This Week's News:

Lamont will release tax return summary Friday...

Lamont says Connecticut unlikely to mandate COVID immunizations to attend school...

State Regulators Approve Discounted Electricity for Lower-Income Customers...

Watch Out for the Gorilla

Every week or so we find ourselves being faced with yet another “social unrest or injustice” and we all wonder what we can do to redirect the disrespect, lack of anxiety, anger and feelings of loss of control that many times create todays challenging events. 

As we as individuals search for a solution, corporations are asked, and at times demanded, to engage though public statements on the topic causing the unrest or socially unacceptable acts of violence or personal assaults. How are they handling it? It depends on their target audiences/customer base, their level of organizational engagement as part of their brand and their mission/corporate values. 

This week, as I attended the public affairs council annual board meeting (first in person meeting since 2019) the last panel of the conference focused on what four corporations do when they find them selves being pressured by either their customer, employees, advocates related to their industry and even shareholders to make statements. They discussed how they decide to become engaged, how they vet the action through all the governing bodies as well as their internal and external audiences, and if indeed the impact of any of the unfortunate events do in fact directly impact their industry / business, challenge their mission, or their key shareholders. Then they can determine if, when or how they engage. 

The majority of the panelists said that they have in place a triage system with a “stop light “ type of priority level: red means immediate action, yellow indicates there is an impact to some shareholders but not others, and finally green - they engage since it’s a part of their mission to advocate, engage on behalf of their employees, customer base or their business strategy. 

One “industry” that according to research by a national trade association might be considered an outlier in “ going public” with their opinions is higher education. Their role as thought leaders, educators of educators and at times the “ adult in the room” by providing the science and research around an issues versus the politics of an issue, puts them in an interesting spot. Most university presidents interviewed said the backlash of advocating against a social injustice outside of their educational role hits them from all sides -their faculty, their students, their boards of trustees, their alumni, their founders, those corporation foundations and mostly their elected officials who approve that essential funding for campus needs. In other words, maybe they can‘t win by doing the right thing, so it’s better to provide historical background, education and scientific information than to advocate for a particular solution or injustice. They maintain their role should be focusing on the campus population and exposing them to both sides of an issues, holding forums with the objective of allowing interested individuals to come and express their thoughts or experiences from their perspective. 

For instance, if a medical school speaks out on reproductive rights, they more than likely will do so from a patient's point of view, focusing on the best medical practices and the wellness of the impacted individual. They are mostly cautious as the topics get dicier since there are some advocates that believe if the college's mission promotes diversity and equality, and the institution doesn’t speak out, they risk the public feeling they are a bit hypocritical. 

Going back to the panel at the public affairs council annual meeting, each of the four corporations speaking and sharing their process and strategy on engaging social issues, as well as environmental and racial equity issues, discussed their proactive roles in employee engagement, voter education, and participation. Since the pandemic, they provided time off for employees to vote on election days. They also have an internal portal managed by their government affairs units to provide up to date information on not only issues directly impacting their business, but on their stakeholders both internal and external. They provide opportunities for local candidates to come into their facilities for a tour, talking with interested employees as well as their boards on a regular basis. 

The last point of interest was that all four companies start the vetting process by listening and learning with trusted sources. They investigate the motivation behind the request to speak out - is it their size, scope, brand/reputation, or type of customer being targeted as a platform to advance an organization's individual interest? Or are they looking to make them the poster child as the “big bad corporate entity"? All felt that this was an important first step before they would consider taking any action. 

One corporate representative shared with the attendees that after years of never engaging on issues outside of their specific industry, the CEO felt compelled to engage. They examined the pros and cons and looked at all the potential risks. They eventually decided to engage. Then, several months later, when another community issue erupted, they took a pass based on a similar assessment. They were criticized that they did not take a stand on other social issues even though it had little impact on their stakeholders. The community expected them to become advocates for all social concerns regardless of their mission or their type of business.

Lesson learned - be thoughtful of how, when or if you engage in external “major social happenings”, or you might find yourself in the same spot the next time someone demands your organization to take a stand.

