AMERICAN ASSOCIATION of UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS the CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY CHAPTER

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION of UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS The CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY CHAPTER

2014 Legislative Report

Betty Gallo & Co. June, 2014

Betty Gallo Kate Robinson Joe Grabarz Brie Johnston

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface Page 3

I. Higher Education Page 4

II. Labor Page 43

III. Budget Page 54

PREFACE The past several legislative sessions have been very active for CSU-AAUP. Funding, staffing, remediation, Board of Regents changes, labor agreements, restructuring, curriculum development and administrative changes have all been challenges to representing State University System faculty.

CSU-AAUP and Betty Gallo & Company have worked closely together with AAUP staff and supportive legislators to ensure that faculty interests were represented. The past several sessions have seen a welcome increase in faculty involvement in legislative advocacy efforts, and an increased faculty awareness of legislative processes and deepened relationships with legislators. Organizing lobbying visits at the Capitol has been successful in working toward our goals. Public hearing testimony, timely action alerts and fact sheets have been valuable to our collective efforts.

Together, we have significantly impacted legislation and improved the standing of CSU-AAUP faculty as a valuable resource in higher education discussions and decision making.

The legislation discussed in this report represents a major effort by CSU-AAUP staff and faculty, Betty Gallo & Company 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.

The shifting of Senate Chairs presented us with both a challenge and an opportunity this year as Senator Cassano became the new Co-Chair of the Higher Education Committee. We had early opportunities to present our points of view to the Senator, and he proved to be an advocate for many of the things that we care about.

With three legislative leaders announcing their retirements and with two of them at one point running for Governor the political atmosphere at the Capitol was more charged than usual. An economy and a budget performing more poorly than predicted, and an administration struggling to improve its approval rating, added to the factors making this session unique.

We at Betty Gallo & Company are proud and pleased to have been a part of this effort, and look forward to working together on future challenges and opportunities.

I. HIGHER EDUCATION

SB 402: AN ACT CONCERNING FACULTY REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION. Passed. Public Act 14- 208. Awaiting the Governor’s Signature.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee and was co-sponsored by Sen. Anthony J. Musto (D-Trumbull).

The bill requires the Board of Regents for Higher Education's (BOR) faculty advisory committee (FAC) vice-chairperson to serve as an ex-officio, nonvoting BOR member for a two-year term but excludes the vice-chairperson from BOR executive sessions. By law, the FAC chairperson is already an ex-officio, nonvoting member and is similarly excluded from executive sessions.

Currently, the BOR has 15 voting and five ex-officio, non-voting members. The FAC assists BOR in performing its statutory functions and consists of 10 members representing the institutions governed by BOR.

This bill goes into effect on July 1, 2014.

We spoke to the Co-Chairs at the beginning of the session and asked them to raise the bill and they agreed. Having Senator Cassano (D-Manchester) serve as Co- Chair made a big difference in our efforts. He wasn’t as invested in the original reorganization as Senator Bye (D-West Hartford) was and was able to view our position with less of a bias. Rep. Willis (D-Lakeville) had a much closer relationship with Senator Cassano than with previous Co-Chair, and that put us in a better position as well. We had spent time last year lobbying the Committee for the bill and so they were familiar with its provisions. We updated the fact sheets and the information packet and distributed it to members of the Committee and staff and met with several key members to ensure that there were no changes in support.

Testimony in support of the bill were Stephen Adair, Ph.D., Chair of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the Board of Regents, and ex-officio member of the Board of Regents; Vijay Nair, MLS, President, Connecticut State University American Association of University Professors and Patricia O'Neill, Ph.D., Chapter President, WCSU-AAU, WCSU Representative Faculty Advisory Committee.

There was no testimony submitted in opposition to the bill. As opposed to prior years when the BOR opposed the bill and any changes to the Board, they were low

4 key in their opposition this year. We kept in touch with other lobbyists for other constituent units and kept them informed of the bills progress.

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee unanimously passed the bill to the Senate.

The Senate referred the bill to the Government Administration and Elections Committee where it had been in prior sessions. We met with the Co-Chairs and lobbied members of the Committee before the meeting. It was passed back to the Senate without debate.

We lobbied the Senate to pass the bill and an action alert was sent out to urge the bill be brought up for a vote. Senator Cassano made the bill a priority.

The Senate adopted Senate Amendment “A” on a voice vote. The amendment makes a technical change by increasing the number of members of the BOR in statute to reflect the addition of another faculty member. The Senate put the bill on the consent calendar and it was unanimously sent to the House.

Because the bill was a Senate bill we were having a hard time getting the bill called in the House. Rep Willis and the Governor’s Office both went on our behalf to House leadership requesting that the bill be brought up. The end of session dispute between the House and the Senate made it difficult to get the bill called. No Senate bills of any kind had been called in the House up to this point. We met with House Majority Leader Arisimowicz (D-Berlin) and he was sympathetic and indicated that the bill would be made a priority and called when the embargo on Senate bills was lifted. We checked in with Republicans to ensure that there weren’t any problems with the bill. Another action alert was sent out.

Finally the House began taking up Senate bills and it unanimously passed the bill in concurrence on the consent calendar on the last day.

SB 30: AN ACT CONCERNING THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE ACT. Died. (Parts of this bill passed in the bond package, SB 29.)

This was the Governor’s Bill so it was introduced by Sen. Donald E. Williams (D- Brooklyn), Sen. Martin M. Looney (D-New Haven), Rep. J. Brendan Sharkey (D- Hamden) and Rep. Joe Aresimowicz (D-Berlin).

This bill would have authorized $103.5 million in new bonding under the Connecticut State University System (CSUS) 2020 infrastructure program (renamed by the bill as the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) 2020 program). It would have expanded the program to include the regional community-technical colleges and Charter Oak State College and extended the program by one year (to FY 19).

The bill would have also allowed the Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR), which administers the program, to revise CSCU 2020 project amounts without legislative approval if the revision is due to reallocating unspent funds from a completed project. It would have required BOR to report biannually to the legislature on how it allocated project funds among the state universities and community colleges.

Under current law, a program project includes, among other things, improvements, reconstruction, replacements, additions, and equipment acquired in connection with any facilities existing on July 1, 2008. The bill would have eliminated the requirement for these facilities to have been in existence on July 1, 2008. It would have also eliminated a requirement that BOR receive approval from the administrative services commissioner before acquiring or purchasing equipment, furniture, or personal property using funds from bond proceeds.

The bill would have renamed the board's biennial facilities plan as the facilities and academic plans and makes other technical and conforming changes.

CSCU 2020

The bill would have authorized $103.5 million in new bonding under the CSCU 2020 program. It would have added new projects, replaced others, and added, decreased, or canceled existing authorizations, as shown in Table 1. The table also indicates to which phase of the program the changes would have applied: Phase I (FY 09-FY 11), Phase II (FY 12-FY 14), and Phase III (FY 15-FY 18; extended by the bill to FY 19). The bill would have made no net changes to phases I and II, but it would have increased Phase III authorizations by $103.5 million.

Table 1: Project Authorizations

Current Proposed Project Phase Change Authorization Authorization Central

Code I $18,146,445 $16,418,636 ($1,727,809) Compliance/Infrastructure II 6,704,000 6,894,000 190,000 Improvements III 5,000,000 0 (5,000,000) New Classroom Office I 33,978,000 29,478,000 (4,500,000) Building East Campus Infrastructure I 13,244,000 3,680,000 (9,564,000) Development (replaced by bill III with Renovate Barnard Hall) 0 18,320,000 18,320,000 Burritt Library Expansion I 0 9,900,000 9,900,000 (design/construction)(replaced III by bill with New Engineering Building(design/construction 96,262,000 52,800,000 (43,462,000) and equipment)) Burritt Library Renovation III (design)(expanded by bill to 11,387,000 16,500,000 5,113,000 include addition and equipment) Renovate Kaiser Hall and I 0 6,491,809 6,491,809 Annex (new) II 0 210,000 210,000 III 0 18,684,000 18,684,000 Eastern Code Compliance/ I 8,255,113 8,938,849 683,736 Infrastructure Improvements III 5,000,000 0 (5,000,000) Outdoor Track-Phase II I 1,816,000 1,506,396 (309,604) New Warehouse I 2,269,000 1,894,868 (374,132) Southern Code Compliance/ III 5,000,000 0 (5,000,000) Infrastructure Improvements Western Code Compliance/ III 7,212,000 0 (7,212,000) Infrastructure Improvements Board of Regents (formerly CSUS System Office) New and Replacement III Equipment (bill adds Smart 31,844,000 61,844,000 30,000,000 Classroom Technology and Technology Upgrades)

Land and Property I 4,250,190 3,650,190 (600,000) Acquisition II 3,000,000 2,600,000 (400,000) Deferred Maintenance/Code III Compliance Infrastructure 0 48,557,000 48,557,000 Improvements Strategic Master Plan of III 0 3,000,000 3,000,000 Academic Programs (new) Consolidation and Upgrade of III Student System and Financial 0 20,000,000 20,000,000 Information technology Systems (new) Advanced Manufacturing III Center at Asnuntuck 0 25,500,000 25,500,000 Community College (new) TOTAL CHANGE $103,500,000

The bill would have reduced authorizations for the four state universities by an aggregate total of $22.557 million and would have increased BOR authorizations by $126.057 million, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Authorization Changes

Entity Net Change Central ($5,345,000) Eastern (5,000,000) Southern (5,000,000) Western (7,212,000) BOR (formerly CSUS System 126,057,000 Office) Total $103,500,000

Annual Bond Limits

To conform to the increased bond authorizations, the bill would have (1) adjusted the annual bond limits for the CSCU 2020 program in FYs 15 and 16, (2) canceled the FY 10 authorization, and (3) extended the program to FY 19 (see Table 3). The

FY 10 change is attributable to that year's allocation being disapproved by the governor in 2009.

Table 3: Annual Bond Limits

FY Current Proposed Change Limit Limit (Millions) (Millions) (Millions) 2009 $95.0 $95.0 - 2010 95.0 0 (95.0) 2011 95.0 95.0 - 2012 95.0 95.0 - 2013 95.0 95.0 - 2014 95.0 95.0 - 2015 95.0 175.0 80.0 2016 95.0 118.5 23.5 2017 95.0 95.0 - 2018 95.0 95.0 - 2019 - 95.0 95.0

Under current law, any difference between the amount actually issued in any year and the cap can be carried forward to the next succeeding fiscal year. Financing transaction costs can be added to the caps. The bill would have allowed funds to be carried forward to any subsequent fiscal year but specified that they could not be carried forward past FY 19.

By law, BOR must annually, by March 1, submit to the governor, state treasurer, and Office of Policy and Management secretary the amount of bonds required for the program for the ensuing fiscal year. The governor has 30 days to approve or disapprove the amount in whole or in part; if he does not act within 30 days of the submission, the whole amount is deemed approved. It is unclear whether BOR could submit (and the governor approve) a revised FY 15 request to account for the bill's additional bond authorizations.

PROJECT REVISIONS

Under current law, the following types of revisions in the CSCU 2020 plan require both formal approval by BOR and passage of a public or special act: (1) the addition or deletion of a project or (2) an increase or decrease in the original project cost by 10% or more for projects estimated to cost $ 1 million or less, or 5% or more for projects estimated to cost more than $ 1 million, unless the change in cost is due solely to changes in material costs. The bill would have eliminated the requirement for a public or special act for revisions that are due to reallocating unspent funds from a completed project.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

By law, BOR must report, biannually to the governor and legislature, specified information on projects under the program (e.g., costs and timeliness). The bill additionally required the board, biannually beginning July 1, 2015, to report to the Finance and Higher Education committees on how it allocated proceeds for each BOR project among each state university and regional community-technical college.

The bill would have also required the new report to include any revisions to the BOR projects that were due to using unspent funds from a completed project. Under existing law, BOR must list project revisions in its report to the governor and legislature.

Testimony submitted in support of this bill was from Vijay Nair, MLS, President of the Connecticut State University American Association of University Professors; Dr. Gregory Gray, President of the Board of Regents for Higher Education; William Faraclas, Professor, Southern Connecticut State University; Stephen Adair, Ph.D., Chair of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the Board of Regents; Roger Senserrich, Policy Coordinator, Connecticut Association for Human Services and Lisa Lerissette, Student at Southern Connecticut State University

There was no testimony submitted in opposition to the bill.

The Higher Education Committee referred the bill to the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee by a vote of 16-2. The “no” votes were Sen. Boucher (R- Wilton) and Rep. Bacchiochi (R-Stafford), who voted against all bonding projects that day due to the high level of the State’s overall bonded indebtedness.

The Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee passed the bill out of Committee with substitute language that added back in funds for Burritt Library renovations, clarified the approval method by the Board of Regents for revisions to projects, and a reporting requirement. The vote was 47-3. The “no” votes were Sen. Frantz (R- Greenwich), Rep. Piscopo (R-Thomaston) and Rep. Walko (R-Greenwich).

This bill died on the Senate calendar when no action was taken. However, the language of the bill was later added into the bond package.

SB 330: AN ACT CONCERNING THE BOARD OF REGENTS. Passed. PA 14-117. Awaiting the Governor’s Signature.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, and was co-sponsored by Anthony J. Musto (D-Trumbull).

This bill conforms law to current practice by requiring the Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR) to appoint two vice presidents upon the BOR president's recommendation, one for the Connecticut State University System (CSUS) and one for the regional community-technical colleges (CTC). Under current law, BOR must appoint a vice president for each constituent unit of higher education (UConn, CSUS, CTC, and Charter Oak State College). By law, the vice presidents' duties include overseeing academic programs, student support services, and institutional support.

The bill also eliminates statutory references to the Board for State Academic Awards (BSAA) and replaces them with references to BOR or Charter Oak State College, as appropriate. For example, it renames the Board of State Academic Awards Operating Fund as the Board of Regents for Higher Education for Charter Oak State College Operating Fund.

BSAA was formerly a nine-member board that governed Charter Oak State College. A 2011 law transferred BSAA's powers and duties to BOR but retained statutory references to BSAA (PA 11-48). Thus BOR, acting as BSAA, has governed Charter Oak since January 1, 2012. This goes into effect on July 1, 2014.

Testimony in support of the bill was submitted by Ernestine Weaver, Counsel for the Board of Regents for Higher Education who asked for an amendment to the bill that would allow the Board of Regents to enter into contracts and establish a foundation. This was added into the final bill.

There was no testimony submitted in opposition to this bill.

This bill was passed out of Committee unanimously. It was referred to the Government Administration and Elections Committee where it was also unanimously passed to the Senate.

The Senate passed the bill to the House with a 33-1 vote. The “no” vote was Sen. McKinney (R-Fairfield).

The House placed the bill on consent and it passed in concurrence with the Senate on the last day of the Session.

The bill became Public Act 14-117 and awaits the Governor’s signature.

HB 5050: AN ACT IMPROVING COLLEGE COMPLETIONS. Died. (Passed in Section 68 of the implementer, HB 5597.)

This bill was a Governor’s bill. It was introduced by Rep. J. Brendan Sharkey (D- Hamden), Rep. Joe Aresimowicz (D-Berlin), Sen. Donald E. Williams (D- Brooklyn) and Sen. Martin M. Looney (D-New Haven). It was co-sponsored by Rep. Ezequiel Santiago (D-Bridgeport), Rep. Theresa W. Conroy (D-Seymour), Rep. Thomas A. Vicino (D-Clinton), and Rep. Christina "Tita" M. Ayala (D- Bridgeport).

This bill would have established the “Go Back to Get Ahead” program, administered by the Board of Regents for Higher Education, to encourage individuals who dropped out of a higher education degree program to return and earn a degree. Under the bill, eligible participants could have received, within available resources, up to three free three-credit courses required to complete an associate's or bachelor's degree program. Eligible participants would have had have to: reside in Connecticut; have previously enrolled in an associate's or bachelor's degree program at any public or private college or university and left before completing it; have not attended any college or university for at least 18 months, as of June 30, 2014; and enrolled in an associate's or bachelor's degree program by September 30, 2016 at a Connecticut State University System institution, a Connecticut community college, or Charter Oak State College.

Testimony in support of this bill was submitted by Dr. Gregory Gray, President, Board of Regents; Glenn Cassis, Executive Director, African-American Affairs Commission; Vijay Nair, MLS, President of the Connecticut State University American Association of University Professors; Stephen Adair, Ph.D., Chair of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the Board of Regents, Central Connecticut State

University; William Faraclas, Ph.D., President, SCSU Faculty Senate; and Roger Senserrich, Policy Coordinator, Connecticut Association for Human Services.

There was no testimony submitted in opposition to this bill.

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee passed a substitute version of this bill the House by a vote of 15-4. The substitute language deletes the section that established the Board of Regents President’s Office Operating Fund, and outlined the ways in which the Fund should be established and operated. The “no” votes were Rep. Ackert (R-Coventry), Rep. Bacchiochi (R- Stafford), Rep. Lavielle (R-Wilton) and Rep. Sawyer (R- Bolton).

The bill was referred to the Appropriations Committee where it was unanimously passed back to the House.

A version of this bill passed as part of the implementer, HB 5597, and the original bill died on the House calendar when it was not called for a vote.

HB 5040: AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN. Passed. PA 14- 186. Awaiting the Governor’s Signature.

This bill was introduced by the Committee on Children and co-sponsored by 21 other legislators.

This bill makes all employees of institutions of Higher Education mandated reporters of child neglect and abuse and subject to all the provisions of the law that entails as of October 1 of this year.

This bill expands the circumstances in which the departments of Children and Families (DCF) and Social Services (DSS) must disclose the names and records of certain individuals to specific entities. The circumstances affecting DCF include:

1. disclosing the names and records of people being investigated and prosecuted for falsely reporting child abuse and neglect,

2. determining a person's suitability for working in a state-licensed child care facility,

3. placing a public school employee on the child abuse and neglect registry, and

4. protecting a DCF employee being threatened by a client or coworker.

The bill expands the circumstances in which DSS must disclose information to DCF about a child receiving DSS services or the child's immediate family.

The bill also requires DCF to disclose information to help the Judicial Branch track juvenile offender recidivism and the Birth-to-Three program provide services.

The bill expands the actions DCF can take to help children it identifies or believes are victims of trafficking to include (1) providing services, (2) forming multidisciplinary teams to review trafficking cases, and (3) providing training to law enforcement officers about trafficking. It also expands the category of children or youths a court may find to be “uncared for” to include child-trafficking victims.

