In This Issue:
From Paddi's Desk
CT Agency Corner
Municipal Roundup
Inside Scoop
This Day in CT History
|
|
|
Trouble in River City
As the legislature adapts to a blended legislative process, this week, several committees experienced a few stumbles. The rules of the legislature were adjusted to reflect both virtual and in-person committee meetings, but in one committee, the challenge of having both virtual participation and in-person participation called into question which set of rules applied to a verbal amendment by a ranking member.
As Ranking Member Rep. Cara Pavalock-D’Amato made a motion to amend a particular bill while participating virtually, Co-Chair Senator Matt Lesser called a parliamentary move by asking the legislative commissioners (LCO, a.k.a. the committee's attorneys) if the amendment was properly before the committee under the current rules. While LCO wasn’t prepared for such a question, the committee stood at ease while the lawyers sorted out the answer. Eventually, the LCO attorneys ruled that yes, it was properly before the committee, and reminded members of the two sets of standards for in-person and virtual amendments. The committee then proceeded to wrap up their debate and eventually rejected the amendment.
Down the hall and over YouTube, another committee had a minor challenge of tone and respect. As we've reported, one of the toughest committees to serve on is the Labor and Public Employees Committee. It deals almost exclusively with labor issues of state and municipal matters, as well as the few remaining private-sector union arrangements. This week the House Ranking Member and Co-Chairs found themselves engaged in a discussion about respect and civility when it came to their widely divergent opinions on particular bills. Each felt that the other was being disrespectful not only at that moment on a particular bill, but over the past several years. It came to a head when the Senate Chair reminded members that tone matters and asked all members to remain respectful of others. A veteran legislator from the Republican side of the aisle raised his concerns that while he agreed with the Senate Chair's remarks, it has been quite evident that committee members have taken serious “pot shots” at the particular Republican member over the past several years, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. His comments were somewhat along the lines of the old adage – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." These words could go a long way to tamp down the emotions and feelings of disrespect. A quick change of topic redirected the discussion as it turned back to the agenda at hand.
Just so you know the communication challenges aren’t all about Democrats and Republicans. As the interesting rules of the Legislative Office Building still are different between the House and the Senate, so is the expectation of how a session day should be orchestrated. As routine items come up for debate in each chamber, the leader on the second floor and the leader on the third floor are trying to get on the same page and stay focused on the issue at hand, not who is taking the lead on chamber actions. Wednesday was a case in point when, for a while, each chamber was in recess and those of us in the hallways still were unsure about the order of debate and status of the vote on the emergency certified bill to provide taxpayer relief to CT residents. Normally the building is aware of the batting lineup and who’s batting clean up. But for a while, everyone was “holding tight” until the “coaches” made the call.
So as we enter the third phase of the session, it is warming to know that leadership is trying to smooth over any tensions and build a bipartisan feeling in the building. Two very popular events are slated for the next couple weeks – the annual Italian American Dinner and the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus' Spring Fling, which bring Republican/Democrat House and Senate members together, as well as the lobbying community to kick back, catch up on personal relationships and just have time to get to know others and enjoy the comradery that we all feel is missing with the continued virtual participation of members.
Another event to add to the roster is a kickball competition between the Democrats and the Republicans at the Yard Goats' stadium next month. There will hopefully be the annual legislative basketball tournament, and a legislative softball tournament which also allows folks to “kickback” share some laughs and definitely defend the honor of whatever team they're on!
So as Winter now turns to Spring, where the fast pace of a short session picks up steam, folks are paying attention to the tradition of working together, agreeing to disagree, and letting the votes decide the outcome of some weighty and complex issues.
|
|
List of Legislators not Seeking Re-Election
We would like to give a huge thanks to the following legislators that will not be seeking re-election this year for all they have done for Connecticut, and we wish them all the best in their future endeavors!
- Rep. Cathy Abercrombie (D)
- Rep. Dave Arconti (D)
- Rep. Whit Betts (R)
- Sen. Dan Champagne (R)
- Rep. Tony D'Amelio (R)
- Rep. Joe De La Cruz (D)
- Sen. Paul Formica (R)
- Sen. Will Haskell (D)
- Rep. Brandon McGee (D)
- Sen. Craig Miner (R)
- Rep. Rosa Rebimbas (R)
- Rep. Brian Smith (D)
- Rep. Dave Wilson (R)
- Sen. Kevin Witkos (R)
|
|
Finance Committee Readies Brand New Child Care Proposal Taking the 2022 Spotlight
As the Appropriations Committee readies state agency spending plans for a vote, the Finance Committee revealed today their brand new child care incentive program for “child care deserts” in cities.
The proposal, which is SB 487 C G A (ct.gov), would have a 75% reimbursement rate for nationally accredited child care centers that opened up in underserved communities in the state, and would allow for additional reimbursements for having staff with higher educational credentials. This language seems appealing to those who would like to open up child care locations in certain census tracts and will be evaluated for areas of the Office of Early Childhood (OEC).
