American Association of University Professors – Connecticut State University Chapter (AAUP-CSU)

2016 Legislative Report

Gallo & Robinson, LLC June, 2016

Betty Gallo Kate Robinson Joe Grabarz

PREFACE

As this legislative session began we faced a State and System budget sinking deeply into the red and a new leadership team at the System Offices. CSU-AAUP and Gallo & Robinson have worked closely together with supportive legislators to ensure that faculty interests were represented. We appreciate the significant faculty involvement in legislative activity and deepened relationships with legislators. Visits with individual legislators in their offices and districts have helped increase awareness of the concerns we have and the changes we advocate as usual but we particularly appreciate the faculty that stepped up and agreed to serve on various Commissions, working groups and task forces. There will be more. Numerous and timely action alerts, letters, testimony, flyers and position papers have all been valuable to our collective efforts.

We have significantly impacted legislation in our favor and we have improved the standing of CSU-AAUP faculty as a valuable resource in higher education discussions.

The legislation discussed in this report represents a major effort by CSU-AAUP staff and faculty, Gallo & Robinson staff and supportive legislators to shape events in favor of CSU-AAUP members and to make the State’s system of public higher education better for everyone involved.

We have significant challenges coming up next session and it is incumbent upon us all to keep aware of opportunities to discuss how critical the dedicated faculty and staff are to ensuring the CSU System and the State meet their higher education goals. Contracts and labor issues are likely to dominate the next session and in addition we will have many new legislators and legislative leaders and new Chairs and members of the Higher Education and Employment Committee. The issues of outcomes based funding, open source textbooks, certification of online learning, tuition and fees costs, student readiness, the achievement gap, declining enrollment and transfer and articulation are all likely to continue to be vigorously debated. The budget situation is generally thought to be looming worse next year and the authority given to the Governor to make further unspecified cuts and withholdings and recessions will have ongoing impacts on the System.

We at Gallo & Robinson are proud and pleased to have been a part of these past efforts and look forward to working together on future challenges and opportunities.

I. BUDGET

This section is in chronological order, starting with the Deficiency bill, SB 474 and then discussing HB 5044, The Governor’s Budget proposal, the Appropriations proposal, and the final budget, SB 501.

As we went from one budget to another we were monitoring the budgets for anything that affected CSU or state employees.

This session was about budgets. It seemed like there was a new budget or proposed budget every couple of weeks. The major reason for all the budgets was worsening deficiencies for the fiscal year we are in FY16 and the fiscal year that begins on July 1, 2016. The session began with the Governor’s proposed revisions to the biennium budget adopted last session. But the Governor had issued recessions in September and again in December. And in case those rescissions were not extensive enough for the Legislature to act; the Governor proposed additional cuts to hospitals and the community health centers. These would have eliminated all the payments to the hospitals in FY16. And the fiscal situation for FY16 was just getting worse. So in the midst of the normal budget process, the legislature and Governor began to negotiate a deficiency budget for FY 16. After a lot of public fighting about who was willing to take on the hard job of cutting the budget, the leadership in both parties and the Governor sat down to negotiate the deficiency bill, SB 474. They exchanged cut proposals and then more cut proposals. Finally, they came to an agreement and passed a deficiency bill which was adopted on March 29th. It was clear that the Republicans wanted to take credit for the restoration of most of the hospital funding and funding for towns which is why they were involved in these negotiations and most of them voted for the bill.

March 29th Deficit Mitigation Bill

The deficit mitigation bill they adopted on March 29th was SB 474. It addressed the deficit for the FY16 budget as it was projected at this point. It was adopted in the Senate with 3 no votes including Senators Bartolomeo (D) Meriden; Linares(R) Westbrook; and, Markley (R) Southington.

The House passed it on a vote of 127-16. That vote count is below:

N ABERCROMBIE Y LESSER N ACKERT Y NOUJAIM Y ADAMS Y LOPES Y ADINOLFI Y O'DEA Y ALBIS Y LUXENBERG Y ALBERTS Y O'NEILL N ALEXANDER Y MCCARTHY Y AMAN Y PAVALOCK VAHEY Y ALTOBELLO Y MCCRORY Y BELSITO Y PERILLO Y ARCE Y MCGEE Y BERTHEL Y PISCOPO Y ARCONTI Y MEGNA Y BETTS Y REBIMBAS Y ARESIMOWICZ Y MILLER, P. Y BOCCHINO Y RUTIGLIANO Y BAKER N MORIN Y BOLINSKY N SAMPSON Y BARAM X MUSHINSKY X BUCK- Y SCOTT TAYLOR N BECKER, B. Y NICASTRO Y BUMGARDNER Y SHABAN Y BERGER Y PERONE Y BYRON Y SIMANSKI Y BOUKUS Y PORTER Y CAMILLO Y SMITH N BRYCKI Y RANDALL Y CANDELORA, Y SREDZINSKI V. Y BUTLER Y REED Y CARNEY N SRINIVASAN Y CANDELARIA, Y RILEY Y CARPINO Y STANESKI J. Y CONROY Y RITTER Y CARTER N TWEEDIE Y COOK Y ROJAS Y CASE Y VAIL Y CURREY Y ROSARIO Y D'AMELIO Y WILMS Y D'AGOSTINO Y ROSE Y DAVIS Y WOOD Y DARGAN Y ROVERO Y DEVLIN Y YACCARINO Y DEMICCO N SANCHEZ N DUBITSKY Y ZAWISTOWSKI Y DILLON Y SANTIAGO, E. Y FERRARO Y ZIOBRON Y ESPOSITO Y SANTIAGO, H. Y FLOREN Y ZUPKUS Y FLEISCHMANN Y SCANLON N FRANCE Y FOX Y SERRA Y FREY X FRITZ Y SIMMONS Y GIEGLER Y GENGA Y STAFSTROM Y HARDING N GONZALEZ Y STALLWORTH Y HOYDICK Y SHARKEY (SPKR) Y GRESKO X STEINBERG Y KLARIDES Y GUERRERA Y TERCYAK Y KOKORUDA N HADDAD Y TONG X KUPCHICK N HAMPTON X URBAN Y LABRIOLA Y HENNESSY Y VARGAS Y LAVIELLE Y GENTILE (DEP) Y HEWETT Y VERRENGIA Y LEGEYT Y GODFREY (DEP) Y JANOWSKI Y WALKER N MACLACHLAN Y MILLER, P.B. (DEP) Y JOHNSON Y WILLIS Y MCCARTY, K. Y MORRIS (DEP) X JUTILA Y ZONI Y MCGORTY, B. Y ORANGE (DEP) Y KINER VACANT Y MINER Y RYAN (DEP) Y LEMAR Y MULLIGAN Y SAYERS (DEP)

Leading up to this bill, budget proposals from the Governor and the two parties’ leadership had all suggested different areas to be cut. Many of the proposed suggested cuts would have an impact on services of concern to our clients.

The Republicans had a proposal that included a list of “system changes” they wanted to make such as reducing state employee pensions and increasing the state employees’ co-pays for their insurance. These items would have required the state employee unions bargaining agent (SEBAC) to reopen a contract they had negotiated with Governor Malloy in 2001, which included changes in pensions, increased co-pays and no pay increase for three years. It does not expire until 2022.

There were conversations and proposals throughout the session related to reopening this contract but the session ended without the state employee unions agreeing to allow the contract to be changed. Other such proposals included requiring a vote by the General Assembly on every state employee contract (Now the legislature can reject a proposed state employee union contract by a majority vote in one house or reject a collective bargaining agreement by a 2/3 vote in one house). They also wanted to change the prevailing wage law that required certain level of wages on public projects. None of these proposals were part of the deficiency budget but these items would come up again and again during the ongoing budget negotiations. Another of their proposals was restrictions on overtime.

SB 474 included the modifications of FY 16 budget totaling $220 million which was the deficit at this point in the session. The deficit for FY16 grew by another $ 280 million by the end of the session and that deficit had to be addressed in the final budget. Despite the fact that finding savings that would rollover into FY17 was a goal expressed by all the participants in the negotiations; only $123 million could rollover into the FY 17 to reduce that deficiency which also kept increasing as the session progressed.

Some of the most significant provisions of the deficit mitigation budget we thought you would be interested in were:  Transfers from various accounts such as $6 million from the Community Investment Act(CIA) money; $2.3 million from the Connecticut State University (CSU) operating Fund; and, $7,390,000 from the Citizen Election Fund. All together there were $69.2 million of such transfers in this budget.  The budget also included a large amount of money that OPM could reduce to achieve savings including a new $97,433,061 reduction to FY 16 executive branch allotments. The language did limit those reductions to only 1% of any line item.  The Deficit Mitigation Plan also cut $69 million in various line items we thought you would be interested in:

. Board of Regents-$752,270 from CSU; $27,777 from Transform CSU; $765,555 from Community Tech Colleges; and $5,660 from Board of Regents . Reserve for Salary Adjustments-$14,200,179. . University of Connecticut-$1.5 million in operating expenses.

GOVERNOR’S FEBRUARY BUDGET – FY 17

The Governor introduced his Budget Revisions for FY 17 on February 3rd, the first day of the session. It is HB 5044AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO STATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2017.

At that point, the deficit was just about $550 million and his February proposal made adjustments to the FY17 budget of $569.5 million.

His proposed budget revisions also made some major changes in the structure of the budget. In most cases, he combined a number of line items into one-line item in every agency and then cut the total by about 5.75%. This left each of the state agencies (with OPM & the Governor) to decide how much of the total would be allocated for each program. He did not eliminate the different line items for CSU, community colleges, etc.

This transferred the responsibility and the power to determine state expenditures to the Governor. This proposal would have also enhanced the Governor’s 5% rescission power; he could eliminate whole programs if they represented 5% or less of the line item. The Governor also proposed moving the cost of fringe benefits into each agency. There was an error in the calculation of the fringes around the Board of Regents which would have severely cut funding for CSU. This was fixed in the other budgets.

On February 25th, the Comptroller announced because of falling revenues, the Governor’s proposed budget revisions were $440 million out of balance. So instead of a deficit for FY 17 being $550 million it was $990 million. These are the same numbers that were responsible for the necessity of passing a deficit mitigation budget, SB 474 (see above). At this point, the Governor announced if the SEBAC was not willing to open up their agreement around pension and health care then he would be forced to begin to institute layoffs. It took a while but on April 11th layoffs began. The Governor said he planned to lay off 2,500 state employees. Some of these positions would be eliminated after people retired in early spring and summer.

The Appropriations Committee now faced not only trying to restore some cuts in the budget revisions which they did not support, but now they would have to find an additional $440 million in cuts. There was pressure from them for the Finance Committee to propose a revenue package that took care of some of the new deficiency. But there was just not any appetite for increased revenue. It was an election year and they were still traumatized by the backlash from the tax package last session. The Finance Committee’s so-called revenue package raised about $40 million in a proposal that actually would cost the state money via new tax expenditures in the out years. So the Appropriations Committee was facing making $990 million in cuts. In the end, the Appropriations Chairs decided to only pass an Appropriations Budget that cut the same amount as the Governor’s February budget.

APPROPRIATIONS BUDGET

We heard rumors a couple of weeks before the Appropriations deadline that the Chairs only planned to cut $570 million dollars the same amount that the Governor’s budget cut in February. It was clear they did not want the last $420 million of cuts, cuts they knew would have to be terrible and hit on all the areas they had been trying to protect, including funding for programs for low income families, the disabled and children. There also did not seem to be any way to get to the level of cuts needed without cutting education and municipal aid.

The Appropriations budget, in fact, did only cut $570 million. They also did a number of things that they knew would not please the Governor. That included cutting $100 million out of the Governor’s transportation initiative. They put both the Medicaid funding for the hospitals and the federally qualified health centers in their own line items to limit how much the Governor could unilaterally cut from those institutions under his rescission power. He can cut 5% of a line item under that power when their funding was in the line item with all other Medicaid expenditures the Governor could cut all of their funding and still be within the 5% of the $2.5 billion Medicaid line item. Cuts to these institutions have been an on- going fight between the Governor and the Legislature. The Appropriation Budget which was an amendment to HB 5044, the Governor’s budget bill passed the Appropriation Committee on a vote of 33-24 on a party line vote.

The Appropriations Budget restored or adjusted the cuts in Governor’s budget in many ways. A comparison of the amount allocated, for the line items we think you would be interested in, the Governor’s Budget, Appropriations’ Budget, the Governor’s April Budget and the final budget are below.

Both the Republicans and the Governor attacked the Appropriations Committee for not cutting enough to address the whole deficiency for FY17. We think perhaps the Chairs were holding out some hope that there may be some possibility of new revenue to fill some of the hole. In the end there was only about a $10 million in net increase in revenue. In response to the Appropriations budget, the Governor said he would take the rare step and release a second budget which he did on April 12th.

GOVERNOR’S APRIL 12TH BUDGET

The Governor released a new budget on April 12th that cut enough from the biennium budget adopted last session to fill the $990 million deficit. He basically reverted to his first budget and added new cuts onto that. His budget included some proposals that would require legislation as well. Those changes included turning most of the activities of the Office of Protection and Advocacy over to a non-profit agency (this seemed necessary because of a ruling by the federal government); elimination of the Municipal Revenue Sharing Account (MRSA) and transferred of the funding to fund other areas of the budget. MRSA is the Democrats’ big initiative to provide tax relief to towns thru reduction of the car tax. He included savings from elimination of the minimum bottle pricing of $1.9 million. He made some other changes to his budget. He “established” the Ethics and Freedom of Information Commissions as standalone agencies.

Additionally, he incorporated the savings from deficit mitigation bill that passed on March 29th. He made numerous additional cuts to DSS programs.

His budget seemed to target some of the new cuts at programs that are priorities for Democrats and the Appropriation Chairs. We compare the difference in the line items amount in this budget from the Governor’s first budget, the Appropriation Budget and final budget below. The Governor did call on the Democratic and Republican leadership to meet with him to come to an agreed on a budget. Both Republicans and Democrats did put together new budgets that addressed the full deficit.

REPUBLICAN BUDGET PROPOSAL

The Republicans released their budget on April 28th entitled “Pathway to Sustainability, A Long Term Budgetary Framework”. This budget proposal did not use cuts in unionized state employee pension or health care. These were a major savings from these items in their first budget proposal, savings that could not be achieved without SEBAC agreeing to reopen their contract. (The unions had made clear by this point they were not going to open the SEBAC contract).

This proposed budget included cuts to state employees that were not related to pension and health care. But they did include a page and a half of possible savings if such contract was opened. Under a section called “Other Noteworthy Long-Term Policies”, they included things not in their budget but they thought should be adopted moving ahead like requiring a vote on collective bargaining contracts, privatizing DMV, group homes and close the juvenile training school.

They included the proposal from the Governor’s second budget around OP &A. This budget did not cut home care, the burial allowance or Aid to the Aged Blind and Disabled. They proposed using asset forfeiture money to pay for more mental health beds. They supported the adoption of a definition of the spending cap and made suggestions related to bonding. In their proposed budget, they restored all the cuts to the hospitals and restored the Medicaid rates for radiology services for Medicaid patients. Their budget included increasing the non-union state employees’ health insurance premiums to 20% and imposing $5 co-pay on doctors’ visits. It centralized all the state agencies legal staff into the Attorney General’s Office, and rolled all the arts and culture earmarks funding into one competitive grant. These are just some of the things they included in their proposal

DEMOCRATIC BUDGET

The Democrats announced they had a revised budget on April 27, a week before for their adjournment date. They talked to their caucuses about the outline of that budget and announced they had the votes to pass their own budget but would like to make an effort to sit down and negotiate a budget with the Governor. (They never released this budget proposal to the public or even handed it out to their caucuses.) After some posturing, the Democrats and the Governor sat down to work out a joint budget. The Governor put some of his transportation funding on the table and the Democrats agreed in turn to cut some of their Municipal Revenue Sharing funds. That was the first step of a negotiation that lasted until the day before the end of the session. There were a couple of times that things seemed to break down but in the end they agreed on a budget outline/spreadsheet, which was available, the next to last day of the session.

