A battle is shaping up at the state Capitol over a decade-old early childhood reading program that targets underprivileged children.
Since 1998, the state Department of Education has administered the Early Reading Success (ERS) program to provide cities and towns with funding to hire reading specialists and buy text books to combat illiteracy.
However, $20 million in fiscal year 2009 funding for the program disappeared when the biennial budget was adopted last June.
Opponents of the program maintain that it has been mismanaged and ineffective, and has not improved the reading skills of Connecticut children, but at a recent appropriations committee hearing, Mark McQuillan, commissioner for the state Department of Education Commissioner, disagreed that the program had been ineffective. Rather, the data indicates that more strategies are needed to boost student reading skills.
“It’s an unclear picture, but a distressing one,” McQuillan said.
Uphill Battle
Although the program lost legislative support because there was the belief that the program had been mismanaged, McQuillan acknowledged that there was room for improvement in how the state administered the program.
“Things are very uneven,” he said. “It’s a bit of a murky picture and we want to take steps to better administer the program.”
One of those steps would require school districts to submit annual reports on the program’s progress and to increase standards for new teachers in the program.
As the economy continues to decline, proponents of the program face an even tougher uphill climb to convince legislators to restore funding.
“I think it’s fair to say it has been very difficult to get more funding in these times,” said Mark Waxenberg, director of government relations for the Connecticut Education Association and one of the association’s registered lobbyists. “I wouldn’t say it’s fallen on deaf ears, but we recognize what’s going on.”
Though full restoration is their goal, Waxenberg said that even a compromise of half the funding would be considered successful.
“We saw that it had been bumped and we were trying to figure out why,” Waxenberg added. “This is funding that goes to places like Norwalk, Bridgeport, the poorest of the poor.”
For example, Bridgeport and Waterbury receive about $3 million each from the program, a tab taxpayers would be unlikely to pick up.
Without restored funding, those school districts would almost undoubtedly begin layoffs, raising another issue — lost jobs.
The majority of the ERS funding doesn’t go toward books or school supplies; it’s used to hire reading teachers, reading coaches and paraprofessionals.
Teacher Layoffs Expected
“It’s tough right now because everyone is concerned and frightened about their jobs, about the economy and what’s going to happen,” Waxenberg said. “It’s the same problem with education that there’s more funding needed and not enough funding available.”
The absence of state aid will push the burden of education funding on to municipalities and cities to decide what to do.
“There’s a lot of talk about property tax relief for families but it’s turning into a lot of little
battles across the state about education,” Waxenberg said.
In general, education funding is likely to flatten out this session as both sides of the aisle at the General Assembly are preaching about frugality.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Signs Of Spring: The Marriage Debate
It’s become another rite of spring — the annual debate in the legislature about same-sex marriage.
Since Connecticut legalized civil unions in 2005, neither side of the controversial subject has been completely satisfied.
Gay and lesbian advocates, led by Love Makes A Family, have argued that civil unions are inadequate and do not provide enough rights or benefits.
At the same time, those opposed to civil unions to begin with, such as the Family Institute of Connecticut, are constantly concerned about the possibility of same-sex marriage because they believe it is a “direct frontal assault on the sanctity of marriage.”
The subject recently took center stage in a roundabout way as an amendment to Connecticut’s civil union laws had a public hearing at the Capitol. The proposed legislation would recognize same-sex marriages from other states as legal in Connecticut.
Equal Rights Roadblocks
Both sides agree the legislation is merely a prelude to a broader debate, likely to heat up in 2009, on legalizing same-sex marriages conducted here.
“From our perspective, it’s not so much about legal unions because we know they are inadequate,” said Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes A Family. “You can’t really fix civil unions because they are too confusing and there aren’t enough legal rights.”
Stanback has argued that same-sex couples in civil unions have been denied services in hospitals, funeral homes, state agencies and courts because the extent of their legality is unclear. She described the situation as unfair for same-sex couples to face “additional burdens and hardships.”
Peter Wolfgang, executive director for the Family Institute of Connecticut, disagrees. “The real purpose of this is to give legal significance to gay marriage even though the state defined marriage as between a man and woman in 2005,” said Wolfgang, a registered lobbyist for the Family Institute. “You can see how powerful their lobby has become since they’re able to waste a whole day of the legislature’s time talking about this.”
