Appointment as Chair of the legislative Regulations Review Committee.

Rep. Christopher Donovan, Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives, and Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey just announced today [PDF] that they have named me as the Chair of legislature's Regulations Review Committee.

This committee plays an important role in state government by providing public oversight of the rules and regulations that state departments and agencies issue. These regulations spell out the details of how state services and state laws affect the public and how state government is administered, so it is important to make sure that they are done right.

I am very pleased that Speaker Donovan is recognizing me as having the right abilities to ensure good, effective and efficient administration of state agencies as Chair of the Regulations Review Committee. There will be a lot of work to do in this important role, making sure state department rules and regulations work well for the people of our state, especially as we reorganize the state to provide better services while saving taxpayer money.

I am very humbled and honored by this important assignment, and I will work hard to do a good job. I thank Speaker Donovan and Majority Leader Sharkey for they trust in me.

Honoring Rep. Faith McMahon, who grew up in New Britain.

I was sad to learn today about the loss of a friend and colleague, Rep. Faith McMahon .

Rep. McMahon and I were both elected in 2002, so we served during the same moments in history for our state.  I have a lot of respect for Faith as a legislator and as a person.  She brought great experience and intelligence to her work at the Capital and worked hard as a legislator to help people.

On a personal level, I cannot say enough how much Faith was deeply kind and caring.  She always took a genuine interest in what was important for other people and was thinking about ways that she could be encouraging.

Faith and I spoke about many things, but one of the things she told me that especially interested me is that she grew up in New Britain.  In fact, her childhood home is on Bassett Street, right across from the old High School.  I really enjoyed hearing her tell stories about growing up in New Britain.

My deepest condolences to Rep. McMahon's family.  I know I will miss her.

Rep. John Geragosian ascends to important budget position.

Here in New Britain, we have long known the admirable qualities of State Representative John Geragosian (D-25). He has been one of our state legislators since 1995 and is well known in our community for his generosity, kindness, intelligence and conscience. He is respected among many circles in our community and he has been a strong advocate for our city for a long time. He is now the "dean" of the New Britain delegation, the longest serving of the city legislators.

Now the rest of the state gets to find out what a skillful and principled leader John Geragosian is because he has just been appointed Chair of the state legislature's Appropriations Committee by Chris Donovan, the new Speaker of the state House of Representatives.

News about legislative leadership assignments is not often followed closely outside the walls of the State Capitol, so it might not be widely known just what a big deal this is. The Appropriation Committee deals with the state budget on behalf of the legislature, and the chairs of that committee have an important role in the creation of the final state budget. The position to which John has been appointed is among the most influential and important in the state. It is a real honor for our community to have Rep. Geragosian as Appropriations Chair.

This is not the first time a legislator from New Britain has held this important position. As John McNamara has pointed out , former State Senator Joseph Harper was the Chair of the Appropriations Committee for the State Senate. (The Connecticut state legislature has a system of joint House-Senate committees in which each committee has both a House Chair and a Senate Chair.) And, from 1999 to 2002, one of my predecessors, State Representative David Pudlin, was the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives. Rep. Geragosian now becomes the next of the important state leaders to have been from our city.

If you know John Geragosian's family, you know where he got his great qualities from. John is a realtor, taking after his mother, Harriet. Harriet, owner of Unique Reality, is one of the kindest, gentlest people you are likely to meet. Yet she has firm political values for fairness and equality, for which she strongly advocates.

John's father, Harold Geragosian, is a longtime local attorney. Harold is very respected as a strong and skillful advocate and as a man of great principle. He is still remembered as the attorney who, decades ago, advocated for New Britain's Puerto Rican Society when it was being formed and in its early years.

John has taken all of the admirable qualities from both of his parents into his own life's work. He is cheerful and friendly and liked by just about everyone, and yet he is a strong figure helping people. He worked hard as a City Council member from 1989 to 1993. As a state legislator, he has advocated for workers' rights on the job, affordable quality health care coverage, justice and equality and property tax reform. He has an uncanny ability to push aside the hubris of politics and challenge powerful figures on behalf of average, everyday people.

It is that quality that I suspect made him the choice of incoming Speaker Donovan for the powerful Appropriations Chair. With the state facing both a massive deficit and an even worse economic predicament, we will need strong leaders like John to make sure that the state government does not stick its head in the sand just when our state's people need its help the most. Getting through the problems we face will take a person with strong principles, an agile mind, a tough spirit and a really good sense of humor.

This is exactly the combination of talent and demeanor for which our own John Geragosian is known. He did not seek out this position, not being one to put himself in the spotlight. But, here in New Britain, we can be proud to know that he is just the right person for this important challenge.

Opening Day at the Legislature - facing the economic crisis.

