LENORE MAREMA: Good morning. I'm Lenore Marema from the Surety and Fidelity Association in Washington, D.C. Our members are insurance companies that write the vast majority of surety bonds on all public construction projects. We're not a lobbying group. We're licensed by the -- not primarily a lobbying group. We're licensed by the Connecticut Insurance Department as an advisory organization. We do the rates and form filing here, and we're also the statistical agent in Connecticut and every other state. But rest assured, you have the entire Government Affairs Department of the Surety Association here to talk in opposition to House Bill 5113.

I thought in the three minutes I had, I'd do three things. - Number one, talk a little bit about bonding from a national perspective, talk about the current state of the federal law and how House Bill 5113 would change that. All states in, the federal government require bonding on public construction projects. The surety carefully looks at the contractor, and when they issue a bond -- that's required by law on the contract -- they guaranteed that that general contractor will be able to complete the project on time according to the construction contract, and that all the workers, suppliers and subcontractors will be paid.

The vast majority of states in the federal government require a payment and a performance bond. The payment bond guarantees that everybody is going to get paid. The performance bond protects the taxpayer. The contractor is going to complete, no default, 001917 8 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:'30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

and that the public and the contracting entity- is not going to have to pay completion costs. The surety will step in if that happens.

The Connecticut law that's going to be amended or proposed to be amended under 5113 is an unusual law among the states. First of all, it requires a payment bond in contracts over $100,000. The $100,000 bond threshold that's in there, which is not going to be changed, is one of the higher ones among the states. The vast majority of states have bond thresholds $50,000 or less, so you are at the high threshold for the bond protection already.

The other thing that is very unusual about the Connecticut law is that you only require the payment bond. The state really, technically, under the law, self-insures the performance that the contractor's going to complete and that they'll pay the completion costs themselves.

I would say that probably the practice in Connecticut is not that much different, because the surety sells the payment and the performance bonds together. You can got both bonds for the same price. They package them and market them together. So I presume that most contracting officers in Connecticut, if they can get two bonds for the same price, that they'll do that.

What the bill does, it would allow the State contracting officers to waive that one and only protection of payment that contractors and suppliers and workers, on the job have. At the discretion of the contracting entity, they'd be able to dispense with the bond. We think that is a poor public practice. It puts a lot of discretion in the hands of one 9 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

officer in many of the agencies. Not only that, on public jobs, the only payment protection that workers and suppliers have is the bond. They can't take a lien on public property. If they don't get paid by the general contractor, the contractor defaults, unless the bond is in place, they have no payment protection, and this is not the economy to take that protection away from people who work on jobs.

REP. SPALLONE: Very good. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for this speaker? Yes, Senator Slossberg.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you very much, and thank you for being here and for your testimony. Can you give us a little bit more background '-- I think if you turn your mike off for a moment, hopefully we'll be okay there. Okay. I'll turn mine on when you turn yours back on and hopefully we won't have that happening.

You spoke a little bit about some of the other states that you think our threshold is very high at the $100,000, but many other states are at $50,000 in terms of protection. Can you just tell me a little bit more about that? I think in this economy, you're very right, we want to make sure that we are protecting the State dollars and our public dollars to the extent that we are going to have all of the hopefully construction and work going on, so I'd just be curious to know what your experience is in other states with regard to this.

LENORE MAREMA: We have a chart, actually, of the laws in most states, and we can give you that. You know, I know $100,000 sounds like nothing when you think of public construction, but you 001919 10 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ' ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

need to understand that not everything is a building. There's a lot of contracts that are small, relatively speaking, because it's really repairs, alteration, maintenance. What the surety does, the surety prequalifies that the contractor that gets the job has the wherewithal, they have the capacity and they will do it.

Most states historically have very low bond thresholds. Connecticut is one state that has looked at the bond threshold over time, and I think it was increased $100,000 and something else, what, about four years ago? Five years ago? Other states have looked at the $100,000 threshold in the Miller Act, in which the government chooses to protect itself and have moved their -- if they've moved their- threshold up,, they've moved it to the federal government threshold, to be consistent with that. There's only three states that have a threshold that's higher than $100,000. You've got to look at that number in terms of when a contractor defaults. It's not just on one job. It's on every job they're doing, so it's multiples of $100,000 when they go under.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Thank you. And if you do have a chart of that, I think that would be something we'd be very interested in, and if you're able to provide it, we would appreciate it. I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank .you, Senator. Anything further? If not, we appreciate your testimony. Next speaker is Robert Johnson. Mr. Johnson? Let me -- we'll go back -- let me go back to Paul Comer.

PAUL COMER: Good morning, Representative Spallone, 11 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Senator Slossberg, Representative Hetherington. House Joint Resolution 1, is what I want to speak on, and I think it1s long past time that we address it in terms of is it an apology or is it just a statement on paper. The fact is that slavery was wrong, and it's key that we learn from our past so we don't make the mistakes in the future. I like the language. One of those things that was argued about is should "apology" be in there, and I think that as leaders of the state, you can't worry about whether the apology means we're going to be liable for it. It's one case and one case only: Was it right or was it wrong, and it was wrong. I really like this bill, and it's just sailed through. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate it. Are there any questions this morning? If not, thank you. It will become part of the record. Next, going back, just making sure, Robert Johnson. Robert Johnson? Okay. Herb Wagner. Mr. Wagner? Tiffany Hubbard. Good morning.

TIFFANY HUBBARD: Good morning. I'm here in

support of Senate Bill 1144(? My name is Tiffany Hubbard. I'm a UConn law student. I became involved in the Commission on Aging's Redefining'Retirement Years Project back in March 2008 through my elder-law professor Sandra Sherlock-White, and the culmination of that research that I did resulted in a report in January 2009 entitled, "Redefining Retirement Years, Workplace Flexibility Practices in State Law." The report is based on a review of all 50 states with respect to workplace flexibility. That report is available on the Commission's website, or we can get you a hard copy if you would like. 001921 12 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

What I'd like to do is take this time to highlight my report findings. I don't want to read the report into the record, but I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

What I found, strikingly, was that both the private and public-sector employers found that workplace flexibility improved employee productivity and job satisfaction, reduced absenteeism, reduced employee turnover and reduced costs. Some private sector employers have found a positive correlation between workplace flexibility and customer retention and profits, while others have found a decrease in healthcare expenditures, including mental health.

Many states have enacted workplace flexibility laws, and what I found in looking at those, the reasons for doing that was for broader recruitment, retention of higher caliber employees, improved productivity or services and/or to reduce environmental pollution and traffic congestion. Some states have experienced real-estate reduction costs, like in Arizona, where they introduced a virtual office, so they have some employees that no longer need to attend the office. They're actually able to reduce their office-space requirements by a building. They also have about 20 percent of their state employees telecommuting.

I think that the demonstrated success, in the private sector and in other states serves as sound footing for Connecticut to move forward with Senate Bill 1144. It includes voluntary schedule reduction, flexible work schedules, phased-in retirement and telecommuting, and under this bill, Connecticut would have the 13 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

opportunity to build on its existing laws to promote flexibility, as a recruiting and retention tool, and to lead by example as the state's largest employer. At the same time, the State could realize cost savings by decreasing employee absenteeism, presenteeism, employee turnover, reducing healthcare costs and increasing employee productivity and customer service.

This opportunity is especially crucial in the state not only as facing an aging work force, but a budget crisis. I urge you to support the Senate Bill 1144. Thank you again for this opportunity, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning my research.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much for your testimony. Senator Slossberg has questions.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: {Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank' you, Tiffany, for being here and for your very interesting testimony. I'm wondering, during the course of your research, did you find specific cost savings for various states that have employed this technique? Did you look at it at all?

TIFFANY HUBBARD: As far as the specific kind of savings,, no, I don't have the numbers on that. What I have is like reports from Arizona and Virginia stating that they have found increased productivity. From the private sector, there are reports where they have actually taken their internal data and found that this is a cost savings for them as a private employer.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: And are you planning on submitting your report to us today? 14 . March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE'

TIFFANY HUBBARD: I'd be happy to do that.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: We would be delighted to have it. I assume, given that you're a UConn law student, it's all properly annotated, so if we wanted to follow-up on some of those reports, that would be available?

TIFFANY HUBBARD: Yes,, absolutely. In fact, in the back, there is "a ten-page table summarizing other states' flexibility laws. I'd be happy to hand you this copy if yOu'd like.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Terrific. I'm just curious. One of the -- I think it's very important for us to be looking at alternative work places. I know that I've lost employees in the past to places that are more flexible in their work day, and I know sometimes I get a lot more work done at home than I do trying to work in this environment on occasion. But one of the pushbacks that we get,, one of the criticisms that we get when we raise bills like this is how do places prevent goofing off, and gee, you know, those State workers. Aren't they really just going to be home doing nothing? And I know you said your research shows otherwise. How would you address that particular concern or critique to those people who aren't persuaded?

TIFFANY HUBBARD: I think, again, Arizona is a good state to look to, because they've been doing -their telecommuting program since 1993, and they actually have that as one of their myths on their telecommuting website. And what they're talking about is it's,really a change in management from observing behavior to work product. So establishing what the employee's goals are and making sure they meet those 15 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

goals. Personally, I think that that's probably a better way to manage, and you'll have a better understanding of what work is being done. But if somebody is going to go home and just sit there and not do anything, it will become very apparent if by the end of the month they were supposed to turn in 20 reports and they have nothing to show for it. Whereas if you're just expecting them to be in the office during a certain time and they look -through the other computer.

So again, I think that looking to Arizona or perhaps Virginia to look at their documentation of what they've found, Arizona did find that they increased employee productivity, and actually, as part of their survey to see how people would feel about them implementing this, people understood that this was being done for the environment and as a cost savings for the State and were willing to accept that, even though there was still the perception that State employees would just be staying home. So again, I think that's a good state to look at for guidance on this.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you for that answer, and I think that's an excellent point. I don't know if you're aware of it, but we have been working at: the legislature primarily through the Appropriations Committee on results-based accountability to really move our state in that direction to be looking at productivity and performance as opposed to just time logged in. And I will just put in a plug for all our State employees who work very hard and go to work every single day trying to do a good job for the people in this state. So I hope that we will move forward with this, and we look forward to receiving your research and following-up there. So thank you very much, 16 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Representative Hetherington.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you. As someone who in a previous life spent many hours on Metro North, I can relate very well to that notion of telecommuting. I wondered, do you think we have the technology sufficiently in place to handle the exchange of data and of work product, for example, when reports have to be completed? And that would be done, I suppose, with e-mail attachments or -- could you comment on that a little bit?

TIFFANY HUBBARD:' Absolutely. I think that our technology is further along than in 1993 when Arizona started their telecommuting project, and I think that it varies. It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing situation where somebody is now told, okay, five days a week you're going to work from home. It could be that they're only working from home one day, two days, or maybe three days a week. The reports could even be brought into the office in paper form at a meeting. It doesn't necessarily mean that all of their work is now going "to be done from home.

And again, not to harp back on the Arizona information that I came across, but they actually stressed that telecommuting doesn't necessarily have to involve technology. You don't need to be using the computer when you're working at home. You could actually be taking reports home to read, to work on and do noncomputer work from home and perhaps only use the telephone. So I don't think that technology should be the big hurdle from influencing this. It may be in some cases 17 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

it's impractical, but again, I think that it doesn't have to be seen as an all-or-nothing component.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman:

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Representative. Representative Aresimowicz.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tiffany, thanks for the information. As you were speaking, I actually pulled up the Arizona -- it's called Telework Arizona, and you can log in. I was just reading, they actually partnered with a private company -- just leave that company out of it. We can talk about that later -- but they helped them initiate all the technology that was necessary; correct?

TIFFANY HUBBARD: Yes, that's correct.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: This is pretty fascinating. Thank you for your testimony.

TIFFANY HUBBARD: You're welcome, and I have a nice little summary in here about that with some more links, that you may not need since you're already on their site.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Thanks.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Representative Reeves.

REP. REEVES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Tiffany, for coming today. I wanted to make a comment. I come from the southwestern part of the state as does Representative Hetherington, and we have a lot of people in our towns who have been doing this for many years with New 001927 18 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

York City. New York City is way ahead of us in terms of the fact that years ago, they decided that the commute is very difficult. So it may have started out as maybe one or two days a week you stay home. In fact, we have a woman in our town who is an IT director for the mayor's office, and she, in the beginning, may have done one or two days a week and now only goes in once a month and does all of her work for home, and it works out very well, and I think it's something we really should investigate. Thank you.

TIFFANY HUBBARD: You're welcome.

REP. REEVES: Thank you very much. Any further questions? If not, we appreciate your testimony and your report. It's been very interesting.

TIFFANY HUBBARD: You're welcome. Would you like me to bring this up?

REP. REEVES: You can bring it up to our clerk, who is to my left. Thank you very much. Next speaker is Senator Edith Prague.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Senator Slossberg and Representative Spallone, first of all, let me thank you for accommodating my sort of crazy schedule today and allowing me to testify at this point in time. For the record, I'm Edith Prague, the senator from the 19th District. 3mk Just a comment. I just heard the last remarks of the former speaker, and I find it very interesting that other places are doing telecommuting. We had this huge problem, as you know, with 25 Sigourney Street and some of the employees wanted to do just that. Because we don't look upon this favorably in Connecticut, it really was not allowed, so I 001928 19 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

thank the Committee for looking at that issue.

First of all, I'm actually here today for two reasons. The First Selectman of Lebanon is ill and asked me to read her testimony on Senate Bill 14. "I am Joyce Okonuk, First Selectman of the Town of Lebanon, speaking in support of this bill and request a small modification.

"Ancient burial places often began as family burial places on the family farm. In the case of a small one-quarter acre cemetery in Lebanon, the farm was sold in the mid 1800s and the burial grounds were retained in the family. The ownership therefore resides with five to seven generations of descendents of the original owner without a legal association for Burial Ground Authority of management. Eleven family members were interred between 1820 and 1886, with no other activity until .2000.

"In year 2000, a male linear descendent was interred in the cemetery using the Town's Burial Ground Authority, and in 2001, his son was likewise interred. Plots were reserved for the spouses and other family members, although the father's spouse was interred elsewhere. The living spouse investigated the possibility of establishing a legal Cemetery Association', but was advised by her attorney that it would be far too complicated, time consuming and expensive. Her desire is to have the Town take over ownership and management of the -cemetery.

"It should be noted here that this bill is basically the same as Senate Bill 547, which has been approved by the Joint Committee on Planning and Development. Senate Bill 547 20 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

contains a change initiated by Senator McKinney to satisfy a similar situation in his district.

"The Town of Lebanon suggests that these two bills be combined and requests the following modifications: In the first sentence after 'has been made,' insert the following: 'Under the Burial Ground Authority of the original owner(s), family or association.'"

Now, everybody has, copies of this testimony, so if you.want the language, it's available.

"A combination of,these two bills with the requested change will provide Lebanon and other Connecticut Towns with the tools to maintain and utilize these long-abandoned cemeteries. I respectfully request your support." Thank you.

I just want to speak on one more bill briefly, and that's Senate Bill 336. An Act Amending the Process for the Sale of Land Obtained by the State for Highway Purposes, Including the Property by Those Abutting Route 6. Route 6 has been a horror for those of us who live out in Eastern Connecticut. The DOT bought property, I'can't "remember how many years ago, without having the permits. They bought people's homes. People had to leave their homes and go find another house to buy and to live in. And really, it was a nightmare. They never did get the permits, and now people are agonizing to buy their property back. So this bill that Senator DeFronzo introduced and I cosponsored establishes a process for the sale of land obtained by the State for highway purposes, including the property by those abutting Route 6. 21 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

You know, to give the original homeowners or their heirs the right of first refusal is really the fair thing to do. But they were paid for the property, for those folks who have currently been able to purchase the property back, with so much less than they have to pay the State now for the property because they have to sell their property at fair market value. It is a huge problem for many of them to raise the kind of money that they have to raise in order to buy their property back. But that's the way it is, and many of them are struggling to get that money to buy. that property. But this will establish a process so that something like this won't happen to people in this state again. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much, Senator. Any questions for Senator Prague? If not, we appreciate your testimony. It's always nice to .have you here at the GAE Committee.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Nice to be here.

REP. SPALLONE: Very good. Next speaker is Peter Kaskell.

PETER KASKELL: Good morning, co-chairs, members of the Committee. I come from Representative Reeves' town of Wilton. I'm here to address Bill 6696 on municipal ethics. My statement will be a summary of the written statement that I've submitted.