Additionally, the bill (1) expands the mandated reporter list including to all employees of institutions of higher education and (2) aligns some of the procedural aspects for suspending an employee suspected of child abuse and neglect who works at a (a) public school or (b) private school or public or private child care facility or institution.

By law, DCF must disclose such information to the chief state's attorney or his designee investigating or prosecuting a child abuse or neglect allegation. The bill requires DCF to also disclose records to the chief state's attorney or his designee investigating or prosecuting an allegation that a (1) person made a false report of suspected child abuse or neglect or (2) mandated reporter failed to report suspected child abuse or neglect.

By law, DCF must disclose to law enforcement officers investigating a child abuse or neglect allegation. The bill requires DCF to also disclose records to law enforcement officers investigating an allegation that a (1) person falsely reported suspected child abuse or neglect or (2) mandated reporter failed to report suspected child abuse or neglect.

The law requires DCF to disclose records to a public school district superintendent or executive director or other head of a public or private child-care institution or private school in response to (1) a mandated reporter's written or oral report of abuse or neglect or (2) the DCF commissioner's reasonable belief that a school employee abused or neglected a student. The bill requires DCF to also disclose records to such entities when it places an employee of the school or institution on the child abuse or neglect registry.

§ 6 — MANDATED REPORTERS

The bill expands the mandated reporter list (see BACKGROUND) to include any paid youth camp director or assistant director and any person age 18 or older who is a paid (1) youth athletics coach or director; (2) private youth sports organization, league, or team coach or director; or (3) administrator, faculty, or staff member, athletic coach, director, or trainer employed by a public or private higher education institution, excluding student employees.

§ 7 — INVESTIGATIONS OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT BY CERTAIN EMPLOYEES AND STAFF MEMBERS

The bill aligns some of the procedural aspects for suspending certain types of employees suspected of child abuse and neglect. The requirements vary depending on whether the employee works for a (1) public school or (2) private school or public or private child care facility or institution.

The bill (1) imposes a deadline by which DCF must report the results of an abuse or neglect investigation of an employee of a private school or a public or private child care facility or institution and (2) eliminates the five-day period in which the school, facility, or institution must, based on the commissioner's findings and recommendations, suspend the staff member.

Under the bill, the DCF commissioner, no more than five days after investigating a report that an employee abused or neglected a child, must report the investigation results to his or her employer or employer's designee. Current law does not require DCF to report its investigation results to the facility, institution, or school unless the commissioner (1) reasonably believes, based on the investigation results, that a child has been abused or neglected by the staff member and (2) recommends that the staff member be placed on the child abuse and neglect registry.

By law, the school, institution, or facility must suspend the staff person within five days after the commissioner completes her investigation if she (1) reasonably believes, based on the investigation results, that a staff member has abused or neglected a child and (2) recommends the staff member be placed on the child abuse and neglect registry.

Testifying in support of the bill were Edie Joseph andTamar Holoshitz, Connecticut Voices for Children; Connecticut Department of Children and Families; Aliza Wilder, Director of Human Resources, University of Connecticut; Martha Stone, Executive Director, Zoe Stout, Senior Staff Attorney, Sarah Gleason

15 and John D'Baptist, Law Student Interns, Center for Children's Advocacy; Millie Cunningham and Andrea Barros, Center for Youth Leadership and Abby Anderson, Executive Director, Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance.

Testimony in opposition to the bill was submitted by Susan Storey, Chief Public Defender.

This bill was reported out of the Committee on Children by a vote of 8-4, with substitute language that clarified language regarding the Birth-to-Three program's referral intake office in new subdivision (26) of subsection (g) of section 1. It also added language to subdivision (14) of subsection (b) of section 17a-101 (Sec. 6 of the bill) to exempt any social worker who, while working for an attorney or law firm, received a communication that would otherwise have been subject to the mandated reporter requirements. Below is the tally:

Voting Yea Nay Abstain Absent and Not Voice Vote TOTALS Voting 12 8 4 0 0 yea nay abstain absent yea nay abstain absent Sen. Bartolomeo, D. S13 X Rep. Urban, D. 043 X Sen. Duff, B. S25 X Rep. Fawcett, K. 133 X Sen. Linares, A. S33 X Rep. Betts, W. 078 X Rep. Candelaria, J. 095 X Rep. Hewett, E. 039 X Rep. Hoydick, L. 120 X Rep. Rose, K. 118 X Rep. Vargas, E. 006 X Rep. Wood, T. 141 X

The bill was referred to the Education Committee by the House. The Education Committee favorably reported the bill back to the House by a vote of 27-1. The “no” vote was Sen. Linares (R-Westbrook).

The House then referred the bill to the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee passed the bill back to the House by a 26-11 vote. Below is the vote tally:

Voting Yea Nay Abstain Absent and Not Voice Vote TOTALS Voting

40 26 14 0 4 yea nay abstain absent yea nay abstain absent Sen. Coleman, E. S02 X Rep. Morris, B. 140 X Rep. Fox, G. 146 X Sen. Musto, A. S22 X Sen. Doyle, P. S09 X Rep. Riley, E. 046 X Rep. Ritter, M. 001 X Rep. O'Dea, T. 125 X Sen. Kissel, J. S07 X Rep. O'Neill, A. 069 X Rep. Rebimbas, R. 070 X Rep. Serra, J. 033 X Rep. Adinolfi, A. 103 X Rep. Shaban, J. 135 X Rep. Albis, J. 099 X Rep. Smith, R. 108 X Rep. Baram, D. 015 X Rep. Tong, W. 147 X Rep. Berger, J. 073 X Rep. Verrengia, J. 020 X Rep. Buck-Taylor, C. 067 X Rep. Walker, T. 093 X Rep. Carpino, C. 032 X Rep. Walko, S. 150 X Rep. Clemons, C. 124 X Sen. Welch, J. S31 X Rep. Dillon, P. 092 X Rep. Wright, E. 041 X Rep. Flexer, M. 044 X Rep. Fox, D. 148 X Rep. Fritz, M. 090 X Sen. Gerratana, T. S06 X Rep. Godfrey, B. 110 X Rep. Gonzalez, M. 003 X Rep. Grogins, A. 129 X Rep. Hewett, E. 039 X Sen. Holder-Winfield, G. S10 X Rep. Hovey, D. 112 X Sen. Kelly, K. S21 X Rep. Klarides, T. 114 X Rep. Labriola, D. 131 X Rep. McGee, B. 005 X Sen. McLachlan, M. S24 X Sen. Meyer, E. S12 X The House adopted House Amendment “A” on a roll call vote. The amendment removes a provision that exempted certain social workers from mandated reporter responsibilities in limited circumstances.

The House unanimously passed the bill to the Senate for further action.

The Senate adopted House Amendment “A” on a voice vote. They unanimously passed the bill in concurrence with the House.

HB 5029: AN ACT CONCERNING SEXUAL ASSAULT, STALKING AND INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE ON CAMPUS. Passed. Public Act 14-11. Signed by Governor May 8, 2014.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee and was co-sponsored by 148 other legislators. It was the major bill of the session for Rep. Willis, Co-Chair of the Higher Education Committee, and was co-sponsored by every other female legislator in the General Assembly.

The bill was an effort to address the issues that arose out of a lawsuit against UConn but it became clear quickly as stories emerged from almost every college campus in the State that sexual violence on college campuses was an issue that needed to be addressed more comprehensively statewide.

By law, public and independent higher education institutions must adopt and disclose one or more policies on sexual assault and intimate partner violence. Institutions must also offer sexual assault and intimate partner violence primary prevention and awareness programming and campaigns.

This bill expands the scope of the policies and prevention and awareness programming by (1) requiring for-profit institutions licensed to operate in Connecticut to comply with them and (2) applying them to (a) stalking and (b) institutions' employees. It also (1) requires all institutions (public, independent, and for-profit), after a reported incident, to immediately provide concise written notification to each victim regarding his or her rights and options under the institution's policy or policies and (2) allows all institutions to permit anonymous reporting.

The bill requires all higher education institutions to report annually to the Higher Education Committee concerning their policies, prevention and awareness programming and campaigns, and the number of incidents and disciplinary cases involving sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence. It also requires institutions to include information about stalking and family violence in their annual uniform campus crime reports.

The bill (1) requires all higher education institutions to establish a campus resource team to review their policies and recommend protocols for providing support and services to students and employees who report being victims and (2) establishes membership and education requirements for the team. It establishes additional (1) education requirements for the institution's Title IX coordinator and special police

18 force, campus police force, or campus safety personnel and (2) training requirements for members of the state or local police who respond to campus incidents.

The bill requires all higher education institutions to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with at least one community-based sexual assault crisis service center and one community-based domestic violence agency. The MOU must (1) establish a partnership with the service and agency and (2) ensure that victims can access free and confidential counseling and advocacy services, either on or off campus.

This bill goes into effect on July 1, 2014.

INSTITUTION POLICIES

By law, each public and independent higher education institution must adopt one or more policies concerning sexual assault and intimate partner violence. The policies must include provisions for (1) providing information to students about their options for assistance if they are victims of such violence, (2) disciplinary procedures, and (3) possible sanctions. Institutions must include the policies in their uniform campus crime report, which is produced annually and available on request to students, employees, and applicants for admission.

The bill expands the scope of the policies by (1) requiring for-profit institutions licensed to operate in Connecticut to comply with them and (2) applying them to (a) stalking and (b) institutions' employees. Under current law, stalking is addressed by the institutions' policies only in the context of intimate partner violence, which is limited to harm against an individual by a current or former spouse or by a partner in a dating relationship. However, neither current law nor the bill require for-profit institutions to produce the uniform campus crime report.

The bill specifies that the institutions' policies apply to incidences of sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence wherever they occur (i.e., on or off campus). It also specifies that the policies apply to people who report or disclose being a victim. Under current law, they apply only to people who report being a victim.

The bill allows all higher education institutions to permit victims to report or disclose incidents anonymously. The institution must notify the victim of its obligations under state or federal law, if any, to (1) investigate or address the

19 alleged sexual assault, stalking, or intimate partner violence and (2) assess whether the report triggers the need for a timely warning or emergency notification pursuant to federal regulations. These obligations may, in limited circumstances, result in the victim's identity becoming known (see BACKGROUND).

Under current law, an institution's disciplinary proceedings must be conducted by an official trained in issues relating to sexual assault and intimate partner violence. The bill requires that this training be annual and that it also include stalking.

Information Provided to Victims

By law, institutions' policies must have a provision for giving contact information for and, if requested, professional assistance in accessing and using campus, local advocacy, counseling, health, and mental health services. The bill requires the contact information to be concise and in writing. By law, the policies must also provide written information about a victim's rights to (1) notify law enforcement and receive assistance from campus authorities in making the notification and (2) obtain a protective order, apply for a temporary restraining order, or seek enforcement of an existing order. The bill specifies that this information must be concise and written in plain language.

The bill requires all higher education institutions to provide concise notification, written in plain language, to each student and employee who has been the victim of sexual assault, stalking, or intimate partner violence regarding his or her rights and options under the institution's policy or policies. The institution must provide this notification immediately upon receiving a report of the incident. In addition to the rights listed above, the victim's rights and options under existing law include, among other things, reasonably available opportunities to change academic, living, campus transportation, or working situations.

PREVENTION AND AWARENESS PROGRAMMING AND CAMPAIGNS

By law, public and independent higher education institutions must offer, within existing budgetary resources (1) sexual assault and intimate partner violence primary prevention and awareness programming for all students and (2) ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns. The bill:

1. requires for-profit institutions to offer the programming and campaigns;

2. requires the programming and campaigns to also address stalking;

3. requires the programming to be provided (a) annually and (b) to all employees, not just students as under current law;

4. eliminates the requirement that the programming and campaigns be within existing budgetary resources; and

5. specifies that prevention and awareness programming includes poster and flyer campaigns, electronic communications, films, guest speakers, symposia, conferences, seminars, or panel discussions.

It also specifies that the programming must include strategies for bystander intervention. (Current law requires that the programming address bystander intervention, without a reference to strategies.) The bill defines “bystander intervention” as the act of challenging social norms that support, condone, or permit sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence.

REPORTING

Annual Report to Higher Education Committee

The bill requires all higher education institutions, annually beginning October 1, 2015, to submit a report to the Higher Education Committee that includes, for the immediately preceding calendar year, the following information concerning sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence:

1. a copy of the institution's (a) most recently adopted policies and (b) most recent concise written notification of a victim's rights and options under these policies;

2. the number and type of prevention, awareness, and risk reduction programs at the institution;

3. the type of prevention and awareness campaigns at the institution;

4. the number of incidents reported to the institution;

5. the number of confidential or anonymous reports or disclosures; and

6. the number of disciplinary cases and the final outcome of these cases, including the outcome of any appeals, to the extent that reporting the outcomes does not conflict with federal law.

Uniform Campus Crime Reports

By law, each public and independent higher education institution (but not for-profit institutions) must annually publish a uniform campus crime report and make it available on request to students, employees, and applicants for admission. The report must include information about certain crimes committed in the immediately preceding calendar year within the geographical limits of property the institution owns or controls. The bill requires the report to additionally include information about incidences of (1) 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree stalking and (2) family violence (which includes various crimes committed against a family or household member). It also requires the report to be published annually by October 1, rather than September 1 as current law requires.

CAMPUS RESOURCE TEAM

Membership

The bill requires each public, independent, and for-profit higher education institution to establish a campus resource team by January 1, 2015. The team must have representatives from, and be responsible for, each of the institution's campuses. The institution's president selects the team members, who must include the institution's Title IX coordinator (under federal law, each institution receiving federal student aid must designate a Title IX coordinator) and chief student affairs officer, or their designees, and, to the extent they exist on campus, at least one representative from the institution's: (1) administration; (2) counseling services office; (3) health services office; (4) women's center; (5) special police force, campus police force, or campus safety personnel; (6) faculty; (7) senior and mid- level staff; (8) student body; (9) residential life office; and (10) judicial hearing board.

The team may also include any other members designated by the institution's president. Additionally, the president must invite to serve on the team at least one representative from (1) a community-based sexual assault crisis service center; (2) a community-based domestic violence agency; and (3) the criminal justice system in the institution's judicial district, including state and local police and state prosecutors.

Education Requirements

The bill requires the institution to ensure that each team member is educated in the

22 following areas:

1. the awareness and prevention of sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence;

2. communicating with and providing assistance to students or employees who are victims;

3. the institution's sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence polices;

4. the provisions of (a) Title IX of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1972 (Title IX) and (b) the federal Clery Act;

5. victim-centered response and the role of community-based sexual assault victim advocates;

6. the role and function of each team member in ensuring a coordinated response to reports of sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence; and

7. communicating sensitively and compassionately with victims, including an awareness of responding or providing services to, or assisting in locating services for, victims from diverse cultural backgrounds.

The bill defines “victim-centered response” as a systematic focus on a victim's needs and concerns that (1) ensures services are delivered in a compassionate, sensitive, nonjudgmental manner; (2) ensures an understanding of how trauma affects victim behavior; (3) maintains victim safety, privacy and, where possible, confidentiality; and (4) recognizes that victims are not responsible for the assault, stalking, or violence committed against them.

Duties

The bill requires the campus resource team, by July 1, 2015, to (1) review the institution's sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence policies and (2) recommend to the institution protocols for providing support and services to students and employees who report being victims. The team must meet at least once a semester to review the protocols and ensure that they are updated as necessary.

ADDITIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

The bill requires each public, independent, and for-profit higher education institution to ensure that its Title IX coordinator and members of its special police force, campus police force, or campus safety personnel employed by the institution are educated in the awareness and prevention of sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence, and in trauma-informed response. It also requires members of the State Police and local police departments who act as first responders to reports of sexual assault, stalking, or intimate partner violence at the institution to receive training in (1) the awareness and prevention of these crimes and (2) trauma-informed response.

The bill defines “trauma-informed response” as one that understands the complexities of sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence through training centered on (1) the neurobiological impact of trauma, (2) the influence of societal myths and stereotypes surrounding trauma's causes and impact, (3) understanding perpetrators' behavior, and (4) conducting an effective investigation on behalf of trauma victims.

MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING

The bill requires each public, independent, and for-profit higher education institution, by January 1, 2015, to enter into an MOU with at least one community- based sexual assault crisis service center and one community-based domestic violence agency. The MOUs must (1) establish a partnership with the service and agency and (2) ensure that a student or employee who reports or discloses being a victim of sexual assault, stalking, or intimate partner violence can access free and confidential counseling and advocacy services, either on or off campus.

The partnership must include (1) involvement of the institution's campus resource team and (2) training between the institution and service center and agency to (a) understand each other's role in responding to reports and disclosures of sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence against students and employees and (b) the institution's protocols for providing support and services to such students and employees.

Testifying in support f this bill were Susan Herbst, President, University of Connecticut; Vijay Nair, MLS, President, Connecticut State University, American Association of University Professors; Elizabeth Conklin, Associate Vice President, University of Connecticut; Ernestine Weaver, Counsel, Board of Regents; Garvin G. Ambrose, Esq., State Victim Advocate, Office of the Victim Advocate; The Permanent Commission on the Status of Women; R. Thomas Clark, Assistant

Counsel, Board of Regents; Mae M. Flexer, State Representative (D-Danielson); Mary M. Mushinsky, State Representative (D-Wallingford); Laura Cordes, Executive Director, Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc.; Catherine Bailey, Legal and Public Policy Director, The Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund; Judith B. Greiman, President, Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges; Darcie Folsom, Director of Sexual Violence Prevention and Advocacy, Connecticut College; Garry Lapidus, PA-C, MPH, Director, Injury Prevention Center, Connecticut Children's Medical Center; Letamarie Highsmith, Jane Doe No More, Board of Director Member; Gary MacNamara, Chief of Police, Fairfield Police Department; Liza Anders, Communications & Public Policy Specialist, Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Catherine Zeiner, Executive Director, Safe Futures, Inc.; Maria Busineau, Crisis Counselor/Advocate, Sexual Assault Crisis Center of Eastern Connecticut; Melanie Danyliw, Director of Training & Program Development and Legislative Liaison at the Women's Center of Greater Danbury; Dr. Thomas C. Pellegrino, Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, Fairfield University; Katie Kelley, Dean of Students, Asnuntuck Community College; Jennifer Wenderoth, College Advocate, Rape Crisis Center of Milford; Jennifer Coyne, parent of an assault victim; Matt Breuer, Catherine Chiocchi and Evan Walker-Wells, Undergraduate Students, Yale University; Krystal Rich, Graduate Student, UConn School of Social Work; Novelette Brown, Mother & Student; Millie Cunningham and Kirsi Balazs, Stamford Youth Service Bureau; and Janiece Lara, Student, Southern Connecticut State University

There was no testimony submitted in opposition to this bill.