They indicated they planned to vote on the budget on the final day of the session. On the adjournment day there was still no formal budget document available by mid-day and they announced they would just be doing the budget and not the implementation language or bond packages. A couple of hours later they announced they did not plan to vote on a budget that day but would be coming back for a Special Session to adopt the budget, implementation language and bond packages. As the Senate adjourned at midnight they announced they would be reconvening on May12th.

SB 501: AN ACT ADJUSTING THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2017. Passed.

The outline that the legislators were given on the final day of session showed each line item comparing the amount in the Original 2017 Appropriations in the biennium budget adopted last session; the Appropriations Committee’s April Budget; Republican’s Budget proposal; Governor’s second budget proposal, and the proposed amount for the final budget. When they adjourned the Governor said he would not support any changes to that agreement. Yet there was the expectation that the final budget would include a number of changes since it had been out for over a week before it would be adopted. Legislators would want changes in order to vote for the budget; advocacy organizations would be lobbying the legislators; and there can be mistakes in the document that was given out. There continued to be a call for them to kill the budget by state employee unions. The budget would require 2,500 to 4,000 layoffs of state employees. The number of layoffs, the administration was saying was required by this budget was about 2,500. The unions were looking at the total reduction in the personal services line items for each agency and the reduction in the social security line item to calculate the number of layoffs would have to be made to reach those numbers were over 4,000 positions.

At the end of the final session day on May 4th, Sen. Duff, (D) Norwalk announced that they would convene the special session on Thursday May 12th. The House never announced a date to return to do the budget. The Monday after the session adjourned the Republicans complained that there were not budget documents released beyond the line item document released on the day before adjournment. So that afternoon the Democrats released the budget bill, SB501.

The Senate convened on May 12th. The Senate took up the bills in this order:

SB 501 AN ACT ADJUSTING THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2017 – Passed, Party Line in the Senate (21-15) and 74-70 in the House, with 9 Democrats voting NO.

SB 502 AN ACT CONCERNING REVENUE AND OTHER ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2017. Passed 21-16 with Rep. Hartley (D-Waterbury) voting NO in the Senate, and 70-73 in the House, with 7 Democrats voting NO.

No other document was published until after midnight on the 12th, with the Senate convening later on that day. The House announced on the 12th that they would come in on the next day, Friday the 13th.

On May 12th, while the Senate supposed to convene at 10:30 but it was after 2 pm before they actually began their debate on these bills. The first bill to be taken up was SB 501 the budget. We had been waiting for an amendment for that bill since as it was drafted there were little or no changes from the version outlined in the handouts given to legislators on the 3rd of May. But when the amendment was published there were much fewer changes than we expected. Change to the budget we think you would be interested was:

 The amendment restricted how much the Governor could cut as part of the $68,848,968 in reductions authorized in the budget to the regional community-technical colleges to 1%; to Connecticut State University, University of Connecticut and UConn Health Center to 2%.

This amendment passed on a party line 21-15 vote. The Republicans offered 6 amendments that all died on a party line vote. The budget itself passed on a party line vote-the first time in a very long time all the Senate Democrats had voted for a budget.

The Senate then took up SB 502, the budget implementer. That was also a long debate but it was not clear if the Republicans were drawing out the debate to push any vote on the Governor’s Second Chance bill to the early hours of the next door or they wanted to talk about this bill. There was one Republican amendment that took money from the Citizens Election Commission to pay for the tax exemption in SB 502 for diapers and feminine hygiene products, effective July 1, 2016. This amendment died on a 15-21 party line vote. The bill itself passed on a 20-16 vote with all the Democrats except Sen. Hartley (D) Waterbury voting for the bill.

The House convened the next day and took up the budget SB 501 first. This debate took more than 6 hours and the Republicans offered 4 amendments. The final vote was 74-70. The roll call is below:

Y ABERCROMBIE X LESSER N ACKERT N NOUJAIM Y ADAMS Y LOPES N ADINOLFI N O'DEA Y ALBIS Y LUXENBERG N ALBERTS N O'NEILL N ALEXANDER N MCCARTHY N AMAN N PAVALOCK VAHEY Y ALTOBELLO Y MCCRORY N BELSITO N PERILLO Y ARCE Y MCGEE N BERTHEL N PISCOPO Y ARCONTI X MEGNA N BETTS N REBIMBAS Y ARESIMOWICZ Y MILLER, P. N BOCCHINO N RUTIGLIANO Y BAKER N MORIN N BOLINSKY N SAMPSON X BARAM Y MUSHINSKY X BUCK- N SCOTT TAYLOR N BECKER, B. Y NICASTRO N BUMGARDNER N SHABAN Y BERGER Y PERONE N BYRON N SIMANSKI Y BOUKUS Y PORTER N CAMILLO N SMITH Y BRYCKI N RANDALL N CANDELORA, N SREDZINSKI V. Y BUTLER Y REED N CARNEY N SRINIVASAN Y CANDELARIA, J. Y REYES N CARPINO N STANESKI Y CONROY Y RILEY N CARTER N TWEEDIE Y COOK Y RITTER N CASE N VAIL Y CURREY Y ROJAS N D'AMELIO N WILMS Y D'AGOSTINO Y ROSARIO N DAVIS N WOOD Y DARGAN Y ROSE N DEVLIN N YACCARINO Y DEMICCO N ROVERO N DUBITSKY N ZAWISTOWSKI Y DILLON Y SANCHEZ N FERRARO N ZIOBRON Y ESPOSITO Y SANTIAGO, E. N FLOREN N ZUPKUS Y FLEISCHMANN Y SANTIAGO, H. X FRANCE Y FOX Y SCANLON N FREY X FRITZ Y SERRA N GIEGLER Y GENGA Y SIMMONS N HARDING Y GONZALEZ Y STAFSTROM N HOYDICK Y SHARKEY (SPKR) Y GRESKO Y STALLWORTH N KLARIDES Y GUERRERA N STEINBERG N KOKORUDA Y HADDAD Y TERCYAK N KUPCHICK N HAMPTON Y TONG N LABRIOLA Y HENNESSY Y URBAN N LAVIELLE Y GENTILE (DEP) Y HEWETT Y VARGAS N LEGEYT Y GODFREY (DEP) Y JANOWSKI Y VERRENGIA N MACLACHLAN Y MILLER, P.B. (DEP) Y JOHNSON Y WALKER N MCCARTY, K. Y MORRIS (DEP) Y JUTILA Y WILLIS N MCGORTY, B. Y ORANGE (DEP) X KINER Y ZONI N MINER Y RYAN (DEP) Y LEMAR N MULLIGAN Y SAYERS (DEP)

The next bill that was taken up was SB 502. The debate was a little shorter on this bill but again it was not clear whether or not they extended the debate because of the bill or because they were trying to ensure they didn’t reach a debate on Second Chance until early in the morning of the next day. There were three Republicans amendments that failed. The final vote on this bill was 73-70. The roll call is below: Y ABERCROMBIE X LESSER N ACKERT N NOUJAIM Y ADAMS Y LOPES N ADINOLFI N O'DEA Y ALBIS Y LUXENBERG N ALBERTS N O'NEILL N ALEXANDER Y MCCARTHY N AMAN N PAVALOCK VAHEY Y ALTOBELLO Y MCCRORY N BELSITO N PERILLO Y ARCE Y MCGEE N BERTHEL N PISCOPO Y ARCONTI X MEGNA N BETTS N REBIMBAS Y ARESIMOWICZ Y MILLER, P. N BOCCHINO N RUTIGLIANO Y BAKER N MORIN N BOLINSKY N SAMPSON X BARAM Y MUSHINSKY X BUCK- N SCOTT TAYLOR N BECKER, B. Y NICASTRO N BUMGARDNER N SHABAN Y BERGER Y PERONE N BYRON N SIMANSKI Y BOUKUS Y PORTER N CAMILLO N SMITH N BRYCKI Y RANDALL N CANDELORA, N SREDZINSKI V. Y BUTLER Y REED N CARNEY N SRINIVASAN Y CANDELARIA, J. Y REYES N CARPINO N STANESKI Y CONROY Y RILEY N CARTER N TWEEDIE Y COOK Y RITTER N CASE N VAIL Y CURREY Y ROJAS N D'AMELIO N WILMS Y D'AGOSTINO Y ROSARIO N DAVIS N WOOD Y DARGAN Y ROSE N DEVLIN N YACCARINO Y DEMICCO N ROVERO N DUBITSKY N ZAWISTOWSKI Y DILLON Y SANCHEZ N FERRARO N ZIOBRON Y ESPOSITO Y SANTIAGO, E. N FLOREN N ZUPKUS Y FLEISCHMANN Y SANTIAGO, H. X FRANCE Y FOX Y SCANLON N FREY X FRITZ Y SERRA N GIEGLER Y GENGA Y SIMMONS N HARDING Y GONZALEZ Y STAFSTROM N HOYDICK Y SHARKEY (SPKR) Y GRESKO Y STALLWORTH N KLARIDES Y GUERRERA N STEINBERG N KOKORUDA Y HADDAD Y TERCYAK N KUPCHICK N HAMPTON Y TONG N LABRIOLA Y HENNESSY X URBAN N LAVIELLE Y GENTILE (DEP) Y HEWETT Y VARGAS N LEGEYT Y GODFREY (DEP) Y JANOWSKI Y VERRENGIA N MACLACHLAN Y MILLER, P.B. (DEP) Y JOHNSON Y WALKER N MCCARTY, K. Y MORRIS (DEP) Y JUTILA Y WILLIS N MCGORTY, B. Y ORANGE (DEP) X KINER Y ZONI N MINER Y RYAN (DEP) Y LEMAR N MULLIGAN N SAYERS (DEP)

SB 502 was 291 pages long and made a number of changes. The section we thought you would be interested in allowed DAS to establish health insurance benefit premium costs for non-union employees up to 18% of the total premium. Below is a breakdown of line items we thought you would be interested in. Is the comparison pf the amount of the line items in the Governor’s original Budget; the Appropriation budget, the Governor’s Second Budget and the final budget amount. Note: the cuts are cuts from the amount in the budget adopted last session for these line items for FY 17. Also if a line item does not mention the Governor’s April budget amount it is because the amount was the same as the Governor’s February Budget.

Here is a summary of some of the major changes that effected numerous pieces of each budget.

The Governor’s February budget combined line items in every agency leaving the state agency (with OPM & the Governor) to decide how much the total would be allocated for each program. This transferred the responsibility and the power to determine state expenditures to the Governor. The other thing that this would have done is given the Governor’s 5% rescission power; he could eliminate whole programs if they represented 5% or less of the line item. The legislature unbundled most of these line items. The Governor also proposed moving the cost of fringe benefits into each agency. The legislature put fringe benefit costs back into the Comptroller’s Office.

Appropriations’ budget cut $540,375,188 from the budget for 2017 that was adopted last session. This is approximately the same amount the Governor cut in his budget that he presented to the legislature in February. OFA currently projects a budget deficit in 2017 of about $930,000,000. The legislature undid most of the bundled line item and put the fringe benefits back in the Office of the Comptroller.

Governor’s April 12th budget addressed the whole deficit of $930,000,000. It left much of the Governor’s February budget cuts in place including most to the bundled line items and left the fringe benefits in the state agencies. It added about $390 million in cuts in addition to the cuts he made in his February budget.

Final Budget included $17,886,150,763 in general fund expenditures down from last session budget of $18,711,158,675; a cut of $925,007,912 from the general fund budget. The total budget was $19,754,536.392 down from the original amount adopted last session of $20,438,256,613. This budget also unbundled most of the line items the Governor’s budgets bundled together. This budget also moved the fringe benefit costs back into the Comptroller’s office.

Below are more details on specific line items we thought you would be interested in:

Reserve for Salary Adjustments

The original appropriation for this line item for FY17 was $99,326,099. Appropriations cut $63,551,658 from the Governor’s February budget proposed $86,024,913. The Governor’s proposed April budget cut this account down to $22,473,441. The final budget included $25,774,441.

Board of Regents

Transform CSU: $21,326,047 was taken out of this program by Appropriations and $2.5 million was reallocated for Outcome based financing; $8,026, 047 for Tech Colleges; and $10.8 million to Developmental Services. The final budget eliminated Transform CSU. The final budget included $1,662,925 for outcome based financing.

CSU: The Governor proposed a budget of $170,900,623. The Appropriations budget reduced it to $156,334,406-a $14,566,217 difference. The amount in the final budget was $153,640,756.

Board of Regents’ original appropriations for FY17 was $566,038. Both the Appropriations and Governor’s February budgets proposed an appropriation of $500,281. The final budget provided an appropriation of $446,390.

Projects at CSU: The Governor eliminated $410,000 for various projects at CSU including: $200,000 for the Racial Profiling Prohibition Program; $80,000 for the sentencing commission; and, funding for Results First of $100,000. Appropriation restored $100,000 for Racial Profiling Prohibition Project; $75,400 for Sentencing Commission and $94,250 to assist with the Results First. They did not restore $30,000 for Veterans History Project. The final budget restored $400,000 for these programs from Transform CSU funding

The Governor’s Scholarship Fund was originally funded at $41,023,498. Both the Appropriations and Governor’s budget allocated approximately $$38.6 million for this program. The final allocation was $37,363,944.

OTHER NOTES ABOUT THE FINAL BUDGET:

The budget allows OPM to make up to $94,476,193 in addition reductions in allocations in executive branch agencies. He cannot make a reduction of more than 1% of any appropriation. Also he cannot reduce municipal aid.

There is another section that allows OPM to reduce allocations to executive branch agencies by $68,848,968. Those reductions cannot come from SDE, ECS Grants, Hospital Supplemental Payments or total more than 1% of the Community- Technical Colleges allocation or more than 2% of allocations for CSU, UConn or UConn Health Center. The part about the constituent units of higher education was added in the amendment to SB501.

OPM can reduce allocation to the Office of Legislative Management by $3,028,105 in FY17. The original reduction in allocation for FY 17 was $2 million.

Board of Regent’s Budget On June 16th the Board of Regent’s (BOR) met and adopted a final budget of $1.2 billion for the fiscal year beginning on July 1st. Although the system is faced with rising costs, a $32.2 million deficit leftover from this fiscal year and a need to find $189.3 million more in unspecified cuts this new budget represents no increase in spending. The budget office for the System said that they would need to balance the budget with further staff reductions and using remaining reserves. Leaders of the campuses are required to submit plans to President Ojakian for further reductions.

In the budget adopted by the Board of Regents on June 16th there were reductions of faculty, counselors, librarians, and administrative support staff. Class size will be increased and educational assistants and tutors will be eliminated in most cases.

System Office

FULL-TIME POSITIONS-1 cut BUDGET-$37.21million SPENDING CHANGE-$971,279 STUDENTS (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT)-? FINANCIAL AID FUNDING-? FINANCIAL AID CHANGE-? PERSONNEL COST CHANGE-6.5% FACULTY VACANCY-NA VACANCY BREAKDOWN Two academic affairs staff members and one information technology staffer are being eliminated. One public relations employee and a human resources staff member are being added. OTHER CUTS The system office budget will increase by nearly 3 percent next fiscal year. About one-third of the increase ($305,000) will be spent on public relations and another third ($399,400) on information technology. WHAT THE SCHOOL SAYS While not included in the proposed budget, system office officials report that they intend not to fill several positions as they become vacant next fiscal year, which will reduce costs by $500,000. The system also expects to achieve moderate savings by relocating its central office from 39 Woodland Street to a state office building a few doors down. The increased costs overall were attributed to earmarking $1 million for centralizing certain functions administered by many of the colleges in the system.

Eastern Connecticut State University

FULL-TIME POSITIONS-6 cut BUDGET-$128.6 million SPENDING CHANGE-$2305912 STUDENTS (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT)-4,484 FINANCIAL AID FUNDING-$9,857,257 FINANCIAL AID CHANGE-$675,058 PERSONNEL COST CHANGE-2.1% FACULTY VACANCY-4 add VACANCY BREAKDOWN Four faculty positions will be added. There will be one fewer librarian and a reduction of nine managers and administrative positions. Spending on part-time lecturers will decrease by $120,000 while spending for student labor will increase by $114,555. These changes will not be realized through layoffs, but rather by not filling positions as they become vacant because of retirements or departures. The additional positions have already been filled. OTHER CUTS-? WHAT THE SCHOOL SAYS Eastern was able to avoid major cuts because officials are budgeting for flat enrollment, which means increased revenue since tuition has increased. While enrollment at ECSU has decreased in each of the last two years, the president told the finance panel she is optimistic she can turn that around by retaining more students.