The State Ethics Task Force Report and the Central Code of Ethics and its appendix offer a sound balance between the need for minimum standards and the importance of not deterring well-qualified volunteers. We at Wilton support that report. Supposedly, the 001931 22 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

rationale underlying this Bill 6696 also is to allow and indeed require each municipality to have its own code, recognizing that one model does not fit all. But Bill 6696 makes a sham of this rationale. It comes close to imposing a very detailed uniform code for all municipalities, including the two-thirds of municipalities that already have one, under the pretense that each would be permitted to adopt yet stricter rules.

The bill shows little sensitivity for the problems of smaller towns that depend so heavily on hard-to-recruit, well-qualified, unpaid volunteers. The over 150 Wilton citizens who serve as unpaid volunteers on our various boards and similar bodies are the lifeblood of our town's government. Our new code has five concise, substantive rules as described in my written statement. These five rules cover the key areas of concern in municipal ethics. They closely resemble the recommendations and model code of the State Ethics Passports. Naturally, in egregious cases, criminal laws apply as well.

Prevention of unethical conduct is the primary objective of Wilton's code. Whenever doubt exists as to possible conflicts of interest or other matters, officials are encouraged under our code to present the facts in writing to our Council, which will promptly issue an advisory opinion on which the official may rely. Enforcement is even more critical. The one section of the bill, Section 8, dealing with that subject, is permissive, not mandatory. What's more, Section 8 totally fails to establish an adequate enforcement procedure. That is a fatal flaw.

In summary, >Bill 6696 simply does not do what 001932 23 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT /ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

is needed here. It can be fixed by adopting the State Task Force1s model code or the amendments proposed in the statement submitted by our chair, Mr. Hudspeth. Those proposals provide a sensible way forward on this subject that is so important to our state and to us all. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions? Representative Hetherington.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you. I would just like to say I'm aware that you've done a tremendous amount of volunteer work on this, and I just applaud your efforts on it. Thank you for your contribution. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Any further questions? Representative Reeves.

REP. REEVES: Hi, Peter. It's good to see you here. I also am very grateful that there are so many people like you in Wilton and other towns who work so hard for all of us as volunteers. I'm sure that there is some way that we can reconcile some of these things. We certainly don't want to deter the volunteerism that is rampant throughout this state, and we would like to encourage it, and I'm sure that we can work on this bill to make it more acceptable. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Representative. Thank 'you again for your testimony, sir. Next speaker is Representative Perillo, followed by Derek Buckley.

REP. PERILLO: Good morning Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone, Ranking Member Hetherington. Thanks very much. I will make 001933 24 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

this brief. I know you have a very full agenda today. I am speaking today in support of House Bi 11_ 5113 , which is An Act Concerning Surety Bonds in Contracts for Public Projects. I speak in support, knowing that the Committee language proposed here would make those bonds entirely discretionary, yet I also recognize the importance of these bonds in municipal and state contracts, and I offer, very simply, a compromise.

I know you're going to hear testimony today from contractors in the state who are opposed to the legislation. They're opposed, very specifically, because they understand the importance of these bonds in protecting municipalities and protecting taxpayer dollars. So I would very simply offer a compromise that simply raises a threshold that triggers the need for a surety bond in a municipal or state contract. It's currently at $100,000. I have submitted written testimony to you, and the proposed language is in there, and it very simply changes that $100,000 number to $1 million.

Perhaps you want to ask the contractors when they're here what they think would be a good number. Quite frankly, $100,000 in this day and age is just too low. You can barely get out of your way on a municipal project for $100,000, and I just want to make sure that towns aren't spending taxpayer dollars unnecessarily for small-dollar projects. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Representative. Senator Slossberg.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 25 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

being here and for making your proposal. And I understand the intent is to try to take some of the paperwork off of municipalities' desks. Can you tell me what other states have limits up to a million dollars?

REP. PERILLO: I actually cannot. I cannot. The impetus of this bill came out of a local issue in my town of Shelton, where a proposal was put forth and RFP came out, bids came in. It was for a very simple paving project, and corporation counsel recognized that in the RFP, there was no request for a bond. So in addition to the agreed-upon price, the Town had to go back out and demand that the bond be secured, which of course, increased the price of the project. And at that point, municipal leaders realized, well, wait a second. This is actually something we're spending money on. We're spending taxpayer dollars on a surety bond here. And quite frankly, it's not really doing much for us. It was a very simple project. So it was that recognition of what the incremental cost was of the bond that led my local leaders to ask me to move something forward on this. But that's a good question and I do not know the answer to it.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: We heard testimony earlier, I don't think you were in the room, that was basically a survey across the states that found that we are one of the highest states at $100,000, with only, I believe, three other states higher than us. And most every other state at $50,000 or less. If I give you that information, do you have any further thoughts about a proposal to bump this up to a million?

REP. PERILLO: Well, maybe a million is not the number. But at the same time, as you look at numbers, if we weighed ourselves in the State 001935 26 March 23, 2009 ch' GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

of Connecticut by what other people do all the time, perhaps we'd be doing a lot of things wrong. Can't necessarily say because they do it this way, we'd have to. do it that way as well. But I do believe there is room to move that number up, just simply to save taxpayer dollars on bonds that aren't necessary.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Have you ever had the experience in your local community where a project has gone wrong and you've needed to go after the bond holder in order to secure either performance or payment?

REP. PERILLO: In my community, no, we have not had that experience, but I know that has happened in other municipalities, which is very simply why making bonds,entirely discretionary may not be the answer in "this case. There are cases where it is appropriate, and perhaps we should be asking the state municipalities to ensure that a bond's in place, but I just happen to believe that $100,000 is not the number.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Thank you very much.

REP. SPALLONE: Thanks again for your testimony. Any questions for Representative Perillo? If not, thank you.

REP. PERILLO: Thanks a lot. Have a great day.

REP,. SPALLONE: Next speaker was Derek-Buckley. Good morning.

DEREK BUCKLEY: Good morning. Good morning Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and _ distinguished Committee members. My name is Hft I ^- Derek Buckley. I'm Town Clerk in the Town of Easton. I'm here to speak in support of 001936 27 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Committee Bill Number 14. Rather than read my written testimony, I'd like to discuss certain aspects of the bill with you, if I may.

Easton has four abandoned cemeteries, and some time ago, I was assigned the responsibility of taking care of them because of public complaints about the condition of them. Seemed like a simple task at the beginning, but four years of experience has taught me that nothing is simple.

In particular, I'd like to address Section 1. If Section 1 is retained as the definition of abandoned cemeteries, it will essentially prevent us addressing the abandoned cemeteries.

To give you an example, we had a burial that occurred in the cemetery without permission two years ago, which would prevent us addressing that cemetery until 2045. I would like to request that you consider adding to that definition another definition that says if the Town has used due diligence in searching records and has followed the procedure described in B to try and locate the owner, it may take title to the cemetery. That would put the owners to come forward and not on the Town to prove a negative proposition, which is that there are no owners. It's very difficult. To give you an example, we have been researching one cemetery. We've had five people looking into it for six months. The last owner died in 1861. A group of people tried in 1930 to locate owners and gave up. So the cemetery has essentially been abandoned for about 180 years. This would add another 40 years to that prospect if it stands without some alternative. 28 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Another thing that has come to light from our work is that the owner of the cemetery is not necessarily the owner of the grave. Often, especially in modern times, the owner of the cemetery will sell by cemetery deed the right to be buried in the grave. And therefore, if you own the cemetery, you may still not be able to do anything within the graveyard unless you actually can take possession of all of the cemetery, including the occupied graves and the unoccupied graves.

And finally, I'd like to say the Board of Selectmen appointed me the Town Sexton for Abandoned Cemeteries. Unfortunately, the Board of Finance thinks they have no power to do such a thing. As a consequence, it's a title without any authority to do anything. It would be very helpful if you would give the towns the ability if they wish to appoint a town sexton for these abandoned cemeteries, with the ability to raise funds through local processes through the normal budget process. Okay, thank you very much.

REP. SPALLONE: Very good. Thank you. And thank you for highlighting your written testimony. We appreciate it. Any questions? Representative Hetherington.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In order to bury remains in a private cemetery, don't you need to get some kind of authority from the Department of Health or whatever?

DEREK BUCKLEY: You need to get prior approval of a permit to do it, but secondly, this particular case was a private cemetery with no known owner since 1861. The lady in question was buried next to her husband, so she may or may 29 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

not own that cemetery, that grave. And in this case, the person doing the burial did not get permission ahead of time, and the statutes do not provide any penalty for doing that.

REP. HETHERINGTON: What I was getting at, and perhaps your answer meets that question, is that I would think that from requests, applications for permits, you would know when the last person was buried there, because you have' a record of a permit being issued to inter someone there.

DEREK BUCKLEY: No.

REP. HETHERINGTON: No?

DEREK BUCKLEY: No, because once the cemetery is abandoned, very strange things happen. People, for example, put up family memorials even though nobody is buried there. And people take stones out and put other stones in because they think the stone is worn or damaged or in some way not suitable. So the stones don't necessarily reflect who is buried there. And in addition, we did some underground radar search of one of the graveyards and we found 100 people buried there without any markers whatsoever. So you need a simple definition of what an abandoned cemetery is and the simple process for taking it over. We're not trying, to take anything away from owners. In fact, I think they should have the right to reassert their position if they can show they own it.

We have a similar position with family members where there's a lot of family members buried in one location, there are living members today who will take care of those sites and want to be buried there in the empty sites but 30 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

can't prove that they own it because they don't know where the deed is and there's no record of a deed.

REP. HETHERINGTON: If you want to bury someone in the cemetery you own, what do you have to do by way of getting official permission to do that?

DEREK BUCKLEY: Usually you have to go to the Town Clerk's office and get a permit prior to the burial. And then the sexton, in an active cemetery, the sexton would supervise the burial. In an abandoned cemetery, there is no sexton usually..

REP. HETHERINGTON: But so wouldn't the town records be prima facie evidence, if you will, of the last time someone was buried there?

DEREK BUCKLEY: Yeah, possible, although records, the further back you go, the less reliable records become, we've found. For example, in the cemetery we're trying to research now, the only way we can find any records is to go through actually probate records, not burial records. And we're in the process of going to the Library of Congress to see if we can get anything from their records. But proving ownership is very, very difficult in old cemeteries.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much, Representative. Any further questions? If not, thank you. Your testimony was very helpful. We appreciate it.

DEREK BUCKLEY: Thank you. 001940 31 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT /ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

REP. SPALLONE: Next speaker is Comptroller Wyman. Welcome. Thank you.

COMPTROLLER WYMAN: Thank you. Good morning. Or is it afternoon? Good morning. Good morning, Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and the distinguished members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. For the record, I am State Comptroller Nancy Wyman, and I'd like to comment on a few of your bills in front of you today.

I would like to testify in support of House Bill -- House Joint Resolution 113, The Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the State Constitution Concerning the Length of Terms For Members of the General Assembly. You know, across the country, states are dealing with the largest fiscal crisis and economic downturn in recent memory. The State must address this budget crisis for this year and the next biennium, but it also has an opportunity to make changes that will restructure and reduce State spending for the long term as well.

This proposed constitutional amendment would provide for four-year terms for both House and Senate members of the General Assembly and stagger those terms accordingly. It makes accommodations for the ten-year census by electing representatives and senators for two-year terms in the fourth and fifth general elections. The elections are staggered by odd and even numbers depending upon districts.

Extending the terms of the Office of the General Assembly will, under our new system of public financing of campaigns, significantly reduce the cost of our election process. The 32 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

estimated spending for each two-year election is over $13 million, and extending the term of the office to four years would save the State over the biennium over six -- well, over $7 million in their budget. It is true that these savings will not be realized in the short term, but the approval of this measure will reduce spending in the out years, which is a very, very important object that we should be dealing with.

The second bill is .Senate Bill 1144, An Act Concerning Flexible Work Schedules.

REP. SPALLONE: Please continue. Thank you.

COMPTROLLER WYMAN: Thank you. 1144, dealing with the flexible work schedules. My agency has successfully utilized a voluntary system like this for many years. It is currently administered on a quarterly basis, permitting the employee and management to frequently assess the needs of the agency. The current bill provides for the program to be administered for periods of not less than six months. I believe that is restricting the program and I would hope that you would reconsider and reevaluate this, because we really do believe that the four month or three-month sessions are much better for agencies.

Also, Section 2 of the bill provides for the implementation of a flexible work schedule. Efforts to extend this type of program to a larger number of State employees through collective bargaining should be encouraged.

Section 3 of the bill provides for a phased-in retirement program, which would permit employees to essentially take advantage of the 001942 33 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

voluntary schedule reduction program if they are within the five years of their retirement eligibility. But we have some problems that I'd like to bring to your attention. Both in Tier I and Tier II(a) of our retirement plan requires employees to contribute a portion of their salary to the retirement fund. If the employee is treated as if they earned the full salary without requiring the employee to contribute to the retirement fund, the retirement fund contributions go down. The actuarial requirement, required contributions to the fund would still have to be made, and the employer's contribution to the fund will need to be increased to account for the total contribution. It is unclear that this proposal would result in any savings to the State.

Lastly, the bill requires the Commissioner of Administrative Services to facilitate telecommuting opportunities in State government. Allowing agency heads to approve telecommuting gives the person most knowledgeable about the agency operations and the needs the authority to determine what is best for its employees and for its business operations, and I support this provision. I would again note that restricting agencies to not less than six months period of any time may not provide adequate flexibility to meet agency's needs.

Finally, under the current telecommuting policy, managers are prohibited from being permitted to telecommunicate. I would request the Committee reconsider permitting managers to be considered for telecommuting opportunities as part of this legislation.

I have one more bill, and that's Senate Bill 34 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

609, An Act Concerning the Auditing of State Agencies. I wanted to comment briefly on this proposal. My office currently follows-up with each agency that receives an audit recommendation to assist them in complying with the recommendations. I know that you have in here where the agencies have to come back. There are sometimes ongoing recommendations that either the auditors or my office puts out that cannot be fulfilled because of financial matters or how the -- and I can tell you I have one that's a reoccurring in my own agency. And unless it's done by the Administration, it will not be -- if the Administration doesn't join in on it, we cannot do that recommendation. So I would suggest that you look at this again on how you would -- I know that you'd like the reports back, but it would be difficult to get some of the agencies back in each time to go -- because my agency, like my agency is audited every year. We have auditors right in our agency throughout, always. So those recommendations are constantly coming in. And you know, you might be filled to the brim. You might become that full-time legislature if you have to do every single one of the audits. So as you look at it.

Also, and I know that last week you heard 6374 on the Office of Accountability. I truly believe, and I apologize for not being here, that would be duplicative of current agency efforts at this time. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you might have.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much. Senator Slossberg has a question.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam Comptroller for being here 35 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

and for speaking on so many of the bills. I even have another one that I want to ask you about', but just going back to your testimony, with regard to the telecommuting legislation that we have in front of us, obviously we want to put out the best piece of legislation that we can, and we've gotten some good testimony already.

I just want to clarify. You said something about right now the policy is being determined and approved by the commissioner --by DAS.

COMPTROLLER WYMAN: No. I'm sorry.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: All right. I just want to make sure what your recommendation is, that the agency heads make that.

COMPTROLLER WYMAN: That's it. I'm sorry, I thought --

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Regardless of what the bill says right now or not is what I wanted to just get was your take of what your recommendation was in terms of the agency heads are in the best position to be making those decisions as to flexible work schedules in telecommuting.

COMPTROLLER WYMAN: I totally believe that. And this works extremely well in my agency, and we do get a list every couple of months of who has asked to have some volunteer time off and working at home, and it works extremely well for us.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Terrific. With regard to the hearings on the auditors, I hear loud and clear what you're saying, and certainly I don't think that this Committee wants to become' the super-auditing agency where we hear 36 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT /ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

every time that there is a recommendation from the Board of Auditors. But I do think that it's important, especially when there are recurring recommendations, because I think wading through all the auditing reports, we found that sometimes they come -- some of the reasons you get the recurring recommendations are because the law needs to be changed or because there's some conflict between the agency and the law, and I think that's important for the legislature to be aware of that and for that to be public and for people to be on board. So we're trying to work out the balance between not having this room filled with audit, so if you have an appropriate place where you think that line should be drawn, I would be delighted to hear from you on that.

