Influence

Accusations Of Ineffectiveness Ax Reading Program

2008-03-31T06:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Signs Of Spring: The Marriage Debate

2008-03-24T07:02:00.000-07:00

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.”

Duking It Out Over Sick Days

2008-03-17T06:53:00.000-07:00

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

Workers Comp Bills

2008-03-11T09:09:00.000-07:00

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

Axing A Temporary Tax

2008-03-10T07:42:00.000-07:00

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.

The Homeschool Bill

2008-03-06T06:54:00.000-08:00

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

The Office of State Ethics Steps Up

2008-03-05T07:49:00.000-08:00

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.

Blog? What's a blog?

2008-03-04T06:46:00.000-08:00

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.

Marijuana In The Medicine Cabinet

2008-03-03T07:40:00.000-08:00

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.

Grappling With The Elderly Boom

2008-02-25T10:33:00.000-08:00

It happens. It’s difficult. As a loved one grows old, caring for elderly parents can become a challenge.

Managers of adult day centers believe that they have a viable solution for many families, the reason they intend to vigorously fight for more funding during the spring legislative session.

The Connecticut Association of Adult Day Centers (CAADC) is pushing for more financial support from the state as adult day care centers increasingly face fiscal hardships.

“Absolutely, it’s tough,” said Holly Vannucci, CAADC president and director of the Enfield Adult Day Center. “The reimbursement from the state doesn’t go far and it’s a real problem.”

There are about 50 certified day centers operating in the state, but 16 have closed their doors in the past five years, many because there wasn’t enough money to stay afloat.

CAADC leaders argue that the state’s reimbursement rate of $63.55 per day falls short of what it actually costs to provide care for elderly clients, which averages about $78.

“[The state] reimbursement is very, very low,” Vannucci said. “For seven hours a day, we provide comprehensive care for our clients, including medicines, meals, activities and therapy.”

Reimbursements Fall Short

Although the state’s contributions have gone up by nearly 16 percent over the past four years — from $54.93 per day to of $63.55 per day — operators of adult day care centers maintain that costs have skyrocketed.

Costs have nearly doubled since 2000, increasing from $41 to $78.

Vannucci cited transportation as a factor, noting that Dial-A-Ride services for Enfield, Somers and Suffield provide free transportation to the facility. But the Dial-A-Ride in East Windsor, from which some clients reside, does not. The onus then falls on the center to burden those transportation costs.

“Transportation has become our number one issue,” she said.

Leading the charge for the adult day care centers at the state Capitol is Pat Rockwell, administrator of Senior Care Center of Hartford and a member of the CAADC. She spoke at a legislative hearing last week to further their case.

“This is something that continually comes up every year,” she said. “We’re the gap in long-term care for the elderly.”

Going Home

In lobbying legislators, Rockwell points out what day centers provide for thousands of families
across the state.

“It’s such an important respite for all families that are in dire need,” she said. “Not to mention what it does for the actual person who isn’t stuck in a house all day looking at four walls.”

The services day centers provide are similar to what a nursing home does but with one major difference. “They get to go home at night,” Rockwell said.

As with many state-funded social programs, it’s a battle for dollars. Lobbying is expected to get even tougher this session with recession fears.

“Everyone recognizes there’s an issue, but we know that there’s only one pot of money,” Vannucci said.

Legislators are aware of the need. A CGA study found that 80 percent of residents want to remain in their communities when requiring long-term care. State Commission on Aging executive director Julia Evans Starr said the findings “strongly reinforce the fact that we need to rebalance the long-term care system.”

Adult day care centers will continue to state their case and hope help arrives before more centers bite the dust.

As Green As Granny Apple Pie

2008-02-19T06:48:00.000-08:00

From Al Gore’s crusade to the political debate about global warming, environmental issues have dominated headlines for the past several years. However, with criminal justice reform and the recession topping state legislators’ concerns in recent weeks, where will that leave green advocacy during the spring session?

In particular, how will the hot-button issues about criminal reform and the foreclosure crisis affect efforts to pass two key environmental bills in the coming session: reducing carbon emissions and doubling the state appropriation to protect the state’s natural resources.

“It’s not really clear yet what impact the economy is going to have on environmental issues,” said lobbyist Mary Guinan, president of MP Guinan Associates.

Guinan represents a handful of clients, such as Connecticut Fund for the Environment, who want legislators to adopt more stringent environmental laws.

As such, her clients have benefited in recent years from the publicity garnered by environmentalists. Getting on the green bandwagon also helps lawmakers get their names in the news. From Guinan’s experiences, lawmakers like seeing their names in print — and she believes that won’t change.

Easing Fiscal Concerns

“When you talk about protecting or investing in the environment, that’s an issue that will always be tremendously popular,” Guinan said. “You can’t open the newspaper without reading about companies going green or alternative energy. I still think it’s very timely.”

The pitch that Guinan gives to ease fiscal concerns is that environmental funding goes a long way. “Investing in the environment is an investment in the future,” she said. “It doesn’t have the impact now, maybe, but it can mean a lot in five to 10 years. We have to start planning now.”

Looking at the future is the key point of two environmental bills that are expected to make their way to the state Capitol — a carbon cap on emissions and the Face of Connecticut campaign to nearly double environmental funding.

The carbon cap, pushed by the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, would mandate that emissions in the sate be cut by 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. Connecticut enacted a voluntary carbon cap in 2004, but environmental activists are concerned the state is slipping.

The proposal by Face of Connecticut — a coalition of roughly 70 organizations, from the Connecticut chapter of the Appalachian Mountain Club to the Norwalk Historical Society — wants the state to fund all preservation and environmental programs with a $100 million annual lump sum for the next 10 years. The coalition estimates that roughly half of this sum would be new funding.

Lobbyist Michael Dugan, vice president of government relations for MP Guinan Associates, said the Face of Connecticut is unique because its aim is for the state to fund all aspect of environmental and preservation issues at once, instead of doling out specific grants to different groups from year to year.

“It’s an impressive group, a mixture of grassroots organizations and bigger companies,” said Robyn Gengras, media relations with Duby McDowell Communications, which is working with the group.

The prevailing belief is that a coalition of environmental groups will provide a united front for lobbying efforts. The hope is that enough voices in unison will be enough to sway legislators to cough up an additional $50 million a year to protect the state’s natural resources.

More Protection For Transsexuals

2008-02-11T06:48:00.000-08:00

There are state statutes that prohibit discrimination based on race, religion or sexual orientation. Although the phrase “gender identity or expression” was included in the state’s hate crime laws in 2004, the Connecticut TransAdvocacy Coalition believes discrimination continues to occur, particularly when transsexuals are passed over for jobs or places to live.

“There is no protection under state statues,” said Jerimarie Liesegang, the coalition’s executive director. “It’s not an issue of special rights; it’s an issue of basic human rights.”

The group is now lobbying for a bill that provides additional protection against transsexual and transgender discrimination.

The bill first made its way to the state capitol in 2006 and received a public hearing before being successfully passed through the judiciary committee. In 2007, the bill had more success as it passed the state senate but failed to receive a formal vote from state representatives before the 2007 session closed.

Special Rights

The three-year journey may not have been what advocates had in mind, but the delays have served to further the education and socialization of the issue.

“The two sessions we’ve been through have been favorable because people have been able to socialize with the issue and understand it,” Liesegang said. “It’s given us more of an opportunity to talk to legislators and let them know what’s going on.”

From personal experience, Liesegang has felt the impact of discrimination.

“I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and for a long time, I couldn’t find a job,” Liesegang said.

Transsexuals contend they have been passed over time and again for jobs and housing.