Advocating Tradition
The Family Institute is also represented by Dolores Malloy from Malloy & Associates. Love Makes A Family has three in-house lobbyists and three lobbyists from Betty Gallo & Co. They are just two of the many groups vying for legislators’ attention.
Because of the nature of the debate, both sides realize that legislators have already taken a stand one way or another. But that doesn’t mean the lobbying ever stops.
“Actually, we have more activity out in the field than we’ve ever had before,” Stanback said. “I really believe that legislators are moving in our direction.”
Stanback said her lobbying efforts are focused on explaining to legislators the roadblocks same-sex couples still face.
“As they become more familiar with the situation, it becomes a matter of time,” she said. “I have no doubt that we’re going to get same-sex marriage legalized, whether it’s through the courts or the legislature.”
Tax Issues
Despite the support same-sex marriages in Connecticut received last year, its failure to succeed suggests that legalization is anything but inevitable.
“We know that we can’t sway the judiciary committee,” Wolfgang said of the committee holding the latest same-sex marriage public hearing. “They are so far gone from the rest of the legislature. We have no illusion about them. We know what they’re trying to do with this bill, and I don’t think it’s going to happen.”
Wolfgang also said same-sex marriages are not legal under the federal tax code.
“This legislation could also begin the process for a ridiculous subsidy that would give tax credits to same-sex couples,” he said. “We’re sorry they disagree with the tax code, but we’re not going to allow that.”
Since Connecticut legalized civil unions in 2005, neither side of the controversial subject has been completely satisfied.
Gay and lesbian advocates, led by Love Makes A Family, have argued that civil unions are inadequate and do not provide enough rights or benefits.
At the same time, those opposed to civil unions to begin with, such as the Family Institute of Connecticut, are constantly concerned about the possibility of same-sex marriage because they believe it is a “direct frontal assault on the sanctity of marriage.”
The subject recently took center stage in a roundabout way as an amendment to Connecticut’s civil union laws had a public hearing at the Capitol. The proposed legislation would recognize same-sex marriages from other states as legal in Connecticut.
Equal Rights Roadblocks
Both sides agree the legislation is merely a prelude to a broader debate, likely to heat up in 2009, on legalizing same-sex marriages conducted here.
“From our perspective, it’s not so much about legal unions because we know they are inadequate,” said Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes A Family. “You can’t really fix civil unions because they are too confusing and there aren’t enough legal rights.”
Stanback has argued that same-sex couples in civil unions have been denied services in hospitals, funeral homes, state agencies and courts because the extent of their legality is unclear. She described the situation as unfair for same-sex couples to face “additional burdens and hardships.”
Peter Wolfgang, executive director for the Family Institute of Connecticut, disagrees. “The real purpose of this is to give legal significance to gay marriage even though the state defined marriage as between a man and woman in 2005,” said Wolfgang, a registered lobbyist for the Family Institute. “You can see how powerful their lobby has become since they’re able to waste a whole day of the legislature’s time talking about this.”
Advocating Tradition
The Family Institute is also represented by Dolores Malloy from Malloy & Associates. Love Makes A Family has three in-house lobbyists and three lobbyists from Betty Gallo & Co. They are just two of the many groups vying for legislators’ attention.
Because of the nature of the debate, both sides realize that legislators have already taken a stand one way or another. But that doesn’t mean the lobbying ever stops.
“Actually, we have more activity out in the field than we’ve ever had before,” Stanback said. “I really believe that legislators are moving in our direction.”
Stanback said her lobbying efforts are focused on explaining to legislators the roadblocks same-sex couples still face.
“As they become more familiar with the situation, it becomes a matter of time,” she said. “I have no doubt that we’re going to get same-sex marriage legalized, whether it’s through the courts or the legislature.”
Tax Issues
Despite the support same-sex marriages in Connecticut received last year, its failure to succeed suggests that legalization is anything but inevitable.
“We know that we can’t sway the judiciary committee,” Wolfgang said of the committee holding the latest same-sex marriage public hearing. “They are so far gone from the rest of the legislature. We have no illusion about them. We know what they’re trying to do with this bill, and I don’t think it’s going to happen.”
Wolfgang also said same-sex marriages are not legal under the federal tax code.
“This legislation could also begin the process for a ridiculous subsidy that would give tax credits to same-sex couples,” he said. “We’re sorry they disagree with the tax code, but we’re not going to allow that.”