COMPTROLLER WYMAN: One of the things I would suggest is that after -- when the actuaries do go in, the auditors go in, rather, when the auditors do go in that they make that as a recommendation or state that. If it is something that they believe that the law should be changed, that we should be talking about that. You know, when it came to us, the recurring audit thing, talks about our core financial systems and how everything should be under one agency, and the auditors have said it under ours, that's always in discussion with the administration. That's one of the things that really can't be defined and changed unless we do a major change in government. But I would love to sit down with you and Representative Spallone to talk about that.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you. And thank you as always, your comments are very insightful and very helpful to our work. Thank you, Mr. 37 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Chair.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Any further questions for our comptroller? I had a quick question on the resolution regarding the terms of members of the General Assembly. There may be an argument -- there is an argument that the way it's set up without any staggered terms and with two-year.' terms gives the public the opportunity during a four-year term of a governor, which we adopted some decades ago now, "jto do a clean' sweep • of the legislative branch of government to reflect current issues that Jmay arise during that time and a feeling that there needs to be a major change in government. How do you respond to that argument? j COMPTROLLER WYMAN:. I think if you look back in history, that does not happen. We know that reoccurrence of the incumbents is a very high percentage. The fact is that I really believe that [the work of the legislature could be done,| you know, I think it would give you all much {more time to really concentrate on fulfi'lling what you believe should be fulfilled. As a former State Rep, I do understand what it was like to go campaigning every two years, and it seemed to me that the first'; year of the legislative session, we were able jto get more things done than the second yeathe r t oimfe thoef campaigninlegislativge sessioagain. n because it was

This (is, I truly believe, besides a -- to me it is!. When I looked at it first, it was a fiscal issue. On the second hand of it, I truly) do look at it as -- especially since it's alternating terms. So you'd be split half and half. The continuity would be good. Right now, sometimes I think that bureaucracy 38 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

runs government, because you don't have the terms to really do the oversight, and I really believe the oversight should be done in the hands of the elected officials. So my feeling is that you having those four-year terms and it being done alternately will give you an opportunity and I think it1s a better service to the citizens of the state.

REP. SPALLONE: In your proposal, how many classes would there be in the House and in the Senate? You said their alternate would be three or two?

COMPTROLLER WYMAN: I'm sorry. We would have -- I'm sorry.

REP. SPALLONE: I'm sorry. How many classes would the House and the Senate be divided into? For example, in the United States Senate, I think there are three classes of senators so that one-third of them are up every six years, the other third and the other third. How many --

COMPTROLLER WYMAN: We'd have two classes of both the House and Senate and it would alternate for the two years.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much. Any further questions for our comptroller? If not, we really appreciate your testimony. Thank you for being here.

COMPTROLLER WYMAN: Thank you. Have a good day.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Our next speaker is Barry Zitser.

BARRY ZITSER: Honorable Committee members, my name is Barry Zitser. I'm here as a member of the public in support of S.J. 71, An Act Promoting 001948 39 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

a Unicameral Legislature, a smaller body of 60 full-time legislators for four-year terms, with half of them staggered every two years. I don't wish my comments to be construed as suggesting that we do not now have public-spirited and hard-working legislators. Indeed, Connecticut is blessed to have legislators who put in the extraordinary double and triple hours that you do, given your part-time pay. However, the ever-increasing complexities of government, the need for special sessions and the ongoing problems of the states that occur between sessions weigh in favor of a more cost-efficient, less costly, ongoing body that can focus on the State's business. It would also open up the legislature to a greater pool of candidates by providing a living wage.

Some of our best friends in the world have unicameral legislators that operate just fine: The Knesset in Israel, all of the Canadian provinces, British provinces, and in fact, Great Britain and Canada primarily are unicameral with their Upper Chambers basically being ceremonial. The historic reasons for a bicameral legislature do not exist in Connecticut as they did in the United States government that was formed in the 1700s. Both our chambers are in one person, one vote. We don't have 13 separate sovereign colonies in Connecticut with sometimes contradictory interest. You look at the least-densely populated section of this state to the most densely populated, you're going to find the vast majority of Connecticut Yankees with common interests, concern over property taxes, higher education, health care. In fact even with farming. I live in a suburban community. We have farms. I work in an urban community. We have farmer markets. 40 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Government is often the most difficult of institutions to restructure because people sometimes get vested interest in positions. But I have confidence that you can look at this issue dispassionately and solely on its merits. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker? My quick question would be this: In this building, oftentimes a piece of legislation will pass the House or the Senate and it contains flaws, and when it gets to the other chamber, it's repaired and then repassed by the other. So there's a check-and-balance even within the legislature as a piece of legislation goes through. People bring different perspectives.

And the second part -- it's a two-part question -- is that in having different-sized districts, senators may represent a somewhat different view of legislation than house members because they're considering a bigger region. Most senatorial districts may -- while a house district may, say, be all small towns, there's bound to be some larger towns or city in part of a senate district. So I wondered how you would account -- how you would respond to an argument that we should maintain the system because of those two issues?

BARRY ZITSER: Checks and balances are a legitimate consideration to weigh on the other side of this issue. But with a full-time legislature that is still based on one person, one vote with 60, perhaps some of those flaws would be noticed because of the greater focus. If you look at some of the checks and balances that have occurred in bicameral legislatures, I 41 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

think of the U.S. Senate, which isn't based on one person, one vote. You can have senators representing 2 0 percent of the people frustrate the will of 80 percent of the people, and very often it's been used in negative ways such as opposing civil-rights legislation. But what you have mentioned is a legitimate consideration on the other side of the issue. I just believe that when you consider all of the benefits, all the pros and cons, it weighs in favor of the unicameral legislature.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much.

BARRY ZITSER: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Anything further? If not, we appreciate your testimony today. The next speaker would be Lynn Coda-Klein. Thank you. Good morning.

LYNN CODA-KLEIN: Good morning. Good morning, Representative Spallone and members of the GAE. I have submitted written testimony that I'm not going to read to you. I just want to summarize some points. I'm here in support of Section 4 of Senate Bill 1144. My name is Lynn Coda-Klein and I am a 22-year State employee working for the Department of Information Technology, and I wanted to speak on the technology that currently allows many of us to work from home when we're on an on-call basis.

The State uses something called VPN, or Virtual Private Network, that securely allows us to log into our work computers from home as if we were at work. It has been used since the 1990s. About 70 agencies use VPN. There's a key that is issued to each employee 001951 42 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

that has it that has a number that is used to log into the system when you run the VPN client on your home machine. That number changes every 60 seconds, and there have been nearly 4,000 keys already distributed to State employees. So in my testimony, I have how VPN works, but I know there was some questions to an earlier speaker about technology, and with e-mail, with web conferencing and phone conferencing, it would be very easy to stay connected to the office.

Currently, those of us on call, we use VPN enable to respond to calls that we may get off-hours, on a day off, at night, on the weekends, to quickly log in and take care of problems to systems that are critical to public safety such as a collect system. We wouldn't want to see any down time with that, and it saves us from having to drive into the office to get out our machines to do our work.

We know that the members of the GAE Committee are working very hard this session to look at the way government does business and promote new efficiencies and improve services. We hope that working with you, we can change the way the State does do its business to eliminate the bureaucracy, the inefficiencies, and allow us public workers to serve the public more efficiently, more consistently and quicker. I know Comptroller Wyman testified on the time frame, and I would suggest that -- respectfully suggest that I think her suggestion of quarterly is a little too soon. Six months in your legislation I like. You know, why add to the layers of bureaucracy? Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much. Any questions? If not, we appreciate your 001952 43 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

testimony. Thanks for being here today. Next speaker is Representative Mioli, to be followed by Donna Seresin. Good morning, Representative. Thanks for coming to GAE Committee.

REP. MIOLI: .Good morning, Representative Spallone, and members of the GAE Committee. I know you're busy today. For the record, I'm Joe Mioli, State Representative 136, Westport. I'm here in support of my Bill 5015, the four-year term for state legislators. I'm kind of new here, more or less. This is my fifth year. But the one thing that got me from, day one, unless you've been some kind of legislation business before, like a mayor or something, you come here like I did, and before learn your ropes, time for election. And this is the best reason why I proposed the four-year terms. The reason is now it's financial. This past year, we spend $9-plus million on elections. As years go by, there will be more and more primaries, more and more challenges. Believe me, challenges are good, because I will always have a challenge in my district, so I don't worry about that. But the reason is it needs to be four years, it would save about 50 percent. And we can cut the next election program by half, too. You don't need that many employees if you deal like, I'd say, 35, 36 people every four years. And this is my reason, and the rest of my testimony. And I'll be happy to answer the questions you might have.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Representative Mioli. Any questions for Representative Mioli? Thank • you for bringing in an interesting constructional idea to the Committee, and we appreciate it. If there are no questions, we'll see you around the building. Thanks 44 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT /ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

very much.

REP. MIOLI: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Our next speaker is Donna Seresin. Is Donna here? No, Donna is not here. Next would be Andrew Salinger.

ANDREW SALINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Andrew Salinger. I'm from West Hartford, Connecticut. I'm here to support S.B. 337. which would establish an annual Fragile X Awareness Day on September 12. This year it will be the same day as the Fragile X Society of Connecticut's Second Annual Conference. Fragile X gets its name from a fragile site on the X chromosome. Its impact can be anything from mild learning disabilities to profound intellectual disabilities. The Fragile X associated disorders encompass a spectrum of conditions that affect individuals and families throughout the life cycle. As many as 1 in 130 women are carriers of this condition, and 1 in 700 males are estimated to be carriers of the Fragile X mutation.

Both my children, Jodi, 18, and Brian, 15, were diagnosed with Fragile X Syndrome in 1994. We received the diagnosis within two weeks of each other. We are very fortunate to have received this diagnosis for Jodi at the age of three and a half and Brian, nine months. After Jodi was diagnosed with autism, the developmental pediatrician/geneticist suggested testing for Fragile X Syndrome because of the relationship of Fragile X and autism. This early diagnosis enabled us to give our children to maximize their potential.

Even receiving early intervention and special 001954 45 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

education services throughout their lives, Jodi and Brian are extremely impacted and face many challenges daily. Jodi is now in a program learning vocational and life skills. Brian being severely affected by Fragile X Syndrome has been a residential student at the New England Center for Children in Massachusetts since the age of 10.

After a year of the diagnoses, we reestablished the Fragile X Society of Connecticut. Although we are extremely impacted, we knew that we had to get the word of Fragile X out. So we feel very strongly about awareness. So we even agreed to be subjects of a Harvard Courant story that was on the front page about our family and Fragile X Syndrome. At the beginning of this month, I traveled to Washington, D.C., with five other Connecticut members to Capitol Hill to advocate for funding. We were joined by 130 advocates from 35 states. Attached to my written testimony, you'll see an article published on the Hill called "Addressing Fragile X" about Representative Gregg Harper's experience with Fragile X. Increasing the awareness of Fragile X Syndrome is crucial. There's still too many people that say, "Fragile what?"

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions? If not, thank you. Your testimony will be part of the record. We appreciate it. I'm going to go back to a couple of people who missed their original call. Robert Johnson. Is Mr. Johnson here? Thank you. Good morning, sir.

ROBERT JOHNSON: Good morning. Good morning to all of you and thank you for your time. I'm here as a member of the public representing State 001955 46 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT /ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Bill 605, Establishing a Day in Connecticut to be Called Honor Our Heroes Day. The idea was born from a 9-11 memorial service that I am the chairman of the committee each year in the town of Stratford, where I'm a life member of the VFW. The VFW took on the chore of doing a memorial service each year for the town of Stratford, and I'm very proud to say that each year, our service grows in attendance.

At this past September's service, I introduced an idea of turning 9-11 into a national holiday, and a petition was started and several hundred signatures have already been acquired and it continues to go forward. Taking on a task like this, I sought out the help of my senator. I live in North Haven. Senator Lynn Fasano, who said that he would do his part to submit a bill here in Connecticut to at least establish a day in our state where we could honor our local heroes, being the members of the police, fire and EMS departments throughout our towns and cities.

Being that September 11 in Connecticut is already established as a Day of Remembrance, we have chosen September 12 to celebrate our heroes, being that 9-11 did bring up the hero in all of us. This would be a chance for cities and towns to use this day to award citations to members of their police, fire and EMS departments for service above and beyond the call of duty. Teachers could use the day to teach about local heroes and could ask students to do essays, possibly, on a hero in their life.

I just want to bring out that at this past September's ceremony, also down in Stratford, I did introduce a part of the program, which was Meet a Real Hero. We have representatives 47 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

of the town and the surrounding town's local police, fire and EMS departments. I expected just the children in attendance to get up and shake the hands of these fine public servants of ours, but the over 300 people attending the ceremony, everyone stood up, went through the line and greeted and met a hero and said thank you. I leave you with this final thought, that the next time an emergency or a crisis was to come up to anyone in this room today, our response usually goes like this: "Oh, my God, somebody call 911." And when they do, a hero is on the way. Thank you very much for your time.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Any questions? Comments? If not, we appreciate you being here. Thank you for your testimony again. Next speaker would be Brianna Tulin.

BRIANNA TULIN: Good morning co-chairs and members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. My name is Brianna Tulin. I'm from Berlin and I'm here today to speak in support of Senate Bill 337, An Act Establishing May 12 as Fibromyalgia Awareness Day. My mother, Nancy Tulin, has suffered from fibromyalgia and other medical issues for many years. She was diagnosed with fibromyalgia in 1990 and her condition has deteriorated over the years to the point where she lives in constant pain and she no longer works and is pretty much bedridden all the time. Growing up with a disabled mother has been very challenging for me, so when I learned that the seventh grade class had to choose a community service project as part of our (inaudible) for the year, it was very easy to decide what I was going to do. I knew it was very important for me to do something that 001957 48 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

would have an impact, but I never realized that there was an organization called the National Fibromyalgia Association that sponsored days like Fibromyalgia Awareness Day. It was also a surprise to discover that this terrible disease affects the lives of millions of people.

As I learned more about the NFA and about the disease, it became obvious to me that my mother, like many fibromyalgia sufferers, was unsuccessful at most treatments. It has been very difficult and frustrating for my mother living with the illness and our entire family, because many doctors don't understand the disease. When I learned that mayors and other elected officials throughout the country recognized awareness days, I decided that I should contact bur legislator, so my dad and I contacted Senator DeFronzo and he presented this bill to the community for consideration.

In closing, I think it is critical that Connecticut joins in and establishes awareness day like many other states in order to recognize, support and raise awareness for the needs of people with fibromyalgia. I urge you to act in favor of this bill because like my mother and the millions of others whose lives have been changed due to this terrible illness. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much for your testimony. You did an excellent job, and the timing was very good, too. You were just wrapping up when the bell went off. Very good. Good job. Thank you. Are there are any questions or comments? Representative Aresimowicz.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Hello, Brianna, how are. you? 49 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

BRIANNA TULIN: Good.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Just for the record, what school do you go to?

BRIANNA TULIN: Solomon Schechter Day School.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Okay. And you live in Berlin. And Senator DeFronzo' was very helpful with this bill, wasn't he?

BRIANNA TULIN: Yes.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Okay. I think you did a great job also, and the timing was impeccable. I've been sharing e-mails back and forth with your dad, and he's very proud of you, and I'm sure your mom is. What you've done today is a great thing, and I wish more students and youngsters would get involved like you're doing. This is truly a great thing. You should be very proud of yourself.

BRIANNA TULIN: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Representative. Any further questions or comments? Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: Thank you, Brianna. You did a fine job, and I know you practiced that and timed it and all. It was perfect. I want to thank you for reaching out in this way. My mother-in-law is a fibromyalgia patient, and I can't wait to tell her that the most spectacular testimony we got today was from Brianna. So good luck with what you're working on.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Senator. Anything - \ 001959 50 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

further? If not, again, great job. Thanks for being here today. Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker is Jay Stewart. Good morning, sir.

JAY STEWART: Good morning. Thank you, Committee members, for your time. I'm here to support House Resolution Number 1, the apology for slavery. As you can see, I'm a white male. Consequently, I've experienced many of the advantages that many of you have of being a white male in our society and can only imagine the consequences of being a black male. However, I'm also a sociologist and teach courses in social inequality, so I had some understanding of racial differences in our society and possible causes of these differences.

My written statements provide some of these contrasts between Connecticut blacks and whites using the 2000 census data, so I'll only mention a couple of these. Among full-time workers, black males earn about 7 0 percent of what white males do. Blacks are four times as likely to be living below the poverty line, which in the year 2000 was just $17,000 for a family of four. Over a quarter, 28 percent, of black children below five years of age are living in poverty, which is seven times the rate for whites. And the national data on wealth shows that blacks have about half the net worth of whites, even when you control through the same levels of income.