Southern Connecticut State University FULL-TIME POSITIONS-11 positions cut BUDGET-$210.4 million SPENDING CHANGE-$-1,771,418 STUDENTS (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT)-8,082 FINANCIAL AID FUNDING-$12,477,383 FINANCIAL AID CHANGE-(-$674,964) PERSONNEL COST CHANGE-0% FACULTY VACANCY-same VACANCY BREAKDOWN There are no changes in the number of faculty. There will be two additional librarians and five fewer administrative and manager positions. Funding for part- time lecturers will remain flat, though funding for other part-time positions is significantly reduced. In addition to the 11 positions that will be cut next year, 24 currently vacant positions will not be filled. The university also anticipates saving $600,000 by not filing vacant positions, $1.4 million from not hiring as many part- time university assistants and reducing the hours for students who work on campus. OTHER CUTS Financial aid will be cut by $675,000, or 5 percent. The swimming pool in Pelz Gymnasium will be permanently closed. The operation of the Long Wharf site will be taken over by a private company to realize savings. Across-the-board cuts to all departments will also be implemented, 'which will have a noticeable effect on day- to-day operations,' the university's proposed budget states. The university also anticipates saving $600,000 by not filing vacant positions, $1.4 million from not hiring as many part-time university assistants and reducing the hours for students who work on campus and $1.2 million from renegotiating student accident insurance. WHAT THE SCHOOL SAYS There will be fewer teaching staff, and class sizes will increase. 'The staff side has certainly taken a hit to balance the budget. I will not sugarcoat that,' Mary Papazian, SCSU president, told the finance panel. 'It won't have a significant impact on student success, but it’s not something we can handle in the long term.'

Western Connecticut State University

FULL-TIME POSITION-5 cut BUDGET-$123.8million SPENDING CHANGE-(-$633,753) STUDENTS (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT)-4,514 FINANCIAL AID FUNDING-$6,326,045 FINANCIAL AID CHANGE-(-$62,007) PERSONNEL COST CHANGE-(-1.5%) FACULTY VACANCY-11 add VACANCY BREAKDOWN The school will employ one fewer librarian and 15 fewer administrative staff and managers. The university will be forced to hire 11 full-time faculty because it was determined that the school was in violation of its contract with the faculty union that mandates that classes not be taught by more than a certain number of part-time adjunct staff. Spending on student and part-time labor will drop $337,000 OTHER CUTS Financial aid will be cut by $62,007; positions will not be filled as they become vacant; and the college will dip into its rainy day reserves to close its shortfall. WHAT THE SCHOOL SAYS School officials have been put in a tough spot after it was determined they were relying too heavily on part-time adjunct faculty to teach classes and were in violation of their labor contract with the faculty union. In order to hire 11faculty the school plans to reduce the number of administrators and managers and student labor and tap its reserves for $4.2 million. Using these one-time funds to cover operating costs is not something school officials are not please with. 'Before you know it you don’t have any reserves left,' John B. Clark, president of WCSU, told the finance panel.

Central Connecticut State University FULL-TIME POSITIONS-0 cut BUDGET-$222.6 million SPENDING CHANGE-$3,681,962 STUDENTS (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT)-9,174 FINANCIAL AID FUNDING-$15,158,796 FINANCIAL AID CHANGE-$1,026,501 PERSONNEL COST CHANGE-3% FACULTY VACANCY-0 cut VACANCY BREAKDOWN There is no budgeted change in full-time positions. Spending on part-time labor is budgeted to increase $276,000, or 1.7 percent, though the number of part-time positions is expected to decrease. For example, the number of part-time lecturers will decrease from 517 to 468. Much of the cost increase is caused by the increased minimum wage, which is expected to cost CCSU $254,000 next year. OTHER CUTS The school will use $1.1 million of its reserves to help pay the debt service on a new dorm.

II. REVENUE

HB 5046: AN ACT CONCERNING REVENUE. Died. Most of this bill was included in SB 502 the budget implementer which passed in special session. (see Above)

This was originally the Governor’s revenue bill. It actually included very little revenue. It would have increased, starting July 1, 2016, Department of Transportation (DOT) permit fees for motor vehicles, including trucks and trailers, exceeding certain height, width, length, or weight limits, and specifies that these vehicles include “self-propelled vehicles.” The bill also would have increase, from $25 to $200, the fee an employer and its employee must each pay when submitting a grievance or dispute to the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration. By law, the board assigns the case to one of its two three-member panels, each consisting of one labor, business, and public member. The board must refund the fee if the parties agree to have the public member arbitrate the matter.

Both of these provisions made it into the final revenue package which was SB 502. The Finance Committee held a hearing on this bill. Submitting testimony in support was Metro-Hartford Alliance. Submitting testimony in opposition was Brian Anderson, Council 4 AFSCME; Jan Hochadel, President, AFT Connecticut, AFL-CIO; Joseph R. Sculley, President, Motor Transport Association of Connecticut (MTAC); Donna Sadler and Mary Stratton. Most of the testimony was not about the provisions of the bill but support or opposition to increasing state revenue.

The Finance made significant changes to the bill and passed it on a vote of 30-21, a party line vote.

This bill as amended would have made many changes affecting state and municipal revenue. It would have imposed registration requirements and fees on fantasy sports contest operators, diverts funds from the regional greenhouse gas initiative's account, and increases the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration's grievance filing fee. It also would have delayed, from FY 17 to FY 18, the date when the state must begin paying off unreserved negative unassigned balances from FY 14. The bill capped at $40,000 the probate fees for settling estates valued at $8.877 million or more.

The bill makes several changes to the sales and use tax. It reduces, in stages, the tax rate on boats and luxury goods and exempts from the tax feminine hygiene products, disposable or reusable diapers, and coin-operated car washes. It requires all retailers to renew their sales tax permits by January 1, 2017, and imposes a renewal fee for these permits based on how often the retailers must remit the tax. It also requires “payment settlement entities” to submit monthly reports to the revenue services commissioner detailing the prior month's credit and debit card payments made to Connecticut retailers.

The bill reduces the gross receipts tax on ambulatory surgical centers and exempts from the hospital tax, hospitals that are not part of a hospital system and meet other specified criteria.

The bill changes the conditions for accessing various business tax credits. It (1) allows the owners and partners of businesses organized as pass-through entities to claim the apprenticeship tax credit against their personal income taxes, (2) lifts the moratorium on film and digital media production tax credits for motion pictures meeting narrow criteria, and (3) accelerates the schedule for raising the cap on R&D tax credits back to 70% of a business's corporation business tax.

The bill makes changes to the personal income tax exemption and credit. It increases the personal exemption for single filers over 10 years and correspondingly increases the income threshold at which the exemption begins to phase out. The bill also expands the income ranges in which these filers qualify for the personal income tax credit. The bill delays, from 2017 to 2018, the scheduled increase in the teacher pension income tax exemption.

The bill would have eliminated the 10% tax on admission charges at venues hosting concerts and athletic events and allows municipalities to impose a maximum 10% tax on admission charges to these events instead.

The bill would have made other changes affecting municipal revenue. It increased various fees municipalities must charge for filing certain documents and obtaining certain permits. It established new formulas for calculating motor vehicle property tax grants dispersed to municipalities that implemented a property tax revaluation in the 2014 and 2015 assessment years. The bill also expanded the types of expenditures excluded from the spending cap linked to municipal revenue sharing grants.

The bill delayed, from FY 18 to FY 20, the implementation of a mechanism for increasing payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to municipalities with relatively high mill rates and percentages of tax- exempt property. Lastly, the bill would have created a statewide marketing and promotion account as a separate, non-lapsing General Fund account and requires the revenue services commissioner to deposit in that account 9% of the revenue, the room occupancy tax generates.

The chart below shows the fiscal implications on various tax categories by the bill.

Again many of these items were also included in the final revenue bill SB 502.

The bill died without any action in the House.

SB 502: AN ACT CONCERNING REVENUE AND OTHER ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2017. Passed

This was the revenue package and the implementer. Narrative on the bill is above. The revenue package part of this bill did not produce a lot of new revenue- $10.4 million. Below is the chart from the fiscal note that outlines the changes to revenue in SB502.

Revenue Impact (in millions)

Section Action(s) Fund FY 17 $ 178 Increase Permit Fees for Special 0.8 Oversized/Overweight Vehicles Transportation Fund 179 Increase Fees for Grievances Filed with General Fund 0.2 the Department of Labor 180 Eliminate Sales Tax on Parking Fees at General Fund (0.5) Certain Governmental Parking Lots 181 Transfer from Regional Greenhouse Gas General Fund 3.3 Initiative (RGGI) 182, 198 Sales Tax Enforcement General Fund 5.0 183 Create Innovative Districts, Increase General Fund (3.0) Funding for Innovation - Angel Investor 184 Delay GAAP Amortization of FY 14 General Fund 9.1 Negative Growth 193-194 Probate Court Fee - $40,000 Cap Probate Court (4.5) Administration Fund

III. STATE EMPLOYEES AND THE SESSION

State employees were the focus of much discussion at the State Capitol this session and still continue to be as the State wrestles with a lack of revenue to meet obligations. This is likely to continue into upcoming sessions.

There were three major activities that took place during the session related to State Employees. One, there was the contract for University of Connecticut Professional Employees Association (UCPEA) which was the only state employee contract taken up this session. Two, there were the budget items that affected state employees. Three was the proposals put forth by the Republicans around state employees in budget proposals and amendments throughout the session.

The UCPEA contract was the first state employee contract submitted to the legislature and the way it played out guaranteed it would be the last one submitted during this session. The conversation around this contract came after the deficit numbers had grown to about $900 million, the Governor was asking SEBAC to agree to open their contract around pension and health care; and, the Republicans in their proposal for the deficit mitigation bill and their proposal for a budget included cuts to state employee pensions and increased in health insurance co- pays. The Republicans were also raising the issue of the Democrats letting state employee contracts pass without a vote. (If a contact is not voted on within 30 days of submission it is deemed approved.) Republicans had even made a motion during the debate on the deficit mitigation package to change the rules to require a vote on state employee contracts. That motion was ruled “not properly before the chamber” since you cannot change the rules in a debate around a bill. Therefore, there was no vote on the motion.

After contract was submitted, the AFT lobbyists began to count votes on the Appropriations Committee which is the first hurtle for a contract. They were really concerned about the responses they were getting from Democrats on the Committee. They reached out to the lobbyists for other state employee unions, including us, for help. We began to talk to Appropriations members we were especially close with, including the Chairs of the Committee, on their behalf. Most of the Democratic legislators were not making commitments to vote for the contract. The lobbying continued right thru the hearing on the contract. The day of the hearing it became clear that the Speaker’s office was encouraging the Democratic House members to vote no on the contract. During the hearing there were a lot of discussions about the contract and even pieces of the contract that would, in a normal year, be praised such as moving to a 40-hour work week with the compensation for the extra hours not fully reimbursed. After the hearing, the committee went into their respective party’s caucus. Accounts from the Democratic caucus indicated that the Chairs of the committee made a strong case for voting for the contract including emphasizing that this was a collective bargaining unit made up mostly of women and the last contract they had voted on was for State Police a group that was predominately men and that contract was more generous that the contract before them. The other argument that seemed to be helpful in the caucus was that the union could go to binding arbitration and get a better contract.

Legislative Procedure for Votes on State Employee Contracts in the Appropriations Committee

State employee contracts must be voted on by the Appropriations Committee but must move to the floor no matter the outcome of the vote. If the vote to approve the contract passes, the contract goes to the floor with a favorable report. If there is a tie or the vote to approve the contract fails it goes to the floor with an unfavorable report. An unfavorable report does not change the way the House and Senate handle the contract but is considered a recommendation of the committee. There are also two resolutions, one is a House Resolution which for the UCPEA contract was HR3 and one was the Senate Resolution- SR4. Only the House members of the committee vote on the House resolutions; and, only, the Senate members of the Committee vote on the Senate resolution.

The first resolution to be voted on was HR 3. That resolution passed on a vote of 24-19. All the Republicans and two Democrats voted no. The Democrats who voted no were Rep. Doug McCrory (D-Hartford) and Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (D-Fairfield). Then the Senate members took up SR4. That vote ended in a tie. All the Republicans and one Democrat voted no. The Democrat was Sen. Joan Hartley (D-Waterbury). So the Senate resolution received an unfavorable report.

After the vote, the leadership from the House and Senate said they wanted their members to vote on the contract. And at least Speaker Sharkey was calling for his members to vote no. There was some sense this was a move to pressure state employee unions to renegotiate the SEBAC agreement. Others felt that the Democrats, at least some of them thought it was a good move to turn down a contract for their re-election.

UCPEA did not want the contract voted down. When contract is submitted a statement of the statutes which the contract supersedes is supposed to be filed with it. Such a statement was not filed with the contract but was filed later when the mistake was discovered. SEBAC unions meet with leadership in both houses to make the case for approving the contract. When it looked like such an agreement to pass the contract could not be reached. The union reached what they thought was an agreement with leadership that they would withdraw the contract and cite this mistake as the reason it had to be withdrawn. It was withdrawn but the Speaker indicated to the press that union withdrew it in order to go back to table since it seemed likely it would be rejected. At this point, all the state employee unions decided not to submit any contracts this session.

As the budget talks continued, it started to become clear that there was not going to be any significant new revenue. The unions were advocating for a 1% income tax increase on the wealthiest people in CT. But there were very few legislators who would agree to vote for any tax increases. So the legislature was faced with voting on a budget with about a billion dollars in cuts. In April, the Governor started to layoff state employees. The budget that was negotiated with the Democrats and the Governor included savings related to 2,500 layoffs. Thought the unions believe the actual numbers for reduction in things like fringe benefits, etc. would require about 4,000 layoffs to reach those savings. The legislature did not vote on the budget during the regular session. They came back into special session to vote on the budget and unions lobbied for the Democrats to vote against the budget because of the layoffs necessary to chive the savings assigned to layoffs. At the time this is being written, the number of layoffs that have been made number about a 1,000. It appears that given how bare bones the state agencies already were after years of hiring freezes and elimination of programs, the administration cannot actually find even 2,500 employees they can layoff.

Also during budget negotiations, the Republicans called for a lot of anti-state employee provisions. They included:  suspending longevity payments;  a $20 million modification of individual labor union contracts;  increasing pension contributions;  capping COLAs for new retirees;  transferring part time, temporary and seasonal workers to a FICA Alternative Retirement Program;  moving new state employees to a defined benefit retirement plan;  increasing health insurance premium contributions by 10 or 15%;  increasing dental premiums by 10%;  increasing office visit co-pays by $15 to $20 dollars; and,  increasing prescription drug co-pays. The recommendations also included specific changes to individual union contracts- that list did not include any modification to the AAUP contract and a number of suggestions about reducing overtime.

The final budget that passed included cuts to non-union state employees including a pension cap of $125,000 for all new state employees hired after July 1, 2016 and increasing their health insurance premium to 18%.

IV. HIGHER EDUCATION BILLS

We are likely to see many of the issues relating to Higher Education that were discussed this year also discussed next year.

SB24: AN ACT CONCERNING PROGRAM APPROVAL FOR INDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. Passed. Public Act 16-36. Signed by the Governor.

This bill exempts academic programs of certain independent institutions of higher education from approval by the Office of Higher Education. Some private colleges in Connecticut, such as Yale have always been exempt from this type of review and the other independent institutions have been asking to get out from under the Office of Higher Education (OHE) for years. The path for this bill was made easier this year by the resentment of the Higher Education Committee to the OHE opposition to State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) and also by the significant number of cuts made to OHE in the budget that severely limited their abilities. The arguments in favor of the bill that these new programs generally have several extensive internal reviews was accepted as adequate by the members of the Higher Education Committee. We kept an eye on this bill because of the chance that UConn, Charter Oak or the Community Colleges would seek to amend the bill to seek some review advantage for themselves that wasn’t available to CSU. They have done this in the past.