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee unanimously passed this bill to the House, 19-0, with substitute language making clarifying changes.

The House referred this bill to the Public Safety and Security Committee. They unanimously passed the bill to the House, 18-0.

The House adopted House Amendment “A” on a voice vote. The amendment replaces the original file, which contained similar policy, reporting, and education requirements.

The House unanimously passed the bill to the Senate for further action.

The Senate adopted House Amendment “A” on a voice vote and unanimously passed the bill 36-0.

The bill became Public Act 14-11 and was transmitted to the Secretary of State. The Bill was signed by the Governor on May 8, 2014.

SB 19: AN ACT ESTABLISHING UNIFORM STATE ACADEMIC DEGREE STANDARDS. Passed. Public Act 14-91. Awaiting the Governor’s Signature.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employee Advancement Committee, and was co-sponsored by Sen. Kevin D. Witkos (R-Canton), Sen. Carlo Leone (D-Stamford), Sen. Anthony J. Musto (D-Trumbull), and Sen. Joseph J. Crisco (D-Woodbridge).

This bill corrects an issue that arose at the end of last session and was caused in part by the reorganization of higher education in the State. By law, UConn and the Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR) are authorized to review and approve recommendations for the establishment of new academic programs. (Current law uses the term “academic degree” for BOR.) UConn has authority concerning its own programs and BOR has authority concerning programs for the Connecticut State University System, regional community-technical colleges, and Charter Oak State College.

This bill specifies that, when approving academic programs, (1) UConn must follow certain statutory requirements (the law already requires BOR to do so) and (2) both BOR and UConn must follow regulations promulgated by the Office of Higher Education. The statutory and regulatory requirements concern administration, finance, faculty, curricula, library, student admission and graduation, plant and equipment, records, catalogs, program announcements, and any other pertinent criteria.

The bill eliminates BOR's authority to impose penalties on public institutions for violating program approval and licensure and accreditation requirements and gives that authority to the Office of Higher Education.

This bill will go into effect on July 1, 2014.

Testimony in support of this bill was offered by Jane A. Ciarleglio, Executive Director, Office of Higher Education.

There was no testimony submitted in opposition to this bill, but UCONN lobbied very hard behind the scenes to try and kill this bill. There was some support for the

26 bill from Independent Colleges because they didn’t want the BOR to have any review of their policies or courses.

The Higher Education Committee passed the bill to the Senate 18-2. The “no” votes were Rep. McCrory (D- Hartford) and Rep. Walker (R-New Haven).

The Senate, followed by the House, unanimously passed the bill on consent. The bill became Public Act 14-91 and is waiting for the Governor to sign it.

SB 182: AN ACT CONFORMING PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION PURCHASING STATUTES WITH DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PURCHASING STATUTES AND PRACTICE. Passed. Public Act 14-106. Awaiting the Governor’s Signature.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, and was co-sponsored by Sen. Anthony J. Musto (D-Trumbull)

This bill allows the chief executive officer of a constituent unit of the state higher education system to join with federal agencies, other states, Connecticut political subdivisions, or private or nonprofit organizations in cooperative purchasing plans when it is in the state's best interests to do so.

The bill also allows the state, through the chief executive of a constituent unit of higher education, to purchase equipment, supplies, materials, and services by joining existing purchasing contracts in other states, Connecticut political subdivisions, nonprofit organizations, or private or public consortia. The state is subject to the same contract terms and conditions as the other entities. By law, the state may already join such contracts (except for those with private consortia) through the administrative services commissioner (CGS § 4a-53(b)).

By law, the constituent units are UConn, the Connecticut State University System, regional community-technical colleges, and Charter Oak State College.

This bill will go into effect on July 1, 2014.

A public hearing was held on February 25, 2014. Testifying in support of this bill was Richard Gray, Vice-President for Administration & Chief Financial Officer, University of Connecticut.

No testimony was submitted in opposition to the bill.

The bill unanimously passed out of the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee with substitute language that made technical changes. The Senate referred the bill to the Government Administration and Elections Committee where it was unanimously passed back to the Senate.

The Senate and House unanimously passed the bill in concurrence. The bill became Public Act 14-106 and awaits the Governor’s signature.

HB 5494: AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, and was co-sponsored Rep. Gregory Haddad (D-Mansfield), Rep. Mae M. Flexer (D-Danielson), Rep. Bruce V. Morris (D-Norwalk), Rep. Anthony J. D'Amelio (R-Waterbury) and Rep. Patricia A. Dillon (D-New Haven).

This bill was in response to a situation that occurred two years ago at UConn when a student left the school, but was technically still a member of the Board. They were unable to pass the bill last year.

By law, UConn's 21-member Board of Trustees (BOT) must have two student members, one undergraduate and one graduate, elected by their respective student bodies. This bill added an undergraduate student alternate to the BOT, elected by UConn undergraduates in a manner the BOT determines. The undergraduates must elect an alternate member on or before July 1, 2016 and biennially thereafter. The alternate must remain enrolled at UConn for the duration of the term.

The bill would have allowed the alternate to participate in BOT meetings and would have assigned him or her to the same board subcommittees as the undergraduate member. It would have allowed the alternate to vote in place of the member when (1) the member is absent when the vote is taken or (2) the member vacates his or her position, until the vacancy is filled. By law, vacancies in the elected student positions are filled by special election for the balance of the unexpired term.

The remaining BOT membership consists of 12 gubernatorial appointees, two elected alumni representatives, and five ex-officio members (the governor; UConn Health Center Board of Directors chairperson; and commissioners of agriculture, education, and economic and community development).

Testimony in support of this bill was offered by Edward M. Courcahine, Office of the Student Body President, University of Connecticut; Mark Sargent, External Affairs Chair, Undergraduate Student Government, University of Connecticut and Adam Kuegler and Claire Price, Undergraduate Student Government, University of Connecticut.

There was no testimony submitted in opposition to the bill.

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee unanimously passed the bill with substitute language that made clarifying changes.

The bill went to the House where House Amendment “A” was adopted on a voice vote. The amendment adds the provisions on the alternate's meeting participation, subcommittee assignments, and voting rights.

The House unanimously passed the bill to the Senate for further action.

This bill died on the Senate calendar when no action was taken on it.

SB 18: AN ACT CONCERNING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER EDUCATOR INCENTIVE PROGRAM. Passed. Public Act 14-21. Signed by the Governor May 16, 2014.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, and was co-sponsored by Rep. Juan R. Candelaria (D-New Haven), Rep. David Zoni (D-Southington), Sen. Kevin D. Witkos (R-Canton), Rep. Christina "Tita" M. Ayala (D-Bridgeport), Rep. Bruce V. Morris (D-Norwalk), Rep. Matthew Ritter (D-Hartford), Rep. Patricia Billie Miller (D-Stamford), Rep. Minnie Gonzalez (D-Hartford), Rep. James Maroney (D-Milford), Rep. Emmett D. Riley (D-Norwich), Sen. Joseph J. Crisco (D-Woodbridge), Sen. Carlo Leone (D- Stamford), Rep. Hilda E. Santiago (D-Meriden), Sen. Andres Ayala (D- Bridgeport) and Rep. Prasad Srinivasan (R-Glastonbury).

This bill redesigns an existing teachers' loan reimbursement program, administered by the Office of Higher Education (OHE), as an incentive grant and loan reimbursement program for college and university students studying to be teachers. Both the existing and proposed programs target those seeking credentials as bilingual education teachers or teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Both are administered within available appropriations. The bill:

1. targets the program to undergraduates enrolled in teacher preparation programs rather than certified teachers,

2. removes the cap on the number of participants,

3. revises the eligibility requirements,

4. revises how funds are distributed,

5. reduces the maximum amount of funds a recipient may receive by $5,000 (from $25,000 to $20,000), and

6. removes employment commitment requirements, and

7. changes the name of the program from the “English language learner educator loan reimbursement program” to the “English language learner educator incentive program.”

It also eliminates OHE's authority to adopt implementing regulations.

This bill goes into effect on July 1, 2014.

A public hearing was held on February 25. Testimony in support of the bill was offered by Jane A. Ciarleglio, Executive Director, Office of Higher Education; Commissioner Stefan Pryor, Connecticut State Department of Education; Werner Oyanadel, Executive Director, Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission; Dr. Ted Yungclas, Principal Academic Affairs Officer, Board of Regents and Stephen McKeever, First Vice President, AFT Connecticut, AFL-CIO

There was no testimony submitted in opposition to the bill.

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee favorably reported the bill to the Senate by a unanimous vote.

Senate Amendment “A” was offered by Sen. Welch (R-Bristol) and Sen. Kelly (R- Stratford), and was rejected on a party line vote. It would have required that participants in the program commit, in writing, to remain in Connecticut for at least five years.

The Senate placed the bill on consent and passed it to the House.

The House adopted Senate Amendment “A” by voice vote. They passed the underlying bill, as amended, by a roll call vote of 121-22.

The following was the roll call vote:

Y ABERCROMBIE Y HEWETT Y VARGAS Y LAVIELLE Y ALBIS Y JANOWSKI Y VERRENGIA Y LEGEYT Y ALEXANDER Y JOHNSON Y VICINO X MILLER, L. Y ALTOBELLO Y JUTILA Y WALKER N MINER Y ARCE X KINER Y WIDLITZ Y MOLGANO Y ARCONTI Y LARSON Y WILLIS N NOUJAIM Y ARESIMOWICZ Y LEMAR Y WRIGHT, C. N O'DEA Y AYALA Y LESSER Y WRIGHT, E. Y O'NEILL X BACKER, T. Y LOPES Y ZONI N PERILLO Y BARAM X LUXENBERG N PISCOPO Y BECKER, B. Y MARONEY N REBIMBAS Y BOUKUS Y MCCRORY Y RUTIGLIANO Y BOWLES Y MCGEE Y ACKERT N SAMPSON Y BUTLER Y MEGNA Y ADINOLFI Y SAWYER Y CANDELARIA, Y MIKUTEL Y ALBERTS Y SCRIBNER J. Y CLEMONS Y MILLER, P. Y AMAN Y SHABAN Y CONROY Y MORIN X BACCHIOCHI Y SIMANSKI Y COOK Y MORRIS N BELSITO N SMITH Y CUEVAS Y MOUKAWSHER N BETTS Y SRINIVASAN X D'AGOSTINO Y MUSHINSKY N BOLINSKY Y WALKO Y DARGAN Y NAFIS Y BUCK- Y WILLIAMS TAYLOR Y DAVIS, P. Y NICASTRO Y CAFERO Y WOOD Y DEMICCO, M. Y PERONE X CAMILLO N YACCARINO Y DILLON Y PORTER N CANDELORA, N ZAWISTOWSKI V. Y DIMINICO, J. Y REED Y CARPINO N ZIOBRON Y ESPOSITO Y RILEY N CARTER N ZUPKUS Y FAWCETT Y RITTER, M. Y CASE Y FLEISCHMANN Y ROJAS Y D'AMELIO Y FLEXER Y ROSE Y DAVIS, C. Y FOX, D. Y ROVERO Y FLOREN Y SHARKEY

(SPKR) Y FOX, G. Y SANCHEZ N FREY Y FRITZ X SANTIAGO, E. Y GIEGLER Y GENGA Y SANTIAGO, H. Y GIULIANO Y GENTILE Y SEAR N HOVEY Y BERGER (DEP) Y GONZALEZ Y SERRA N HOYDICK Y GODFREY (DEP) Y GROGINS Y STALLWORTH Y HWANG Y MILLER, P.B. (DEP) Y GUERRERA Y STEINBERG Y KLARIDES Y ORANGE (DEP) Y HADDAD Y TERCYAK N KOKORUDA Y RITTER, E. (DEP) Y HAMPTON Y TONG Y KUPCHICK Y RYAN (DEP) Y HENNESSY Y URBAN N LABRIOLA Y SAYERS (DEP)

The bill became Public Act 14-21, and was signed by the Governor on May 16, 2014.

SB 20: AN ACT CONCERNING THE MINORITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee.

This bill would have eliminated the requirement that the Office of Higher Education (OHE) develop a strategic plan to ensure racial and ethnic diversity at each Connecticut public higher education institution. Under current law, the strategic plan must align with Connecticut Commission for Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) state agency affirmative action plan requirements (see BACKGROUND). The bill would have also eliminated policy development, reporting, and corrective action requirements associated with OHE's strategic plan.

Also, the bill would have altered OHE's minority advancement program by:

1. changing its purpose to rewarding and supporting public colleges and universities for strengthening minority student retention and graduation, rather than for meeting strategic plan diversity goals;

2. adding a new component program for college access and success; and

3. redefining an existing component program for Connecticut collegiate awareness and preparation (ConnCAP).

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY

Current law requires OHE to develop a strategic plan consistent with CHRO affirmative action regulations. This plan must ensure that the racial and ethnic diversity of students, faculty, administrators and staff at each Connecticut public college and university mirrors the total state population. The bill would have eliminated the requirement that OHE create a strategic plan for individual institutions, along with related requirements to:

1. develop equal opportunity policies to guide the institutions,

2. report yearly to the governor and General Assembly on plan activities and goals, and

3. develop a corrective plan if diversity goals are not achieved.

MINORITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

Current law allows OHE to establish a minority advancement program to reward and support efforts by Connecticut public colleges and universities toward meeting diversity goals aligned with OHE's strategic plan. If OHE establishes such a program, the bill would have required it to also establish a college access and success program as a related component to strengthen minority student retention and graduation rates at in-state colleges and universities.

The bill would have redefined an existing minority advancement program component known as the Connecticut collegiate awareness and preparation program (ConnCAP). ConnCAP helps Connecticut colleges and universities develop linkages with public school systems to motivate and prepare certain middle and high school students to attend college. Under the bill, the program would have had to target “low performing students” rather than “underachievers”, as written in current law.

Also, the bill would have required OHE to annually report to the governor and the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee on ConnCAP students' high school graduation and higher education enrollment and graduation rates.

A public hearing was held on February 25 and Jane A. Ciarleglio, Executive Director, Office of Higher Education submitted written testimony stating that although this bill makes technical changes, it is in need of statutory changes so that this bill will conform to current practices and correct the discrepancies within the higher education reorganization. She further stated, with regard to CGS Section 10a-11, that this information is already mandated by the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) and requested to repeal that section due to its redundancy.

There was no other testimony submitted on the bill.

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee favorably reported the bill to the Senate by a vote of 17-3. The “no” votes on the committee were Rep. McCrory (D-Hartford), Rep. Sanchez (D-New Britain) and Rep. Walker (D-New Haven).

The Senate adopted Senate Amendment “A”, and passed the bill on consent. The amendment changed the purpose of OHE's minority advancement program from rewarding and supporting public colleges and universities for ensuring that student and staff diversity mirrors the state's as proposed in the original file, to rewarding and supporting them for strengthening minority student retention and graduation rates.

The bill died on the House calendar with no further action.

SB 180: AN ACT CONCERNING FUNDING FOR THE ACADEMIC ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM. Died.

This bill was introduced by Sen. Toni Boucher (R-Wilton).

The bill would have provided funding for the academic advancement program so that academically advanced students can graduate high school early and enroll in college. Senator Boucher was particularly enamored of this approach, and frequently brought it up when any of the discussion on the Higher Education or Appropriation Committees turned to funding for remedial work. The schools in her affluent district were more likely to avail themselves of this kind of funding rather funding for remedial work. Her belief is that gifted students need as much attention as those students needing remedial work.

This bill died in the Appropriations Committee when it was not given a public hearing or taken up for a vote.

HB 5207: AN ACT CONCERNING COLLEGE CREDIT FOR MILITARY TRAINING. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, and was co-sponsored by Rep. Roberta B. Willis (D-Lakeville), Rep. Joe Aresimowicz (D-Berlin), Rep. Jeffrey J. Berger (D-Waterbury), Sen. L. Scott Frantz (R-Greenwich), Sen. Toni Boucher (R-Wilton), Rep. Theresa W. Conroy (D-Seymour), Rep. Frank N. Nicastro (D-Bristol), Rep. Jay M. Case (R-Winsted), Rep. Minnie Gonzalez (D-Hartford) and Rep. Steven T. Mikutel (D-Griswold).

This bill would have allowed Connecticut public or private colleges and universities to award academic credit to veterans for military occupational specialty training and experience. If they awarded credit, institutions would have had to award it in substitution for or fulfillment of degree requirements.

The bill also required any institution that chose to award such credit to (1) use the course equivalency recommendations adopted by the American Council on Education (ACE) and (2) consider the veteran's military and life experience using Charter Oak State College's prior learning portfolio assessment tool.

This bill would have gone into effect on July 1, 2014.

Testimony in support of this bill was offered by Gail Coppage, Director of Innovation and Outreach, Board of Regents; Dawn McDaniel, Executive Vice President, Connecticut Veterans Chamber of Commerce; Judith Greiman, President, Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges; Margaret Middleton, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Connecticut Veterans Legal Center and Lisa Phillips, United States Army Veteran.

There was no testimony submitted in opposition to the bill.

The Higher Education Committee unanimously reported the bill out of committee with substitute language that added the language, “consider such veteran's existing college-level knowledge acquired through military or life experience in accordance with the prior learning portfolio assessment performed by Charter Oak State College when assigning college credit to a military occupation.”

The bill died on the House calendar with no further action.

HB 5048: AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE CHET BABY SCHOLARS PROGRAM AND AMENDING STATUTES RELATING TO THE CONNECTICUT STUDENT LOAN FOUNDATION. Died. (These provisions passed in the budget implementer, HB 5597).

This bill was the Governor’s bill, and was introduced by Democratic Caucus Leadership. It was co-sponsored by Rep. Jason Rojas (D-East Hartford), Rep. Philip J. Miller (D-Ivoryton), Rep. James Albis (D-East Haven) and Rep. Christina "Tita" M. Ayala (D-Bridgeport).

This bill would have established a (1) college savings program for newborn and adopted children as part of the Connecticut Higher Education Trust (CHET) and (2) a separate, nonlapsing General Fund account to fund the program (CHET Baby Scholars Fund). The program would have provided incentive payments to CHET beneficiaries born or legally adopted on or after January 1, 2014 and living in Connecticut when the incentive payments are made. The state treasurer would have administered the program, making incentive payments from the CHET Baby Scholars Fund.