I think these differences between blacks and whites can be related to Connecticut's participation in slavery for several big reasons. First, during slavery, Connecticut merchants made huge fortunes in the slave trade itself by capturing and transporting 001960 51 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Africans to the New World. In addition, Connecticut textile mills produced large wealth for many people, and these textiles were based upon slave-produced cotton. This immense wealth was a key source of investments that Connecticut made in its industrial base, which still provides jobs to many people today.

Equally important, I think, is that slavery has left a cultural burden on both the exploited and the exploiters that still permeates our society. This last aspect shows up in many ways from simple prejudice and discrimination in interpersonal relationships such as racial profiling by police officers to the structural racism created by inferior schools in black communities as recognized by the Sheff vs. O'Neil lawsuit. Throw on top of that the fact that subprime loans were more likely to be given to blacks than whites, even for the same income level, and throw in more severe sentencing for blacks and reduced rates for promotion in business, all this adds up to the fact that these processes are still at work today and make it harder for blacks to achieve their potential in our society. Okay. So I know that blacks, some blacks have achieved great success. President Obama is obviously an exception to the overall pattern. I think it's the average traits of blacks that shows the fact that we still have structural racism permeated in our society.

So I urge you to pass this resolution and I hope it will stimulate more discussion about the power of cultural legacies of slavery and how we can reduce structural racism in Connecticut.

REP. SPALLONE:. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. 52 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

This is certainly an important topic. We appreciate it. Is there any further questions or comments? Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just curious. You seem to bring a lot of historical knowledge and data to this topic. I'm wondering if you can give me a sense of how you became so immersed in it and so knowledgeable.

JAY STEWART: I got -- well, I can go back to my grandmother, who was a very active Quaker in reducing -- she was one of the civil rights leaders in Wichita, Kansas, back in the fifties, so I can start it from there as always giving me a background in that point of view.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you. Well, I appreciate your testimony and the thought that you brought to it. And you know, one of the things that we often see around the legislature is that when there's a proposal of this sort, that folks from the African-American community show up in strong support and then you get people who say, well, I'm a white male and I find this offensive. I wasn't involved with what happened and I think it sends the wrong message. Things that sound very, to me, defensive and not recognizing how history has shaped the country that we now live in. So I just wanted to thank you both for the time and effort you put into your testimony. And for the broad view that you bring to these things, because I share your belief that the world we're living in today has been very much affected by our history and it makes sense for us to be able to acknowledge that and understand it in order to move on. So thank you very much. 001962 53 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

REP. SPALLONE: Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER: Good morning. Thank you for your testimony. Do you know how many other states have done this, passed resolutions?

JAY STEWART: I'm not sure. I know at least three or four have, but I think mostly in the south, but I think Frank Sykes, who will be speaking shortly, can give you the exact number.

REP. MILLER: So if we were to pass this law, then Connecticut will be the first state in the northeast?

JAY STEWART: I'm not sure I can say that.

REP. MILLER: You're not sure?

JAY STEWART: No, I'm not sure.

REP. MILLER: Okay. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Representative. Any further questions or comments? If not, we appreciate your testimony today. Thank you for being here. Our next speaker is Bob Painter.

BOB PAINTER: Good morning, Representative Spallone and distinguished members of the Committee and Senator Slossberg. I am Dr. Bob Painter, and I'm a member of the public, and I'm here to support the House Joint Resolution or Amendment dealing with balancing the budget for ten-year cycle. I have no submitted written testimony, so I hope the Committee will indulge me as I refer to my notes.

I think this is an amendment that deserves 54 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

serious debate and thought, and it may be quite difficult, but one of the most important roles that the state has is to create a coordinated, unified state vision in an environment that's favorable for private, capital investment. We have a reputation in this state for being unfriendly to business, especially new businesses, and difficult for new development. Representative Fleischmann's amendment eschews short-term thinking and makes it easier for state planners and for legislators to engage in long-term planning. As a country, we've been critical of the tax budget and salary policies that encourage companies to define success by whatever strategy causes a short-term price in stock prices, and long-term planning has not been rewarded recently.

There's a parallel in state government, which is constrained by the need for a balanced budget, and especially by the current economic climate. This is compounded by the two-year election cycle, which also encourages short-term politicking. By creating a ten-year budget cycle, it should match the time frame of the State's plan for conservation and development.

Representative Fleischmann1s agreement frees the legislature to think more globally. It supports more thoughtful, strategic, long-term planning. It makes possible to have responsible annual budgets within a longer time frame that allows moving out of the expected swings in the economy, which we're experiencing one of the low swings at the present time.

As a supporter for this amendment, Representative Fleischmann calls also for the 55 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

use of Appropriation Committee's result-based accountability process which was mentioned earlier. The elimination of those programs which do not accomplish their goals as measured by that process, and enlarging the rainy-day fund in good times to bridge the bad times. All of these are suggestions which fit better into a longer budgetary time frame. Good programs and policies should not be held hostage to economic downturns. The creative thing here is to recognize the straitjacket of our present policy and pass this amendment and then commit to making it work through better policy. Thank you, members of the Committee.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, sir. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. Painter. I'm wondering, you, yourself served on the Hartford City Council; is that right?

BOB PAINTER: Yes, sir.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: And how many years did you serve in that capacity?

BOB PAINTER: Six years.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: And during those six years, did you witness at the local level this challenge where the ups and downs of the economy lead city government to contract and expand its budget in ways that didn't necessarily serve ' the private or public sectors?

BOB PAINTER: Absolutely did. When I first arrived on the City Council, we ended up passing a law which required that we cut across the board 56 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

our city officials, which severely gutted many of our most important departments, including the financial department, which became so low in personnel that they couldn't even open the checks that were sent for tax payments, which required that we readjust later on. So the cost of buying out of contracts was expensive, and replacing them was expensive, and the loss of that institutional knowledge in the meantime was also expensive.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: And so for state government and maybe local governments as well, part of the appeal here for you is that smoothing function that would happen if we did the longer-term planning?

BOB PAINTER: I think smoothing function not only from a fiscal standpoint, but from a planning standpoint, is extremely important. It's very difficult, as has been mentioned earlier for other reasons, with a two-year election cycle and the ups and downs of the fiscal economy, which right now when we should be spending money to dig ourselves out of this hole, we're forced to retrench.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Just one other note, if I may. My recollection is that you personally are not really associated with one political party or the other; is that correct?

BOB PAINTER: No.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Oh, I'm sorry. Well, it's -- I mention it because I have a sense that the issues here have nothing to do with where one is coming from in terms of party or ideology, but rather, where one is coming from in terms of what is the best fiscal policy for the State to pursue to help us have good planning 57 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

and get out of this economic downturn. Do you share that sense of this issue?

BOB PAINTER: When I ran for election for the council, my whole purpose was to see what I could do for the City of Hartford and was not politically based.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Well, I just wanted to thank you. To me, both in the service that you did in the City of Hartford, and now you're choosing to come forward on this issue, having read about it, I really think you exemplify what we seek when we have a democracy that's meant to encourage citizens from all walks of life to get involved and put their shoulders to the wheel, and I thank you very much for your testimony today.

BOB PAINTER: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much. Any further questions for Dr. Painter? Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Painter for you comments. Much appreciated. I wonder if you've given thought to the mechanics of a ten-year budget cycle?

BOB PAINTER: You know, I think what's important here, what I wish the Committee would do and the legislature, is to look at this as a policy issue. Look at it -- does it allow a better way for the legislature to perform its duties? And then, if so, pass the amendment, and then the legislative process goes into effect to make the actual workings of the amendment efficient from a legislative standpoint.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: And are you aware of this type 58 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

of process anywhere else in the country?

BOB PAINTER: I'm not aware of it, no.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: And so your thought process of this being helpful to state government in their budget deliberations is sort of a global view that we don't need to be pushing buttons quickly, but we can spread it out over time?

BOB PAINTER: I think I come at this position from both thinking of the business criticisms that I mentioned, where short-term planning has got us into the mess that we're in now, in part, and what I saw happen on the local level at the city council, where short-term planning also got us into trouble. I think as a policy standpoint, that's not a good position to be working from.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: And are you aware of any impact this might have on bond ratings? Government bond ratings?

BOB PAINTER: I can't imagine any negative effect it would have on bond ratings.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: Okay. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Senator. Anything further for Dr. Painter? If not, we appreciate your testimony. Thanks for coming. Next speaker is Brian Swayne.

BRIAN SWAYNE: Good morning, Madam Chair, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Brian Swayne. I live in West Hartford. I'm here to support Bill S.B. 337, to designate September 12 every year as Fragile X Awareness Day. You have my testimony, or written testimony, so hopefully you'll have a 001968 59 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

chance to read that, but I want to talk about my personal experience, our family's experience with Fragile X, and why we are looking for an Awareness Day.

My daughter, Tess, has Fragile X, and she was diagnosed when she was about five and a half years old. When she was two and a half is when we began to notice that she was developing differently from other children, from other of our kids, and we enrolled her in the best preschool that we could find as far as the Montessori program in West Hartford. She was part of the early-learning center, and we had numerous visits with doctors. Every three, four months in Montessori, you come in and you observe your child. At about three years old, every child in the class was able to put together what was called the pink tower, which is essentially big blocks, you put on smaller blocks and smaller blocks all the way to build a tower. Every time that we went, our daughter was not able to perform this task. As you can imagine, we got more and more despondent, more and more frustrated, and kept trying to solve the problem.

When she was five and a half years old, she was just through an aspect --we were trying to look for insurance monies to keep her in the early-learning-center program. And one of the people we visited was a neurologist who said just by chance we should eliminate all possibilities and test her for Fragile X, and we did, and she did test positive for the genetic mutation. It was about a year ago. Now, because she's gotten the appropriate help, we've been able to do the appropriate things with an occupational therapist. She last night read to me the Hairy Bear story. All of nine pages. Nothing there that were

'i 60 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

hard words. But until a year ago, she could not set the blocks and put the pink tower together. That's the difference when you know and you get the proper treatment.

So I urge you to pass this bill to put together September 12 as being and awareness day so that other folks, whether they be parents, whether they be caregivers, whether they be doctors, are aware of Fragile X so that we can get people diagnosed and then the appropriate care that they have. And by the way, I know your questions. There are four or five other states that have a Fragile X Awareness Day. I guess I just heard everyone say who else has done this. So it's not new, but we would be one of the first. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much. Any questions? Senator Slossberg.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you very much for being here today and for advocating on behalf of all of the families who don't know about this. Just a simple question: Why September 12?

BRIAN SWAYNE: That was the day that Andy told me to say. And other than that, I'm not sure why. Maybe that was the only time in the yearly schedule.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Well, I'm sure if Andy is signed up to testify -- if you're signed up to testify, then I'm sure you'll come up and -- you already testified. I apologize. We've got a lot of meetings going on during the day today, so we're running in and out. Do you mind just sharing with us -- Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind.

ANDREW SALINGER: We're bringing in a very 61 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

important person, Dr. Randi Hagerman, who is the medical director of the M.I.N.D. Institute at UC Davis in California, and this is where a lot of research in neurodevelopment experiments are taking place, and we're bringing her out for our second Fragile X conference being held and UConn John Dempsey Medical Center. So the reason was to get attention to Fragile X and combining it with the event, so the event was chosen based on the date of her availability to come to Connecticut. That's the reason.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Thank you very much for that explanation. I appreciate that. That's it for my questions. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thanks very much. Any further questions for our speaker? If not, thank you for your testimony, sir.

BRIAN SWAYNE: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Going back to two people who missed their call last time. Herb Wagner? Herb Wagner? Donna Seresin? Okay, then Anna Crawford. Nancy.Cowser. Oh, Anna Crawford? Thank you.

ANNA CRAWFORD: Good morning. My name is Anna Crawford. I'm an employee of the State of Connecticut Department of Revenue Services. I'm here to speak in support of Senate Bill 1144, specifically 4(a) and (b).

I work for the Department of Revenue Services. I worked at 25 Sigourney Street in Hartford from February 1995 to April 2006. I was made sick by the building known as 25 Sigourney Street. I was relocated to East River Drive in East Hartford, known as the Dewitt 001971 62 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Building, in April 2006. I worked there until June 2008. I went out on Worker's Comp after having very severe allergic reactions to the building. I went out on Worker's Comp in June 2008.

If I had been allowed to telecommute, I would still have been working for the State. There are many other employees who have been ill or out of work, and if they had been allowed to telecommute from home or another location, would still be productive employees. If allowed to control our environment, we are able to continue our job. I returned to work at the Dewitt Building in March 2009. I was there for two days and one and a half hours, had another severe allergic reaction, and have now again been renewed. I again have asked for another location, specifically also to telecommute, and have been denied.

We maintain a paperless work environment. We do all of our work by fax, telephone, web cam meetings, and we could continue to do so from any other location. I believe there would be less Worker's Comp time, less employee sick time if this bill were to be passed. I agree with Nancy Wyman. It doesn't matter what your title is. It only matters what your duties are and if you're able to perform them in another location.

You heard from an employee at Dewitt today who said there's already a network available. I believe that our field workers at the Department of Revenue Services use this network to communicate with the department, and therefore, most employees at the Department of Revenue Services, whether made sick by a building or for any other reason need to work from another location, would be 63 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

able to do so through this network. So I would ask that you would support Senate Bill 1144 .

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for this speaker? If not, we appreciate your being here and thank you. Is Nancy Cowser here? Good morning.

NANCY COWSER: Thank you. Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. I'm Nancy Cowser. I'm the Vice-President of Planning for United Community and Family Services. We're a federally qualified health center, providing those services in Southeastern Connecticut, and we also provide all sorts of contracted services throughout Eastern Connecticut. I'm testifying in favor of House Bill 5824 Regarding Payment of Personal Service and Purchase of Service Contracts.

Over the past few years, we've noticed a trend of contracts becoming increasingly late in terms of our ability to start up services. This contract year, we've received 92 percent of our contracts late. Of the two that we received on time, one was received six days before contract services were to start, and one was received two weeks before. So that obviously makes it very difficult to staff and to get programs up and running by the time contract services are supposed to start. It affects our clients. It affects our staff. And of course, the State agencies aren't happy either when we can't start services on time.

In the past, when the economic conditions were a little bit better, we could take a leap of faith and start, programs early, but we 001973 64 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

couldn't expend any costs, of course, because the costs can't be charged until the contract starts. But in this economic condition when contracts are being modified even five to seven months into the contract period, we just can't take those risks any longer.

Once a contract is fully executed, in almost 100 percent of the cases now we're receiving payment late. Sometimes nine months, ten months late. This creates cash-flow issues for us. We have to get financing to bridge the gap in many instances. Interest on financing is not a cost that we can charge the branch, obviously, and that affects client services. None of us has a buffer anymore, so what we have to take from one, we have to give to the other. I'll stop there.

REP. SPALLONE: Very good. Thank you for your testimony. Did you have a little bit more that you --

NANCY COWSER: Oh, no, just that I really wanted to thank you for taking this on. We know that the economic conditions are very tough right now, so anything you can do to effect change in a manner like this is very meaningful to agencies such as ours. We know we're not the only one. All agencies are experiencing the same difficulties, especially our southeastern delegation. It's been wonderful.

REP. SPALLONE: Very good. Thank you. Any questions? If not, we appreciate your testimony. Moving along, Kevin Koptz, Department of Public Works. Good morning.

KEVIN KOPTZ: Good morning. How are you? First of all, let me begin by saying thank you to Senator Slossberg, who I know had to leave, t 65 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

yourself, Representative Spallone, Senator McLachlan and to all the members of the Government Administration and Elections Committee for allowing us the opportunity to speak in support of Raised Bill Number 1153, An Act Concerning the Capitol Area District Heating and Cooling System.

The Department of Public Works supports and recommends the State's purchase of the capitol area district heating and cooling system, which I'll refer to as the CAS, for the following reasons: The purchase of the CAS constitutes the settlement of longstanding, difficult relationships that resulted in costly litigation. This resolution involved financial and legal judgment not only of DPW, but also the Office of Policy and Management and the Office of the Attorney General, which both also signed the memorandum of understanding that addressed and set forth the settlement terms. The purchase price of $10.6 million is lower than the appraised value of the physical assets of the CAS, which are appraised at $14 million. And so it's almost $3.5 million higher than the present purchase price.

The State's ownership of the CAS and its negotiations with the supplier of the thermal energy products will result in a $900,000-plus annual savings in the cost associated with heating and cooling the State buildings. The State buildings on the CAS do not have stand-alone, independent systems for heating or cooling the building, nor is there any other district energy system paralleling the CAS that could be used as an alternative. If the State chose to abandon the CAS and install chillers and hot water heaters in each .building, the cost has been estimated at $15.5 66 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

million, which does not reflect additional annual expenditures by each building for electricity, natural gas, water (unintelligible).