This bill made exemptions for some independent colleges from OHE’s approval process, bringing others in line with the status that Trinity, Wesleyan, and others have already obtained. It was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee and was co-sponsored by Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (D-Fairfield), Rep. Roberta Willis (D-Lakeville), Rep. Steven Stafstrom (D- Bridgeport), Rep. Brenda Kupchick (R-Fairfield), Rep. Ezequiel Santiago (D- Bridgeport), Rep. Patricia Dillon (D-New Haven), Rep. Gayle Mulligan (R- Hebron), Rep. Laura Devlin (R-Fairfield), Sen. Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Rep. Christopher Rosario (D-Bridgeport), Sen. Kevin Witkos (R-Canton), Rep. Elizabeth Boukus (D-Plainville), Rep. Louis Esposito (D-West Haven), and Sen. Steve Cassano (D-Manchester).

Testimony in support came from Kenneth S. Siegel, Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel, Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc.; Charles V. Firlotte, President & Chief Executive Officer, Aquarian Water Company; State Representative J. Brendan Sharkey, 88th Assembly District, Speaker of the House; Daniel J. McCarthy, President and Chief Executive Officer, Frontier Communications; Stephen H. Kaplan, Ph.D., President, University of New Haven; Senator Martin M. Looney, 11th Senatorial District, President Pro Tempore; Rupendra Paliwal, Ph.D., Acting Provost for Academic Affairs, Sacred Heart University; Jennifer Herz, Assistant Counsel, CBIA; Gary Minor - Senior Director, College Relations, Goodwin College; Patrick McGloin, Vice President for Government Relations and Public Policy, Metro-Hartford Alliance; Stephen Healey, Ph.D., Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, University of Bridgeport; Sean P. O'Connell, Ph.D., Vice President for Academic Affairs, Albertus Magnus College; Walter Harrison, President, University of Hartford; Stephen Healey, Ph.D., Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of Bridgeport; Bruce Berdanier, Ph.D., PE, LS, FASCE, Fairfield University; and Jennifer Widness, President, Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges.

Testimony in opposition came from Jane Ciarleglio, Executive Director, Office of Higher Education.

The Committee passed the bill on a vote of 10-4. Voting Yea Nay Abstain Absent and Not Voice Vote TOTALS Voting 14 10 4 0 6 yea nay abstain absent yea nay abstain absent Sen. Bartolomeo, D. S13 X Rep. Willis, R. 064 X Sen. Witkos, K. S08 X Rep. Betts, W. 078 X Sen. Flexer, M. S29 X Rep. Lopes, R. 024 X Rep. Ackert, T. 008 X Rep. Alberts, M. 050 X Rep. Bocchino, M. 150 X Rep. Candelaria, J. 095 X Rep. Carney, D. 023 X Rep. Dillon, P. 092 X Rep. Gentile, L. 104 X Rep. Haddad, G. 054 X Rep. Janowski, C. 056 X Rep. LeGeyt, T. 017 X Rep. MacLachlan, J. 035 X Rep. McCrory, D. 007 X Rep. Sanchez, R. 025 X Rep. Walker, T. 093 X

The bill moved to the Senate where it was referred to Appropriations. The Committee passed the bill on a unanimous vote of 51-0 and it came back to the Senate.

The Senate adopted Amendment A as introduced by Sen. Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Sen. Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), Sen. Terry Gerratana (D-New Britain), Sen. Danté Bartolomeo (D-Meriden), Sen. Eric Coleman (D-Bloomfield), Rep. Roberta Willis (D-Lakeville), Sen. Paul Doyle (D-Wethersfield), Sen. Kevin Witkos (R- Canton), Sen. Gayle Slossberg (D-Milford), and Rep. Whit Betts (R-Bristol). It added a sunset date, composite score requirements, an OHE report, and a few other small changes.

The bill passed the Senate 35-1, with the sole no vote coming from Sen. Mae Flexer (D-Danielson). The bill then moved to the House where Senate Amendment A was adopted and the bill passed in concurrence 144-0.

Public Act 16-36 was signed by the Governor. It has an effective date of July 1st, 2016. SB25: AN ACT CONCERNING SPECIAL POLICE FORCES ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES. Passed. PA16-154. Signed by the Governor. The bill permits the establishment of a special police force at each of the regional community-technical colleges, subject to approval by the Board of Regents for Higher Education.

This bill was strongly supported by the Community Colleges and lobbied very heavily by the Board of Regents (BOR). There have been several publicized and not so publicized incidents at Community Colleges over the past two years and there was a sense that something needed to change. The unprofessional nature of security at several campuses has led to the belief that these campuses are unsafe. There was contrary widespread concern that the campuses would be unable to adequately train and supervise employees with weapons. Several legislators were concerned that adding weapons on some campuses would be asking for trouble. We have continued to watch this bill closely for unfavorable amendments and to watch for added employee duties or paperwork. We have encouraged the Board of Regents to seek certification from POST (Police Officer Standards and Training) for the police units on campus and we attempted to get mention of this in the bill. The BOR argued against this.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee and was co-sponsored by Rep. Cecilia Buck-Taylor (R-New Milford), Rep. Ben McGorty (R-Shelton), Rep. Fred Wilms (R-Norwalk), Rep. Louis Esposito (D-West Haven), Rep. Dan Carter (R-Bethel), Rep. Jesse MacLachlan (R- Westbrook), Rep. Christie Carpino (R-Cromwell), Rep. Joe Verrengia (D- Elmwood), Rep. Stephen Dargan (D-West Haven), Rep. Mike Bocchino (R- Greenwich), Rep. Fred Camillo (R-Old Greenwich).

It allows security officers on Community College campuses to operate as special police forces and carry guns, such as is already the case at other institutions of higher education in Connecticut. Testimony in support came from Mark E. Ojakian, President, Connecticut State Colleges & Universities; Senator Stephen T. Cassano, Fourth District; Lt. Michael J. Davis, Chief of Police, Manchester Community College; Joseph Mazzarella, Senior Vice President, Mutualink, Inc.; and Glenn Terlecki, President of Connecticut Police and Fire Union.

The Committee passed the bill with language which explicitly outlined the campuses that this applies to; Asnuntuck Community College in Enfield, Capital Community College in Hartford, Gateway Community College in New Haven, Housatonic Community College in Bridgeport, Manchester Community College in Manchester, Middlesex Community College in Middletown, Naugatuck Valley Community College in Waterbury, Northwestern Connecticut Community College in Winsted, Norwalk Community College in Norwalk, Quinebaug Valley Community College in Danielson, Three Rivers Community College in Norwich, and Tunxis Community College in Farmington. The Committee vote was as follows: Voting Yea Nay Abstain Absent and Not Voice Vote TOTALS Voting 18 13 5 0 2 yea nay abstain absent yea nay abstain absent Sen. Bartolomeo, D. S13 X Rep. Willis, R. 064 X Sen. Witkos, K. S08 X Rep. Betts, W. 078 X Sen. Flexer, M. S29 X Rep. Lopes, R. 024 X Rep. Ackert, T. 008 X Rep. Alberts, M. 050 X Rep. Bocchino, M. 150 X Rep. Candelaria, J. 095 X Rep. Carney, D. 023 X Rep. Dillon, P. 092 X Rep. Gentile, L. 104 X Rep. Haddad, G. 054 X Rep. Janowski, C. 056 X Rep. LeGeyt, T. 017 X Rep. MacLachlan, J. 035 X Rep. McCrory, D. 007 X Rep. Sanchez, R. 025 X Rep. Walker, T. 093 X The bill moved to the Senate where it was referred to the Committee on Public Safety and Security. A unanimous Joint Favorable was approved (23-0) and it returned to the Senate. The bill was next sent to the Appropriations Committee.

The bill was approved by the Appropriations Committee by vote below: Voting Yea Nay Abstain Absent and Not Voice Vote TOTALS Voting 51 43 8 0 6 yea nay abstain absent yea nay abstain absent Sen. Bye, B. S05 X Rep. Kokoruda, N. 101 X Rep. Walker, T. 093 X Rep. Lavielle, G. 143 X Sen. Hartley, J. S15 X Rep. LeGeyt, T. 017 X Rep. Genga, H. 010 X Rep. Lesser, M. 100 X Rep. Porter, R. 094 X Sen. Markley, J. S16 X X Rep. McCarthy Vahey, C. Sen. Kane, R. S32 X 133 Rep. Ziobron, M. 034 X Rep. McCarty, K. 038 X Rep. Abercrombie, C. 083 X Rep. McCrory, D. 007 X Rep. Aman, W. 014 X Rep. McGee, B. 005 X Rep. Baker, A. 124 X Rep. McGorty, B. 122 X Sen. Bartolomeo, D. S13 X Rep. Miller, P. 145 X Rep. Belsito, S. 053 X Rep. Miner, C. 066 X Rep. Betts, W. 078 X Rep. Mulligan, G. 055 X Rep. Bolinsky, M. 106 X Rep. O'Neill, A. 069 X Rep. Candelaria, J. 095 X Rep. Orange, L. 048 X Rep. Case, J. 063 X Rep. Rosario, C. 128 X Sen. Chapin, C. S30 X Rep. Ryan, K. 139 X Rep. Currey, J. 011 X Rep. Santiago, E. 130 X Rep. Dillon, P. 092 X Sen. Slossberg, G. S14 X Rep. Ferraro, C. 117 X Rep. Tercyak, P. 026 X Rep. Fleischmann, A. 018 X Rep. Tweedie, M. 013 X Sen. Flexer, M. S29 X Rep. Urban, D. 043 X Sen. Formica, P. S20 X Rep. Vargas, E. 006 X Rep. France, M. 042 X Rep. Willis, R. 064 X Sen. Gerratana, T. S06 X Rep. Wilms, F. 142 X Rep. Gonzalez, M. 003 X Sen. Winfield, G. S10 X Rep. Haddad, G. 054 X Rep. Zawistowski, T. 061 X Rep. Hewett, E. 039 X Rep. Johnson, S. 049 X Sen. Kissel, J. S07 X

The Senate passed the bill on a consent calendar.

The House passed the bill in concurrence by the vote of 129 to 21 below: Y ABERCROMBIE Y LESSER Y ACKERT Y NOUJAIM Y ADAMS N LOPES Y ADINOLFI Y O'DEA N ALBIS Y LUXENBERG Y ALBERTS Y O'NEILL N ALEXANDER Y MCCARTHY Y AMAN Y PAVALOCK VAHEY Y ALTOBELLO N MCCRORY Y BELSITO Y PERILLO N ARCE N MCGEE Y BERTHEL Y PISCOPO Y ARCONTI Y MEGNA Y BETTS Y REBIMBAS Y ARESIMOWICZ N MILLER, P. Y BOCCHINO Y RUTIGLIANO Y BAKER Y MORIN Y BOLINSKY Y SAMPSON Y BARAM Y MUSHINSKY Y BUCK- Y SCOTT TAYLOR Y BECKER, B. Y NICASTRO Y BUMGARDNER Y SHABAN Y BERGER Y PERONE Y BYRON Y SIMANSKI N BOUKUS N PORTER Y CAMILLO Y SMITH Y BRYCKI Y RANDALL Y CANDELORA, Y SREDZINSKI V. Y BUTLER Y REED Y CARNEY Y SRINIVASAN Y CANDELARIA, J. N REYES Y CARPINO Y STANESKI Y CONROY Y RILEY Y CARTER Y TWEEDIE Y COOK Y RITTER Y CASE Y VAIL Y CURREY Y ROJAS Y D'AMELIO Y WILMS Y D'AGOSTINO N ROSARIO Y DAVIS Y WOOD Y DARGAN Y ROSE Y DEVLIN Y YACCARINO N DEMICCO Y ROVERO Y DUBITSKY Y ZAWISTOWSKI N DILLON Y SANCHEZ Y FERRARO Y ZIOBRON Y ESPOSITO Y SANTIAGO, E. Y FLOREN Y ZUPKUS Y FLEISCHMANN Y SANTIAGO, H. Y FRANCE Y FOX Y SCANLON Y FREY X FRITZ Y SERRA Y GIEGLER Y GENGA Y SIMMONS Y HARDING N GONZALEZ Y STAFSTROM Y HOYDICK Y SHARKEY (SPKR) Y GRESKO Y STALLWORTH Y KLARIDES Y GUERRERA Y STEINBERG Y KOKORUDA N HADDAD N TERCYAK Y KUPCHICK Y HAMPTON Y TONG Y LABRIOLA Y HENNESSY Y URBAN Y LAVIELLE Y GENTILE (DEP) Y HEWETT Y VARGAS Y LEGEYT N GODFREY (DEP) Y JANOWSKI Y VERRENGIA Y MACLACHLAN Y MILLER, P.B. (DEP) Y JOHNSON N WALKER Y MCCARTY, K. N MORRIS (DEP) Y JUTILA N WILLIS Y MCGORTY, B. Y ORANGE (DEP) Y KINER Y ZONI Y MINER Y RYAN (DEP) N LEMAR Y MULLIGAN Y SAYERS (DEP)

The bill has an effective date of July 1, 2016.

SB147: AN ACT ASSISTING STUDENTS WITHOUT LEGAL IMMIGRATION STATUS WITH THE COST OF COLLEGE. Died.

The bill would have enabled students without legal immigration status to be eligible for institutional financial assistance. This is the so called “Dream Act” and has been advocated by the Senate President Martin Looney (D-New Haven) among others. The current national political discussion around immigration has had both a positive and a negative impact on the progress of this bill over the past several years that it and similar bills have been introduced. The cautious nature of the legislature up for reelection in a volatile election year made the prospects of this bill this year a chance at best. The advocates for the bill made a valiant effort and we assisted them along the way where were able to do so. The bill has always had near unanimous Republican opposition and several members who are extremely opposed which makes passage a challenge.

This bill would have allowed undocumented students to have access to a pool of institutional financial aid that they currently pay into it, as a portion of their tuition, putting them on a level playing field with their peers with citizenship. This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee and was co-sponsored by Sen. Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Rep. Gregory Haddad (D-Mansfield), Rep. Roland Lemar (D- New Haven), Rep. Angel Arce (D- Hartford), Sen. Gary Winfield (D- New Haven), Rep. Robyn Porter (D-New Haven), Sen. Edwin Gomes (D-Bridgeport), Rep. Matthew Lesser (D- Middletown), Sen. Eric Coleman (D-Bloomfield), Rep. Minnie Gonzalez (D- Hartford), Rep. Edwin Vargas (D-Hartford), Rep. Brandon McGee (D-Hartford), Sen. Beth Bye (D-West Hartford), Rep. Linda Orange (D-Colchester), Rep. Susan Johnson (D-Willimantic), Rep. Rick Lopes (D-New Britain), Rep. Peter Tercyak (D-New Britain), Rep. Ernest Hewett (D-New London), Rep. Juan Candelaria (D- New Haven), Rep. Matthew Ritter (D-Hartford), Rep. David Alexander (D- Enfield), Sen. Mae Flexer (D-Danielson), Rep. Ezequiel Santiago (D-Bridgeport), Rep. Patricia Dillon (D-New Haven), Sen. Terry Gerratana (D-New Britain), Rep. Bruce Morris (D-Norwalk), Rep. Hilda Santiago (D-Meriden), Rep. Kelly Luxenberg (D-Manchester), Rep. Jack Hennessy (D-Bridgeport), and Rep. Robert Sanchez (D-New Britain).

At the public hearing, dozens of students testified in support, as did many professors and staff members from a variety of academic institutions, churches, labor unions, community groups, and more. Additional supportive testimony came from Sen. Looney, Rep. Lemar, the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, the African American Affairs Commission, the Asian Pacific Affairs Commission, and former New Haven Mayor John DeStefano.

The sole piece of testimony in opposition came from John Chunis of Rocky Hill.

The Committee passed the bill with language that made minor changes along party lines with the exception of Rep. Tim LeGeyt (R-Canton) voting yes.

The bill moved to the Senate where it was passed along party lines 21-13, except for Sen. Paul Doyle (D-Wethersfield) voting no.