Monday, March 17, 2008
Duking It Out Over Sick Days
A battle is brewing this spring over a legislative proposal to mandate a minimum amount of paid sick days for all employees.
In one corner stands a majority of Connecticut business owners who feel the mandate would adversely affect their bottom line.
Across the ring are advocates, like Connecticut Working Families, fighting because they believe the mandate will protect families and the health of workers.
In 2007, a similar bill made its way through the state Senate but died in the House. That means 2008 is shaping up as round two, and both sides have already started throwing haymakers.
“Most businesses in Connecticut pay over the minimum wage, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a basic minimum floor,” said Joe Dinkin, communications director for Connecticut Working Families. “Everyone should have access to paid sick days.”
More Business Costs
“Economic development in the state and the country is being hurt by increasing costs,” said Kia Murrell, assistant counsel for labor and employment issues for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association. “It’s so darn expensive to operate in the state; we can’t afford to add another government mandate.”
If passed, employees would accrue sick leave at the rate of one hour for each 40 weeks worked.
At the heart of the issue is the difference of opinion on whether or not the mandate would be good for business.
Advocates of the bill point to a survey of human resources executives, which found that 56 percent of HR professionals said “presenteeism” is a significant problem. Presenteeism is the phenomenon of employees coming to work despite being ill.
“I don’t think this mandate is bad for business at all,” Dinkin said. “I think it’s good because it would eliminate people coming to work sick, potentially spreading illnesses to others.”
Healthful Workplace
Those in favor of the bill also believe that workers with paid sick days would be healthier, which in turn would lead to higher productivity.
The CBIA, though, counters that a recent survey found 69 percent of Connecticut employers offer sick leave and 60 percent allow workers to carry over unused sick days.
Furthermore, Connecticut businesses are against the proposed mandate by a 24 to 1 margin.
One area of concern is unique, seasonal or small businesses that would be forced to grant more sick time than they can fiscally afford.
“A lot of these businesses, because of their nature, can’t afford to give their guys that much time off,” Murrell said. “And if it’s, say, a business at the beach that only runs for five months a year, it’s going to be hard to do that. It’s an unfortunate thing to say, but sick time is a fringe benefit.”
Murrell pointed out that the current trend is for businesses to lump together vacation and personal days together for employees to use as they see fit. The mandate would effectively end that practice.
As the bill weaves its way through the state Capitol, Murrell said that she is concerned that many legislators pushing for the bill’s approval have no business experience.
“Some of these legislators have their experience in education or government or nonprofits,” she said. “They’ve never had to run a business for profit. They’ve never had to produce a product on time and under budget.”
While Murrell is confident that the wave of opposition from businesses would kill the bill, Dinkin and Connecticut Working Families are confident they can push the bill from proposal to law.
E-mail me
In one corner stands a majority of Connecticut business owners who feel the mandate would adversely affect their bottom line.
Across the ring are advocates, like Connecticut Working Families, fighting because they believe the mandate will protect families and the health of workers.
In 2007, a similar bill made its way through the state Senate but died in the House. That means 2008 is shaping up as round two, and both sides have already started throwing haymakers.
“Most businesses in Connecticut pay over the minimum wage, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a basic minimum floor,” said Joe Dinkin, communications director for Connecticut Working Families. “Everyone should have access to paid sick days.”
More Business Costs
“Economic development in the state and the country is being hurt by increasing costs,” said Kia Murrell, assistant counsel for labor and employment issues for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association. “It’s so darn expensive to operate in the state; we can’t afford to add another government mandate.”
If passed, employees would accrue sick leave at the rate of one hour for each 40 weeks worked.
At the heart of the issue is the difference of opinion on whether or not the mandate would be good for business.
Advocates of the bill point to a survey of human resources executives, which found that 56 percent of HR professionals said “presenteeism” is a significant problem. Presenteeism is the phenomenon of employees coming to work despite being ill.
“I don’t think this mandate is bad for business at all,” Dinkin said. “I think it’s good because it would eliminate people coming to work sick, potentially spreading illnesses to others.”
Healthful Workplace
Those in favor of the bill also believe that workers with paid sick days would be healthier, which in turn would lead to higher productivity.
The CBIA, though, counters that a recent survey found 69 percent of Connecticut employers offer sick leave and 60 percent allow workers to carry over unused sick days.
Furthermore, Connecticut businesses are against the proposed mandate by a 24 to 1 margin.