Today, I was sworn-in for a new term at the legislature.  I am very grateful to the people of New Britain and Newington for the honor to serve them.  Thank you.

This is Opening Day at the State Capitol.  It is a day of pomp and ceremony.  But it is also a  day for very serious work - especially this year.  We are facing a serious economic and budget crisis and the people of the state will need the state government to show leadership.  The last thing the people of our state need is a state government that sticks its head in the sand and ignores the need for real solutions.

The current economic crisis did not happen overnight.  And it is not a short term problem.  The crisis began because of the poor economic choices made on Wall Street and in Washington DC that destroyed the once great industrial economy of New Britain and so many places like New Britain.  Those bad decisions undercut our core industrial economy and created a make-believe economy built on borrowing.  It was a bubble that was going to burst at some point.  And that point was 2008.

There will be a great temptation among many politicians to think that we are faced with temporary problems and that all that is needed is to balance budgets in short run.  But that would be shortsighted.  That would be sticking our heads in the sand.

We need real solutions that will rebuild our economy and create jobs.  We need public policies that truly meet the needs of our state's people for job creation, health care, education, transportation, stable communities and so much more.  And, with so many families and senior citizens struggling in these tough times because of unfair policies - especially property taxes - now is exactly the time when we need to correct these unfairnesses.

Connecticut is known as the "land of steady habits", in no small part because change comes slowly when people who benefit from keeping unfairnesses from being reformed keep our state on its steady habits.

There will be tough budget choices in state government this year, to be sure.  But the real tough decision that will be needed from the Governor on down will be the choice to provide the real leadership to move our state forward - for a real economy with more, better paying jobs for average, everyday people and for a future where the unfairnesses of the present are swept away.

And that is something to look forward to on this Opening Day.

Honoring Rep. Tony Tercyak

On Tuesday, Sen. Don DeFronzo and Rep. Peter Tercyak officially dedicated the bridge over Rt. 9 near West Farms Mall as the "Anthony Tercyak Memorial Bridge", on honor of the late Rep. Anthony "Tony" Tercyak.

Tony Tercyak served in the state House of Representatives for several years before I was elected.  I had the honor of serving with him for a year after I took office in 2003.  Tony was a real gentleman and was just an infinitely generous person.  As a legislator, he stood up for average, everyday people and was not afraid to take a strong stand when working people, seniors and especially children needed his advocacy.  I have great admiration him, and I am still sorry that I was only able to serve in the legislature with him for just one year before he passed on.

The New Britain delegation pushed for legislation to designate this bridge in honor of Tony Tercyak.  As Chair of the legislative Transportation Committee, of course, Sen. DeFronzo provided the leadership to make it happen.

Sen. DeFronzo led the ceremony dedicating the bridge.

 

Rep. Peter Tercyak, Tony Tercyak's son and successor in the legislature, gave a very touching tribute to his father.

Pictured here is the New Britain delegation, Rep. John Geragosian (at the left), Sen. DeFronzo, me, and Rep. Tercyak.

Next time you are driving in the area, look for the signs.  For me, it will always remind me of a truly good man who spend a lifetime helping people.

Thanks, again, Tony.

Photos taken by Marcin Olechowski.

End of the 2008 legislative session

The 2008 session of the legislature ended this past Wednesday. Sorry that I have not been able to write any updates recently. Of course, while I was busy working on legislation, there was little time to break free to write on my blog.

So I wanted to start writing about some of the things that were accomplished - and some things that still need to be done in the future. Over the next days and weeks, I hope to post a number of articles with updates on the action at the Capitol.

Introducing and raising bills...the legislative process begins.

Today I was working hard at the Capitol to get legislation I support started.

There are a couple of different ways that bills can be brought up in the legislature, which are useful for different types of legislation.

First, there is legislation that individual legislators or groups of legislators may introduce. In the odd-numbered years (like last year, 2007), these bills can be about any topic. In even numbered years (like this year, 2008), only certain budgetary bills can be introduced by individual legislators.

Second, there are bills that are introduced by a vote of a legislative committee. These can be about any topic, no matter whether it is and even or odd-numbered year.

I have introduced a few individual-legislator bills this year, and I am working to get committees to vote to introduce a number of other ones. When these bills actually come out with their bills numbers, I will describe them and why they are good ideas.

Now, already, three of the four legislative committees of which I am a member have met to "raise" bills. On opening day, Wednesday, the Public Health Committee met. Today, the Judiciary and Education committees met. Each voted to introduce a number of bills.

However, aside from the titles of these bills, there are few details worked out. The chairpersons of the committees will work with attorneys assigned to each committee to write the proposed legislation out in full, legal form. After that, the legislation is brought before the full committee for a public hearing, when the public can comment on it, and it can be amended and voted up or down by the full committee.