Under the bill, the treasurer would have made up to two incentive payments to the savings plan of a participating child. She would have made an initial $100 payment to the plan of a child who entered the program by his or her first birthday or within one year after the child's legal adoption. She would have had to make a subsequent $150 payment to the plan if it received at least $150 in deposits before the child's fourth birthday or within four years after his or her legal adoption. The bill allowed taxpayers to contribute part of their state income tax refunds to CHET savings plans, including contributions under the CHET Baby Scholars Program. It excluded the money deposited in these plans as assets for determining eligibility under specific income assistance programs.

The bill would have also reconstituted the Connecticut Student Loan Foundation (CSLF) as a quasi-public subsidiary for the Connecticut Health and Educational Facilities Authority (CHEFA). Currently, CSLF is an independent, state-chartered nonprofit corporation created to make or guarantee loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program. It stopped making new loans and sold its loan guarantee portfolio in 2009 and now performs mostly administrative duties. But it retains its power to make or guarantee loans.

This bill would have gone into effect upon passage, except for the provisions concerning the CHET Baby Scholars Program, income tax refunds contributed to the CHET program, and CSLF, which are effective July 1, 2014.

CHET PROGRAM

CHET Baby Scholars Program Administration

The bill would have established the CHET Baby Scholars Program as a component of the CHET program, which is Connecticut's state-sponsored college savings plan. The state treasurer must administer the program, providing incentive payments from the CHET Baby Scholars Fund account the bill established. She may enter into one or more contractual agreements specifying requirements for participating in the Baby Scholars program and receiving its incentive payments. She may tap the account to cover the administrative cost of creating the account and making the payments.

Income Tax Refunds

The bill would have allowed taxpayers to contribute any part of their state income tax refund to an individual CHET account, including accounts created under the Baby Scholars program. To help taxpayers interested in making such contributions, the revenue services commissioner must include information in the instructions accompanying tax returns indicating how taxpayers may contact the treasurer about CHET or providing links to her website. He must also have revised the income tax return to include spaces for taxpayers to contribute in the manner already allowed for contributions to other accounts, such as those for AIDS research and organ transplants.

Current law allows the commissioner to tap up to 7.5% of the funds contributed to these accounts each year to cover the cost of administering the accounts. The bill barred the commissioner from tapping CHET plan assets for this purpose.

CHET Assets

The bill would have excluded CHET funds in determining eligibility for (1) the Temporary Family Assistance program, (2) the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, (3) the federally funded weatherization assistance program, and (4) an individual's need-based institutional grants offered at the state's public colleges and universities.

CSLF

CHEFA Quasi-Public Subsidiary

The bill would have reconstituted CSLF as a quasi-public subsidiary of CHEFA. (The Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental Loan Authority (CHESLA) is already a CHEFA subsidiary.) By making CSLF a quasi-public agency, the bill required CSLF to comply with the statutes governing such agencies. Among other things, CSLF must (1) obtain the state treasurer's approval before issuing bonds or incurring other debt backed by the state and (2) protect its directors, officers, and employees from liability when performing their duties.

As a CHEFA subsidiary, CSLF has the same privileges, immunities, tax exemptions, and other exemptions as CHEFA, but CSLF's liability does not extend beyond its assets, revenue, and resources. CSLF continues to exercise its powers under existing law. To help CSLF exercise those powers, CHEFA may support CSLF's operations and receive compensation for doing so. Such support includes space, equipment, supplies, and employees.

CHEFA and CSLF must take any actions necessary to maintain CSFL's status as a federal tax-exempt organization. The bill does not otherwise change CHEFA's powers and responsibilities.

Board of Directors

The bill would have eliminated CSLF's 14-member board on July 1, 2014 and replaced it with CHESLA's nine-member board. CSFL's board currently consists of state higher educational officials, people with financing and accounting backgrounds, and legislative appointees. CHESLA's board includes state officials, CHEFA board members, and an expert in state and municipal finances.

The bill would have authorized CHEFA's board to remove any member from CSLF board for misfeasance, malfeasance, or neglect of duty. The chairperson of CHESLA's board must serve as the chairperson of CSLF's reconstituted board, and that board must elect a vice chairperson from its members. The board members were not compensated for their service, but must be reimbursed for expenses. They must also take the oath of office prescribed in Article XI of the State Constitution.

The board must adopt CSLF's bylaws and hold regular and special meetings. A majority of the members constituted a quorum for conducting business, and a majority of those present at these meetings must decide matters, unless the bylaws

38 require otherwise. The board may elect an executive committee to conduct CSLF's business in between board meetings. The committee may consist of up to four members.

The reconstituted CSLF board could have distributed any excess fund to CHEFA or its subsidiaries (currently, CHESLA is the only subsidiary) for providing financial assistance to qualified students attending higher education institutions. The assistance includes financial literacy education and loans, scholarships, and grants.

CSLF's board could have appointted CSLF's executive director, who must be a CHEFA or CHESLA employee, but serves at CSLF board's pleasure. The director's duties include supervising CSLF activities; keeping a record of CSLF proceedings; and maintaining its books, documents, and papers.

The statutory protections from liability apply to CHEFA and CHESLA officers, directors, designees and employees who are appointed as CSFL members, directors, or officers. They also apply to CHEFA employees appointed as CSFL officers. These appointed officials are not personally liable for CSFL's debts, obligations, or liabilities. CSLF must, and CHEFA may, protect, save harmless, and indemnify them.

Testifying in support of the bill were Denise L. Nappier, Treasurer of the State of Connecticut; Benjamin Barnes, Secretary, Office of Policy and Management (OPM); Roger Senserrich, Policy Coordinator , Connecticut Association for Human Services (CAHS); Jeannette W. Weldon, Managing Director , Connecticut Health and Educational Facilities Authority (CHEFA) and Executive Director, Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental Loan Authority (CHESLA).

There was no testimony submitted in opposition to this bill.

The Finance Committee favorably reported a substitute version of the bill to the House by a 45-5 vote. Substitute language deleted the provision on donating tax refunds to CHET Baby Scholars. CSLF is made a quasi-public agency and subsidiary of CHEFA. The “no” votes were Sens. Frantz (R-Greenwich), Boucher (R-Wilton) and McLachlan (R-Danbury) and Reps. Piscopo (R-Thomaston), and Walko (R-Greenwich).

The bill died on the House calendar with no further action.

HB 5241: AN ACT REQUIRING A STUDY OF A PAY-IT-FORWARD COLLEGE PAYMENT PLAN. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, and was co-sponsored by 20 other legislators. State Representative Lesser (D-Middletown) worked very hard on this bill and received national press attention for it.

The final version of this bill aimed to create a study of “Pay-It-Forward” on the feasibility and economic implications of such a program as an alternative to a college payment plan. The idea behind the original bill was that a student may attend a public institution of higher education in Connecticut tuition-free as long as they agree to relinquish a percentage of his/her future earnings upon graduation. Those future earnings will get placed in a fund that will be used to pay the tuition of future graduates participation in the plan.

A public hearing on the bill was held on February 27, 2014. Testimony in support of this bill was submitted by Richard Gray, Executive Vice President for Administration & CEO, University of Connecticut; Mary M. Mushinsky, State Representative (D-Wallingford); Matthew Lesser, State Representative (D- Middletown); Roger Senserrich, Policy Coordinator, Connecticut Association for Human Services; Edward Corey, Political Director, Connecticut College Democrats; Tom Swan, Executive Director, Connecticut Citizen Action Group; Bobby Berriault, Student Senator, Student Government Association, Central Connecticut State University; Clinton Triumph, Former Student, Capitol Community College; Hasani Gunn, Student, Gateway Community College; Earnest Bailey, Student, Western Connecticut State University; Jacki Alessio, MSW, UConn School of Social Work; Al Burke; Lindsay Farrell, Director, Connecticut Families Working Organization; and Kiernan Majerus-Collins.

Testimony in opposition to the bill was submitted by Stephen McKeever, First Vice President, AFT Connecticut, AFL-CIO.

The bill was passed out of the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee by a vote of 11-7. Following is the vote tally:

Voting Yea Nay Abstain Absent and Not Voice Vote TOTALS Voting 18 11 7 0 2 yea nay abstain absent yea nay abstain absent Sen. Cassano, S. S04 X

Rep. Willis, R. 064 X Sen. Boucher, T. S26 X Rep. LeGeyt, T. 017 X Sen. Bye, B. S05 X Rep. Haddad, G. 054 X Rep. Ackert, T. 008 X Rep. Alberts, M. 050 X Rep. Bacchiochi, P. 052 X Rep. Candelaria, J. 095 X Rep. Dillon, P. 092 X Rep. Janowski, C. 056 X Rep. Lavielle, G. 143 X Rep. Maroney, J. 119 X Rep. McCrory, D. 007 X Rep. Sanchez, R. 025 X Rep. Sawyer, P. 055 X Rep. Sayers, P. 060 X Rep. Smith, R. 108 X Rep. Walker, T. 093 The House took up the bill and adopted House Amendment “A”. The amendment passed on a voice vote and made various technical changes.

The House passed the bill by a vote of 103-40.

The following is the roll call vote:

Y ABERCROMBIE Y HEWETT Y VARGAS N LAVIELLE Y ALBIS Y JANOWSKI Y VERRENGIA Y LEGEYT Y ALEXANDER Y JOHNSON Y VICINO X MILLER, L. Y ALTOBELLO Y JUTILA Y WALKER N MINER Y ARCE X KINER Y WIDLITZ N MOLGANO Y ARCONTI Y LARSON Y WILLIS N NOUJAIM Y ARESIMOWICZ Y LEMAR Y WRIGHT, C. N O'DEA Y AYALA Y LESSER Y WRIGHT, E. N O'NEILL X BACKER, T. Y LOPES Y ZONI Y PERILLO Y BARAM Y LUXENBERG N PISCOPO Y BECKER, B. X MARONEY N REBIMBAS Y BOUKUS Y MCCRORY Y RUTIGLIANO Y BOWLES Y MCGEE N ACKERT N SAMPSON

Y BUTLER Y MEGNA N ADINOLFI N SAWYER Y CANDELARIA, Y MIKUTEL N ALBERTS N SCRIBNER J. Y CLEMONS Y MILLER, P. N AMAN N SHABAN Y CONROY Y MORIN N BACCHIOCHI N SIMANSKI Y COOK Y MORRIS N BELSITO Y SMITH Y CUEVAS Y MOUKAWSHER N BETTS Y SRINIVASAN Y D'AGOSTINO Y MUSHINSKY N BOLINSKY N WALKO Y DARGAN Y NAFIS N BUCK- N WILLIAMS TAYLOR X DAVIS, P. Y NICASTRO N CAFERO N WOOD Y DEMICCO, M. Y PERONE N CAMILLO N YACCARINO Y DILLON Y PORTER N CANDELORA, N ZAWISTOWSKI V. Y DIMINICO, J. X REED N CARPINO Y ZIOBRON Y ESPOSITO Y RILEY Y CARTER N ZUPKUS Y FAWCETT Y RITTER, M. N CASE Y FLEISCHMANN Y ROJAS Y D'AMELIO Y FLEXER X ROSE Y DAVIS, C. Y FOX, D. Y ROVERO N FLOREN Y SHARKEY (SPKR) Y FOX, G. Y SANCHEZ X FREY Y FRITZ Y SANTIAGO, E. N GIEGLER Y GENGA Y SANTIAGO, H. N GIULIANO Y GENTILE Y SEAR N HOVEY Y BERGER (DEP) Y GONZALEZ Y SERRA Y HOYDICK Y GODFREY (DEP) Y GROGINS Y STALLWORTH Y HWANG Y MILLER, P.B. (DEP) Y GUERRERA Y STEINBERG N KLARIDES Y ORANGE (DEP) Y HADDAD Y TERCYAK N KOKORUDA Y RITTER, E. (DEP) Y HAMPTON Y TONG Y KUPCHICK Y RYAN (DEP) Y HENNESSY Y URBAN N LABRIOLA Y SAYERS (DEP)

This bill died on the Senate calendar when it was not taken up for a vote.

HB 5128: AN ACT REPLACING TUITION AND FEES AT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION WITH PAY FORWARD, PAY BACK FINANCING. Died.

This bill was introduced by Rep. Mushinsky (D-Wallingford) ,and was co- sponsored by Rep. Emmett Riley (D-Norwich).

This bill would have replaced tuition and fees at public institutions of higher education with financing when a student agrees to pay the institution of higher education a certain percentage of such student's annual adjusted income for a specified number of years after graduating from such institution of higher education.

The bill died when it was not given a date for a public hearing, nor was it voted on in committee.

II. LABOR

SB 317: AN ACT CONCERNING EMPLOYEE PRIVACY. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Labor and Public Employees Committee and co- sponsored by Sen. Marty Looney (D-New Haven) and Rep. Bruce Morris (D- Norwalk).

This bill would have prohibited employers from requesting or requiring an employee or job applicant to (1) provide the employer with a user name, password, or other way to access the employee's or applicant's personal online account or (2) access such an account in front of the employer. It also barred employers from (1) firing, disciplining, or otherwise retaliating against an employee who refused to provide this access or (2) refusing to hire an applicant because the applicant would not provide access to his or her personal online account.

The bill would have made exceptions for accounts and devices the employer provided and for certain types of investigations. It would not have applied to any state or local law enforcement agency conducting a pre-employment investigation or review of law enforcement personnel.

It would have allowed employees and applicants to file a complaint with the labor commissioner, who can impose civil penalties of up to $25 for initial violations against job applicants and $500 for initial violations against employees. Penalties for subsequent violations can be up to $500 for violations against applicants and up to $1,000 for violations against employees.

The bill would have become effective on October 1, 2014.

BAN ON REQUESTING ACCOUNT ACCESS

The bill would have banned an employer from requesting or requiring an employee or job applicant to (1) provide the employer with a user name, password, or any other authentication needed to access a personal online account or (2) authenticate or access the account in the employer's presence. Employers covered by the bill include the state and its political subdivisions, but not state or municipal law enforcement agencies conducting pre-employment investigations or reviews of law enforcement personnel.

Under the bill, a “personal online account” was an online account the employee or applicant used exclusively for personal purposes unrelated to any of the employer's business purposes, including e-mail, social media, and retail-based Internet web sites. It did not include any account created, maintained, used, or accessed by an employee or applicant for the employer's business purposes.

BANS ON RETALIATION

The bill would have banned employers from discharging, disciplining, discriminating against, retaliating against, or otherwise penalizing an employee who:

1. refused to provide the employer with a user name, password, or any other authentication for accessing his or her personal online account;

2. refused to authenticate or access an account in front of the employer; or

3. filed, or caused to be filed, any verbal or written complaint with a public or private body or court about the employer's request for access to a personal account or retaliation for refusing such access.

It would have also prohibited employers from failing or refusing to hire an applicant because he or she would not (1) provide a user name, password, or any other authentication for accessing his or her personal online account or (2) authenticate or access an account in the employer's presence.

EXCEPTIONS

The bill would have provided a number of circumstances under which an employer could request or require an employee or applicant to provide a user name, password, or other authentication means for a personal online account.

Employer's Accounts and Devices

It would have allowed an employer to request or require that an employee or applicant provide access to:

1. any account or service (a) provided by the employer or by virtue of the employee's work relationship with the employer or (b) that the employee uses for business purposes or

2. any electronic communications device the employer supplied or paid for, in whole or in part.

It defined “electronic communications device” as any electronic device capable of transmitting, accepting, or processing data, including a computer, computer network and computer system, as defined in state law, and a cellular or wireless telephone.

Investigations

The bill would have allowed exceptions for certain investigations, with limitations. Employers could have conducted an investigation:

1. to ensure compliance with (a) applicable state or federal laws, (b) regulatory requirements, or (c) prohibitions against work-related employee misconduct based on receiving specific information about activity on an employee or applicant's personal online account or

2. based on receiving specific information about an employee or applicant's unauthorized transfer of the employer's proprietary information, confidential information, or financial data to or from a personal online account operated by an employee, applicant, or other source.

An employer conducting these investigations could have required an employee to provide access to a personal online account, but could not require disclosure of the user name, password, or other means of accessing the personal online account.

The bill would have permitted an employer to discharge, discipline, or otherwise penalize an employee or applicant who transferred, without the employer's permission, the employer's proprietary information, confidential information, or financial data to or from the employee or applicant's personal online account.

Monitoring and Blocking Data

The bill would have allowed an employer to monitor, review, access, or block electronic data stored on an electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer or traveling through or stored on an employer's network, in compliance with state and federal law.

State and Federal Laws

The bill would have specified that it did not prevent an employer from complying with state or federal laws, regulations, or rules for self-regulatory organizations (e.g., businesses regulated by the Securities Exchange Commission's rules).

ENFORCEMENT

The bill would have allowed any employee or applicant to file a complaint with the labor commissioner alleging an employer requested or required access to a personal online account or retaliated for a refusal to provide access. The commissioner must investigate a complaint and may hold a hearing, after which she must send each party a written decision. Any employee or applicant who prevailed in a hearing must be awarded reasonable attorney's fee and costs.

If the commissioner found an employer violated the bill's ban on requesting access to an employee's account, or retaliated against an employee for refusing to provide access, she could have (1) levied a civil penalty against the employer of up to $500 for an initial violation and $1,000 for each subsequent violation and (2) awarded the employee all appropriate relief, including rehiring or reinstatement, back pay, reestablishment of wages, or any other relief the commissioner deems appropriate.

If she found an employer violated the bill's ban on requesting access to an applicant's account, or refused to hire an applicant for refusing to provide access, she could have (1) levied a civil penalty against the employer for up to $25 for an initial violation and $500 for each subsequent violation.

The commissioner could have asked the attorney general to bring a civil suit to recover any of the above civil penalties. Any party aggrieved by the commissioner's decision would have been able to appeal to the Superior Court.

Testimony submitted in support of this bill was offered by Senator Martin M. Looney (D-New Haven), Senator Donald E. Williams, Jr. (D-Brooklyn), David McGuire, ACLU and Susan Garten, Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Inc.

There was no testimony submitted in opposition to the bill.

This bill was passed out of the Labor and Public Employees Committee by a vote of 8-2. The two “no” votes were Rep. Richard Smith (R-New Fairfield) and Rep. Craig Miner (R-Litchfield).