One area of concern is unique, seasonal or small businesses that would be forced to grant more sick time than they can fiscally afford.
“A lot of these businesses, because of their nature, can’t afford to give their guys that much time off,” Murrell said. “And if it’s, say, a business at the beach that only runs for five months a year, it’s going to be hard to do that. It’s an unfortunate thing to say, but sick time is a fringe benefit.”
Murrell pointed out that the current trend is for businesses to lump together vacation and personal days together for employees to use as they see fit. The mandate would effectively end that practice.
As the bill weaves its way through the state Capitol, Murrell said that she is concerned that many legislators pushing for the bill’s approval have no business experience.
“Some of these legislators have their experience in education or government or nonprofits,” she said. “They’ve never had to run a business for profit. They’ve never had to produce a product on time and under budget.”
While Murrell is confident that the wave of opposition from businesses would kill the bill, Dinkin and Connecticut Working Families are confident they can push the bill from proposal to law.
E-mail me
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Workers Comp Bills
There are a lot of bills floating around the state capitol right now. Interestingly, five bills all have to do with worker's compensation rules and reform. The bills already have a pretty significant opponent in the MetroHartford Alliance, which has alerted its members to contact the Labor Committee and express opposition.
A quick rundown of the bills:
Senate Bill 255 - To permit workers' compensation commissioners to award additional benefits to compensate an injured worker for loss of wages under the appropriate circumstances. Following a public hearing on March 4, it got a 7-1 approval from the Labor Committee on Thursday.
Senate Bill 57 - To require employers to provide forms necessary for injured employees to help injured employees provide adequate notice of injury to the Workers' Compensation Commission. There was a public hearing on March 4, no action since then.
Senate Bill 63 - To reinsert the post-traumatic stress disorder clause into the Workers' Compensation Act. No action since the March 4 hearing.
Senate Bill 64 - To create a more equitable system of awarding workers' compensation for permanent disfigurement or scarring. Passed the Labor Committee Thursday with a 7-3 tally.
House Bill 5334 - To create penalties for employer's delay of necessary medical treatment for injured workers. Still in the Labor Committee following the March 4 hearing.
The opposition from the MetroHartford Alliance is based on the fact that Connecticut is already 9th in the country when it comes to worker's compensation costs and it is, according to them, the only state that awards such generous discretionary benefits. They also cite the National Council on Compensation Insurance which estimates that Senate Bill 255, for additional benefits, would increase costs by 55 percent.
Of course, the flip side are the advocates for workers and families that argue these benefits are deserved. At the very least, two of the five bills have already made their way out of committee.
E-mail me
A quick rundown of the bills:
Senate Bill 255 - To permit workers' compensation commissioners to award additional benefits to compensate an injured worker for loss of wages under the appropriate circumstances. Following a public hearing on March 4, it got a 7-1 approval from the Labor Committee on Thursday.
Senate Bill 57 - To require employers to provide forms necessary for injured employees to help injured employees provide adequate notice of injury to the Workers' Compensation Commission. There was a public hearing on March 4, no action since then.
Senate Bill 63 - To reinsert the post-traumatic stress disorder clause into the Workers' Compensation Act. No action since the March 4 hearing.
Senate Bill 64 - To create a more equitable system of awarding workers' compensation for permanent disfigurement or scarring. Passed the Labor Committee Thursday with a 7-3 tally.
House Bill 5334 - To create penalties for employer's delay of necessary medical treatment for injured workers. Still in the Labor Committee following the March 4 hearing.
The opposition from the MetroHartford Alliance is based on the fact that Connecticut is already 9th in the country when it comes to worker's compensation costs and it is, according to them, the only state that awards such generous discretionary benefits. They also cite the National Council on Compensation Insurance which estimates that Senate Bill 255, for additional benefits, would increase costs by 55 percent.
Of course, the flip side are the advocates for workers and families that argue these benefits are deserved. At the very least, two of the five bills have already made their way out of committee.
E-mail me
Monday, March 10, 2008
Axing A Temporary Tax
With the support of Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz, small business owners are seizing upon the opportunity to influence lawmakers to ax the business entities tax, introduced as a temporary stop-gap solution to the state’s 2002 budget deficit. But like many temporary taxes, it has lingered for six years.
With momentum building in favor of repealing the $250 tax that businesses must pay when registering their business with the secretary of state’s office, small business owners are storming the state Capitol to build their case.