Another item to keep in mind is that when individual-legislator bills first come out officially, they are called "proposed bills". They are not written in official legal text, just a quick paragraph describing the intent of the legislation. Proposed bills are referred to legislative committees, and only continue through the legislative process if the committees they are referred to vote to "raise" them. Like bills introduced by the committee, itself, causes the legislative attorneys actually write them into legal form and for the bill to be presented at a public hearing and possibly considered by the committee for approval.

I hope this description of the some of early stages of the legislative process in informative.

Opening day at the Capitol.

Today was opening day of the 2008 regular legislative session. Opening day at the Capitol is always a day for ceremony and speeches. Today was no exception.

It was also the day for the Governor to give her annual state of the state speech and present her proposed budget and other ideas to the legislature. Governor Rell is a kindly and reassuring speaker, certainly good qualities.

The substance of her proposals were not very strong, though. For example, it looks like her budget proposal would hold education aid for New Britain to $4.3 million* less than in the bold education and property tax relief plan she proposed just last year. (That is, her proposal for fiscal year 2008-09.) With New Britain homeowners facing a revaluation this year, that $4.3 million would have been very helpful to support education while keeping people's property taxes down.

Her plan would provide Newington with $1.3 million* less than her education proposal from last year. While Newington just went through a revaluation, that money would have been very important for the Town Council to support local schools while holding the line on property taxes.

By her budget speech, it looks like she has no intention of approving a budget that comes even close to her proposals from last year, so it looks like her decision will keep municipal aid levels lower than I would like them to be.

While I am proud of increasing municipal aid to keep property taxes down and support important local services, like education. But, while fighting for these practical things to help property tax payers, I have been pressing for real property tax reform, to finally address the unfairnesses of the property tax system that place such an unfairly high burden on so many people. That is why I wrote a comprehensive property tax reform plan, which for a while was the only comprehensive plan being considered at the Capitol.

Fortunately, the interest in taking action on property tax reform has been gaining at the Capitol. A good sign is that Gov. Rell - who once referred to the call for property tax reform as a "false cry" - is offering her own proposals. Her proposals are lacking, but it is a good sign that she is talking about this issue.

Specifically, rather than addressing the unfairness of how we fund local services, if you read between the lines her plan is reduce local services, and lower working people's incomes.

If Gov. Rell's "tax cap" idea sounds too good to be true, it is because it is. Almost everyone I talk with about is asks me if her plan is really to keep property tax increases down to 3% per year. People in New Britain are asking this because of the very real concern that the recent property tax revaluation will cause their property taxes to go up significantly.

But that is not what Gov. Rell's plan is. If her plan is the same as last year's, it would do nothing to keep homeowners from getting hit with a huge revaluation-driven property tax increase. I asked her budget director this in a public Finance Committee hearing, and that is exactly what he said. I told him that the Governor's idea missed the real impact on homeowners, since New Britain's mill rate has been dropping, due mostly to increasing state aid. The revaluation, I pointed out is the real time when homeowners get hit with property tax increases.

I asked him if the Governor would support a plan that would actually keep homeowners' property taxes from going up more than 3% per year, and he said she would not. I really think the Governor, in all honesty, should explain that her "tax cap" would not really protect homeowners from unfair property tax increases.

However, I thank the Governor for stepping up to the plate on an issue - property tax reform - that has long been close to my heart. I will take her at her word that she is interested in finding a compromise that will really address the problems with our unfair property tax system.

---

*Correction February 8, 2008: When I first wrote this post, the numbers I cited were $8 million for New Britain and $3 million for Newington. Technically this is correct, comparing the Governor's budget proposals from this year and last, but municipal aid numbers sometimes leave the bottom line between different years and different proposal an apples-to-oranges comparison. That was the case, here. I realized that that the lower numbers, above, are fairer to the Governor, so I made these corrections. Sorry for the confusion. That said, the $4.3 million less for New Britain and the $1.3 million less for Newington are certainly significantly less than the Governor's proposal from last year, to which I wish she would hold her commitment.

Working on legislation for 2008.

Things are getting busier at the Capitol in the run-up to the start of the 2008 legislative session.

I am working on legislation I would like to have introduced. I will write in the future about some of that legislation.

An interesting thing to note about this year's legislative session is that the State Constitution prevents individual legislators from introducing legislation other than certain budget bills. It is an arcane rule. Here is a description of it:

GUIDELINES DESCRIBING THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S AND JOINT RULES' RESTRICTIONS ON THE INTRODUCTION OF BILLS DURING EVEN-YEAR SESSIONS

The State Constitution and the Legislature's Joint Rules restrict the introduction of bills and resolutions during even-year sessions to the following:

• By Individual Members: Bills and resolutions that relate to budgetary, revenue or financial matters

• By Committees: Bills and resolutions on any subject

• By Legislative Leaders: Bills and resolutions certified as emergencies by the Speaker and President Pro Tempore

The Legislative Commissioners' Office is permitted to draft only those bills and resolutions that meet these requirements. To help members determine whether a proposal is constitutionally permitted, these guidelines are issued before each even-year session. Legislative leadership has approved these guidelines over the years.