The Senate referred the bill to the Judiciary Committee where it was favorably reported back to the Senate by a vote of 31-8. Below is the vote tally:

Voting Yea Nay Abstain Absent and Not Voice Vote TOTALS Voting 39 31 8 0 5 yea nay abstain absent yea nay abstain absent Sen. Coleman, E. S02 X Rep. Morris, B. 140 X Rep. Fox, G. 146 X Sen. Musto, A. S22 X Sen. Doyle, P. S09 X Rep. Riley, E. 046 X Rep. Ritter, M. 001 X Rep. O'Dea, T. 125 X Sen. Kissel, J. S07 X Rep. O'Neill, A. 069 X Rep. Rebimbas, R. 070 X Rep. Serra, J. 033 X Rep. Adinolfi, A. 103 X Rep. Shaban, J. 135 X Rep. Albis, J. 099 X Rep. Smith, R. 108 X Rep. Baram, D. 015 X Rep. Tong, W. 147 X Rep. Berger, J. 073 X Rep. Verrengia, J. 020 X Rep. Buck-Taylor, C. 067 X Rep. Walker, T. 093 X Rep. Carpino, C. 032 X Rep. Walko, S. 150 X Rep. Clemons, C. 124 X Sen. Welch, J. S31 X Rep. Dillon, P. 092 X Rep. Wright, E. 041 X Rep. Flexer, M. 044 X Rep. Fox, D. 148 X Rep. Fritz, M. 090 X Sen. Gerratana, T. S06 X Rep. Godfrey, B. 110 X Rep. Gonzalez, M. 003 X

Rep. Grogins, A. 129 X Rep. Hewett, E. 039 X Sen. Holder-Winfield, G. S10 X Rep. Hovey, D. 112 X Sen. Kelly, K. S21 X Rep. Klarides, T. 114 X Rep. Labriola, D. 131 X Rep. McGee, B. 005 X Sen. McLachlan, M. S24 X Sen. Meyer, E. S12 X

The bill was passed by the Senate to the House by a vote of 28-5.

The following is the roll call vote:

Y 1 JOHN W. FONFARA Y 19 CATHERINE A. OSTEN Y 2 ERIC D. COLEMAN Y 20 ANDREA STILLMAN A 3 GARY LEBEAU Y 21 KEVIN KELLY Y 4 STEVE CASSANO N 22 ANTHONY J. MUSTO Y 5 BETH BYE Y 23 ANDRES AYALA 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 Y 9 PAUL DOYLE Y 27 CARLO LEONE Y 10 GARY HOLDER-WINFIELD Y 28 JOHN MCKINNEY Y 11 MARTIN M. LOONEY Y 29 DONALD E. WILLIAMS, JR. Y 12 EDWARD MEYER Y 30 CLARK J. CHAPIN A 13 DANTE BARTOLOMEO Y 31 JASON WELCH Y 14 GAYLE SLOSSBERG N 32 ROBERT J. KANE Y 15 JOAN V. HARTLEY Y 33 ART LINARES Y 16 JOE MARKLEY Y 34 LEONARD FASANO Y 17 JOSEPH J. CRISCO, JR. N 35 ANTHONY GUGLIELMO A 18 ANDREW MAYNARD N 36 L. SCOTT FRANTZ

The bill died on the House Calendar when it was not taken up for a vote.

HB 5063: AN ACT CONCERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PARDON APPLICATIONS. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Labor and Public Employees Committee, and was co-sponsored by Rep. Brandon McGee (D-Hartford) and Sen. Andres Ayala (D- Bridgeport). The bill would have limited the circumstances under which applications for full or provisional pardons shall be disclosed.

Testimony submitted in support of the bill was offered by Sue Garten, Greater Hartford Legal Aid.

Testifying in opposition to the bill were The Freedom of Information Commission; Raymond Shea, Board of Mediation and Arbitration; James Smith, Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information and Alexander Wood.

The Labor Committee favorably reported the bill to Judiciary Committee by a vote of 10-2. Sen. Joe Markley (R-Southington) and Rep. Sean Williams (R- Watertown) were the two “no” votes.

The bill died in the Judiciary Committee when it was not taken up for a vote.

HB 5067: AN ACT CONCERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS AND THE STATE BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Labor and Public Employees Committee.

This bill would have allowed the disclosure of performance evaluations of members of the State Board of Labor Relations and the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration to certain individuals.

There was no testimony submitted in support of this bill. Testimony in opposition to this bill was submitted by Raymond Shea, Permanent Labor Member, Board of Mediation and Arbitration.

This bill died in committee when it was not taken up for a vote.

HB 5068: AN ACT CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF STATE BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION ARBITRATORS. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Labor and Public Employees Committee, and was co-sponsored by Rep. Edwin Vargas (D-Hartford).

This bill would have adjusted the compensation rate for State Board of Mediation and Arbitration arbitrators so that they are ultimately compensated at a consistent rate for each day they preside over an arbitration proceeding.

Testimony in support of the bill was offered by Raymond Shea, Permanent Member, Board of Mediation and Arbitration.

There was no testimony submitted in opposition to this bill.

This bill died in committee when no action was taken on it.

SB 63: AN ACT CONCERNING TIMELINES FOR ARBITRATION AWARDS. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Labor and Public Employees Committee, and was co-sponsored by Sen. Kevin D. Witkos (R-Canton).

This bill would have ensured that an arbitrator in a municipal interest arbitration proceeding can begin deciding the case no later than 180 days after the arbitration process began. It would have done so by (1) requiring the municipality and the union representing the municipal employee group to file their last best offers and briefs on unresolved issues (steps which occur after testimony is taken, but before a decision is issued) before that 180-day deadline and (2) prohibiting them from modifying, deferring or waiving the deadline. Although current law specifies numerous deadlines in the arbitration process, it allows the parties to mutually modify, defer, or waive any of them, including the deadline to file the last best offers and briefs on unresolved issues, indefinitely. Under the bill, the parties could have mutually waived or postponed deadlines for steps in the process, but not beyond the 180-day period.

This bill would have gone into effect on October 1, 2014.

Testifying in support of this bill was the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM).

Testimony in opposition to the bill was submitted by Paul Rapanault, Director of Legislation/Political Affairs of the Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters of

Connecticut and Lori Pellitier, Executive Secretary, Executive Secretary-Treasurer CT AFL-CIO.

The Labor Committee favorably reported a substitute bill bill to the Senate by a vote of 10-1. The “no” vote was Rep. Kiner (D-Enfield). Substitute language added a section that states “(2) A municipal employer and municipal employee organization engaged in mandatory binding arbitration pursuant to this section shall file any statement of last best offer and brief on unresolved issues required pursuant to subdivisions (3) and (4) of subsection (d) of this section not later than one hundred eighty calendar days from the date (A) either party requested the arbitration services of the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, or (B) binding and final arbitration was imposed on them by said board pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, as the case may be.

(3) No municipal employer or municipal employee organization may file a stipulation with the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration modifying, deferring or waiving any provision of this subsection.”

The Senate referred the bill to the Planning and Development Committee. They unanimously passed the bill back to the Senate.

The Senate placed the bill on consent and sent it to the House for further action.

The bill died on the House calendar when no action was taken on it.

HB 5066: AN ACT CONCERNING DESIGNATION OF A BARGAINING UNIT BY CHARTER SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS. Died.

This bill was introduced by the Labor and Public Employees Committee and was co-sponsored by Rep. Linda A. Orange (D-Colchester), Rep. Edwin Vargas (D- Hartford), Rep. Susan M. Johnson (D-Willimantic), Rep. Philip J. Miller (D- Ivoryton), and Rep. Ezequiel Santiago (D-Bridgeport).

This bill would have reassigned certain steps in the process of recognizing teacher unions at state charter schools. It would have required (1) state charter school teachers and other certified professional employees petitioning for union recognition to file the union petition with the State Board of Education (SBE) rather than the local board of education for the district where the school is located and (2) SBE to take specific actions after receiving the petition. It also made a technical change.

This bill would have gone into effect on October 1, 2014.

UNION RECOGNITION

The bill would have required state charter school teachers and other certified professional employees petitioning to have a union recognized by their employer to file the petition with the SBE rather than, as under current law, with the local or regional board of education.

It would have also reassigned certain tasks that are part of the recognition process to SBE. SBE must, within three school days of receiving the petition signed by a majority of teachers or other certified employees, (1) post a notice of the request for union representation on each bulletin board for teachers in every affected school or, if there are no bulletin boards, give a copy of the notice to each employee who may potentially be in the union and (2) mail a copy of the notice to the education commissioner and the charter school's governing council. Under current law, these actions are the duty of the local or regional board of education.

The recognition process included a timeframe for a competing union to submit a petition to trigger an election for employees to choose the official union representing them (i.e., a “representation election”). Under current law, the local board of education recognizes the union if no competing petition is filed. Under the bill, the charter school governing council must recognize the prospective charter school union if no competing union files a petition. By law, the charter school governing council, which oversees the school, acts as the board of education for purposes of collective bargaining.

Under the bill, if a competing union filed a petition to trigger a representation election, the charter school governing council would not have had to recognize the first petitioner as the union. The process would have then moved to the representation election.

The bill was originally called “AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN WORKERS' RIGHTS TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN” and included agricultural and court workers, for example. A public hearing was held on the original bill.

Testimony in support of the bill was submitted by Heather Kennedy, Probate Court Officer, New London Regional Children's Probate Court; Beverly Brakeman, Political Representative, UAW Region 9A; Working Families; Melanie DeVito, Probate Court Offier, Central CT Regional Children's Probate Court; Lori Pelletier, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, CT AFL-CIO; Kristen Rich, Assistant Clerk,

Stamford Probate Court; Tom Swan, Executive Director, Connecticut Citizen Action Group; Sal Luciano, Executive Director, Council 4 AFL-CIO; Nickimmy Hayes, Organizer, AFT Connecticut, AFL-CIO; Melodie Peters, President, AFT Connecticut; Cecelia B. Hann, Employee, New Britain Probate Court; Carol S. Modugno, Assistant Clerk; Deborah Thibodeau, Brian Anderson, Carla D. Simmons, Ashley Schnabel, Sally Canzanella, Nancy Valentine, Michael DeVito, Matthew Brokman, Margie Baran, Kelley Martinez, Holly Brunette, Luke Leone, Shiela Barra, Sarah Valentin and Martha Gothers, AFSME Council 4.

Testimony in opposition to the bill was submitted by Sen. Catherine A. Osten, (D- Sprague) and Diane Karabin, President, Connecticut Greenhouse Growers Association.

The bill was unanimously reported out of the Labor and Public Employees Committee with substitute language that changed the title and make-up of the bill.

The House referred the bill to the Education Committee. They favorably reported the bill back to the House Floor by a vote of 21-6. The following is the vote tally.

Voting Yea Nay Abstain Absent and Not Voice Vote TOTALS Voting 27 21 6 0 7 yea nay abstain absent yea nay abstain absent Rep. Fleischmann, A. 018 X Rep. Sanchez, R. 025 X Sen. Stillman, A. S20 X Rep. Srinivasan, P. 031 X Rep. McCrory, D. 007 X Rep. Stallworth, C. 126 X Sen. Bye, B. S05 X Rep. Walko, S. 150 X Rep. Ackert, T. 008 X Sen. Boucher, T. S26 X Sen. Bartolomeo, D. S13 X Rep. Bolinsky, M. 106 X Rep. Carpino, C. 032 X Rep. Conroy, T. 105 X Rep. Cook, M. 065 X Rep. D'Agostino, M. 091 X Rep. Davis, P. 117 X Rep. Demicco, M. 021 X Rep. Genga, H. 010 X Rep. Giuliano, M. 023 X Rep. Grogins, A. 129 X Rep. Hampton, J. 016 X Rep. Johnson, S. 049 X

Rep. Kiner, D. 059 X Rep. Kokoruda, N. 101 X Rep. Lavielle, G. 143 X Rep. LeGeyt, T. 017 X Rep. Lemar, R. 096 X Sen. Linares, A. S33 X Sen. Maynard, A. S18 X Rep. Miller, P. 145 X Rep. Molgano, M. 144 X Rep. Nafis, S. 027 X Rep. Rojas, J. 009 X

The House passed the bill to the Senate by a vote of 137-3. The “no” votes were Rep. Bolinsky (R-Newtown), Rep. Belsito (R-Tolland) and Rep. Piscopo (R- Thomaston).

The bill died on the Senate calendar with no further action. III. Budget

The Governor introduced his mid-term budget on the opening day of the 2014 session. The most important thing as it related to the people we represented was there were no cuts to the parts of the budget they cared about. There were some surprises as the session progressed. The most important of those surprises was magnets schools were underfunded in the Governor’s budget and the revenue projections fell significantly at the end of April. But as we went into the budget hearings our clients did not have much to complain about. The Governor’s budget bill was HB 5030: AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO STATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2015. It passed the Appropriations Committee on a party line vote of 26-19.

A. GOVERNOR’S BUDGET

Below are pieces of the Governor’s budget that we think you would be interested in; (these are sections that were in the Governor’s proposed budget, the Appropriations Committee budget and in the emergency certified budget, as it passed, except where noted).

Higher Education

Tuition Incentive for Returning Students: Students who had been out of school for 18months can get free courses for each course they take up to three. Transition and Articulation; provides one time faculty stipends ($2,500) for development of the plans

Governor’s Scholarship Program: $2 million

CHET Baby Scholars: an incentives for families to open 529 savings account$100 dollars to families who parents who open an account before one year of the child’s birth or adoption; $150 payment if parents put at least $150 in their CHET account within 4 years of the child’s birth or adoption.

CSCU Transform: $60 million to fund the programs above as well as an experience college program allowing at-risk students to attend community colleges, a support program for veterans pursuing higher education and developmental education.

$32.2 million for operations and tuition supports; $20.4 million for Go Back To Get Ahead; $2.5 for Early College; $900,000 for transfer and articulation and $4 million for developmental education.

CSU funding was flat

Community Colleges received an increase of $333,250 for Advanced Manufacturing Programs and facilities.

B. APPROPRIATIONS BUDGET

The Appropriations hearings were pretty low key since the Governor’s budget really didn’t include many cuts to programs and the Appropriations Budget for the most part only increased funding for programs of interest to our clients:

Board of Regents

Increased Transform CSCU by $5 million and changed the breakdown of the funding eliminating funding for early college and increasing the funding for developmental Education from $4 million to $11.5 million: $65 million (Funding was reduced to $43 million in the final budget)

It also transferred funding from the Treasurer’s Debt Service account to CSU for Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy (IMRP) for Racial Profiling Prohibition Project; Multidimensional Family Therapy and Juvenile Parole evaluation; and, assistance on the Results First Project and $100,000 for the Veterans History Project.

C. FINAL BUDGET

The April revenue projections were much, much worse than expected. The new estimates showed the surplus for FY13/14 had dropped from $500 million down to $43 million and there was a hole of about $300 million in the budget adopted by the Appropriations Committee. There were concerns by legislators about cuts and the elimination of some of the tax cuts proposed by the Governor. The major driver of the decreased projected revenue was a drop in the revenue from the tax on capital gains.

Many of the big changes in the final budget were changes in the proposed tax cuts (see Revenue below).

Changes from the Appropriations Budget that we thought you would be interested in the Final Budget were:

Higher Education

Reduced Transform CSCU’s appropriation from $60 million to $43 million. $19 million was a transfer from CT Student Loan Foundation.

Added $550,000 to CSU ($650,000 in total) for:

 $300,000 for the Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy (IMRP) at Central Connecticut State University for the Racial Profiling Prohibition Project (PA 12-74);  $50,000 for the O'Neill Chair Oral History Program - Veterans History Project at CCSU;  $50,000 for IMRP for the evaluation of the Multidimensional Family Therapy Program and Juvenile Parole Services Sections 83 and 84 of HB 5597, the budget implementer, provide detail concerning the evaluation;  $150,000 for IMRP to assist with the Results First project; and  $100,000 for IMRP to assist with activities related to the sentencing commission.

Reduced the Governor’s Scholarship Fund by $1.6 million

Other

Removed $30 million from Debt Services

There were about $20 million added to the proposed lapses.

There were various cuts in personnel and equipment accounts.

The final budget and Revenue Package was included in HB 5596 AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO STATE EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2015. Passed. Public Act 14-47. Signed by the Governor on May 29, 2014.

It was an emergency certified bill and passed the House by a vote of 91-55. It was a party line vote except for Rep. Moukawsher (D-Groton), Rep. Rovero (D- Dayville) and Rep. Nicastro (D-Bristol) who voted ”no”. It passed the Senate on a party line vote of 21-15, except Sen. Hartley (D-Waterbury) who voted “no”.

D. REVENUE

When the Governor introduced his budget he was looking at a budget surplus of $500 million. This allowed him a great deal of leeway related to revenue. He proposed to use the surplus to:

 Provide a refund of $55 for individuals and $110 for Joint Filers of the sales and gas tax.  Pay $100 million towards debt reduction by paying off some of the pension fund debt.  Put the rest of the surplus into the rainy day fund-$250 million.

The Governor also proposed other tax cuts including:  A phase-in of an exemption of teacher’s pensions from the income tax- $23.1 million  Extension of the Angel Investor Tax Credit-$3 million  Exemption of non-prescription drugs from the sales tax-$17.2 million  Municipal exemption for their health care plans from the insurance premium tax- $8.7 million

He also proposed a two day state park fee holiday-$200,000

Finance

The Finance Committee passed SB 28 AN ACT CONCERNING REVENUE ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET Died. (Provisions of this bill passed in HB5596, the budget) out of Finance Committee by a party line vote. Rep. Moukawsher (D-Groton) was the exception.

This was the Governor’s revenue bill and the Finance Committee adopted it with all of the Governor’s tax cuts included except for the two day state park fee holiday. They added to the bill a $550,000 a comprehensive study of CT’s tax structure. The funding was to come out of the surplus. OFA’s estimate of the cost of some of these measures was different than the Governor’s original estimates in that they estimated that the cost of exempting municipals from paying the insurance premium tax at $11; the non- prescription drug exemption to be $16.5 million; and, the cost of the exemption for teacher’s pension would be $26.3million.

Then, of course, the surplus fell to $43 million and there was a $300 million budget gap. So the final budget, HB 5596 (see above), included:

 Putting the entire surplus will go into the Rainy Day Fund  Providing the exemption for teacher’s pensions from the income tax but delayed it until the 2015 tax year  Providing for the two day state park holiday  Extending the Angel investor tax credit  Restoring the exemption from the sales tax for non-prescription drugs starting on April 1, 2015.  Delaying the restoration of the exemption for clothing and footwear under $50 from June 1, 2015 to July 1, 2015.  $75 million in misc. tax revenue

It did not include the exemption for municipals from the premiums tax for health care policies or Keno.