The bill died on the House calendar with no action. It was late in the session with little time to complete many of the numerous bills remaining on the calendar. It would have required a significant amount of time, given the nature of the opposition to take up this bill and so it died.

HB5071: AN ACT REQUIRING CONNECTICUT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STATE AUTHORIZATION RECIPROCITY AGREEMENT REGARDING DISTANCE LEARNING PROGRAMS. Died. (This language passed as HB 5070 (see below)

The bill would have required participation in the nation-wide state authorization reciprocity agreement. The language for this bill was included in another bill that passed, HB 5070 explained below.

We had many concerns about this concept and in the past supported the efforts of the Office of Higher Education (OHE) to develop mutual regional agreements. Having a regional agreement would have given the State of Connecticut more control over the standards for approval and regulation. The OHE was only able to negotiate a partial agreement with Massachusetts and so there was still much concern about the lack of regulation of these institutions. There had been several recent incidents and legislators were receiving many complaints from constituents who were treated badly and inadequately prepared by some distance learning programs. We continued to contact legislators and meet with the Co-Chairs and the Planning Commission for Higher Education’s consultants to try to arrive at language that gave us a degree of comfort with the legislation. We worked with the OHE in evaluating various elements of proposals. It was clear that with the further budget cuts that were happening that OHE would not be able to execute a scheme that could meet the needs of the State. In addition, there was a savings to Charter Oak that would have a positive impact if the legislation was passed. Also, with the announced departure of the Commissioner of Higher Education much of the ability of the OHE to succeed in convincing the Higher Education Committee to adopt a different scheme evaporated.

Throughout the process we continued to meet with other advocates, lobbyists, officials and faculty to evaluate and plan to influence the legislation. It was felt that our best opportunity was in changing the proposal to our advantage rather than trying to kill the bill and pass a different proposal. In the end we were able to add some language that clarified consumer protection for Connecticut students.

This bill would have allowed Connecticut institutions of higher learning to participate in the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement or SARA. This would’ve ensured common standards for distance learning programs across the state and beyond. It was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee and was co-sponsored by Rep. Gayle Mulligan (R- Hebron).

Testimony in support came from Kris Bickell, Director of Global Learning Initiatives, University of Bridgeport; Colonel (Ret) Harold Cooney, State Liaison – Northeast Region, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; Mary Lou Derosa, Vice Provost for Special Academic Programs, Sacred Heart University; Jennifer Herz, Assistant Counsel, Connecticut Business and Industry Association; Steven Kaplan, Ph. D, President, University of New Haven; Ed Klonoski, President, Charter Oak State College; Dr. R.J. McGivney, Assistant Provost for Online Programs, University of Hartford; Gary Minor, Senior Director of College Relations, Goodwin College; Ann Roselle, MSN, APRN-BC, Nurse Practitioner, Bethany; Michael Thomas, President and CEO, New England Board of Higher Education; Jennifer Widness, President, Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges; and Representative Lezlye Zupkus. Testimony in opposition was offered by Roberto Fernandez, Political Organizer, Congress of Connecticut Community Colleges; Elizabeth Flanagan, PhD, Assistant Professor, and Allison Ponce, PhD, Associate Professor, Yale School of Medicine; and Tom Swan, Executive Director, Connecticut Citizen Action Group.

The Committee approved a Joint Favorable 13 to 1 with 6 not voting. The sole no vote came from Sen. Mae Flexer (D-Danielson). The bill moved to the House where it was then referred to the Appropriations Committee where it died without action. It was understood at the time that proposal would be added into another bill (See HB5070 below) saved by the Higher Education Committee for that purpose.

HB 5070: AN ACT CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION. PA16-120. Signed by the Governor.

The original bill would have required the State Department of Higher Education to study issues of higher education and was a placeholder for the amendment that followed. The bill was cosponsored by the following 26 legislators: Rep. William Aman, 14th Dist., Rep. Geraldo C. Reyes, 75th Dist., Rep. Dave W. Yaccarino, 87th Dist., Rep. Eric C. Berthel, 68th Dist., Rep. Tim Ackert, 8th Dist., Rep. Laura Devlin, 134th Dist., Rep. Whit Betts, 78th Dist., Rep. J.P. Sredzinski, 112th Dist., Rep. Lezlye Zupkus, 89th Dist., Rep. Janice R. Giegler, 138th Dist., Rep. Andre F. Baker, 124th Dist., Rep. Catherine F. Abercrombie, 83rd Dist., Rep. Larry B. Butler, 72nd Dist., Rep. Kim Rose, 118th Dist., Rep. Terrie Wood, 141st Dist., Rep. Paul Brycki, 45th Dist., Rep. Emmett D. Riley, 46th Dist., Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey, 133rd Dist., Rep. Cara Christine Pavalock, 77th Dist., Rep. Prasad Srinivasan, 31st Dist., Rep. Gayle J. Mulligan, 55th Dist., Rep. Laura R. Hoydick, 120th Dist., Rep. Louis P. Esposito, 116th Dist., Rep. John H. Frey, 111th Dist., Sen. Steve Cassano, 4th Dist. and Rep. Dan Carter, 2nd Dist.

The amended bill requires the Office of Higher Education (OHE), by January 1, 2017, to enter into a multistate or regional reciprocity agreement to allow Connecticut and its higher education institutions to participate in a nationwide state authorization reciprocity agreement on distance learning programs. The nationwide agreement must (1) establish uniform standards across states and (2) eliminate the need for participating states to assess the quality of a program offered by an out-of- state institution. (Presumably, the participating state would accept the authorization that an institution obtains from its home state.)

The bill requires Connecticut higher education institutions that seek to participate in the nationwide agreement to submit an application to OHE on a form prescribed by the office. OHE must approve or reject the application in accordance with the agreement's terms and establish a schedule of application and renewal fees. The schedule must be graduated based on the number of full-time equivalent students at each Connecticut higher education institution. Under the bill, an institution's authorization is valid for one year and is renewable for additional one-year periods.

By law, a person, school board, association, or corporation must be licensed by OHE to operate a program of higher learning or a higher education institution in Connecticut (CGS § 10a-34 et seq.). The bill allows out-of-state institutions that participate in the nationwide reciprocity agreement to operate a distance learning program in Connecticut, without licensure from OHE, in accordance with the agreement's uniform standards. They may do so upon OHE entering into the agreement. The bill specifies that it does not affect the attorney general's authority to enforce the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act or Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L., 111-203).

The original bill unanimously passed the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee with a Joint Favorable on March 15th by a vote of 19-0.

The House approve the bill with House Amendment A on a roll call vote of 141 to 1 with the lone vote coming from Rep. Lesser (D-Middletown). House A sponsored by the Higher Education Chairs and Ranking members replaced the study bill with the language on SARA.

The following is the roll call vote:

Y ABERCROMBIE N LESSER Y ACKERT X NOUJAIM Y ADAMS Y LOPES Y ADINOLFI Y O'DEA Y ALBIS Y LUXENBERG Y ALBERTS Y O'NEILL Y ALEXANDER Y MCCARTHY Y AMAN Y PAVALOCK VAHEY Y ALTOBELLO Y MCCRORY Y BELSITO Y PERILLO Y ARCE Y MCGEE Y BERTHEL Y PISCOPO Y ARCONTI Y MEGNA Y BETTS Y REBIMBAS Y ARESIMOWICZ Y MILLER, P. X BOCCHINO Y RUTIGLIANO Y BAKER Y MORIN Y BOLINSKY Y SAMPSON Y BARAM Y MUSHINSKY Y BUCK- Y SCOTT TAYLOR Y BECKER, B. Y NICASTRO Y BUMGARDNER Y SHABAN X BERGER Y PERONE Y BYRON Y SIMANSKI X BOUKUS Y PORTER Y CAMILLO Y SMITH Y BRYCKI Y RANDALL Y CANDELORA, Y SREDZINSKI V. Y BUTLER Y REED Y CARNEY Y SRINIVASAN Y CANDELARIA, Y REYES Y CARPINO Y STANESKI J. Y CONROY Y RILEY Y CARTER Y TWEEDIE Y COOK Y RITTER Y CASE Y VAIL Y CURREY Y ROJAS Y D'AMELIO Y WILMS Y D'AGOSTINO Y ROSARIO Y DAVIS Y WOOD Y DARGAN Y ROSE Y DEVLIN Y YACCARINO Y DEMICCO Y ROVERO Y DUBITSKY Y ZAWISTOWSKI Y DILLON Y SANCHEZ Y FERRARO Y ZIOBRON X ESPOSITO Y SANTIAGO, E. Y FLOREN Y ZUPKUS Y FLEISCHMANN Y SANTIAGO, H. Y FRANCE Y FOX Y SCANLON X FREY X FRITZ Y SERRA Y GIEGLER Y GENGA Y SIMMONS Y HARDING Y GONZALEZ Y STAFSTROM Y HOYDICK Y SHARKEY (SPKR) Y GRESKO X STALLWORTH Y KLARIDES Y GUERRERA Y STEINBERG Y KOKORUDA Y HADDAD Y TERCYAK Y KUPCHICK Y HAMPTON Y TONG Y LABRIOLA Y HENNESSY Y URBAN Y LAVIELLE Y GENTILE (DEP) Y HEWETT Y VARGAS Y LEGEYT Y GODFREY (DEP) Y JANOWSKI Y VERRENGIA Y MACLACHLAN Y MILLER, P.B. (DEP) Y JOHNSON X WALKER Y MCCARTY, K. Y MORRIS (DEP) Y JUTILA Y WILLIS Y MCGORTY, B. Y ORANGE (DEP) Y KINER Y ZONI Y MINER Y RYAN (DEP) Y LEMAR X MULLIGAN Y SAYERS (DEP)

The amended bill went to the Senate where it passed by a vote of 25 to 8 on the second to last day of the regular session.

The following is the roll call vote:

Y 1 JOHN W. FONFARA Y 19 CATHERINE A. OSTEN Y 2 ERIC D. COLEMAN N 20 PAUL M. FORMICA Y 3 TIM LARSON N 21 KEVIN KELLY Y 4 STEVE CASSANO Y 22 MARILYN MOORE A 5 BETH BYE Y 23 EDWIN A. GOMES Y 6 TERRY B. GERRATANA N 24 MICHAEL A. MCLACHLAN Y 7 JOHN A. KISSEL Y 25 BOB DUFF Y 8 KEVIN D. WITKOS Y 26 TONI BOUCHER N 9 PAUL DOYLE Y 27 CARLO LEONE Y 10 GARY WINFIELD A 28 TONY HWANG Y 11 MARTIN M. LOONEY N 29 MAE M. FLEXER Y 12 TED KENNEDY Y 30 CLARK J. CHAPIN Y 13 DANTE BARTOLOMEO N 31 HENRI MARTIN Y 14 GAYLE SLOSSBERG N 32 ROBERT J. KANE N 15 JOAN V. HARTLEY Y 33 ART LINARES A 16 JOE MARKLEY Y 34 LEONARD FASANO Y 17 JOSEPH J. CRISCO, JR. Y 35 ANTHONY GUGLIELMO Y 18 ANDREW MAYNARD Y 36 L. SCOTT FRANTZ

The bill is now PA16-120 and was signed by the Governor. The act becomes effective on July 1, 2016.

HB5332: AN ACT CONCERNING THE GOVERNOR'S SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. Passed. Public Act No. 16-179. Signed by the Governor.

The original bill made changes to the Governor’s Scholarship program to eliminate the merit requirement to qualify for funds and replace the metric with a need-based requirement in order to level the playing field for potential recipients. It also required the Office of Higher Education to make some enrollment data available online. It was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee and was co-sponsored by Rep. Jack Hennessy (D-Bridgeport), Rep. Stephen Dargan (D-West Haven), Rep. Linda Orange (D-Colchester), Rep. Livy Floren (R-Greenwich), Rep. Laura Devlin (R-Fairfield), Rep. Hilda Santiago (D- Meriden), Rep. Andre Baker (D-Bridgeport), Rep. Brandon McGee (D-Hartford), Rep. Catherine Abercrombie (D-Meriden), Rep. Larry Butler (D-Waterbury), Rep. Henry Genga (D-East Hartford), Rep. Kim Rose (D-Milford), and Rep. Bob Godfrey (D-Danbury).

Testimony in support came from David Welsh. Director, Student Financial Aid, Tunxis Community College; Dominic Yoia, Associate VP, University Director of Financial Aid, Quinnipiac University; Heather Hamilton, Director Graduate Financial Aid, Quinnipiac University; Jennifer Widness, President, Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges; Julie Savino. Executive Director, University Financial Assistance, Sacred Heart University; and Victoria A. Hampton, Director of Student Financial Affairs, University of Hartford.

Testimony in opposition came from Brian Anderson, Council 4 AFSCME; Mona Lucas, Director, Student Financial Aid Services, University of Connecticut; Sally Reis, Vice Provost, University of Connecticut; and Jane A. Ciarleglio, Executive Director, Office of Higher Education.

Testifying with comments and concerns were Benjamin Barnes, Secretary, Office of Policy and Management and Steve McDowell, Director of Financial Aid Services, Connecticut State Colleges and Universities.

Substitute language changed the bill to allow for a mixture of merit need based funds and only need based funds was passed out of the Committee 18-0. We had lobbied for this changed since it is generally thought to benefit CSU and Community College students the most.

The House adopted two amendments, House A which earmarks 2.5% of the appropriation for community-technical colleges, removed a maximum merit amount, and reduced the minimum number of credits a student must take to be eligible. House B renamed the Governor’s Scholarship the “Roberta B. Willis Scholarship.” Because the longtime Co-Chair of the Higher Education Committee, Rep. Roberta Willis (D-Salisbury) is not running for reelection after decades in this role, this amendment was proposed by Rep Toni Walker (D-New Haven) as a tribute to her. The renaming was also seen as a bit of a poke at Governor Malloy as well since there was dissatisfaction with his proposed cuts in this area. The bill was passed 143-0 and transmitted to the Senate.

The Senate adopted House Amendments A and B and passed the bill 33-2 in concurrence. The two no votes came from Sen. Rob Kane (R-Watertown) and Sen. Len Fasano (R-North Haven). Senators Fasano and Kane never miss an opportunity to express their unhappiness with public higher education in Connecticut.

The bill is now Public Act No. 16-179 and was signed by the Governor.

It has an effective date of July 1, 2016. HB5376: AN ACT CONCERNING AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT. Passed. Public Act No. 16-106. Signed by the Governor.

The bill requires the inclusion of affirmative consent as a standard in every institution of higher education's policy or policies regarding sexual assault, stalking and intimate partner violence. We continued to watch the bill and monitor it for any changes to how the System would affect employees. At several points in the process we assisted Sen. Flexer and the sponsors of the bill.

This bill makes an update to the Connecticut General Statues Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence Policies to ensure that affirmative consent is the standard in all cases pertaining to sexual assault within the policies of institutions of higher learning. It was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee and was co-sponsored by Sen. Mae Flexer (D- Danielson), Rep. Gregory Haddad (D-Mansfield), Rep. Roland Lemar (D-New Haven), Rep. Emmett Riley (D-Norwich), Rep. James Albis (D-East Haven), Rep. Diana Urban (D-Stonington), Rep. Robyn Porter (D-New Haven), Rep. Charlie Stallworth (D-Bridgeport), Rep. Roberta Willis (D-Lakeville), Rep. Patricia Billie Miller (D-Stamford), Rep. Matthew Lesser (D-Middletown), Rep. Prasad Srinivasan (R-Glastonbury), Rep. Livvy Floren (R-Greenwich), Rep. Ernest Hewett (D-New London), Rep. Hilda Santiago (D-Meriden), Rep. David Baram (D-Bloomfield), Rep. Elizabeth Boukus (D-Planville), Rep. Minnie Gonzalez (D- Hartford), Rep. Mark Tweedie (R-Manchester), and Rep. Louis Esposito (D-West Haven).

Testimony in support came from dozens of students from campuses across the state, as well as representatives from the CT Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Planned Parenthood, PCSW, CWEALF, State Victim Advocate, and the President of the CSU system. Testimony in opposition came from five individuals.