The legislative history of the constitutional provision clearly indicates an intent by the General Assembly to allow proposed bills and resolutions by members only if the "principal purpose" relates to budgetary, revenue or financial matters.

1) Types Of Bills That Individual Members May Introduce:

1. Revenue bills or bills directly affecting state revenues - e.g., the imposition, increase or reduction of a tax or fee.

2. Appropriation bills relating to existing agencies or programs - e.g., an increase or decrease in the amount of the prior year's appropriation for an existing agency or program.

3. Bills authorizing bonds for an existing program.

4. Bills whose principal purpose is to save the state money.

2) Types Of Bills That Individual Members May Not Introduce:

1. Bills establishing a new agency or program, even if they carry or require an appropriation.

b) Bills without any fiscal impact, even if they may have a fiscal impact in the future.

c) Bills concerned solely with local finances or taxes, unless their passage would have a direct effect on state finances.

Simply adding a tax, fee, or appropriation to a bill that is not on a budgetary, revenue or financial matter does not make the bill constitutionally permissible. (See above re the "principal purpose" requirement.)

If LCO cannot prepare a proposed bill for a member based on these guidelines, we will suggest that the member talk with the appropriate committee about raising a bill on the subject.

Prepared by Legislative Commissioners' Office

Anyway, the result is that, for the most part, the legislation I am trying to bring before the legislature on behalf of the people I represent must be introduced by committees instead of by me, individually.

This might sound like a big difference, but it is really not. The reality is that legislation never goes anywhere without the support of committees, so this only requires obtaining support of committee chairpersons for my ideas sooner in the legislative session that I had to last year.

Annual ethics conference at the Capitol

Today was the day of the biennial ethics conference at the State Capitol, which a number of other legislators and I attended.

The main speaker was Phillip Boyle, PhD, of Leading and Governing Associates, Inc. His program was very interesting. The most compelling part of his presentation was the idea that the basis of people's ethical values can be broken-down into three bases:

• Ends and Consequences
• Rules and Means
• Care and Compassion
  

Since this was at a Capitol conference, he presented these three motives as the basis of different people's political beliefs. Here is how he described what each of these means:

• "Ends and Consequences" says that:
• The most important thing is that policies have good outcomes.
• What is the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
• "Ends justify the means".
  
• "Rules and Means" says that:
• You cannot know with certainly what outcome will come from policies, so the most important thing is for create good rules and enforce them.
• Follow the "rule of law" - no matter what.
  
• "Care and Compassion" says that:
• The most important thing is actions are done for compassionate reasons.
• You cannot know with certainly what outcome will come from policies, so the most important thing is that the intentions are good.
  

Dr. Boyle points out that this breakdown does not mean that each person uses just one of these. Most people, he says, are motivated by all three. The question, he says, is which one is most important and least important of the three for you.

I found this analysis, and Dr. Boyle's discussion of them, to be interesting because it does help to have an understanding of the basis of different people's opinions and value systems.

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays, everyone!

I have not had the chance to post anything recently, largely because of the holiday season. So, I just wanted to wish everyone well.

I hope that everyone's holiday season has been a pleasant and restful time with family and friends.

And best wishes to everyone in this last week of 2007!

Special session today.

Today the House and Senate were in special session. But, was, really, for procedural reasons.

The foremost of these reasons was to approve a resolution that calls the legislature into a special session to take up:

Bills relating to criminal offenses, sentencing and procedure, the incarceration, release and supervision of offenders, and the sharing of criminal justice information, including the costs related to such bills.

That session could, legally, be convened tomorrow. But, it looks like it will really occur in January.

There are a number of other issues that I am trying to also get taken up in that special session, as well. For example, the legislature approved $1 million to assist ambulance services, like the New Britain EMS, that have special funding needs, but the state Department of Social Services is refusing to release the money the way the legislature intended, so we need to approve legislation to direct the Department to release the money where it is needed.

More work is ahead in both of these areas.

Budget accountability hearing.

Today, the two budget committees of the legislature held a joint hearing on the state budget and the projections on the state's future financial prospects. The Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, of which I am a member, and the Appropriations Committee, which I am not, heard from representatives of the Office of Fiscal Analysis and the Office of Policy and Management.

Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) is the legislature's budget office. It provides legislators with information on state spending and revenue and tells us how much legislation is expected to cost.