HB 5597: AN ACT IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2015. Passed. Public Act 14-217. Awaiting the Governor’s Signature.

This was the budget implementer bill. It includes language to implement the budget and the revenue changes. It also includes language of bills leadership was concerned they would not have time to take up. It included pieces that individual legislators and towns requested. In the end it included 283 sections and was not taken up by the House until 9:45 pm on last day of the session. The Senate did not vote on it until about 15 minutes before their midnight deadline. The bill was emergency certified so it did not have to go through the committee process, and it was ready for action as soon as it reached the Floor. It passed the House after about two hours of debate on a party linevote of 91-56; except for Rep. Nicastro (D- Bristol) and Rep. Moukawsher (D-Groton). Below are descriptions of those sections we thought you would be interested in.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage

REPORTING ON THE CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

The bill requires the Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR) to report to legislative committees and also submit monthly written reports to them on four initiatives related to the Connecticut State University System (CSUS). Specifically, BOR must report on expenditures and programming related to:

1. developmental education, (a type of remedial academic support);

2. the Go Back to Get Ahead program, established under this bill to encourage individuals to return to school and earn a degree by offering up to three free three- credit courses;

3. the state's early college/dual enrollment program; and

4. the transformation of the CSUS.

The bill requires BOR to appear twice before the Higher Education and Appropriations committees to report on these topics by September 1, 2014 and again by December 1, 2014. It also requires BOR to submit monthly written reports on these topics to these committees and OPM by October 1, 2014 and ending June 1, 2015.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION PROGRAM EVALUATIONS

The bill transfers $330,000 of the Department of Correction's (DOC) Other Expenses FY 15 appropriation to DOC's new Program Evaluation account. DOC must use the money for training, quality assurance, and evaluation of programs to support community reentry and community programs. The money may be used for training programs for staff of (1) private, nonprofit providers; (2) DOC, including parole officers; and (3) other state agencies and municipalities. The Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy at Central Connecticut State University (IMRP) may include the quality assurance findings and program evaluation data in its Results First Initiative project.

The bill also requires the DOC commissioner, by May 31, 2015, to assess the effectiveness of DOC's (1) vocational education programs and (2) Medication Assisted Therapy pilot project for people in DOC custody. Each assessment must consider findings from the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative's cost-benefit analysis model with respect to the programs and project. (The Results First Initiative works with states to implement an innovative cost-benefit analysis approach that helps them invest in effective policies and programs.) After conducting the assessment, the commissioner must determine whether any program changes may be implemented to improve the cost-effectiveness of the programs or the project.

By June 30, 2015, the commissioner must report to the Appropriations and Judiciary committees and the Results First Policy Oversight Committee (1) describing each assessment, (2) identifying any program and project changes implemented by DOC as a result of the assessment, and (3) making recommendations that the commissioner deems appropriate concerning additional statutory or program changes that may improve cost-effectiveness.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage, except for the fund transfer, which is effective July 1, 2014.

EVALUATION OF FAMILY THERAPY PROGRAMS

The bill requires IMRP (Institute of Municipal and Regional Policy at Central Connecticut State University), by May 31, 2015, to assess the effectiveness of the multidimensional family therapy program administered by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) for persons who are committed to the custody of both

DCF and the Judicial Department's Court Support Services Division (CSSD). The assessment must consider findings from the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative's cost-benefit analysis model regarding this program. IMRP, DCF, and CSSD must enter into a memorandum of understanding relating to the institute's assessment. After conducting the assessment, IMRP, in consultation with DCF and CSSD, must recommend changes to improve the program's cost-effectiveness.

By June 30, 2015, IMRP must report to the Appropriations, Children's, and Judiciary committees and the Results First Policy Oversight Committee (1) describing the assessment, (2) identifying any program changes implemented by DCF as a result of the assessment, and (3) making any recommendations that IMRP, the DCF commissioner, and CSSD consider appropriate concerning additional statutory or program changes that may improve the program's cost- effectiveness.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage

Payment Schedule for Goodwin College Senior Academy Magnet School

The bill makes a magnet school that uses a trimester school calendar and is operated by a an independent college or university eligible for the same per-student state magnet school grant, $10,443, as other Sheff magnets (the Goodwin College Senior Academy magnet school appears to be the only one affected). The school must:

1. begin operations for the school year commencing July 1, 2014,

2. enroll less than 60% of its students from Hartford pursuant to Sheff, and

3. enroll students on a trimester basis.

To receive the grant for an individual student, that student must be enrolled for at least two of the three trimesters for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015.

The bill modifies the payment schedule, based on a trimester school year, for the per-student magnet school grant paid to an independent college or university that operates a magnet school. Under current law, initial payments to magnet school governing authorities must generally be made by September 1 with the remainder paid by May 1. For FY 15 and each following year, the bill requires SDE to pay by the following schedule for the trimester schools: (1) 30% per cent of the grant amount by August 1 based on estimated student enrollment on July 1, (2) 30% by

October 1 based on estimated enrollment on September 1, and (3) the balance by May 1 of each fiscal year.

The May payment must be adjusted to reflect actual enrollment in the magnet school for those who have been enrolled for two of three trimesters of the school year. The May payment can be further adjusted for the difference between the total grant received in the prior fiscal year and the revised grant amount calculated for the prior fiscal year in cases where the financial audit submitted by the magnet school governing authority indicates an SDE overpayment.

Renzulli Gifted and Talented Academy

The bill requires SDE to, within available appropriations, to award a grant of up to $250,000 to the Hartford school district for program development and expansion of the Dr. Joseph S. Renzulli Gifted and Talented Academy to assist the state in meeting the Sheff 2013 stipulation goals. The grant is available for FY 15 and each following year. Applications for the grant funds must be submitted annually to the education commissioner when and how he prescribes.

The bill also states that starting with the 2014-15 school year, any student who is not a Hartford resident who applies and is enrolled at Renzulli will be considered enrolled under the state's Open Choice program. The Open Choice program aims to reduce racial isolation by giving districts grants for accepting students from other districts. The bill permits any student accepted into Renzulli, based on the Renzulli's selective admissions policy, to be considered part of Open Choice, regardless of race. This allows the Hartford school district, Renzulli's parent district, to receive a per-student Open Choice grant for any student from outside Hartford who attends the school.

The bill specifies that the grants Renzulli receives under these provisions do not reduce its eligibility for any other state grant to which it may be entitled.

TAX STUDY

Scope

The bill requires the Finance, Revenue and Bonding chairpersons to convene a panel of experts to study the state's overall state and local tax structure. The panel, which cannot include legislators, must include experts in tax law, tax accounting, tax policy, economics, and business finance.

The panel must consider and evaluate options to modernize tax policy, structure, and administration regarding:

1. efficiency,

2. administrative costs,

3. equity,

4. reliability,

5. stability and volatility,

6. sufficiency,

7. simplicity,

8. incidence,

9. economic development and competitiveness,

10. employment,

11. affordability, and

12. overall public policy.

In developing options, the panel must consider their impact and the extent to which tax policy affects business and consumer decision making.

The panel must also evaluate the feasibility of the following options:

1. creating a tiered property tax payment system that includes any property owned by the (a) state; (b) an institution, facility, or hospital for which the state made a payment in lieu of taxes to the host municipality; or (c) nonprofit entity;

2. assessing a “community benefit fee” on any tax-exempt property;

3. taxing property owned by an institution, facility, or hospital for which the state made a payment in lieu of taxes; and

4. requiring institutions, facilities, or hospitals to report the value of their real and personal property.

Appointment

The governor and the committee's chairpersons and ranking members must appoint the panel, which may consist of up to 15 members, within 60 days after the bill's passage. The panel must include the following nonvoting ex officio members: the committee's chairpersons and ranking members, Senate president pro tempore, House speaker, Office of Policy and Management secretary, and revenue services commissioner.

The panel's voting members elect the chairpersons at the first meeting, which the committee's chairpersons must hold by August 1, 2014.

Organization

The panel must organize itself into subcommittees on (1) personal income taxes, including estate and gift taxes; (2) business taxes, including excise taxes; (3) consumer taxes; and property taxes. The panel, with the chairpersons' approval, may invite additional experts to participate, without voting, in the subcommittees.

Report

The panel must submit its findings for further action and recommendations to the governor and the committee by January 1, 2015. It may recommend extending its reporting deadline, but no later than January 1, 2016.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage

ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS ON STATE-OWNED CAMPUSES

The bill designates each state-owned campus that has an acute care hospital on the premises (i.e., John Dempsey Hospital on the UConn Health Center (UCHC) campus) as the primary service area (PSA) responder for that campus. By law, an individual injured on campus must wait for the current PSA responder (based on the severity of the emergency) to be dispatched in order to transport the patient to the appropriate hospital. In practice, this requires a private ambulance service to transport some patients to John Dempsey Hospital. The bill would allow the UCHC fire department to treat and transport such a patient.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2014

EXEMPTION FOR CHARTER OAK STATE COLLEGE FROM CERTAIN SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY REQUIREMENTS

By law, public and independent higher education institutions must offer their students sexual assault and intimate partner violence primary prevention and awareness programming and campaigns. PA 14-11 expands the scope of the programming and campaigns. The bill exempts Charter Oak State College from the requirement to offer the programming and campaigns.

PA 14-11 also establishes, effective July 1, 2014, several requirements concerning the institutions' responses to sexual assault. The bill exempts Charter Oak from requirements in PA 14-11 for institutions to:

1. report annually to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee concerning their policies, prevention and awareness programming and campaigns, and the number of incidents, disciplinary cases, and confidential or anonymous reports, involving sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence;

2. establish a campus resource team to review their policies and recommend protocols for providing support and services to students and employees who report being victims;

3. enter into a memorandum of understanding with at least one community-based sexual assault crisis service center and one community-based domestic violence agency that (a) establishes a partnership with the service and agency and (b) ensures that victims can access free and confidential counseling and advocacy services, either on or off campus; and

4. ensure that their Title IX coordinator and special police force, campus police force, or campus safety personnel are educated in the awareness and prevention of sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence, and in trauma-informed response.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2014

GO BACK TO GET AHEAD

The bill establishes the “Go Back to Get Ahead” program, administered by the Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR) to encourage the following individuals to return to a higher education institution and earn a degree: those who (1) dropped out of an associate's or bachelor's degree program prior to its completion or (2) received an associate's degree and seek to advance their educational attainment.

Under the bill, eligible participants may receive, within available resources and subject to BOR guidelines, up to three free three-credit courses required to complete an associate's or bachelor's degree program. Eligible participants must:

1. reside in Connecticut;

2. have either (a) previously enrolled in an associate's or bachelor's degree program at any public or private college or university and left before completing it or (b) received an associate's degree and seek to enroll in a bachelor's degree program;

3. have not attended any college or university for at least 18 months, as of June 30, 2014; and

4. enroll in an associate's or bachelor's degree program by September 30, 2016 at a Connecticut State University System institution, a Connecticut community college, or Charter Oak State College.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2014

CONNECTICUT RETIREMENT SECURITY BOARD AND MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY

The bill creates the Connecticut Retirement Security Board and requires it to (1) conduct a market feasibility study on implementing a public retirement plan and (2) develop a comprehensive proposal for implementing the plan that must include certain goals and design features. The board must submit:

1. two reports on the feasibility study's status to the governor and Labor Committee, by May 1, 2015 and January 1, 2016, respectively and

2. the comprehensive proposal to the governor, General Assembly, Senate president pro tempore and House speaker by April 1, 2016.

Connecticut Retirement Security Board

Membership. The bill establishes a 14-member, board which includes the state comptroller, state treasurer, labor commissioner, and OPM secretary, or their respective designees. Table 6 lists the appointed board members' appointing authority, required qualifications, and initial terms.

Table 6: Appointed Board Members and Qualifications

Appointing Authority Required Qualifications Initial Term Senate president pro tempore Retirement plan design Four years expert House speaker Senior citizen advocacy Four years organization representative Senate majority leader Labor union Four years representative House majority leader Private-sector employee Four years retirement plan option manager Senate minority leader Expertise in designing Three years retirement plan options for businesses House minority leader Expertise in consumer Three years retirement planning Governor Potential plan participant Three years Governor Expertise in the federal Three years Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Internal Revenue Code, or both State comptroller Experience in investment Three years matters State treasurer Experience in investment Three years matters

All appointments to the board must be made by July 31, 2014. Following the expiration of their initial terms, subsequent legislative leader and gubernatorial appointees will serve three-year terms. Any vacancy must be filled by the appointing authority within 30 calendar days. Any member previously appointed to the board may be reappointed.

The comptroller and the treasurer must serve as board chairpersons (presumably they will be co-chairs). The chairpersons must hold the board's first meeting by August 10, 2013. It must meet at least monthly.

Each member must, within 10 calendar days after appointment, take an oath that he or she will diligently and honestly administer the board's affairs, and will not knowingly violate or willingly permit violations of the applicable trust law. Each member's term begins from the date the member takes the oath, which must be administered by the comptroller or treasurer. A majority of the members constitutes a quorum.

The bill requires each trustee to file, with the board and the Office of State Ethics, a statement of financial interests, as described by law. The statement is a public record. The members must serve without pay but, within available appropriations, receive reimbursements for travel and other necessary expenses. The board is within the comptroller's office for administrative purposes only.

Board Functions

In addition to conducting the feasibility study and developing the comprehensive proposal, the bill allows the board to:

1. enter into contracts for any legal, actuarial, accounting, custodial, advisory, management, administrative, advertising, marketing, and consulting services needed and pay for them with funds in an account the bill requires the comptroller to establish (see below);

2. form working groups as necessary to (a) solicit feedback from key stakeholders on the plan's design, (b) advocate for changes in federal retirement law to improve retirement security, (c) assess the plan's impact on reducing public assistance costs for the elderly in the state, and (d) determine if changes in federal or state tax law would help employees in the state save for retirement;

3. accept any bequest, devise, or gift of money or personal property, and use it for the purposes specified with such a bequest, devise, or gift; and

4. apply for grants or financial assistance from any person, group, corporation, or state or federal agency.

Board Account

The bill requires the comptroller to establish a separate, nonlapsing account within the General Fund to support the board's required activities. Any grants or financial assistance the board receives must be deposited in this account.

Market Feasibility Study

The board must conduct a market feasibility study to (1) determine whether the goals and design features required for implementing the plan can be accomplished and (2) recommend methods to accomplish those goals and design features. The study must examine the:

1. likely participation rates;

2. contribution levels;

3. rate of account closures and rollovers;

4. ability to provide employers with a payroll deposit system for remitting employee contributions;

5. funding options for implementing the plan;

6. likely insurance costs and whether the costs should be subject to a limit on annual administrative expenses; and

7. legal compliance needed to ensure that the (a) Roth individual retirement accounts (IRAs) provided by the plan qualify for favorable income tax treatment ordinarily given to IRAs under the Internal Revenue Code and (b) plan is not treated as an employee benefit plan under ERISA.

Implementation Proposal

After completing the market feasibility study, the bill requires the board to develop a comprehensive plan implementation proposal in consultation with qualified employers, potential plan participants, financial services representatives, and other stakeholders. Under the bill, qualified employers include any person, corporation,

69 limited liability company, firm, partnership, voluntary association, joint stock association, or other entity that employs at least five people in Connecticut. It does not include any public-sector employer, including any municipality, unit of a municipality, or municipal housing authority.

The board's proposal must include goals and design features that:

1. increase access and enrollment in quality retirement plans without incurring state debts or liabilities;

2. reduce the need for public assistance through a system of prefunded retirement income;

3. minimize the need for plan participants' financial sophistication;

4. promote transparency and accountability in the management of retirement funds through oversight, regular reporting to plan participants, and ethics review of plan fiduciaries;

5. pay all expenses, including employee costs, incurred to implement, maintain, advertise, and administer the plan from money collected by or for the trust (presumably, a trust will be established to hold deposits into the retirement plan);

6. provide plan portability by keeping IRAs for each plan participant;

7. have low administrative costs limited to an annual predetermined percentage;

8. provide an annuitized benefit with options for converting to a lump-sum payout upon retirement and spousal and preretirement death benefits to enable a participant to bequeath assets to beneficiaries;

9. provide an annually predetermined guaranteed rate of return and procure insurance, as needed, to guarantee it;

10. implement a default contribution rate and allow participants to change their contribution levels;

11. comply with all applicable federal or state laws, rules, and regulations;

12. ensure that plan participants and IRAs qualify for the favorable federal income tax treatment ordinarily given to IRAs under the Internal Revenue Code;

13. ensure the plan is not treated as an employee benefit plan under ERISA;

14. contain a process to (a) determine employer, employee, or anyone else's participation in the plan and (b) ensure mandatory participation by qualified employers that do not offer employer-sponsored plans;

15. provide a process for a qualified employer to credit a plan participant's contributions to his or her IRA through payroll deposit;

16. give an employer immunity regarding investment returns, plan design, and retirement income paid to plan participants;

17. provide a process for streamlined enrollment of plan participants, including automatic enrollment unless an employee chooses to opt out;

18. disseminate education information about saving and planning for retirement to potential participants;

19. establish a secure Internet web site to help qualified employers identify vendors of retirement arrangements that the employers could implement instead of the board's plan;

20. legally enforce employer plan obligations;

21. ensure that any assets held for the plan are used to (a) distribute IRA savings balances to plan participants and (b) pay the plan's operation, administrative, and investment costs;

22. ensure that any amounts deposited in the plan (a) do not constitute state property and the plan is not construed as a state department, institution, or agency, and (b) are not commingled with state funds and the state has no claim to or against, or interest in, them;

23. ensure that (a) any plan contract or obligation does not constitute a state debt or obligation, (b) the state has no obligation to any designated beneficiary or other person because of the plan, and (c) all amounts obligated to be paid under the plan are limited to amounts available to pay such an obligation;

24. ensure that (a) the plan will continue in existence as long as it holds any deposits or has any obligations and until its existence is terminated by law and (b) upon termination, any unclaimed asset must return to the state; and

25. ensure that property used in the plan must be governed by the law that addresses abandoned property held by a fiduciary.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2014

STATE-WIDE PLAN TO PROVIDE EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND JOB PLACEMENT IN EMERGING INDUSTRIES

The bill requires the Connecticut Employment and Training Commission (CETC) to develop, in collaboration with regional workforce development boards, a statewide plan and funding proposal to implement, expand, or improve on (1) contextualized learning programs, (2) career certificate programs, (3) middle college programs, and (4) early college high school programs. The bill describes this plan as a way to provide education, training, and placement in available jobs in manufacturing, health care, construction, green industries, and other emerging sectors of the Connecticut economy.