Child care coverage has been a tremendously high priority for both the House and Senate this year given all that has taken place during the pandemic. This initiative will be thoroughly debated and watched by stakeholders seeing if this is a model set for passage.
The other unique part of this proposal is having OEC enter into a five-year contract with a child care service provider or staffed family child care networks, to create new or support existing infant and toddler spaces in such child care centers, group child care homes and family child care homes.
|
|
The legislature is in full swing, and among several proposals aimed at property tax relief there is one big ticket item that has some municipal leaders and state legislators concerned. Gov. Ned Lamont's proposal to lower the state's cap on local taxes for motor vehicles is worrying cities and towns that could ultimately wind up losing much needed revenue while wealthier drivers might benefit the most from the plan.
Betsy Gara, Executive Director of the Council of Small Towns suggested, “without a fail-safe mechanism for fully reimbursing municipalities for lost property tax revenues, capping car taxes will simply shift an even greater burden onto already overburdened homeowners and small businesses,” She added that local officials in small towns worry the state's reimbursement will be “phased out over time or swept completely when the state faces challenging budget years.”
This proposal has had various forms and fashions over the years and has typically been looked at skeptically by local leaders who are worried that one year they may be held harmless and then next, during a tough budget year, those funds dry up.
|
|
A Gas Tax Holiday
If you are an avid subscriber to the Inside Scoop blog post from past weeks, you know the state budget surplus has hit record-breaking levels this past year. As we continue down our path of diving deep into budgetary conversations happening at the Connecticut General Assembly, we have an update that will directly impact you, as a consumer. On Wednesday, Connecticut legislators voted unanimously to cut the gas tax. Included in these efforts would be other “tax holidays” directly focused on benefitting Nutmeggers at a time when our wallets seem to be getting slimmer. But, as consumers rejoice in this news, the impact of these changes is yet to be determined. Let’s dive in.
With just 1 hour of debate, the plan was unanimously voted out of the House of Representatives (143-0) and calls for temporarily suspending the gasoline excise tax of 25 cents per gallon as of April 1 and until June 30. The gasoline tax cut of $90 million will come from the once-troubled Special Transportation Fund which benefits from a 26.4 cent per gallon tax on gasoline. The package, a bipartisan initiative, also included free bus service for mostly lower-income riders paid for by federal stimulus funds ($8.1 million) as well as a one-week sales tax holiday in April on all footwear and clothing items under $100 (Happy Easter!) just like the one that already exists right before school starts in August. After 8 PM on Wednesday, the Senate approved the plan 33-0.
There is some concern that this tax might not be passed to drivers soon enough, and prices will go back up to the original per-gallon cost just in time for summer travel. Much of the talk around the building during the debate on this was around the tax cuts not applying to diesel or home heating. There was also a lot of chatter around the fact that rural communities don’t go through gas as much, making this not a direct-to-consumer type tax cut as it is hyped up to be. Although the concerns were not reflected in the unanimous votes in both chambers supporting this legislation, these are legitimate questions to ask during an odd period of rising costs all around us.
The next question is – will these allocated budget dollars impact other initiatives of the governor and House/Senate leaders as the Finance and Appropriations committees attempt in the next several weeks to wrap up budget and finance negotiations? Stay tuned.
|
|
March 25: The First American Bishop Led a Politically Problematic Faith
At a meeting held in Woodbury, Connecticut on March 25, 1783, 10 clergymen concerned with providing for the future of the Episcopal Church named Samuel Seabury to be the first bishop of the new United States of America. Seabury was born near New London on November 30, 1729 and had lived in Connecticut for most of his life — except for several turbulent years during the American Revolution when he fled to a more Loyalist-friendly part of New York because of his outspoken opposition to American independence.
Seabury had been ordained as a minister of the Anglican Church, which still had ties to the Episcopal church. And since there had never been an Anglican bishop in America, and a bishop was needed to consecrate Seabury as a bishop, Seabury sailed for England. There, he ran headfirst into a politically problematic technicality: the Church of England determined that it could not proceed with the consecration because the ceremony required taking an oath of allegiance to King George III. For Seabury, as a citizen of the new United States, such an oath was simply out of the question.
To resolve the dilemma, Seabury headed north and appealed to the Scottish Episcopal Church, which, despite its links to the Anglican Church, did not demand the same loyalty oath. The Scottish Episcopal Church performed Seabury’s consecration ceremony on November 14, 1784, after which Seabury returned to Connecticut and became rector of St. James’ Church in New London. He traveled throughout New England and New York extensively during his time as bishop, and was buried in New London after his death in 1796.
The original article from the CT Humanities Council can be found here.
|
|
Sullivan & LeShane, Inc.
www.ctlobby.com | (860) 560-0000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