Reminds me of that old adage … it’s like dancing with a gorilla, the dance isn’t over until the gorilla says it is. Its important to establish clear and specific tools to assess the risk, and guide the organization through the decision making process. 

Maybe the way to show solidarity isn’t to issue a statement. Maybe you light up a building, observe a moment of silence, provide an insightful event for key stakeholders to express their thoughts, or reach out to your trusted advocates and seek their guidance on alternate ways to affirm your company’s mission and support for a particular issue. 

As one panelist wrapped up the panel he reminded us that ….actions sometimes speak louder than words. 

What Exactly Is the Controversy of the CT Port Authority?

The CT Port Authority, created under the previous Governor Dan Malloy in 2014, has been riddled with road bumps (or white caps in their case) since inception.

The project and new quasi-public agency is finally set for completion of the new port located in the Southeast portion of the state in New London where it’s expected to be a major hub for wind turbine manufacturing and create hundreds of quality technical jobs. There are obvious positive economic development narratives for this project. However, historic unforced errors over the years have created both internal and external strife which have prevented the authority in gaining public accolades. Here’s a brief history on the CT Port Authority controversy:

• The overall project, originally budgeted for $93M, was escalated to $155M two years ago through an agreement struck as a public private partnership. That didn’t last long and has over time accrued so much expense the total cost is now $255M. The last leg of financing came during the July 2022 bond commission agenda for $20M with the intention that the project will not need any more funding for completion.
• It was also announced in early July that the State fined consultants for the project tasked with finding a pier operator $10,000 for providing more than $3,000 in food and gifts in the form of hockey tickets and an overnight stay at a country club to authority officials in 2017 and 2019.
• The Connecticut State Contracting Board investigated the authorizing of a past port authority board “success fee” for the same consultant which also included an investigation by the Attorney General and Federal probe into the matter. The AG ruled that the board had limited authority to regulate the port authority fee paid which was $523,000 and there were conflicting statutes involving the approval of the fee between a 2015 law and a 2020 law. After the determination, the contracting board president officially stated that the fee in his opinion was, “terrible in terms of open and fair bidding” and added, “I can’t think of anything less appropriate.”
• One of the previous port authority executive directors was placed on administrative leave after its chairwoman spent $3,000 on photographs taken by her daughter for the office and no bid contracts went to close associates of the vice chairman.
• Audit findings in 2019 found that the port authority spent $541 on two transactions for hotel stays in Mystic but one of the expenses was related to a meeting 90 miles away in Darien. Another Mystic hotel stay was related to a one-day U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hearing in New Haven. The auditor also stated in his review that travel and meals at the port authority found “no documentation, no process, no policies and procedures in place to determine whether those expenses were appropriate.”

November Ballot Questions

As many residents in CT will head to the polls for the wide swath of elected officials vying for seats in the House of Representatives, Senate, Governor’s Office and Constitutional Offices, there are also several other choices voters will have to make. There is a statewide constitutional question on the ballot which every state of CT voter will have to ruminate over, and that will be whether or not to join 46 other states in the opportunity for early voting. If that question passes, the legislature would have to pass a law that would implement when, how and where early voting could take place.

In New Britain, there are three charter amendment questions that have received quite a bit of press recently. The overall theme of these three charter changes falls into the category of shifting to a more ‘professionalized’ leadership structure. These questions would create a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), make the tax collector and city clerk positions appointed and remove five at-large alderman positions. Mayor Erin Stewart argues that this would create a structure where during elected leadership transitions there would be consistency. This would allow those new appointed positions to create long term strategies and not be beholden to the political winds that sometimes influence day to day policy decisions. The opponents of these charter revisions questions have suggested that this would potentially harm the residents and voters of New Britain having a say in policy through elections every two years.  

The Ad Blitz, Streaming Edition!

Think you can cut out political ads by escaping to streaming services? Think again.