“It’s something that a lot of people don’t understand,” Liesegang said. “There have been more porblmes with transgender and transsexuals being pased over for housing. Don’t all people deserve a place to live?”

But not everyone is on the same page as Liesegang. Opponents believe additional legislative provides special rights and over-reaching protection to transsexuals.

Family Institute of Connecticut executive director Peter Wolfgang said his group opposes the bill
because it would tie the hands of boards of educations.

“We have our concerns over very young children being exposed to gender identity confusion,” he said. “Hypothetically, imagine if your child has a second grade teacher Mr. Smith and he comes back a month later after a sex-change operation as Mrs. Smith. The board of education ought to have the right to do something.”

More Education

Despite the opposition, the coalition is hopeful that a bill will be passed in the upcoming session.
In 2007, the bill passed the state Senate by a 30 to 4 margin and a preliminary vote in the state House of Representatives registered 111 legislators in favor.

Without a formal lobbyist, Liesegang said the coalition will rely on its members talking personally to their local legislators to push its cause.

“The most important thing we do is tell stories,” Liesegang said. “We have people just explain to the legislators what they’ve been through and what they’ve faced. We found it to be a good way of getting our point across, face to face.”

That push will continue later this month as Feb. 20 has been set aside for Trans Educational Forum and Lobby Day at the state capitol. Between 11 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., the coalition will have a forum at the legislative office building and some of its members will meet with legislators, in addition to rallying.

“We know that there are a lot of other bills out there and other issues,” Liesegang said. “We’re very confident based on how close we got last year and the response we’ve gotten from legislators.”

Kick-Starting Startups

2008-02-04T07:30:00.000-08:00

For the second consecutive legislative session, the Connecticut Technology Council and Connecticut Innovations will be asking lawmakers to adopt a bill that would give tax credits to angel investors, members of the private sector that fund entrepreneurial dreams.

In fact, most states — 37 — have angel investment legislation. “It’s hardly a new occurrence,” said Matthew Nemerson, president and CEO of CTC. But so far, Connecticut hasn’t signed up.

Last year, a bill that would give angel investors a tax credit made it through the General Assembly’s commerce committee. But that is as far as the bill got.

“I think instituting a new credit into the political debate is not a one-session issue,” Nemerson said. “We were delighted with how much traction it gained last year.”

CTC’s proposal is to give angel investors a 35 percent tax credit for their investment, which they can take over five years. The tax credits would be awarded only if there are actual investments.

The proposal is based on the notion that successful new companies will provide a greater tax benefit to the state in the future.

The CTC believes that $15 million of tax credits could leverage $43 million in new angel investments in Connecticut startups.

Nemerson said the initial cost to implement the program would be about $50 million. However, he is well aware that the state government’s two-year budget setup is a hurdle that needs to be overcome.

“We know it’s the second year of a two-year budget and there isn’t really an appetite for things that have a fiscal impact, even if it could have a positive economic impact,” he said. “I’m confident that people will continue to talk about this and how it can be a tool to increase jobs and stimulate the economy.”

CI On Board

The fact that Connecticut is late on this trend may provide a boost to CTC’s cause because they have the reports from other states who have implemented tax credits. “We’ve just gotten a report from Wisconsin and we’re going to get them from other states that show they are happy with their returns,” Nemerson said.

Wisconsin, for example, has increased the cap to their tax credit from an initial $13 million to $23 million as a result of early success.

CI is also on board with CTC’s angel investment proposal. The quasi-public agency testified in favor of such a proposal last March. However, CI also is looking to secure more state funding of their own to become a pseudo-angel investor.

Emily Smith, CI’s managing director for external relations and government relations, said CI is proposing to receive a steady stream of state funding yearly so it can invest in seed programs and young startups.

From 1989 to 1995, CI received $65 million in bonding. However, it has not received new funding since, Smith said. In regard to CI’s seed programs, the agency plans to ask state lawmakers to allocate between $3 million and $5 million annually.

Currently, CI’s seed program is funded from the return earned on previous investments.
Smith described CI as a “step above” angel investors, as CI usually gets involved after an entrepreneur has put up his or her own money, asked family and friends for financial support, and has turned to wealthy private individuals.

The Governor's Ethics Proposals

2008-02-01T09:14:00.001-08:00

From today's HBJ Today, here's a brief look at Gov. Jodi Rell's ethics proposals. For the entire press release, click here.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell today said her proposals for the coming legislative session will include a sweeping ethics bill that will greatly increase the number and type of government officials required to file financial disclosures, make the spouse of a governor a "public official" for purposes of the ethics code and allow a judge to reduce or revoke the pension of a corrupt state employee or public official.

Under Rell's proposals, financial disclosures will be required from executive department division heads, all professional employees of the legislature (including chiefs of staff, committee administrators, attorneys, research analysts and fiscal analysts), any state employee whose responsibilities include participating in the award of contracts valued at $10,000 or more and chiefs of staff to both the governor and the lieutenant governor.

"We have long demanded that lawmakers disclose potential financial conflicts of interests - it is only right that we expect the same level of disclosure from the top-level officials who also deal with major state contracts," Rell said in a statement. "My bill would also strengthen Freedom of Information requirements so that the minutes of an agency's public meeting would have to be posted on its Web site within a week. And my legislation finally makes it clear that Connecticut will no longer allow corrupt public employees to benefit from a pension if they have been convicted of cheating the state."

Pushing Sex Talk

2008-01-28T06:46:00.000-08:00

Who would have thought the Spears sisters — Britney, a troubled mother of young sons entangled in a messy and public custody battle, and her pregnant, 16-year-old sister, Jamie Lynn — could influence Connecticut politics?

But Planned Parenthood’s in-house lobbyist Susan Yolen said the Spears’ woes and the popularity of Hollywood hit movies about unplanned pregnancies — such as Juno and Knocked Up — are reasons lawmakers need to focus on these issues now.

“You look at pop culture and you can’t help but notice these things,” Yolen said. “It’s been out there recently and it’s time to do something.”

The Connecticut chapter of Planned Parenthood is gearing up for a strong legislative push this session for the state to provide “real” sex education. While the organization has lobbied for more thorough guidelines for sex education in the past, the current landscape of popular culture is its impetus to get something done in the coming legislative session.

It is a challenge for Yolen, who is Planned Parenthood’s only registered lobbyist, to make this happen by herself.

“We simply don’t have the resources of our own to spend on lobbying that, for instance, a big business has,” she said.

As a result, her group is focusing on coalition lobbying, reaching out to like-minded volunteers, including parents, teachers and even teenagers themselves, and organizations with the same goal. The organization’s Connecticut chapter, located in New Haven, will push its legislative agenda with volunteers who will man phone banks on Jan. 29. It will be its second such effort within a two-week period.

“For what we’re trying to do, it is crucial that we show that there is a groundswell of support,” she said. “We’ve been talking to our allies in the General Assembly and we’ll continue to make our points.”

More Sex Ed

Ultimately, Planned Parenthood wants the state to bolster its guidelines on sex education and include more information about sexually transmitted diseases and distribute the latest findings on teenage sex studies to older students. The organization maintains that many public school sex ed curricula are outdated.

Another factor is that sexual ed varies greatly from district to district because each board of education is responsible for setting its district’s curriculum. In many cases, these boards are hamstrung by a lack of funding, staffing, and at times, public disapproval.

As for potential opponents, Yolen said they know of none so far, but it could change when these suggested reforms turn into actual, proposed legislation.

The Family Institute of Connecticut, represented by Dolores Malloy of Malloy & Associates, is undoubtedly an opponent. “We would oppose any further involvement by Planned Parenthood because whatever they’re pushing, it’s really about abortion,” said Family Institute executive director Peter Wolfgang. “They are the nation’s largest abortion provider and should be the last folks involved in sexual education.”