The Office of Policy and Management is the Governor's budget office. It also does spending and revenue estimates, but its main role is to administer the state budget on behalf of the Governor and according to her direction.

What we heard from both offices is that the state budget is expected to have a surplus in the current budget year (fiscal year 2007-08) and next year (FY2008-09), but that there are budget deficits expected after that.

It is common for both budget offices to predict deficits for a future year, and for the state to end up with a surplus once we actually reach that year. They try to be a little pessimistic about the future. But that pessimism helps legislators and the Governor to be cautious when we planning for the future.

And, since deficits are predicted for the future, we have to think about how we can plan ahead to prevent them.

Another big concern is the size of the state debt: $14.4 billion. Connecticut has an especially high state debt because the way the state spending cap has been interpreted has forced the state to borrow for things that it really should not have. The problems caused by this interpretation need to be addressed so that more and more of the state's budget does not get taken up by debt repayment.

All-in-all, it was a very informative hearing.

Sen. Donald DeFronzo honored for work for people with disabilities.

The New Britain Herald has an article today about an award Sen. Donald DeFronzo (D-6) received from the ARC of Connecticut.

As the Herald says,

...He was honored for his work to create a pilot program of janitorial contracts for companies that employed people with disabilities and disadvantages.

“The objective of the program is to ensure that employment opportunities exist for all workers — specifically for people who traditionally can have difficulty finding employment opportunities — and to create more integrated job opportunities with good wages and benefits and job security,” DeFronzo said. “Thus far, the pilot has produced some promising results.”

The pilot program has made considerable progress since its launch. It has five companies as qualified partners. The partnership with Capitol Cleaners alone will yield 16 positions for disabled or disadvantaged workers by April.

I can attest, personally, to the enormous work Sen. DeFronzo did on this. I was involved, too, in advocating for this legislation, but no-one did more work on it, by far, than he did.

This is an award he richly deserves.

Public Auditors: accountability and efficiency, and could be more.

One of the least known offices in the legislature are the Auditors of Public Accounts. This is office that was created a long time ago. Its establishment was a very good idea, and still is.

The reason why the office has a plural name ("Auditors") is because it is run, on a co-equal basis, a Democratic Auditor and a Republican Auditor. The Republican is Robert G. Jaekle and the Democrat is Kevin P. Johnston. They work very well together, and the partisan balance helps people feel confident that the reviews they provide are based on the fact rather than politics.

When most people think of an "auditor", they consider the role of a corporate auditor - someone who reviews the finances of a corporation or agency and makes sure the accounting is done correctly. And the Connecticut Auditors of Public Accounts do that important function.

But that is only one part of the reviews that the Auditors provide. They dig far deeper into the way state agencies run than just whether their books balance. They provide thorough reviews of the way agencies operate and offer critique on how things could be more efficient. Typically, when the Auditors offer this critique, agencies will start making changes to fix the problems that were found even before the Auditors' report on it is published. In this way, the Auditors have a very good track record in saving taxpayer money.

Another, perhaps equally important service the Auditors provide is that they examine how state agencies are doing in following the state's laws. This is very important in our Constitutional system of government because, when state agencies feel that they can get away with ignoring the laws approved by the people's elected representatives, the Auditors call them on it. This improves the transparency and accountability of government agencies.

The Auditors are such an important and useful function at the state level of government that, when I was a member of the New Britain City Council, a local Republican activist and I created a proposal to establish an Auditor position for the city, modeled on the state Auditors of Public Accounts and other nonpartisan legislative offices. The idea was dismissed when I was on the Council, but a later Council took it up and approved it, and actually had an Auditor for a while - who did good work. She was, unfortunately, pushed out of City Hall by some ugly politics, but it would be a great idea for the taxpayers if the City Council would fill that position again.

I would also note that I think that the work of the state Auditors could be used much better by the main people they report to - the legislature.

The Auditors issue detailed reports on all state agencies on a regular basis, with a lot of good recommendations and even more details that would be helpful to decision-makers if they were fully utilized. The Auditors are not supposed to be an advocacy group. When they discover that something is awry, their only job is to write it down and send it in a report to the legislature. Anything more aggressive than this would compromise their professional separation from the intense politics of the legislature.

It is the legislature's job to take up anything that the Auditors discover, large or small. That is the part that could be done better. I think that the Auditors reports - which, by their nature, are pretty dry reading - should be routinely brought into the public discussions at the Capitol.

The legislature holds public hearings on many things, more and more. In the last couple of weeks, alone, three of the four committees on which I sit have held hearings and meetings on things ranging from federal grant funding, to the taxpayer data on the stolen state computer, to the Governor's new parole policies. Public hearings are a very good way to have an open an public discussion about important issues in our state.