Given previously an act of legislation, Conn. Gen. Stat. 16a-37u(c), according to DPW, an OPM shall as soon as practicable and where cost effective connect all state-owned buildings to a district heating and cooling system where one exists or is proposed. And since there is no other district energy system existing or proposed adjacent to these buildings, the State would be in a better position to accomplish this mandate through ownership and operation of the CAS. We also recommend and support DPW's operation of the CAS. DPW has the past experience and institutional knowledge from being the point agency over the life of the district system with the State. We have a technical services unit. I think we have demonstrated through negotiations from the thermal energy supplier that we're able to effect an annual reduction in thermal energy products and services.

We have prepared a detailed operational plan for the CAS, for delivering the products, handling the meters, overseeing the maintenance schedule for the pipes and so on, and we believe after much analysis that this will require only one additional person, who would be paid from revenue generated by the operations and paid through the following fund account that's mentioned in the legislation. So I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you on this important issue, and if you have any questions, I'm here and others to answer them. Thank you.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you very much for your 67 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

testimony, and you know, this is a very large proposal for this building and for the Hartford loop, obviously, and for the capitol buildings, and I don't think it's something that a lot of people are aware of in terms of what's going on. I wanted to just ask you some of the basic questions in term of this thermal loop. First of all, how many people do you have at DPW right now who run thermal loops?

KEVIN KOPTZ: We do not have anybody who runs a thermal loop. We have not --we have people there who have been involved in and working with in the past the Energy Network with regards to this particular loop, but we do not have individuals on staff who have directly participated, because we do not run an energy loop heretofore.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. So is it fair to say that with this proposal, the State now, the Department of Public Works, will be going into -- our function will now expand to be running this thermal loop?

KEVIN KOPTZ: Well, I think it would be sort of a combination, Senator. Thermal loop really consists of two different components. One is the distribution pipes and one is the pump house. Through our negotiations with CEDECA, which provides the thermal energy products, they will be, if you will, the entity that is overseeing the operation and preventative maintenance of the pump house. Certainly, the additional person that we have would oversee it, making sure schedules are being followed, but they have the experience and expertise to be able to oversee the operations of the pump house, and the cost is already factored into the fixed fee that we negotiated with them. 68 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

So it's not going to be a cost over and above what we've already kind of calculated when we're talking about savings.

The additional person that we would have would be principally responsible for making certain that the thermal products that would be going to customers, to maintain, to read the meters, to oversee the work that is being done, to allocate costs of the system, to collect the revenue from the end users. Certainly we have people who are employed with us in the technical services part of the union who are very, very familiar with thermal energy production and distribution as well.

So part of the work would involve something that will be handled through CEDECA. That's part of their speed. Part of it will be overseen by DPW, but by DPW people that have been and have a history of familiarity with the system. Would it be something that will be beyond the scope of what we have done before with regards to the distribution of the thermal energy? Yes:

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Now, I understand that you did a full analysis of the system before bringing it to this point. Can you tell me -- just refresh my recollection. Is it a two-pipe system or a four-pipe system?

KEVIN KOPTZ: It's essentially, it's two loops. One for hot water, one for chilled water. There's a supply line and then there's a return line. So there's two loops --

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: But it's considered a four-part system.

KEVIN KOPTZ: Four parts. 69 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: My concern is we take over this distribution loop, and what happens if one of those pipes bursts or we have some significant maintenance problems? The State then is responsible for that; is that correct?

KEVIN KOPTZ: The State as well as any other particular users. There are private users that are on the line, and just as in the past when this has occurred, and there's been situations where they may have had to go in and repair a particular pipe, generally speaking, the State would be looking to have emergency vendors that have gone through the selection process, the RFP process, online to be able to handle the situations in an emergency, and the cost gets defrayed throughout the entire system of users on that. So would there be an additional cost? Well, there's an additional cost, but that cost has always been there. Whenever there's been a repair to the system, the ultimate payer of that is the users of the system. And this would at least give us the opportunity to control what the costs are and what can affect the repairs and perhaps do it in as cost-effective a manner as possible. But the way the system has always been billed out in the past is that repairs and improvements to the system are (inaudible).

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: On our bills previously, is there a line item that -- is it a special assessment for repairs and maintenance so that we could go back and look as to the annual cost of repair and maintenance and emergency situations or is that just something that the previous owner has just added to their cost of doing business and passed along as a cost and we're just assuming that's their balance? 70 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

KEVIN KOPTZ: I'm sorry, Senator, I really couldn't speak to that particular.issue. I know that there were at various times what would be oftentimes referred to as crew-ups on the bill, and whether or not those were to reflect an itemized additional cost that had been incurred over the past year, I really couldn't -- it would be something that I would have to get back to you on to be able to say to it, but it is my understanding that based upon the discussions that we have had, and taking a look at, though, the breakdown of the cost of operations of the system, that it did include cost of repairs.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. So that when you look at the cost of operations, you're including the cost of repairs within that, and that's an assumption? I just want to make sure that we're clear. Or do you have any way to determine, to go back and separate out the cost of operation in terms of what you've been either billed or paid versus the cost of repair?

KEVIN KOPTZ: Let me just ask somebody from technical services who might be a little bit more familiar. Joseph Cassidy, a member of our technical services.

JOSEPH CASSIDY: Good morning, Senator.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Good morning. We're still in morning. It's still morning. We've got 15 minutes.

JOSEPH CASSIDY: The way that we're planning on budgeting out the operation is we're looking at the fixed operation cost that we know we're going to have on an annual basis and beginning 71 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND • 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

to generate a sinking fund, so that way- there' s funds available in case we have some kind of unplanned-for emergency.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: I appreciate that answer, but I'm not sure that it answers the question that I was asking. The question was, I'm looking back historically to try to determine what the annual maintenance cost of this system has -- the annual cost has been to the system, whether it's with regard to maintenance or emergency repairs, and making sure that we have a real sense of what potential liability we're taking on by agreeing to purchase this system.

JOSEPH CASSIDY: Okay, no, we don't have specific breakdown from the current owners of the system in our billing. They basically give us operating costs, and at the end of the year, they do an end of the year cre,w-up, which basically, from the beginning of the year they estimate their annual costs, and then at the end of the year they look at what their actual costs were, and they send us a bill for the difference.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. That answers my question, and I appreciate that. Can you tell me, have we done an analysis of other loops of similar footage or of similar size in terms of a four-pipe loop to determine what the annual maintenance or repair emergency fund needs to be in order to be adequately financed?

JOSEPH CASSIDY: Okay, we have not looked at a similar loop. What we have looked at is their historical records, and to date, they really haven't had any major failures of the pipe. The pipe that they used is extremely high quality. It's a 75-year product. And they 72 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

really have not reported -- you know, they've given us all their maintenance records for the past 25 years, and they haven't had any catastrophic failures at this point. SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. I appreciate that, but I would ask that -- you know, I think one of the things that's going to be very important for us to look at is other loops of similar age and size to determine what their maintenance costs are. I'm aware that there's one in San Francisco runs a similar loop, and their annual maintenance costs or repair funds are in the several million dollars, and I have real concerns of us taking on this responsibility and not understanding what we're actually getting ourselves into by purchasing this. So on the sinking fund you're talking about, what is the amount there that you're suggesting that be placed in that?

JOSEPH CASSIDY: At this point, we're looking at about between a half-mi11ion and a million dollars a year, so that way, we'd have a buffer going forward.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. So the purchase price is 10.6, and then going to a half-million to a million, my understanding was that the proposal called for five million.

KEVIN KOPTZ: I think there's sort of two different breakdowns. The first is there was a $1 million amount. The $1 million amount that we were looking for actually was to handle in part certain costs of the closing and certain things that needed to be done at the outset that were set forth in the consultant's report that put us in the position of being able to operate the system and to effect some very short-term improvements to it. V 001982 73 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

In addition to that, those numbers, there is the situation which you've set forth in the legislation that right now this loop is connected to the downtown loop, and so we need to make a severance of the two loops and to create and reconnect our own loop after the disconnect has occurred, and there will be a cost associated with that. The balance of those funds is really to go into the account to be able to handle any of the operational costs going forward or any repairs or improvements that need to be made.

In addition, there's also a request for the authorization for $5 million. That we'd take a look at on a go-forward basis, which I see is the nature principally of any significant capital improvements that need to be made to the system or if there is any indication that it would be feasible to connect other State buildings to the system, or look to even potentially expand the system only after requisite due diligence was done to be able to do that. I think that what we are looking at from really a starting standpoint is the balance of the $1 million to really fund that revolving account initially.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. So if there's a balance of $1 million to fund the account, and we know already that we're going to spend a significant amount of money on that because you have to close the loop and then reconnect to get started, it sounds to me -- I guess the question is what's left if the day they turn the key over, you burst a pipe? Where is the money for that?

KEVIN KOPTZ: Well, I would anticipate that there would be sufficient funds within the revolving account to be able to manage a situation such 74 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

as that. To our knowledge, and any information that we've been able to receive on this matter, there has been nothing that has been done that has in any way, shape or form cost well in excess of that amount that's been necessary heretofore with regards to the pipe. The pipes are stainless-steel pipes that have a very long life expectancy to be able to operate. It doesn't mean that certain things could not happen to it. We fully understand that. But on the basis of the analysis that was done by the consultants that we hired and looked at it and our own knowledge that we've had in terms of dealing with the situation there, we think that that amount would be able to handle the situations that would come up there. Obviously, if something of a more significant nature needed to be done, there would hopefully be the additional allocation of $5 million available down the road, but it's not something that's anticipated that needs to be delved into right from the beginning. SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. Can you also speak to in the bill, there is discussion of a $5 million credit towards a settlement. Could you speak to that? KEVIN KOPTZ: Sure. As you may know, the situation with regards to the resolution of this matter came under urgent circumstances with regards to -- and there were a number of different options that were being considered. The $5 million credit was a concept that originally came about in the discussions when things were being looked at whether TEN would retain ownership of the CAS, retain ownership for a particular period of time with credits being applied to bills, ultimately to the purchase of the system.

The problem that comes in I think, when one 75 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

takes a look at it is that the -- there's sort of different ways to look at the appraised value of the system. We're looking at it from the standpoint of just the physical aspects that we're purchasing. From looking at it from the owner's perspective, they also see in addition to the value that's associated with the physical aspects, there's also value that's associated with this being an ongoing business entity and opportunity cost, there not being another loop in this particular area.

So it was decided that there would be a $5 million credit that would go against the price, but ultimately that it would not be an amount less than the 10.6, which is the debt on the system. So what we have demonstrated is that on just the assets alone, there's a delta between the value of the system and the debt on the system or the purchase price of $3.5 million. The question left open is the -- what might be the ongoing business entity value to the system here. So there 1s not a true, if you will, sort of taking a reduction of $4.5 million against the asset value, but given some of the issues that have come up over the course of time in this relationship, it would have been a difficult appraisal mechanism, because folks were looking at it maybe from a little bit of two different perspectives, one being the State versus the private party there. But ultimately, it came down to the fact that the bottom line would be $10.6 million.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: The purchase price is $10.6 million, so is that $5 million credit figured into that 10.6 or is there a $5 million credit in addition to that? 76 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

KEVIN KOPTZ: No, it's -- the $5 million credit is not in addition. It's figured into the $10.6 million price.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. So if we didn't have this $5 million credit, the purchase price would be somewhere around $15 million?

KEVIN KOPTZ: Arguably so, yes.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. I just want to make sure, because there was some confusion amongst a lot of the staff discussions as to whether if for some reason this didn't go through, whether we were losing a $5 million credit. So what I'm hearing from you is no, that is not the case. That is figured in as part of the deal price at the $10.6.

KEVIN KOPTZ: Correct.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Okay. That's very helpful. I have one last question. Did the administration ever consider during the time that you began these negotiations putting this out for an RFP or contacting some third-party energy company that actually runs thermal loops? Was there any discussion about that or moving in that direction?

KEVIN KOPTZ: No.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? Yes, Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your testimony. I'm sensing that this has been a very complicated business arrangement over the last many years, but in the last couple of years, things somewhat went sour and that forced the State to come to this 77 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

conclusion?

KEVIN KOPTZ: Yes. This was the resolution of a matter that ultimately had been brought into and was pending in the Hartford Superior Court and fully contested by both sides.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: And so this is essentially a settlement of a business arrangement that went sour?

KEVIN KOPTZ: It is I think in large part the resolution of the litigation, the settlement of the prior contractual relations that existed between parties. There were other aspects to the settlement going forward in terms of the current year negotiating the interim service agreement, so I don't want to say that this was the only aspect of it, but this was part of the resolution of that matter.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: And as I understand as part of the process, there was an appraisal of the system and that's where the $10,600,000 number came from, as the result of an appraisal?

KEVIN KOPTZ: No, Senator, the $10.6 million is the amount of the debt that is still encumbering this system. The appraisal that was done was to analyze the value of the physical assets, to make certain that it justified a purchase price of $10.6 million of the assets of the CAS, and we came out with a $13 -- $14 million appraised value of the assets of the CAS that would support a $10.6 purchase price.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: So the acquisition price is roughly percent of the appraised value of the asset? 78 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

KEVIN KOPTZ: Correct.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: And the State is going to assume ownership of this debt free?

KEVIN KOPTZ: Yes, it is. It's stipulated in the asset purchase agreement that the funds being used will go to pay off the bonded indebtedness on this property, on this personal property, and so that we will be receiving it free and clear of any encumbered debt.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: And what happens if the legislature declines to approve this agreement?

KEVIN KOPTZ: Well, the first is that the interim service agreement that was negotiated under the Memorandum of Understanding terminates on May 1. That means that while we have a contract to purchase thermal energy products, we have no means of distributing it to the State buildings. So we would need to seek to at that point in time have to negotiate some kind of a new agreement, and certainly the agreement that is in place right now was an agreement that we believe certainly benefited the State and resulted in a lower cost for this interim service year.

Secondly, the purchase and sale agreement expires by its own terms as of May 1, so that if we do not move forward with it, we no longer have a contract to deliver thermal energy products to any of the State buildings, and we are in the position of either having to negotiate new contracts or look to other alternatives, and the other alternatives are expensive and would take, obviously, a lot longer than you would have in order to 79 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

implement them in a timely manner to keep these buildings, including this one, cooled or heated.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: You mean no air-conditioning in the capitol complex this summer?

KEVIN KOPTZ: The capitol building itself is not on the loop, but this building is.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: So that would literally turn the heat up on this building then, huh?

KEVIN KOPTZ: Yes, and I --

SENATOR McLACHLAN: That might get us to balance our budget a little sooner. Is there any concern -- you talked about the life of the pipe in the ground as stainless-steel pipe with a 75-year life. How old is the pipe now?

KEVIN KOPTZ: The system went in in 1986.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: So it still has a good life history remaining, and the business plan set forth does set aside money, and I'm reading in the bill itself, there's a $5 million authorization for future acquisition, purpose of acquiring assets -- hold on one second. An additional $5 million for the purchase and installation of additional equipment not part of the sale of the Capitol Area System. Is that looking forward down the road in case something really goes bad?

KEVIN KOPTZ: Well, I think that it doesn't necessarily mean things going bad. I think what it means is that there may be times that additional equipment or new equipment needs to be replaced, for example, in the pump house, be it a heat exchanger or other equipment 80 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT /ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

that's there. What we'd like to be able to do is to be in a position to be able to maintain the CAS, maintain the equipment in a timely- manner, in a manner that ensures that we provide quality service to the various State buildings and to the non State-owned buildings that are on the CAS. And so that fund is there to be able to utilize and draw down judiciously and reasonably and responsibly in order to maintain this system, which is really integral to the infrastructure of and the operations of all these buildings.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: And finally, when the State takes over operation of the system, can it be expanded to include other private buildings or other State buildings?

KEVIN KOPTZ: We have specifically set forth in the legislation that we would have that authority to be able to both allow other both State buildings and private entities to connect to the CAS, or if its feasible, to be able to extend the CAS to other State properties here that would make sense, would be feasible in accordance with the statute that I cited earlier to be on this type of a heating/cooling system.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Senator. Any further questions? I guess my only question for you, for the record, is the Department of Public Works currently operating any similar heating and cooling loops in the state at other large facilities?