The institute will again lobby for parental notification for abortions, as Malloy said the state is one of a handful in the country that does not require parents to be involved in that process.

“We were able to get an informational hearing last year and there has been the possible promise of a bill for parental notification this year,” she said.

Wolfgang also said the group is beginning to take a strong look at abstinence education.

“We want there to be less sex education and more education of the whole person,” he said. “It shouldn’t be just about managing sexual appetites and sexual desires. It should be about marriage and a fulfilling adulthood.”

Criminal Justice Reforms Update

2008-01-22T13:57:00.000-08:00

A little more than a week ago, Influence looked at groups that were lobbying for prisoners and against the parole ban.

It's time for something of an update as there has been a compromise on home invasion laws during a special session of the General Assembly today.

In other news, here's an article from the Yale Daily News about roughly 60 people attending a candlelight vigil in New Haven to promote a "more humane" criminal justice system.

The Sound Of Money

2008-01-21T07:10:00.000-08:00

It’s green, it makes a crinkling sound when crunched, and it can make the difference between survival and death for nonprofit arts organizations.

Money — in the form of grants and state funding — is critical for arts groups. That is why the state’s museums and art entities are increasingly turning to lobbyists to help them promote their causes with legislators and foundation officials.

The lobbyists representing arts organizations are selling the point-of-view that an investment in the state’s museums is an investment in the state’s economy. And they aren’t going it alone to push the point. A prime example can be found at the Web site, savetheartsct.org.

“It’s a technique we’re trying to get everyone in the arts community engaged on the same page,” said David McQuade, of Murtha Cullina LLP. Murtha Cullina is the registered lobbyist for the Greater Hartford Arts Council.

When asked what the arts council’s top priority is, McQuade laughed and said the answer is obvious. “Money,” he said.

“We’re working hard to increase funding and last year we got to see some increases,” he said. “[The arts council] tends to be very collaborative with a host of different groups that they work with.”

Collaboration Is Key

As a lobbyist for the arts council, McQuade said simply pulling everyone together has been the most important work he has taken on.

Kenneth Kahn, executive director for the arts council, agreed that statewide advocacy, not just from one particular group, is instrumental in garnering future funding.

McQuade’s second major focus as a lobbyist is to get the point across to legislators that the arts provide a serious influx of money into the state from tourism.

“We really try to get across that the arts need to be recognized as a key part of the state’s economy,” he said.

Museum and arts organizations have at least one very important ally in Gov. M. Jodi Rell, recognized by the arts community as a friend for her push to increase funding.

Though Rell’s proposal to take a portion of the state’s cable tax and dedicate it to the arts failed, state lawmakers have been more receptive towards funding nonprofit arts organizations than they have in the past.

Initially, Rell’s proposal for the $10 million “Cultural Treasures” bill stalled in the commerce committee, but more than $4 million was allocated to the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism by the General Assembly. Of that figure, Rell announced last month that nearly $2 million had been doled out to 132 nonprofits. All told, about $8 million will benefit arts funding this year.

Economic Case
Making the economic case has been the basis to justify state funding: the state as a whole will benefit. That argument has gained recent support, helped by the commission’s 2006 report on the impact of the arts on the state economy.

“They did the economic impact study that put some more information out there,” he said. “There are a lot of things feeding into this right now.”

Despite the constant need for more funding and thin budgets, arts organizations clearly see the value of lobbyists and are not hesitant to spend money to receive money.

The Greater Hartford Arts Council has a $24,000 per year contract with Murtha Cullina, according to 2007-08 data posted by the Office of State Ethics in December.

Similarly, the Kidcity Children’s Museum of Middletown pays $10,000 a year to Rome Smith & Associates while Greenwich-based Bruce Museum Inc., has a $2,500 monthly contract with Sullivan & LeShane and the Connecticut Historical Society spends $2,000 a month to retain Robinson & Cole.

Speaking For Prisoners

2008-01-14T06:56:00.000-08:00

It’s not easy to lobby lawmakers on behalf of prisoners, especially when the public is still reeling from the horrific crimes that took place in Cheshire this past summer.

But that’s exactly what lobbyist Betty Gallo is doing on behalf of her clients — the American Civil Liberties Union, A Better Way Foundation and the Connecticut chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. The groups are concerned that lawmakers are rushing to make decisions in the wake of tragedy, which will affect how reforms are established.

In particular, A Better Way Foundation has been at the forefront of the issue. The foundation exists as a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to shifting from a drug policy that often results in incarceration to promoting public health and treatment.

Lorenzo James, executive director for A Better Way, said the organization sprang into action by coordinating a coalition of residents who let legislators and state officials know how families are being affected by the parole ban established by Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

Rell suspended parole for all inmates currently serving time for violent offenses in September. She reasoned that the state needed to find a better way to determine who poses risks to the public if released.

The groups represented by Gallo oppose the ban.

The nonprofit then established the Clean Slate Committee, with chapters set up in towns from New Haven to Glastonbury. Meetings have been set up with Rell’s legal counsel and Department of Corrections Commissioner Theresa Lantz, said committee co-chairman David Samuels.

“We wanted to give a chance to people whose voices haven’t been heard,” Samuels said. “It serves as a counter to the governor’s task force because that body has just been looking at law enforcement.”

With such a high-profile case serving as a catalyst for the reform, Samuels is keenly aware of the obstacles that those in favor of prisoners’ rights have to overcome.

“We’re looking for a system that looks at reintegration and supports the formerly incarcerated instead of just keeping them in jail,” he said. “The question that needs to be asked is why are these people re-offending? What kind of system do we want? Is it a system where we just warehouse people for so many years and release?”

In the Cheshire case, Samuels said the two men accused of murder were only paroled because “the parole board didn’t receive the sentencing report” and that this fact “has really been swept under the rug.”

The response from state officials, according to Samuels, has been to punish all parolees.

In addition to the standard lobbying of legislators and officials, A Better Way and the Clean Slate Committee are reaching out to the community to, in turn, sway their own representatives.

However, it will be a tough sell as the parole debate evolves.

Last week, Rell and Democratic legislative leaders released their recommendations for criminal justice reform. Later this month, the General Assembly is expected to convene a special session on the matter.

Both Republicans and Democrats appear to be in agreement on some preliminary recommendations, including the creation of a full-time Board of Pardons and the establishment of a new “home invasion” crime category.

Rell is endorsing changes to the penal codes, such as a mandatory minimum of five years for burglaries committed at night or with a firearm and tougher penalties for repeat offenders that could create a three-strikes law.

With so much focus, and rightly so, on the victims in the Cheshire case, it could be easily construed that everyone is for keeping criminals behind bars as long as possible.

But the old adage, there are two sides to every story, holds true here.

New Year, New Ethics Leadership

2008-01-07T08:40:00.000-08:00

When Benjamin Bycel resigned as head of the Office of State Ethics director in July, it was apparent that the time had come for a change. He resigned after the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory

Board unanimously approved a critical assessment of Bycel. Under his leadership, the entire office had been targeted for negative attention by legislators and the media.

For nearly five months following his departure, the ethics office stayed afloat thanks to a core group of employees and a temporary interim director as a permanent director was sought.

Carol Carson began her role as the head of the ethics office in mid-December. Well aware of the problems that besieged the office and her predecessor, Carson’s focus is on the agency’s future.

“I did my due diligence and I know that the office has had some issues,” she said. “My plan is to move forward because the past is not something I can change.”

Just hours after arriving at her new job in Hartford, there was one area of deficiency that appeared in need of instant rectification.