“With a lot of these tax issues, it’s supposed to be temporary and ends up permanent,” said Andrew Markowski, director of the Connecticut chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business.
Markowski is also a lobbyist with Gara & Associates and is listed as a registered lobbyist for the NFIB.
The tax, according to Markowski, disproportionately affects small businesses. “For a small business, that $250 could be an electric bill for a month, advertising or marketing costs or the cost to attend a trade show,” Markowski said. “It’s more about sending a message that politicians are helping small businesses, and this is an easy, quick fix.”
The Connecticut Business & Industry Association believes that small businesses are most affected by the tax despite creating many of the state’s new jobs.
Makes Sense
To Bysiewicz and Rell, repealing the tax makes sense because the state has enjoyed three surpluses in four years.
However, putting an end to the tax isn’t a done deal. Some Democrats are floating the possibility of repealing the tax on a temporary basis.
Opponents point to the roughly $35 million generated annually from the tax that is distributed to a number of worthwhile programs. Shelley Geballe, president of Connecticut Voices for Children, opposes repealing the tax and instead favors reforming it by allowing small businesses to pay a reduced tax based on gross annual income.
One of the reasons cited for the elimination of the tax is that it stunts business growth. In calling for its repeal, Bysiewicz said it would send a message that Connecticut is accommodating for new businesses.
“This tax is an obstacle to small business owners, who are responsible for 80 percent of new jobs in our state and help make our economy grow,” she said. “It is also a deterrent to entrepreneurs considering Connecticut as a place to locate their company.”
The entity tax in Connecticut is not anti-competitive, Geballe countered, because taxes in similar states are actually greater. For example, Rhode Island imposes a $500 annual entity tax.
Geballe’s argument is that repealing the tax on all pass-through entities, such as LLCs, LPs and LLPs, would further shift the tax burden from the business sector to families because the state would have to recoup about $35 million brought in from tax.
But lobbyists representing small businesses disagree and are focusing their persuasive efforts on “common sense arguments,” Markowski said.
The NFIB, representing hundreds of Connecticut small business owners, has the support of trade organizations and chambers of commerce.
“We work with anyone who’s looking to help out with small businesses,” Markowski said. “We’re hoping to get these issues through this session.” However, as of press time, a public hearing had not yet been set.
With momentum building in favor of repealing the $250 tax that businesses must pay when registering their business with the secretary of state’s office, small business owners are storming the state Capitol to build their case.
“With a lot of these tax issues, it’s supposed to be temporary and ends up permanent,” said Andrew Markowski, director of the Connecticut chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business.
Markowski is also a lobbyist with Gara & Associates and is listed as a registered lobbyist for the NFIB.
The tax, according to Markowski, disproportionately affects small businesses. “For a small business, that $250 could be an electric bill for a month, advertising or marketing costs or the cost to attend a trade show,” Markowski said. “It’s more about sending a message that politicians are helping small businesses, and this is an easy, quick fix.”
The Connecticut Business & Industry Association believes that small businesses are most affected by the tax despite creating many of the state’s new jobs.
Makes Sense
To Bysiewicz and Rell, repealing the tax makes sense because the state has enjoyed three surpluses in four years.
However, putting an end to the tax isn’t a done deal. Some Democrats are floating the possibility of repealing the tax on a temporary basis.
Opponents point to the roughly $35 million generated annually from the tax that is distributed to a number of worthwhile programs. Shelley Geballe, president of Connecticut Voices for Children, opposes repealing the tax and instead favors reforming it by allowing small businesses to pay a reduced tax based on gross annual income.
One of the reasons cited for the elimination of the tax is that it stunts business growth. In calling for its repeal, Bysiewicz said it would send a message that Connecticut is accommodating for new businesses.
“This tax is an obstacle to small business owners, who are responsible for 80 percent of new jobs in our state and help make our economy grow,” she said. “It is also a deterrent to entrepreneurs considering Connecticut as a place to locate their company.”
The entity tax in Connecticut is not anti-competitive, Geballe countered, because taxes in similar states are actually greater. For example, Rhode Island imposes a $500 annual entity tax.
Geballe’s argument is that repealing the tax on all pass-through entities, such as LLCs, LPs and LLPs, would further shift the tax burden from the business sector to families because the state would have to recoup about $35 million brought in from tax.
But lobbyists representing small businesses disagree and are focusing their persuasive efforts on “common sense arguments,” Markowski said.