KEVIN KOPTZ: Not DPW specifically. Are there other loops in State facilities where there 81 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

may have been some construction work related to it as part of what we do? Yes, and I think they're located at, for example, in some of the State universities, in which there are loops there. Having said that and not wanting to go too far out on a limb, though, but I would say that from what I've been able to see and look at both this particular system and the work that fellows like Mr. Cassidy and others that have been there, while certainly there are issues there, it seems that there is the knowledge-based expertise from an engineering basis, particularly, that you would be able to do the work necessary to operate the system just as systems are being operated in other State complexes.

REP. SPALLONE: Who runs the ones at the other State complexes? Are they employees of the university? Are they outside contractors? Do you know?

KEVIN KOPTZ: According to Mr. Cassidy, it varies.

REP. SPALLONE: Are any of them operated by State employees, to your knowledge?

KEVIN KOPTZ: To my knowledge, I couldn't say one way or the other.

REP. SPALLONE: How does the heating and cooling work for the capitol building? Is it a self-contained unit?

KEVIN KOPTZ: It's my understanding that it has its own hot-water systems, and I cannot say what the air-conditioning/cooling is. But it's stand-alone. It's not on the system.

REP. SPALLONE: My co-chair reminded me, whatever it is, it works, because you need a sweater in 82 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

August in there, so we might have to find ways to save some money there. Any further questions for these gentlemen? If not, thank you for your testimony.

KEVIN KOPTZ: You're very welcome. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Our next speaker is Frank Sykes.

FRANK SYKES: Good afternoon. Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and members of this Committee, my name is Frank Sykes. I'm the legislative analyst with the African-American Commission. I'm here today to speak in support of Proposed House Joint Resolution 1. First of all, I'd like to thank you for bringing this bill up for a public hearing.

The issue before us today can be somewhat complex and even polarizing. Nevertheless, the Commission recognizes that this discussion and dialogue on race relations must happen in order for Connecticut and indeed the country to continue improving its moral standing on race relations. I must stress that this resolution is not intended at all to determine who's at fault. Rather, it's simply an exercise of reconciliation on what is long overdue. Opportunities such as this must be seized, especially in light of the fact that this country recently took a giant stride in electing its first African-American president. While this is encouraging, it should inspire us and challenge us to continue peeling away at the layers of racial discrimination and intolerance.

Without question, different racial and ethnic groups may have suffered various forms of discrimination and oppression in this country at one time or another. However, without 001992 83 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

question, slavery was unique in the legacy it left behind. Across the spectrum of socioeconomic issues, disparities persist that have occurred promptly as a result of a system which was designed to oppress a single group of people. Disparities in income and wealth, education achievement, health outcomes, employment discrimination are not coincidental, but rather are the vestiges of the past- that linger on today. Why do some blacks with, in some cases, higher incomes and assets as whites still receive higher mortgage rates from financial institutions? Why are there such huge disparities in sentencing across races? I can go on and on.

We also understand that it would be wrong to lump a single group of people as being culpable for something they had no direct involvement in, or in some cases, the ancestors were never a part of. Nonetheless, this legacy we inherited created victims. For those who believe in justice and fairness, their responsibility, then, is to help to improve race relations in this country regardless of their race and ethnicity.

Accordingly, the aim of this resolution is to reconcile these differences and begin a healing process necessary for wholeness and unity. This resolution seeks to close one chapter of this state's hideous past by a formal apology. It seeks to continue the dialogue towards racial harmony in the past, the present and the future. While this is not all that can and should be done in addressing the cancer or racism, we see it as a step in the right direction and we support it. Some may say that this legislation is not far-reaching enough. Others may say it's not necessary. But any rational person can say an 84 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

apology is the right thing to do. I thank you for your time to testify.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you for your testimony today. We appreciate it. Are there any questions? Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER: Good morning. Afternoon. Thank you for testifying. I'd like to also thank you for bringing this bill to our attention. I had asked earlier if you knew of any other state that has done something similar to this.

FRANK SYKES: I was going to respond to that. Currently, I know there are -- I'm just going to read them off. Arkansas, Alabama, Virginia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Maryland and Florida have all signed a resolution. The House on the Federal level has passed a resolution. It hasn't yet been heard in the Senate, but it's expected to be heard in the Senate with the Federal government. And I know Rhode Island, Kansas and Missouri and Nebraska are considering similar resolutions.

REP. MILLER: All right. I would like to state that I will be supporting this bill. I'm going to sign on to it. And I recently read an article in our local paper, The Advocate, about a house in Greenwich that had slaves. And I was surprised -- believe it or not -- I was surprised when the -- to see the description of the quarters that the slaves had to live in. I went to Africa in 2005, and I stood at the Door of No Return, and tears came into my eyes. This is a very emotional topic, subject for me, and I know that no one in this room today would do such a thing that the people of African-American descent experienced. And I think that the State of Connecticut, by adopting this as law, would 85 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

show their remorse in how the people of African descent were treated.

Again, I thank you for bringing this to our attention. I did know that Virginia recently did, I guess about a year or so ago, that Virginia had passed the law, and I hope that the State of Connecticut also passes that law And it's not -- to a lot of people, African-Americans have moved on from it, but it's also, I think, by signing on to this or making this a law, it will show that we have come a long way and that it would show some regret into what happened to a group of peopl who were forcibly taken away from their homeland. Thank you.

FRANK SYKES: I agree, and I just wanted to add that it's not meant at all to -- you know, I know there's some concern that people have that once you pass such a bill, it could lead to things like reparations and all that, but this is an entirely separate issue. So far, the states that I just mentioned, not even a single one of them has had that experience. There are actually countries that have also come forward, too, both in the continent of Africa and Europe, so it's pretty much a global trend because people recognize that it's a discussion that can only help improve race relations. So again, thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Representative. Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to associate my remarks with those of Representative Miller and the testimony that you gave so eloquently a bit earlier. I also had the opportunity to travel to West Africa and stand at a spot where hundreds of ships 86 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

set sail with enslaved Africans headed for the New World, and it's a shocking experience to be there and to -- so you can contemplate what happened to so many thousands of individuals, and like you, I feel that the least that we can do is to express sorrow, regret, remorse that such things ever happened, and I think that is a step towards healing and moving forward.

My question to relates to something you mentioned in your last comment, which is, given all that happened, it strikes me that there are folks out there who would look at this resolution and say, well, it's necessary, but it's not sufficient. This is just an expression of sorrow and apology and doesn't include any kind of reparation. And I'm just interested to hear what your response to that would be.

FRANK SYKES: Well, as I just stated, I mean, this is strictly a bill which, as I stated in the testimony, that is really just to really to stimulate the whole discussion on race relations and to take it forward. So there are certainly people who feel that maybe it's not far-reaching enough, and I think that's always going to remain there, but that's a totally, entirely separate issue than what this is all about. And so far, as I just said, the states that have passed resolutions such as this have not encountered that problem, that issue.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you. That's helpful context for us to have. I'll just conclude by saying that not only do I think that this is the right thing for us to do, given all that happened, I also think it presents a great teaching moment for children, .because there 87 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

are a lot of children who don't yet fully understand the history that this state and this country has in this area, and I think that by going in this direction, we have an opportunity to teach a lot of children about what happened and things that should never happen. So I thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Representative Fleischmann. Any further questions or comments? Thank you for your testimony. I just think it's important to mention, for the record -- I'll ask this in the form of a question -- that this resolution provides somewhat of a history lesson, and it's specific to Connecticut in that it states specific pieces of legislation or constitutional provisions that may have promoted and did promote slavery, and also notes some of Connecticut's contributions to the abolition of slavery and the advancement of civil rights; is that true?

FRANK SYKES: Very true. Actually, the initial or original language that we had drafted we recognized Connecticut's, you know, abolition efforts. I mean, it's not sort of like one-sided to say that somehow Connecticut had no role to play in the abolition. Absolutely not. So we recognize the entire history and it's as inclusive as possible. I don't know why it's not in this bill here, but at some point I guess it moves through the legislative process, and I am assuming that it will be added in.

REP. SPALLONE: No, I'm sorry, sir, it is in the bill. That's why I wanted to mention that for members of the public. And sometimes we quickly scan over these things, but in the file copy the members have, it notes that in 001997 88 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Lines 31-32, the role in abolition efforts, and also, in Lines 26-28, nonimportation acts, but also mentions specific legislation that advanced slavery in the United States. So I think that it provides a balanced view of Connecticut's history, and that's important for the public and the members to know.

KEVIN KOPTZ: I agree.

REP. SPALLONE: Very good. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Anything further? If not, thank you, sir. Next speaker, Sandra Sharr.

SANDRA SHARR: Good afternoon, Senator Slossberg, Representative Spallone and distinguished members of this Committee. My name is Sandra Sharr. I am the Director of Legal Affairs for the Department of Correction, and I'm here today representing our department. I would like to both comment on Raised Bill 1152, An Act Concerning the Disclosure of Certain Reports and the Definition of Invasion of Personal Privacy Under FOIA, and to offer an amendment to the bill.

I would specifically address Section 3, Lines 77-81 of the bill, which defines invasion of personal privacy. The DOC believes this language is unnecessary as case law has already explored this definition, initially in a 1993 case, Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, and subsequently in numerous cases that followed. The Perkins case is the standard to which FOIC cites. Because the FOIC and the courts already apply the Perkins standard, an amendment to FOIA to incorporate the standard serves no purpose.

The DOC wishes to offer an amendment that was included in the Office of the Victims' 001998 89 • March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Advocate's original legislative proposal, which is currently not included in the proposed bill before us today. Connecticut General Statute 1-210(b)(2) exempts from disclosure personnel or medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. The OVA proposed to change the word "similar" to "other," and to include the words "documents, materials, photographs, videos, recordings and other tangible objects."

The DOC supports this language. Inclusion of it would broaden the exemption to cover other items that could be invasive of an individual's personal privacy. It would, for example, prevent the release of graphic photos of victims of a homicide. Although the FOIC believes it protects victims of crime, in October of last year the Committee voted to release to a Connecticut inmate records from the Department of Public Safety's Forensic Crime lab that consisted of a series of

photographs of the victim of axhomicide, taken both at the crime scene and during an autopsy. And this is the individual who had murdered the victim. Providing these graphic photos to the perpetrator of the crime we believe was an inappropriate invasion of the victim's privacy, and also a revictimization of the victim and the victim's family. The Department of Public Safety was ordered to release them with no redactions and free of charge, as the inmate claimed he was indigent. This case is currently on appeal.

The State Victim Advocate in her testimony last week before Judiciary on House Bill 6670, An Act Concerning the Rights of Crime Victims and the Duties of the Office of the Victim Advocate noted another example. The tragic 90 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

murder of a 13-year-old girl in New Haven in 2006 that was recorded on a cell phone video. The New Haven Register requested a copy of that video. The Commission voted to release it, and that decision is also on appeal.

This language would also grant protection to other materials not generally contained in files. An example in our situation would be videotapes taken of an inmate being strip searched. Inmates frequently use FOI to request documents, and they have not hesitated to request ones that have been confiscated from them as contraband. For example, another one, one inmate with a history of sexual assault drew pictures of himself sexually assaulting a correctional nurse and promptly filed an FOI request to re-obtain these drawings once they were taken from him.

The FOIC and the Connecticut Council on FOI have expressed concerns that this provision will expand to cover all government materials. We believe their fears are misplaced. The government would still be required to provide anything that did not meet the stringent definition of privacy, and if an item is truly highly offensive to a reasonable person and of no legitimate public concerns, why should it be released just because it takes the form of a videotape instead of a document? For the reasons mentioned above, I urge the committed to reject Section 3 of the Raised Bill and to include the substitute language offered by the State Victim Advocates. Thank you for the opportunity to present this before you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you for your testimony. The case that's on appeal that you mentioned regarding the inmate -- 91 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

SANDRA SHARR: Requesting the crime photos.

REP. SPALLONE: '-- requesting crime photographs, at what level is that appeal at this time?

SANDRA SHARR: Superior Court. It was just voted in October, so it was just filed.

REP. SPALLONE: And while the case is pending, have -- is release of the photos stayed?

SANDRA SHARR: Yes. They have not -- they are not being released.

REP. SPALLONE: And has there been any other judicial determination, to your knowledge, of similar cases?

SANDRA SHARR: Well, there have been other cases the DOC has on appeal, but they don't involve photos such as these. They involve release of staff files, discipline records.and personnel records, and we have one case at the Superior Court level. The FOIC has appealed it to the appellate court, so that's before the appellate court now, and we have four other cases on appeal regarding information that we do not think is appropriate.

I would like to add that we provide thousands of pages to the general public, and even more thousands to the inmates of many other things they have an interest in, but we object to these types- of photographs and to release of information on staff. It could compromise the safety and security of our institutions.

REP. SPALLONE: And the DOC itself, though, would not be in possession of crime-scene photographs, would they? 92 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

SANDRA SHARR: No.

REP. SPALLONE: You're just concerned that you don't want them circulating among the inmate population?

SANDRA SHARR: Right. We -- our FOI liaison works with that of Public Safety, and we became aware of it, and then what we would do is if they were to be released, we would try to catch them on mail review when they came into the facility. Some things we catch on mail review. Other things we do not. So there is a lot of times, there is a lot of -- when we shake down cells, we have shaken down inmate's cells to find -- in one case, they had an awful lot of information on our commissioner, that would normally not be available to them. We don't know how the inmate got this information.

REP. SPALLONE: In terms of the personnel files, and I'11 ask this to the extent it can be answered, also, of our people from FOI, but aren't personnel files specifically exempted from FOI in the statute?

SANDRA SHARR: They are exempted from FOI in the statute, but I shortened my testimony some, but there was this 1993 case, Perkins vs. FOI, which said that you -- in order for it to be exempted, a personnel, medical or similar file has to meet a two-pronged test. It has to be highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate concern to the public.

And we have had cases where we feel the information is highly -- actually, I had it in the pile. I didn't include in testimony. But it was very highly offensive, and the Commission said because it is so offensive, 93 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

for this reason, the general public should be aware of it. And it involved a staff person, something in his private life that really did not impact the job he was doing at our agency. So if you can't meet both prongs of that test, it's disclosable.

REP. SPALLONE: All right. Well, this needs further exploration. Are there any further questions for our speaker at this time? If not, thank you for your testimony. We appreciate it.

SANDRA SHARR: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Next speaker is Ralph Eno, First Selectman of the Town of Lyme. I've invited him to be joined by, for efficiency, Dick Smith, First Selectman of Deep River, and I see First Selectman of Goshen, Mr. Valentine is here. Would you like to join them in a panel?

RALPH ENO: Being small-town guys, we appreciate efficiency.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. And if you want, you can have microphones -- you can sit at the empty seats of the Committee. I guess it can pick them up from where they are. Okay, thank you, Mr. Eno. Please proceed. Welcome to GAE Committee.

RALPH ENO: Thank you, Representative Spallone, members of the Committee. Mr. Smith and I are here today as members of the COST, Council of Small°Towns Board of Directors, and we're here to speak to House Bill 6696, which would require all municipalities to adopt a code of ethical conduct by October 1, 2010, for public officials, public employees and paid 002002 94 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

consultants -- if we understand it correctly. I understand it's still kind of a work in progress.

COST opposes this bill. First and most important, the matter of whether a municipality should establish such a code and create an oversight commission to enforce it is or ought to be, at least, the exclusive province of the electors and tax payers of our respective communities.

Second, as I believe your own task force on municipal ethics acknowledges, at least at this point, this legislation represents an unfunded mandate of some as yet to be determined scale. If the Office of Fiscal Analysis has reviewed the bill for its potential impact, COST is not aware of any of the details as yet. We have to assume it will have fiscal implications for every city and town in the state. There will be more significant costs for those starting from square one, but since the legislation also requires compliance on the part of municipalities with pre-existing codes and commissions, it would seem that there would be a strong probability that they would be subjected to the cost of legal reviews, as well, to make sure that they're in compliance. We keep hearing from our legislators about the need to stop passing along new, unfunded mandates to our cities and towns, and yet, paradoxically, we are here having this discussion again today, despite troubled economic times with which we're all trying to deal.

Finally -- and there's no way to sugar-coat this, and I do sincerely apologize if this is taken as being somewhat harsh or extreme, but 95 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

it is something we're hearing at the grassroots level. Given the well-publicized ethical lapses by some members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our State government over the past several years, it's hard to fathom how the State of Connecticut could assume it has the high moral ground in this discussion. At this juncture, you have not earned the right to tell my town or any other without an ethics code or commission that is must allocate property tax dollars to create one. You cannot legislate ethical behavior, a fact that has been clearly evidenced at both the State and Municipal level where the existence of strong ethics codes has not deterred unethical behavior on the part of public officials or public employees. Please respect our ability to deal with these matters at the local level, where decisions of this nature are most appropriately made and taxpayer interests are best served.