The last few weeks, this blog has focused on fundraising and where the money for political campaigns goes as Election Day approaches. One of the biggest bangs for your buck if you are a statewide candidate is getting on television. Sure, tweeting out your ad is good, but getting on TV during a football Sunday is A LOT better. One of the few benefits that political candidates have as they get closer to Election Day is people are watching more television. Fall and winter brings more eyes on the television, which means more people seeing your ads, if you can afford it. Years ago, you’d have to raise millions to get a television spot or two statewide, especially if you were in the Fairfield County area because of the New York media market. But as thousands of people have “cut the cord” to head to streaming services, things have changed for political advertising on television. Let’s dive in.

While the major cost of advertising on streaming services is heavily dependent on that particular outlet, advertising on Roku, Hulu, and other services became quite prevalent in 2020. This shows the importance of getting on the airwaves and hitting them hard just before election season. Sunday’s are particularly important. Why? Football! During a Raiders game in October, a Republican Super PAC spent $150,000 for 30 seconds. How great is it to watch your team throw their second interception of the day and get an advertisement from a candidate you don’t like?

The candidates certainly understand the importance. Look at spending for candidates like Governor Ned Lamont and Republican challenger Bob Stefanowski in the past few months. According to the CT Mirror, half of the candidates' collective spending came in a 90-day period just before the close of the fiscal quarter due to staff additions, but most of all, a TV spending blitz: $8.5 million for Lamont and $4.97 million for Stefanowski collectively spread out between the two.

As you sit down in the next few weeks to watch your steaming service, remember that when it goes to an ad break, you’re very likely to see a political advertisement for a statewide race. Just remember that these are expensive, and luckily enough, we get a break after Election Day. 

October 21, 1892: When Columbus Stood for Inclusion and Columbus Day Came 9 Days Late

At a time when immigrants – many from Italy – were pouring into America in numbers that seriously alarmed the “old stock” descendants of the original Puritan settlers, the 400th anniversary of Columbus’s even-then-disputed “discovery” of America proved an ideal time for Connecticans to assess the contributions of newcomers while expressing a common patriotism. So, on October 21st, 1892 (more about that date shortly), tens of thousands of Connecticans gathered – in schools, churches, town greens and city parades all across the state – to celebrate Columbus’s arrival in the Americas 400 years earlier with over-the-top expressions of ethnic inclusion and American patriotism.

In Hartford, a thousand children jammed into the Governor’s Foot Guard armory, while thousands more sought entrance, to sing patriotic songs while waving American flags, a sight and sound that thrilled “every heart in that immense crowd.”

A century bicycle race, a twelve mile foot race, harness racing, evening socials and fireworks also marked the occasion, and of course there was a mind-numbing profusion of oratory, some, no doubt, inspiring. Elaborate patriotic programs were held in schools throughout the state. Businesses closed so parades featuring Italian-American and other ethnic groups could march through bunting-lined streets in full ethnic regalia in most of the state’s cities. Bridgeport’s celebration was called “the greatest and best affair of its kind ever held” there. The town fathers even went so far as to produce a commemorative Quadricentennial coin marking the day.

In New Haven and Willimantic, statues of Columbus, paid for through the voluntary contributions of members of Italian fraternal organizations, were unveiled and dedicated with pomp and politicians. Even small towns joined in the celebration. In Rockville, the Methodist church ladies society celebrated the occasion with an afternoon Columbian tea. Ansonia, too, conducted a range of festivities, noting at their conclusion that “not an arrest was made for disturbance or drunkenness.”



So, why the October 21st celebration of Columbus Day instead of the traditional October 12? Striving for accuracy, officials planning the national celebration of the event had taken into account the post-Columbus era switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar system of date recording. That change required adding nine days to the calendar date of Columbus’s arrival to make sure it was celebrated on the true 400th anniversary of his achievement. Not every one agreed with the change – New York held its Columbus Day Parade on October 12th and the 5000 members of the Knights of Columbus marched in New Haven on that day – but for most Americans, old guard and newcomers, the 400th anniversary of Columbus’s landing in America took place on October 21st. A date to remember – sort of.

To view the full story on the CT Historian's website, click here.