The NFIB, representing hundreds of Connecticut small business owners, has the support of trade organizations and chambers of commerce.
“We work with anyone who’s looking to help out with small businesses,” Markowski said. “We’re hoping to get these issues through this session.” However, as of press time, a public hearing had not yet been set.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Homeschool Bill
The Family Institute of Connecticut has been mentioned in this space on a couple of occassions, once as opposition to Planned Parenthood's push for more sex education and later as opposition to a bill that would give more rights to transsexuals. The Institute doesn't just go around the capital lodging protests against other bills. No, they tend to push their own.
And their latest effort is the so-called "homeschool bill". Formerly called, "AN ACT CONCERNING THE WITHDRAWAL OF A CHILD FROM ENROLLMENT IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL," the bill would allow parents to simply send a certified letter to the principal or superintendent to let them know their child was being home-schooled. The Family Institute, in arguing for the bill, has said that state officials have been falsely advising public school districts that parents cannot withdraw their children as students. This has led, according to the Institute, to families that choose to homeschool their children being harassed.
In its effort to get the bill passed, the Family Institute has e-mailed its members and those on its mailing list to contact their legislators as soon as possible because the bill will die if it is not raised for consideration by the Education Committee by March 19. The lobbying efforts include getting members to call the education committee chairmen -- their numbers are listed -- as well as writing e-mails with "some basic points" included. Though the Institute is urging those wanting to help to cause to add their own personal message. We've seen in the past that mass mailings to legislators, with the same message over and over, tends not to work.
The bill had a public hearing on Feb. 19, and was reported out of the legislative commissioner's office on Monday. There was a favorable change of reference made Tuesday by the House and Senate to the education committee. Clearly, the Family Institute will ramp up its efforts in the next two weeks to get this bill raised, it'll be interesting to see if they'll be successful.
A little housekeeping: I realized there isn't an e-mail link on the blog so I'm going to include my email address in a link at the bottom of all posts. Feel free to drop a line about anything.
E-mail me
And their latest effort is the so-called "homeschool bill". Formerly called, "AN ACT CONCERNING THE WITHDRAWAL OF A CHILD FROM ENROLLMENT IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL," the bill would allow parents to simply send a certified letter to the principal or superintendent to let them know their child was being home-schooled. The Family Institute, in arguing for the bill, has said that state officials have been falsely advising public school districts that parents cannot withdraw their children as students. This has led, according to the Institute, to families that choose to homeschool their children being harassed.
In its effort to get the bill passed, the Family Institute has e-mailed its members and those on its mailing list to contact their legislators as soon as possible because the bill will die if it is not raised for consideration by the Education Committee by March 19. The lobbying efforts include getting members to call the education committee chairmen -- their numbers are listed -- as well as writing e-mails with "some basic points" included. Though the Institute is urging those wanting to help to cause to add their own personal message. We've seen in the past that mass mailings to legislators, with the same message over and over, tends not to work.
The bill had a public hearing on Feb. 19, and was reported out of the legislative commissioner's office on Monday. There was a favorable change of reference made Tuesday by the House and Senate to the education committee. Clearly, the Family Institute will ramp up its efforts in the next two weeks to get this bill raised, it'll be interesting to see if they'll be successful.
A little housekeeping: I realized there isn't an e-mail link on the blog so I'm going to include my email address in a link at the bottom of all posts. Feel free to drop a line about anything.
E-mail me
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Office of State Ethics Steps Up
The data found on the Office of State Ethics website has been, at best, average. My predecessor first talked about the subject last summer when he wrote that the office took a wrong turn on data. His point was that the lobbyist data was filed in hard to read PDF documents that forced someone looking for information to pore through hundreds of pages.
I took a look at problems with accuracy within those documents in November, with a column entitled "Ethics Agency Sets Different Standards for Self, Lobbyists". A month later, the ethics office earned some praise here as it announced it would be stepping up the presentation of data on its web site.
I can report for those looking for lobbyist information that the Office of State Ethics lobbyist report site has dramatically changed. Instead of being forced to look at those PDF documents, the database is now searchable by lobbyist filings (by form type), by business and by lobbyist. Finding a client relationship or financial information is much easier to locate.
And, yes, those PDF files still exist at the bottom of the page, but with a twist. Those massive reports with every registered lobbyist are now available in an Excel file, which allows for someone to search through it instead of scrolling through page after page after page to find someone.