“There is a lot of infrastructure missing here in terms of staff,” Carson said. “We need to get the office appropriately staffed and that means a couple of office assistants, a business manager and another technology expert.”

The ethics office currently employs about a dozen people who Carson maintains have been stretched in the past couple of months. It’s a good point. The need for more employees could have been a reason for some of the criticisms lobbed at the office in the past year, specifically regarding lobbyist data, because there simply was not enough manpower to get everything done.

Carson is, however, impressed with the employees and compared them favorably to those she worked with at her previous position with the Massachusetts Ethics Commission.

“One of the things I’ve noticed here, and one of the reasons I like this field … is that I get to work with a group of committed individuals,” she said.

Carson’s career began as a newspaper reporter. Eventually, she got involved with the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission as an investigator and took part, she said, in many hearings involving the ethics of state legislators.

“In general, I appreciate the investigation process and what that entails,” she said.

While in Massachusetts, Carson gained experience in almost every aspect of the commission’s activities. That should serve her well in Connecticut.

In Massachusetts, she took care of the commission’s public relations and communications function. More recently, she visited many Massachusetts municipalities to educate local officials about state ethics codes.

Her biggest asset, Carson said, is her experience as an investigator into ethics violations. “The process is the same and I really believe, as I did as an investigator, that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect,” she said.

In her mind, the Office of State Ethics does not exist simply to punish those who go astray, but to make sure that lobbyists and politicians know the rules and are not tempted to go astray.

“Most people, whether they’re lobbyists or politicians, are just like everyone else in that they get up and go to work every day,” Carson said. “The role of the office is to help these people understand a series of very complex laws. And my role as ethics director is to fairly and vigorously enforce those laws if they are not complying.”

Foreclosure Prevention To Lead Legislative Topics

2008-01-02T12:33:00.000-08:00

It has been reported by nearly every media outlet in the state. It has been the talk of the real estate and lending communities for months. So it comes as no surprise that the current mortgage crisis will likely be a hot topic when the General Assembly returns to session in 2008.

Obviously, legislators will make at least some regulatory changes in an attempt to battle the current crisis while simultaneously attempting to stave off a recurrence years down the road.

For mortgage brokers and lenders, their efforts will be focused on convincing the legislature to merely fine-tune the system instead of making radical changes that could cause more harm than good.

Marshall Collins will be at the forefront of these discussions as the lobbyist for the Connecticut Association of Mortgage Brokers (CTAMB), which is one of the two main organizations for brokers along with the Connecticut Society of Mortgage Brokers.

More than two months before the new session starts in February, Collins said mortgage brokers and CTAMB officials had met with state banking officials about the recommendations laid out by the Governor’s Subprime Mortgage Task Force.

“There has been talk of increasing the net worth requirements for brokers, and we don’t have a problem with that,” he said. “They want to include more education and an exam to pass course work, and that’s fine with us.”

However, mortgage brokers are concerned that simply increasing the necessary time spent on education could lull consumers into a false sense of security.

“They’re calling for continuing education for brokers, but I’ve been to those courses and they can be an absolute joke,” he said. “You just have to physically sit in the room. You don’t have to answer any questions, and you listen to someone drone on for three hours.”

Collins suggested that a more reasonable solution would be to require a more intensive education about regulatory changes, since most brokers are already well-versed on the current laws. Even with more education, that does not necessarily equate to preventing mortgage problems.

“Florida has one of the toughest continuing education programs for brokers, and they have the highest foreclosure rates,” said Collins. “There doesn’t seem to be much of a correlation.”

Another recommendation is to require more disclosure from brokers and lenders about exactly what homebuyers and consumers are getting into at the time of a deal. The problem, at least from the brokers’ perspective, is that it could make the process an easier target for fraud and predatory lending.

Simplify And Clarify

“One of the objectives is that we have to be careful when we talk about more disclosure,” said Collins. “The real answer is to simplify and clarify. The goal should be to streamline the process or provide more information in plain language.”

Brokers are concerned about the possibility of new legislation coming down too hard or making life difficult for hard-working companies in an effort to prevent the criminal predatory lending that has taken place.

“With the question of fraud, how do you prevent it?” said Collins. “There are always slimy, crooked brokers out there, and they should go to jail. We have no problem with that, and we’re for whacking the bad guys who cheat and commit fraud.”

Overall, Collins is confident that the banking committee co-chairs — State Rep. Ryan Barry, D-Manchester and State Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk — are “very knowledgeable, good guys” who have shown a good understand of the process.

“I don’t anticipate that they’ll go overboard because they’re pretty level headed,” he said. “We’re not worried, but we have objectives that we want to take care of.”

Educating Lawmakers

2007-12-17T07:52:00.000-08:00

For lobbyists, it’s tough enough to satisfy all the issues and goals of one client. But what about balancing the objectives of one client that in turn is the voice of roughly 10,000 businesses in the state?

That’s the charge of Bonnie Stewart and the other in-house lobbyists for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association. Stewart said the job isn’t as difficult as it may initially appear however.

“It isn’t really that hard because the basic issues are the same for every company,” she said. “It’s always about the cost of doing business, getting a skilled workforce, making sure that workforce has a place to live and can commute to work and maintaining the infrastructure.”

Because of those basic business principles, Stewart said issues like transportation, taxes and health care are continually at the forefront and the focus for CBIA’s in-house team. For the upcoming session, the CBIA has 13 in-house employees registered as lobbyists.

Though there may be some matters that only involve a certain segment of CBIA’s members, the most trying aspect of the lobbying is not between its thousands of members. It is attempting to convince legislators to make decisions and vote in a manner that is conducive to business.

“One of the big problems we’ve been facing more lately is the fact that very few of the legislators have any knowledge of business,” said Stewart. “They don’t understand the real negative impact they could potentially have on our ability to retain business in Connecticut and attract new companies.”

With Connecticut’s General Assembly as a part-time legislature, most legislators have lives beyond their political ones.

“The goal was to have people in the legislature with real-life experience to make good, informed decisions,” said Stewart. “The legislators come from all different areas doing different types of things but one of the problems is that many don’t come from the private sector. They don’t understand sometimes what they’re doing with business.”

That situation has led CBIA to switch up its lobbying tactics. Stewart said the organization is going to refocus its efforts on educating legislators on the basic business principles and ideas that companies agree on. This can be in the form of one-on-one meeting with legislators, seminars or group meetings with CBIA officials.

“We used to get into much more issue-orientated discussions on specific issues, but we’ve moved on to discussing the basics of business,” she said. “It’s important they understand what’s working and what’s not working now before looking at new legislation.”

For the upcoming session, there are several issues that Stewart anticipates being on the docket that come as no surprise to her, such as labor costs and health care. There is one developing issue that the CBIA is preparing to strongly support that may appear odd at first: education.

Specifically, Stewart said the CBIA is in full support of the state’s recent proposal to increase the threshold for graduating high school.

“People forget that for the business community to thrive, there needs to be strong education and we’re starting to talk about it,” she said.

The CBIA has always been involved with local high schools and colleges, but a decision to strengthen curriculum requirements is considered vital to the workforce’s next generation.

“In 2005, nearly 20,000 students that graduated high school in Connecticut and went to college here had to take remedial courses,” said Stewart. “We can’t have that and it’s problematic. These are big issues and we need more support for pushing our high school students.”

State Ethics Earns Praise

2007-12-10T08:50:00.000-08:00

The Office of State Ethics has bore the brunt of criticism on several occasions in this space during the past year. So it is only fair to duly note when it has done something worth praising.

The complaints lobbed at the office have mostly centered around one crucial topic: data.