An amendment was offered in Committee that clarified that a student need not obtain parental consent for an examination or any other medical service related to a sexual assault on a college campus. The bill was approved with three no votes: Sen. Kevin Witkos (R-Canton), Rep. Whit Betts (R-Bristol), and Rep. Tim LeGeyt (R-Canton).

The House adopted Amendments A (introduced by Sen. Flexer, Rep. Haddad, Sen. Bartolomeo, and Rep. Willis) and B (introduced by Rep. LeGeyt), which modified slightly the definition of affirmative consent, clarifies that schools can use their own definitions and are the sole entity with the authority to choose said definition. Additionally, a portion was removed that had previous allowed sexual assault forensic teams to treat minors immediately after an assault.

The full vote tally as amended is below. Although there was a lopsided vote tally it doesn’t really reflect the level of concern about the bill and the strong opposition by several legislators.

The bill passed 138 to 7 as follows:

Y ABERCROMBIE Y LESSER Y ACKERT X NOUJAIM Y ADAMS Y LOPES Y ADINOLFI N O'DEA Y ALBIS Y LUXENBERG Y ALBERTS Y O'NEILL Y ALEXANDER Y MCCARTHY Y AMAN Y PAVALOCK VAHEY Y ALTOBELLO N MCCRORY Y BELSITO Y PERILLO Y ARCE Y MCGEE Y BERTHEL N PISCOPO Y ARCONTI Y MEGNA Y BETTS Y REBIMBAS Y ARESIMOWICZ Y MILLER, P. Y BOCCHINO Y RUTIGLIANO Y BAKER Y MORIN Y BOLINSKY N SAMPSON Y BARAM Y MUSHINSKY X BUCK- Y SCOTT TAYLOR Y BECKER, B. Y NICASTRO Y BUMGARDNER Y SHABAN Y BERGER Y PERONE Y BYRON Y SIMANSKI Y BOUKUS Y PORTER Y CAMILLO Y SMITH Y BRYCKI Y RANDALL Y CANDELORA, Y SREDZINSKI V. Y BUTLER Y REED Y CARNEY Y SRINIVASAN Y CANDELARIA, Y REYES Y CARPINO N STANESKI J. Y CONROY Y RILEY X CARTER Y TWEEDIE Y COOK Y RITTER Y CASE Y VAIL Y CURREY Y ROJAS Y D'AMELIO Y WILMS Y D'AGOSTINO Y ROSARIO Y DAVIS Y WOOD Y DARGAN Y ROSE Y DEVLIN Y YACCARINO Y DEMICCO Y ROVERO Y DUBITSKY Y ZAWISTOWSKI Y DILLON Y SANCHEZ Y FERRARO N ZIOBRON Y ESPOSITO Y SANTIAGO, E. Y FLOREN Y ZUPKUS Y FLEISCHMANN Y SANTIAGO, H. Y FRANCE Y FOX Y SCANLON Y FREY X FRITZ Y SERRA Y GIEGLER Y GENGA Y SIMMONS Y HARDING Y GONZALEZ Y STAFSTROM Y HOYDICK Y SHARKEY (SPKR) Y GRESKO X STALLWORTH Y KLARIDES Y GUERRERA Y STEINBERG Y KOKORUDA Y HADDAD Y TERCYAK Y KUPCHICK Y HAMPTON Y TONG Y LABRIOLA Y HENNESSY Y URBAN Y LAVIELLE Y GENTILE (DEP) X HEWETT Y VARGAS Y LEGEYT Y GODFREY (DEP) Y JANOWSKI Y VERRENGIA Y MACLACHLAN Y MILLER, P.B. (DEP) Y JOHNSON Y WALKER Y MCCARTY, K. Y MORRIS (DEP) Y JUTILA Y WILLIS Y MCGORTY, B. Y ORANGE (DEP) Y KINER Y ZONI Y MINER Y RYAN (DEP) Y LEMAR N MULLIGAN Y SAYERS (DEP)

The Senate adopted House Amendments A and B, and rejected the proposed Senate Amendment A, as offered by Sen. Joe Markley (R-Southington) which was a strike-all amendment that eliminated the affirmative consent standard and instead imposed a new system for dealing with sexual assault on campuses. The vote to reject was 12 to 24. There was a deal in the Senate to limit debate to these few amendments.

The following is the roll call vote on Senate Amendment A:

N 1 JOHN W. FONFARA N 19 CATHERINE A. OSTEN N 2 ERIC D. COLEMAN Y 20 PAUL M. FORMICA N 3 TIM LARSON Y 21 KEVIN KELLY N 4 STEVE CASSANO N 22 MARILYN MOORE N 5 BETH BYE N 23 EDWIN A. GOMES N 6 TERRY B. GERRATANA Y 24 MICHAEL A. MCLACHLAN Y 7 JOHN A. KISSEL N 25 BOB DUFF Y 8 KEVIN D. WITKOS Y 26 TONI BOUCHER N 9 PAUL DOYLE N 27 CARLO LEONE N 10 GARY WINFIELD N 28 TONY HWANG N 11 MARTIN M. LOONEY N 29 MAE M. FLEXER N 12 TED KENNEDY N 30 CLARK J. CHAPIN N 13 DANTE BARTOLOMEO Y 31 HENRI MARTIN N 14 GAYLE SLOSSBERG N 32 ROBERT J. KANE N 15 JOAN V. HARTLEY Y 33 ART LINARES Y 16 JOE MARKLEY Y 34 LEONARD FASANO N 17 JOSEPH J. CRISCO, JR. Y 35 ANTHONY GUGLIELMO N 18 ANDREW MAYNARD Y 36 L. SCOTT FRANTZ

The bill passed the Senate in concurrence with only one no vote, coming from Sen. Joe Markley, and now awaits a public act number and the Governor’s signature. The bill has an effective date of July 1, 2016.

This bill is now Public Act No. 16-106 and was signed by the Governor.

HB 5072: AN ACT CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION CERTIFICATE PROGRAMS. Passed. PA16-44 Signed by the Governor.

This bill requires the Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR) and the Office of Higher Education (OHE) to define and monitor sub-baccalaureate certificate programs offered by higher education institutions and private occupational schools. The bill specifies that private occupational schools include hospital-based occupational schools or any program, school, or entity offering postsecondary instruction in barbering or hairdressing. The bill was cosponsored by 45 legislators.

There has been growing concern in the legislature the private occupational schools are enabling students to borrow large sums of money and then not providing them with the proper training or courses to achieve or meet licensure requirements. There have also been several incidents in which private occupational schools have defrauded students in other ways and legislators have been getting an increasing number of complaints from constituents. We were concerned about any implications that this new oversight might have on certificate programs offered at public institutions. We were also concerned that a regulatory scheme be put into place that would be able to control the fraud existing in private programs because students exhaust their borrowing opportunities in these programs and then are unable to borrow for legitimate programs being offered by our public institutions. We met with the Co-Chairs on this topic and worked with the Office of Higher Education to educate members of the Higher Education Committee. We continued to monitor the bill for any unfavorable amendments as it worked its way through the process.

Specifically, the bill requires BOR, in collaboration with OHE, to (1) create written definitions for all sub-baccalaureate certificates earned on a for-credit or noncredit basis and awarded by higher education institutions and private occupational schools and (2) report the completed definitions to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee by January 1, 2017. The definitions aim to create consistency among the various certificate programs, according to the bill.

The bill also requires each in-state institution or school to annually submit data to OHE from the previous academic year about its for-credit and noncredit sub- baccalaureate programs and the types of certificates these programs offer. Data on for-credit sub-baccalaureate programs and certificates must be submitted by January 1, 2018 and annually thereafter, and data on non-credit programs and certificates must be submitted by January 1, 2019 and annually thereafter. OHE must develop a uniform format for data submissions, and the bill prescribes a detailed list of data that institutions and schools must submit.

Annually, beginning January 1, 2020, OHE must compile the collected data in order to compare various types of sub-baccalaureate programs to determine similarities to other programs, student interest in each program and similar programs, and the necessity of each program. By July 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, OHE must post the compiled data on its website so that students and prospective students can make informed decisions about enrollment in and choice of sub-baccalaureate certificate programs.

The bill also requires:

1. OHE to develop and post on its website one-page fact sheets for each sub- baccalaureate certificate program offered by Connecticut institutions,

2. such institutions to post these fact sheets on their own websites,

3. BOR to establish a working group to review all noncredit sub-baccalaureate certificate programs offered by each regional community-technical college (CTC), and

4. OHE to create an annual review program for data samples submitted by institutions and schools. for data collection and reporting requirements, program development, and working group assignments; (3) assigning data collection and posting duties to OHE; and (4) making various conforming and technical changes.

CERTIFICATE PROGRAM DATA COLLECTION The bill requires institutions' and schools' data submissions to OHE about sub- baccalaureate certificate programs to include the following information:

1. the program's name and subject matter area;

2. total program enrollment;

3. any entry-level requirements for program enrollment;

4. the number and type of certificates the program awarded;

5. tuition and fees charged for completing the program within the prescribed timeframe;

6. the estimated range of costs for purchasing books and supplies, unless the program tuition or fees include such costs;

7. median loan debt students incur when completing the program, to the extent it has been reported to the institution's or school's financial aid office, reported separately by Title IV loans and other education debt, including private and institutional loans;

8. basic demographic information, to the extent available, on students enrolled in the program, including their gender, age, race, and ethnicity;

9. percentage of students in each student cohort (i.e., group of students enrolled at the same period of time in the same certificate program) who completed such program within the prescribed time period;

10. whether there is a clear pathway from successful program completion to enrollment in a related associate degree program;

11. whether the program leads to a credential recognized by the industry for which the program prepares a student;

12. whether a student may combine the certificate awarded upon successful program completion with any other certificate awarded upon successful completion of another sub-baccalaureate program in order to achieve a heightened qualification level for a particular trade or occupation;

13. the average length of time for program completion; 14. employment rates, to the extent available, for students who have completed the program, at six months after program completion;

15. student cohort pass rate, to the extent available, for national certification programs; and

16. student cohort licensure rate, to the extent available, for positions requiring the certificate and state licensure.

The bill requires OHE to collect the following data, based on available Labor Department statistics, for each sub-baccalaureate certificate program offered by Connecticut higher education institutions or private occupational schools: the average (1) starting salary for entry-level positions requiring the certificate and (2) salary for jobs requiring the certificate. The office must collect such information about (1) for-credit programs by January 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, and (2) noncredit programs by January 1, 2019, and annually thereafter.

ANNUAL REVIEW PROGRAM

The bill requires OHE to develop, by July 1, 2019, an annual review program for student data samples from each for-credit and noncredit sub-baccalaureate certificate program offered by higher education institutions and private occupational schools. It is unclear what sample size should be used. OHE must not disclose any personally identifiable student information that it may obtain from this review.

PROGRAM FACT SHEETS

The bill requires OHE, by July 1, 2019 and annually thereafter, to develop and post on its website a one-page fact sheet for each sub-baccalaureate certificate program offered by Connecticut higher education institutions and private occupational schools. The fact sheet must contain data that the bill requires such institutions and schools to submit to OHE (see above), along with tuition, fees, costs of books and supplies, graduation, and, to the extent available, job placement rates and average student debt.

Additionally, the bill requires such institutions and schools to make these fact sheets available to current or prospective students by posting them on their own websites within seven days of OHE's online posting, along with other methods of their choosing.

BOR WORKING GROUP The bill also requires BOR, under the direction of its chief academic officer, to establish a working group of CTC continuing education deans, or their designees, to review all noncredit sub-baccalaureate certificate programs that CTCs offer for the purpose of designing a uniform naming convention for such programs. By January 1, 2019, the working group must design a uniform naming convention for the programs to help students distinguish between noncredit certificate programs with similar yet varied requirements in the same field of study. The naming convention must uniformly designate varying programs by indicating different, enhanced, or more demanding requirements.

Additionally, the working group must review tuition for the uniformly named noncredit sub-baccalaureate certificate programs leading to the same qualifications. By February 1, 2019, and periodically thereafter at BOR's request, the review must determine whether tuition and fee cost variations between the programs are reasonable.

BOR's president must report to the Higher Education Committee by March 1, 2019 on the uniform naming convention and tuition review determination.

The bill passed the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee with a Joint Favorable by a unanimous vote of 18-0 on March 3rd.

The bill was amended by voice vote in the House by House Amendment A (LCO 3990) and passed unanimously. House Amendment “A” changed the bill by (1) broadening the definition of “private occupational school” and defining “student cohort”; (2) revising various deadlines for data collection and reporting requirements, program development, and working group assignments; (3) assigning data collection and posting duties to OHE; and (4) making various conforming and technical changes.

It passed the Senate on the consent calendar in concurrence with the House.

The Governor signed it and it is now PA16-44 and becomes effective on July 1, 2016. V. ETHICS

We were following the two ethics bills below. Both of them died. The only change to the Ethics Codes that passed was part of the implementer, SB 502. It extends, from 30 to 45 days, the deadline by which a lobbyist who pays or reimburses a public official or state employee $10 or more for necessary expenses must file a statement with the Office of State Ethics showing the recipient's name and the amount of the expenses.

It is effective on passage.

HB5229: AN ACT CHANGING CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN THE STATE CODES OF ETHICS. Died.

The bill would have changed the exemption from reporting requirements from any public official, Governor's spouse or state employee who is a principal speaker at an event to any such official, spouse or employee who is an active participant at an event and to require lobbyists to report necessary expenses paid to a public official or state employee in their next financial report rather than as a separate report within thirty days.

This bill was introduced by the Government Administration and Elections Committee and was co-sponsored by Rep. Elizabeth Boukus (D-Plainville) and Rep. Kim Rose (D-Milford).

Testimony in support was given by CBIA, The Association of Connecticut Lobbyists, the CT Bar Association, and the Home Builders & Remodeling Association of CT. Testimony in opposition was given by Carol Carson, Executive Director, Office of State Ethics.

The Committee passed the bill with substitute language on a vote of 15-0. The new language changed the reporting limit to 45 days and clarified the definition of “active participant.”

The bill passed the House 143-2 with the opposing votes coming from Rep. Carter (R-Bethel) and Rep. Carney (R-Old Saybrook).

The bill died in the Senate of inaction.

SB361: AN ACT REVISING THE STATE CODES OF ETHICS. Died. This bill was introduced by the Government Administration and Elections Committee and was co-sponsored by Sen. Steve Cassano (D-Manchester). It would have made numerous revisions to the State Code of Ethics. It removed some restrictions on the Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board members and increased the authority of the board, to extend certain restrictions on state contracts to quasi- public agency contracts, to revise provisions concerning payment and reimbursement of necessary expenses and to extend certain prohibitions on independent contractors and consultants to their employees.

Testimony in support came from Office of State Ethics, Ms. Carol Carson, Executive Director; Kristen Noelle Hatcher, CT Legal Services; Sheldon Toubman of New Haven Legal Assistance Association, Inc.; Cheri Quickmire, CT Common Cause; Kevin Galvin, Small Business for a Healthy Connecticut; Mary Moran Boudreau, CT Oral Health Initiative; Ellen Andrews, CT Health Policy Project: and Shirley Girouard, Member, State Innovations Model.

The Committee passed with a vote of 14-0. The Senate then referred the bill to the Judiciary Committee, where it also passed on a unanimous vote.

The Senate then referred the bill to the General Law Committee where it was held and died of inaction.

VI. OTHER EDUCATION ISSUES

HB5400: AN ACT CONCERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN EDUCATION PERSONNEL RECORDS, CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR THREATENING IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS AND THE EXCLUSION OF A MINOR'S NAME FROM SUMMARY PROCESS COMPLAINTS. Passed. Public Act No. 16-67. Signed by Governor.

We have had to argue issues of background checks for higher education faculty in recent sessions and the issue is likely to arise again in future sessions. The following is a bill that passed this year that addresses aspects of this issue for primary and secondary education.

This bill, as raised by the Education Committee was to ensure that local and regional boards of education have information concerning whether an applicant has been found to have committed abuse or sexual misconduct and that local and regional boards of education share such findings with other boards of education that may employ such applicant.