We do again thank you for your time, and I know COST greatly appreciates the efforts this Committee has made to include the municipal organizations in this process, and we look forward to being a partner in the ongoing discussions, which we assume will ensue. And it is our hope that the outcome will produce a result that will be palatable and effective at the small-town level as well as meet your standards and criteria, which obviously began the process to begin with.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you for your testimony. Do you other two gentlemen have comments to add at this time? I'd like to recognize, if First Selectman Valentine wants to speak first, that First Selectman Valentine was an active and productive member of our Municipal Ethics Task 002004 96 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Force, so I wanted to recognize that on the record. Thank you for being here today.

BOB VALENTINE: Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity, Representative Spallone, and Senator Slossberg I know is out, but I thank her as well for your work and her work on the Task Force on Municipal Ethics.

The first thing that I want to say is this bill as its written currently, I would oppose. We don't have a lot of time to get into a great deal of detail of every point within it, but I would say that we've done a lot of work over the past several months, having hearings throughout the state, discussion within the task force on how appropriate to address the issues, whether it be small towns like Goshen or large cities like Hartford. I think that the report that we all unanimously voted to approve back a few weeks ago is a good job and good start to look at how we put together a legislation.

Unfortunately, this particular bill is overly complicated and potentially problematic for many municipalities. I'll just give you one example. There are dollar threshold limits that would be written into law. They may or may not work, and certainly over time, those dollar amounts would do or would mean more than what is anticipated with this bill. If you set a dollar amount of $50 over a year for de minimus gifts to public officials or public employees, that might work now, but as we get a few years out, that may just create problems.

I think one of the things we have to be very careful here as we look at, formulate, and I think we'll probably eventually pass some sort 002005 97 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

of municipal ethics statute, we have to make certain that whatever we pass is not -- that the medicine is not worse than the disease. I have a great deal of concern with small municipalities, that we create a system that's workable, not overly cumbersome, easily understood by all, and unfortunately, I don't think that the bill as it's proposed currently actually does this.

In addition to that, I don't know whether -- although I believe the task-force report is not printed up yet, distributed --

REP. SPALLONE: Yes. We needed time -- due to the volume of amendments, we needed time to finish the final drafting.

BOB VALENTINE: Sure. Well, what I would ask is that this Committee hold off actually adopting any legislation until that report is complete and that members have an opportunity to review that. I think there's some very good work that has been done, and each member should have the benefit of the work of the task force on this matter. So I know you have a deadline looming here for bills, but I think it's important that if we're going to do this that we do it right. Anything is not better than something done right. So I would ask that you wait until that report comes out, give everybody an opportunity -- if that happens not to be this session, let's do it right if we're going to do it. I think we have to be very careful what we ask municipalities to do and how we ask them to do it in the end.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much. Our next speaker is the First Selectman of Deep River, Dick Smith, who is the dean of chief-elected officials in Middlesex County. Welcome. 98 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

DICK SMITH: Thank you very much, Chairman Spallone and representatives of GA. I would just ask you to take a minute to think about what1s been said here, because I have gone to many meetings in the State of Connecticut, and I have yet to find any elected official that is not opposed to this bill. Even cities that have strict ethics commissions in place think that it's very restrictive and can cause problems. And it's not that we're unreasonable, because I've tried over the last several years, thanks to Representative Spallone, to try to get something we all can live with, and this bill has not seemed to change much from what was presented I think three years ago. So that concerns me.

Sometimes we pass legislation that we think one bill fits all, one size fits all, and it doesn't work. And I'm very concerned, especially smaller towns, which I represent, is that some legislation here really is going to have a serious impact on how we operate, because we operate with volunteers, which are very important to our towns.

So again, I would ask you to consider what's been said here today. Even if it matters it's going to one more year, it would be greatly appreciated, because I think you can fine-tune this to get the support of towns with some work and some effort, but I think you'll find serious opposition to this if it passes the GA and goes to the House or the Senate. I thank you for your time and I appreciate it very much.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, gentlemen. Are there any questions for our panel? If not, my only -- I had one or two, perhaps. The bill, the 002007 99 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

intention of the bill -- and obviously, the reason we have public hearings is so we can improve our work product. One of the reasons, certainly -- is designed to be something that may be able to, or at least the concept, something that may be able to be implemented even in the current fiscal climate, and the main provision or lack of one is that it doesn't have the enforcement portion that prior legislation has required, that prior legislation has required that each community set up a commission that would rule on these matters. And while that makes sense, if you1 re going to have a code, you should have some means to enforce it, in this climate, the towns --or the State. If the State were to enforce it, it doesn't have the resources to do so. Do you consider that an appropriate concession?

BOB VALENTINE: I think there are certainly some concessions from previous bills, particularly financial disclosure, how things would work with State Office of Ethics and so on and so forth. But there are things in here, as I look at the bill as proposed, for instance, on Line 36, establish and maintain free legal-aid bureaus. I'm not certain what that means, but I'm guessing it costs a little money to do that. There are other things in here that I think will have some costs. As we did discuss with the task force, we could easily put together several model codes that municipalities can choose from, depending on how they would like to do it, but I think the important thing is we need to give municipalities the ability to craft and adopt ethics codes that are workable with their communities.

The idea of volunteerism,.so many of our 100 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

towns -- I don't remember the numbers exactly, but I'll try to remember as best I can. I think in the Town of Goshen, we have well over 100 people in various forms of government, whether it is the Planning and Zoning Commission, the library, so on and so forth. Of those, I think we only have, in officials, 20 or 30 that are actually paid, and I want to say it was well over 100. Volunteers are crucial to be able to run small towns, so we really need to be careful that we don't do anything that is going to give them pause as they consider whether or not to work within our communities on our various boards and commissions and so on.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much. Did you have something to add?

RALPH ENO: I would just add that we do have a concession in play at this point with the way the legislation is presently structured, but it ultimately is if the process evolves and we get what is proposed, it ultimately becomes a mandate, and at some point we're going to have to deal with it, and that becomes problematic. So our hope would be that before we get to that stage and we get to the point where, okay, the economy is better, now we can go ahead and pull the trigger on the second part of the legislation, that we would re-examine the process, as Mr. Valentine said, and see if we can come up with an alternative that might be a little more palatable.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you. Any further questions for the panel? If not, we appreciate your testimony and engagement in the issue. Thanks for coming up today.

RALPH ENO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 101 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

REP. SPALLONE: Next speaker is Judge Quinn, who is the chief court administrator. Welcome to the Committee, Judge Quinn.

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: Good afternoon, Representative Spallone and members of the Committee. As Representative Spallone indicated, I'm Barbara Quinn. I'm a Superior Court judge and now the Chief Court Administrator. I am here to speak about three matters that you have before you: The House Joint Resolution 99, which proposes an amendment to the state constitution concerning the practices and procedures of our courts; .Senate Bill 912, which goes to the definitions of administrative functions under the freedom of information act; and Senate Bill 1145, An Act Concerning Repairs, Additions and Alterations to State-Owned Buildings. So sort of a smorgasbord of things to address.

With respect to the resolution addressing the constitutional amendment, the branch does oppose this resolution. It would provide the legislature with the ultimate authority over the procedural rules of the court. Enacting a constitutional amendment is an extreme step that we believe should be taken only when it's necessary -- absolutely necessary -- because for nearly 200 years, since the constitution created the three branches of government that we have, the judiciary has made the procedural rules through the effective and efficient management of cases within the court. And we're not aware of any issue that has arisen regarding the court-rules process that would necessitate a change in this two-centuries' old process.

The purpose of the rules is to put in place March 23, 2009 GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

procedures to guarantee a level playing field is maintained so that all are treated in a fair and impartial manner, and we believe that that has been done effectively in the centuries to which I make reference. If the rule-making power was subject to legislative approval, political factors might intrude upon the process. And while there are legal and scholarly arguments to be made, I'm addressing purely the pragmatic issues that arise.

We are often told that the process and the judiciary need to be held accountable. We do not believe that this is an issue of accountability, because the rules-making process is open and allows for public input, and many suggestions are received from the public and the Bar. Votes are taken in public. The members, agendas and minutes of the Rules Committee are posted on the website. Public is welcome to attend all meetings. And each proposed rule each year is subject to a public hearing where comments are invited from members of the public, the Bar and the legislature. And oftentimes, the rules, the proposed rules are indeed amended after those hearings are held. And then the recommendations are submitted to all of the judges of the Superior Court, who then vote on the proposals. The Rules Committee also works closely with the legislature's judiciary committee to make sure that there is ongoing communication. Twice a year there is a meeting and an effort to coordinate approaches to the rules.

Last but not least was not mentioned in my written testimony. At the start of each judicial year, which is in September, the Rules Committee does review all legislation that's been passed in the previous session to 103 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

see if it has some impact on the rules and then seeks in the coming year to conform the rules to those changes, because sometimes there are substantive policy changes that you make that do impact our rules. And that sets forth the reasoning with respect to our opposition to the rules.

On the Freedom of Information Act, the administrative functions is defined as including docketing and record keeping and scheduling, among other things that would cover the branch budgeting and accounting. We do not oppose, as we have in times past, docketing and scheduling, be we are opposed to including rule making within the definitions of the Freedom of Information Act. Because we believe that to make the process of adopting procedural rules subject to the oversight of an executive branch agency is not appropriate and violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

And last but not least, I would ask you to look favorably upon Senate Bill 1145, which would provide some flexibility in terms of moving forward on repairs, additions and alterations to State-owned buildings. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you for your testimony. With respect to Resolution Number 99, regarding the procedures and practices of the courts, first, prior to more recent developments within the last three or four years, were the meetings of the Rules Committee closed to the public?

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: I believe they were, but we have --we believe that pursuant to the First Amendment, that they should be open and that 104 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

they have been open for some considerable time now, and the Chief Justice is committed to making sure that that process goes forward in that fashion.

REP. SPALLONE: With respect to the language of the Resolution, it's based, I believe, roughly on federal law concerning the role of Congress in the approval of the rules of criminal and civil procedure in the federal courts. Does the judicial branch feel that that system is flawed and impinges on the independence of the federal judiciary?

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: There is, I guess I would say, an inherent difference, and that is the Superior Court means constitutional court and not a statutorily-established court. And so that is the nature of the position, that there is an inherent rule-making power. As to

( procedure, we've always been very clear that the substitute rules belong in the hands of the legislative branch and are not for us to make. So only as to procedural rules. We believe that those are inherent within the rights of the Superior Court.

REP. SPALLONE: And Your Honor, the State Constitution does not specifically provide that that power is inherent; is that true?

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: That's correct.

REP. SPALLONE: And there's a judicial gloss that's been created in case law over hundreds of years?

JUDGE BARBARA QUINN: Over hundreds of years, and I know that there has been legislative research report on the many states that function similarly to ours that's treated as an 105 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

inherent function within the courts. Most -- many of them are courts along the eastern seaboard and among the 13 original colonies.

REP. SPALLONE: Very good. Thank you for your testimony. Are there further questions for Judge Quinn this afternoon? If not, thank you for coming today. Thank you. Next speaker, Senator LeBeau.

SENATOR LeBEAU: Don't start that clock yet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank the chairs and the ranking members of GAE for raising SJR 71, which I've come to speak to you about today. I want to laud you for your vision and your willingness to think anew about the structure of our State government, particularly about the structure of the legislative branch. I thank you for taking the concepts of Proposed Bill 611 and incorporating them into SJR 71.

I begin with a premise. Now is the time for new ideas. Now is the time for bold ideas. Now is the time to change the way we're doing things to make our actions more efficient, more effective and more accountable. It is in this spirit that I recommend to you a new legislative structure based not on two redundant houses, but simply on one accountable chamber; in short, a unicameral legislature.

A unicameral legislature will be more efficient. It could and should save money for our taxpayers. If, as the bill proposes, there were 60 representatives, each reflecting approximately 60,000 residents, that would reduce the number of total representatives from the current 187 to the proposed 60, yielding more than a two-thirds reduction in March 23, 2009 GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

the number of total positions. This would allow the 80 remnant representatives to become full time to draw a decent salary and still save the state an appreciable amount of dollars in the salary account.

Likewise, on the legislative staff side of the equation, there could be a strengthening of the current legislative offices, including perhaps a general accounting office or perhaps an inspector general's office or both, while at the same time saving total expenditures. The net result would be a stronger and more effective legislature, one that can both better predict and evaluate the results of its actions.

A unicameral legislature would, I believe, be more accountable and efficient with only one body responsible for legislation. The current practice of bills "dying on the calendar" could end. Likewise, our committee work would become more important. There would be less of a tendency to move along a bill as a "work in progress." Votes in committee would have much more meaning. With only one chamber, there would be no blaming the other chamber if, as today, a bill passes one chamber and is not taken up in the other. Final action would indeed be final action.

This greater accountability would be even more so if you incorporate my suggestion for the legislature to become full time. This change would vastly strengthen the oversight function of the legislature, which today is weak and understaffed. It would allow for legislators to gain greater knowledge in their areas of cognizance and become an expert in that area. Along with a four-year term, a unicameral legislature would end the wasteful practice of 002015 107 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

the yearly deluge of thousands of bills that are introduced with ultimately only a few hundred bills being passed. It would be a strong attempt in approving the quality of both the legislation and the product of our deliberations.

Let me try to wrap up. I would also recommend, although not part of this bill, that we look at cutting the number of committees that the legislature has in half. Particularly, we have a finance and -- like an example would be we have a finance and appropriation committee. Both dealing with money, but having a hard time sometimes getting together. That should be one committee, a ways and means committee.

Unicameral legislature is not a familiar idea; however, there are many -- Nebraska is one state that has it. New Zealand, Iceland, Slovenia, Sweden, Denmark. There are a variety of countries around the world that have them, and if you think about our local governments, they are almost all unicameral legislatures. As our County governments, some of which are large than the State of Connecticut around the country are almost all unicameral legislatures.

So I ask you today, as we've had the vision and the courage to bring this bill up before this committee, to have the further vision and the courage to allow state-wide electorate to vote on this proposal and to trust in their judgment as they voice their opinion.

One final thought: We have a government in which Representative Spallone, Mr. Chairman, is co-chairing the Commission on Government Reorganization. This would be I think an 108 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

appropriate idea to send him in front of the commission also.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much, Senator. Are there any questions for Senator LeBeau? Representative Drew.

REP. DREW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Senator. Thank you very much. It's an intriguing and provocative idea. Have you had the chance much to study much in maybe some other countries -- Western Europe, South America, all over the world, for that matter, whether there are upper and lower chambers and really what's been the practical impact and are you aware of any real unbiased analysis and studies of these. You know, we have our own history in this country, and maybe other countries have other reasons, unique reasons, perhaps, for what I'll call upper and lower chambers, to use that expression. What are some of the practices and what are some of the consequences of this, to the extent -- I know it's a big, broad question, but I wonder if you have any information in that regard.

SENATOR LeBEAU: Let me give you an example of what happened in Nebraska. In 1937, when it passed its unicameral legislature bill, the following year they had half the bills introduced, and they passed almost as many as they had the prior year. They also did it at about half the cost. That's one specific thing. I know that unicamerals -- I don't think there is -- I'm not sure it's possible to do an objective study. I do have a lot of information which I'd be glad to supply to the committee on research that I've done in unicameral legislatures, and if you'd like that, I can supply it. But there are unicams virtually all over the world: Cost Rica, in South 002017 109 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

America, Central America. There's Uganda and Africa. Europe has a good number of them. Iceland -- kind of northern belt. Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Slovenia, Hungary. So there are a variety of places that have adopted this.

But I think if you think about why we have two houses of the legislature, it's really following -- in Connecticut, it's really following the federal example. And the federal example, if you go look at federal, what that's all about was kind of the big state/small state compromise proposed by our own Roger Sherman from Connecticut, to try to figure out how to satisfy the small states in terms of their power within a legislature. It satisfied the large states. I'm sure that they-had, in a sense, more power because they had more people. But how does that apply to Connecticut? It just doesn't fit, but we've kind of, I think, adopted that, and also because of the historical example of the House of Lords and the House of Commons in Great Britain, and that has really become more and more of a unicameral legislature because the House of Lords really has no power these days. So I mean, I think we're kind of stuck in history here, and frankly, I think we're at a time where people are asking to change history and to say let's look at things anew, let's look at things fresh and let's try to come up with better ways of doing things.