Last summer, the charge against the office was that the data available for public perusal online hadn’t been updated in years.

When the data was updated, the problem from those seeking information was the 300- or 700-page PDF documents that bogged down searches and was generally a pain.

Those large files led to the most recent complaints from lobbyists that information was incorrect, with typos and mistakes that weren’t updated for months or years.

Consider these complaints heard and in one fell swoop, all those problems may have been erased for good.

New Online Feature

On the Web page for lobbyist data, there are a multitude of choices and reports to choose from, though most are the aforementioned PDF data. But on the bottom of the page is a relatively new feature that could bring any desired information to your computer screen in seconds.

Under lobbyist filings, the Office of State Ethics is now posting forms from businesses, organizations and lobbyists as they were submitted.

“It is supposed to be there for the public to see and it’s public information,” said Iris D’Oleo-Edwin, paralegal for the Office of State Ethics. “We wanted people to come to the Web site and be able to see it easily.”

The key word in D’Oleo-Edwin’s quote is “easily” because she said the office was keenly aware of its shortfalls when it came to posting data.

“We had a lot of people requesting information and they had a right to see that information,” she said.

Thanks to technology, the posting of data has become easier. State statutes now require lobbyists and their clients to file their information electronically. Because of this, the information is easily transferable to the Web site.

“The goal is to have the site be live with information,” said D’Oleo-Edwin. “I’m not an IT expert, but as soon as we receive the registration and forms, it should go right up on the database and on the Web site.”

The timeliness of posting data is good news for lobbyists, as a common grudge has been that incorrect information, especially concerning clients whose relationships have ended, remains public well after the fact.

Even on the current 702-page list of lobbyist. The last update was on Aug. 30, three months ago at this point. The lack of updates was attributed to the time-consuming process required to edit such a large document each time there was a change.

“With this system, we won’t have to put the information together to update,” said D’Oleo-Edwin. “It will be better because the records will go up immediately.”

She didn’t say if the PDF documents will stay, go or be modified, but it is clear the Office of State Ethics is doing what it can to help.

“We’ve always given that information out when it was requested because it’s public,” she said. “Now, they won’t have to request it, it will just be there.”

The forms posted will include client registrations, annual compensation, expenditures and total financial reports.

And there is one more tweak that makes the process of searching for information less of a pain. The reports are posted individually and can be brought up by company name, so no more trolling through 700 pages.

As a new addition, there are only a few reports up currently but more will be posted soon and it will be interesting to see how this initiative plays out.

New Office of State Ethics executive director

2007-12-03T08:54:00.001-08:00

For the first time in months, the Office of State Ethics will have a permanent executive director, effective Dec. 17.

The Citizens Ethics Advisory Board has appointed Carol Carson, a member of senior management with the Massachusetts Ethics Commission, to lead Connecticut's Office of State Ethics. Carson is a past president of the Council on Government Ethics Laws, the international government ethics organization. Following a brief time as a reporter, Carson has served the Massachusetts Ethics Commission since 1992. In the past five years, Carson has been prominently involved as a spokesman for the commission and a liaison to the state legislature and professional organizations.

Carson will replace the previous permanent executive director, Benjamin Bycel, who resigned in July. Bycel's tenure was tumultuous, with complaints from staff members, criticism for violating state motor vehicle laws and questions about a failure to update data on the office's Web site.

In a statement, Citizens Ethics Advisory Board President Robert Worgaftik said the board was "delighted" to have an executive director who has been known for "her excellent communication skills and history of achievements in regulating governmental ethics." Since early October, Beverly Hodgson had been acting as the office's temporary executive director.

Scalping Storm Brews Over Hannah Montana Debacle

2007-12-03T07:30:00.000-08:00

Who would have thought that a concert by Disney star Hannah Montana would draw the attention of the attorney general?

On Oct. 1, it officially became legal to scalp tickets in the state after the Connecticut General Assembly voted to repeal a former statute prohibiting the act. Yet, just weeks after Connecticut allowed scalping to take place, a concert aimed at teens and tweens mucked up everything.

Hannah Montana, the fictional character on a Disney show played by actress/singer Miley Cyrus, will perform Dec. 19 at the Hartford Civic Center. It’s a date circled by many young girls wishing to see their favorite star.

But prices for the tickets on ticket resellers, such as StubHub, skyrocketed into the hundreds and thousands of dollars, a price that caused an uproar among the parents and officials in the cities hosting the concert, and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is among those unhappy with the situation.

“The ticket scalping law was repealed and it greatly restricts our authority to protect consumers,” Blumenthal said. “We’re going to push for the reenactment of the ticket scalping law.”

The attorney general has never been in favor of allowing ticket resellers to jack up ticket prices, evident when he pushed StubHub to install a pop-up window that informed Connecticut residents that scalping was a crime.

But the argument from the ticket resellers is simply that scalping has created jobs in the state and allows state-based companies to compete on equal footing with resellers located elsewhere.

If there is an expert on Connecticut ticket reselling, it is Don Vaccaro, CEO of Vernon-based TicketNetwork.

The company and its lobbyist firm Murtha Cullina pushed hard for the scalping law to be repealed and would push just as hard to make sure the law remains repealed.

Even when the law was in effect, out-of-state resellers could take part in scalping as long as it didn’t take place in Connecticut. Obviously, with its headquarters in Vernon, TicketNetwork was shut out of its own market.

“It would be an anti-business stance to reinstate the law,” said Vaccaro. “It would hurt our ability to do business, yet out-of-state companies would still have access to our markets.”

During testimony earlier this year on the topic, Ticketmaster, the original seller for many events, said it had zero employees in the state. TicketNetwork employs about 150 in the state, and StubHub employs about 100.

“[Reenacting the law] would penalize Connecticut companies and employees,” said Vaccaro. “It is so out of tune with new market economics that I can’t imagine it would happen.”

There is also the matter of an investigation by Blumenthal’s office into possible anti-trust violations or collusion attempts to artificially inflate prices.

“If there’s collusion between any sellers or ticket scalpers, we could take actions for fines or penalties,” Blumenthal said. “We are continuing to review the situation.”

Vaccaro said the high prices for tickets are a result of high demand and a limited number of tickets available.

“There were only about 4,000 tickets to the show that were actually released to the public. The rest were set aside for fan clubs by Disney,” he said. “The attorney general’s office knows this and the I believe the investigation should be focused on the primary ticket sellers.”

Ethics’ Gag Order: Keep Quiet Or Pay Up

2007-11-19T09:11:00.000-08:00

A word to the wise: if you file a complaint with the Office of State Ethics, don’t tell anyone.

A formal advisory opinion from the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board recently concluded that individuals who file a complaint with the board should not tell anyone about their complaint, or about the information that the ethics agency solicited from them for its investigation.

Otherwise, pay up.

The penalty? A civil fine of up to $10,000 for each violation.

Complainants are permitted to disclose the facts that form the basis of their complaint, but must stay mum that they have actually filed an ethics complaint, akin to a gag order.

According to state law, the ethics board may shine sunlight on the complaint following its finding ‘‘upon the respondent’s request.”

Old Question

The opinion clarifies the confidentiality provision in the state law on the matter. “We received multiple questions about this very topic in the past year or so,” said Brian O’Dowd, assistant general counsel for the Office of State Ethics. “There wasn’t a formal opinion drafted on the topic, and we decided it was about time.”

While the topic hadn’t been investigated formally, O’Dowd said the decision rendered was no different than it would have been years ago.

“I don’t think anything has changed from the old state ethics commission,” he said. “It just hadn’t been addressed.”

With the advisory opinion complete and available for perusal, O’Dowd said it should answer frequently asked questions once and for all.