So, my idea is that, whenever the Auditors issue one of their regular reports on a state agency, the legislative committee responsible for that agency should hold a public hearing on the report. This will give Mr. Jaekle and Mr. Johnston the ability to present the major points their staff have discovered and recommended. And, it will allow legislators to ask questions of both the Auditors and, of course, of the heads of the agencies being reviewed, to gain an even better understanding of what is happening, and not happening, in state government - and what can be done to make things run better. This knowledge, in turn, could then be used by legislators in crafting better legislation for the state and in the annual state budget process.

I have been trying to gain support for this idea, and I will bring it up again in this coming year's legislative session. I think it would help to save taxpayer money, improve public accountability, make government run better and help legislators to do a better job for the people.

Wrapping up 2006 and getting ready for 2007: How the legislative sessions are quietly growing together.

Every once in a while, someone asks me about work ahead in the 2007 legislative session. My response has been that we are actually still working on some things from the 2006 session.

And, of course, I am, indeed, already preparing for legislation that I will be working on in the 2007 session that starts next February. But, there are still issues from the legislative session this year that are still being hammered-out.

This is an increasing reality in Connecticut's legislature. Gone, it seems, are the days when nearly all of the work was limited to the legislature's two yearly regular sessions. To be sure, the regular sessions are the busiest time at the Capitol. But, by necessity, there is a lot of work that has to be done between the regular sessions.

An important reason for this is that, with all of the action moving legislation through the process while the legislature is actually in session, there is little time to spend doing the kind of detailed research and planning that legislators lament not having when they are actually in a position to make decisions during the regular session. Good ideas have failed because they have gotten bogged down by this. That is a reason that I am working to get as much planning an preparatory work done before February on the legislation I would like to see approved in 2007.

Another reason is that, with only one "regular" session each year, there is massive pressure to get all of the business that needs attending to in that limited time. The prospect of having to wait nearly a year to see action on an important issue just because it was not voted into law by the time the closing gavel falls has meant, even when many important things get done, many other important things do not.

So, as soon as that final gavel falls at midnight on the last day of the legislative session, legislators and others are already working to get things approved in special session. Many bills that went through the process, but were not acted on in the regular session, get tucked into what are called "implementer bills" - legislation that, theoretically, changes state law to conform with policy decisions made in the state budget. And these implementer bills are often approved, as they were this year, in a special session that happens after the regular session is over.

Even with the implementer bills approved this year, there are a number of other matters that appear likely to be acted on before the regular session next year, like the state bonding acts, which fund many important school and community capitol projects. Though the regular session ended in June, the legislature is still officially in session - a special session.

Special sessions were once, indeed, special. They were called for specific purposes and ended fairly quickly. But, with more and more demands on the state, Connecticut's way of reconciling our traditional (and constitutional) system of high-pressure annual regular sessions with the growing needs of a more complex state, is to have special sessions that continue through much of the year to allow the legislature to come back, as needed, to address the needs of the state.

Certainly, there are be better ways of doing things that Connecticut could consider.

One simple thing that could be done is a suggestion by Rep. David McCluskey of West Hartford that the legislature lift the requirement that a bill that has to go through the whole legislative process in the second year of a two year legislative term, if it has already been through that process in the first year.

We all know a lot of the long story of 'how a bill becomes a law'. There is a fairly long committee process that bills have to go through before the House and Senate can consider making them law. Bills must be subjected to public hearings, be drafted in official legal text, be reviewed by legislative researchers, be approved by their committee of origin and then be sent through a lengthly process in which they are reviewed by each committee with an expertise in each subject the legislation affects.

This is an important process to make sure, as best as possible, that the public has their voices heard and that legislation has as little unintended consequences as possible. But it is a lengthy process. And this means that, even though regular legislative sessions are months long, the practical reality is that, by the time bills make it through this lengthy process, there is only a very short time at the end of the session to approve all of the many bills into law.

What Rep. McCluskey suggests as one solution is, for example, that legislation that made it through this lengthy process in the 2006 legislative session does not have to be subjected to the same thing all over again in 2007. This would mean that, at least in the second year of each two-year legislative term, more of the regular session could be spent approving legislation in the full House and Senate rather than repeating the same process the same legislators followed on the same bills considered in the previous year.

But, I think that a more complete reform would be to break-up the high-pressure annual legislative sessions into a series of shorter regular sessions over the course of the year. So, for example, there could be four month (or six-week) long sessions a year - perhaps only three during an election year. In addition to opening up more possibilities for getting important things done, this would take away the massive rushed crush of legislative action at the end of Connecticut's regular sessions in which legislators are not able to keep track of what they are being asked to approve or reject amid the blizzard of bills sailing through as the annual deadline approaches.

These are ideas that should be considered seriously as Connecticut's increasing complex needs require moving away from an ancient legislative schedule designed when life in our state was much simpler.