It also requires CETC to report to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee on the plan by January 1, 2015 and on the status of the four programs under the plan by September 1, 2015 and annually thereafter.

Programs under the CETC Statewide Plan

Contextualized Learning. The bill defines “contextualized learning” as an educator-designed learning environment that incorporates experiences, including social, cultural, physical, and psychological experiences, to achieve desired learning outcomes.

Career Certificate Program. By law, the education commissioner may award career certificates to high school and postsecondary school students who successfully complete school-to-career programs approved by the education and labor commissioners. The school-to-career programs must consist of school- and work-based instruction and connecting activities that coordinate the two (CGS § 10-20a).

Middle College Program. The bill defines a “middle college program” as a collaboration between a school district's high schools and a regional community- technical college or four-year college or university where a student can:

1. take core high school courses or college-level courses for which college credit may be earned and

2. attribute all earned credits toward a college or university program in which the student enrolls upon middle college graduation.

Early College High School. The bill defines “early college high school” as a school attended by students who are underrepresented in colleges and universities, including low-income youth, first-generation college students, English language learners, and minority students. This school allows students to simultaneously earn, tuition-free, a high school diploma and (1) an associate's degree or (2) up to two years of credit toward a bachelor's degree.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2014

TWO-GENERATIONAL SCHOOL READINESS PLAN

The bill requires the Commission on Children to establish a two-generational school readiness plan, within available appropriations, and by December 1, 2014 report on the plan to the Children's, Education, Higher Education and Employment Advancement, and Appropriations committees. The plan must promote long-term learning and economic success for low-income families by addressing intergenerational barriers to school and workforce readiness using (1) high-quality preschool, (2) intensified workforce training, (3) targeted education and (4) related support services.

The bill requires the commission's plan to include recommendations for:

1. promoting and prioritizing access to high-quality early childhood programs for children aged birth to five years who are living at or below 185% of the federal poverty level;

2. providing the parents of such children with (a) the opportunity to acquire their high school diplomas, (b) adult education, and (c) technical skills to increase their employability and sustainable employment; and

3. funding the plan's implementation through the use of the temporary assistance for needy families program and other federal, state, and private sources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage

FINANCIAL LITERACY INSTRUCTION

The bill allows the Department of Education (SDE), Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR), and UConn Board of Trustees (BOT), in consultation with the Department of Banking (DOB), to develop a plan to provide students in public high schools and state higher education institutions financial literacy instruction, including the impact of using credit and debit cards. The financial literacy instruction may occur (1) during a public high school student's final year and (2) by the end of the second semester for students at state higher education institutions.

The bill also requires (1) SDE, BOR, and BOT, to work with the DOB to secure federal, state, or private funding to implement the plan and (2) the SDE commissioner, BOR president, BOT chairman, and DOB commissioner to report on the plan status to the Banks Committee by January 1, 2015.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2014

REMEDIAL SUPPORT FOR HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

The bill increases the remedial support the four Connecticut State Universities and 12 regional community-technical colleges (CTCs) must offer to make students college-ready. It requires these institutions to offer a three-tiered remediation system to eligible students using supports and programs that are both embedded in and independent of required coursework. Remediation tiers consist of embedded, intensive, and transitional support (see Tiered Remediation System below). Current law prohibits CSUS and CTCs, beginning in fall 2014, from offering any remedial support to eligible students, unless it is embedded support or part of an intensive college readiness program, with a maximum of one semester of non-embedded support that is (1) intended to advance the student toward earning a degree and (2) approved by BOR. The bill instead requires CSUS and CTCs to provide support under the tiered system.

The bill delays, from fall 2014 to fall 2015, the requirement that CTCs provide embedded remedial support in entry-level classes. Under current law, both CTCs and CSUS must provide embedded support beginning fall 2014. The bill also requires both CSUS and CTCs to provide intensive and transitional remedial support beginning in fall 2015.

It also allows the Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR) and the SDE to enter into a memorandum of understanding to deliver a transitional college readiness program that will enable adults to enroll directly in a college or university upon completion. It requires BOR, in consultation with Connecticut's P- 20 Council and the BOR Faculty Advisory Committee, to develop options for this

74 program. The P-20 Council is a statewide team of stakeholders comprised of educators, business leaders, and civic officials formed to build stronger ties among educators and policymakers at all levels of education in the state, from preschool to graduate school.

Tiered Remediation System

Remediation tiers in the bill consist of (1) embedded support, as described in current law; (2) intensive semester support; and (3) a transitional college readiness program.

Beginning in the fall 2014 semester for CSUS and the fall 2015 semester for CTCs, the bill requires these institutions to offer a student embedded support when multiple commonly accepted measures of skill level indicate that the student is likely to succeed in college-level coursework with supplemental support. By law, embedded support must be (1) incorporated into a corresponding entry-level course in a college program and (2) offered during the same semester and in conjunction with the course to provide supplemental support.

Beginning in the fall 2015 semester, the bill requires both CSUS institutions and CTCs to offer a student one intensive semester of remedial support when multiple commonly accepted measures of skill level indicate that the student is below the skill level required for college work even with embedded support. Under the bill, intensive semester support must be designed to provide the necessary knowledge and skills to enter an entry-level college course and must allow the student to repeat this support, subject to the institution's course repeat policy, which must allow at least one repeat attempt.

Under current law, beginning in fall 2014, CSUS and CTCs must offer a college readiness program, which an eligible student must complete before receiving embedded remedial support. Beginning in the fall 2015 semester, the bill instead requires both CSUS institutions and CTCs to offer a student a transitional college readiness program (1) when multiple commonly accepted measures of skill level indicate that the student is below the skill level required to succeed in an intensive semester of remedial support and (2) before the student begins a new semester of study. The student must complete the program before receiving embedded or intensive semester support.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2014

UCONN AND UCHC POLICE

The bill makes members of the UConn and UConn Health Center (UCHC) Police Departments unclassified, instead of classified, state employees. Unlike classified state employees positions, unclassified positions are not subject to things such as (1) DAS-administered civil service exams for hiring and promotions (CGS §§ 5- 200(a), 5-216), and (2) OPM certification for creating new positions or filling vacancies (CGS § 5-214), among other things.

The bill exempts the unclassified UConn and UCHC police from a periodic DAS evaluation of unclassified positions held by employees in collective bargaining units to determine if the position is in the appropriate compensation plan. It also exempts the compensation of their nonunion members from being determined under DAS-established compensation plans.

The bill requires UConn's president to establish classifications for the UConn and UCHC police using objective job-related criteria that includes (1) knowledge and skill required to carry out the position's duties, (2) mental and physical effort, and (3) accountability. (It does not specify how these classifications are to be used.) The president must also establish and administer all necessary examinations for the two police departments.

The law generally allows the DAS commissioner to issue orders that provide the same rights and benefits to executive or judicial branch employees, regardless of whether they are union or nonunion, classified or unclassified (CGS § 5-200). He cannot, however, include unclassified employees of the constituent units of higher education in this equation. Under the bill, this exemption would include UConn and UCHC police.

The bill specifies that positions in the two police departments are within the bargaining unit that represents protective services employees (as they currently are) and cannot be severed from it. Presumably, this provision supersedes CGS § 5-275, which requires the State Board of Labor Relations to determine appropriate bargaining units and modifications to them. The bill also makes a technical change fixing an incorrect statutory reference.

This part is effective upon passage

SB 29: AN ACT AUTHORIZING AND ADJUSTING BONDS OF THE STATE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSPORTATION AND

OTHER PURPOSES. Passed. Public Act 14-98. Signed by Governor May 22, 2014.

This was a Governor’s bill. It was co-sponsored by 12 legislators.

An analysis of sections relevant to higher education follows.

*Senate Amendment “A” replaces the underlying bill. Among other things, it adds provisions:

1. broadening the scope of the existing Stem Cell Research Fund to include regenerative medicine, (b) changing the fund's name to the Regenerative Medicine Fund, (c) requiring Connecticut Innovations, Inc. to administer the fund, and (d) authorizing bonds for the fund;

2. allowing general obligation bond proceeds to pass to a proposed project through entities eligible for federal New Markets tax credits;

3. establishing a new grant program for eligible drinking water projects approved for loans by the Department of Public Health;

4. establishing the Connecticut Manufacturing Innovation Fund;

5. (a) authorizing new bonding under the Connecticut State University System 2020 infrastructure program, (b) renaming the program the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities 2020 program, and (c) expanding it to include the community colleges and Charter Oak State College.

It also (1) adds bond authorizations for specific state capital projects and grant programs, (2) modifies the bond authorizations for the preschool competitive grant program (i.e., Smart Start), and (3) expands the school security infrastructure grant program to include endowed academies.

*Senate Amendment “B” (1) expands a bond authorization for the Connecticut Science Center to include additional nonprofits, including a $6.6 million earmark for the Maritime Aquarium in Norwalk, (2) expands the municipalities for which the Department of Housing must use a $20 million bond authorization to promote homeownership, (3) adds the provision concerning commercial rail freight line competitive grants, and (3) makes minor and technical changes.

This bill goes into effect on July 1, 2014, unless otherwise noted below.

BOND AUTHORIZATIONS FOR STATE AGENCY PROJECTS AND GRANTS

The bill authorizes up to $345.0 million in general obligation (GO) bonds for FY 15 for the state capital projects and grant programs listed in Table 1. The bonds are subject to standard issuance procedures and have a maximum term of 20 years.

The bill includes a standard provision requiring that, as a condition of bond authorizations for grants to private entities, each granting agency include repayment provisions in its grant contract in case the facility for which the grant is made ceases to be used for the grant purposes within 10 years of the grantee receiving it. The required repayment is reduced by 10% for each full year that the facility is used for the grant purpose.

A few of interest are:

Table 1: GO Bond Authorizations for FY 15

§ AGENCY FOR FY 15 State Projects and Programs Technical high school system: establish a pilot program to provide expanded educational opportunities, for academic Judicial 26 enrichment and trades training for 3,500,000 Department secondary and adult learners, by extending hours at technical high schools in Hamden, Hartford, New Britain, and Waterbury Technical high school system: establish a pilot program to provide expanded educational State opportunities, for academic Department of 82 enrichment and trades training for 3,500,000 Education secondary and adult learners, by (SDE) extending hours at technical high schools in Hamden, Hartford, New Britain, and Waterbury

OSC

Grant to Connecticut Public 9(a) Broadcasting Network for 3,300,000 transmission, broadcast, production, and information technology equipment Department of Subsidized Training and 9(b) Consumer 10,000,000 Employment program Protection Connecticut Manufacturing Innovation Fund; earmarks $5 million for a grant to the 9(d) DEEP Connecticut Center for Advanced 30,000,000 Technology for research and development of advanced composite materials machining

This part of the bill goes into effect on July 1, 2014, except for the provision authorizing bonds for the development of a courthouse facility in Torrington (§ 26), which is effective upon passage.

REGENERATIVE MEDICINE RESEARCH FUND

Fund Administration

The bill broadens the scope of the existing Stem Cell Research Fund to include regenerative medicine. It renames fund the Regenerative Medicine Research Fund, reflecting its broader scope encompassing stem cell and regenerative medicine research. The latter encompasses research into the process for creating living, functional tissue to repair or replace tissues or organ functions lost due to aging, disease, damage, or congenital defects. Regenerative medicine includes basic stem cell research, which the law does not define.

The bill shifts the administrative responsibility for awarding grants from the DPH commissioner to Connecticut Innovations, Inc.'s (CII) chief executive officer (CEO). CII is the state's quasi-public economic development agency that, among other things, invests venture capital in new and established businesses developing new technologies. The bill also authorizes CII to enter into agreements with

79 various other entities that allow grant recipients to collaborate with other researchers on advance research.

Regenerative Medicine Research Advisory Committee

Purpose. The bill renames the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee the Regenerative Medicine Advisory Committee. The committee's current stem cell- related duties include developing grant applications and requiring eligible institutions seeking research grants to describe themselves, their plans for stem cell research, and the possible financial benefits to the state resulting from their research.

The bill assigns these duties to CII, which it designates as the fund's administrator, and requires CII to perform them with respect to regenerative medicine and in consultation with the advisory committee. The bill also requires the committee to direct CII's CEO, instead of the DPH commissioner, on awarding grants, which it must do after considering the recommendations of the peer review committee.

Composition. The bill retains the structure of the current 17-member committee, but changes the members' qualification to reflect the inclusion of regenerative medicine research. The bill keeps the DPH commissioner on the committee but removes her as chairperson. It adds CII's CEO (or her designee) to the renamed committee, increasing its membership to 18, and making the CEO or her designee the board's chairperson.

The bill keeps the current appointing authorities, but changes the qualifications of the members they must appoint to reflect the inclusion of regenerative medicine research.

1. The governor continues to appoint four members, but one must have background and experience in embryonic stem cell or regenerative medicine research and three must have background and experience in business and financial investment.

2. The Senate president pro tempore and the House speaker each continue to appoint two members, but they must have background and experience in private- sector regenerative medicine research and development (R&D) instead of embryonic stem cell R&D.

3. The House and Senate majority leaders each continue to appoint two members, but they must be academic researchers specializing in regenerative medicine, instead of stem cell, research.

4. The Senate and House minority leaders continue to appoint two members, but the former must appoint someone with background and experience in public- or private-sector regenerative medicine, instead of stem cell, research and development. Instead of appointing two members with experience in business and financial investments, the latter must appoint one member with a background and experience in bioethics and another with experience in business law and ethics.

The bill makes conforming technical changes to the board's makeup, member terms, and operations, including the requirement prohibiting a member from reviewing or considering a grant application in which he or she has a financial stake.

Duties. The bill realigns the board's duties to encompass regenerative medicine research and adds a new one. It requires the committee to prepare a comprehensive strategic plan, including awarding grants. At a minimum, the plan must identify methods or strategies to achieve the fund's economic development objectives, build capacity for innovation, and sustain the money invested in the fund.

The bill also requires the committee to work with CII, instead of the DPH commissioner, to develop a program that encourages the development of nonappropriated state funds and promotes regenerative medicine, among other things.

CII Support. Under the bill, CII must perform several tasks in consultation with the advisory committee. CII must (1) develop and review grant applications, (2) conduct an external scientific peer review process, (3) prepare and execute funding agreements, (4) make recommendations to the Regenerative Medicine Research Advisory Committee, and (5) perform other administrative duties. But, under the bill, CII must also help the committee evaluate the grant-funded research's economic impact.

Specifically, CII must develop performance measures and data collection systems. The data must include each recipient's employment statistics; its business accomplishments and outcomes; peer-reviewed articles and published papers; partnerships and collaborations with other entities; licenses, patents, and invention disclosures; intellectual property developed with the grant that was put to commercial use; and research funds from other sources.

Regenerative Medicine Research Peer Review Committee

Purpose. The bill renames the Stem Cell Research Peer Review Committee the Regenerative Medicine Research Peer Review Committee, changing its composition and purpose to reflect the inclusion of regenerative medicine research.

Composition. The bill changes the qualifications and appointing authority of the committee members, also reflecting its emphasis on regenerative medicine research. It ends the DPH's commissioner authority to appoint people to the five- member committee after September 30, 2014. Until that date, the commissioner must fill any vacancies by appointing members with a background and knowledge related to regenerative medicine research, instead of stem cell research.

The law's current requirements regarding attendance, ethics, and conflicts of interest apply to these members. As under current law, these DPH-appointed members serve four-year terms. But they cannot serve consecutive four-year terms nor concurrently serve on the Regenerative Medicine Advisory Committee.

The DPH-appointed members may continue serving on the committee until their terms expire. However, on October 1, 2014, appointing power shifts to the CII CEO and her appointees must meet the bill's requirements for background and knowledge related to regenerative medicine. The CII appointees serve four- year terms, except for the first three, who serve two-year terms. Like the DPH appointees, these appointees cannot serve consecutive four-year terms nor concurrently serve on the Regenerative Medicine Advisory Committee. The law's current requirements regarding attendance, ethics, and conflicts of interest also apply to them.

Duties. Under current law, before the advisory committee awards grants, the peer review committee considers grant applications and makes recommendations to the DPH commissioner and the advisory committee about their ethical and scientific merit. Under the bill, the peer review committee must make recommendations to CII with respect to regenerative medicine research.

The bill does not extend to the reconstituted committee the requirement that its members make themselves aware of the National Academies Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and make recommendations to the advisory committee and the DPH commissioner about adopting any or all of these guidelines in regulations.

Compensation. The bill changes the funding source for compensating committee members for their reviews. Under current law, the funds come from the Stem Cell Research Fund, and the compensation rate is determined by the DPH

82 commissioner, in consultation with the Department of Administrative Services and the Office of Policy and Management. Under the bill, CII compensates the members with its funds at a rate its board of directors sets.

Funding

The bill (1) authorizes up to $10 million in GO bonds each year from FYs 16 through FY 19 for the fund and (2) transfers an existing $10 million bond authorization from DPH to CII for the fund.

It also allows CII to use up to 4% of the fund's FY 15 funding to pay or reimburse its administrative costs.

This part of the bill goes into effect on October 1, 2014, except that the (1) provision authorizing new bonds for the fund is effective July 1, 2015 and (2) provisions concerning CII's administrative costs and transferring an existing bond authorization, which are effective July 1, 2014.

STATUTORY BOND-FUNDED PROGRAMS AND GRANTS

UConn 2000 Projects Financed with University Resources

By law, the UConn 2000 infrastructure program caps the amount of bonds UConn may issue each year that are secured by a state debt service commitment (CGS § 10a-109g). The bill specifies that projects secured by other revenue sources (i.e., university fee revenue) are not subject to these annual bond caps.

This part of the bill goes into effect upon passage.

UConn Technology Park

The bill decreases by $3 million, from $172.5 million to $169.5 million, an existing bond authorization for the UConn technology park.

HARTFORD-NEW BRITAIN BUSWAY

The bill requires the DOT commissioner, in implementing the Hartford-New Britain busway, to ensure that all Hartford streets intersecting with the busway are equipped with sufficient signage, gates, traffic lights, and other equipment in order to (1) keep such streets open to vehicles and pedestrians for at least 20 hours per day and (2) allow trains to safely cross the streets at any time.