While an individual’s acknowledgement that he or she has filed a formal complaint would appear to be a minor detail, it’s a detail that could potentially cost someone thousands of dollars.

Big Impact

The opinion, at first, seemed “a little strange” to Marshall Collins of Marshall R. Collins & Associates, a lobbyist firm.

“That’s something I wasn’t aware of that I couldn’t disclose a complaint if I filed one,” he said. “It’s interesting, though.”

Notably, an ethics complaint about a lobbyist firm could prove to be damaging, especially when the firm tries to lure or secure major contracts. The bottom line: disclosure of a complaint could cost the firm cold, hard cash.

“If you know how cutthroat it is to get business, probably more cutthroat than the lobbying, maybe someone could manufacture a charge and tell the newspaper,” said Collins. “Perish the thought of defending the ethics board, but maybe they’re actually protecting lobbyists. Because once you lose a major contract, you don’t get it back.”

There rarely comes a time when a lobbyist will turn in another lobbyist to the Office of State Ethics, unless they did something “really evil,” asserted Collins. But it wouldn’t prevent clients from complaining about lobbyists or other odd behaviors.

“Certainly in years past, if there was a lobbyist going out to dinner with a certain legislator every week, it would be an issue,” Collins said. “At the Association of Connecticut Lobbyists, we talk about what’s going on and what people are doing.”

The reasons prompting the ethics board’s opinion are gleaned from the state’s general statutes and the Constitution. However, the message is clear.

Just don’t talk.

Ethics Agency Sets Different Standards For Self, Lobbyists

2007-11-13T12:24:00.000-08:00

Data fuels the state’s initiative to monitor the legions of lobbyists who descend on Hartford. Whether it is how much lobbyists are being paid, who they are representing, or how the money is spent, the Office of State Ethics is there to track it.

But while lobbyists are forced to adhere to strict standards and fined when they fail to fall into line, there are no checks on the data the Office of State Ethics makes public on its Web site.

It is an interesting dichotomy – lobbyists and organizations are penalized for wrong information, while incorrect data can remain on a state Web site for all to see for months or even years.

Several lobbyists have expressed disappointment that data provided on the state ethics’ Web site was inaccurate, sometimes to extremes.

To the surprise of Marc DiBella, a lobbyist with Avallone, DiBella & Associates that represents Live Nation, the ethics Web site indicated that Live Nation, which operates the Chevrolet Theater in Wallingford, was among the businesses that spent the most on lobbying in the state. According to the financials posted on the ethics’ Web site this summer, the amount Live Nation spent on lobbying had skyrocketed.

Wrong.

“There was a pretty sizeable mistake that had us making hundreds of thousands of dollars,” DiBella said. “It was a big typo. It wasn’t even close.”

Usual Gripe

The inaccuracy of the lobbyist online data has been a common complaint from lobbyists since the agency updated its Web site this past summer. At that time, the agency posted three years’ worth of information in huge PDF files that were hundreds of pages long. It can be a difficult process.

Regardless, the lobbyists are perturbed.

“There are a lot of problems with the ethics’ data,” DiBella said. “They have company’s names wrong, they have the wrong people associated with different companies, and it’s all kind of screwed up.”

There is a simple message DiBella wants to get across: “Don’t believe everything you read on the Web site.”

Other lobbyists found errors that one would assume could be fixed in a manner of seconds.
“The one thing I’ve seen a lot happens is when a client relationship has been terminated,” said David McQuade with Murtha Cullina LLP. “You could have a termination, yet it sits on the site for two or three years.”

Part of the problem is the lack of checks and balances from lobbyists because they do not frequently search the site.

“To be honest, I haven’t really perused the information in a while,” McQuade said.
The extent of McQuade’s visits to the Web site is for updated advisory opinions that the ethics commission makes.

What makes the lobbyist complaints so interesting is how intently the Office of State Ethics goes after organizations and companies that do not provide timely, correct information.

Earlier this month, four organizations were fined for failing to submit their reports for the second quarter on time.

AFT Connecticut and the Connecticut Library Association were each fined $100, the Connecticut Propane Coalition was hit with a $610 fine, and ConnPIRG was forced to pay $640.

Clearly, those within the state ethics office have heard the complaints.

The response: We are trying to fix the problems.

“I know that if, for example, a lobbyist calls with a complaint, we do our best to troubleshoot,” said Barbara Housen, general counsel for the office. “We do have an IT consultant and we see if that issue can be resolved quickly.”

The solution may come in the form of a permanent executive director that could be in place by the end of the year.

“This is a topic that is very important and we know it needs to be addressed,” Housen said. “The statute now requires electronic filing so there will be a more comprehensive plan soon.”

Nelson Brown Called State Capitol ‘Home’ For Five Decades

2007-11-05T13:00:00.000-08:00

There are arguably few people better qualified to discuss the evolution of the Connecticut General Assembly than Nelson Brown.

For 50 years, Brown has been a fixture at the state Capitol, starting with a stint as a legislator that included time as the speaker of the house. In the past decade, he was a lobbyist for the Connecticut Broadcasters Association and the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information.

But when the 2008 session commences in February, Brown’s familiar face will not be present each morning.

“I kind of grew up there, but I’m 85 years old now, about to turn 86,” he said. “Those are some long, hard days’ and I think it’s time for me to relax a little bit.”

If anyone deserves some time to sit back and put their feet up, it is Brown. That doesn’t mean his thoughts won’t wander from his new home in Groton back to Hartford.

“I’m going to miss the people up there,” he said. “It’s almost like home for me up there. I also enjoyed the issues, and I’m going to miss that too.”

Brown is a member of the generation dubbed by many historians as its greatest. He served five years in World War II, got a start in broadcasting in 1947 with WNLC in New London and was initially elected to the state House of Representatives in 1952.

It was in 1956, following his third election, that he rose to speaker.

Same, But Different

The lobbying atmosphere of today, compared with 50 years ago, has completely changed, but is strikingly familiar, Nelson said. The most obvious change is the number of lobbyists who populate the Capitol, as the lobbying legions have grown by leaps and bounds.

“Lobbying in those times, in my opinion, was not a great big issue,” said Brown. “There were people there pushing issues, but it wasn’t the same number that there is now.”

As speaker, Brown asserted that the greatest push came from transportation lobbyists, specifically from the railroad and trucking industry, as well as construction companies that were looking to get into the building of highways.

“Most everybody that had a state problem with transportation would come and talk to me, whether they were pro or against,” he said. “Transportation was something that was talked about a whole lot.”

While the number of lobbyists has increased tremendously, the exact opposite is true for the number of legislators.

“When I was speaker, the chamber had 290 members,” said Brown. “Now, there are only 151 of them.”

In reflection, the larger chamber, combined with its lack of technology, resulted in one of Brown’s peeves of his days as speaker.

“Well, there was no automatic roll call like there is now,” he said. “It would take 45 to 50 minutes to call off every name.”

There also is the little matter of money. As speaker, Brown was paid a grand total of $600 for two years of public service. Suffice to say, the pay has jumped in 50 years.

“I don’t know exactly what their salaries are today, but it’s not necessary to work two jobs,” he said. “It was okay, though. We knew exactly what the pay was before we got elected. We knew what we were getting into.”

Money also figures into another change — some would say im-provement in the last half-century as the lobbyists in Hartford have become more formalized.

“In those days, lobbyists didn’t have to say what they made,” said Brown. “Now, you have to report every nickel made. I think it’s certainly a good thing for everyone to know, and it’s the way it should be.”

Though he won’t miss the night sessions that could last well into the next day, Brown will always have a soft spot for what he took part in.