Kudos to the Office of State Ethics for listening to complaints from journalists and lobbyists alike and actually making change for the better. What a concept.
I took a look at problems with accuracy within those documents in November, with a column entitled "Ethics Agency Sets Different Standards for Self, Lobbyists". A month later, the ethics office earned some praise here as it announced it would be stepping up the presentation of data on its web site.
I can report for those looking for lobbyist information that the Office of State Ethics lobbyist report site has dramatically changed. Instead of being forced to look at those PDF documents, the database is now searchable by lobbyist filings (by form type), by business and by lobbyist. Finding a client relationship or financial information is much easier to locate.
And, yes, those PDF files still exist at the bottom of the page, but with a twist. Those massive reports with every registered lobbyist are now available in an Excel file, which allows for someone to search through it instead of scrolling through page after page after page to find someone.
Kudos to the Office of State Ethics for listening to complaints from journalists and lobbyists alike and actually making change for the better. What a concept.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Blog? What's a blog?
Since I started putting my columns online, this blog has really been more of an archive than a blog. Well, I think that it's time to change that up a little bit. So from now on, I'm going to try to post something at least once a day, even if it's just a link or two. For my readers, of which there are tens upon tens, please don't hestitate to e-mail me with any fun or interesting information regarding lobbying and politics in Connecticut.
And we'll start this brave new world with a look at new bill raised being pushed by the Connecticut Technology Council. The proposed legislation would create a "star student" internship program for the state's high school students. In essence, the bill would crease a pilot program for students to get paid internships with technology-based businesses in the state.
As a former intern myself, the inclusion of the word "paid" makes this a very interesting proposition. The bill would let the high school student receive $5 an hour for the internship as well as the equivalent of $5 per hour in the form of tuition reduction to any state university. The limit, at least initally, would be 200 students statewide.
It is an understandable proposal from the Connecticut Technology Council, considering they, and others, have complained about the number of skilled workers the state is producing. Could this be a solution?
The bill has been referred to the joint committee on commerce and a public hearing has been schedule for later today. To read the proposed legislation, click here.
And we'll start this brave new world with a look at new bill raised being pushed by the Connecticut Technology Council. The proposed legislation would create a "star student" internship program for the state's high school students. In essence, the bill would crease a pilot program for students to get paid internships with technology-based businesses in the state.
As a former intern myself, the inclusion of the word "paid" makes this a very interesting proposition. The bill would let the high school student receive $5 an hour for the internship as well as the equivalent of $5 per hour in the form of tuition reduction to any state university. The limit, at least initally, would be 200 students statewide.
It is an understandable proposal from the Connecticut Technology Council, considering they, and others, have complained about the number of skilled workers the state is producing. Could this be a solution?
The bill has been referred to the joint committee on commerce and a public hearing has been schedule for later today. To read the proposed legislation, click here.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Marijuana In The Medicine Cabinet
Medical marijuana advocates took a hit last year. And they weren’t happy about it.
Last year, Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed medical marijuana legislation that passed easily through the state House and Senate. It was a significant setback for those who had lobbied for years to get Connecticut to adopt such a bill.
Fast forward a year later, and medical marijuana advocates remain steadfast, emboldened by a recent position paper by the American College of Physicians (ACP).
The 13-page paper was written by a dozen of doctors who threw their unanimous support behind the therapeutic use of marijuana and strongly advised that more research was needed.
“Unfortunately, research expansion has been hindered by a complicated federal-approval process, limited availability of research-grade marijuana, and the debate over legalization,” the study’s authors said in a written statement. In particular, the ACP report maintained that the medical uses of marijuana have been overshadowed by the lingering debate regarding the general legalization of the drug.
Powerful Allies
The study put another powerful ally — doctors — on the side of medical marijuana advocates.
Also advocating for legalizing medical marijuana is the Drug Policy Alliance. The alliance has been at the forefront of the state’s debate over the issue, leading a coalition of Connecticut organizations that pushed the legislation last year all the way to Rell’s desk.
“There’s no doubt we’re going to continue with this,” said Gabriel Sayegh, policy director for the Drug Policy Alliance. “It’s pretty interesting that the American College of Physicians, that has 130,000 members, would come out endorsing this.”
Most upsetting to medical marijuana advocates is Rell vetoed the legislation despite attempts for a compromise.