In the meantime, though, I am working to build for the work ahead in 2007. I am working on plans to try again to win legislation to ensuring quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone and to reform our unfair property tax system. I am also working on other legislation that is important for the communities I represent.

I will write more details about my work on this as my planning on these starts to get more complete.

I wish everyone a peaceful summer.

My live blog at Connecticut Local Politics and notes of tax unfairness.

I would like to extend my thanks to CGG, Genghis Conn and Spazeboy for hosting my live-blog at Connecticut Local Politics, an online forum with people who have strong beliefs and are not afraid to express them. I appreciated the vigorous discussion, and I tried to type as fast as a could to keep up. Of course, I genuinely thank New Britain's Spazeboy for a very kind introduction.

Something that was discussed there after I left was about the unfairness of the state's tax system. My point that the state's overall tax system is regressive - meaning that people pay a higher burden the less they have - was questioned by someone who answered that the state's income tax is progressive.

This is a message that diverts attention from the unfairness of the whole tax system - a point alluded to by Gabe on the CTLP forum. The state income tax is very mildly progressive. But it is really the only progressive tax the state establishes. And, the income tax is not the largest tax. That would be the property tax - which does, overwhelmingly, hit people harder the less income they have. And, for the vast majority of people in the state, the largest tax they pay is the property tax. Add to that sales taxes and excise taxes, and our state's overall tax system is regressive - charging people a higher share of their income the less income they have.

The most comprehensive study of the burdens of taxes in Connecticut was done by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. You can see the study by clicking here (it is a pdf). This study looked at the combined and separate burdens of all the major state-established taxes that people pay: income taxes, sales and excise taxes and property taxes. (Even though this study was from 2002, the 2003 increase in the state income tax did not notably change this unfairness.)

While some people continually, inaccurately, assert that the wealthy have the highest taxes, the truth is that they have the lowest.

Middle class families paid around 10.1% of their incomes in combined property, sales, excise and income taxes, after federal offsets were considered, in 2002. And the poorest 20% of state residents had it worst of all. Their total tax burden was 10.2% of their incomes. But the wealthiest 1% only paid 4.4%, after federal offsets.

This is the big problem with the tax systems of our state. This burden is pushed down the income scale, with the middle class paying more than the wealthy and the poor paying the highest of all. That is why property tax reform is so very important - it is the biggest unfair tax that most people pay.

It is very unfair to people who are hurt by the unfairness of our state's tax system to completely ignore all of the unfair taxes, and then say that things are really fair, when they are not.

After the regular session.

With the crush at the end of the legislation session, I have not been able to post anything these past few days. Now that it is over - at least the regular session - I will start to report on what happened, and what still needs to be done.

Two weeks ago, I wrote a post highlighting the most important issues of the session and the possibilities that progress would be made on them. I cannot say that things went as well as I had hoped:

Property Tax Reform, fairer taxes and education funding:
Democrats proposed a very good budget that would relieve people's property tax burdens, make the state's taxes fairer and fund health care, education and community services. But the Governor's main priority in ongoing budget negotiations is keeping the present unfair system that benefits the wealthy at everyone else's expense.

While the Governor, back in February, proposed a bold, five-year education plan that would have greatly increased aid to New Britain, she has since abandoned this plan. Her priority to keep the wealthiest people's taxes low has trumped what had been a bold proposal that could have made a real difference if she had stuck with it.

The budget is still being negotiated right now, however. And, if the Governor is willing to agree to the Democratic budget, there would be even more funding for property tax relief and education than even her original proposal. The legislature will be coming back into special session when there is an agreement on the budget.

Health care:
Legislation was approved to expand access to the state's HUSKY health care system to more children and parents and to increase the number providers serving people with HUSKY coverage by raising their rates. This is good legislation, and I wish that the Governor would sign it. This is also, now, a part of the budget negotiations.

But this legislation would not come close to providing good quality health care coverage to everyone. And it does not help lower health insurance costs for businesses and workers. This is what really needs to be done.

Energy costs:
The people of the state have been asking for action to bring electric rates down, and I have been working hard to win legislation to do this. Unfortunately, however, the legislation that was approved on electric rates will not only not bring electric rates down, but will actually raise rates. This was very disappointing, and I voted against the bill that was ultimately signed by the Governor.

Also, to address rising gasoline prices, I voted to approve a $.25 per gallon cut in the gasoline tax. But the Governor vetoed this legislation, so this is another issue that is a part of the ongoing budget negotiations.

Not everything I hoped for.
Some of the important things that I had hoped to achieve are still, at least in part, possible, since how the budget negotiations will turn out is still in question.

But with other issues, the regular legislative session has ended without the progress I had hoped for.