“I always enjoyed the atmosphere and I have great respect for everyone,” he said. “You’ve always had to have that same intensity, today and back then, to be there and tackle the issues.”

With New Clients Comes Need For Quick Schooling

2007-10-29T13:03:00.000-07:00

To hear a lobbyist tell it, finding new clients and learning about new issues is one of the best parts of the job.

As the next legislative session inches closer, new organizations and companies that have signed lobbyists and registered with the state have begun to trickle in. Since September, roughly a dozen entities have entered the lobbying arena and that number is sure to increase by February.

“The most important thing when you get a new client is to learn as much as possible about what they do and what their issues are,” said Keith Stover, with Robinson & Cole. “It’s really one of the cool things that makes our jobs interesting. New things tend to be more interesting, for us and for legislators.”

Joining Robinson & Cole’s long list of clients is Galasso Materials, LLC, a trucking company based out of East Granby.

The reason that the education of lobbyists is so crucial to success is because, simply, the company’s officials cannot always be around to answer questions.

“You can’t constantly have the client with you to give those answers,” Stover said. “We really spend a lot of time getting to know every little detail about their business so we don’t have to keep going to them for answers.”

Meeting with clients in person is the preferred method of transferring information, but sometimes that could involve some travel time.

For example, Carahsoft Technology Corp., an information technology company based in Virginia, has secured the lobbying services of Jim O’Brien for the upcoming session. To meet in person, O’Brien would have to hop on a plane.

There is also a tremendous amount of research that is involved with new clients, or even current clients that have new pressure issues, asserted Betty Gallo, with Betty Gallo & Co.

Currently in negotiations with three prospective new clients, Gallo said that her current focus has been on the subprime loan crisis that is now on the radar of the Fair Housing Center.

Financial Figuring

“Just like with a new client, it’s an entirely new issue to me because we don’t normally do a lot with banking,” she said. “It means a lot of research and a lot of reading, but it is to some degree the best part of this job. I’m learning about something new that I didn’t know about.”

The initial wave of newly registered clients run the gamut, from health care organizations like the Rushford Center or the Connecticut Alliance for Subacute Healthcare to Lehman Brothers, Inc., a global investment company.

Though lobbyists agree on the importance of educating themselves on new clients, they were unsure if the blank slate is a positive or a negative when it comes to the actual lobbying.

On the one hand, the legislators have no perception of a client making its first in-roads at the state capitol and there is an opportunity there to make a solid impression. Conversely, legislators may not be as aware or educated on the new client’s issues because they haven’t come up before.

“When I go in to meet with a legislator on same-sex marriage, there is a sense of what’s going to be said,” said Gallo.

A new client can mean interactions with legislators that a lobbyist may not deal with on a regular basis. Gallo noted that one obstacle can be forming working relationships that were not there in the past.

For Stover, he would not describe pushing the issues of new clients as more difficult or better, but simply as different.

“We’re at a different stage with new clients than we are with clients that have been around for years,” he said. “But it keeps our business interesting because it’s a matter of finding out solutions to new problems.”

Towns Are Wild West Of Lobbying Ethics

2007-10-22T13:04:00.000-07:00

It’s a short walk from Hartford City Hall to the state capitol but in terms of lobbying, they might as well be in different countries.

While the Office of State Ethics carefully monitors and regulates every aspect of lobbying at the state level, the office has zero authority over municipal ethics.

That isn’t to say ethics are ignored by individual cities and towns, in fact many have their own ethics boards or commission. It just means lobbyists are playing two ballgames, one at the state level and one at the town level.

“On the state side, it is a much more formal process,” said William Malitsky, with Halloran & Sage. “There’s always the same number of steps that are followed the same way, from a public hearing to committee meetings, for each piece of legislation.”

Conversely, Malitsky said that each town has its own procedures to follow and it’s crucial for lobbyists to be aware of the differences.

“It’s pretty much the same in how we approach issues, in that we’re doing lots of work to educate as many folks as possible,” he said. “The difference is how you go about doing that.”

The stark contrast between state and municipal lobbying is evident by the different people, or in some cases the same people, who get involved in issues.

Family Time

Essentially, the state capitol is one big family. The same lobbyists, the same legislators and the same office staff tend to be around for a while.

“When you lobby at the state, you know that you’re going to see that person, that legislator, that staff member again when dealing with different issues,” said Kevin Reynolds, with Updike, Kelly & Spellacy. “During the course of a session, you tend to keep running into people. That whole relationship aspect is usually not there on the town side.”

Customarily, lobbyists are dealing with specific people in towns, perhaps a business manager or finance director, and do so on a very infrequent basis in some instances.

It makes for an odd transition for lobbyists to go from working with known quantities at the state to unknown question marks at the local level.

“We’ve had clients that hired us because they knew we had good relationships with board members of a particular municipality or just that we’ve worked there before,” Reynolds said.

The issues that draw lobbyists to Connecticut’s smaller towns tend to be more high-profile, at least in the town itself.

“You can have issues in the legislature that are very, very low-profile,” Reynolds said. “But the issues at the town level tend to be more known and may be more important to those in the town.”

Malitsky agreed, to a point, that municipal issues draw more attention in general but said that the attention is paid by a small group.

Focus Of A Few

“I live in Hebron, have children in the school system and I try to pay attention to what’s going on,” he said. “Mostly I just follow what [reporters] write but I can’t attend meetings. There is always that small, core group that pays attention to everything.”

There are other quirks for lobbyists to be aware of as they venture into municipalities, chief among them that not all towns require lobbyists to register as they do with the state.

“When you register, it lets the public and others know who is influencing who,” Reynolds said. “If the best friend of the mayor is hired for something, for example, you would have that public disclosure. But only certain municipalities do that.”

Another interesting twist is how lobbyists who are stuck at a crossroads locally can head to Hartford to solve their problems, especially when it comes to construction projects.

“In certain cases, there are issues because of local restrictions that you can go to the state legislature to try to get fixed,” Malitsky said. “If there are restrictions on water run-off or sewage usage, a developer can turn to the state to change the regulations.”

Game Faces Stay On In The Offseason

2007-10-15T13:05:00.000-07:00

For legislators, the General Assembly is a part-time job, and more than half the year, the capitol is empty. But for full-time lobbyists, some of the most important work happens when the legislative session concludes.

The period from now until February — known as the offseason, when legislators are out of session – is a critical time for lobbyists. Clients need briefings on law changes. Next session’s issues need analysis. The planning and preparation lobbyists do over the next few months can make or break their year once lawmakers return.

“The issues don’t go away; it’s the time they can take action that does,” said Patricia LeShane of Sullivan & LeShane. “It’s been a full-time legislature forever if you ask me, and there are more and more issues that the state governments are involved in.”

LeShane is not alone in her assessment.

“We are just as busy during the offseason as we are during the sessions,” said Linda Kowalski of the Kowalski Group. “There are always things to be done for our clients.”

Currently, Kowalski said she is working with state agencies and her clients to make sure everyone is up to speed on laws passed during the most recent session. She is in constant contact with her health care clients, such as Community Health Centers Inc. and the Connecticut Association of Optometrists, to update them on insurance information, she said.

But even as they keep one eye on what has already happened, lobbyists must also stay focused on the upcoming 2008 legislative session, which starts in February.

“It may seem early to get started on next year, but now is the time to prepare,” Kowalski said. “The state agencies have already submitted what their budgets and legislative priorities are.”

By getting the jump now, Kowalski believes she and her clients will be more apt to take advantage of issues and be successful.

“I can tell you from experience that when we are able to expect what’s going to be on the agenda, often times we’re better at getting our issues across,” she said.