This bill was introduced by the Judiciary Committee and was co-sponsored by Rep. Caroline Simmons (D-Stamford), Rep. Jeff Currey (D-East Hartford), Rep. Noreen Kokoruda (R-Madison), Rep. Juan Candelaria (D-New Haven), Rep. Terry Adams (D-Stamford), Rep. Patricia Billie Miller (D-Stamford), Rep. Vincent Candelora (R-North Branford), Rep. Michelle Cook (D-Torrington), Rep. Dan Carter (R-Bethel), Rep. Devin Carney (R-Old Saybrook), Rep. Prasad Srinivasan (R-Glastonbury), Sen. Henri Martin (R-Bristol), Sen. Eric Coleman (D- Bloomfield), Sen. Joseph Crisco (D-Woodbridge), Sen. Carlo Leone (D-Stamford), Sen. Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Sen. Tony Hwang (R-Fairfield), Sen. Marilyn Moore (D-Bridgeport), and Rep. William Tong (D-Stamford). Testimony in support came from CHRO; Pennsylvania State Senator Anthony H. Williams, 8th District; Michael Rinaldi, Teacher; David Martin, Mayor of Stamford; James A. Connelly, Interim Superintendent of Schools; Stamford Board of Education, Geoff Alswanger, President; and ConnCAN, Jennifer Alexander, CEO.

Testimony in opposition came from Jan Hochadel, President, AFT CT. Testimony with comments and concerns came from Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association; Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, Inc.; and Connecticut Education Association, Melanie I. Kolek, Legal Counsel.

The Committee approved the bill on a 43-0 vote. There was substitute language that 1) changed all language relating to submitting criminal record when an offer for employment has been made, 2) changed that the allegations have to be unsubstantiated rather than false, 3) changed to specify that particular investigations are to be done by DCF, 4) change the bill to say that an applicant must submit a written statement of a substantiated allegation of sexual misconduct, not necessarily a finding, and 5) specified the way in which information should be filed with the board and what information should be included.

The bill was then referred by the House to the Education Committee where it was passed as below. Voting Yea Nay Abstain Absent and Not Voice Vote TOTALS Voting 30 21 9 0 3 yea nay abstain absent yea nay abstain absent Rep. Fleischmann, A. 018 X Rep. Mulligan, G. 055 X Sen. Slossberg, G. S14 X Rep. Rojas, J. 009 X Rep. Sanchez, R. 025 X Rep. Staneski, P. 119 X Sen. Winfield, G. S10 X Rep. Lavielle, G. 143 X Sen. Boucher, T. S26 X Rep. Ackert, T. 008 X Rep. Baker, A. 124 X Sen. Bartolomeo, D. S13 X Rep. Belsito, S. 053 X Rep. Berthel, E. 068 X Rep. Bolinsky, M. 106 X Rep. Bumgardner, A. 041 X Sen. Bye, B. S05 X Rep. Candelaria, J. 095 X Rep. Carter, D. 002 X Rep. Cook, M. 065 X Rep. Currey, J. 011 X Rep. D'Agostino, M. 091 X Rep. Genga, H. 010 X Rep. Johnson, S. 049 X Rep. Kokoruda, N. 101 X Rep. LeGeyt, T. 017 X Rep. Lemar, R. 096 X Sen. Linares, A. S33 X Rep. McCarty, K. 038 X Rep. McCarthy Vahey, C. X

133 Rep. McCrory, D. 007 X Rep. McGee, B. 005 X Rep. Miller, P. 145 X

The House then adopted Amendment A, as introduced by Rep. Tong, Sen. Coleman, Rep. Currey, Rep. Simmons, Rep. Walker, and Sen. Winfield. It made the following changes: (1) requires charter school governing councils and magnet school operators to follow the same new investigatory hiring processes as boards of education under the bill, (2) adds child neglect to the list of investigated applicant history items, (3) quantifies educational employers' “good faith effort” to contact an applicant's past and current employers and allows written or telephone contact, (4) revises the process for dismissing noncertified employees with criminal records, (5) allows charter school governing councils and magnet school operators to utilize RESC fingerprinting services and limits charges for such services, (6) increases the frequency of criminal history record checks of substitute teachers, (7) requires school bus and school transportation vehicle drivers to submit to these new investigatory hiring processes, (8) shortens the deadline by which applicants' current and former employers must respond to educational employers' inquiries, (9) removes punitive measures for boards of education that do not comply with the new hiring processes, and (10) adds the provisions on threatening crimes and minor's name on eviction-related records. The House passed the bill 139-1 with the one no vote coming from Rep. Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott). The Senate then adopted Amendment A and passed the bill in concurrence on a consent calendar.

This bill as passed adds new requirements to the hiring processes of local or regional boards of education, state or local charter school governing councils, and inter- district magnet school operators (“education employers”) for positions that would place applicants in direct contact with students. Specifically, it requires applicants for such positions, education employers, and the State Department of Education (SDE) to participate in additional investigative measures to determine, prior to employment, whether an applicant has a history of sexual misconduct or abuse or neglect involving children. Existing law requires education employers to submit new hires for state and federal criminal history record checks within 30 days of their starting date.

Among other things, the bill also does the following:

1. requires charter school governing councils and magnet school operators to require applicants to disclose criminal convictions and charges;

2. removes the requirement for boards of education, when dismissing a noncertified employee for failure to disclose a prior criminal conviction, to give the employee an opportunity to file a written answer;

3. allows fingerprinting of certain applicants by regional education service centers (RESCs) and limits charges for this service;

4. requires criminal history record checks of substitute teachers and employees of contractors and allows temporary hires under certain conditions;

5. prohibits education employers from offering employment to any applicant who was previously terminated or resigned from employment because of certain convictions;

6. establishes punitive measures for applicants who knowingly provide false information about their history; and

7. allows criminal history and child abuse and neglect registry record checks for individuals holding drivers' licenses bearing a school or public passenger endorsement for operating a student transportation vehicle. (Under existing law, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) commissioner requires these individuals to undergo such checks.) The bill also increases the penalty for certain school-related threats and establishes (1) conditions under which the Board of Pardons and Paroles must grant an absolute pardon and (2) an absolute defense to a civil action for reporting certain threats.

It requires the court to remove a minor's name from certain eviction-related records.

The bill has an effective date of July 1, 2016, except the provision establishing a date by which SDE must make the standardized employment form available takes effect upon passage.

The bill is now Public Act No. 16-67 and awaits the Governor’s signature.

SB382: AN ACT CONCERNING TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS. Passed. Special Act 16-22. Signed by the Governor.

The bill requires the Department of Education and the Office of Higher Education to enter into an agreement with the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation for the purposes of accrediting and establishing standards for teacher preparation programs in the state.

This bill was introduced by the Education Committee and was co-sponsored by Rep. Noreen Kokoruda (R-Madison), Rep. Bruce Morris (D-Norwalk), Sen. Danté Bartolomeo (D-Meriden), Sen. Gayle Slossberg (D-Milford), Rep. Jesse MacLachlan (R-Westbrook), Rep. Robert Sampson (R-Wolcott), Rep. Lezlye Zupkus (R-Prospect).

Testimony in support came from Jennifer Widness, President, Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges; Jess House, President, American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education-Connecticut; Ann Monroe-Bailargeon, Ph.D., Dean of the School of Education, University of Saint Joseph; Dr. Joan E. Venditto, Director of Education Programs, Albertus Mangus College; Dr. James Carl, Ph. D., Dean, Isabelle Farrington College of Education, Sacred Heart University; Jess House, Dean School of Professional Studies, Western Connecticut State University; Richard L. Schwab, Casey D. Cobb & Dorothea Anagnostopoulos, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut; and Stephen Hegedus, PhD, Dean, School of Education, Southern Connecticut State University.

Testimony in opposition came from Dept. of Education Commissioner Dianna Wentzell; David Cicarella, President, New Haven Federation of Teachers; and Josh Bestor, Sandy Hook. The Committee approved the bill on a vote of 31-0. The Senate referred the bill to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee. They passed it on a vote of 16-0.

In the Senate, Amendment A was adopted, as offered by the Chairs of the Higher Ed Committee. The strike all amendment replaced the bill with just the following sentence: Not later than December 31, 2016, the Department of Education and the Office of Higher Education shall enter into an agreement with the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation for the purposes of accrediting and establishing standards for programs of educator preparation leading to professional certification, under chapter 166 of the general statutes, offered at public and independent institutions of higher education in the state.

The Senate passed the bill on a consent calendar. The House adopted Senate Amendment A and passed the bill in concurrence on a consent calendar. The bill is now Special Act 16-22 and was signed by the Governor. It goes into effect upon passage.

HB5554: AN ACT CONCERNING REGIONAL EDUCATION. Died.

This bill required the Department of Administrative Services to conduct a regional school capacity assessment as part of the application process for school building projects, to authorize regional educational service centers to enter into agreements with school districts to provide administrative services, and to permit school districts to use the aggregate expenditure data of a cooperative arrangement for purposes of reporting requirements.

This bill was introduced by the Education Committee and was co-sponsored by Rep. Susan Johnson (D-Willimantic), Rep. Linda Gentile (D-Ansonia), Rep. Bruce Morris (D-Norwalk), Rep. Noreen Kokoruda (R-Madison), Rep. Laura Hoydick (R-Stratford), and Rep. Terry Adams (D-Stamford). Testimony in support came from John Filchak, Executive Director, Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments; Daniel C. Giungi, Senior Legislative Associate, Connecticut Conference of Municipalities; and Speaker Brendan Sharkey.

Also testifying with comments was Education Commissioner Dianna Wentzell. Testimony from three individuals with a suggestion for an amendment came from First Selectman, Town of Scotland, Daniel D. Syme; First Selectman, Town of Hampton, Allan Cahill; and Tina Latraverse Haesche, Parent, Chaplin. The Committee passed the bill on a vote of 32-0. The new language required DAS to review the school construction application enrollment figures alongside the UConn State Data Center and authorized the regional educational service centers to enter into a contract with local districts to provide administrative services.

The House then referred the bill to the Planning and Development Committee where they passed it by a vote of 21-0.

The House then adopted Amendment A, as offered by Rep. Andy Fleischmann (D- West Hartford). The new language would have allowed municipalities to participate in RESC-run programs and services and boards of education to enter into lease agreements as cooperative arrangements.

The House passed the bill 143-0. The bill then died of inaction on the Senate calendar

HB5308: AN ACT CONCERNING REVISIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S FRAMEWORK FOR RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION. Died.

The bill was co-sponsored by Rep. Cook (D-Torrington), Rep. Rojas (D-East Hartford), Rep. McCarty (R-Old Saybrook), and Rep. Adams (D-Stamford).

This bill would have required the Department of Education to update the 2008 version of the department's framework for response to intervention entitled "Using Scientific Research-Based Interventions: Improving Education for All Students" and to establish a general education multi-tiered system of instruction and supports at each school for students requiring supplemental or intensive assistance.

The Education Committee raised the bill, and had a public hearing. Testimony was received from Dianna R. Wentzell, Commissioner, State Department of Education, Mr. Steven Hernandez, General Assembly Commission on Children, Ingrid Canady, Interim Executive Director, State Education Resource Center, Allison Quirion, Founder, Decoding Dyslexia- CT, Jon Stoner, President, Connecticut Association for the Gifted and Ray Rossomando, Research and Policy Specialist, Connecticut Education Association.

The Education Committee passed a substitute version of the bill which eliminated the implementation requirement, and added reporting on the revised framework, and the Commissioner of SDE would have to submit proposed guidelines/recommendations to the Education Committee for legislation regarding the revised framework for children with disabilities.

The bill passed out of the Education Committee with a unanimous vote. It was not taken up for a vote by the House and the bill died.

HB5469: AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT DATA PRIVACY. Passed. Public Act 16-189. Signed by Governor This bill was introduced by the Education Committee and co-sponsored by about 25 legislators in both parties in both chambers,

Testimony in support came from David McGuire, ACLU; Dr. Karissa Neihoff, Executive Director, Connecticut Association of Schools; Pam Lucaschu, Legislative Liaison, TEACH CT: Kimberly and Maria Naughton, New Canaan, Connecticut; Merle Sprague, Beacon Falls, Connecticut. Testimony with suggestions and comments came from SDE Commissioner Dianne Wentzell.

Testimony in opposition came from Brendan Desetti, Director of Education Policy for Education Technology Industry Network of SIIA; Ray Rossomando, Research and Policy Specialist, Connecticut Education Association; Connecticut Association of Boards of Education; John Bestor, Sandy Hook; Kristen Creighton; Mary E. Burnham, Sandy Hook. The Committee approved the bill by a vote of 33-0. The new language added information to notices that must be given to parents.

The House then adopted Amendment A, as offered by Rep. Andy Fleischmann (D- West Hartford), Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (D-Fairfield), and Rep Gail Lavielle (R-Wilton). This was a strike-all amendment that restricts how student information may be used by contractors and software. It requires contracts between providers and Boards of Ed to outline the use and security of student information, prohibits the use of personally identifying data, and requires BOEs to notify parents when such contracts are agreed upon. Additionally, it forbids the use of targeting advertising to students through the use of this data. The bill then passed 147-0. The Senate adopted Amendment A and passed the bill in concurrence on a consent calendar. Governor signed the bill and has an effective date of October 1, 2016, and the provision regarding contracts is applicable to contracts entered into, amended, or renewed on or after that date and directory information takes effect July 1, 2016.

SB174: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATORS. Died.

This bill would have established a task force to examine issues related to the professional development and in-service training requirements for educators.

This bill was introduced by the Education Committee and was co-sponsored by Rep. Noreen Kokoruda (R-Madison). The task force would have consisted of the following members: (1) The Commissioner of Education, or the commissioner's designee, (2) one representative from each of the following associations, designated by each such association, the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, the Connecticut Association of Schools, Connecticut Federation of School Administrators, the Connecticut Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers-Connecticut, and (3) three persons selected by the Commissioner of Education, one of whom is an academic with knowledge and expertise in social-emotional learning, one of whom is a teacher and one of whom is any other person the commissioner deems appropriate. The report would be due by the first day of 2017.

The Committee passed the bill with substitute language on a vote of 30-1 with the sole no vote coming from Rep. Sam Belsito (R-Tolland) who votes against every study despite its merit. The new language added specifics to the task force mission including to examine any duplicative training requirements, the frequency that educators must complete the same training, the amount of time taken each year for all required training, the amount of, training time that remains for local concerns and issues; also the direct and indirect costs of the training for boards of education. It also specified the task force's recommendations must address streamlining the requirements, including the frequency of the requirements and the combination or elimination of duplicative requirements.

The bill was moved to the foot of the calendar and then recommitted to the Education Committee by the Senate where it died.

SB175: AN ACT CONCERNING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Died. (Some pieces of this bill are in the budget implementer SB 502.) This bill was introduced by the Education committee. This was a bill requested by the State Department of Education. A number of the sections of the bill ended up in the final budget implementer bill SB 502 including the reimbursement of supplemental grants for transportation to CREC and the ability of the Alliance Districts to carry over funds not expensed in this fiscal year.

This bill as introduced in the Education committee would have authorized boards of education to affix the Connecticut State Seal of Bi-literacy to diplomas of students who achieve a high level of proficiency in one or more foreign languages. The bill would have required the State Board of Education to establish criteria, by September 1, 2017, under which a local or regional board of education may affix the seal of bi-literacy on a student's diploma. It also would have permitted local or regional boards of education, starting with the high school graduating class of 2018, to affix the seal to a diploma of a student who has met the bi-literacy criteria. The local or regional board must include the designation on such student's transcript.

The bill also would have made changes to the laws regarding:

1. teacher certification recognition agreements with other states or territories or possessions of the U.S.,

2. bilingual teacher certification,

3. alliance district funding and districts' authority to carry forward funds,

4. the parent university program, and

5. various grant programs.