With electric rates, I fear that the momentum that led to the public demand for action has been spent, and that we may end up stuck with a deregulated electric system that will cost consumers a lot for a long time. I will continue to work on this issue, though.

Health care is a different story. There is no question that what we were trying to achieve would be a major change for the better. But any major change is hard to achieve. So, I plan to begin working right away to build up for another major push for quality, affordable health care for everyone in the next regular session.

Politics rewards persistence rather than patience. So, the best thing to do with setbacks are to pick yourself up, look at what went wrong and try again.

Last two weeks.

Sorry I have not been able to post any messages for a while. Things have been very busy, as we approach the end of the legislative session.

There are two full weeks left in the session, with a lot to get done. I have been very frustrated that there has not been more action on some of the more important issues. The things that have been approved so far are not the larger issues at the Capitol. But, at the same time, the major legislation that could be done is still very much alive:

Health Care:
There have been a lot of plans considered to ensure that everyone has quality and affordable health care coverage. Other plans offered would expand coverage to some of the people without health insurance, but would really not take-on the problems of rising costs and lack of coverage that people and businesses who already have health insurance experience.

Having spoken with many legislators, I can say that there is a lot of support for approving legislation that would ensure good health coverage for everyone and lower costs for the people who already have coverage. Getting a plan together, from all of the ideas floating out there, before the end of the legislative session is not easy - but I am still very hopeful that it can and will be done.

Energy costs:
I have been advocating since I was first elected to the legislature for reforms to our state's "electric deregulation law" - the law that has been causing our electric rates to skyrocket.

Last year, it looked like important reforms to start to bring rates back under control were about to be approved. I, like most people, was frustrated that this did not happen. I was hopeful that this important legislation would be approved at the beginning of the legislative session, but it was not then, either.

Rep. Steve Fontana and Rep. Vickie Nardello, the House chair and vice-chair of the Energy and Technology Committee have been working hard to win approval of the legislation that would make a real difference. Unfortunately, others in the legislature have been pushing legislation would actually raise our electric rates even further - and this has held up approval of the Fontana/Nardello legislation.

Hopefully the Fontana/Nardello legislation can be brought to a vote - and that both the House and Senate will approve it, so we can finally end the flawed deregulat system that has cost electric customers so much money.

Fairer taxes and education funding:
Of course, the state budget still has yet to be approved. The budget debate this year is more significant than most years, with very important principles of fairness being considered.

Democrats are still pressing for our proposal to relieve property taxes, support education and lower income taxes for 95% of the people in state. While Gov. Rell has decided to abandon her proposal to raise income taxes on most people of the state, her plan would still have higher taxes for most families than the Democratic plan. Also, only the Democrats' budget would provide needed funding for health care and community services. The Democrats' budget is much better for New Britain and is better for Newington.

The Democratic budget is good. It would advance property tax reform - by both helping cities and towns to lower property taxes and by doubling the state property tax credit to $1000. The Democratic budget would make the state income tax fairer with a tax cut for 95% of the people in the state, asking the wealthy to contribute a little more and helping the working poor with a new state Earned Income Tax Credit. And the Democratic budget would provide important funding for hospitals, health care and community services. I hope the Governor can join together with us and approve this important budget plan.

I started out the legislative session with great hopes for addressing the important issues: property tax reform, health care, education and lowering electric rates. Any one of these things would be a huge accomplishment in one year at the Capitol. But I have remained optimistic that we could get them all done.

Now, we are almost at the end of the session. This is the tense time of the legislative session when things either come together or fail. It is good that all of these important things are still very much do-able. But a lot of work is ahead to get them done.

Connecticut General Statutes approved by the House of Representatives.

This may be an incredibly boring thing to write about, but it is a very important part of the process of making sure that the laws of the state make sense (as much as possible).

Today, the state House of Representatives approved House Bill 6392. It is a simple bill. Here is the entire text:

Volumes 1 to 13, inclusive, of the general statutes of Connecticut, revised to 1958, consolidated, codified, arranged and revised to January 1, 2007, by the legislative commissioners under the provisions of subsection (g) of section 2-56 of the general statutes and published under the title "The General Statutes of Connecticut, Revision of 1958, Revised to January 1, 2007", including the consolidation, codification, arrangement and revision of the public acts of the state from 1959 through 2006, inclusive, are adopted, ratified, confirmed and enacted.

Every two years, a nonpartisan office that works for the legislature, called the Office of the Legislative Commissioners takes all of the laws approved by the legislature in the last two years and "codifies" it. Simply put, they rewrite the thirteen volume collection of laws so that it reflects the changes made during the past two-year term of the state legislature.

But, in order for this new Connecticut General Statutes to really be the laws of the state, the legislature must actually approve it. So, while it is a non-controversial item, it is no exaggeration to say that, today, the House of Representatives approved all of the laws of the state.