Time To Regroup

Keeping in touch with current clients and maintaining regular meetings is another key for lobbyists looking for a successful 2008.

Christopher Cloud, of Camilliere, Cloud and Kennedy, believes that the regular meetings with clients are vital in the offseason and prefers those meetings take place in person.

“You want to sit down, map out strategies for the upcoming session and talk about things that didn’t get done last year,” he said. “A lot is done over the phone or the Internet, but it still doesn’t replace that face-to-face interaction.”

In the past week, Cloud said he had three meetings with clients. He also said that he likes to take time when the General Assembly is not in session to talk to legislators.

“It’s a lot easier to talk to them this time of year because they’re more relaxed. There’s not a bunch of people trying to get at them,” he said.

That’s not to say that lobbyists spend their entire summer and fall working towards the next session.

“If we have clients that have issues in Washington, we try to focus on those,” said Cloud. “A lot of our business comes from business development in the offseason. We have clients that are looking for help and we try to identify ways that we can help them.”

Additionally, Cloud said that there are also nonprofit organizations, fund-raisers and charity events that can keep anyone busy.

The offseason also provides an opportunity for lobbyists to take part in activities that time simply won’t allow when the session is in.

“I try to be very active in the community,” LeShane said. “I kind of backload all the work I do for boards so I can run around all summer and do it because they won’t see me from January to June.”

And of course, there is some time to relax.

“We play golf,” Cloud said. “Or at least I do.”

“Yep, it’s a strong vacation time,” LeShane said.

Hodgson Put In Temporary Command Of Ethics Office

2007-10-08T13:06:00.000-07:00

Where there was once confusion and uncertainty, the Office of State Ethics appears to have found clarity and answers.

The start of October marked an important crossroads for the office. At the end of September, the terms of three members of its advisory board would end. There was still no replacement for outgoing executive director Benjamin Bycel. And there were no answers.

Those answers started to appear just last week when the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board announced it has selected Beverly Hodgson as the office’s interim director.

Hodgson was a Superior Court Judge from 1987 to 2003 and has since become an arbitrator and mediator.

Patricia Hendel, the former chairperson of the advisory board, said that Hodgson would serve on a part-time basis for the next two months as the board continues its aggressive search for a full-time replacement.

The Office of State Ethics has been running smoothly in the past several weeks even if it has not been easy on staff.

“We’ve been operating pretty well because the staff that is here has really stepped up and worked extra hard,” Hendel said. “I’m in contact with the staff almost every day and my successor…will likely do so as well.”

The timeframe for having a new executive director in place is far from concrete, though Hendel is cautiously optimistic.

“Personally, I would hope that we would have one in place by November,” she said. “Some people have told me that things like this can take a long time and it could take longer. I would hope that if we’re not 100 percent certain that we’ve found someone, that we would wait another couple weeks to find that right person.”

Vacancies Remain

With an interim executive director in place and hope springing for a full-time one by the end of the year, it would seem the Office of State Ethics has gotten everything in order.

But not everything is as cut and dry as it appears.

On Sept. 30, the terms of chairwoman Hendel, and board members Rebecca Doty and Scott Storms expired.

During its meeting on Sept. 27, the board voted to make Robert Worgaftik chairman after he had served as the board’s vice chairman. Board member Enid Oresman was selected to now serve as vice chairwoman.

There is a slight problem for the board moving forward because there are currently two empty seats. And no one knows who will fill those spots or when.

Finding a replacement for Doty was easy. House Majority Leader Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, had to appoint a replacement and he simply reappointed Doty.

The other two are to be appointed by Speaker of the House James Amann, D-Milford, and House Minority Leader Lawrence Carefo, R-Norwalk.

Amann’s office and Cafero’s office did not respond about who would be appointed.

When it comes to the status of the advisory board and the future membership, maybe not all the answers have been procured.

“We don’t know who our next board members will be,” said Cynthia Isales, Office of State Ethics’ assistant general counsel.

“It’s the first time since I’ve been here that we’re going through this and I don’t know what’s going to happen,” said Barbara Housen, general counsel for the office.

Before her term expired, Hendel was in the dark on who would follow her and was disappointed that the board was not given any information.

“My answer is, don’t ask me,” said Hendel. “I don’t know. I have no information as to who my successor would be.”

It would seem the answer could lie in the governor’s office, but Eric Ducey, with Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s communications office, said the decisions are not made there.

“The three board members who have terms expiring were not appointed by the governor,” Ducey said. “Usually when the terms expire, they keep serving until someone else is appointed or they are reappointed.”

That does not appear to be the case. In a statement announcing the selection of an interim director, Hendel indicated that she had attended her last meeting.

Even Obscure Organizations Need A Little Lobbying

2007-10-01T13:07:00.000-07:00

Public golf courses, massage therapy and indoor tanning are not exactly the most pressing or publicized issues in the state legislature.

But don't diminish the importance of new regulations to a golf course owner or a massage therapist. For them, these seemingly minor issues could ruin their businesses.

The Connecticut Center of Massage Therapy, Inc. is represented by Betty Gallo & Co. and the past session was spent on the issue of advertising.

"There was an effort to make sure that only licensed massage therapists could use those words in advertising," said Betty Gallo. "There was some concern on behalf of the client about unlicensed therapists doing so."

Gallo represents other non-profit institutions that bring with them immediate recognition. Topics like gay rights, pushed by Love Makes A Family, or the efforts of the Connecticut Fair Housing Center were likely already on the minds of legislatures.

But massage therapy?

"It's really like any other issue because we have to educate people," said Gallo. "Even if they think they understand it, there are going to be aspects that are not commonly known."

It was actually relatively easy, she said, to educate people on the massage therapy issues because most people are familiar with it.

"There are a lot of incredibly complicated issues that people couldn't possible understand and some that aren't so complicated," she said.

Lay Of The Land

Alan Deckman, of the TCORS Capitol Group, can sympathize with Gallo's statement.

On one hand, he represents the Connecticut Association of Privately-Owned Public Golf Courses on a litany of complicated issues. Simultaneously, he lobbies for the New England Trail Riders' Association and its singular aim at the much-discussed topic of all-terrain vehicles.

For the golf course owners, Deckman said the issues that are followed range from water quality to environmental bills to various property tax measures. At the forefront are tax issues, a subject that Deckman described as "incredibly complicated."

"The biggest challenges with the golf course owners is the various levels of complexity with the proposals," he said. "Golf course owners not only pay taxes on their land, equipment and buildings but also a per-hole improvement fee that is pretty arbitrary."

For example, the improvement fee changes dramatically from town to town and can be different by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"With those issues, I'm really trying to simplify it as much as possible," said Deckman. "The golf issues are way more convoluted than the ATV issues. It's a combination of educated advocacy and understanding to answer the questions [legislators] might have."

For the trail riders' association, there were 12 different bills proposed during the last session that in some way pertained to them, specifically dealing with all-terrain vehicles and whether universal registration was necessary.

House Bill 7277, which would have required universal registration, died in the Transportation Committee and the issue remains undecided going into the new session.

"It really looked at the beginning of the session that there was some momentum and there would be a resolution," said Deckman. "Things get pretty crazy towards the end and it just got lost."

The Dark Side

The Washington D.C.-based Indoor Tanning Association has secured the Kowalski Group as its lobbyists for laws and regulations that many people may not know exist.

"There are a lot of issues and concerns over the common regulations that tanning salons have to abide by," said Karen Weeks, with the Kowalski Group. "For example, if it's connected to a hair salon, there are changes affecting those business that end up affecting the tanning salon."

Echoing what others said, Weeks believes the key in lobbying for the lesser-known associations and groups is making sure the legislators grasp exactly what the issue is.