CONNECTICUT MANUFACTURING INNOVATION FUND

The bill establishes the Connecticut Manufacturing Innovation Fund, which is dedicated, non-lapsing, and separate from the General Fund. The fund must contain (1) any funds required or permitted by law to be deposited in it; (2) repayments of loans granted from the fund; (3) private donations, gifts, grants, bequests, or devices received by the fund; and (4) any local, state, or federal funds the fund received. Until it is used to award financial assistance, the treasurer must invest the money held by the fund as she sees fit, including in banks, investment funds, and state and federal bonds, among other investments. Investment earnings on the fund's assets become part of the fund.

DECD must provide necessary staff, space, office systems, and administrative support to operate the fund. DECD may exercise all of its statutory powers in administering the fund, provided the advisory board approves all fund expenditures other than DECD administrative costs.

Use of Funds

Any money held in the fund must be used to provide financial assistance to approved eligible recipients or reimburse DECD for its administrative costs (e.g., peer review costs, professional fees, and allocated staff costs).

Under the bill, an “eligible recipient” for financial assistance is (1) an aerospace, medical device, or other company or nonprofit organization specializing in or providing technologically advanced commercial products or services; (2) an entity looking to leverage federal grant funds to support manufacturing advancement; or (3) a certified education or training program designed to meet future workforce needs.

The fund's financial assistance can be in the form of grants, extensions of credit, loans, loan guarantees, equity investments, or other forms of financing. It must be used for:

1. further developing or modernizing manufacturing equipment;

2. supporting advancements in manufacturing;

3. supporting advanced manufacturing research and development;

4. supporting expansion and training by eligible recipients;

5. attracting new manufacturers to the state;

6. supporting education and training programs that help meet the anticipated skilled workforce demands;

7. matching or leveraging federal funds to help Connecticut universities increase research efforts; or

8. funding a voucher program for technical assistance.

Recipients of financial assistance must use funds for costs related to facilities, necessary furniture, fixtures and equipment, tooling development and manufacture, materials and supplies, proof of concept or relevance, research and development, compensation, apprenticeships, or other costs that the advisory board deems eligible.

Voucher Program

The bill allows the advisory board to establish, and DECD to develop regulations for, a voucher program to help recipients access technical experts at universities, nonprofits, and other organizations. These experts can provide specialized expertise to help solve a recipient's engineering, marketing, and other challenges.

Targeting and Priority Consideration

Any financial assistance awarded from the fund must target the supply chains and related disciplines of aerospace, medical device, composite materials, digital manufacturing, and other technologically advanced commercial products and services. These supply chains and related disciplines must also (1) be likely to improve or develop commercial products that advance the state of technology and the recipient's competitive position and (2) promise to directly or indirectly grow jobs in the state in related fields.

DECD, in consultation with the advisory board, must give priority to proposals from any company that is located in or plans to relocate to (1) a distressed municipality, (2) a targeted investment community, (3) a public investment community, (4) an enterprise zone, or (5) a manufacturing innovation district. The bill allows DECD to establish, in consultation with the advisory board, “manufacturing innovation districts” in order to promote DECD's economic development priorities. The bill does not specify the number or size of districts that may be established, nor does it provide criteria for selecting them.

Application and Approval Process

The advisory board must establish an application and approval process with guidelines and terms for financial assistance awarded from the fund. These guidelines and terms must:

1. require any applicant for financial assistance to operate, in whole or in part, in the state or plan to relocate to the state;

2. limit the amount of financial assistance that can be awarded in the form of loans or grants;

3. include eligibility requirements for loans and grants, including a requirement to match state funds with funds from nonstate sources;

4. create a preliminary review process to be carried out by DECD before presenting proposals to the board;

5. include return on investment objectives, such as job growth and leveraged investment opportunities; and

6. include any other guidelines the advisory board determines to be necessary and appropriate.

Budget and Operating Plan

Each fiscal year beginning July 1, 2015, DECD must prepare an operating plan and an operating and capital budget for the fund. DECD must submit the budgets and plan to the advisory board for review and approval 90 days before the start of each fiscal year. DECD is entitled to reimbursement for administrative costs associated with administering the fund, but the total administrative cost must not exceed 5% of the funds allocated in the operating budget for the year.

Approval of Expenditures

All expenditures from the fund (except for DECD's administrative costs) must be approved by the advisory board. Any approval by the board must be (1) specific to an individual expenditure, (2) for budgeted expenditures with variations authorized by the board, or (3) for a financial assistance program administrated by DECD. The advisory board may delegate the approval of transactions valued at less than $100,000 to DECD staff.

Reporting

DECD must submit a report on the fund's activities annually beginning January 1, 2016 to the advisory board for approval. After approving the report, the advisory board must submit the report to the Commerce Committee. The report must contain information on the status and progress of the fund's operations and funding, financial assistance awarded, and any returns on investment (e.g., principal or interest payments, returns on equity investments).

Manufacturing Innovation Advisory Board

The bill creates an 11-member advisory board with 10 appointed members and the DECD commissioner, or her designee, as chair. The governor appoints four members; the Senate president pro tempore, House speaker, and Senate and House majority and minority leaders each appoint one. Each board member serves a term coterminous with his or her appointing authority. If a vacancy occurs for a reason other than the expiration of the appointing authority's term, the vacancy must be filled in the same manner. Each member hold his or her position on the board until a successor is appointed. All initial appointments to the advisory board must be made by July 1, 2014.

Each board member appointed must:

1. have skill, knowledge, and experience, in industries and science related to aerospace, medical devices, digital manufacturing, digital communication, or advanced manufacturing;

2. be a university faculty member or hold a graduate degree in a related discipline;

3. have manufacturing education and training expertise; or

4. represent manufacturing-related business or professional organizations.

A majority of members constitutes a quorum for exercising the boards powers, and the board may act by majority vote at any meeting at which a quorum in present. The chair must call the first meeting by September 30, 2014, and future meetings as she deems necessary.

Reimbursement and Conflicts of Interest. Advisory board membersare not paid for their service, but are entitled to reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performances of their duties. However, regardless of law,

87 it is not a conflict of interest for a trustee, director, partner, officer, manager, shareholder, proprietor, counsel, or employee of an eligible recipient to serve as a member of the advisory board, provided he or she abstains from acting, deliberating, or voting on any matter concerning the eligible recipient.

This part of the bill goes into effect upon passage.

CONNECTICUT STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (CSCU) 2020 PROGRAM

The bill authorizes $103.5 million in new bonding under the Connecticut State University System (CSUS) 2020 infrastructure program (renamed by the bill as the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) 2020 program). It expands the program to include the regional community-technical colleges and Charter Oak State College and extends the program by one year (to FY 19).

The bill also allows the Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR), which administers the program, to (1) submit a revised allocation request to the governor in the event the legislature increases the bond authorization for a year in which the governor has already approved the allocation and (2) revise CSCU 2020 project amounts without legislative approval if the revision is due to reallocating unspent funds from a completed project. It requires BOR to report biannually to the legislature on how it allocated project funds among the state universities and community colleges.

Under current law, a program project includes, among other things, improvements, reconstruction, replacements, additions, and equipment acquired in connection with any facilities existing on July 1, 2008. The bill eliminates the requirement for these facilities to have been in existence on July 1, 2008. It also eliminates a requirement that BOR receive approval from the administrative services commissioner before acquiring or purchasing equipment, furniture, or personal property using funds from bond proceeds.

The bill also renames the board's biennial facilities plan as the facilities and academic plans and makes technical and conforming changes.

CSCU 2020

The bill authorizes $103.5 million in new bonding under the CSCU 2020 program. It adds new projects, replaces others, and adds, decreases, or cancels existing authorizations, as shown in Table 2. The table also indicates to which phase of the

88 program the changes apply: Phase I (FY 09-FY 11), Phase II (FY 12-FY 14), and Phase III (FY 15-FY 18; extended by the bill to FY 19). The bill makes no net changes to phases I and II; it increases Phase III authorizations by $103.5 million.

Table 2: Project Authorizations

Current Proposed Project Phase Change Authorization Authorization Central Code I $18,146,445 $16,418,636 ($1,727,809) Compliance/Infrastructure II 6,704,000 6,894,000 190,000 Improvements III 5,000,000 0 (5,000,000) New Classroom Office I 33,978,000 29,478,000 (4,500,000) Building East Campus Infrastructure I 13,244,000 3,680,000 (9,564,000) Development (replaced by bill III with Renovate Barnard Hall) 0 18,320,000 18,320,000 Burritt Library Expansion I 0 9,900,000 9,900,000 (design/construction)(replaced III by bill with New Engineering Building(design/construction 96,262,000 52,800,000 (43,462,000) and equipment)) Burritt Library Renovation III (design)(expanded by bill to 11,387,000 16,500,000 5,113,000 include addition and equipment) Renovate Kaiser Hall and I 0 6,491,809 6,491,809 Annex (new) II 0 210,000 210,000 III 0 18,684,000 18,684,000 Eastern Code Compliance/ I 8,255,113 8,938,849 683,736 Infrastructure Improvements III 5,000,000 0 (5,000,000) Outdoor Track-Phase II I 1,816,000 1,506,396 (309,604) New Warehouse I 2,269,000 1,894,868 (374,132) Southern Code Compliance/ III 5,000,000 0 (5,000,000)

Infrastructure Improvements Western Code Compliance/ III 7,212,000 0 (7,212,000) Infrastructure Improvements Board of Regents (formerly CSUS System Office) New and Replacement III Equipment (bill adds Smart 31,844,000 61,844,000 30,000,000 Classroom Technology and Technology Upgrades) Land and Property I 4,250,190 3,650,190 (600,000) Acquisition II 3,000,000 2,600,000 (400,000) Deferred Maintenance/Code III Compliance Infrastructure 0 48,557,000 48,557,000 Improvements Strategic Master Plan of III 0 3,000,000 3,000,000 Academic Programs (new) Consolidation and Upgrade of III Student System and Financial 0 20,000,000 20,000,000 Information technology Systems (new) Advanced Manufacturing III Center at Asnuntuck 0 25,500,000 25,500,000 Community College (new) TOTAL CHANGE $103,500,000

The bill reduces authorizations for the four state universities by an aggregate total of $22.557 million and increases BOR authorizations by $126.057 million, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Authorization Changes

Entity Net Change Central ($5,345,000) Eastern (5,000,000) Southern (5,000,000) Western (7,212,000) BOR (formerly 126,057,000

CSUS System Office) Total $103,500,000

Annual Bond Limits

To conform to the increased bond authorizations, the bill (1) adjusts the annual bond limits for the CSCU 2020 program in FYs 15 and 16, (2) cancels the FY 10 authorization, and (3) extends the program to FY 19 (see Table 4). The FY 10 change is attributable to that year's allocation being disapproved by the governor in 2009.

Table 4: Annual Bond Limits

Under current law, any difference between the amount actually issued in any year and the cap can be carried forward to the next succeeding fiscal year. Financing transaction costs can be added to the caps. The bill allows funds to be carried forward to any subsequent fiscal year but specifies that they cannot be carried forward past FY 19.

By law, BOR must annually, by March 1, submit to the governor, state treasurer, and Office of Policy and Management secretary the amount of bonds required for

91 the program for the ensuing fiscal year. The governor has 30 days to approve or disapprove the amount in whole or in part; if he does not act within 30 days of the submission, the whole amount is deemed approved. The bill allows BOR, in the event the legislature increases a bond limit that was already approved by the governor, to submit an addendum for the amount of the increased authorization. It must do so within 30 days of the act's effective date. The governor has 30 days from BOR's submission of the addendum to approve or disapprove it in the manner described above.

Project Revisions

Under current law, the following types of revisions in the CSCU 2020 plan require both formal approval by BOR and passage of a public or special act: (1) the addition or deletion of a project or (2) an increase or decrease in the original project cost by 10% or more for projects estimated to cost $ 1 million or less, or 5% or more for projects estimated to cost more than $ 1 million, unless the change in cost is due solely to changes in material costs. The bill eliminates the requirement for a public or special act for revisions that are due to reallocating unspent funds from a completed project.

Reporting Requirements

By law, BOR must report, biannually to the governor and legislature, specified information on projects under the program (e.g., costs and timeliness). The bill additionally requires the board, biannually beginning July 1, 2015, to report to the Finance and Higher Education committees on how it allocated proceeds for each BOR project among each state university and regional community-technical college.

§§ 61, 63-65, 69, 71, & 72 — Cancellations

The bill cancels all or part of bond authorizations for the projects and grants shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Bond Cancellations

Existing Amount § Agency For Authorization Cancelled 65 Connecticut Land and property acquisitions 100,000 5,490 State

University System (all universities) 71 Community Facilities alterations and 5,000,000 5,000,000 College improvements, including fire, System (all safety, energy conservation, colleges) code compliance, and property acquisition

This part of the bill goes into effect on July 1, 2014.

Changes to FY 15 Bond Authorizations

The bill changes certain FY 15 GO and STO bond authorizations enacted in PA 13-239, as listed in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6: Changes to FY 15 GO Bond Authorizations in PA 13-239

PA 13-239 Total Auth. § Agency For Auth. for Change For FY 15 FY 15 78 OPM Information technology $25,000,00 $25,000,000 $50,000,000 capital investment 0 program 83 Board of All community colleges: 5,000,000 (5,000,000) 0 Regents for New and replacement Higher instruction, research, or Education laboratory equipment All community colleges: 5,000,000 (5,000,000) 0 System technology initiative All community colleges: 5,000,000 (5,000,000) 0 Alterations, and

Total GO Bonds: $510,509,322

Total STO Bonds: ($7,250,000)

The Senate adopted Senate Amendment “A” 26-7. This amendment made technical changes like those necessary to refer to the Board of Regents instead of the Board of Trustees.

The following is the roll call vote:

Y 1 JOHN W. FONFARA Y 19 CATHERINE A. OSTEN Y 2 ERIC D. COLEMAN Y 20 ANDREA STILLMAN Y 3 GARY LEBEAU N 21 KEVIN KELLY Y 4 STEVE CASSANO Y 22 ANTHONY J. MUSTO Y 5 BETH BYE Y 23 ANDRES AYALA A 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 Y 9 PAUL DOYLE Y 27 CARLO LEONE Y 10 GARY HOLDER-WINFIELD A 28 JOHN MCKINNEY Y 11 MARTIN M. LOONEY Y 29 DONALD E. WILLIAMS, JR. Y 12 EDWARD MEYER Y 30 CLARK J. CHAPIN Y 13 DANTE BARTOLOMEO Y 31 JASON WELCH Y 14 GAYLE SLOSSBERG N 32 ROBERT J. KANE Y 15 JOAN V. HARTLEY Y 33 ART LINARES N 16 JOE MARKLEY N 34 LEONARD FASANO Y 17 JOSEPH J. CRISCO, JR. N 35 ANTHONY GUGLIELMO A 18 ANDREW MAYNARD N 36 L. SCOTT FRANTZ

The Senate passed Senate Amendment “B” also. (See above Bill description for details). They passed the bill to the House 30-6. The no votes were Sen. Markley (R-Plantsville), Sen. McKinney (R-Fairfield), Sen. Kane (R- Watertown), Sen. Fasano (R- North Haven), Sen. Guglielmo (R-Stafford Springs), and Sen. Frantz (R-Greenwich). The House adopted Senate Amendment “A” and Senate Amendment “B” and passed the bill in concurrence with the Senate. The following is the roll call vote:

Y ABERCROMBIE Y HEWETT Y VARGAS Y LAVIELLE Y ALBIS Y JANOWSKI Y VERRENGIA Y LEGEYT Y ALEXANDER Y JOHNSON Y VICINO X MILLER, L.

Y ALTOBELLO Y JUTILA Y WALKER Y MINER Y ARCE Y KINER Y WIDLITZ Y MOLGANO Y ARCONTI Y LARSON Y WILLIS X NOUJAIM Y ARESIMOWICZ Y LEMAR Y WRIGHT, C. N O'DEA Y AYALA Y LESSER Y WRIGHT, E. Y O'NEILL X BACKER, T. Y LOPES Y ZONI N PERILLO Y BARAM Y LUXENBERG Y PISCOPO Y BECKER, B. Y MARONEY Y REBIMBAS Y BOUKUS Y MCCRORY N RUTIGLIANO Y BOWLES Y MCGEE N ACKERT Y SAMPSON Y BUTLER Y MEGNA Y ADINOLFI Y SAWYER Y CANDELARIA, X MIKUTEL Y ALBERTS Y SCRIBNER J. Y CLEMONS Y MILLER, P. Y AMAN Y SHABAN Y CONROY Y MORIN N BACCHIOCHI Y SIMANSKI Y COOK Y MORRIS Y BELSITO Y SMITH X CUEVAS Y MOUKAWSHER Y BETTS Y SRINIVASAN X D'AGOSTINO Y MUSHINSKY Y BOLINSKY Y WALKO Y DARGAN Y NAFIS Y BUCK- Y WILLIAMS TAYLOR Y DAVIS, P. Y NICASTRO Y CAFERO Y WOOD Y DEMICCO, M. Y PERONE Y CAMILLO Y YACCARINO Y DILLON Y PORTER Y CANDELORA, Y ZAWISTOWSKI V. Y DIMINICO, J. Y REED Y CARPINO Y ZIOBRON Y ESPOSITO Y RILEY Y CARTER Y ZUPKUS Y FAWCETT Y RITTER, M. Y CASE Y FLEISCHMANN Y ROJAS Y D'AMELIO Y FLEXER Y ROSE Y DAVIS, C. Y FOX, D. Y ROVERO Y FLOREN Y SHARKEY (SPKR) Y FOX, G. Y SANCHEZ N FREY X FRITZ Y SANTIAGO, E. Y GIEGLER Y GENGA Y SANTIAGO, H. Y GIULIANO Y GENTILE Y SEAR Y HOVEY Y BERGER (DEP) Y GONZALEZ Y SERRA Y HOYDICK Y GODFREY (DEP) Y GROGINS Y STALLWORTH N HWANG Y MILLER, P.B. (DEP)

Y GUERRERA Y STEINBERG Y KLARIDES Y ORANGE (DEP) Y HADDAD Y TERCYAK Y KOKORUDA Y RITTER, E. (DEP) Y HAMPTON Y TONG N KUPCHICK Y RYAN (DEP) Y HENNESSY Y URBAN Y LABRIOLA Y SAYERS (DEP)

This bill became Public Act 14-98 and was signed by the Governor on May 22, 2014.