REP. DREW: Very interesting. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Representative Hetherington.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you, Senator. I think this is a very creative idea and I think you're certainly on to something. The 110 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

legislature is too large, for one thing. The House certainly is too large. How would you feel about a step to reduce the size of the legislature in advance of making it a unicameral legislature? Would that be a step in the right direction, do you think?

SENATOR LeBEAU: No. Because I think that would be the step and that would be the only step that would be taken. And I think the unicameral legislature is really where you get the efficiencies and the accountability and the effectiveness. There would certainly be some saving just by reducing the numbers. You know, if you think about it, there could be some significant savings here in dollars, because we each have a pension. If you go from 187 to 60, that's --do the math -- 127 pensions that we're not going to have in the future or healthcare costs and on and on. So I'm afraid of that half step, Representative, being the final step, and that's why, yes, I think it's appealing, but I think that that would be it.

REP. HETHERINGTON: The other thing I actually was going to ask about you just answered. I think England now effectively is now a unicameral legislature. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you, Senator. A couple of questions. In reducing the size of the legislature from 187 senators and representatives to 60 senators or representatives or whatever we end of calling them, right now in the House, each district is approximately 25,000 persons.

SENATOR LeBEAU: 22,500. Ill March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

REP. SPALLONE: Yes, even better, 22,500. And that's a number that allows members to be able to, in the House side, answer many of the phone calls directly, see people in their district in the supermarket and the transfer station, to answer many of the e-mails directly. And do you think something would be lost by eliminating the small districts where people have a sense that that representative in the House side -- and the Senate has this interaction, too, but your districts have 100,000 people. Don't you think something might be lost by not having that kind of close connection?

SENATOR LeBEAU: Honestly, yes. Obviously, there are less people out there. However, if we went to a full-time legislature, adequately paid legislators to be full-time legislators, we could draw upon a wider variety of people that currently serve, a more diverse group, but more importantly, to your question, Representative, that there would be more time available to those people to interact with the public, to answer e-mails, to be available to the public, because that would be their- job, their one and only job. Well, I suppose they could have a part-time job doing whatever, but that would be their main function.

REP. SPALLONE: Let me ask as a follow-up, we do have specific statutes that require that I think the Attorney General, the Secretary of the State and others devote all their work time. Would you think that the legislators under the new system should be prescribed by law to only have that one position?

SENATOR LeBEAU: Yes.

REP. SPALLONE: Secondly -- and I asked this of a 112 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

member of the public -- there's a check and balance function that takes place here. A bill will pass the House or the Senate and may- contain either drafting flaws, unintended consequences that are detected by the public, the press or other members of the legislature, and then there's also the compromise that occurs between Senate and House members to try and produce the best piece of legislation possible that reflects the best consensus that can be reached at the time. Do you think that the check-and-balance system would be lost to the unicameral system and it's something that would be detrimental to our process?

SENATOR LeBEAU: No, I actually think that the process would be refined and the quality of the process would be improved. We'd have more -- and one of the things I see, we could still save on staff, but we could have a better staff. Total numbers, but reduced, and as I said, more evaluation, more oversight, including of our own work. Bills, like in Congress, a bill doesn't die when we go into a new session, but we have three months, like in the short session, bills die. Thousands of bills, tons and tons of time, people come in and like at this hearing, it's tons and tons of time being spent. And then we do it again next year. Many of the same bills will come up again next year, and we'll do it all again and those same bills will die. I mean, we could keep those bills alive and give the committees actual time to work on them through the summer into the fall. We could have a better product and we wouldn't be as rushed to get those bills out. Obviously, we still have to get a budget out in time. We still have to have our finances in order to help our -- because we have people depending upon us. We have a budget year that begins on July 1, but 113 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

I think the quality of legislation would be much improved over a period of time.

REP. SPALLONE: And lastly, I think I wanted to mention this for the record that while the House of Lords in the United Kingdom doesn't have a very strong role, it does have a review and delay role, and if it doesn't put its mark on legislation, which it does once in a while, or actually would have to be -- I think they have a rule where if the House of Lords fails to pass legislation, it would have to be repassed by the House, and after a certain amount of time -- the House of Commons -- after a certain amount of time, it will become law. So it has a reduced role, but it does have a role in creating a check and balance. You can comment if you wish, but I thought that was important to note that it's not completely dormant.

SENATOR LeBEAU: But we also have a governor who has a check and balance. I think that's the real check and balance. Legislature, executive.

REP. SPALLONE: Very good. Well, this has been very interesting and I thank you. One of the reasons I thought it was important to have a few questions is that if this doesn't go forward very far this year, that somebody is going to be looking at this transcript if it comes back in the future, so I thought it was important to show what people were thinking at this time. If there's nothing further, we thank you for being here, Senator.

SENATOR LeBEAU: Thank you, and I hope it does go forward this year. Thank you very much.

REP. SPALLONE: Our next, speaker is Doug Moore. 002022 114 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

Good afternoon.

DOUG MOORE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. How are you doing? For the record, I'm Doug Moore. I'm Chief of Staff of Public Works, and I'm also handling the legislative responsibilities this session. ,

I'd like to speak to you on two bills. The first is Senate Bill 1155, An Act Concerning Consultant Selections by DPW. The bill attempts to clarify a very important issue at our agency in terms of hiring consultants for various types of projects that we do. There's two threshold levels: $100,000 level for State agencies that we do work for, and $300,000 for any higher-ed project we do. This, for us, becomes an issue in terms of a DPW project manager who may be assigned to a project at one of the higher-ed facilities, say, such as replacing a parking lot. He has one set of rules or she has one set of rules for that project, and he or she may be doing the same project at, say, judicial, and he has a different set of rules which he has to follow in terms of the threshold. So we'd like to get the threshold raised to $300,000 3ft i for everyone.

The other half of the bill clarifies another issue for us. DPW selects consultants on two methods. One through a formal selection process and the other one on call. They both fall under the statutes and both have a very significant review involved. The difference between on-calls is we've set master contracts in place for - selections, and then we perform tasks off those on-call contracts. As the language exists right now, even though an on-call contract, the master contract has to be approved by SBRB. We still have to go back

0 002023 115 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

for a second time to get SBRB approval for any task letter that's $100,000 or more. It's a duplication of services and it's time consuming and we think it ought to be eliminated or raised to $300,000 so that it's consistent with what a formal definition of a consultant selection is.

The second bill is J.145. This is an issue j, with alterations, repairs and additions to State buildings. Right now, DPW has to do design and construction work for all State agencies for $500,000 or greater. And in case of higher education facilities, $2 million or greater. We want to raise that threshold to $2 million for everybody with the caveat that DPW would still make a determination to which State agencies who have the capability, the staff, the wherewithal, and can handle projects up to $2 million to do so, and they must follow our procedures. Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Very good. Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for Mr. Moore this afternoon? If not, thanks for being here. We appreciate it.

DOUG MOORE: Thank you very much.

REP. SPALLONE: Next speaker signed up is the Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane, although I believe he had submitted written testimony and will not be here, so the next speaker would be Representative Carlo Leoni. I don't see Representative Leoni here. Then it would be Deb Polun. Good afternoon.

DEB POLUN: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Deb Polun and I'm the legislative director of the Connecticut Commission on mm Aging. We're an independent, nonpartisan 002024 116 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

State agency that's part of the legislative branch of government, and we're devoted to preparing our state for a burgeoning, aging population. And just as one example of that burgeoning population, the population of folks aged 65 and up is projected to increase by at least 64 percent by the year 2030.

Today I'd like to offer my support for Senate Bill 1144, which is the result of a series of research reports prepared by and for the Connecticut Commission on Aging about how retirement has been and will continue to be redefined.

Our work in national studies show that ' retirement is no longer only about golf and relaxation. We know that most retirees want to stay engaged in their communities, and many want or need to continue to work, although with a great deal of flexibility. You've already heard from Tiffany Hubbard, a UConn law student, today, and Tiffany conducted one of these studies on behalf of the Commission.

Turning research into action, the Commission on Aging is grateful to this Committee for raising Senate Bill 1144, which contains four innovative ideas for workplace flexibility for State employees. And you may ask why is this important for State employees to have workplace flexibility? We know that almost 4 0 percent of executive branch employees in the State of Connecticut will be eligible for retirement in four years. 40 percent of State employees in the executive branch. And we also know that there's very little succession planning going on.

So there are four initiatives contained in Senate Bill 1144. One is a voluntary schedule 002025 117 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

reduction program. The second is flexible work hours. The third, a phased-in retirement program. And the fourth is telecommuting. Now, three of these initiatives were really designed for older workers in mind, but actually would apply to many, many younger workers with families as well.

We understand that these initiatives are already permissible under State law -- I'll just finish up if that's all right -- but generally, they're very unknown. They are extremely restricted and very little used by State employees. This legislation would put teeth in existing State statutes by asking the executive branch to promote and facilitate the use of these practices and by requiring the executive branch to report to the legislative branch on the use of these programs.

We understand some of the details may need to be worked out as far as the length of the agreements. We would be pleased as a Commission to work with this committee and any other stakeholders moving forward on these details. Thank you.

REP . SPALLONE: Very good. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? If not, thank you for being here today. We appreciate it.

DEB POLUN: Thank you very much.

REP. SPALLONE: Our next speaker on our list is Representative Green, who I don't believe is here at this time, and the next speaker then would be Colleen Murphy from Freedom of Information Commission. Good afternoon. Welcome.

COLLEEN MURPHY: Representative Spallone and-

3fl ilSf 002026 118 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

members of the GAE Committee, I'm Colleen Murphy. I'm the Executive Director and General Counsel of the FOI Commission, and I do have some oral testimony on a few bills today. I will try to be very brief for you, though. We have submitted written testimony on three of the four proposals. i The first bill is Senate Bill 912, An Act Concerning the Definition of Administrative Functions Under the FOI Act. The FOI Commission supports this proposal. It would provide a definition of the term "administrative functions" in the Act and would make clear what matters must be disclosed by the judicial department. Without a definition, we'll continue on the path that we've traveled for the past three decades. The courts will provide their own definition of what is subject to the FOI law on a case-by-case basis and will modify it to suit particular needs or concerns. That has led to some confusing results, particularly evident in the most recent and well-known case from 2006, Clerk versus FOI Commission, where the Supreme Court determined that basic docketing information contained on the court's computer system was not administrative under the FOI Act and could not be accessed pursuant to that Act.

The second bill of great interest to the FOI Commission is Raised Bill 1152, An Act Concerning the Disclosure of Certain Reports and the Definition of Invasion of Personnel Privacy Under the FOI Act. The FOIC supports this proposal. It was not a Commission proposal that was put forward; however, it would provide a definition for "invasion of personal privacy," which is a term that appears in the FOI Act. The term "invasion of 002027 119 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

privacy" is located in an exemption to disclosure for personnel, medical and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. And that provides that those sorts of records are exempt from mandatory disclosure under the FOI Act.

If enacted, Raised Bill 1152 would not make any substantive change to the FOI law. It would codify the definition of "invasion of privacy" as set forth in the seminal Connecticut Supreme Court case Perkins versus FOI Commission, a case that came out of the Supreme Court in 1993. The two-pronged test delineated in Perkins states that "Invasion of personal privacy occurs when disclosure of public records, A, would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and B, is not of legitimate concern to the public." This definition codified in this bill has served well for more than 15 years as a reliable and clear-cut precedent for the Commission and for public agencies.

The FOI Commission believes it would be helpful to incorporate the definition into the law itself. The FOI Commission doesn't object to the other proposed change to the FOI Act that is contained in Raised Bill 1152; however, we would observe -- I'll go as quickly as I can -- that the proposed change to the FOI Act is duplicative of the proposed change in the whistle-blower statute, 4-61(d)(d). The duplication, while not problematic, is unnecessary. Putting the language in the whistle-blower statute alone will ensure the limited additional access intended by this section of the bill.

Third, the FOIC is opposed to those portions 120 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

of Raised Bill 1154, An Act Concerning Referral of Contested Cases and Settlements to the Chief Human Rights Referee That Contain Overly Broad Confidentiality Provisions For Certain Public Records. The purpose of the bill, as I understand it, is to expand the number of cases that can be heard by the chief human rights referee. We have no objection to doing that, but in doing so, the bill also adds a great deal of unexplained confidentiality. For example, it makes any . record that would reveal who participated in a mediation confidential, and also the recommendations of the mediator, and we're not sure why there's such a broad need for confidentiality there.

Finally, the FOI Commission notes that House Bill 5957 will increase the kinds of portable scanners that may be utilized to copy public records. The FOI supports this proposal insofar as it aims to ensure that the copying provisions of the FOI Act are in accord with modern technologies. I thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions.

REP. SPALLONE: Thank you very much. I wanted to explore for a minute the concerns that have been raised both here and in meetings with the Department of Correction. If an inmate were to make an FOI request for the personnel file of a correction officer, would that generally -- would it generally be appropriate under the exemptions you cited to withhold that personnel file?

COLLEEN MURPHY: It would depend on what is in the file, and that is how the -- that's how that provision of the statute is interpreted with respect to any kind of personnel, medical or similar files. We would apply that test, 121 March 23, 2009 Ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

whether disclosure would be highly offensive -- and that's borrowed from tort law, as I'm sure you recognize -- and whether there's no legitimate public interest in the record.

The Court in Perkins and many cases since has said that with respect to public employees, there's a presumption of legitimate public interest, because public employees serve the public, and sometimes, depending on the level of trust that public employee is given, the level of public interest goes up in whatever is in the particular record that's at issue. So it's a long answer. Can't be answered with a yes or a no.

REP. SPALLONE: Are there times when the Commission has ordered the release, that you know of, of personnel files of either municipal or State employees to ,a member of the public who requested them?

COLLEEN MURPHY: Yes. I can give you -- I mean, there's numerous examples. This is a very highly-trafficked provision in the FOI law. Examples where there have been police misconduct. Examples where teachers have behaved inappropriately. Now teachers do have an explicit exemption from disclosure for their personnel files, and that was a decision made by the legislature. But in general, with respect to all other public employees, this has been the law that governs, and the standard I articulated has been the one that has been applied since 1993.

REP. SPALLONE: And do you have any particular comment on the concerns of corrections that there's an unusual, in our society, relationship between inmates and correction officers and personnel in the prisons whereas 122 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

there's obviously a security concern that doesn't occur in some other settings? And also, the ability to -- if an inmate were to learn of medical or psychiatric histories or disciplinary histories of certain correction officers, that that might create an opportunity for them to hold sway over that CO or something like that?

COLLEEN MURPHY: I guess my answer to that is that could happen in any particular case, and the burden is -- without having a complete exemption for personnel files, the burden would be on the agency to demonstrate that that particular file, the content of that particular file -- perhaps it contains medical information, psychological information, information that is not related to the conduct of the public job that that person serves, then as I said, the burden is on the agency to establish that, and there have been many cases where the commission has accepted arguments like that with respect to corrections, with respect to other employees as well.

Sure, I can acknowledge that the prison setting is a unique setting. There are additional exemptions for security. We have some differences of opinion with Department of Correction as to when those kick in, but that's why there is a review of commission decisions. There was a mention of a number of cases that are on appeal that I think will help us establish the security area, particularly. A problem with some of the testimony is that we're mixing a little bit of apples, oranges and maybe some pears, because we're talking about security-based exemptions, personnel exemptions, and sometimes law-enforcement exemptions. 123 March 23, 2009 ch GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 9:30 A.M. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

REP. SPALLONE: Very good. Thank you. Any further questions for Attorney Murphy? If not, thank you for your testimony today. We appreciate it.

COLLEEN MURPHY: Thank you.

REP. SPALLONE: Next speaker is Michelle Cruz. Good afternoon.

MICHELLE CRUZ: Good afternoon. Good afternoon Representative Spallone and distinguished members of the GAE Committee. For the record, my name is Michelle Cruz, and I am the victim advocate for the State of Connecticut. I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony concerning Raised Bill Number 1152, An Act Concerning Disclosure of Certain Reports and the Definition of Invasion of Personal Privacy Under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Office of the Victim Advocate was established to protect and promote constitutional rights of crime victims in the State of Connecticut. Among the duties of the OVA is to review the procedures established by any State agency and to recommend changes in State policies or undertake legislative advocacy to improve the treatment towards crime victims in the state. In August 2008, the OVA formed a focus group to study the possibility of creating a privacy exception to the Freedom of Information Act that would protect crime victims from being exposed to the public release of certain sensitive information that does not serve a genuine public purpose. There were 19 participants, including the representative for the Freedom of Information Commission.