It also included language in the bill linking minimum budget requirement exemption to a district having a Category 1 rating, which under SDE policy requires a mastery text examination participation rate of 95% or higher and language defining district categories 1 through 5. The bill would have allowed a district full carryover of unexpended Alliance District funds provided the funds are spent for purposes provided in the district's SDE-approved Alliance District plan. It would have established the parent university program as an ongoing program and made minor revisions various grant programs. It would have authorized the State Department of Education Commissioner to award supplemental transportation grants to CREC for Sheff transportation for FY 16 and 17, within available appropriations, and made a minor date change for payment of a magnet school grant. Testifying in support of the bill were Commissioner Dianna Wentzell of the State Department of Education, Bryan Daleas, Director of World Languages with the Office of Academics at Hartford Public Schools, Jeffrey Villar PhD Executive Director at Connecticut Council for Education, Jessica Haxhi Supervisor of World Languages at New Haven Public Schools, Lea Graner Kennedy with the Connecticut Council of Language Teachers (CT COLT), Mark Waxenberg Executive Director of the Connecticut Education Association (CEA), Jan Hochadel President AFT Connecticut AFL-CIO, the Connecticut Association of School Business Officials (CASB), Rachel Leventhal-Weiner PhD Education Policy Fellow with Connecticut Voices for Children, the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPPS), Connecticut Administration of Programs for English Language Learners (CAPELL), Jennifer Herz Assistant Counsel for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA), Christine Dombrowski of Kensington CT, Dorie Conlon Perugini Elementary Spanish Teacher at Glastonbury Public Schools, Elizabeth Lapman President of CT COLT, Dr. Corey Borzain World Languages Department Head and French and Spanish Teacher at Haddam-Killingworth High School, Eileen Fiore Stonington High School - French and Spanish, Elena Juan Spanish Teacher at Smith Middle School Glastonbury CT, James Wildman CT Colt Vice-President/President-Elect and Foreign Language Department at Glastonbury High School, Kimberly Moore Wallingford Public Schools World Language Curriculum Resource Teacher, Laurie Barry Global Languages Department Curriculum and Instructional Leader Advisor with Sociedad Honoraria Hispanica, Matthew Mangino Spanish Teacher and World Language Department Liaison at Wethersfield High School, Michael Halloran Assistant Principal at Southington High School, Michelle Martino, Myra Lee, Nicholas J. Coppola from North Haven Connecticut, Nori Lembree Spanish Teacher at Stonington High School, Patti Fusco Divisional Vice President PreK-12 with AFT Connecticut AFL-CIO, Pedro Mendia-Landa Supervisor of the Department of English Language Learners Programs at New Haven Public Schools, Sarah Lindstrom Spanish Teacher from Glastonbury, CT, Sheila Houlihan World Language Teacher Newington High School, Sonja Marhefka-Chapman.

Testifying in opposition to the bill were the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education Inc (CABE), Connectict Conference of Municipalities (CCM), Connecticut Parental Rights Coalition (CPRC), Thomas Scarice Superintendent of Madison Public Schools, Anne Manusky Parent from Easton CT, Cort Wrotnowski Parent from Greenwich CT, E.T. Siebert PhD, EASTCONN, Jason Morris of New London CT, Kirsten Creighton of Thompson CT, Mary E. Burnham of Sandy Hook CT, Merle Sprague of Beacon Falls CT. The Education committee adopted substitute language which did a number of things to the bill. It altered it to specify that a student must achieve a high level of proficiency in English in addition to one or more foreign languages in order to receive the seal of bi-literacy. It deleted the proposed language that the bilingual educator certification would no longer require applicants to demonstrate oral competency in the applicant's native language and removed language that would have limited the carry forward for Alliance District funds to 3% of funds at the end of the year and instead allows all remaining funds to be carried forward provided they are used in accordance with the district's SDE-approved Alliance District plan. The substitute bill passed the Education committee by a unanimous vote of 32-0.

The Senate then referred the bill to the Appropriations committee.

The Appropriations committee did not bring up the bill for a vote. Some pieces of this bill are in the budget implementer SB 502.

SB177: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY DECLINING STUDENT ENROLLMENT. Died.

This bill as introduced in the Education committee would have established a task force with the goal of studying the causes and consequences of declining student enrollment in school districts. The task force would have consisted of nine members, chosen by the House and Senate majority and minority leaders, as well as the Commissioner of Education. The task force would have had to submit a report no later than January 1, 2017 on its findings.

Testifying in support of the bill were the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, Ray Rossomando Research and Policy Specialist with the Connecticut Education Association, Dr. Kate Field Teacher Development specialist with the Connecticut Education Association, Katie Roy Director and Founder of the Connecticut School Finance Project, Rachel Leventhal-Weiner PhD Education Policy Fellow with Connecticut Voices for Children.

The Education committee adopted substitute language which changed the task force’s charge in a number of ways. It changed the purpose of the task force from to looking at causes/consequences of declining enrollment, including effect on state/local education budgets to now collecting and analyzing statewide school age demographic data to consider changes to laws on education funding and district boundaries The substitute language would have required the study of statewide movement trends in school-age population and public school enrollment to include:

(1) Causes of reduction in school-age population

(2) Reasons for reduction and expected duration

(3) Movement trends

(4) Effect of future state investments/expenditures

(5) Recommended changes to state law

The substitute language also would have added three new members to the task force; one from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities appointed by the Senate president pro tempore, one of whom is a representative of a regional 25 council of government appointed by the speaker of the House, and a representative of the Connecticut State Date Center at The University of Connecticut.

The substitute bill passed the Education committee 28-3 with nays coming from Sen. Boucher (R-Wilton), Rep. Belsito (R-Tolland) and Rep. Berthel (R- Watertown). The Senate moved the bill to the foot of the calendar.

The Senate then recommitted the bill to the Education committee.

SB319: AN ACT CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO SCHOOLS OF PROTECTIVE OR RESTRAINING ORDERS AFFECTING STUDENTS. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Education committee and was co-sponsored by Rep. Rojas (D-East Hartford), Sen. Formica (R-East Lyme), Rep Kokoruda (R- Madison), and Rep. Currey (D-East Hartford).

This bill as introduced in the Education committee would have required a Superior Court clerk to notify a school district, including a state technical high school, after the court grants a protective or restraining order involving a student of that district or technical high school as either the person seeking protection or as the respondent. Notice of the order must be sent within 72 hours unless the person seeking protection requests that notification not be given.

The bill would have applied to the following protective or restraining orders in existing family, marital, and criminal law: 1. relief from physical abuse, stalking, or pattern of threatening by family or household member (CGS § 46b-15(g)); 2. protection on behalf of a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or stalking (CGS § 46b-16a(d)); 3. protection against family violence (CGS § 46b-38c(d)); 4. standing criminal protective orders (CGS § 53a-40e); 5. protection regarding stalking, harassment, sexual assault, risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, a child (CGS § 54-1k(a)); and 6. protection against harassment of a witness (CGS §§ 54-82q and -82r).

The bill requires the school district or technical school system to keep the information confidential and places controls on who may be made aware of the order.

Testifying in support of the bill was Natasha M. Pierre State Victim Advocate, Micheala Mitchell Office of the Child Advocate, Sen. Formica (R-East Lyme), Christopher Olsen Retired State Trooper and School Resource Officer, Christopher P Hankins & Melania Kolek Legal Counsel with the Connecticut Education Association, Dr. Karissa Niehoff Executive Director of the Connecticut Association of Schools, Laura Cordes Executive Director of the Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence.

Testifying in opposition to the bill was the External Affairs Division of the State Judicial Branch, and Greater Hartford Legal Aid.

The Education committee adopted substitute language which in several lines throughout the bill added language barring the notification if the person seeking the protection or restraining order request it not be made. It also removed the language referring to “the risk of danger posed by or to such person”. The committee passed an amendment offered by Rep. Currey which would insert, “a teacher of such person, any school employee responsible for the pick up or drop off of such person at the school, or-” into line 21, after, “disclose such information only to”. The substitute bill then passed the Education committee as amended by a unanimous vote of 33-0. The Senate referred the bill to the Judiciary committee. The Judiciary committee did not bring the bill up for a vote. SB323: AN ACT CONCERNING UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT BY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES. Died. This bill was introduced by the Education committee and co-sponsored by Sen. Boucher (R-Wilton).

By law, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Commissioner must investigate any report that a child has been abused or neglected by a school employee. This bill as introduced in the Education committee requires the commissioner to notify the employee, as well as the employing school or school district, of the investigation's results. Current law requires that the employing superintendent and Education Commissioner receive such notice.

Additionally, when the commissioner's investigation finds the report to be unsubstantiated, the bill would have required the State Department of Education (SDE), employing superintendent, and employing school or school district to remove any references to the report and investigation from the employee's personnel records and any other records relating to the employee. However, even with an unsubstantiated finding, the bill would have allowed SDE or a local or regional board of education to undertake the following action:

1. investigate the school employee's conduct or

2. investigate the school employee's conduct and, upon the investigation's completion, take action with respect to such employee's employment, professional certification, authorization, or permit, including action with respect to discipline, salary, promotion, transfer, demotion, retention or continuance of employment, or termination of employment or any right or privilege related to employment.

The bill would have prohibited SDE or a board of education from taking any such action on the employee's employment, professional certification, authorization, or permit if it was solely based upon the unsubstantiated abuse or neglect report.

Testifying in opposition to the bill was Dianna R. Wentzell Commissioner of the State Department of Education, and Sarah H. Eagan Advocate with the Office of the Child Advocate.

Testifying in support of the bill were Christopher P. Hankins Legal Counsel with the Connecticut Education Association, Paul Angelucci Plumbing and Heating Department Head with the State Vocational Federation of Teachers/Wilcox THS in Meriden CT, The Connecticut Association of School Administrators, and The Connecticut Association of Schools. The bill passed the Education committee 30-2 with nays coming from Rep. Belsito (R-Tolland) and Rep. McCrory (D-Hartford).

The Senate then referred the bill to the Committee on Children.

The bill passed the Committee on Children by a unanimous vote of 11-0.

The Senate took no further action on the bill.

SB379: AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MINORITY TEACHER RECRUITMENT TASK FORCE. Passed. Public Act No. 16-41 Signed by the Governor. This bill was introduced by the Education committee and co-sponsored by Rep. Stallworth (D-Bridgeport), Sen. Gomes (D-Bridgeport), Rep. Sanchez (D-New Britain) and 45 other Senators and Representatives.

This bill as introduced in the Education committee:

1. extends, from February 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, the report deadline and duration of the minority teacher recruitment task force and expands its mission to include reviewing whether the Praxis exam has an impact on minority teacher recruitment in Connecticut;

2. establishes the Minority Teacher Recruitment Policy Oversight Council (“council”) within the State Department of Education (SDE); and

3. requires SDE to conduct an annual survey of students on the effectiveness of minority teacher recruitment programs in the state.

Testifying in support of the bill were Commissioner Dianna Wentzell of the State Department of Education, Rep. Porter (D-), Dr. James Thompson Superintendent of Bloomfield Public Schools, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, Steven Hernandez Director of Public Policy and Research with Connecticut Commission on Children, Alok Bhatt Legislative Analyst with the Asian American Affairs Commission, Orlando Rodriguez Associate Commission Analyst with the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, Subira Gordon Legislative Analyst with the African American Affairs Commission, Teresa M. Wilson Founder/Executive Director of the Village Initiative Project Inc, Yamuna Menon Director of Research & Policy with ConnCAN, Rachel Leventhal-Weiner PhD Connecticut Voices for Children, Michele O’Neil Education Issues Specialist with Connecticut Education Association, Dr. Jane McBride Gates Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at Western Connecticut State University, Nate Snow Executive Director of Teach for America Connecticut, Afrika Lyons, M.S. Ed, ACSP, NCSP School Psychologist, Chemay Morales Senior Equity Coach Waterbury Parent, Chris Rice New Haven Ward One Democratic Committee Co- chair & Student Yale University, Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, Erika Haynes Resident Windham, Fish Stark Student Yale University, Jan Hochadel President AFT Connecticut AFL-CIO, Jennifer Alexander, Chief Executive Officer, Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN), Jennifer Herz Assistant Counsel Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA), Lerone Holloway, Parent, New Haven, Reverend Lindsey E. Curtis Grace Baptist Church Norwalk, Robert M. Goodrich Co-founder, Radical Advocates for Cross-Cultural Education, Rose Reyes Bilingual Educator Member of AFT Connecticut Windham Local 1557, Valarie Shultz-Wilson President and CEO Urban League of Southern Connecticut

The bill passed the Education committee by a 30-2 vote with the nays coming from Rep. Ackert (R-Coventry) and Rep. Belsito (R-Tolland).

The Senate adopted Senate Amendment A by voice vote which (1) modifies the minority teacher recruitment task force membership and mission and extends its report deadline, (2) adds the membership specifics for the oversight council, (3) eliminates a satisfactory score on the Praxis competency exam as an entrance requirement for teacher preparation programs, (4) adds the annual report from SDE assessing the effectiveness of minority teacher recruitment programs, (5) requires SDE to approve proposals to create ARC programs for school support staff, (6) modifies the criteria for awarding an out-of-state teacher with an educator certification, and (7) modifies the criteria for teacher certification interstate agreements.

The bill as amended:

1. extends, from February 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, the report deadline for the minority teacher recruitment task force, expands its mission to include an analysis of the causes of minority teacher shortages in Connecticut, adds the Asian Pacific American Affairs Commission executive director, or her designee, to the task force, and extends the task force's duration until January 1, 2026;

2. establishes the Minority Teacher Recruitment Policy Oversight Council (“council”) within the State Department of Education (SDE); 3. requires SDE to conduct an annual survey of students on the effectiveness of minority teacher recruitment programs in the state;

4. eliminates a satisfactory score on the Praxis competency exam for reading, writing, and math as an entrance requirement for teacher preparation programs and instead requires the score to be used for diagnostic purposes in those programs;

5. requires SDE to report annually on the effectiveness of minority teacher recruitment programs using results-based accountability methods;

6. requires SDE to review and approve proposals to create alternative route to certification (ARC) programs for school support staff and to award educator certificates to qualified applicants who successfully complete the programs;

7. modifies the criteria for awarding an educator certificate to out-of-state teachers and makes the certification awarded a provisional rather than a professional certification (§ 8); and

8. modifies the criteria for teacher certification interstate agreements.

The Senate then passed the bill as amended by a unanimous vote of 36-0.

The House then passed the bill as amended by the senate, by a unanimous vote of 146-0.

This bill will go into effect upon passage for the task force changes and the new SBE teacher preparation remedial guidelines and July 1, 2016 for the other provisions.

The bill is now Public Act No. 16-41 and was signed by the Governor.

SB381: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY SCHOOL CLIMATE. Died. This bill was introduced by the Education committee and co-sponsored by Rep. Kokoruda (R-Madison) and Rep. Hampton (D-Simsbury).

This bill as introduced in the Education committee would have established a task force to study school climate, safety, bullying, social-emotional learning, and to review the streamlining of state policies. The task force would have included the chairpersons of the joint standing committee of the General Assembly, representatives from the CT Association of Boards of Education, CT Association of Public School Superintendents, CT Federation of School Administrators, CT Education Association, and the CT Federation of Teachers.

Testifying in support of the bill were the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, Sarah H. Egan Child Advocate with the Office of the Child Advocate, Steve Hernandez Director of Public Policy and Research with the Commission on Children, Alok Bhatt Legislative Analyst with the Asian Pacific American Affairs Commission, the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, Dr. Karissa Niehoff Executive Director of the Connecticut Association of Schools, Jennifer Fredricks PhD Professor of Human Development/Professor at Connecticut College on behalf of Connecticut Voices for Children, Kathleen Kennedy President of the Connecticut Parent Teacher Association, Michele O’Niell Education Issues Specialist with the Connecticut Education Association, Ray Rossomando Research and Policy Specialist with the Connecticut Education Association, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, Terry Bedard Special Education and Disability Rights Attorney with the Law Office of Terry Bedard LLC, Adrienne Serra Parent from Wallingford.

Testifying in opposition to the bill was Deborah G Stevens Attorney with the Connecticut Parents’ Rights Coalition.

The Education committee adopted substitute language which would have added three new members to the task force, one from each of the following: CT PTA, Connecticut Association of Schools, and the Commission on Children.

The Education committee passed the substitute bill by a nearly unanimous vote of 30-1 with the lone nay coming from Rep. Belsito (R-Tolland).

The Senate moved the bill to the foot of the Senate calendar before later recommitting it to the Education committee.