“There was ample opportunity [for compromise] because we solicited feedback,” Sayegh said. “We will do what we can do to make this happen.”
Rell spokesman Christopher Cooper said there were two primary concerns: a wide variety of diseases would have been eligible under the bill, and the availability of marijuana. The legislation would have allowed terminally ill patients to grow their own marijuana plants, but obtaining seeds would have, in Rell’s words, forced them to “seek out drug dealers.”
Those reasons don’t fly with advocates, as Sayegh accused federal officials and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) of getting involved. “We have reason to believe that [Rell] took a call from the White House before she vetoed the bill,” he said. “The ONDCP has raised a stink in other states. We believe they did so here.”
To back up his claims, Sayegh pointed out wording in Rell’s veto statement that said prescribing marijuana would be a “violation of federal law.”
“[Her statement] was riddled with inaccuracies,” he said. “Ninety-nine out of 100 marijuana arrests are made due to state law, not federal law.”
In response, Cooper disputed Sayegh’s contention about White House involvement, stating that he would like to “debunk that myth.”
Meanwhile, medical marijuana advocates remain patient. “We were emboldened last year and then deeply disappointed that people still essentially have to commit a crime to get access to medicine,” Sayegh said.
Based on last year’s vote, the medical marijuana bill was one vote short in the Senate and 12 votes shy in the House of reaching the necessary threshold for a veto override.
However, criminal justice reforms have “dominated every corner space” at the state Capitol, Sayegh said, and they have found it difficult to promote a new bill with other hot button topics dominating the session.
Last year, Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed medical marijuana legislation that passed easily through the state House and Senate. It was a significant setback for those who had lobbied for years to get Connecticut to adopt such a bill.
Fast forward a year later, and medical marijuana advocates remain steadfast, emboldened by a recent position paper by the American College of Physicians (ACP).
The 13-page paper was written by a dozen of doctors who threw their unanimous support behind the therapeutic use of marijuana and strongly advised that more research was needed.
“Unfortunately, research expansion has been hindered by a complicated federal-approval process, limited availability of research-grade marijuana, and the debate over legalization,” the study’s authors said in a written statement. In particular, the ACP report maintained that the medical uses of marijuana have been overshadowed by the lingering debate regarding the general legalization of the drug.
Powerful Allies
The study put another powerful ally — doctors — on the side of medical marijuana advocates.
Also advocating for legalizing medical marijuana is the Drug Policy Alliance. The alliance has been at the forefront of the state’s debate over the issue, leading a coalition of Connecticut organizations that pushed the legislation last year all the way to Rell’s desk.
“There’s no doubt we’re going to continue with this,” said Gabriel Sayegh, policy director for the Drug Policy Alliance. “It’s pretty interesting that the American College of Physicians, that has 130,000 members, would come out endorsing this.”
Most upsetting to medical marijuana advocates is Rell vetoed the legislation despite attempts for a compromise.
“There was ample opportunity [for compromise] because we solicited feedback,” Sayegh said. “We will do what we can do to make this happen.”
Rell spokesman Christopher Cooper said there were two primary concerns: a wide variety of diseases would have been eligible under the bill, and the availability of marijuana. The legislation would have allowed terminally ill patients to grow their own marijuana plants, but obtaining seeds would have, in Rell’s words, forced them to “seek out drug dealers.”
Those reasons don’t fly with advocates, as Sayegh accused federal officials and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) of getting involved. “We have reason to believe that [Rell] took a call from the White House before she vetoed the bill,” he said. “The ONDCP has raised a stink in other states. We believe they did so here.”
To back up his claims, Sayegh pointed out wording in Rell’s veto statement that said prescribing marijuana would be a “violation of federal law.”
“[Her statement] was riddled with inaccuracies,” he said. “Ninety-nine out of 100 marijuana arrests are made due to state law, not federal law.”
In response, Cooper disputed Sayegh’s contention about White House involvement, stating that he would like to “debunk that myth.”
Meanwhile, medical marijuana advocates remain patient. “We were emboldened last year and then deeply disappointed that people still essentially have to commit a crime to get access to medicine,” Sayegh said.
Based on last year’s vote, the medical marijuana bill was one vote short in the Senate and 12 votes shy in the House of reaching the necessary threshold for a veto override.
However, criminal justice reforms have “dominated every corner space” at the state Capitol, Sayegh said, and they have found it difficult to promote a new bill with other hot button topics dominating the session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
